'10 IL WR Kyle Prater

#1,027
#1,027
The_Orange_Pearl said:
Do you mean Mike Williams was a bust? Jarrett hasn't really done anything in his first two seasons but it's a little soon to call him a bust. Anyways, it may not be USC's fault these guys fail in the NFL. Williams was a 1st round pick, Jarrett 2nd and Turner 3rd. The Lions failed with Charles Rogers so all of the blame can't be put on USC for Mike Williams failing. Again, Jarrett may end up being a bust but he has only been in the NFL for two seasons so it's a little soon to call him one. He is only like 23. Either way, all of these guys got pretty good contracts after attending USC. Whether they failed or not, USC got them paid.
Click to expand...
They are still viewed as overall busts....that's why some QB's like the idea of following in Peyton's footsteps...not because he got a big contract right out of college...but because he's been so successful since. Heath Shuler got the big fat contract too, and turned out to be a bust (if he hadn't had his foot shattered while trying to make a comeback with the Saints, I think he could have salvaged his career somewhat). Nobody is praising Washington State for having Ryan Leaf. So, it's shaping up to look like USC WR's are busts...which isn't necessarily great for us since Kiffin recruited and coached some of them.
 
#1,028
#1,028
What I think it means is Kiffin took not so talented players and made them great in college and there talent level shows in the pros
 
#1,029
#1,029
HitemHardVols said:
that being said i really think Patrick Turner will be the best out of the recent USC WR's besides Steve Smith.
Click to expand...
Turner may be turned into a hybrid WR/TE like Jared Cook is with the Titans. In that role he may actually shine. He definitely is in much better shape than Williams was. The Titans gave Williams plenty of chances to win a spot, as we desperately needed a game-changer. He couldn't even beat out some of the guys on our roster who will likely get cut this preseason. That should tell you something.
 
#1,030
#1,030
HitemHardVols said:
Jarret has had weight problems since being drafted and is so slow he will never be more than 4th or 3rd on any NFL teams depth chart at WR. Williams is just another example, sure these guys got paid but paid on potential and having NFL Size and bodys.
Click to expand...

Well the goal is to get paid. I don't believe USC is responsible for these guys showing up to their NFL camps out of shape. USC got them drafted... that's really all USC can do. Dwayne Jarrett is third on the Panthers depth chart going into the season and is suppose to get a lot of playing time. I just think it's too soon to call Jarrett a bust after two seasons. Also, if the blame is going to be placed on USC then isn't it also being placed on Lane Kiffin? He was their offensive coordinator and worked with them. Anyways, if Dwayne Jarrett a bust than we have to say Robert Meachem is a bust as well. If we are blaming schools or coaches for players failures in the NFL then either Lane is responsible for Williams/Jarrett or Tennessee is responsible for Meachem/Washington. Meachem and Washington are both pretty big and have done nothing in the pros.
 
#1,031
#1,031
ooltewahvol said:
What I think it means is Kiffin took not so talented players and made them great in college and there talent level shows in the pros
Click to expand...
They did something right, to get that much production in college, and then to suck badly in the NFL.

I think, personally, it highlights the disparity between the PAC-10 and the SEC. If they had to play UGA, UF, BAMA, and LSU each year those same players would look very average, IMHO.
 
#1,033
#1,033
TENNaciousUTfan said:
They are still viewed as overall busts....that's why some QB's like the idea of following in Peyton's footsteps...not because he got a big contract right out of college...but because he's been so successful since. Heath Shuler got the big fat contract too, and turned out to be a bust (if he hadn't had his foot shattered while trying to make a comeback with the Saints, I think he could have salvaged his career somewhat). Nobody is praising Washington State for having Ryan Leaf. So, it's shaping up to look like USC WR's are busts...which isn't necessarily great for us since Kiffin recruited and coached some of them.
Click to expand...

No Tennessee quarterback has done anything worth while in the NFL since Peyton Manning though. Martin bust. Clausen couldn't even make a roster. Ainge tested positive for steroids and is stuck behind Sanchez. Right now if I'm a big wide receiver... I go to USC because I get a huge pay day. If I'm a quarterback.. I still go to USC because gain, huge pay day. Anyways, a lot of USC's offensive players are busts in the NFL. Leinart, Bush, Williams, Byrd, Kirtman and the last goes on. A lot of their defense players are busts too actually. Udeze and Bing come to mind. I don't know when Udeze was first dianosed with Leukemia so I guess it's not fair for me to use him as an example. All I know is USC wins games with these guys and gets them drafted and then they go on to stink it. So I don't know what it is but when you see their success and their players getting drafted...it's hard to argue with that.
 
#1,034
#1,034
ooltewahvol said:
Well I also think is highlights playing with heisman trophy winning quarterbacks
Click to expand...
Again...USC is a good team, no matter who they play, but they wouldn't be a persistent Top 5-10 program if they had to play our schedule, and if we got to play their schedule last year, Fulmer is probably still coaching here.
You don't win the Heisman playing for an average team, which USC would be if they played in the SEC. Not saying they wouldn't have some good years, but having to face teams like UF, Bama, LSU and UGA and Auburn every year would get them about 2 losses each year. In the BCS picture...that is usually enough to keep you out of BCS bowl games.
 
Last edited:
#1,035
#1,035
TENNaciousUTfan said:
They did something right, to get that much production in college, and then to suck badly in the NFL.

I think, personally, it highlights the disparity between the PAC-10 and the SEC. If they had to play UGA, UF, BAMA, and LSU each year those same players would look very average, IMHO.
Click to expand...

True that. I was thinking that also but it's shocking that their losses always tend to come against Pac 10 teams and crappy Pac 10 teams at that. They have run over a couple of SEC teams though. We've also seen Tennessee lose to Cal and UCLA. I do agree USC wouldn't post the records they do and pad their stats against the SEC. I still believe they'd have the potential to make it to the NC in the SEC and losing three games would be about their worst season. They'd be like a mixture of Georgia/Florida/LSU.
 
#1,036
#1,036
TENNaciousUTfan said:
Again...USC is a good team, no matter who they play, but they wouldn't be a persistent Top 5-10 program if they had to play our schedule, and if we got to play their schedule last year, Fulmer is probably still coaching here.
You don't win the Heisman playing for an average team, which USC would be if they played in the SEC. Not saying they wouldn't have some good years, but having to face teams like UF, Bama, LSU and UGA and Auburn every year would get them about 2 losses each year. In the BCS picture...that is usually enough to keep you out of BCS bowl games.
Click to expand...

Sure they would, top flight talent year in and year out, great coaches, tradition, what else do they need...
 
#1,037
#1,037
TENNaciousUTfan said:
Again...USC is a good team, no matter who they play, but they wouldn't be a persistent Top 5-10 program if they had to play our schedule, and if we got to play their schedule last year, Fulmer is probably still coaching here.
You don't win the Heisman playing for an average team, which USC would be if they played in the SEC. Not saying they wouldn't have some good years, but having to face teams like UF, Bama, LSU and UGA and Auburn every year would get them about 2 losses each year. In the BCS picture...that is usually enough to keep you out of BCS bowl games.
Click to expand...

USC would not be an average team if they played in the SEC. They would be a leading candidate to play in the SEC championship every year, like an LSU, Florida, or Georgia. I don't like USC but saying they would be an average team in the SEC is pretty shortsighted.
 
#1,038
#1,038
TENNaciousUTfan said:
Again...USC is a good team, no matter who they play, but they wouldn't be a persistent Top 5-10 program if they had to play our schedule, and if we got to play their schedule last year, Fulmer is probably still coaching here.
You don't win the Heisman playing for an average team, which USC would be if they played in the SEC. Not saying they wouldn't have some good years, but having to face teams like UF, Bama, LSU and UGA and Auburn every year would get them about 2 losses each year. In the BCS picture...that is usually enough to keep you out of BCS bowl games.
Click to expand...

I agree they would be like a two loss team but.... I'm not sure about that keeping them in the picture only to miss a BCS bowl game. LSU won the National Championship with two losses and Florida had a loss both times they won. I think USC would be good enough to pull off a one loss season and get a shot at the NC in the SEC or good enough to get BCS bid with two losses.
 
#1,039
#1,039
eburton said:
USC would not be an average team if they played in the SEC. They would be a leading candidate to play in the SEC championship every year, like an LSU, Florida, or Georgia. I don't like USC but saying they would be an average team in the SEC is pretty shortsighted.
Click to expand...

Agreed. They would not be average. They would just be more likely to drop 3-4 games every once and a while. But for the most part I think they'd hover around 10-2 like Georgia and get an occasional championship bid like Florida or LSU.
 
#1,042
#1,042
Knox9552 said:
Sure they would, top flight talent year in and year out, great coaches, tradition, what else do they need...
Click to expand...
An easier schedule than you have in the SEC, for one. They're going up against their equals or better 3-4 times a season. For one thing, they'd be more physically beat up from playing that many high level teams every year...that's what makes the SEC the toughest conference. Not because our best teams are necessarily better than their best teams (although that has been the case the past 4 out of 5 years), it's just the SEC has more top 10 teams each year that you have to get through. So even if you have an undefeated regular season, you still have to face a very tough opponent to win the SECC.
That's where we were in 2001...a trip to the Rose Bowl for the NC was on the other side of the SECC game. We got upset and had to settle for the Citrus Bowl.
THAT is what I'm saying about USC. Let them face that much stiff competition throughout the year and we'd see how often they appear in BCS bowl games. If you want to argue that point, then maybe you can argue against the fat nationwide contract we got with CBS and ESPN. The proof is in the pudding as the saying goes.
 
Last edited:
#1,043
#1,043
"Yeah, they did impress me. I'm coming back down there for an official visit in September," Prater confirmed. "I'm going to be there for the UCLA game on Sept. 12. I'm looking forward to it."

"USC is out in front, they are kind of standing out right now," Prater said of the Trojans. "I would call everyone else in my top-five mostly equal, but USC is out there ahead a little bit."
Click to expand...

cPanel®
 
#1,044
#1,044
I saw on Alabama's board that Parter changed his mind already and is coming for his visit during the Ohio game. That was posted today and I haven't seen it in anywhere else. I was just wondering if anyone has heard that? Should look a lot better against Ohio than UCLA but not cool if it's true. Him with Bray here at the same time would be awesome. Especially with 100,000 fans going nuts.
 
#1,045
#1,045
“Yeah probably USC,” Prater admitted. “USC, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Illinois is my top four right now, it could change some. Notre Dame is right in there also. Tennessee definitely helped its case with my visit yesterday.”

“I thought about making it up to the UCLA game for my official visit, but I’m not going to be able to make it that weekend,” Prater said. “I will probably come up the next home game after UCLA.”
Click to expand...

Scout.com: Vols make Prater's top four
 
#1,048
#1,048
TENNaciousUTfan said:
An easier schedule than you have in the SEC, for one. They're going up against their equals or better 3-4 times a season. For one thing, they'd be more physically beat up from playing that many high level teams every year...that's what makes the SEC the toughest conference. Not because our best teams are necessarily better than their best teams (although that has been the case the past 4 out of 5 years), it's just the SEC has more top 10 teams each year that you have to get through. So even if you have an undefeated regular season, you still have to face a very tough opponent to win the SECC.
That's where we were in 2001...a trip to the Rose Bowl for the NC was on the other side of the SECC game. We got upset and had to settle for the Citrus Bowl.
THAT is what I'm saying about USC. Let them face that much stiff competition throughout the year and we'd see how often they appear in BCS bowl games. If you want to argue that point, then maybe you can argue against the fat nationwide contract we got with CBS and ESPN. The proof is in the pudding as the saying goes.
Click to expand...

They would still be in BCS bowls regularly...just give it up bro there's nothing more you can do. You're trying to down play a great team. PAC10 or SEC, they would still take it to their opponents every game.
 
#1,049
#1,049
As much as I hate them USC would be up there with Florida. Yes they play in the Pac 10 but they can't help that. If they were in the SEC west in place of like Arkansas for ex. they would be a FL of the west if not some years better.
 
#1,050
#1,050
Knox9552 said:
You all down play USC way to much.
Click to expand...
I played down FSU for years for the same reasons..they were a very good team that played in a weak conference. If they had to endure an SEC schedule, you can literally erase some of those NC's and BCS bowl games.
Most years, it only takes one loss to be on the outside looking in (as we were in 2001). Now that the ACC has gotten more competitive and UF keeps knocking their block off, their program slowly degraded.
The same would be the case if USC had to play in the SEC or Big 12...they just flat out would not have the same level of success, and therefore not the same level of talent wanting to go there.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top