QB rankings

Are you high? Were you even at the same scrimmage on Saturday?!

Sanchez - 4.00 euros
Mustain - 3.00 euros
Corp - 2.75 euros

Mustain looked completely lost on saturday. The only reason he's ahead of Corp is because this is Corp's first really great showing of the spring. Could be he was just having a good day and playing loose cause he knew he had nothing to lose...

Hate to break it to you, Tyler, but Mustain only had 10 reps and they were deliberately conservative, non-big playmaker sets called by the coaches.

Corp was set up to shine by the coaches as a way to head into the offseason and give him some reps.

Coaches do all kinds of things to keep players happy, especially when there may be talk that someone may be thinking of transferring.

Scott's Euro rankings are based on the entire spring, not just one scrimmage. If we took the first two scrimmages, Mustain was ahead of the other two in each of them.

There is always more to the story.

And you are aware of this ridiculous "Mustain was held back scheme" because...? Seriously just because you say something doesn't make it fact.

The most unhappy player after the announcement of Sanchez as the starter was Mustain...if the coaches were playing your ridiculous head-games on Saturday he would have been the recipient of a few of those so called big playmaker sets.

Apparently you're also suggesting that the coaches told Corp ahead of time to beautifully sidestep the heavy rush on that second TD for the deep post route and that they also had something to do with his beautiful toss in the second OT to win the scrimmage where he lofted the pass over tight double coverage (a bad pass BTW one that would be intercepted 9 out of 10 times) into Patterson's hands at the back of the endzone.

Your statement is so ludicrous I probably just wasted 5 minutes replying to it... Seriously?!? The coaches called busted plays for Mustain?!? The same Mustain they need to be ready to be the backup if Sanchez gets hurt?! Seriously!? I've heard of conspiracy theories but this one takes the cake...

Voodoo is correct. The scrimmage was set up for Corp to shine and highlight him and to give him the impression that he is still in the mix.. Mustain's plays were very conservative but Pete had already spoken to him earlier in the week and he knows what he needs to do when fall camp begins. He still went 6 for 10 at the Huddle and was responsible for a 55 yard TD to Carswell.

Again - you know this for a fact because...?!?!

Mustain's plays weren't conservative he just got sacked 3 times!! What in the world are the both of you talking about? Were you actually at the scrimmage witnessing Mustain's underwhelming performance or are you just talking off of the stat sheets? Mustain looked completely lost on Saturday.

Did Corp face less pressure? Yes. Absolutely. He went up against the 2nd and 3rd defenses most of the day. But Mustain started against the 2nd defense and looked awful. I don't have anything against Mustain - as a matter of fact I really want him to do well so that even if he doesn't win the starting job USC has a capable backup. I don't buy the whole "of the 3 QBs Mustain was the one who was intentionally held back" theory. He needs to have his confidence propped up as much as Corp does.

Nope, Mustain was clearly being held back by the plays that were being called. Very different plays than were called for him at the other two scrimmages this fall. And, yes, I was there.

He may have gone 6-10, but do the stats reflect how one of those four incompletes were due to the receiver dropping the ball through his hands?

It was obvious to everyone that the Huddle was set up to highlight Corp after being overlooked over the spring. Even the towel boys were playing against Corp.

On a separate note, Mustain played on BOTH the Cardinal and White teams, and Sanchez did also play against the second team defense.

To say Mustain "looked awful" is a joke and displays ignorance. The loudest cheer in the Coliseum the entire day came with a 55 yard Mustain to Carswell touchdown in the second half.

Sacks? That has more to do with the offensive line than the QB. Duh!

Funny that you should point out the Carswell touchdown as the loudest cheer of the day...the cheering was all for Carswell! He made three juke moves in tight space to get out of several tackles and then made a ridiculous cut back run across the entire field for the TD. Are you really going to convince me that the cheers were mostly for Mustain's almost too low pass that lead to that play?

I didn't see any towel boys on the field against Corp on his beautiful second TD where he sidestepped the sack or the last TD where he threw it over two DBs but I'll assume you're being facetious and move on.

Like I said I don't have anything against Mustain or Sanchez or Corp. Unlike some on this board I don't pick sides when it comes to USC QBs. I want them to all do well. I'm just calling it as I saw it on Saturday - Mustain looked lost on quite a few plays and awful on a few more. I'm not saying he's a bad QB or doomed to fail - just that he still has a lot to learn and is not ready to be the starter tomorrow.

If you're suggesting the coaches called plays that would intentionally make him look that way then I'll have to respectfully disagree. What I saw on Saturday perfectly matches everything the coaches and Mustain himself have been saying about his game all spring. He has the tools but needs to work on the recognition of coverages and getting rid of the ball faster. On several throws you could see him second guessing his reads. This ridiculous defense of certain players regardless of their play on the field is so ludicrous sometimes...

If you read my first post you'll notice that I still never said Corp is better than Mustain. I rated him behind Mitch. But I'm not gonna pretend that Mustain was clearly better than Corp on Saturday (despite the coaches biased playcalling) - he wasn't.

I'll agree that the coaches let Corp sling the ball around quite a bit on Saturday. But what I also saw was that they asked Mark and Mitch to run similar slightly more complicated versions of the USC playbook and Mark was more prepared to do so. Mitch might very well end up being a better QB but only a blind/intentionally ignorant person would say he was good on Saturday.

Tyler is spot on. And has displayed the most football knowledge of anyone who has yet posted on this thread.

Not to mention, he's the only one who has posted in the thread who doesn't have it in for Mark Sanchez.

One thing that is rather bizarre here is the way that a couple of the pro-Mustain guys seem to absurdly want to give *Mitch* credit for Carswell's run after the catch. That's like giving Matt credit for his dump passes to Reggie that *Reggie* turned into touchdowns.

It is also a complete fantasy that Mitch Mustain had outplayed Mark Sanchez leading into the Huddle. Not -- by a long stretch -- in the four Spring practices I attended.

I myself certainly have nothing against Mitch Mustain. As a fellow Southerner, I think he showed a lot of guts and character to come all the way out to SC and compete. I feel for his disappointment, and I'm rooting for him like I would any other Trojan.

For that matter, I don't sense any bias on the part of Tyler, either. But both he and I agree that the best quarterback on the field last Saturday was Mark Sanchez. And that Mitch Mustain, unfortunately, struggled.

Objectively, I think Mark Sanchez and Mitch Mustain are very nearly equal in their gifts. Mark, I believe, is a bit more athletic, and has a stronger arm. But as of right now, Mark Sanchez is best prepared to lead the team. The system is more second nature to him. And it shows.

Do the doubters here really believe that Carroll and Sark are wilfully stacking the deck against Mustain? Because it seems clear to me that your animus against Mark Sanchez is so strong that you are literally bending reality in order to hold to your position.

Barring injury, Mark Sanchez will be the starting quarterback in the Fall. It's something you guys are gonna have to accept at some point. Or not.

But it's reality. And it's drawing apace to its manifestation in the actual world.

The best QB is each of the three scrimmage in the spring were:

Scrimmage No. 1: Mustain

Scrimmage No. 2: Mustain

Scrimmage No. 3: Corp

Sanchez was not the best QB in any of the three scrimmages. You have to be blind and/or stupid to think that.

The best QB in each of the three scrimmages in the spring were:

Scrimmage No. 1: Mustain

Scrimmage No. 2: Mustain

Scrimmage No. 3: Corp

Sanchez was not the best QB in any of the three scrimmages. You have to be blind and/or stupid to think that.

TJones'96,

You're gonna have to do better than ad hominem to make your assertion anything more than a taunt.

I ask you, do you think that Pete Carroll and Steve Sarkesian agree with you, and wilfully chose an inferior quarterback to lead their team?

Yes or no?

If your answer is "yes," *you*, in fact, have to be blind and/or stupid to believe that.

Bottom line? The coaches disagree with you. End of topic.

thegoodfight:

Pete Carroll has been quite clear in his comments to both the media and to alumni that Sanchez was named the "starter for the spring and to lead summer workouts" due to his knowledge of the playbook, not that he is "better" than Mustain on the field. In fact, he has gone to great lengths to emphasize that people should not read too much into this decision and that Sanchez would "be the starter if there was a game this Saturday." He has been very clear that the competition will start again when training camp begins in August.

If you going to make blanket statements, at least do your research. There are interviews with Pete, both print and on video, where he says that Sanchez is only the starter for the time being based on what he knows of the playbook and people should not read too much into this announcement.

Some basic English skills go an awful long way in understanding the situation.

Thanks, Dennis, for your thoughtful advice.

Given that, as a Grad student, I taught Freshman Composition at SC for two years, my assumption is that my English skills are sufficient.

Your post, like many others here, seems to reflect an unwillingness -- and an accompanying bitterness -- to accept what is more or less a fait accompli.

In fact I've assiduously kept up with Carroll's pronouncements on the quarterback competition. And I've read and heard some of the nuanced language to which you refer.

My opinion remains the same. It is unprecedented in the Pete Carroll era for the quarterback named starter in the Spring, not to be the starter in the Fall. My interpretation of PC's language is that, given the hype surrounding the competition between Sanchez and Mustain, he is simply being political.

If Mark Sanchez is not the starter in Charlottesville this August, let's "talk" again. I'd bet a considerable amount of money that he will be.

Thanks, Dennis, for your thoughtful advice.

Given that, as a Grad student, I taught Freshman Composition at SC for two years, my assumption is that my English skills are sufficient.

Your post, like many others here, seems to reflect an unwillingness -- and an accompanying bitterness -- to accept what is more or less a fait accompli.

In fact I've assiduously kept up with Carroll's pronouncements on the quarterback competition. And I've read and heard some of the nuanced language to which you refer.

My opinion remains the same. It is unprecedented in the Pete Carroll era for the quarterback named starter in the Spring, not to be the starter in the Fall. My interpretation of PC's language is that, given the hype surrounding the competition between Sanchez and Mustain, he is simply being political.

If Mark Sanchez is not the starter in Charlottesville this August, let's "talk" again. I'd bet a considerable amount of money that he will be.

2003: Leinart was named the starter in the spring and there and remained there in the fall.

2006: Booty was injured in the spring and the actual competition took place in the fall, but he was far ahead of Sanchez. By 2007, the gap between Booty and Sanchez had increased even more.

So the claim that "It is unprecedented in the Pete Carroll era for the quarterback named starter in the Spring, not to be the starter in the Fall" only applies in one case -- 2003. Hardly a fait accompli.

For someone who claims that he taught freshman composition at SC, your English skills are quite poor. Do you capitalize words when they are not meant to be capitalized? Is that not a basic rule of English that is taught in elementary school?

Grad student - should we lower case.

Spring - only upper case when there is an actual date (Spring 2003). When referring to the actual season in a generic sense, it is lower case.

Fall - same as above.

Also check your grammar and sentence structure; it's fragmented and the use of periods is incorrect.

For someone who claims that he taught freshman composition at SC, your English skills are quite poor. Do you capitalize words when they are not meant to be capitalized? Is that not a basic rule of English that is taught in elementary school?

Grad student - should be lower case.

Spring - only upper case when there is an actual date (Spring 2003). When referring to the actual season in a generic sense, it is lower case.

Fall - same as above.

Also check your grammar and sentence structure; it's fragmented and the use of periods is incorrect.

TrojanAnnenberg2001 said:

"Grad Student should *we* lower case."

I see.

This site is so littered with niggling pr*cks like you, it's absolutely astonishing.

I am ABD toward a PhD in English at the University of Southern California. My GRE verbals were in the 99th percentile. I only left the English program because I was accepted into the Production Program at SC's Film School. If you graduated in '01, I may very well have taught *you*.

I am a published author, and in fact write for a living. What *you* think of my style or grammatical stucture could not be less trivial.

Incidentally, Wolf has now addressed the subject that was so contested on this thread. He has put it to bed.

I assure you, you did not "teach" me anything at USC. I had only actual professors, not some work study projects in their 30s, teaching my classes.

I am glad to see you did not refute my corrections of your incorrect English; instead you decided to recite your resume for everyone for the 200th time. Furthermore, you picked up on the "we" typographical error, yet you chose to skip the part posted within seconds where I had corrected that. I wonder why...

You can keep reciting some resume, but it does not change the fact that you employed incorrect rules of English and it was corrected. I would not have mentioned this if it had not been for your defiant, yet humorously flawed, stance that your "English skills are sufficient."

So my advice to you is simple - do not take on people with a stance you cannot substantiate and leave yourself open to ridicule and correction. Otherwise you will fall flat on your face for all to see.

To the person who is posting as "thegoodfight" -

Using profanity not only shows a lack of class and education, but it also takes away from your point and you lose all credibility. Once you resort to using profanity and name calling, you have lost the argument.

I recall at the Cal game this year, I was positioned only feet away from the players when they were at the south end. My friend and I could not believe the speed of these boys. We said that there was no time to think, only react.

Sanchez has a marked (pun intended) advantage in having been in the system for years. He does not have to think (like Mustain or Corp), but reacts. Mustain and Corp still need seasoning.

TrojanAnnenberg2001:

My point was that I couldn't possibly be less interested in your "corrections" of my style or grammar. What, precisely, was not clear about that? Nor am I interested in your notions of whether or not I have "fallen flat."

I made reference to your typo for the simple reason that this is an internet message board, and I don't self-edit for perfection with every post. You are quite potentially guilty of being sloppy in such a format yourself.

The first principle, in a place like this, should be the exchange of ideas. When some clown suggests to me that I should brush up on my basic English skills, given that it is my background and metier, it is absurd in the extreme. Not to mention, rude and unnecessary.

If someone disagrees with me -- or him, or you -- it should be a simple matter of "saying": "Huh, that's funny. I disagree; and here's why."

This Sanchez/Mustain topic has obviously bred an incredible amount of hostility. It is deeply unfortunate that some people feel the need to one-up others, rather than discuss the matter as civilly as possible.

As for *you*, quite clearly you are an insipid punk, who has taken the opportunity to "sublimate" his frustration about the Sanchez matter with a petty list of stylistic corrections. I certainly could devote a bit more time in this post and address flaws in *your* style, but clearly you are not worth it.

I reiterate, with apologies to those with tender ears, you are a pr*ck. There is no other excuse or explanation for such behavior.

You clearly are very interested in what I say, otherwise you would not take the time to respond. Think about that.

Some more corrections:

1) Have I ever even mentioned Sanchez? No. But since you cannot accept that your use of English was incorrect, you wrote "As for *you*, quite clearly you are an insipid punk, who has taken the opportunity to "sublimate" his frustration about the Sanchez matter with a petty list of stylistic corrections. I certainly could devote a bit more time in this post and address flaws in *your* style, but clearly you are not worth it."

For someone who is "not worth it," you seem to expend quite a lot of time and energy on me. Think about that.

2) A typographical error -- which occurs when an incorrect keyboard key is pressed -- is not the same as incorrectly employing incorrect rules of English on numerous occasions in the same post. To use upper case wording when it is incorrect implies a deliberate action on your part; thus proving you do not know the basic rules of English. This would not have been an issue if you had not claimed that your "English skills are sufficient." Think about that.

3) Manifesting your anger for being exposed publicly as someone with a poor grasp of the English language by name calling -- not to mention, incorrect assertions that this is based on "frustration about the Sanchez matter" -- simply demonstrate that you cannot admit you attacked others for their English when, in fact, your own use of the English language was incorrect. Think about that.

Maybe now you can go back to telling all of us about your resume again.

TrojanAnnenberg2001 said:

"...simply demonstrate that you cannot admit you attacked others for their English when, in fact, your own use of the English language was incorrect. Think about that."

What on earth are you talking about? Clearly *you* have issues with reading comprehension.

I initially responded to "Dennis in Marino's" post. In his post, he implied that I should brush up on my skills of "basic English," and research Pete Carroll's position on the matter. There was *no need* for him to add this "diss" at the end. It was rude and unnecessary. It's that simple.

He could have said: "thegoodfight, perhaps you are not fully informed about this matter. Why not take a look at the following items, and see if you feel the same way after?"

He -- and you -- chose the adversarial tone. Not me.

I have criticized "no one's" English here. I've merely stated that I'm completely disinterested in points of style and grammar from the likes of *you*.

Keep up with the "corrections," you pedantic punk. They are absolutely scintillating.

I cannot read this bickering. But it only indicates that the fragile male ego is the cause of most of the world's wars throughout 1000s of years of history, and will never improve.

The only problem is that years ago the worst outcome of men acting like feuding monkeys was that one would get killed or maimed. Now, with weapons of mass destruction, this same insane monkey behavior will be the demise of the world as we know it.