Dogman2 said:
I disagree. 5 games is not nearly enough to label a player a stud on the field.
Will the media be all over Pitt for throwing and running up the score? Doubtful.
I guess the problem is one of definition then, because it's fairly common to refer to a rookie or someone with the potential to be a superstar as a stud. Shit, they refer to freshman coming out of high school as studs all the time when discussing college recruits. By that definition, Bryant is a stud. Would you disagree that Sammy Watkins is a stud? Because Sammy Watkins is the only reason most folks didn't know who Bryant was before now. Well, him and DeAndre Hopkins.
Bryant holds the FBS record for yards per catch for guys with more than 50 receptions. He averaged 24.6, 30.9 and 19.7 yards per catch during hiss career at Clemson. He will never, ever be a healthy scratch in the NFL again. Will he go on to be an pro bowler, or put up the kinds of numbers he has the past few weeks? I have no idea, but none of that changes the fact that the guy is pretty much the very definition of a stud. His physical tools are probably enough to label him a stud, never mind the fact that he's an above average route runner and has great hands.