Lounge of Tomorrow

Lounge of Tomorrow (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/index.php)
-   Lounge Lizard (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/forumdisplay.php?f=11)
-   -   Trojans busted (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/showthread.php?t=2637)

Ghoulish Delight 01-04-2006 11:35 PM

Trojans busted
 
No, no one's pregnant...but USC lost to Texas at the Rose Bowl. Hooray!!

And, to add insult to injury, at the end of ABC's postgame interview with losing QB Matt Leinart, the gal doing the interview attempted to console him. She said, "Well, win or lose, it was a great season, Vince." "Vince" being the name of the Texas QB. :D

Alex 01-05-2006 12:43 AM

Though it may be lost in all of the hullabaloo, I bet Reggie Bush is feeling pretty bad about his attempt at stupid playground trickery that turned it over in the first half.

scaeagles 01-05-2006 06:07 AM

That was an incredible gak. What I thought was amazing (and stupid) after that was later in the game when Vince Young did the same thing (though down, clearly, prior to the pitch).

Fun game to watch. That Vince Young is pretty amazing, but I actually have doubts about his success in the NFL. He'll do OK, but what makes him dangerous is not his passing, though it's OK, it's his running. Running QBs don't hold up well in the NFL - the defenders are exponentially bigger and faster, and the body can't take it very long. Michael Vick sure isn't doing what he did in college.

I thought Leinart was a bit of a whiner...."Yeah, they won, but we're still better.". Pete Carroll, however, was incredibly classy.

cstephens 01-05-2006 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight
And, to add insult to injury, at the end of ABC's postgame interview with losing QB Matt Leinart, the gal doing the interview attempted to console him. She said, "Well, win or lose, it was a great season, Vince." "Vince" being the name of the Texas QB. :D

OK, that is too funny. Did he have a reaction?

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles
I thought Leinart was a bit of a whiner...."Yeah, they won, but we're still better.".

Yeah, I heard a snippet of that. They beat you, but you're still the better team? Ummm, ok.


Last year, I was so ticked off at Texas because they got the spot that we (Cal) should have gotten, and they have an ugly orange color. This year, they still have an ugly orange color, but I love that they beat 'SC.

One of the lawyers that I work with is a Texas alum, and I sent him a congrats note. He's thrilled.

I "watched" the game on the 'net. My husband watched it on TV and was telling me how badly Pete Carroll (sp?) screwed up. Bizarre decisions. Can't wait to hear all the sports reports and write-ups.

scaeagles 01-05-2006 01:45 PM

Carroll screwed up? Are you referring to the 4th and 2 with 2 minutes or so left?

I think it was the correct call. They had been able to run up the middle on Texas all day....crap...not Bush, the other guy....anyway, they get the 4th and 2, they win the game. Texas had been moving the ball well, and the best strategy was to keep the ball out of Texas' hands.

The big mistake was whomever called the timeout on the 2 pt conversion play. Then Leinart not throwing the ball away after 2-3 seconds after nothing developed on their last play. He looked downfield for 7 seconds. Gak.

I didn't think Carroll did anything too badly.

Ghoulish Delight 01-05-2006 02:01 PM

White.

cstephens 01-06-2006 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles
Carroll screwed up? Are you referring to the 4th and 2 with 2 minutes or so left?

I think it was the correct call. They had been able to run up the middle on Texas all day....crap...not Bush, the other guy....anyway, they get the 4th and 2, they win the game.

There has been some debate on the merits of the play, with people on both sides, but I personally still think it was a dumb thing to do. There's no guarantee that it was going to work, whereas making Texas try to march down the field after a kick would have been a better idea. Of course, I understand the decision better if they completely had no confidence in their defense, which was borne out later by Texas' two touchdowns in a matter of minutes. Sure, if you get this done, you win the game. Didn't get it done though.

The other thing I heard Carroll getting reamed about was not having Bush even in for the play (I think it was the same play - it might have been a different one), thereby telegraphing what they were going to do, so Texas was perfectly set up to defend against it. I didn't watch the game myself, but from everything I've heard, it made no sense not to even have Bush in the game as a threat or decoy.

scaeagles 01-06-2006 01:05 PM

On that second one there, I completely agree with you. Gotta have all your weapons on the field for that one so the defense has to cover more options.

Ghoulish Delight 01-06-2006 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles
On that second one there, I completely agree with you. Gotta have all your weapons on the field for that one so the defense has to cover more options.

That's not Bush's role. He averages about 15 carries a game, plus a few touches in the passing game. He's not their short yardage guy, he's not their every-down back. He's an explosive role player. A ridiculously good one, but a role player none the less. They did the right thing by not having him in, that was their game plan for winning 30 some-odd games, no reason to change it.

scaeagles 01-06-2006 02:46 PM

Exactly. But how many defenses have they faced that are as good as the Texas defense?

I don't understand why any offense lines up in such obvious formations on a 4th and 2. 4th and 1? Sure. A power game should get you one every time. But 2? When you line in in a well scouted formation against a formidable defense, they're going to stop you frequently.

But hey - I don't claim to be a football coach, just a fan. Monday morning quarterbacking is easy sport. Decisions in less than a minute on the sideline are not.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:36 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.