As we do each week, through the good times and bad, we bring you our detailed breakdown of everything that went right, wrong or was simply worth opining on from USC's performance.

So here again is the weekly First-and- ... 5?

Why First-and-5? Someone probably committed a penalty.

Without further delay so we don't have to unnecessarily burn a timeout, here are the key takeaways from USC's 31-16 loss at Arizona State ...

I am far from the only person to observe that the Trojans looked more like they were playing a spring game than a late season division contest Saturday night. No one would blame you for thinking so; what else would you consider cycling quarterbacks seemingly at random and showing no real urgency for winning? This felt like a midseason tryout, complete with rotations that looked to be made well in advance rather than in reaction to the flow of the game.

The alternation of the signal-callers affected both more than it had last week (because, of course, the Trojans weren't playing lowly Arizona). Drake London’s absence was always going to make things harder anyways, but it was abundantly clear that neither quarterback was comfortable or in control throughout the night. Neither found much in the way of chemistry with the turnstile of receivers, and the consequent sluggishness of the offense resulted in USC matching it lowest scoring output of the season with only a single touchdown and 16 points.

The receiving corps, in a position to step out without London in the fold, didn’t exactly look locked in, punctuating stretches of promising play with critical drops in multiple key moments. Rotations at that position felt predetermined, with receivers like Kyle Ford and Malcolm Epps not playing for long stretches before reentering the mix. It was the same story in the secondary, where different rotations seemed to play on a schedule with little respect to who was actually playing well and who wasn’t.

Besides the puzzling rotations, the offensive play calling was indecipherable. What was to be gained with multiple designed runs for Kedon Slovis, or by repeatedly sending Tahj Washington, noted downfield contested-catch enthusiast, on fly routes in double coverage? Knowing that both Slovis and Dart like to take shots at big targets down the sidelines, why does the coaching staff insist on having the smaller receivers take so many of those routes? None of these decisions or the haphazard nature with which they’re made are conducive to winning football, and it’s as painfully evident on the field as it is on paper. This is simply not a team that being led toward winning football games.

For all intents and purposes, this looks like advanced spring camp for 2022. The coaching staff is procuring usable chunks of film on young players and veterans -- no doubt they plan to lay it out there to help make roster decisions easier for an incoming head coach while players choose to return, transfer, or forgo their eligibility. This is process, and unfortunately process doesn’t reward you with ping-pong balls and blue-chip talent in college like it does in the pros. Whatever the calculations USC is making as a program are clearly not geared toward winning games this year, but what are the real long-term benefits of holding spring tryouts during conference games in November?

More importantly, how do those benefits compare to the effect these performances have on player morale, recruiting, and the coaching staff? It’s hard to know what the thought process is from the outside looking in, but it’s equally hard to feel like it’s working regardless.

It’s difficult to properly evaluate the performance of either quarterback given the disjointed nature of their deployment, as the dual-quarterback rotation clearly made it tough for either signal-caller to ever find a steady rhythm. Neither was able to produce very much: Slovis finished the night 16 of 28 for 131 yards and an interception, while Dart totaled 8 of 17 for 89 yards and a pick. Dart also rushed for a 9-yard touchdown.

To be fair, their unspectacular performances were not for lack of trying. Both quarterbacks were aggressive throughout the night, attempting shots downfield and trying to get the football into tight windows at the intermediate and short levels. Slovis and Dart took a number of shots at Gary Bryant Jr. and Washington, but neither has been able to win at the catch point or to react particularly well to the flight of the ball down the sideline. As I mentioned earlier, it’s hard to understand why the deep targets in this offense are so rarely designed for the big receivers like Ford and Epps when it’s abundantly clear that both quarterbacks like to throw jump balls down the field.

Slovis in particular likes to place the football in tight spots where his receivers can out-position defenders to secure catches; when they can’t get in the right place and adjust to the football, it results in a lot of incompletions. As for Dart, his ball placement still needs some development. He does a great job of knowing when to leave the pocket and start rolling, but he’s struggled with where he’s placing the football when throwing from a moving platform. On a couple of intermediate throws of that variety, Dart targeted the receiver toward the defenders' leverage rather than away, leading to pass breakups rather than potential completions.

Down the stretch, things only got uglier for the duo as they continued to hop in and out for one another, having to readjust to the game each time. (Donte Williams said afterward that Dart was dealing with an unspecified hand injury). Much like last week, the passing offense almost completely dried up in the fourth quarter, as the duo only passed for 43 yards between the two of them. Both Dart and Slovis remain good quarterbacks, and it’s not hard to see the ability of each on display, even if they aren’t yet able to hit on as many plays as they should given the state of their offense. Playing both of them in this mechanical alternation does them no favors, however, and puts the team in no better position to win football games.