Marqise Lee's Heisman Trophy Candidacy Fading After Lackluster Week 2 Performance
USC's struggles on offense in Saturday's 10-7 loss to Washington State jumped off the page—192 total team yards—and that inevitably meant wide receiver Marqise Lee was a no-show on the night.
Lee entered the season as undoubtedly the best wideout in college football, garnering talk in Heisman Trophy circles after his incredible 2012 season. But so far in 2013, he hasn't stood out and that was apparent in Los Angeles on Saturday night.
The 6'0" junior caught seven passes for just 27 yards on the loss and was the only Trojan to surpass two receptions.
Lane Kiffin's lethargic offense also went to Lee in the run game on a few occasions, but it resulted in even more struggles. He got three carries on the night, for a grand total of -3 yards.
NFL.com's draft writer Dan Greenspan summed it up best:
Marqise Lee had 10 offensive touches for 24 yards. That says it all, folks.— Dan Greenspan (@DanGreenspan) September 8, 2013
USC quarterbacks Max Wittek and Cody Kessler constantly tried to get Lee the ball out in the flat or with short-yardage catches, but he was unable to make room for himself and never made any sort of impact on the game.
Lee posted 104 yards receiving on eight catches in USC's season-opening win over Hawaii, which wasn't enough to write off his season but nonetheless unimpressive for his Heisman campaign. Saturday night's flop surely didn't help.
Late in the fourth quarter during the Trojans' failed attempt at coming back, Lee looked visibly unhappy and distraught on the field, likely a result of a plethora of missed passes and an inability for him to take advantage of his touches.
The Trojans' star receiver emerged as a premier player in college football last season with 1,721 receiving yards and 14 touchdowns on the year, garnering unanimous All-American honors and putting him on watch lists galore entering 2013.
So far this season, though, Lee has been equally as underwhelming as USC's sputtering offense.
Most recent updates:
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?