PDA

View Full Version : Pete Carroll Serves Notice


BIG_DADDY
01-05-2006, 12:07 PM
As to why he will never be able to coach an NFL team.

First of all congratulations to Texas for beating a team with WAY more talent on it, they certainly deserved this game. For the Longhorns to win several things needed to happen including them bringing their A+ game. They also needed the coaching staff for USC to be complete bumbling fools and some dumb luck on top of that, they got all 3. They brought their best game and they certainly got some luck considering how many times they put the ball on the turf and got it back. I won't even get into the fumble ruled as an incomplete pass or the downed lateral pass for a TD. I am going to look past the luck part as all teams have it now and then.

It was the coaching in this game I am going to focas on as it reeked worse than an Iraqi whores box that hasn't been cleaned in over 2 weeks. First of all Pete Carroll did not have this team ready to play for a national title. This team came out majorly arrogant with a lack of intensity and an air about them that seemed to say they thought the title should just be handed to them. Pete Carroll's interview at the end of the game said it all when he unemotionally refered to Vince Youngs run into the endzone to win the game as classic, what was classic was how poorly he ran this team.

He went away from things that worked:

1. You have a kicker knocking it out of the back of the endzone yet you start kicking chip shots to the 35. WTF was that all about?

2. You have an aggressive ballclub that can move the ball yet you let them load up the box and just run up the middle enabling Texas to come back in the game.

You make no attempt at adjusting to what is working for them against you. The DE's in this game were getting killed. Why not move to a 3-4 and at least try and contain Vince? Your right Pete this was Classic. If Vince had burned you on a pass I could accept that but everyone in the country knew he was going to run it in on the right side except your coaching staff apparently.

What was with leaving the supposed once in a generation player on the sidelines on 4th down too? At least if you put him in the backfield with White it forces the D to spread out increasing your chances of success.
I just don't get it, I can't believe how bad the coaching was. That was one of the worst coached BIG games I have ever seen in my entire life.

Dave Lane
01-05-2006, 12:10 PM
Glad to see it happen couldn't happen to a more deserving team / coach...

Dave

Phobia
01-05-2006, 12:12 PM
I thought it was a pretty good game on both sides. SC just ran out of time. Much respect to Texas and much respect to SC.

sedated
01-05-2006, 12:12 PM
I think King Carl is flying to LA today

BIG_DADDY
01-05-2006, 12:14 PM
I thought it was a pretty good game on both sides. SC just ran out of time. Much respect to Texas and much respect to SC.

They gave up 2 touchdowns in the last 4 minutes of the game.

morphius
01-05-2006, 12:17 PM
I'm not defending him exactly, but your points are kind of weak.

You can't just switch to a 3-4 if you don't have the people to run it, and if it isn't something you pratice then it would be stupid to switch to it.

You are right, he can't make an adjustment. 10 points in the first half, and only 10 more in the second, right?

Cochise
01-05-2006, 12:19 PM
Texas needed a legendary game by Young to just barely win.

USC still could have won, they had a personnel mixup on the extra point that caused the wasted timeout, that wasn't Carroll's fault. And still, they were one completed pass on the sideline from sending it to overtime. If the last 10 seconds or so hadn't been burned up by Leinert on the last play, they very likely could have scored and sent it to overtime.

None of that is on Carroll. He can't play the game himself. He's working through players who sometimes don't execute perfectly.

HemiEd
01-05-2006, 12:20 PM
I think it was the best College game I have seen in quite a while. USC's coaching staff was not the only one that made errors. How about the failed fourth and 1 from mid-field early in the first half by the longhorns?

Phobia
01-05-2006, 12:21 PM
They gave up 2 touchdowns in the last 4 minutes of the game.

To a freak specimen of a QB. Vick who?

siberian khatru
01-05-2006, 12:22 PM
Wow, after all Carroll's done the last few years, he loses a last-second squeaker in one of the greatest college games ever played and all of a sudden he's a bum.

And I thought Al Saunders had it rough around here.

the Talking Can
01-05-2006, 12:25 PM
Carroll is condemed for only winning 2 out of 3 Championships?

Bob Dole
01-05-2006, 12:27 PM
Bob Dole hasn't been able to stop laughing long enough to sleep or eat.

Matt is still sooooooo dreamy.

Amnorix
01-05-2006, 12:30 PM
To annihilate Carroll is lame. He's had a great run over the last few years.

I will say this -- for USC to lose, they needed to play and coach as badly as possible, and for Texas to be nearly perfect. That's exactly what happened.

BIG_DADDY
01-05-2006, 12:30 PM
I'm not defending him exactly, but your points are kind of weak.

You can't just switch to a 3-4 if you don't have the people to run it, and if it isn't something you pratice then it would be stupid to switch to it.

You are right, he can't make an adjustment. 10 points in the first half, and only 10 more in the second, right?

I totally understand why he didn't make it in the NFL. If you can't have your college boys head in the right space in a game like this how are you going to have players in the NFL ready? He never once chewed out a player. He never once showed any emotion that I saw. What about the clock management blowing a bunch of time you could leave for your O. He left them no time to get it back down the field fopr what, so he could prepare to defend the 2 point play? WTF is that?

Bottom line is Texas practiceddoing what they needed to in order to shut down Bush. USC did nothing in order to shut down Vince. Practicing a 3-4 should have already been done it's not like they didn't have the time to prepare. Not having Bush in on 4th down was moronic. I am not even going to keep going on, you think what I am saying is weak then whatever. Bottom line is a team with not nearly the talent of USC beat them, that's coaching pure and simple. He was outcoached BIG TIME.

Mr. Kotter
01-05-2006, 12:31 PM
West coast Football is over-rated. Period. Whether it's USC or Seattle in the NFL. Fun to watch, but...

:D

KCTitus
01-05-2006, 12:34 PM
It was my general impression that USC was getting many of the bounces/calls the first half at least. I was shocked they didnt overturn that call that was an interception by Texas in the 3rd quarter. No review, nothing.

Carroll's comments illustrate that it's been way too long since USC lost a game.

BIG_DADDY
01-05-2006, 12:34 PM
I will say this -- for USC to lose, they needed to play and coach as badly as possible, and for Texas to be nearly perfect. That's exactly what happened.

That's all I'm saying the coaching was beyond terrible in this game. There is enough talent on that USC team to beat teams in the NFL.

Dartgod
01-05-2006, 12:35 PM
It was the coaching in this game I am going to focas on as it reeked worse than an Iraqi whores box that hasn't been cleaned in over 2 weeks.
Please leave Duh-nese out of this.

Bob Dole
01-05-2006, 12:35 PM
Bottom line is a team with not nearly the talent of USC beat them, that's coaching pure and simple. He was outcoached BIG TIME.

You keep mentioning Texas not having nearly the talent.

Perhaps you're confusing "talent" with "media coverage".

phxchief
01-05-2006, 12:35 PM
2 points.

(1) Anyone that thinks ANY program in the country is "wayyyy" more talented than Texas is ****ing stupid.

(2) Texas didn't BRING their A-game, and won. They obviously didn't need it.

Do you think forcing a 3-and-out to open the game, set the tempo, then go and give the ball right back with a special teams cock up falls under "A-game"?

morphius
01-05-2006, 12:36 PM
To a freak specimen of a QB. Vick who?
I have to say I haven't seen too many QB's just not react to a blitz because the guys coming were too small to take him down. It was odd seeing him glance at them and ignore them.

Of course that may get him killed in the NFL.

Saulbadguy
01-05-2006, 12:37 PM
Carroll is condemed for only winning 2 out of 3 Championships?
1 out of 2.

ChiefsOne
01-05-2006, 12:38 PM
Props to Texas, great game. Young is a man!

As they say Any Given Sunday, or what ever day. I am not a USC or Texas fan, but it was great to see an awesome game that I didn't have any emotions to.

phxchief
01-05-2006, 12:38 PM
I will say this -- for USC to lose, they needed to play and coach as badly as possible, and for Texas to be nearly perfect. That's exactly what happened.

WTF is this bullshit I keep reading?

Texas wasn't CLOSE to perfect, and USC didn't play anywhere NEAR as bad as you are making out.

Texas playing perfect would KILL USC's perfect game. If both teams brought their "perfect game", USC would NEVER force Texas to punt. But Texas' defense, on a perfect day, would slown down any team in the nation.

the Talking Can
01-05-2006, 12:40 PM
It was my general impression that USC was getting many of the bounces/calls the first half at least. I was shocked they didnt overturn that call that was an interception by Texas in the 3rd quarter. No review, nothing.

Carroll's comments illustrate that it's been way too long since USC lost a game.

that's a problem I'd like my coach to have...

apparently the video reply monitors were'nt functioning for part of the first half...article in the USA Today talked about a pass by Young that should of been reviewed (his knee was down or something?) but wasn't because the equipment was broken...

Saulbadguy
01-05-2006, 12:41 PM
I don't see a whole lot of difference in talent at either school.

2002:
Texas: #1 Ranked recruiting class
USC: #13 Ranked recruiting class

2003:
USC: #3
Texas: #15

2004:
USC #1
Texas #10

phxchief
01-05-2006, 12:41 PM
Texas needed a legendary game by Young to just barely win.


So?

USC needed a MIRACLE game from Reggie Bush to beat Fresno fricken State. I didn't hear anything about that.

Texas is flat out better than USC. Less hyped, more productive. They don't have the glory offense but they have close to as deadly an offense. And of course, they do play SOME defense.

siberian khatru
01-05-2006, 12:42 PM
1 out of 2.

Some folks give them a share of the 2003 title because AP picked them.

Personally, I think that's bogus because AP was part of the BCS. You can't contribute to the BCS and then pick a different champion. JMO.

Amnorix
01-05-2006, 12:42 PM
That's all I'm saying the coaching was beyond terrible in this game. There is enough talent on that USC team to beat teams in the NFL.


The USC team is very talented, don't get me wrong, but don't ever, ever, ever make the mistake of thinking that ANY college team would do anything but get their ass absolutely handed to them by ANY pro team.

Chiefnj
01-05-2006, 12:43 PM
Matt Leinart's post-game comment showed he wasn't accustomed to losing. Some sour grapes from the golden child.

Saulbadguy
01-05-2006, 12:43 PM
Some folks give them a share of the 2003 title because AP picked them.

Personally, I think that's bogus because AP was part of the BCS. You can't contribute to the BCS and then pick a different champion. JMO.
It is bogus. They weren't national champs in 2003. LSU has the 2003 National Championship Trophy. USC does not. Simple as that.

Saulbadguy
01-05-2006, 12:45 PM
The USC team is very talented, don't get me wrong, but don't ever, ever, ever make the mistake of thinking that ANY college team would do anything but get their ass absolutely handed to them by ANY pro team.
Yep. Anyone who utters those words doesn't know shit about College football.

95 Nebraska could not beat the 76 Buccaneers.

KCTitus
01-05-2006, 12:45 PM
that's a problem I'd like my coach to have...

The winning problem, yes, but not the poor sportsmanship type comments. I would hope that 'my' coach would be as gracious in defeat as he was in the victories.

Mr. Kotter
01-05-2006, 12:46 PM
You keep mentioning Texas not having nearly the talent.

Perhaps you're confusing "talent" with "media coverage".

Ding, Ding, Ding!!!

siberian khatru
01-05-2006, 12:46 PM
It is bogus. They weren't national champs in 2003. LSU has the 2003 National Championship Trophy. USC does not. Simple as that.

I agree.

But again, part of the media hype surrounding USC is that they kinda/sorta won a national championship two years ago. They've been stretching that ever since last year to puff up their historical greatness. I don't accept it, neither do you. But that shit's out there, making an impression on some.

Amnorix
01-05-2006, 12:46 PM
WTF is this bullshit I keep reading?

Texas wasn't CLOSE to perfect, and USC didn't play anywhere NEAR as bad as you are making out.

Texas playing perfect would KILL USC's perfect game. If both teams brought their "perfect game", USC would NEVER force Texas to punt. But Texas' defense, on a perfect day, would slown down any team in the nation.

Methinks you're a Longhorn fan. I personally didn't care much about either team. I have a slight preference for USC because I like Carroll, and I did dislike the way the Longhorns intentionally ran up the score on teams this year, but it's not like I'm hugely biased either way.

Let me put it this way -- I saw alot more mistakes from USC than from the Longhorns, both coaching and on the field.

ferrarispider95
01-05-2006, 12:47 PM
YOUNG = Bush + Leinart

He can run and throw and thats why USC lost, if the receivers were covered he ran, and I mean ran over USC and if it was open he passed. He also had a better passing game than Leinart,

All the media just brainwashed USC fans into thinking they are the best.

Texas had a better d, better special teams, and when it came to making plays a bigger star.

morphius
01-05-2006, 12:48 PM
Ding, Ding, Ding!!!
Especially since the person saying they have more talent is in the same region as that team...

BIG_DADDY
01-05-2006, 12:48 PM
You keep mentioning Texas not having nearly the talent.

Perhaps you're confusing "talent" with "media coverage".

Texas is a great team with lots of talent but not like USC. Texas deserved this game BIG TIME.

siberian khatru
01-05-2006, 12:48 PM
In fact, I think it's even more dishonest than that. I think that after USC won in 2004 and was so great this year, some folks wanted to retroactively give them the 2003 title, figuring -- Hey, this is a historically great team, they're better than that LSU team. They deserved to win it 2003.

Amnorix
01-05-2006, 12:48 PM
I have to say I haven't seen too many QB's just not react to a blitz because the guys coming were too small to take him down. It was odd seeing him glance at them and ignore them.

Of course that may get him killed in the NFL.


I saw Vince Young for just about the first time last night (highlights only prior to that -- I don't watch too much college football) and I thought "he's GREAT for college, and will be dead meat in the pros".

He'd be awesome in college, the CFL or arena football. In the pros, he's a smaller version of Dante Culpepper, or a bigger, slower version of Michael Vick, take your pick. Either way, his game needs alot of retooling for him to survive in the NFL.

BIG_DADDY
01-05-2006, 12:50 PM
Especially since the person saying they have more talent is in the same region as that team...

OK so you think the talent was equal on these teams? You must be pretty convinced then that the Longhorns will have many more players going in the 1st round then. Care to place a bet on that?

cadmonkey
01-05-2006, 12:51 PM
As to why he will never be able to coach an NFL team.


I thought he did that already with the Patriots :shrug:

Mr. Kotter
01-05-2006, 12:52 PM
Texas is a great team with lots of talent but not like USC. Texas deserved this game BIG TIME.

BD, you live on the west coast right? The national media tends to be east/west coast dominated....and therefore they get a disproportionate share of the coverage.

You and many others just didn't HEAR as much about Texas. USC might, marginally, have a few more talented players....but it's not nearly as clear-cut as you seem to be suggesting.

Look at how the Big 12 fared in the bowls....:shrug:

jidar
01-05-2006, 12:55 PM
This thread should be called "Big Daddy Services notice to why he shouldn't be a football Coach."

BIG_DADDY
01-05-2006, 12:57 PM
1 out of 2.

And nobody was condemning him for that. Talking Can is the king of changing the subject. The point was Carroll was outcoached BIG TIME in this game and his inability to have his teams head in the right space for a game like this is why he never made it in the NFL.

Saulbadguy
01-05-2006, 12:58 PM
I agree, he was outcoached, but it is not like Texas doesn't have the talent USC has. I'd say they are pretty even.

Historically, Texas has been held back by Mack Browns ineptitude.

BIG_DADDY
01-05-2006, 12:58 PM
I thought he did that already with the Patriots :shrug:

Maybe I should have added successfully. He will never coach in the NFL successfully.

morphius
01-05-2006, 01:03 PM
OK so you think the talent was equal on these teams? You must be pretty convinced then that the Longhorns will have many more players going in the 1st round then. Care to place a bet on that?
Hell, I don't pay that much attention to college ball, I really don't care about it much. Way too many games with bad teams up against good teams.

Second I don't bet, I'd just curse the poor guys. But what does number of first round picks mean, really? We both know that USC has two top 5 picks, and Texas has 1, but a team is a lot more then its number 1 nfl prospects.

Both teams averaged the same amount a points during the year, and I think USC had a lot more games that came down to the last few plays this year. They also seemed to have an awful lot of freshman in the secondary.

BIG_DADDY
01-05-2006, 01:07 PM
This thread should be called "Big Daddy Services notice to why he shouldn't be a football Coach."

It's funny nobody wants to talk about meat of what I posted just the talent comment or take a cheap shot at me like you who have added nothing to the thread or subject worth value. I watched the game with two guys that both coach football for high school teams out here and we were all agreed on the terrible job Carroll did in this game.

1. Did USC come out with an arrogant attitude like they should just be handed the title?

2. Did Carroll go away from some of the things that were working that I posted about?

3. Was their last O drive a joke and would you have left Bush on the sidelines when putting him in the backfield with White would have spread out the D?

4. What adjustments to Vince and the Texas O did they make? You must have seen something I didn't if there were adjustments made.

5. Was the clock management at the end of the game an abomination?

Go ahead jihad give us your take since your such a football guru. I'll bet you don't a address a goddamn thing.

Dartgod
01-05-2006, 01:10 PM
So, how much $$$ did you drop on this game, BD?

Deberg_1990
01-05-2006, 01:13 PM
Wow, after all Carroll's done the last few years, he loses a last-second squeaker in one of the greatest college games ever played and all of a sudden he's a bum.

And I thought Al Saunders had it rough around here.

My feeling exactly. USC hasnt lost a game in like 3 years and now everyones wants to dump all over the guy??? How about giving Texas their due? They outplayed USC last night. Not but much, but enough to win.

KCTitus
01-05-2006, 01:14 PM
BD's west coast bias is showing.

BIG_DADDY
01-05-2006, 01:18 PM
Hell, I don't pay that much attention to college ball, I really don't care about it much. Way too many games with bad teams up against good teams.

Second I don't bet, I'd just curse the poor guys. But what does number of first round picks mean, really? We both know that USC has two top 5 picks, and Texas has 1, but a team is a lot more then its number 1 nfl prospects.

Both teams averaged the same amount a points during the year, and I think USC had a lot more games that came down to the last few plays this year. They also seemed to have an awful lot of freshman in the secondary.

We could go over the finer points of the talent on both sides but that misses my entire point of posting the entire thread which is Carroll did a terrible job of coaching this game and having his team ready to play Texas. I certainly don't know college that well either but whether were talking about the 1st round or all rounds I think when it is all said and done you will see a definitive difference when players are drafted off these teams. It's funny it's like people are acting like I am knocking Texas I am not I have been cpmlimenting them the entire thread. I think it is awesome that they won and feel they deserve it.

AustinChief
01-05-2006, 01:20 PM
Um.. Texas has FAR more talent than USC... yes, of course I am biased... but let's break this down...

I will concede that USC has better RBs
... and they *may* have slightly better WRs

but Texas is consistently better EVERYWHERE else... better o-line, better d-line, better linebackers, better secondary, and FAR FAR FAR better TE

USC has 3 MAYBE 4 solid 1st rounders...

#1 Reggie Bush
#2 Matt Leinhart
(maybe)#3 Winston Justice
(maybe)#4LenDale White


...so does Texas...

#1 Michael Huff
#2 Jonathan Scott
#3 Rod Wright
(possible)#4 Vince Young

BIG_DADDY
01-05-2006, 01:21 PM
My feeling exactly. USC hasnt lost a game in like 3 years and now everyones wants to dump all over the guy??? How about giving Texas their due? They outplayed USC last night. Not but much, but enough to win.

**** YOU GUYS. I have been giving Texas their due throughout the entire ****ing thread. Yes they deserved to win. Yes I am glad they won. USC certainly didn't deserve shit. WTF is anybody even capable of addressing what the thread is even about other than a couple of posts out of 50? It was about Carrolls coaching job in this game from having his players ready to making adjustments and terrible play calling and clock management at the end of the game. Forget it this thread was entire waste of time let it die.

AustinChief
01-05-2006, 01:26 PM
OK.. now to address the actual point of this thread... I think Pete Carroll did what I expect him to do... which is suck... I don't like him as a coach at all... Frankly, I think the pac-10 is weak and with the talent of USC a retarded 3 legged dog could coach them to an undefeated season.

BD, I agree with your assertion that Carroll was outcoached and did a poor job of preparing his team... and if you are getting outcoached by Mack Brown... you may actually BE a retarded 3 legged dog. Mack Brown is a great recruiter but an abysmal game day coach.

With some better officiating and much better ball control by Texas .. this game would not have been close...

cadmonkey
01-05-2006, 01:28 PM
Maybe I should have added successfully. He will never coach in the NFL successfully.

..and like I said, I thought he already proved that while in New England. ROFL

AustinChief
01-05-2006, 01:29 PM
I think alot of Carroll's problem is that (just like his QB) he is an arrogant pr*ck who didn't even consider that Texas could stop his offense on 4th down... or that his speedy defensive line would be bitch slapped by Texas' o-line.

I think Carroll and her whole team fell victim to all the hype... they started to actually believe the media BS that they could sleepwalk through this game and it would still be a blowout.

--Kyle

BIG_DADDY
01-05-2006, 01:36 PM
I think alot of Carroll's problem is that (just like his QB) he is an arrogant pr*ck who didn't even consider that Texas could stop his offense on 4th down... or that his speedy defensive line would be bitch slapped by Texas' o-line.

I think Carroll and her whole team fell victim to all the hype... they started to actually believe the media BS that they could sleepwalk through this game and it would still be a blowout.

--Kyle

Amen, it took almost 60 posts to get here but I couldn't agree more. I walked out of the room but when I came back in everyone was talking about some stupid shit Leinart had just said about them still thinking they were the better team after the game. Whatever, I don't think he is going to be all that in the NFL.

BIG_DADDY
01-05-2006, 01:43 PM
..and like I said, I thought he already proved that while in New England. ROFL

I don't know why you think that is funny. He inherited a great team and did well with them at first. His overall record with the Pats was only 27-21 not what I would call awesome numbers. With the Jets he only went 6-10. Would you want Peterson offering him our opening here in KC? If your answer is anything more positive than HELL NO your nuts.

cadmonkey
01-05-2006, 01:53 PM
I don't know why you think that is funny. He inherited a great team and did well with them at first. His overall record with the Pats was only 27-21 not what I would call awesome numbers. With the Jets he only went 6-10. Would you want Peterson offering him our opening here in KC? If your answer is anything more positive than HELL NO your nuts.


He is in no way designed to coach in the NFL. He is way to much of a nice guy and his players will walk all over him. It happened here in NE and it'll happen anywhere in the NFL. He befriends his players then isn't able to discipline them. Thats fine in college where players sometimes need a "friend" to mentor them and guide them throught the game, but in the pros it don't fly.

That may not be the image he protrays but having to deal with him for a few years up here I know what its like.

BIG_DADDY
01-05-2006, 02:00 PM
He is in no way designed to coach in the NFL. He is way to much of a nice guy and his players will walk all over him. It happened here in NE and it'll happen anywhere in the NFL. He befriends his players then isn't able to discipline them. Thats fine in college where players sometimes need a "friend" to mentor them and guide them throught the game, but in the pros it don't fly.

That may not be the image he protrays but having to deal with him for a few years up here I know what its like.

That's exactly what he's like. He never jumps in anyones face or chews anyone out. He never even shows any enthusiasm. I hate anyone who coaches like that he seems lack any form of intensity.

cadmonkey
01-05-2006, 02:09 PM
That's exactly what he's like. He never jumps in anyones face or chews anyone out. He never even shows any enthusiasm. I hate anyone who coaches like that he seems lack any form of intensity.


EXACTLY!!!!!!! Why would pro players want to play for someone like that? Thats my point. Its not his decision making that makes him a bad NFL coach its his personality.

Why are we arguing when we f*cking agree?

ChiefaRoo
01-05-2006, 02:12 PM
I remember Petey C. coaching in NE and Parcells rubbing his nose in a loss after the Jets smoked them and all PC could come up with was "Parcells can eat it" or something to that effect. Parcells owned him mentally. Petey C. doesn't belong in KC. I'd like him in Denver though. He'd be a great Donkey.

BIG_DADDY
01-05-2006, 02:13 PM
EXACTLY!!!!!!! Why would pro players want to play for someone like that? Thats my point. Its not his decision making that makes him a bad NFL coach its his personality.

Why are we arguing when we f*cking agree?

:shrug:

Bob Dole
01-05-2006, 02:15 PM
I agree, he was outcoached, but it is not like Texas doesn't have the talent USC has. I'd say they are pretty even.

Historically, Texas has been held back by Mack Browns ineptitude.

And you want to know the really cool thing about the Texas team?

Almost the entire team actually went to high school in the state of Texas.

BIG_DADDY
01-05-2006, 02:21 PM
And you want to know the really cool thing about the Texas team?

Almost the entire team actually went to high school in the state of Texas.

That is pretty cool, don't see that much anymore.

HemiEd
01-05-2006, 02:22 PM
I remember Petey C. coaching in NE and Parcells rubbing his nose in a loss after the Jets smoked them and all PC could come up with was "Parcells can eat it" or something to that effect. Parcells owned him mentally. Petey C. doesn't belong in KC. I'd like him in Denver though. He'd be a great Donkey.


Or Oakland?

Calcountry
01-05-2006, 02:25 PM
As to why he will never be able to coach an NFL team.

First of all congratulations to Texas for beating a team with WAY more talent on it, they certainly deserved this game. For the Longhorns to win several things needed to happen including them bringing their A+ game. They also needed the coaching staff for USC to be complete bumbling fools and some dumb luck on top of that, they got all 3. They brought their best game and they certainly got some luck considering how many times they put the ball on the turf and got it back. I won't even get into the fumble ruled as an incomplete pass or the downed lateral pass for a TD. I am going to look past the luck part as all teams have it now and then.

It was the coaching in this game I am going to focas on as it reeked worse than an Iraqi whores box that hasn't been cleaned in over 2 weeks. First of all Pete Carroll did not have this team ready to play for a national title. This team came out majorly arrogant with a lack of intensity and an air about them that seemed to say they thought the title should just be handed to them. Pete Carroll's interview at the end of the game said it all when he unemotionally refered to Vince Youngs run into the endzone to win the game as classic, what was classic was how poorly he ran this team.

He went away from things that worked:

1. You have a kicker knocking it out of the back of the endzone yet you start kicking chip shots to the 35. WTF was that all about?

2. You have an aggressive ballclub that can move the ball yet you let them load up the box and just run up the middle enabling Texas to come back in the game.

You make no attempt at adjusting to what is working for them against you. The DE's in this game were getting killed. Why not move to a 3-4 and at least try and contain Vince? Your right Pete this was Classic. If Vince had burned you on a pass I could accept that but everyone in the country knew he was going to run it in on the right side except your coaching staff apparently.

What was with leaving the supposed once in a generation player on the sidelines on 4th down too? At least if you put him in the backfield with White it forces the D to spread out increasing your chances of success.
I just don't get it, I can't believe how bad the coaching was. That was one of the worst coached BIG games I have ever seen in my entire life.Fresno state hung 40 points on that ass, do you really think that Texas wouldn't? The game was lost by USC's lack of Defense. USC got plenty of breaks, like a muffed punt and penalties that extended drives, so I would contend, that Texas brought their B+ game, cause if it were A+, they wouldn't have done that chit.

What annoyed me most of all, was Leinert's, the pussy, quote at the end of the game. "We are the better team, they just made the plays". WTF?!? You just got your ass clipped for the first time in like 35 games, show a little class to the team that just pulled that off.

It is no wonder, that Texas won this game, due to that kind of attitude that USC took into the game. Texas smelled it, and they swaggered leading into the game, with statements like, "we are just lucky to make the Rose bowl 2 years in a row" sarcasm dripping.

The bigger they are, the harder they fall.

Calcountry
01-05-2006, 02:27 PM
Texas needed a legendary game by Young to just barely win.

USC still could have won, they had a personnel mixup on the extra point that caused the wasted timeout, that wasn't Carroll's fault. And still, they were one completed pass on the sideline from sending it to overtime. If the last 10 seconds or so hadn't been burned up by Leinert on the last play, they very likely could have scored and sent it to overtime.

None of that is on Carroll. He can't play the game himself. He's working through players who sometimes don't execute perfectly.Did I mention, that Leinert is an over rated pussy?

Calcountry
01-05-2006, 02:28 PM
To a freak specimen of a QB. Vick who?You mean, a tailback that can pass.

Calcountry
01-05-2006, 02:32 PM
That's all I'm saying the coaching was beyond terrible in this game. There is enough talent on that USC team to beat teams in the NFL.ROFL not a chance in hell.

It would be interesting to see, what percentage of USC's current team, starts in the NFL at some point.

Calcountry
01-05-2006, 02:34 PM
WTF is this bullshit I keep reading?

Texas wasn't CLOSE to perfect, and USC didn't play anywhere NEAR as bad as you are making out.

Texas playing perfect would KILL USC's perfect game. If both teams brought their "perfect game", USC would NEVER force Texas to punt. But Texas' defense, on a perfect day, would slown down any team in the nation.I agree with this, 100 %.

Saulbadguy
01-05-2006, 02:37 PM
And you want to know the really cool thing about the Texas team?

Almost the entire team actually went to high school in the state of Texas.
That is because Texas is a breeding ground for athletes. They have relatively no restrictions when it comes to practices, player/coach contact, drills, etc.

Count Zarth
01-05-2006, 02:57 PM
That is because Texas is a breeding ground for athletes.

I'm hoping to contribute to that tradition by impregnating a tall, athletic woman.

BIG_DADDY
01-05-2006, 02:58 PM
ROFL not a chance in hell.

It would be interesting to see, what percentage of USC's current team, starts in the NFL at some point.

I would love to see them play some cellar dwellars in the NFL.

BIG_DADDY
01-05-2006, 02:59 PM
That is because Texas is a breeding ground for athletes. They have relatively no restrictions when it comes to practices, player/coach contact, drills, etc.

As it should be.

Taco John
01-05-2006, 03:02 PM
I'm hoping to contribute to that tradition by impregnating a tall, athletic woman.


You're going to need bigger roofies.

Count Zarth
01-05-2006, 03:04 PM
You're going to need bigger roofies.

No doubt. I'll have to be careful, though. Like in Jurassic Park when they used elephant tranquilizers on the T-Rex. Too large a dose and they would kill her.

Amnorix
01-05-2006, 03:06 PM
I would love to see them play some cellar dwellars in the NFL.

They'd get drilled flat. Just absolutely annihilated.

This captures it perfectly:




Q: How dumb can you be? Of course USC could compete with the Houston Texans. What about 2001 Miami with all of their draft picks? I bet you’d say they’d lose to the San Francisco 49ers too. My message board thinks your such an idiot. - HB

A: (heavy sigh). That has to be a regular Algonquin round table. I can’t believe how much time and energy I had to waste over the last few weeks trying to explain the difference between a college football team and an NFL squad. Please people, be smarter than this.

So why wouldn’t an all-time great college team be able to come within double-digits of anyone in a 16-game NFL season? Since it apparently has to be spoon-fed to you …
1) You can’t begin to fathom the difference in speed and strength, and you can’t begin to fathom the difference between a 19-22-year-old college body and a 25-28-year-old NFL athlete with years of experience in an NFL weight room and personal training. Of course there are players like Reggie Bush, Randy Moss, Shawne Merriman, Adrian Peterson and Herschel Walker that could all play in the big league in their early 20s, but we’re not talking about an all-time all-star team here. We’re talking about one college football team.
2) Fresno State, with maybe two potential (note the word potential) NFL starters on its offense, cranked out 42 points and 427 yards of total offense on USC. That’s Fresno State.
3) You’re assuming the entire 2001 Hurricane team was full of NFL ready pros. Of course, Jeremy Shockey, Andre Johnson, Ed Reed and Clinton Portis, and Willis McGahee on the bench, were next-level ready in 2001, but that’s about it (Bryant McKinnie took a while to become steady). Ken Dorsey bulked up his arm strength like a madman after he graduated, and he still looked like a deer caught in the headlights once he got to the NFL.
4) You could create an all-star team of college skill players and linebackers that could battle right away, but you’d get absolutely obliterated on the lines and in the secondary. Even the greatest NFL corners, like Deion Sanders, got torched their rookie years. You’re not factoring in the time it takes to be coached up at the next level and to learn the proper techniques.
5) Preparation. NFL players are practicing, doing film study, and working out 40, 50, 60 hours a week. College players are going to class and spending about a quarter of the time preparing that NFL players do. Guys who stick in the big league can handle the work and would be far, far better at making in-game reads and adjustments.
6) Holding up. How long did Carnell Williams and Cedric Benson last this year before getting hurt? A team full of college players, even a deep one like 2001 Miami, wouldn’t be able to handle all the injuries and pounding of a 16-game season.

And finally, football is different than any other spot. You can catch lightning in a bottle in hockey and get a hot goalie, like Jim Craig in the 1980 Olympics. In baseball, you can get a fantastic game from a pitcher and get a few wins in a 162-game MLB season. You can get two three-point sharp-shooters that could give a college basketball team a puncher’s chance for a few wins in an 82-game NBA season. Football is a completely different story. You can’t luck your way into a football win when there’s such a discrepancy in speed, size, strength, skill and talent.

http://www.collegefootballnews.com/2005/Ask_CFN/Ask_CFN.htm

BIG_DADDY
01-05-2006, 03:10 PM
They'd get drilled flat. Just absolutely annihilated.

This captures it perfectly:




Q: How dumb can you be? Of course USC could compete with the Houston Texans. What about 2001 Miami with all of their draft picks? I bet you’d say they’d lose to the San Francisco 49ers too. My message board thinks your such an idiot. - HB

A: (heavy sigh). That has to be a regular Algonquin round table. I can’t believe how much time and energy I had to waste over the last few weeks trying to explain the difference between a college football team and an NFL squad. Please people, be smarter than this.

So why wouldn’t an all-time great college team be able to come within double-digits of anyone in a 16-game NFL season? Since it apparently has to be spoon-fed to you …
1) You can’t begin to fathom the difference in speed and strength, and you can’t begin to fathom the difference between a 19-22-year-old college body and a 25-28-year-old NFL athlete with years of experience in an NFL weight room and personal training. Of course there are players like Reggie Bush, Randy Moss, Shawne Merriman, Adrian Peterson and Herschel Walker that could all play in the big league in their early 20s, but we’re not talking about an all-time all-star team here. We’re talking about one college football team.
2) Fresno State, with maybe two potential (note the word potential) NFL starters on its offense, cranked out 42 points and 427 yards of total offense on USC. That’s Fresno State.
3) You’re assuming the entire 2001 Hurricane team was full of NFL ready pros. Of course, Jeremy Shockey, Andre Johnson, Ed Reed and Clinton Portis, and Willis McGahee on the bench, were next-level ready in 2001, but that’s about it (Bryant McKinnie took a while to become steady). Ken Dorsey bulked up his arm strength like a madman after he graduated, and he still looked like a deer caught in the headlights once he got to the NFL.
4) You could create an all-star team of college skill players and linebackers that could battle right away, but you’d get absolutely obliterated on the lines and in the secondary. Even the greatest NFL corners, like Deion Sanders, got torched their rookie years. You’re not factoring in the time it takes to be coached up at the next level and to learn the proper techniques.
5) Preparation. NFL players are practicing, doing film study, and working out 40, 50, 60 hours a week. College players are going to class and spending about a quarter of the time preparing that NFL players do. Guys who stick in the big league can handle the work and would be far, far better at making in-game reads and adjustments.
6) Holding up. How long did Carnell Williams and Cedric Benson last this year before getting hurt? A team full of college players, even a deep one like 2001 Miami, wouldn’t be able to handle all the injuries and pounding of a 16-game season.

And finally, football is different than any other spot. You can catch lightning in a bottle in hockey and get a hot goalie, like Jim Craig in the 1980 Olympics. In baseball, you can get a fantastic game from a pitcher and get a few wins in a 162-game MLB season. You can get two three-point sharp-shooters that could give a college basketball team a puncher’s chance for a few wins in an 82-game NBA season. Football is a completely different story. You can’t luck your way into a football win when there’s such a discrepancy in speed, size, strength, skill and talent.

http://www.collegefootballnews.com/2005/Ask_CFN/Ask_CFN.htm


Interesting, good points.

Amnorix
01-05-2006, 03:12 PM
Oh yeah, this too -- there used to be a charity game -- College All Stars versus the NFL champion from the prior year. It was held in the pre-season from 1934-1976, and I'm betting the NFL guys didn't exactly treat it like a real game to say the least.

This wasn't just one team, but a collection of college all-stars.

Here were the results:

http://www.hickoksports.com/history/collalls.shtml

Early on it was kind of competitive, but the all-stars won once from '56 to the final game in '76, and that was in '63.

tk13
01-05-2006, 03:15 PM
If I were going to take one team to put up against a bad NFL team, it's probably been that 2001 Miami team. I don't think they would've won, but it would've been interesting to see.

BIG_DADDY
01-05-2006, 03:19 PM
Oh yeah, this too -- there used to be a charity game -- College All Stars versus the NFL champion from the prior year. It was held in the pre-season from 1934-1976, and I'm betting the NFL guys didn't exactly treat it like a real game to say the least.

This wasn't just one team, but a collection of college all-stars.

Here were the results:

http://www.hickoksports.com/history/collalls.shtml

Early on it was kind of competitive, but the all-stars won once from '56 to the final game in '76, and that was in '63.

1955 All-Stars 30, Cleveland Browns 27

Huh, huhhhhhh what about this? j/k

Good stuff Anmorix. It would still be worth seeing just to witness USC's smug asses getting tossed. Who knows they might be able to pull it off with a few of Bush's hail marry laterals.

Amnorix
01-05-2006, 03:22 PM
If I were going to take one team to put up against a bad NFL team, it's probably been that 2001 Miami team. I don't think they would've won, but it would've been interesting to see.


Drilled flat, I'm telling you. If you took the Houston Texans and had them play against the Texas University, it'd probably be something like 42-10.

The speed, the coaching, the skill sets, the strength/size and intensity are just off the charts.

The NFL takes the VERY best of the VERY best of ALL the colleges in the draft, and then about 60 or 75 percent of THOSE guys can't even make it onto an NFL roster for more than a year or two.

How many 1st round picks that are total college studs last more than 4 years in the NFL? It's barely 50%...

Amnorix
01-05-2006, 03:23 PM
1955 All-Stars 30, Cleveland Browns 27

Huh, huhhhhhh what about this? j/k

Good stuff Anmorix. It would still be worth seeing just to witness USC's smug asses getting tossed. Who knows they might be able to pull it off with a few of Bush's hail marry laterals.


Seriously? I'd watch it in a heartbeat. It'd be great to see the Texans go up against Texas, just for the amusement value (and the convenience of having two teams in the same state and all that). But it wouldn't work as an annual thing just because the annual beating wouldn't be interesting.

siberian khatru
01-05-2006, 03:27 PM
The NFL takes the VERY best of the VERY best of ALL the colleges in the draft

Oh, yeah? Then how do you explain our defense? :p

Amnorix
01-05-2006, 04:07 PM
Oh, yeah? Then how do you explain our defense? :p


You guys are the exception that proves the rule! ;)

tk13
01-05-2006, 04:22 PM
Drilled flat, I'm telling you. If you took the Houston Texans and had them play against the Texas University, it'd probably be something like 42-10.

The speed, the coaching, the skill sets, the strength/size and intensity are just off the charts.

The NFL takes the VERY best of the VERY best of ALL the colleges in the draft, and then about 60 or 75 percent of THOSE guys can't even make it onto an NFL roster for more than a year or two.

How many 1st round picks that are total college studs last more than 4 years in the NFL? It's barely 50%...
Oh yeah I think Texas would get destroyed. I'm talking about the 2001 Miami Hurricanes. That team was loaded. Portis, McGahee, Andre Johnson, Shockey, Bryant McKinnie, William Joseph, Jonathan Vilma, D.J. Williams, Sean Taylor, Ed Reed.

Cochise
01-05-2006, 04:35 PM
It would take one of the all-time best college football teams to give even the worst team in the NFL a game.

The difference in just the size and speed on the offensive and defensive lines would be enormous.

Calcountry
01-05-2006, 04:38 PM
I would love to see them play some cellar dwellars in the NFL.I would love to see it too.

They use to have the college all stars play a team early in the season, it was called the All star game.

The pro team was still getting through training camp, and they usually still beat them. It was like they were being gentle with them. Anyone remember this? I think the last time they played it, it was in Philly, and the game got rained out so hard, they canceled it after 3 quarters.

I think Houston beats USC 4 out of 5 times they play them.

Calcountry
01-05-2006, 04:43 PM
Oh yeah, this too -- there used to be a charity game -- College All Stars versus the NFL champion from the prior year. It was held in the pre-season from 1934-1976, and I'm betting the NFL guys didn't exactly treat it like a real game to say the least.

This wasn't just one team, but a collection of college all-stars.

Here were the results:

http://www.hickoksports.com/history/collalls.shtml

Early on it was kind of competitive, but the all-stars won once from '56 to the final game in '76, and that was in '63.I hadn't read this far through the thread when I made my post. I thought I was losing my mind there for a minute. Glad I am not the only one to remember that.

Calcountry
01-05-2006, 04:48 PM
Seriously? I'd watch it in a heartbeat. It'd be great to see the Texans go up against Texas, just for the amusement value (and the convenience of having two teams in the same state and all that). But it wouldn't work as an annual thing just because the annual beating wouldn't be interesting.You are assuming, that the motivation of beating a college team to avoid the embarrassment would provide incentive for Houston. ROFL

Calcountry
01-05-2006, 04:49 PM
You guys are the exception that proves the rule! ;)They were good enough to beat a crippled Patriots team this year, give them their due. :D

BIG_DADDY
01-05-2006, 05:29 PM
They were good enough to beat a crippled Patriots team this year, give them their due. :D


NICE!!!

WilliamTheIrish
01-05-2006, 05:36 PM
To annihilate Carroll is lame. He's had a great run over the last few years.

I will say this -- for USC to lose, they needed to play and coach as badly as possible, and for Texas to be nearly perfect. That's exactly what happened.


what game did you watch?

Logical
01-05-2006, 05:37 PM
LOL I feel for Troy, me thinks he lost some cash on last nights game. He is pretty much correct, however.

Bob Dole
01-06-2006, 10:33 AM
FWIW - There is some good USC discussion at http://tinyurl.com/9otcp

The thread starter sets the tone.

History Channel - USC v. Greatest armies in history

So far, they have USC blowing out Ceasar's army in Gaul, and edging out the Germans at Normandy. Tommorrow is Pete Carroll against Napolean. Gotta go with Pete on that matchup.