Never Too Late to Play the "What If" Card
by Joey Kaufman on Sep 8, 2010 7:22 PM PDT
in USC Football
Email
PrintPete Carroll did something in 2006 that most people tend to forget. Something that probably cost USC a national championship. Something that prevented the Trojans from finishing the 2008 season undefeated despite its exceedingly stifling defense.
That was starting John David Booty over Mark Sanchez.
Yet the decision to give Booty the nod over Sanchez was a perfectly logical one. The Louisiana native was a decorated quarterback recruit, had graduated high school early to enroll at 'SC, and spent three years in the system, while Sanchez was just a redshirt freshman and had even been arrested on suspicion of sexual assault in the spring of 2006.
In short, Carroll decided to take experience over upside. And after winning two national titles in three years, it would've been tough for anyone to criticize Carroll for anything, much less having Booty line up under center.
Even reflecting upon Booty's Gerald Ford-esque 2-year tenure, it's hard not to be at least somewhat satisfied. After all, he won two Rose Bowls, compiled a 9-0 record against top-25 teams, and finished 4th in school history in touchdown passes with 55. All those indicate a successful collegiate career. So, what's the problem?
It's been six years since USC won a national championship, and for a school with 11 national titles, that's a long time. Long enough were fans get antsy, start questioning the coach, and just shrug when he eventually decides to leave town.
Yes, the irritating part for many of us is that Sanchez probably should've started back in 2006. No, the results wouldn't have been pretty in the early-goings, but in terms of the long run and betterment of the program, it made a lot of sense.
USC probably wouldn't have won eleven games in 2006 or even a Pac-10 title. The Rose Bowl likely would have been out of the equation as well.
But the forecasts for the following two seasons, 2007 and 2008, would have been much brighter.
With a year of game experience under his belt, Sanchez probably would have taken care of business against 44-point underdog Stanford in 2007 and maybe even upended an Oregon Ducks team led by a healthy Dennis Dixon, enabling USC to earn a BCS title bid.
Maybe 2008 would have turned out better as well. With Sanchez entering his 3rd year as a starter, the likelihood of a September road loss to Oregon State would have dropped as well.
It's hard to know what would have happened. Maybe another crystal ball would have found its way into Heritage Hall, or maybe not.
But we do know this. The future of Matt Barkley will let us know whether Carroll made the right call back in 2006. Barkley, who looked far more mature against Hawaii after a year of starting experience, is expected to have a monster 2010 campaign.
The funny thing about Barkley is that Carroll didn't give him the Sanchez treatment. Despite valuing the experience of Booty, he didn't feel the same way about Mitch Mustain or really even Aaron Corp. He chose upside in deciding to start Barkley last season in the hope that it would pay off down the line.
We'll never know what would have happened exactly had Carroll decided to go with Sanchez back in '06, but at the very least, the coming seasons for Barkley will shed some light on whether Uncle Pete made the right call in tabbing Booty as the starter.
Follow Joey on twitter @Joey_Kaufman
35 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Meh
Sanchez threw the game deciding pick against Oregon St and had extremely mediocre games against Cal and Arizona and one downright atrocious one against ASU. He looked plenty composed/prepared against Virginia and Ohio State, and the fact of the matter is that he made some really boneheaded mistakes from time to time against decidedly inferior competition.
I really don’t think two more years of starting experience really changes that. Sometimes it just takes some luck to get to the National Championship and USC didn’t have it. Regardless of how Barkley turns out I just don’t think it says anything about whether Pete Carroll made the right decision to start Booty or Sanchez or whatever.
My biggest regret is
that Booty didn’t come out of the Stanford game. The coaching was crappy in that game, too.
Aside from that, I’ve never been one to second guess the coaches who are around the players every day. If Carrroll felt that Booty gave USC the best chance to win, then I’m good with his decision. At the time, USC was contending for NCs, and taking a year off to give Mr. Upside some experience was not USC football. However, since Booty never brought home a NC, I do believe that it’s fair to play the “what if” game, as you are doing.
by TrojanJAG on Sep 8, 2010 7:51 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
That Stanford game was the key.
If Booty had been pulled instead of throwing 4 interceptions in the second half then USC would have been in the title game instead of 2 loss LSU.
As Laughing Stock pointed out above, it takes a good amount of luck to win a national championship. USC caught a couple of bad breaks in the Booty years. i don’t think he was the problem.
Los Angeles is like Manchester. There is a red team that wins championships and a blue team that doesn't.
The D played pretty poorly in that game as well
Booty clearly should have been pulled, but unlike 13-9 you can put Stanford just as much on the D for giving up 2 4th down conversions on that game winning drive. Also I believe USC missed an extra point in that game — that would have been an easy way to win the game.
They also went for it on 4th and goal instead of kicking the FG as time ran out in the first half.....
"Understanding is a virtue, hard to come by"
J. Airplane
My Pet Pet Peeve!
Old big balls Pete would consistently go for it on 4th down when a high probability FG was available and the points were critical mathematically.
Pete was so cocky on that call. In a very tight ball game, we absolutely should have taken the FG. But, Pete was consistent on this strategy.
I love Pete, don’t get me wrong, but his special teams strategy sucked.
You can't put sanctions on the fkn endzone! Death to the NCAA!
In that case I understood why he had done it
the offense had been moribund the entire first half, you get the TD there and you gain the momentum and feel better going into the half. Also we were big bad USC and should be able to run a half yard on Stanford any time we want.
In retrospect it was the wrong call. But hindsight is always 20/20.
To improve, they should try to become the musical southern cal of the west. - bRuins Nation poster on the Stanford band.
That's part of what I see as luck.
What would be the odds of converting both 4th downs against that defense? There were about 7 or 8 plays that all had to go Stanford’s way in order for them to win that game. But they did.
Los Angeles is like Manchester. There is a red team that wins championships and a blue team that doesn't.
the stars were aligned............perfect storm..................
"Understanding is a virtue, hard to come by"
J. Airplane
Joey, that's an old story
Lot of level headed fans brought this issue up numerous times throughout the years. Agree with JAG that keeping Booty vs. Stanford cost us the game and possible shot at NC.
Of course to “In Pete We Trust” crowd, suggesting Sanchez over Booty was a blasphemy (remember WeAreSC forums circa 2006-2008?), but to all sane fans this is old news.
Sorry, but this sounds like ruins favorite “What if in Miami” posts
I think it's relevant now simply because of Barkley
By starting Barkley, 2009 was essentially sacrificed for success down the line. If the Hawaii game becomes the typical type of performance than it looks as if Carroll may have made the right decision. Get the kinks worked out in year one and then give the kid another year or two to start. We’re on the cusp of seeing a breakout year for Barkley, and I think that raises some questions as to whether Pete handled the Sanchez vs. Booty QB competition correctly.
Follow me on twitter @Joey_Kaufman
Did this post get stuck in the server in 2007?
Tend to agree with anh. Nice issue covered ad nauseam years ago. The fallacy of the Sanchez/Booty analogy is that there is no Booty to MB7. Looking back on it now, we know that Corp was nowhere near Booty’s level, and Mustain while good, is not at Booty’s level.
Booty was an outstanding college QB. Unfortunately, he was a few inches short and extremely immobile. Yes, Sanchez was the more talented QB, and yes, we beat ’Furd and UCLA and Oregon St with Sanchez as the starter. Pete played favorites…..Booty, McKnight, Everson…..to the detriment of the team. Thankfully, Victory Lane had remedied this practice.
You can't put sanctions on the fkn endzone! Death to the NCAA!
Starting Booty was the right call at the time
He gave USC the best chance at winning those two years. The loss to Stanford wasn’t Booty’s fault, don’t hang that on him. Could USC have beaten Oregon, maybe, maybe not. Booty also didn’t cost USC the Oregon State loss the next year either, that was all on the defense. I agree Mark with a year of experience would probably be better than Booty, but that still doesn’t mean USC brings home a MNC either.
The One and Only
Here’s my take: I read a number of other USC blogs/websites regarding Trojan athletics, but Conquest Chronicles is the only blog that I’m an active member and elect to comment on regarding USC athletics. I don’t know what other forums or usergroups discuss, debate, or comment on regarding Trojan football topics. (in short- I’ve never participated in discussing Trojan football matters other than this one here) So, for me, this discussion on Booty or Sanchez is new to me and so, . . . . .Joey- thank you.
Before reading all these previous 5 comments, I was going to start by writing, “Joey, great post. . . .AGAIN!” (in the subject heading) And commit myself to offering my usual verbose opinion on the matter. Seeing that other people have already discussed this matter previously on other blogs- forgive me for enjoying this particular topic, and as such- offering “my verbose opinion” on it!
JOEY, DID I ALREADY SAY- “YOU’RE ON FIRE”? (call the fire brigade! it’s joey’s laptop- i think it’s his keypad that’s burning!!!!)
Whew!
(ahem) Wow, I never gave Coach Carroll’s decision to start John David over Mark a second thought. That decision of BigBallsPete was totally out of sight, out of mind for me. But, I don’t think it’s an unfair question to ask- especially right now, with all pertinent parities having moved on to the professional ranks. I, too, am unsure if USC would have benefited from having Mark Sanchez start as a redshirt freshman- and (if we’re to play this out as it all did- with Mark declaring as a junior for the draft) as such- have a better chance at getting back to the BCS NCG? I think our chances would definitely have been greater, though. And the reason why I’m in agreement with Joey on this topic is quite simple: LOOK AT WHAT MARK SANCHEZ HAS BECOME AS A PROFESSIONAL.
What Mark Sanchez has done as a rookie hasn’t even been matched by our two previous Heisman-winning quarterbacks, Carson Palmer/Bengals and Matt Leinart/Texans. Now, even I think it’s unfair to compare our 4 previous quarterbacks (Palmer, Leinart, Booty, and Sanchez) based on what they’ve accomplished as professionals and somehow find logic in what they’ve done as college players. But, here’s the thing: we all have to be somewhat in agreement that Mark Sanchez got the CJ Gable-treatment from Coach Carroll in that Spring practice evaluation prior to Booty getting the nod to start in the fall of 2006. When Mark got into trouble over that alleged sexual misconduct issue- he was in Coach’s doghouse. And, in all fairness- looking back in hindsight, we can all agree that Coach Pete Carroll “played and plays favorites” while he was our head coach. Even when Mark WAS our starter- Coach Carroll kept his playbook and game-plan “vanilla”- still bothered by Mark’s potential to “fuck something up”. Mark is/was a gunslinger. He takes chances, and he plays his ass off.
To me, it was a “trust” issue that existed between Coach Carroll and Mark Sanchez.
Mark did the right thing in bolting after his junior year. Look what he’s done for the Jets. Look how he’s flourished incredibly while playing for a head coach that “believes” in him. And (I just have to)- look how Coach Carroll teed-off on Mark for declaring. He went WAY OUT OF CHARACTER and full-on went into a raging conniption.
The thing is, we’ll never know if Mark could have or would have brought us back to the BCS national championship game or had won one if he was our starter over Booty. But- NO ONE can say that it is completely out of the question that Mark would have tried.
And I’ll take Mark Sanchez “trying” ANY DAMN DAY OF THE WEEK over John David Booty giving us his best or toughing it out while playing with a severe injury. (DUDE!!!!! Even when JDB was INJURED Coach Carroll wouldn’t give Mark the reigns and let him start. He brought back JDB so fast, even JDB’s head was spinning during that time)
Fair question Joey, and I’m gonna wager this argument IN YOUR FAVOR.
(seriously son, you ARE on fire!)
"Fun fact: My grandma actually had 7 carries for 79 yards and one TD last year against Stanford. The (Oregon Ducks) spread option just works like that, but it helped that she’s pretty scrappy" (JShufelt- Addicted to Quack)
by BixBeiderbecke on Sep 8, 2010 9:45 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
Thanks for the kind words
What it really boggles down to is…
Does USC lose to Oregon State in 2008 with Sanchez having 2+ years of starting experience?
My gut feeling: no way.
He struggled in the first half of that ball game. His first Pac-10 game. Thursday night. On the road, in Corvallis, where ‘SC hasn’t won since 2004. You saw him get more comfortable as the game progressed. I don’t think the first half speed bumps happens if he had been the starter for the two seasons prior.
I firmly believe ’SC was the best team in 2008, but unfortunately, had a first-time starter at QB in Sanchez, and he had some struggles in the early part of the year. I just think those struggles are few and far between if he has over 20 games of starting under his belt.
Remember, Leinart and Palmer started at least 3 years, and their senior years were their best statistically. I think a similar situation would have held true with Sanchez.
Follow me on twitter @Joey_Kaufman
by Joey Kaufman on Sep 8, 2010 10:06 PM PDT up reply actions
Journalism wasn't my major. . . .
. . . .but I’ve been reading books, novels, encyclopedias, cartoons, periodicals, and newspapers since kindergarten- and Joey, even I can tell when a “journalist” writes a decent article. In my mind, you took something from nothing based on your perception of reality, facts, interest, and sensibility. You made it engaging and offered a sound argument to create this polemic. That being said, I enjoyed reading this post purely on a journalistic level. As a fan, I’m tickled to death about this polemic- it’s “new” to me AND, insofar as “it” (the topic matter) being discussed “way back in 2000-whenever”— well. . . . those who discussed it didn’t have the benefit of even knowing Mark Sanchez’s potential as a professional. And they sure as hell couldn’t have known how WILDLY successful he would become in his one and only year.
There. I said it.
"Fun fact: My grandma actually had 7 carries for 79 yards and one TD last year against Stanford. The (Oregon Ducks) spread option just works like that, but it helped that she’s pretty scrappy" (JShufelt- Addicted to Quack)
by BixBeiderbecke on Sep 9, 2010 12:17 AM PDT up reply actions
That Oregon State game in 2008?
Want to know something totally ironic? Longtime CC-member (who hardly comments here much, these days) Frak and I got into a drawn-out debate as to the particulars of THIS PARTICULAR game some time, long ago.
Background: When I first commented on Conquest Chronicles, Frak was THE FIRST CC-regular to not only welcome me here on CC, but he sided with my opinion on a particular thread. Truth be known- from that point forward, Frak and I were two-peas in a pod over most topics of discussion here on CC. For whatever reason, we both had (more often than not) the “same take” on Trojan issues. It wasn’t so much as two dudes preaching in a choir- afterall, he had his way of arriving at his conclusions on most particulars surrounding USC as an excellent institution and it’s historically awesome athletics. Frak’s insight has, is, and will always be somewhat of an “institution” here on CC. That, and. . . . to me- he’s like a quiet/stealth assassin. The man can “regulate”. No one, trolls especially- could get away with any stupid shit without Frak SOUNDLY shooting or choking that m-fer out. And he’d do it all the while making the poor bastard look terminally stupid for even trying.
Then one day. . . . . .the Oregon State 2008 game. We both (not exactly tore into each other, but) said our peace on this game, whether it was Mark Sanchez who foiled our chances on that game or on the defense giving up abnormally crazy yardage to Riley and his boys.
I won’t get into that game, right here- right now. It has a sore spot for me. I mean, we both got into it- and I regret that day ever since.
Where are you Frak? . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(not on this topic though, bro- but. If you don’t know already- I rue the day we ever talked about that Oregon State game. No hard feelings and if it means taking back my choice of words and/or demeanor to get you to comment more on this blog than for sure you know I would. So, I am right now. From this Trojan to you- I’m sorry for diggin’ deep on that thread. I hope you know I’ve always cherished your/our fraternity here on CC and this place just isn’t the same without you here on a somewhat daily basis. -Bix
Weird, hah Joey? So, NO! I can’t discuss this game. . . .much like some on this thread can’t discuss the Booty/Sanchez polemic.
Damn, I hope the rest of my day isn’t this weird. (. . . . . it’ prolly will be. just my luck)
"Fun fact: My grandma actually had 7 carries for 79 yards and one TD last year against Stanford. The (Oregon Ducks) spread option just works like that, but it helped that she’s pretty scrappy" (JShufelt- Addicted to Quack)
by BixBeiderbecke on Sep 9, 2010 8:29 AM PDT up reply actions
This topic created wars on campus, at USCFootball.com, at WeAreSc and the Wolfbag
The “Dirty Sanchez” lynch mob, USC’s topless professor and resident flamer Diana York Blaine, and the howls from Plaschke and the clowns across town forced PC’s hand, landing Sanchitos in the dog house.
Anyone that visited practice was struck by Booty’s limitations, but he was able to keep the job because MS was deemed radioactive. Dumb teenager + fake ID + 9-0 = There but for the Grace of God…
Football season is here
U feeling Loco?
Guys...
Joey and I talk once a week on the phone to catch up about various things WRT to the direction site and things on the Network as well as his view from ground zero. He has a few contacts around school where he gets some info…
When we talked yesterday this was one of the topics…relevant or not, old news or not I thought this was good to bring up. I certainly didn’t think of it 3-4 years ago when I was struggling to keep this site afloat. The difference between here and the boards is that everyone gets an equal shot at having their say without the worry of being shouted down or being ganged up on.
You may disagree with the topic but if it was so uninteresting or irrelevant you wouldn’t have commented.
so here is my take…
If Sanchez comes into the Stanford game we had just as much of a shot to win as we did with Booty w/out the broken finger…the only difference is Sanchez might have won it while getting valuable playing time and he may have never relinquished the starting job.
Sometimes you make your own luck…Sanchez more than proved that in his one year as starter. He got better as the season progressed in 2008 even with a bad ASU game…every player has a bad game.
As for this post “being stuck in the server since 2007” does that mean we won’t be revisiting any other older topics good or bad from the past?
I think it is good to look into the past, good or bad. It keeps you grounded in the present…
"What have they figured out?" "NOTHING." Lane Kiffin
"Mention USC to a Bruin and they get angry; mention UCLA to a Trojan and they laugh."
by Paragon SC on Sep 9, 2010 3:32 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
Fuck yeah!
You think? (I always love to “rec” your day Paragon SC. You picked a damn fine writer in this young Mr. Skywalker. . . . ahem- Mr. Kaufman)
"Fun fact: My grandma actually had 7 carries for 79 yards and one TD last year against Stanford. The (Oregon Ducks) spread option just works like that, but it helped that she’s pretty scrappy" (JShufelt- Addicted to Quack)
by BixBeiderbecke on Sep 9, 2010 7:58 AM PDT up reply actions
+1
This has become an outstanding site, and I greatly appreciate it. It wasn’t that long ago that I had to go to Wolf for daily/hourly updates of Troy. Now…there’s a site that wasn’t ever that good, but has gone to sh!t. Anyway…
I appreciate Joey’s contibutions, which are provocative and well written. I think it’s important to remember that differences of opinion are healthy. It makes the site better. If a site gets to be too predicably homer (USCRipsIt) or inflamatory (Guess who?), then it isn’t very interesting. Keep up the good work.
It's an excellent topic
Distance always gives you a different perspective.
Football season is here
U feeling Loco?
I hear ya, P
Just didn’t find it timely or relevant, but felt compelled to provide direct feedback veiled in sarcasm. Certainly didn’t mean to gang up. Otherwise, I hope that mockery and criticism are within site guidelines, as my mind is hardwired that way. :)
You can't put sanctions on the fkn endzone! Death to the NCAA!
its all good...
"What have they figured out?" "NOTHING." Lane Kiffin
"Mention USC to a Bruin and they get angry; mention UCLA to a Trojan and they laugh."
If you want to revisit your kindergarten experience, you go to Wolf's Cesspool
If you want a rational, lucid, thought provoking experience, you come to CC.
"Understanding is a virtue, hard to come by"
J. Airplane
I defended JDB vehemently at the time
And I stand by the fact that he gave us the best chance to win then. The exception, of course, is playing with a broken finger in his throwing hand – keeping him in the Stanford game is probably the worst coaching decision Pete ever made at SC.
I loved Sanchez at QB though and wish he would have stayed last year and groomed Golden Boy Barkley. Hopefully MB7 breaks out this year and becomes the world class QB he’s capable of being.
Heck with that I got McDonnal starting over both
So Fight On USC followers and Don’t worry WE Will Still Play on Saturdays and Bowls will come later, for WE ARE SC not That other Softball University. Oh and don’t say you now have a baseball team, it’s not Real Baseball unless you use Wooden Bats
by so.cal.native1952 on Sep 9, 2010 8:06 PM PDT reply actions
Garrett Green. . . . .
. . . . .FOR THE MOTHER-FUCKING WINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!
"Fun fact: My grandma actually had 7 carries for 79 yards and one TD last year against Stanford. The (Oregon Ducks) spread option just works like that, but it helped that she’s pretty scrappy" (JShufelt- Addicted to Quack)
by BixBeiderbecke on Sep 10, 2010 7:25 AM PDT up reply actions
HELL.
YEAH.
"Fun fact: My grandma actually had 7 carries for 79 yards and one TD last year against Stanford. The (Oregon Ducks) spread option just works like that, but it helped that she’s pretty scrappy" (JShufelt- Addicted to Quack)
by BixBeiderbecke on Sep 10, 2010 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
