USC's skill position players better then any NFL group?

[Cowboy Junkie]

For the life of me I can not figure out how anyone can debate on the side of USC.
If you think about it all Offensive lineman have lots of growing pains there first year sometimes even first couple years in the league.They even went through the training camps with their NFL teams and still strugle at least their rookie years.
I am talking about the top linemen in the draft , so how would they ever stop NFL defense? three words.... THEY CAN NOT!!!

Quarterbacks same thing unless your name is Marino or Big Ben . They all strugle first couple years dosen't matter how good they were in college. Still have growing pains.
Wideouts - More of them have success at earlier stages ,but they aren't going to any probowls as rookies and few of them do well rookie year at all.

 

[like a dog]

For the life of me I can not figure out how anyone can debate on the side of USC.
If you think about it all Offensive lineman have lots of growing pains there first year sometimes even first couple years in the league.They even went through the training camps with their NFL teams and still strugle at least their rookie years.
I am talking about the top linemen in the draft , so how would they ever stop NFL defense? three words.... THEY CAN NOT!!!

Quarterbacks same thing unless your name is Marino or Big Ben . They all strugle first couple years dosen't matter how good they were in college. Still have growing pains.
Wideouts - More of them have success at earlier stages ,but they aren't going to any probowls as rookies and few of them do well rookie year at all.

I am sorry, but to say that all offensive linemen struggle their rookie years is ignorant. There is a long history of offensive linemen, and not even just guys at the top of the draft, stepping in and being solid or better from day one. Shane Olivea was a 7th round pick last year and he was rock solid at RT for the Chargers. Dan Koppen was a 5th round pick two years ago and was the anchor of a solid Patriots line from day one. The list goes on and on. Your claim is just wrong.

I don't think that the argument is neccesarily that USC would beat an NFL team. I don't think they could. My point was that USC has better skill position players then some NFL teams, not a better team overall.

 

[Cowboy Junkie]

I am sorry, but to say that all offensive linemen struggle their rookie years is ignorant. There is a long history of offensive linemen, and not even just guys at the top of the draft, stepping in and being solid or better from day one. Shane Olivea was a 7th round pick last year and he was rock solid at RT for the Chargers. Dan Koppen was a 5th round pick two years ago and was the anchor of a solid Patriots line from day one. The list goes on and on. Your claim is just wrong.

I don't think that the argument is neccesarily that USC would beat an NFL team. I don't think they could. My point was that USC has better skill position players then some NFL teams, not a better team overall.

I should have said that many future star linemen struggle their first year as in Jordan Gross ,Eric Williams, Nate Newton ,Tuinei , etc....

 

[KDWilliams85]

Hos... you're doing it again. Your argument is based on the singular premise that experience on a professional level will ultimately gauge your success. It doesn't. It may give you a bad experience... but it doesn't mean you'd be a failure with a different team.

As for the NCAA coaches that ran NFL teams and failed miserably, they failed for this reason alone: They failed because of the environment. They couldn't handle the changes that the NFL brought. Their coaching ability was not compromised though you seem to suggest that such a level will do that. They just weren't suited for the environment that it brought. The players have absolutely nothing to do with how they coach. The players just do what they're told to do. You can place part of the blame on the players. Lack of execution will lose you games and can get a coach fired. That covers all levels of sports, not just a professional level.

You saying that a professional level is different than a collegiate level is quite frankly, bull****. Professional levels get more exposure than collegiate levels do because of what it is by nature. Players in the NFL get exposed in scandals, criminal transgressions, and malice more often than NCAA does. When it comes right down to it, you're still a coach. Where you're coaching is irrelevant.

I'd be willing to bet the family fortune on the fact that if experience was a non-factor in any kind of cross-level game, it would be difficult to see who'd win until sometime during the actual game.

It's quite nifty how much clearer you'll see something when you eliminate a point that is totally irrelevant. Where you're coaching doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Hostile]

Hos... you're doing it again. Your argument is based on the singular premise that experience on a professional level will ultimately gauge your success. It doesn't. It may give you a bad experience... but it doesn't mean you'd be a failure with a different team.

As for the NCAA coaches that ran NFL teams and failed miserably, they failed for this reason alone: They failed because of the environment. They couldn't handle the changes that the NFL brought. Their coaching ability was not compromised though you seem to suggest that such a level will do that. They just weren't suited for the environment that it brought. The players have absolutely nothing to do with how they coach. The players just do what they're told to do. You can place part of the blame on the players. Lack of execution will lose you games and can get a coach fired. That covers all levels of sports, not just a professional level.

You saying that a professional level is different than a collegiate level is quite frankly, bull****. Professional levels get more exposure than collegiate levels do because of what it is by nature. Players in the NFL get exposed in scandals, criminal transgressions, and malice more often than NCAA does. When it comes right down to it, you're still a coach. Where you're coaching is irrelevant.

I'd be willing to bet the family fortune on the fact that if experience was a non-factor in any kind of cross-level game, it would be difficult to see who'd win until sometime during the actual game.

It's quite nifty how much clearer you'll see something when you eliminate a point that is totally irrelevant. Where you're coaching doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things.

Keep on believing this nonsense if you wish. You're wasting your time preaching it though. No one here is that naive. You didn't convert one single, solitary soul Reverend. Keep the Koolaid on ice.

 

[Alexander]

When it comes right down to it, you're still a coach. Where you're coaching is irrelevant.

So, what was Barry Switzer's problem?

Why is Jimmy Johnson (and Switzer won it with his team) the only coach to truly win championships at both levels?

Why did Lou Holtz flunk with the Jets? Why did Bud Wilkinson bomb with St. Louis?