Coach Talks Coaches

At Pete Carroll's weekly press conference, I asked about young offensive coordinator Steve Sarkisian [partial clip above]. Later on, I followed up with some of the questions that readers from this blog have had in comments and emails. Carroll made it clear that he's confident in his staff. In his assessment, the real issues have been injuries, inexperience, and even himself. At the same time, he doesn't like the simplicity of the blame game and thinks it's often more complicated. We'll have more on that coming up. For now, here's some perspective on his staff ...

Steve Sarkisian is in his first year as offensive coordinator. John Morton has never coached college kids before [correction: he did spend 2005 at San Diego]. Do you worry about the experience level of some of your coaches?

No. I've been around young guys and old guys. Some guys just have a knack of communicating with people and they're almost seamless in the way they deal with it because they communicate so well. These are both terrific guys. They're great communicators. That's why Sark has always been the guy, since Norm left, that talked to the team and set the plan in motion. Even when [Lane Kiffin] was the coordinator, Sark was always the guy who was in front of them all the time. There are certainly some first-time things happening, though. You can't avoid that.

Any of that really concern you?

No. These guys are great at what they do. You guys [the media] don't realize how involved everybody's been all along and how much these guys have done. All through our planning, for the years that we were here -- when Norm was here, and Lane, and Sark -- those guys all mixed together. They all did everything. Norm did a great job of raising those guys up ... and when he left we had the biggest year in the history of the school. They've been so intricately involved, there hasn't been a transition ... Except for when Sark was with the Raiders, he sent every play in to the field. Every single one, in every big game and situation, he was the last word that put the play into motion. He continues to do that now, so it isn't a big change. I know everybody thinks it is, but it's not that.

So Sark's a communicator. What about a tough guy, a bad guy out there?

He's [Sark's] real tough. He's very hard on these guys. He's a hard-line, competitive guy. He's been a great competitor in his career (when he played) and he's carried it over to his coaching, and it comes across quite clearly. These guys respect him. They do everything he asks them to do. He has a good sense for how to mix all of it -- sometimes you're teaching, sometimes you're motivating, sometimes you're disciplining. He's just a natural at it.

A lot of people have been grumbling about the lack of a dedicated special teams coach. Does that bother you?

It's an area for us to improve, yeah. All the years in the NFL, we always had somebody. It's more focused than you might think. Dave Watson does a ton of the stuff. He does like 80% of the stuff. He's the one who's most focused [on it]. T-Mac [Todd McNair] is the one that talks to him and delivers the message to him. So it's more so than you think. David is doing it for his first time, that's new for us. He still relies on Nick [Holt] to do his aspects of it and Pat [Ruel] to do his aspects of it .... But the organization of it, the handling of the stuff on the sidelines, the game plan, the actual in-game communication is really handled by Dave Watson.

That's an area we've known for years we can improve at. I had a guy in here a year ago and it didn't work out. We haven't been committed to that.

If you had one more coaching position allowed under NCAA rules, what would be your first hire?

I would definitely hire a special teams guy. We're raising Dave to be that. He's in the process of becoming that, so I think it's working out. This is the best we've been on special teams, I think, since we've been here. I think we've been really good. Returns are solid. Our coverage is good. We're kicking the ball well, punting the ball well, handling it, creating turnovers. This is the best we've been all around -- and we should be. We should be good. We've got a lot of good players to choose from. But you can always get better. If you realize the scope and the depth that long-term NFL coaches have in special teams, they're incredibly gifted in what they bring. There is value there.

You've lost a lot of talent over the years ... Chow ... Orgeron ... of the guys you've lost in coaching, who do you miss the most?

I think we miss Lane the most. He's been here since the first day. The fact was that he was on offense, and I'm on the other side of the ball. He's an extraordinary coach.

Comments

[Michael C. Teniente]

Man, I love Pete Carroll! The guy is class all the way. I just hope he sticks around because these young guys are going to be incredible as they gain experience. Sure we stuggled this year but I've been a USC fans since Anthony Davis scored all them touchdowns against Norte Dame way back when. I remember Sam Bam Cunningham. Heck when USC loses I don't follow. So when Pete Carroll came on the scene it was USC football time for me, again.

Keep up the good job, Coach!

mike

[24-23; 28-21, etc. etc.]

Don't blame Pete Carroll or the USC football team.
The blame is shared between the SID and the LA Media.
Tell 'em what they want to hear; sell those sports magazines,
sell those agenda PAC driven newspapers; get those eyeballs
in front of those television sets; and get those radios tuned to
sports talk radio. Do whatever it takes to put those butts in
the Colesium seats and get that USC merchandise sold.
Pete Carroll isn't worth one win (or one loss) during the
season. USC doesn't have a QB, RB, TE, WR; the defense
is what has keep USC in the game inspite of the offense giving
the opponents a short field, too often.
USC followers just want to hear what they want
to hear; otherwise, they will tune out. And, there is a reason
that after three days, the newspaper turns yellow...it's today's
journalism.

[Charlie Wheeler - Stanford Fan]

Pete Carroll's interview (really a monologue) in the LA Times today seems to have settled on his revisionist "history" of the USC-Stanford game. Pete has decided it was really all Booty's fault for throwing interceptions, and Pete's fault for leaving him in the game. This is errant nonsense. The key play of the game was Pete's decision to try to score a touchdown on fourth and goal at the end of the first half. Moody's finger didn't affect the hand-off. With respect to the interceptions, only one of the four resulted in an immediate score - the interception at the beginning of the third quarter which was run in for a touchdown, making the score 9-7.The second interception in the third quarter was followed shortly by a USC interception. The next 10 Stanford points were drives that started after USC kick-offs. Stanford's third interception, with three minutes to go, was on a 3rd and 19 on the USC 37 and was intercepted on the Stanford 37 and returned to the USC 45 - essentially a good punt return, and 45 yards is hardly a gimme - and the following Stanford drive featured the two fourth down passes. Booty wasn't on the field to break up those passes. Booty's last interception was a desperation fourth and 17 pass with 13 seconds to go, with the ball on the USC 34.

So, Pete, this isn't about interceptions, and it isn't about Booty. It's about USC's inability to score from the 1 at the end of the first half and USC's inability to stop three long Stanford drives in the second half. Also, let's not forget that both USC touchdowns in the second half were on long passes completed by Booty - 63 and 47 yards, respectively