Runningback U. Dorsette Martin Hall of Famers. McCoy over 10,000 rushing yards. Connors tearing it up, back in the day Iron head Heyward and the list goes on what say ye
Ok we are Linebacker U could we say that Pitt is
- Thread starter sammyk
- Start date
Are you aware that this is a Penn State board, and we already played Akron, I mean Pitt this year?
Pitt is nothing but "last chance U", and that's all they will ever be.
I didn't realize McCoy had over 10,000 yards while at Pitt. Now I'm really disappointed Paterno turned him away. Pitt must have really won a lot of games while he was there.
I just wish Saquon had the benefit of playing on the Steelers offense, with that OL, those WR, and that QB. He'd be virtually unstoppable.
I didn't realize McCoy had over 10,000 yards while at Pitt. Now I'm really disappointed Paterno turned him away. Pitt must have really won a lot of games while he was there.
I just wish Saquon had the benefit of playing on the Steelers offense, with that OL, those WR, and that QB. He'd be virtually unstoppable.
Southern California may have some contention with that.
But, is the standard what they did in college or NFL? I think PSU holds it's own with college running backs.
Who?
Only 2 that come to mind over last 12 years are LJ and Barkley
I mean we have had a few that had brief stints like Hunt..But producing RB hasn’t been our thing.
Pitt I think has 3 RB starting this year in Conner, McCoy, Lewis.
USC had two All-American running backs in the last 36 years.
https://johnbaranowski.wordpress.com/2018/06/09/is-usc-still-tailback-u/
https://johnbaranowski.wordpress.com/2018/06/09/is-usc-still-tailback-u/
What is the standard? NFL success or college success?
The question is not difficult.
I'll give Pitt credit, they have produced a ton of great NFL players. It's unbelievable how many losing seasons they have had considering so much top end talent at that school on a regular basis.
Penn state is more running back u than Pitt will ever be I mean really it isn’t even close.
Having one or two great players doesn't make a team good. While sometimes they find a diamond in the rough, they generally seem to take highly talented players with baggage (i.e. McCoy), who leave for the NFL after a short stint at Pitt, and it's not really a surprise that they do well in the NFL. Pitt has nothing to do with their NFL success, and their NFL success has nothing to do with Pitt.
Yep carter typed to fast due to astonishment that this is even a conversation
One of pitt's top pros ever, Larry Fitzgerald, now identifies his college as the University of Phoenix. LOL.
Honestly, he probably spent more time there. He was only at Pitt for 2 years. I always say, someone should have to play for at least 3 years at a school to be included as one of their own. (e.g. Wisconsin shouldn't be claiming Russell Wilson.)
sammyk, congrats on a great season! Good luck in the playoffs.
(sammyk is a good guy; his day job is as a very successful HS football coach in North Carolina; he's from Western PA, so he likes to keep up with Pitt, too.)
(sammyk is a good guy; his day job is as a very successful HS football coach in North Carolina; he's from Western PA, so he likes to keep up with Pitt, too.)
Why not? There are scores of Pitt threads on this board, nearly all negative. That's OK, it's to be expected on a Penn State board, but I take no offense to an occasional positive one. They have had some terrific NFL backs.
Guys I am a Penn State fan all the way but I can also give credit to other universities (even Pitt) from time to time. I just pointed out that they have had some very good RB produce in the pros is all. And Royboy thanks should be an interesting playoff .
Nah, it will always be remembered as “Free Beverage U”
I think "RB U", "LB U", "QB U" etc is all based on how programs produce players for the next level. We aren't "RB U" with that criteria although Saquon's definitely going to help. Pitt may have a claim for it. Not sure why that would bother us. They have nothing. Give them something.
Some go by NFL success as that creates their desired answer. To me, it's all about college success. For example: If one school produced nine Heisman Trophy-winning quarterbacks and All-American after All-American at quarterback that didn't win the Heisman Trophy for them but they didn't pan out in the NFL, that school wouldn't be Quarterback U?
Charlie Ward won the Heisman trophy at FSU playing quarterback yet never played in the NFL opting to play in the NBA instead. Does that diminish what he accomplished in college? Do the injuries that curtailed the careers of Dennis Onkotz and Ki-Jana Carter diminish what they accomplished in college?
If it's by what players accomplish in the NFL, what about the following players: Does what Terrelle Pryor accomplish count towards Ohio State's wide receivers? He never played WR at Ohio State but it's what he does in the NFL right? Does Antwan Randel-El count towards Indiana's receivers? He played quarterback at IU. Position changes are not uncommon. So why give credit to their alma mater for a position they never played at in college?
What about Matt Cassell? Does he count towards USC's quarterbacks? He never started a game and I believe attempted 30 passes in his college career. So what he accomplished in the NFL help USC as Quarterback U? Does Chris Hogan count towards Penn State's wide receivers?
Jack Lambert and James Harrison both went to Kent State. A hall-of-famer and near hall of famer, is Kent State more of a Linebacker U than Pitt?
To me, it's what you accomplish in college that should count towards a college being a position U.
I'll give you one further point of contention with me on a similar vein. Miami 2001. Some would call them the greatest college football team of all-time based primarily on what their players accomplished in the NFL. Why should anything a player accomplishes in the NFL influence what actually happened in the past. If the '01 Hurricanes produced 22 NFL hall of famers that doesn't change the fact they struggled to beat Boston College and only beat 14th ranked Virginia Tech by only two points on the field of play in 2001. Future accomplishments do not change past results and isn't that what should be compared. If anything, it shows how talented they were but not what they actually accomplished. If they were THAT great, they should have destroyed every opponent based on what their players accomplished in the NFL and they did not.
That's like proclaiming Bryce Harper's little league team the greatest ever because he played on it even though they may have not even made the LL World Series.
