And Pryor opens his mouth again...

Submitted by m83econ on October 24th, 2010 at 10:10 PM

While maybe not up to the standard of past utterances, still another look into the mind of the Buckeye QB:


Terrelle Pryor on Wisconsin: 'They weren't better than us'

Posted by John Taylor on October 24, 2010 3:04 PM ET

A very frustrated Ohio State football team took the field Saturday, and took out the previous weekend's loss to Wisconsin on a Purdue squad that simply stood no chance.

Most would think that the Buckeyes would be basking in the afterglow of a 49-0 whitewashing that featured 415 total yards and 42 points in the first half alone.  The triggerman of the Buckeyes' offense, however, was in not much of a mood for the here and now.
Instead, Terrelle Pryor decided to travel back in time and revisit the previous weekend.
"Not to take anything away from Wisconsin at all - I really don't want it to come off like this - but they weren't better than us," the quarterback said according to the Columbus Dispatch as it came off just like that. "Everybody knows that if we play nine out of 10 times, we'd beat Wisconsin."…



October 25th, 2010 at 10:21 AM ^

This is that different than "we beat ourselves", which has been the drum beat here for 2 weeks. I don't see the difference in "being dominated" or not between a 31-18 loss, or a 34-17 loss. Or for that matter, a 38-28 loss. Because while we scored 3 TDs to make to close after they had a huge lead, OSU cut it to 21-18 in the 4th before Wisconsin pulled away. Far closer than we got in either of our two last games.

If you want to beat the drum that this is just a message board, and he was stupid to say it in public, go for it. But if you've been preaching the "we beat ourselves" mantra, it's being a bit hypocritical to jump on Pryor for thinking the same thing.


October 25th, 2010 at 10:31 AM ^

It's not quite apples and oranges, but maybe two different kinds of apples. I haven't seen anyone on here claim that we'd beat MSU or Iowa 9 times out of 10. (Because we wouldn't.) We have said that if a few plays had gone a different way, we'd have had a chance to win right up until the end. I haven't seen anyone claim that we're a better team than Iowa or MSU.


October 25th, 2010 at 10:39 AM ^

........."we beat ourselves". It's more about stating that "everyone knows we would win 9 out of 10 times". Everyone knows? Kind of hard to make a statement starting with that phrase when you played one game and Wisky beat them, had them beat nearly the entire game and yet he qualifies it further by stating that OSU would win 9 out of 10 times. This isn't a scrub team they played who just got lucky. Wisky is a decent team, with a pretty good defense and solid running game. This is Pryor talking, who just got done beating a terrible Purdue team and he still threw 2 Int's in it.

As for UM fans lamenting about MSU and Iowa, I don't think I saw anyone make a statement saying "everyone knows we beat them 9 out of 10 times". Most have said that if we didn't make the stupid mistakes we made in those game that it could have turned out different. Quite a bit of difference in the statements made.


October 25th, 2010 at 11:48 AM ^

For one thing, it is entirely different for this statement to come from a player.  For someone who is on the field and in control of his own destiny, a statement like this comes off as exceedingly arrogant and whiny. Hubris! The masses back home can pontificate as they like about why ze Germans are advancing against the French and it is only so much noise. But for your field commander to make excuses as to why the battle was lost reveals a genuine lack of character when that role requires true fortitude, and is cause for alarm among French and delight among Germans. So, there is a difference: People in a role to determine outcomes of interest are held to a different standard than mere passive observers.

That said, I am mostly in agreement with you. It is quite stupid to say, "M would have beaten MSU and Iowa if not for those turnovers and penalties!!!" Those people are morons on par with Pryor -- but with less athletic ability, so even lower overall. It is quite another thing to say, "If M hadn't committed those penalties and turnovers, those games would have been different." Which, yeah duh. It's somewhat stupid due to circularity, but true nonetheless.


October 25th, 2010 at 4:13 PM ^

One wants to trash him for saying he should keep his mouth shut for talking outside of "Hayes Hall" or whatever they call it, go for it, full blow, all cannons firing.  I'm not going to argue he's not stupid.

It's just a lot of the response that "no, they weren't even CLOSE in the game, they didn't have a chance" after a few weeks of every justification that if A and B (and C...and D...maybe E...) didn't happen, we'd have had a great shot of beating MSIowa. 

I think OSU had a chance in the fourth to win the game, but Wisconsin took it from them.  I think we had a chance to beat either MSU or Iowa.  But I give credit that those teams were in control most of the game, and outplayed us.  We didn't beat ourselves anymore than OSU did, or really, any team.  

That's all I was saying. Not "don't get on his case for saying it".  Just look in the mirror if you're on his case for thinking it.  Because I'm guessing, even though as was said above, the board is not a hive mind, there's at least a bit of people who said "we beat ourselves with turnovers" saying "HA, OSU got ROLLED, he's stupid!".  And I'm not going to research who said what....I don't care that much, nor does anyone else.  Just saying, each person knows their view on it.


October 26th, 2010 at 10:28 AM ^

The bottom line is, Wisconsin was better than them. It didn't come down to a field goal with 10 seconds left. Wisconsin played a better game, therefore they were better than Ohio State. TP made a really uninformed comment, and it sounded like sour grapes more than anything. Hopefully Tressel will have a talk with him about sucking it up in interviews, admitting the loss, and moving on.