Final Texas A&M Pro Football Focus grades following a 35-31 loss to USC.

Following a sad 35-31 loss against USC, the Texas A&M football team conducted a thorough study of its performance using Pro Football Focus (PFF) grades. The PFF grades, which are extensively used in the football community to evaluate player performances, offer an informative look into individual efforts while also highlighting the team’s key strengths and flaws. This review comes after a painful loss in which, despite excellent individual efforts, the Aggies were unable to win a close game. In this breakdown, we will look at the important parts of Texas A&M’s performance against USC, including individual player grades and overall team contributions (both positive and bad).

Offensive Performance

On offense, the Texas A&M Aggies showed flashes of brilliance but ultimately struggled to execute when it mattered most. Despite putting up 31 points, the Aggies found themselves unable to make crucial plays in the second half, which allowed USC to capitalize on mistakes and come away with the victory. PFF grades for the offensive unit reflect this mixed performance, where the offensive line and quarterback were generally solid, but inconsistencies in the running game and key turnovers prevented the team from winning.

Quarterback Play: The performance of quarterback Max Johnson was a topic of much discussion following the game. According to PFF’s grading system, Johnson had a solid performance, completing 22 of 35 passes for 289 yards, two touchdowns, and one interception. His overall grade was decent, but it was clear that the interception and some missed opportunities in the second half were factors in the loss. Johnson showed poise under pressure and made several key throws to keep his team in the game. However, like many quarterbacks, his grade suffered from the inability to deliver on critical third downs and red-zone opportunities, where the offense struggled to capitalize.

Johnson’s grade was affected by missed opportunities in the passing game, including several overthrown balls and missed connections with open receivers. While he made some big-time throws, the inability to maintain consistency across all four quarters impacted his overall rating. Still, PFF acknowledged his ability to maintain composure in a high-pressure game and keep the offense moving, even when the score was tight.

Running Back Play: Texas A&M’s running backs, led by Amari Daniels, had a rough day in terms of efficiency. Despite the Aggies being able to run the ball at times, their ground game didn’t consistently open up opportunities. PFF’s grades reflected a somewhat underwhelming performance from the running backs, as Daniels and his teammates struggled to find running lanes against USC’s defense. The USC defensive line played tough against the run, clogging up the gaps and limiting Texas A&M’s ability to get into a rhythm.

Daniels was often forced to make something out of nothing, and while he showed some explosiveness on the ground with a few key runs, his overall yardage was limited. This reflected in his PFF grade, which was lower than expected for a running back in a high-scoring game. The lack of balance in the running game hurt the Aggies’ offense, as they became one-dimensional and were unable to sustain long drives.

Offensive Line: The Texas A&M offensive line had a mixed performance against USC. The line allowed a few sacks but did a decent job at protecting Johnson on passing downs, particularly in the first half when they were able to hold up against USC’s pass rush. However, there were struggles in creating space for the running backs, especially in the second half when USC adjusted their defensive scheme. The offensive line grades from PFF reflected the inconsistency in run blocking, but overall they were able to keep Johnson mostly clean and provide enough time for him to operate in the passing game. Still, the inability to control the line of scrimmage in key moments was a significant factor in Texas A&M’s inability to win.

Defensive Performance

On the defensive side of the ball, the Texas A&M Aggies had a tough time containing USC’s offense, which proved to be explosive, especially in the second half. USC’s quarterback, Caleb Williams, had a field day against the Aggies’ defense, and his performance resulted in PFF giving high grades to several of USC’s offensive playmakers. For Texas A&M, the defensive grades reflected both positive individual plays and glaring weaknesses, particularly in the secondary and in key situational defense.

Defensive Line Play: The Texas A&M defensive line showed resilience early in the game, generating pressure on Williams and limiting the effectiveness of USC’s running game. However, as the game wore on, the defensive line began to tire, and USC’s offensive line found ways to neutralize the pass rush. The Aggies were unable to sustain consistent pressure throughout the game, and Williams, one of the best quarterbacks in college football, was able to exploit their weaknesses in coverage. Texas A&M’s defensive line grade from PFF reflected this inconsistency, with some players earning higher grades for their early success in pressuring Williams, but others seeing their performance drop due to missed tackles and failure to get to the quarterback when it mattered most.

Linebackers and Secondary: The linebacker play for Texas A&M was highlighted by a few strong performances but was also marred by missed tackles and poor coverage in key situations. The linebackers had difficulty covering USC’s dynamic playmakers in space, particularly in the passing game. PFF gave solid grades to Edgerrin Cooper, who had some important stops and was able to contribute in the run defense, but overall the linebacker corps struggled with coverage assignments and was unable to shut down Williams’ passing game.

In the secondary, Texas A&M faced a difficult task against USC’s skilled wide receivers. While the Aggies made a few key pass breakups and interceptions, they allowed big plays to develop, especially in the second half when the game was on the line. The PFF grades for the secondary reflected this inconsistency, with some players earning high marks for their individual efforts, but others receiving lower scores due to blown coverages and missed opportunities to stop big plays. USC’s wide receivers made key plays in the final moments of the game, and the Aggies’ secondary was unable to get key stops.

Coaching and Game Management: Another area that played a significant role in the outcome of the game was coaching. The Aggies’ coaching staff made some solid adjustments throughout the game but was unable to come up with a defensive game plan to stop USC’s offensive juggernaut. Their inability to adjust to USC’s passing game as the game progressed was a significant factor in the loss. Head coach Jimbo Fisher and his staff faced criticism for the lack of a second-half game plan, especially when it came to stopping the deep ball and making in-game adjustments. These aspects of the coaching staff’s performance were reflected in the PFF grades, with a few key players showing a lack of support from the sidelines in critical moments.

Special Team Performance

Texas A&M’s special teams performance was consistent but insufficient to alter momentum. The Aggies made no major mistakes on special teams, but they also failed to make any game-changing plays. Caden Davis, their kicker, nailed both field goals but missed a long-range attempt that may have resulted in key points in the game. Overall, the special teams unit performed its job, but it did not offer the game-changing plays that may have swung the game in Texas A&M’s favor.