College Football - Week of Sept. 19th

[SpongeWorthy]

He's not a good fit for the offense USC likes to run. He's better suited in a spread option game where he can make lots of short throws and use his wheels. I have my suspicions that USC is hamstringing itself offensively by running such a traditional pro style offense but I doubt it's going anywhere anytime soon so you've gotta go with Barkley.

 

Corp might have beat Barkley in camp but he sure as hell hasn't beaten him on the field. Even if they eeked out a win that was obvious.

[Tracer Bullet]

I don't know that you're getting a good grasp of Corp's future ability based on that game, though. I do understand starting Barkley over Corp going forward if you consider Barkley to be just as good currently (though I still think it says something that Corp beat out Barkely when both were healthy).

 

Corp beat out Barkley in the spring. That's not surprising. Corp had 2 years in the system, Barkley was 18 and just on campus. In fall camp, Corp was hurt but I'm not positive Petey wouldn't have gone to Barkley anyway. It wasn't like the competition had been deemed completely sealed for the year (it's not like ND, and a lot of other schools, where Clausen was the starter, even if he crapped the bed the first game, he was going to be the starter).

 

I'm not sure how much you can judge Corp based on what he does in games, but it seems like Carroll thinks Barkley is the guy. If a freshman beats out a 5-star junior, even if the incoming freshman is the #1 overall player, that doesn't spell good things for the junior.

[Derwood]

Still been no sign of "Voice of Reason" since Saturdays game, hmm I wonder why.....

 

he's reloading

[Exile on Waveland]

A RS sophomore? No. Corp isn't an underclassman, but I'm not sure if he'll win the battle with Barkley when both are healthy. The fact that it's a battle (given the limitations Barkley showed) says a lot about Corp's ability to run that offense.

 

A healthy Corp already beat a healthy Barkely for the starting job earlier this year.

 

But since then, it appears Carroll has fallen in love with Barkely and wants to dick around Corp.

 

LA Daily News[/url]"]Carroll was also asked if he had a "crush" on Barkley, as some believe he received preferential treatment.

 

"I really do like the guy," he said. "I'm not sure I would call it a `crush.' I don't know what that means."

 

That's a stretch.

 

There isn't a USC fan on the planet who wants Corp to start over Barkley now.

 

Is Neuheisel dicking around Craft because he started Prince over him? Or is it that Craft really, really blows and no sane person would start him if they had other options?

 

Craft knew he was starting over Brehaut by Thursday (and Craft lost the starting job to Prince in competition). Corp didn't know he was starting when he took the field on Saturday even though Barkely couldn't throw warm ups.

 

Whether Carroll is "dicking" around Corp, he certainly was showing favoritism to Barkley even before Saturday's game which doesn't seem prudent.

 

I have to take umbrage at your framing of the argument as "favoritism." If Carroll thinks Barkley is a superior choice, then it's not really favoritism, is it? It's simply coaching. And, for what it's worth, Carroll has a pretty decent track record with picking QB's.

[Tracer Bullet]

you don't think it's an issue to never actually tell a guy he's starting a game until you tell him to run out on the field?

[Guest]

A RS sophomore? No. Corp isn't an underclassman, but I'm not sure if he'll win the battle with Barkley when both are healthy. The fact that it's a battle (given the limitations Barkley showed) says a lot about Corp's ability to run that offense.

 

A healthy Corp already beat a healthy Barkely for the starting job earlier this year.

 

But since then, it appears Carroll has fallen in love with Barkely and wants to dick around Corp.

 

LA Daily News[/url]"]Carroll was also asked if he had a "crush" on Barkley, as some believe he received preferential treatment.

 

"I really do like the guy," he said. "I'm not sure I would call it a `crush.' I don't know what that means."

 

That's a stretch.

 

There isn't a USC fan on the planet who wants Corp to start over Barkley now.

 

Is Neuheisel dicking around Craft because he started Prince over him? Or is it that Craft really, really blows and no sane person would start him if they had other options?

 

Craft knew he was starting over Brehaut by Thursday (and Craft lost the starting job to Prince in competition). Corp didn't know he was starting when he took the field on Saturday even though Barkely couldn't throw warm ups.

 

Whether Carroll is "dicking" around Corp, he certainly was showing favoritism to Barkley even before Saturday's game which doesn't seem prudent.

 

I have to take umbrage at your framing of the argument as "favoritism." If Carroll thinks Barkley is a superior choice, then it's not really favoritism, is it? It's simply coaching. And, for what it's worth, Carroll has a pretty decent track record with picking QB's.

 

Well, half the local media is running with the same terminology. The way he treated Corp in the run-up to the Washington game smacked of preferential treatment towards Barkley. He didn't mess around with Barkley in the run up to the San Jose Stage game (Barkley knew he was the started 9 days before the game) even though it was Corp's job at the time.

[Exile on Waveland]

you don't think it's an issue to never actually tell a guy he's starting a game until you tell him to run out on the field?

 

It's certainly not ideal.

 

However, I'm not sure how unusual it is for a coach to name/post the starting lineup the day of the game. I'm sure it's far more unusual with quarterbacks, but still. Further, favoritism towards the starter seems to be the inherent inclination of any coach. Of course a coach is going to favor the starter (i.e., at least theoretically the superior player).

 

The article does seem to sew the seeds of discontent at both QB and RB positions at minimum.

[Exile on Waveland]

Well, half the local media is running with the same terminology. The way he treated Corp in the run-up to the Washington game smacked of preferential treatment towards Barkley. He didn't mess around with Barkley in the run up to the San Jose Stage game (Barkley knew he was the started 9 days before the game) even though it was Corp's job at the time.

 

I don't consider the bolded to be very persuasive. Derek Jeter is the clutchiest player of all-time; David Eckstein the grittiest; Milton Bradley the most divisive, et al.

[Tracer Bullet]

you don't think it's an issue to never actually tell a guy he's starting a game until you tell him to run out on the field?

 

It's certainly not ideal.

 

However, I'm not sure how unusual it is for a coach to name/post the starting lineup the day of the game. I'm sure it's far more unusual with quarterbacks, but still. Further, favoritism towards the starter seems to be the inherent inclination of any coach. Of course a coach is going to favor the starter (i.e., at least theoretically the superior player).

 

The article does seem to sew the seeds of discontent at both QB and RB positions at minimum.

 

Not ideal? I think you'd be hard pressed to find another QB in the country that doesn't know he's the starter at least a few days before the game. Or, if there is no true starter, be told that both QBs will be getting reps (like MSU is doing). The problem is not knowing where you stand one way or the other doesn't show a great deal of confidence or trust. And it's certainly preferential to tell one QB more than a week before his start and never tell the other QB. Sure, once they're the starter, it's likely they'll get better treatment in certain respects. But that's not what happened here.

[Guest]

Well, half the local media is running with the same terminology. The way he treated Corp in the run-up to the Washington game smacked of preferential treatment towards Barkley. He didn't mess around with Barkley in the run up to the San Jose Stage game (Barkley knew he was the started 9 days before the game) even though it was Corp's job at the time.

 

I don't consider the bolded to be very persuasive. Derek Jeter is the clutchiest player of all-time; David Eckstein the grittiest; Milton Bradley the most divisive, et al.

 

Considering the LA media is smitten with Carroll (moreso than even Phil Jackson), that any of them are questioning him is a big deal.

[Exile on Waveland]

you don't think it's an issue to never actually tell a guy he's starting a game until you tell him to run out on the field?

 

It's certainly not ideal.

 

However, I'm not sure how unusual it is for a coach to name/post the starting lineup the day of the game. I'm sure it's far more unusual with quarterbacks, but still. Further, favoritism towards the starter seems to be the inherent inclination of any coach. Of course a coach is going to favor the starter (i.e., at least theoretically the superior player).

 

The article does seem to sew the seeds of discontent at both QB and RB positions at minimum.

 

Not ideal? I think you'd be hard pressed to find another QB in the country that doesn't know he's the starter at least a few days before the game. Or, if there is no true starter, be told that both QBs will be getting reps (like MSU is doing). The problem is not knowing where you stand one way or the other doesn't show a great deal of confidence or trust. And it's certainly preferential to tell one QB more than a week before his start and never tell the other QB. Sure, once they're the starter, it's likely they'll get better treatment in certain respects. But that's not what happened here.

 

I don't exactly remember, but did Michigan know how was to start the first game at QB? I know Rodriguez had stated to the media he planned on playing three QB's.

[Exile on Waveland]

Well, half the local media is running with the same terminology. The way he treated Corp in the run-up to the Washington game smacked of preferential treatment towards Barkley. He didn't mess around with Barkley in the run up to the San Jose Stage game (Barkley knew he was the started 9 days before the game) even though it was Corp's job at the time.

 

I don't consider the bolded to be very persuasive. Derek Jeter is the clutchiest player of all-time; David Eckstein the grittiest; Milton Bradley the most divisive, et al.

 

Considering the LA media is smitten with Carroll (moreso than even Phil Jackson), that any of them are questioning him is a big deal.

 

Well, I'm glad they are (finally?) questioning him. That's their job; now I wish the same would happen in Bloomington/Indy.

 

My contention isn't that Carroll handled this perfectly -- or even necessarily well. I'm just not terribly fond of the "favoritism" rhetoric, especially in sport. I think that carries a deeper connotation than simply preferring the starter; if not, it's completely useless as innately the starter is preferred. That, or perhaps I'm bored and arguing for the sake of arguing.

[Tracer Bullet]

you don't think it's an issue to never actually tell a guy he's starting a game until you tell him to run out on the field?

 

It's certainly not ideal.

 

However, I'm not sure how unusual it is for a coach to name/post the starting lineup the day of the game. I'm sure it's far more unusual with quarterbacks, but still. Further, favoritism towards the starter seems to be the inherent inclination of any coach. Of course a coach is going to favor the starter (i.e., at least theoretically the superior player).

 

The article does seem to sew the seeds of discontent at both QB and RB positions at minimum.

 

Not ideal? I think you'd be hard pressed to find another QB in the country that doesn't know he's the starter at least a few days before the game. Or, if there is no true starter, be told that both QBs will be getting reps (like MSU is doing). The problem is not knowing where you stand one way or the other doesn't show a great deal of confidence or trust. And it's certainly preferential to tell one QB more than a week before his start and never tell the other QB. Sure, once they're the starter, it's likely they'll get better treatment in certain respects. But that's not what happened here.

 

I don't exactly remember, but did Michigan know how was to start the first game at QB? I know Rodriguez had stated to the media he planned on playing three QB's.

 

He said Forcier would start and that all 3 would play. Again, a completely different situation. Deflection makes it look like you think Carroll was dicking Corp around but you just don't want to say it.

[TruffleShuffle]

i will say one thing about aaron corp, if he wants to throw the ball your direction you're going to know it. might want to learn to look a guy off or run through your progressions, big guy.

[Flames24Rulz]

i will say one thing about aaron corp, if he wants to throw the ball your direction you're going to know it. might want to learn to look a guy off or run through your progressions, big guy.

 

He's a freshman, he'll learn. Jimmy Claussen was the same way a couple of years ago and he turned out ok.

[dew1679666265]

i will say one thing about aaron corp, if he wants to throw the ball your direction you're going to know it. might want to learn to look a guy off or run through your progressions, big guy.

 

He's a freshman, he'll learn. Jimmy Claussen was the same way a couple of years ago and he turned out ok.

 

Aaron Corp is actually a redshirt sophomore, but this is his first year getting collegiate playing time.

[Flames24Rulz]

i will say one thing about aaron corp, if he wants to throw the ball your direction you're going to know it. might want to learn to look a guy off or run through your progressions, big guy.

 

He's a freshman, he'll learn. Jimmy Claussen was the same way a couple of years ago and he turned out ok.

 

Aaron Corp is actually a redshirt sophomore, but this is his first year getting collegiate playing time.

 

Was thinking about Barkley for some reason. Brain cramp.

 

Still, this is his first time actually facing live in-game action. I still think he'll be an all right QB.

[dew1679666265]

i will say one thing about aaron corp, if he wants to throw the ball your direction you're going to know it. might want to learn to look a guy off or run through your progressions, big guy.

 

He's a freshman, he'll learn. Jimmy Claussen was the same way a couple of years ago and he turned out ok.

 

Aaron Corp is actually a redshirt sophomore, but this is his first year getting collegiate playing time.

 

Was thinking about Barkley for some reason. Brain cramp.

 

Still, this is his first time actually facing live in-game action. I still think he'll be an all right QB.

 

I agree with that.

[shnsajax]

i will say one thing about aaron corp, if he wants to throw the ball your direction you're going to know it. might want to learn to look a guy off or run through your progressions, big guy.

 

He's a freshman, he'll learn. Jimmy Claussen was the same way a couple of years ago and he turned out ok.

 

Aaron Corp is actually a redshirt sophomore, but this is his first year getting collegiate playing time.

 

Was thinking about Barkley for some reason. Brain cramp.

 

Still, this is his first time actually facing live in-game action. I still think he'll be an all right QB.

 

I agree with that.

 

What does the Voice of Reason think?

[Keener98]

Voice of Reason is MIA. Hes re-loading, not rebuilding