USC-Washington in game...

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Sat Sep 19, 2009 11:27 pm

McKnight is a decent RB...

On the rare occasions he actually tries to hit a hole without playing a round of Dance Dance Revolution in the backfield first.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 12:05 am

McKnight is simply too fumble prone. Every time the guy is in traffic my heart is in my throat. He also seems to have no sense of impending danger when he's in the open field. Most RBs seem to have an innate sense of knowing when to cover up and protect the ball as defenders approach from behind, but McKnight seems completely oblivious.

Otherwise, this USC offense is poisonous. It's the exact same thing we saw in '06, in the Oregon game in Eugene. In that game Booty was out so Kiffin reduced the playbook down to the barest essentials, rendering them basically impotent.

USC isn't a wishbone team. They cannot get away with doing nothing but running the ball. They simply aren't set up to do that. If a team can completely sell out against the run, yeah, they'll contain USC's running game. USC still managed 250 yards rushing today, which is at least decent, but their attack can only hope to work that way if they play error free football. It won't work if they keep putting themselves behind the eight ball with penalties, bad field position and turnovers.

They have to be able to throw the ball to make the running game explosive. They have to make the other team's D respect the threat of the deep ball and the intermediate passes.

I don't recall USC throwing a single deep ball against OSU, and I know they didn't throw any today. They didn't attempt anything over twenty yards today, with anything over ten yards being rare, and they managed less than ten yards per reception - even including yards after the catch.

Basically, the USC coaches have USC's offense playing in a tiny box, and the other team's D knows it. It's just not that difficult to stop when they only need to defend ten yards of field, and they're not having to defend the option; either the running option attack, or the pass/run option.

I knew Sanchez leaving early would prevent USC from having a chance to play for the title this year. Having to go with a rookie QB was always going to mean an offense of fits and starts, involving far less explosiveness.

This is way worse than I'd anticipated. I never imagined they'd limit the offense this badly.

Pete has been trying to limit mistakes and 'manage' wins here. I knew this would catch up with them eventually, and it just didn't take very long. Maybe with Barkley in there they do a little better today, since Corp was just awful in his first ever start.

Still, c'mon. Let these kids make mistakes, and learn from them. Let them try to use their big, tall WRs. Let those guys have the opportunity to make some plays. Throw to them, and if there's an occasional pick, fine. I'd rather see a pick thirty yards down the field than at the line of scrimmage, which is what we're seeing now.

Also, big time congratulations to Washington. With Locker back and with Sarkisian there instead of Willingham this team's 0-12 season is already a distant memory. This program is on its way back. They're going to get back right away to being a tough out in Seattle, then they'll build from there.

Washington played a very poised game today. Locker made great plays when they were there; more importantly, he played a very steady game. He never made any big mistakes, nor did anybody else on Washington.

No turnovers. Zero. No personal foul blunders. That's impressive. Turnovers are what beat them against LSU, and they were solid as could be today. There was only one way they could win today, and they allowed it to happen. They didn't screw themselves out of that one opportunity.

They allowed USC to come back to them and keep them in the game, then it came down to Locker versus a neutered USC offense at the end.

Gotta like Locker in that scenario, and that's how it played out: He made the plays when it mattered, and Corp and the offense didn't.

Huge win for a proud and now resurgent program.

USC may see three losses this season. If their offense doesn't open up, hell, it may be more than three. They may even lose in South Bend.

If I'm the USC DC I go straight up to the OC and punch him in the mouth.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 12:57 am

I sure hope that Meds has a tall shower rod. I certainly don't want my health care costs going up if he botches it.

TenTallBen · Post by **TenTallBen** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 1:14 am

McKnight is simply too fumble prone

Being from New Orleans, Joe upset a lot of Tiger fans when he decided to go to USC over LSU. Some say that Joe had a talk with Reggie Bush (right after the Saints drafted him) and he convinced him to go west. I guess he thought his dancing around could go over well there. I don't think LSU fans are that bitter anymore.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 1:22 am

:?

Meaning?

~Scanning that post for any mention of square head deck screws, mentions of famous friends, dismissive descriptions of various professions mastered, tales of C+ hotties vomiting on my carpet at 4:00am, etc. Nope, I see none of those things.~

Meaning??

Python · Post by **Python** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 3:34 am

Van wrote:Washington beats LSU except

...except they didn't. Get out of here with that junk.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 3:50 am

Python wrote:
Van wrote:Washington beats LSU except
...except they didn't. Get out of here with that junk.

Py, that was in response to this...

TTB wrote:That LSU win a couple of weeks ago isn't looking that ugly now, is it?

Washington outplayed LSU. That game turned on Washington's stupid turnovers, which they didn't commit today.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 3:52 am

Btw, wtf is up with these new ugly colors for this page??

:barf:

TheJON · Post by **TheJON** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 5:33 am

Believe the Heupel wrote:
Van wrote::?

Meaning?

~Scanning that post for any mention of square head deck screws, mentions of famous friends, dismissive descriptions of various professions mastered, tales of C+ hotties vomiting on my carpet at 4:00am, etc. Nope, I see none of those things.~

Meaning??
It was really damn long. Jesus, man, I spend all week reading cases. Give me a break on the weekends.

What Van should have said so BtH wouldn't bitch..........

usc lose game, damn, sure sucks. props u-dub. omfg might b long yr. :x

Blueblood · Post by **Blueblood** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 6:15 am

Believe the Heupel wrote:Shut the fuck up when grown folks are talking. Hey, is your wife out getting a foot long from someone? Knowing your romantic problems with fast food I'm surprised you let her within 200 yards of Jared.

So, thejon.... is a fat-fuck ???

Too funny.

TheJON · Post by **TheJON** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 6:28 am

If you consider 5'10 165 pounds fat, then yeah- I'm a giant tub of lard.

Blueblood · Post by **Blueblood** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 6:34 am

TheJON wrote:If you consider 5'10 165 pounds fat, then yeah- I'm a giant tub of lard.

My bad.... I didn't know you were a teenage girl.

TheJON · Post by **TheJON** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 6:38 am

Maybe the heffers you dated back in HS.

Vito Corleone · Post by **Vito Corleone** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 7:11 am

I gotta say you could make a graph of Van's mood just by the posts in this thread. It starts off pretty low moves up after the first quick easy looking TD. But as the game progresses and there is mistake after mistake on USC's part you see the lines go down. Then at the end you see complete crash. Very entertaining.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 9:37 pm

Not to me it wasn't, Vito!

:D

But you're absolutely correct. I felt that game slipping away pretty early, or right about the time the mistakes began to seriously pile up. Then, when I saw the routes they were - and weren't - running, I began to realize that this may very well come down to a close game, pitting Locker against a self-neutering offense.

I kept waiting for some Husky turnover, or a big play from USC, and neither were forthcoming.

The bullshit roughing the passer call which amounted to another USC turnover, and a Washington score, that was another tip-off that things weren't going to go well.

Seeing Taylor Mays in street clothes wasn't a harbinger of good things to come, nor was seeing McKnight fumble and get injured, early and often.

When Havili ended yet another potential scoring drive with yet another fumble - an untouched fumble, mind you, as he simply dropped the ball while attempting to reverse his direction - yeah, I wasn't feeling too shit-hot excited about USC's prospects.

Been there, done that, in the U&L. It all felt all too familiar.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 1:34 am

Van wrote:The bullshit roughing the passer call

If you're talking about the call on Spicer....that wasn't bullshit.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:40 am

Diego in Seattle wrote:
Van wrote:The bullshit roughing the passer call
If you're talking about the call on Spicer....that wasn't bullshit.

I'm talking about the one on Everson Griffen, right at the edge of the stripe, where Locker reversed direction and attempted to throw a pass from the sideline. Even the announcers thought the flag was going to be for intentional grounding. Locker wasn't out of bounds, and the defender clearly pulled up.

It was an 'assumption' call on the part of the refs, who jumped the gun. They thought Locker was continuing out of bounds, and when he reversed direction it changed the flow of the play.

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:34 am

Like I said earlier in the year, this is an 8-4 Trojan team, few playmakers, rookie offensive and defensive coordinators and too much turnover on the roster as well.
Still cant figure out why Pete Carroll ran Nick Holt off but it didn't take too long to bite him in the ass.

All the things we heard Barkley was doing wrong in the spring and summer and Corp was doing right has been flipped, Corp locked on to recievers, failed to progress through his reads, threw in to double and triple coverage and looked compleely lost vs a poor Washington team that had to know what play was coming because their defense was angling towards the ball on nearly every snap. The team I coach has a Clarkson QB who progresses through his reads and ques better than Corp and the kid is 12 years old.

It would be nice to see USC lose a game and not see the other team and fans rush the field like they just won a fucking world title, however as shitty as this team has played this season and as poorly coached as they are it's going to happen in South Bend, Berkeley and Eugene as well, at least the losing part, the folks in Eugene may not rush the field, they seem to be the program with the recent winning tradition.

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:37 am

Van wrote:
Diego in Seattle wrote:
Van wrote:The bullshit roughing the passer call
If you're talking about the call on Spicer....that wasn't bullshit.
I'm talking about the one on Everson Griffen, right at the edge of the stripe, where Locker reversed direction and attempted to throw a pass from the sideline. Even the announcers thought the flag was going to be for intentional grounding. Locker wasn't out of bounds, and the defender clearly pulled up.

It was an 'assumption' call on the part of the refs, who jumped the gun. They thought Locker was continuing out of bounds, and when he reversed direction it changed the flow of the play.

was a bullshit home field call, lead to 3 points, doesnt matter, USC would have found a way to shit the bed anyway. Glad the season is over in September. Maybe now carroll will go out and hire real coordinators. Seto and Morton, are you kidding?

Blueblood · Post by **Blueblood** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:53 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Papa Willie wrote:Now just guess what we're going to have to listen to from mongoloid2 for the next few weeks (until USC whips their ass)....
Nope.

He'll be shut up in exactly one week.

Actually, much like the last 5 years.... Cal will ass-pound Oregon.... only this year it'll be by 3 to 4 TD's minimum.

Take it to the bank....

Blueblood · Post by **Blueblood** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:58 am

SoCalTrjn wrote: the folks in Eugene may not rush the field, they seem to be the program with the recent winning tradition.

Huh ?

Cal has the second best record in the PAC 10 since "Sweet Pete" came on board at $C.

Dealing with the slow comings of the slowcals can be quite tiresome.

Pssst.... Cal has beaten Oregon the last 4 of 5 years....

the truth

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:17 am

SoCaTrjn wrote:Still cant figure out why Pete Carroll ran Nick Holt off but it didn't take too long to bite him in the ass.

1-It didn't bite them in the ass. USC's D has been stellar so far, and it wasn't the problem against Washington. The USC D did more than their fare share to win that game, and they flat out won the Ohio St game.

It's also not Seto's fault that Wright got suspended for the year, nor is it his fault that Taylor Mays got injured and was in street clothes for the Washington game.

2-Why do you assume Carroll ran off Nick Holt? You keep making this same erroneous assumption regarding all the departed USC assistants, that Pete keeps driving them off. In most cases these guys left on their own, in order to pursue higher coaching gigs elsewhere: i.e., head coaching gigs for Orgeron, Kiffin and Sarkisian. Chow left to become a DC in the NFL, for a fellow Trojan. Holt left to join his good friend Sarkisian at Washington, where Holt truly is the DC. At USC the DC is really Pete, regardless of the existence of some other guy on the staff who carries the official title. At Washington, Holt will get to call all the shots.

In none of these instances did it make anything but perfect sense for these assistants to leave, as part of the natural progression in any ambitious coach's career.

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:19 am

Blueblood wrote:
SoCalTrjn wrote: the folks in Eugene may not rush the field, they seem to be the program with the recent winning tradition.

Huh ?

Cal has the second best record in the PAC 10 since "Sweet Pete" came on board at $C.

Dealing with the slow comings of the slowcals can be quite tiresome.

Pssst.... Cal has beaten Oregon the last 4 of 5 years....

the truth

Maybe it just seems like Oregon has had the better tradition since they have seemed to piss on their own nuts less in National games.

Oregon and Fecal both beat USC, what are the odds that oregons fans dont rush the field while fecals act like they won a world title and go apeshit. Act like you have won a game before

Blueblood · Post by **Blueblood** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:29 am

Beating $C this year will mean no more than beating Minnesota,,,

Like I said close to half a year ago.... Cal will ass-pound $C by at least 2 TD's.

the truth

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:33 am

Van wrote:
SoCaTrjn wrote:Still cant figure out why Pete Carroll ran Nick Holt off but it didn't take too long to bite him in the ass.
1-It didn't bite them in the ass. USC's D has been stellar so far, and it wasn't the problem against Washington. The USC D did more than their fare share to win that game, and they flat out won the Ohio St game.

It's also not Seto's fault that Wright got suspended for the year, nor is it his fault that Taylor Mays got injured and was in street clothes for the Washington game.

2-Why do you assume Carroll ran him off? You keep making this same erroneous assumption regarding all the departed USC assistants, that Pete keeps driving them off. In most cases these guys left on their own, in order to pursue head coaching gigs elsewhere: i.e., Orgeron, Kiffin and Sarkisian. Chow left to become a DC in the NFL, for a fellow Trojan. Holt left to join his good friend Sarkisian at Washington, where Holt truly is the DC. At USC the DC is really Pete, regardless of the existence of some other guy on the staff who carries the official title. At Washington, Holt will get to call all the shots.

In none of these instances did it make anything but perfect sense for these assistants to leave, as part of the natural progression in any ambitious coach's career.

Holtz's defenses at USC stripped the ball, and got the timely turnover. How many fumbles has USC caused through 3 games? Seto has gone on record many times saying he wants his DBs to go for the hit instead of the ball, this team is -3 in turnover margin and has 1 interception in 3 games and 90 attempts by their opponents. A head coach can oversee a few defensive calls but hes not going to set the tone for his defense and thats what Holts did at USC. he left USC where he was co-head coach and a defensive coordinator not for a head coaching job but for a coordinator only job at a state school that had gone 0-12 the year before, you think Washington paid him more? You think he would be seen more at Washington or be given more oppurtunities? he went to washington cause Pete ran him off, he doesnt want any coaches that will ever be "yes Pete" guys, thats why Chow left and is now at UCLA and its why Holtz left. Orgeron was available, Pete should have gone hard after him after Holtz left, anything would be better than Seto

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:16 am

Holtz's defenses at USC stripped the ball, and got the timely turnover.

Bullshit. USC's plus/minus turnover ratio has been in a steady decline over the past few seasons. Whereas they had been leading the nation in that category over a few years stretch during the middle of the decade they've seen a steady decline there of late, to the point where they've hardly held any advantage at all in that category the past few seasons.

How many fumbles has USC caused through 3 games?

This is nothing new. They haven't been getting a lot of picks either. It's been this way for a few seasons now.

They've been playing a steadier, more vanilla defense for awhile now, but it's remained every bit as effective.

Seto has gone on record many times saying he wants his DBs to go for the hit instead of the ball, this team is -3 in turnover margin and has 1 interception in 3 games and 90 attempts by their opponents. A head coach can oversee a few defensive calls but hes not going to set the tone for his defense and thats what Holts did at USC. he left USC where he was co-head coach and a defensive coordinator not for a head coaching job but for a coordinator only job at a state school that had gone 0-12 the year before, you think Washington paid him more?

He has more responsibility now than he did at USC, where Pete is always the real DC. The rest is just honorary titles.

USC fans have been complaining for years now that USC hasn't been the same ball-hawking D they were in the earlier part of the decade, and that was definitely the case during Holt's reign as pseudo-DC too.

You think he would be seen more at Washington or be given more oppurtunities?

Yes, because everyone knows he wasn't the real DC at USC, and now he is a real DC.

You think his stock didn't just go through the roof after this past weekend? He will now get all the credit for Washington's defensive performances there. When he was at USC everybody always called it Pete's D, and rightfully so.

he went to washington cause Pete ran him off,

And you know this how, exactly? And Pete would do such a thing why, exactly?

he doesnt want any coaches that will ever be "yes Pete" guys,

That makes zero sense. So, what, he wants guys who will argue with him? He "ran off" Holt for being too agreeable??

You have nothing on which to base any of this, and it makes no sense either.

thats why Chow left and is now at UCLA

Chow left because he and Pete had a fundamental disagreement over the type of offense Pete wanted to run. Pete wanted to stretch the field more, and Chow wanted to run a more conservative ball-control type shorter passing game offense, with less running and less stretching of the field.

There was that, plus the fact that Chow had an NFL OC gig waiting for him.

Then Chow left Tennessee because of VY, a guy Chow never wanted Tennessee to draft at that spot. He got fed up with the stultifyingly conservative offense he was forced to run at Tennessee, and that's why he's at UCLA now.

and its why Holtz left.

Link?

Holt is now a Guy With A Name, as opposed to merely being Pete's Uncredited Assistant. He will now get the kind of credit he never would've gotten as USC's DC, plus he already has a successful stint as USC's DC on his resume anyway.

Also, christ, he and Sarkisian are good friends, and Sark cajoled him into coming to Washington. Holt had nowhere else to go at USC. Now he gets to truly run his own unit.

It was his choice to leave. Pete didn't "run him off."

Orgeron was available, Pete should have gone hard after him after Holtz left, anything would be better than Seto

USC's D has been fantastic so far. Quit whining about it. It's the offense that deserves your venom, specifically the arch-conservative play calling.

Shit, keep in mind one simple thing: If Sanchez had stuck around, like every other USC QB did - and like Colt McCoy, Sam Bradford and Tim Tebow did - we aren't having this discussion. USC is 3-0 right now, with three comfortable wins and a #2 ranking in the polls. They'd have the best combined offense in the country right now.

This isn't Seto's fault, and it's not the USC D's fault. The USC offense is running on two cylinders right now, and that's nearly the entire problem so far.

Python · Post by **Python** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 2:29 pm

Van wrote:Washington outplayed LSU.

Then they would have won. Get back to basics, dude. All that "football speak" makes you look bad.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:07 pm

Guess what, Py? It doesn't always work out that way. Sometimes the breaks don't go a team's way, and they lose a game despite having outplayed the other team.

Such was the case with Washington and LSU. Yeah, LSU can simply point to the scoreboard, but the fact is that Washington controlled the play of the game on both sides of the ball. They simply killed themselves with costly turnovers and a buttload of penalties. LSU didn't necessarily do anything special to cause those turnovers or penalties either, same as Washington didn't do anything to cause Stanley Havili to simply drop the ball on his drive killing fumble.

Hey, if you need to convince yourself that LSU kicked Washington's ass, as 'Spray said, then knock yourself out. I saw the game. I know what happened.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:33 pm

No, it's more like Washington had nearly 500 total yards to LSU's 300, and it was simply a matter of Washington shooting themselves in the foot which kept LSU in and ultimately won them the game.

It wasn't anything LSU was doing themselves to dominate Washington.

So, no, in that sense, Washington didn't outplay LSU. Washington made more mistakes, and they scored fewer points as a result of those mistakes, so of course LSU did outplay them since they won the game.

Washington was the dominant team though, and you know exactly what I mean when I say they outplayed LSU. I don't mean they technically outplayed LSU; of course not. If that were the case then they would've scored more points than LSU.

They simply couldn't overcome all their errors. Against USC they didn't make those same errors, USC did, and while Washington didn't dominate the play the way they did against LSU it was those lack of errors which decided the game.

We've all seen games in which the team that controlled both lines of scrimmage and seemed to be controlling the play, i.e., the stronger team, still managed to lose. The Washington-LSU game was just such a game. Eleven penalties and some enormously costly turnovers were the reasons they lost a game in which they otherwise controlled the play.

Degenerate · Post by **Degenerate** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:20 pm

This must all make Idaho feel very good, as they had more yards than Washington two weeks ago.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:30 pm

Jsc, what sort of credit do you want? I already said that yes, of course LSU outplayed them; in the most literal sense, since they won the game.

What more do you want?

Do you also want me to say LSU kicked Washington's ass, and they controlled the game, and the game wasn't as close as the score indicated, or some other nonsense?

Not gonna happen. I saw the game. I know which team controlled the play. I know which team was getting pushed around. I know which team was fortunate to win that game, because they certainly weren't the dominant team.

Did you even watch the game, Chip?

Danimal · Post by **Danimal** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:13 pm

So is the company-line still that Pete only cared about Sanchez's welfare when he had his tantrum at the presser? Sanchez went damn early in the draft and has played as well as one can ask of a newb. Meanwhile USC's O is pretty average, eventually it will be good, but pretty average now. Seems pretty obvious Pete knew they needed Sanchez another year and didn't just think Sanchez could use another year of development.

Python · Post by **Python** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:55 pm

Van wrote:what I mean when I say they outplayed LSU. I don't mean they technically outplayed LSU; of course not. If that were the case then they would've scored more points than LSU.

Wow. Just quit now.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:04 pm

Danimal, yes, the company line remains the same: After talking with his contacts in the NFL, and keeping in mind the history of how QBs who came out early fared in their NFL careers, yes, Pete was sincere in his belief - and advice - that it wasn't in Sanchez's best interests to enter the NFL after only having started sixteen games in college.

As it turns out Sanchez may prove to be the exception, but Pete's concern for the mistake he felt Sanchez was making was sincere, and based in fact.

Doesn't mean he also didn't want Sanchez back to run his offense though, oh hell no.

As for your contention that USC's O line is only "pretty average" right now, you may want to look up the meaning of the word.

There are 119 D1 teams out there. USC's O line is not merely the 50th or 60th best in the land. By all accounts it's in the top five, if not number one.

This hardly makes them average.

The O line has done a good job, considering what they've been given to work with. The only real issue I've had with them over the first three games is the excessive number of holding penalties to begin drives.

The kickoff return team has been even worse, in that regard.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:21 pm

Py, either say something worthwhile or bail. You're not contributing anything here with these selective C&Ps taken out of context.

If you're going to C&P something, C&P the explanation and the content, not just the lone comment taken out of context which serves your purpose.

I've already explained the difference between:

1-Losing on the scoreboard, which means a team of course didn't literally outplay the other team.

2-Controlling the game and being the dominant team, while still managing to make enough unforced errors to lose the game.

In such instances, no, the dominant team didn't really outplay the other team, because those errors are part of gauging a team's performance, and it all ends up showing up on the scoreboard. The point is simply that in a given game a team can dominate the play while still managing to lose the game, as was the case with the Washington-LSU game.

If you're truly unaware that both things are possible within the same game, well, watch more football. It'll come to you eventually.

Python · Post by **Python** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:39 pm

Ok then, Van. Let's go with this...

Van wrote:That game turned on Washington's stupid turnovers

So you're saying LSU had nothing to do with the turnovers? Washington just handed to ball over to LSU and it had nothing to do with our play on the field? The pick six was just a result of Washington underhanding a throw to our defense and walking off the field without making a tackle? Or did I take this out of context too?

Danimal · Post by **Danimal** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:42 pm

Van wrote:Danimal, yes, the company line remains the same: After talking with his contacts in the NFL, and keeping in mind the history of how QBs who came out early fared in their NFL careers, yes, Pete was sincere in his belief - and advice - that it wasn't in Sanchez's best interests to enter the NFL after only having started sixteen games in college.

As it turns out Sanchez may prove to be the exception, but Pete's concern for the mistake he felt Sanchez was making was sincere, and based in fact.

Doesn't mean he also didn't want Sanchez back to run his offense though, oh hell no.

As for your contention that USC's O line is only "pretty average" right now, you may want to look up the meaning of the word.

There are 119 D1 teams out there. USC's O line is not merely the 50th or 60th best in the land. By all accounts it's in the top five, if not number one.

This hardly makes them average.

The O line has done a good job, considering what they've been given to work with. The only real issue I've had with them over the first three games is the excessive number of holding penalties to begin drives.

The kickoff return team has been even worse, in that regard.

Wow, congrats on totally misreading my post Van.

1. Doesn't the fact that I talked about holding the company line imply I've read the same damn thing you said before? Ya I know the spiel, and given how things turned out it looks questionable. IMO Pete had some concerns about Sanchez but was also just pissed the kid was leaving.

2. Where the hell did I mention USC's O-line? WHERE? I said their O, not their O-line. No their line isn't a problem but the O isn't putting up points against the real competition. Eventually I'm sure they will, but not right now.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:29 pm

Python wrote:Ok then, Van. Let's go with this...

Van wrote:That game turned on Washington's stupid turnovers
So you're saying LSU had nothing to do with the turnovers? Washington just handed to ball over to LSU and it had nothing to do with our play on the field? The pick six was just a result of Washington underhanding a throw to our defense and walking off the field without making a tackle? Or did I take this out of context too?

Of course not, because you actually are making some attempt now to say something relevant in support of your selected C&P.

The Pick Six was a gift wrapped TD for LSU. It was the type of huge, unforced error they made which kept LSU in that game.

It was the type of unforced error they didn't make against USC.

Does LSU deserve credit for making the easy catch, and for not falling down on their way to the end zone? (Is 'end zone' one word or two, btw? endzone... end zone... hmmm...) Yes, LSU deserves credit for that; as much as you want to give them for it.

I suppose you may also give credit to LSU for Washington's eleven penalties, if you wish.

I'll definitely give credit to LSU for only having three themselves, which is phenomenal.

LSU beat Washington in the same basic fashion by which Washington beat USC: They just hung around, letting the other team beat themselves. The only difference is that Washington really did dominate both lines of scrimmage against LSU, and they didn't against USC. In both games the team which controlled the majority of the play lost the game by making way too many mistakes.

Lotta ways to win a football game...lotta ways to lose a football game.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:40 pm

Danimal, my apologies. Yes, I did misread your post. I thought you said O-line when all you said was O.

My mistake.

Yeah, so far USC's O has been pretty average. You are definitely correct there.

As to your other point, what do you expect has changed? Why would the company line have changed? The same factors that went into Pete's belief and advice are no less true now than before. The fact that Sanchez went higher in the draft and so far is doing well doesn't change anything about what Pete felt and said.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Because Sanchez is doing well are you asking if this now means Pete's stated reasons are revealed as being untrue?

Sanchez is certainly off to a good start in proving Pete was wrong, but even if Sanchez goes on to become Tom Brady it still won't change the reasons Pete advised him to stay for his senior year. It'll simply mean Sanchez proved that he was the exception to what's otherwise been a pretty solid rule.

Let me know if I'm missing the point of your question again. Maybe I am.

Python · Post by **Python** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:43 pm

Van wrote: The Pick Six was a gift wrapped TD for LSU.

Uh...aren't they all? So Washington had turnovers which led to points, 12 penalties to 3 for LSU, LSU won by 8 but LSU didn't earn the win? Washington just gave the game away? By that logic, Washington's last second touchdown at the end of the game really doesn't count. We "should" have won by 15.

Like I said. Just stop.