Just some quick thoughts -- will have a more formal story or column ...
1. I truly don't think Lincoln Riley sees what everybody else sees in terms of his inability -- perhaps subconscious! -- to commit to the run game. The fact that when asked about it multiple times, his response was to it was ...
-"We called some stuff in the first half that we felt was there, but we didn't really execute it well."
-"Yeah, I mean, we did try. We just, we didn't run it great. That's always easy to say when you're not running it very good and you feel obviously the need to run the ball. But, yeah, we needed to do it better, I needed to do a better job -- I mean, none of it was good enough in the first half."
But ... they DIDN'T try. Not really. They ran the ball two times in the entire first quarter (out of 10 plays). They gave it to the RBs (well, only Woody Marks) 8 times in the first half and threw it 29 times! That's not "trying" to establish the run and it just not working. I mean, it didn't work, but 29 to 8 is a very clear message of what they wanted to do.
Finally, I was the third person to ask about it and said -- essentially suggested -- that shouldn't the run game be the identity of the offense moving forward, given that whenever they do commit to it, for whatever stretches, it works?
"Yeah, it's exciting to see. I think that's something that's grown as the year's gone on, and so we've got to continue to be able to do it. It's really, really important. Yeah, we all want to do a better job of it," Riley said. "I've got to continue to stick with it more. It's obviously the way that you can control and win games, and we've got to be able to do it more consistently. We've had moments this year, but it's got to be a four quarter thing for us."
There was some self-acknowledgement there that he's playing a role in the run game not consistently helping this team, but I still don't believe if he truly sees it. I saw this tweet and couldn't agree more:
It's just the truth!
Take the second half tonight, for the latest example.
Riley finally commits to leaning on a ground attack that ranks 20th nationally in yards per carry (5.3 coming into the night) but 82nd in total rushing (consider that). In a span of five plays on USC's first second-half drive, Marks rushes it for 4, 15, 14 and 13 yards. Eventually, Miller Moss throws a 37-yard touchdown pass to Makai Lemon on fourth down after back-to-back incompletions before it.
The next USC drive, Marks gets it going with a 16-yard run and the pass game starts to open up -- a 42-yard completion to Zachariah Branch and eventually a 9-yard touchdown pass to Kyle Ford. Just like that, USC has the lead.
So what do the Trojans do on their next possession? Continue to feed a run game that is rolling?
Well, Marks starts with a 5-yard rush and then ... Moss incompletion and Moss interception and just like that UW goes back on top moments later.
The reality is this USC passing game has too many ways things go wrong -- either a bad read or throw by Moss, like in this case, or a protection breakdown and sack. The less they have to ask of Moss and the passing game, the better! Marks has been ripping off long runs. It's second-and-5 -- why not keep feeding him? I could be way oversimplifying this, without going back and looking at the defensive alignment and what look USC was getting. But it's honestly not about this one example -- it's about the trend.
Even if USC punted there instead of the interception, it could be an entirely different outcome. OR, Marks keeps moving the chains like he'd do on the next series when, hey now, they give it to him on third-and-4 and he rumbles for 19 yards. And then they give it to him on third-and-6 and he runs for 9 and another first down. And then they give it to him on another third-and-4 and he rushes for 6. In fact, they keep running it with Quinten Joyner and Marks -- running on 10 of 11 plays in this stretch -- all the way down to the 1 before Marks got stuffed on fourth down due to a blown assignment.
Washington is the 15th-ranked rush defense in the Big Ten and had gotten run over four straight games entering this one. This game plan should have been crystal clear. THAT should have been the game plan from the start, and then let the pass game play off of it.
I don't have any confidence that much will change in this regard next game, though.
2. I'm starting to get curious about the Jayden Maiava situation ...
Look, I've been as consistent a defender of Miller Moss as anyone this season and to this point I absolutely believed they needed to stick with him. But now they're 4-5 and at best fighting for a bottom-tiered bowl game (plus the two rivalry games ahead). It's time to see what they have in Maiava -- at least in some capacity. Give him one series a half next game, and evaluate from that if he deserves more.
But Riley shut down that notion when I asked him tonight.
"I wouldn't say that right now, no," he said. "For us right now, what we're looking at, is what is the best lineup, the best people to help us win each and every week and we're going to keep our focus there."
I don't know what to make of it. Either he believes Maiava would be very limited in what he could handle playbook-wise, or he feels major pressure to win out and thinks it's more of a gamble to go with the unknown (even for the sake of the future) rather than the status quo. I don't know what it is.
I wasn't even suggesting a full QB switch -- just wondered if it might be tempting to see what they have with Maiava in some meaningful game action. He redshirted his first year at UNLV, so there is no redshirt to protect. And given that Moss just played his worst game and has been shaky in three of the last four, what's the harm in giving the other guy a few offensive series?
I'm now very curious about the whole thing.
3. I don't actually have a problem with Riley reiterating that they've had a chance to win every game, because that is something most teams can't actually say -- it is. But I do push back on this ...
"I've told you guys this before, it's like, all right yeah, how many weeks we gotta say this? I understand. But you go change five, six plays this season, and then everybody's like 'Oh my God, they're fricking unbelievable.' And the other 99.9 percent of the plays that we've played would all be exactly the same," Riley said. "So, you gotta, you still gotta win at the end of the day and it's about winning, and trust me, I get that as good as anybody. But I've also got to pay attention to the other 99.9 percent too. I can't ignore that as well. And within that, I see massive progress that will pay dividends for this program and will pay dividends soon."
But it's not JUST THOSE FIVE OR SIX PLAYS!
Yes, those are the ones that ultimately sealed the outcome. Yes, if they don't give up the long run to Kalel Mullings, if they get the goal line stop at Minnesota, if they don't give up one of the fourth-and-long conversions to Penn State or Moss doesn't miss Duce Robinson over the middle or they don't miss the field goal in overtime that game, and if they don't have the FG blocked at Maryland, and if they score on one of their final red zone trips tonight ... sure, those plays would have changed the outcome.
But that does not mean the other 99.9 percent of the plays SHOULD have been the same regardless. There is so much in there that would have been prevented it from coming down to those plays. Like the aforementioned refusal to accept that this should be a ground-heavy offense. And so much else.
I know Riley is going to get raked over the coals every time he says how close they've been to winning, but I don't have a problem with that. I do take issue if he truly believes that all that needed to change in those games was one play each time. Because there were ways not to have it come down to that play to begin with ...
Rant over.
1. I truly don't think Lincoln Riley sees what everybody else sees in terms of his inability -- perhaps subconscious! -- to commit to the run game. The fact that when asked about it multiple times, his response was to it was ...
-"We called some stuff in the first half that we felt was there, but we didn't really execute it well."
-"Yeah, I mean, we did try. We just, we didn't run it great. That's always easy to say when you're not running it very good and you feel obviously the need to run the ball. But, yeah, we needed to do it better, I needed to do a better job -- I mean, none of it was good enough in the first half."
But ... they DIDN'T try. Not really. They ran the ball two times in the entire first quarter (out of 10 plays). They gave it to the RBs (well, only Woody Marks) 8 times in the first half and threw it 29 times! That's not "trying" to establish the run and it just not working. I mean, it didn't work, but 29 to 8 is a very clear message of what they wanted to do.
Finally, I was the third person to ask about it and said -- essentially suggested -- that shouldn't the run game be the identity of the offense moving forward, given that whenever they do commit to it, for whatever stretches, it works?
"Yeah, it's exciting to see. I think that's something that's grown as the year's gone on, and so we've got to continue to be able to do it. It's really, really important. Yeah, we all want to do a better job of it," Riley said. "I've got to continue to stick with it more. It's obviously the way that you can control and win games, and we've got to be able to do it more consistently. We've had moments this year, but it's got to be a four quarter thing for us."
There was some self-acknowledgement there that he's playing a role in the run game not consistently helping this team, but I still don't believe if he truly sees it. I saw this tweet and couldn't agree more:
It's just the truth!
Take the second half tonight, for the latest example.
Riley finally commits to leaning on a ground attack that ranks 20th nationally in yards per carry (5.3 coming into the night) but 82nd in total rushing (consider that). In a span of five plays on USC's first second-half drive, Marks rushes it for 4, 15, 14 and 13 yards. Eventually, Miller Moss throws a 37-yard touchdown pass to Makai Lemon on fourth down after back-to-back incompletions before it.
The next USC drive, Marks gets it going with a 16-yard run and the pass game starts to open up -- a 42-yard completion to Zachariah Branch and eventually a 9-yard touchdown pass to Kyle Ford. Just like that, USC has the lead.
So what do the Trojans do on their next possession? Continue to feed a run game that is rolling?
Well, Marks starts with a 5-yard rush and then ... Moss incompletion and Moss interception and just like that UW goes back on top moments later.
The reality is this USC passing game has too many ways things go wrong -- either a bad read or throw by Moss, like in this case, or a protection breakdown and sack. The less they have to ask of Moss and the passing game, the better! Marks has been ripping off long runs. It's second-and-5 -- why not keep feeding him? I could be way oversimplifying this, without going back and looking at the defensive alignment and what look USC was getting. But it's honestly not about this one example -- it's about the trend.
Even if USC punted there instead of the interception, it could be an entirely different outcome. OR, Marks keeps moving the chains like he'd do on the next series when, hey now, they give it to him on third-and-4 and he rumbles for 19 yards. And then they give it to him on third-and-6 and he runs for 9 and another first down. And then they give it to him on another third-and-4 and he rushes for 6. In fact, they keep running it with Quinten Joyner and Marks -- running on 10 of 11 plays in this stretch -- all the way down to the 1 before Marks got stuffed on fourth down due to a blown assignment.
Washington is the 15th-ranked rush defense in the Big Ten and had gotten run over four straight games entering this one. This game plan should have been crystal clear. THAT should have been the game plan from the start, and then let the pass game play off of it.
I don't have any confidence that much will change in this regard next game, though.
2. I'm starting to get curious about the Jayden Maiava situation ...
Look, I've been as consistent a defender of Miller Moss as anyone this season and to this point I absolutely believed they needed to stick with him. But now they're 4-5 and at best fighting for a bottom-tiered bowl game (plus the two rivalry games ahead). It's time to see what they have in Maiava -- at least in some capacity. Give him one series a half next game, and evaluate from that if he deserves more.
But Riley shut down that notion when I asked him tonight.
"I wouldn't say that right now, no," he said. "For us right now, what we're looking at, is what is the best lineup, the best people to help us win each and every week and we're going to keep our focus there."
I don't know what to make of it. Either he believes Maiava would be very limited in what he could handle playbook-wise, or he feels major pressure to win out and thinks it's more of a gamble to go with the unknown (even for the sake of the future) rather than the status quo. I don't know what it is.
I wasn't even suggesting a full QB switch -- just wondered if it might be tempting to see what they have with Maiava in some meaningful game action. He redshirted his first year at UNLV, so there is no redshirt to protect. And given that Moss just played his worst game and has been shaky in three of the last four, what's the harm in giving the other guy a few offensive series?
I'm now very curious about the whole thing.
3. I don't actually have a problem with Riley reiterating that they've had a chance to win every game, because that is something most teams can't actually say -- it is. But I do push back on this ...
"I've told you guys this before, it's like, all right yeah, how many weeks we gotta say this? I understand. But you go change five, six plays this season, and then everybody's like 'Oh my God, they're fricking unbelievable.' And the other 99.9 percent of the plays that we've played would all be exactly the same," Riley said. "So, you gotta, you still gotta win at the end of the day and it's about winning, and trust me, I get that as good as anybody. But I've also got to pay attention to the other 99.9 percent too. I can't ignore that as well. And within that, I see massive progress that will pay dividends for this program and will pay dividends soon."
But it's not JUST THOSE FIVE OR SIX PLAYS!
Yes, those are the ones that ultimately sealed the outcome. Yes, if they don't give up the long run to Kalel Mullings, if they get the goal line stop at Minnesota, if they don't give up one of the fourth-and-long conversions to Penn State or Moss doesn't miss Duce Robinson over the middle or they don't miss the field goal in overtime that game, and if they don't have the FG blocked at Maryland, and if they score on one of their final red zone trips tonight ... sure, those plays would have changed the outcome.
But that does not mean the other 99.9 percent of the plays SHOULD have been the same regardless. There is so much in there that would have been prevented it from coming down to those plays. Like the aforementioned refusal to accept that this should be a ground-heavy offense. And so much else.
I know Riley is going to get raked over the coals every time he says how close they've been to winning, but I don't have a problem with that. I do take issue if he truly believes that all that needed to change in those games was one play each time. Because there were ways not to have it come down to that play to begin with ...
Rant over.
