First-and-10: The most glaring takeaways and criticisms from USC's big loss

After a game such as this, an ugly, uninspiring 42-28 loss to Stanford that wasn't even as close as the final score, a performance that has spurred near consensus reaction within the fan base, there is no need for a long preamble here.

Let's get right to the weekly First-and-10 -- the 10 most significant takeaways, conclusions, criticisms, etc., from USC's performance.

Because there is a lot to say ...

RELATED: Column: Time running out on Helton Era at USC as familiar issues continue

Expectations have had a way of falling to pieces at USC for a number of years now, but rarely have they fallen apart quite so quickly and decisively. It only took a second game to suck the wind entirely out of the sails for a No. 14-ranked USC team coming off a 30-7 victory, trading in the dreams of some for a conference championship and a playoff berth overnight for the reality of confusion, stagnation and frustration. Of course, no one should say they didn’t see it coming. Certainly not anyone who’s watched USC football for the past decade -- to sputter out on the back of poor playcalling, subpar execution and a lack of energy has been the defining theme of most every Trojans season for a while now. It’s always just a matter of when and where; this time around, it just happened to be at home during the second game of the season against an underwhelming opponent.

This was a brutal loss that stings in a different way from the other defining defeats of the Helton Era. Most of the time, the Trojans have been able to magically evade disasters at home against inferior opponents, and their notable drubbings have come at the hands of elite competition, a la Alabama, Oregon or Ohio State. On Saturday night, the Trojans got dominated from start to finish on their home turf by a Stanford squad coming off a beatdown at the hands of a questionably-talented Kansas State team. This was a mess of a game marred by sloppiness, penalties and mistakes, a symposium of the worst symptoms of the past 6 years. The lack of focus and passion, either or both, was palpable, a fact that was noted postgame by a number of players. Chris Steele put it simply after the game, “They wanted it more than us.”

That’s a problem. After 5 years of chances, this football team continues to find itself in the same position, caught in an inescapable rut. The players have changed, the assistants have cycled out, and even the athletic director and university president have been replaced. The only common thread has been the head coach, and year after year, the product on the field has remained almost exactly the same. After Saturday’s showing, I don’t see what arguments are left at all for a preservation of the status quo. Whatever glimmer of optimism anybody might have had as of yesterday is dust in the wind today.

The truly remarkable thing about USC’s showing yesterday was the fact that most of the offense functioned well. The offensive line played an excellent game. The running game was active and efficient. Kedon Slovis, despite a few mistakes, played a legitimately good game. So how on earth did this team manage only 13 points through the first 3 quarters?

Part of the answer stems from the drop issues from the receivers -- there were at least three dropped touchdown passes on the night, as well as the pick-6 off of a drop by Drake London. A much larger share of the blame, however, has to rest with the play-calling. It’s hard to have such an unproductive offensive outing when your run game is working and your quarterback is protected and playing well. That the Trojans floundered as they did reflects heavily upon the coaching.

Something that’s caught my eye recently has been the stagnancy of the offensive route combinations; the Trojans’ passing plays are often designed to have receivers planted in place, waiting for the football, instead of moving across the field and searching for separation with time. This is one of the primary reasons Slovis holds the ball so long -- he’s often scanning, looking at receivers posted up like statues across the field with defenders hanging around them. The lack of play-action is also confusing; an offense like this should be expected to flourish in the PA game, especially in games where they successfully establish the run such as this one. The Trojans offense only went that direction on a handful of plays, netting little from them in total.

Defenses seem to be keenly aware of what the USC offense is going to do on most plays -- the lack of variety lends itself to that. Slovis noted postgame that it seemed like the Stanford defense knew when they were running certain plays every time. That’s what it looked like to me too. The same route combinations, the same run schemes ... there’s little to keep defenses off balance, despite the overflow of skill position talent at the Trojans' disposal. The offense is painfully stagnant and without some creativity, it’s going to stay that way.

It is truly astonishing to me that USC turned in a dud of an offensive performance like this and that almost none of it can be blamed on the offensive line. I don’t know what more could be asked of them; they paved the way for 185 rushing yards, gave up no sacks, and conceded only a single tackle for loss in the entirety of the game.

Slovis had consistently clean pockets to throw from all night with hardly any pressure. The revamped combinations on the line with Monheim switching sides, and Justin Dedich and Jalen McKenzie rotating in were quite effective, and altogether this looked like one of the most complete performances by a USC O-line I’ve seen in a while. The scoreboard doesn’t reflect the unit’s level of play, but they deserve their props amidst the ugliness that was the rest of this game.