It certainly is an odd time to be saying that there is anything that happened this week that could be said to be positive regarding UCLA football. But while it doesn't begin to outweigh the negatives we saw this week I do believe that there are two realistic positives. So what are the positives to take from our game in Seattle? The answer is that there is nothing positive to take from that game. It would be a stretch to even begin to look for anything positive.
But there are I believe two positives to take from this weekend, and they didn't happen in Seattle. They happened in Corvallis. What we saw there shows two things:
1. We did in fact beat a quality team in Oregon St.
2. USC is definitely beatable and vulnerable when we play in the Rose Bowl.
In our game against Oregon St. I thought our team showed a lot of potential . And I think we beat Oregon St. because we played very well especially on defense. Many people thought it didn't mean that much, since Oregon St. no longer had James Rodgers and was supposedly no longer that good a team. I disagreed and said in one post not to be too surprised if they beat USC in Corvallis where they have beaten much better USC teams. But they never beat any USC team up there like they did tonight in a dominating performance. Yes, they didn't do well against Washington St. last week, but the week before they played us they also beat Cal 35-7. So our win over them does show something positive about our potential. Of course that's not enough. The problem is that there doesn't seem to be any consistency from game to game, so no it isn't enough to show this potential without following through in other games. Potential is not enough, but for what it's worth that game did show something positive about our football team.
USC really looked bad tonight. Their offense which has been their strength didn't look good at all. Oregon St. did a really good job of putting pressure on the quarterback. If our defense plays like it did against Oregon St. I think we can really stop SC. Also SC's defense also looked very beatable and certainly didn't look nearly as good as ours against Oregon St. Of course Oregon St. has a much more balanced offense than we do (of course almost everyone has a more balanced offense than we do with our inability to pass), and if we are going to move the ball we are going to have to pass too. But if we play overall as well as we did against Oregon St. I think we will beat SC. (I think the game at Arizona St. will be tougher).
One last somewhat unrelated point. If I heard right I think the announcer said that Oregon St. had two or three offensive linemen who were walk ons. And their offensive line is much better than ours. How come we can't do that? It does raise questions about how good our player development is.