By definition, he was mediocre. And they lost to a Washington team with a losing record and an 8-5 Arizona team, as well as getting run out of the stadium by Oregon and Stanford. GTFO.
Clint Castleberry, Georgia Tech 1942. Led the team in passing and rushing, a 10-1 record with wins over Navy and Notre Dame. Only yellow jacket to have his number retired. "Castleberry was a good kid. His grandfather was a buddy of mine...one of the first guys in town with a phonograph...mesmerizing." - DeBord
Barkley as a true frosh is among the worst qbs in USC history. Only one that was worse off the top of my head was Palmer as a true frosh.
No it's not. That was one of the most talented teams of the past 20 years. All that was missing was a qb.
As an example he threw 3 ints against Stanford. Yet you use them "being run out of the stadium" as an example of that team not being good. If he didn't play like shit do they get run out of the stadium? Of course not
i think you might want to look at the talent Palmer had around him compared to Barkley and get back to me. Petros papadaka was his starting ****ing rb
I didn't say they weren't good, I said you were an idiot for suggesting that if they had a mediocre QB they would have won the NC, because: 1) They in fact had a mediocre QB 2) They lost 4 damn games. Yeah, obviously if they had a better QB maybe they wouldn't lose 4 games. But you said if they had a mediocre QB. Well that's what a mediocre QB gets you, losses to top teams.
Take this whole thing in as many circles as you wish. You said something that was dumb and obviously not true, I provided some hard numbers showing you that you're wrong and you launch into a bunch of BS. Par for the course.
Are we seriously holding Barkley with all that talent around him to the same standard I.e qb rating as nevada's qb?