- 10/29/2011, 11:23PM ET
Mrlns Fn said 10/30, 12:17 AM
First off, I'm going to point out some reasons why Luck tends to put up good numbers.
Stanford plays in the PAC-12. I don't want to get into an elitist attempt to rank each conferences' value, but it's pretty well documented that the PAC-12 isn't home to the country's best defenses.
If you don't believe me, a quick look at NCAA defensive rankings will show you what I'm talking about. Suffice to say that the only PAC-12 defense that's ranked in the top 25 is Stanford's, who Luck obviously doesn't have to face.
Second, and more importantly, Stanford is built for the run. They have a good run blocking line, and an elite RB in Stepfan Taylor.
Stanford's M.O. is to wear defenses down by pounding them with the stocky Taylor. Once the defenses are worn out and trying to guard the run, that's when Stanford opens up the playbook and allows Luck to start throwing the ball a bit more.
So, Stanford wears down subpar PAC-12 defenses with the run, then catches them off guard with the pass. Stanford puts Luck in position to succeed, and in doing so makes him look really good stat-wise.
Luck hasn't been tested enough to warrant his hype level.
And the Prophecy Read said 10/30, 06:15 PM
What makes Luck overhyped? I guess if you base it solely on stats you can say other QB's are comparable. But why base things on stats?
Lets take last night for example. Luck throws a devastating pick 6. With many QB's in the country the game is probably over right there based on how the QB reacts. Luck came over to the sideline kept his head up, the team stayed confident in him and knew Luck would be just fine coming back out to tie the game. He has control of the team and they trust in him as a leader.
Ability to scramble. Luck may not be the best runner in the nation but he can when needed. And always seem to come when the time is needed best.
He is as tough as they come as well.
Some QB's have some of these traits but do not have all. Some QB's may even be better statistically but lack the intagibles and knowledge that Luck has. Things that numbers on a piece of paper don't show you.
That is what makes Luck the top prospect in a long time.
Mrlns Fn said 10/30, 06:35 PM
You're right, stats aren't a good way to judge NCAA QBs, otherwise Case Keenum would be the top QB prospect of all time.
So what is a good way to judge NCAA QBs?
According to you, it's confidence in the face of adversity, scrambling ability and toughness. By your measuring stick, Tim Tebow is the greatest QB ever to walk the face of the earth. Tebow is infinitely confident, could run with the best of them, and was one of the toughest QBs I've ever seen in college.
But Tebow hasn't shown himself to be a great NFL QB by any stretch. Perhaps your analysis of Luck is therefore flawed?
I would say the best ways to judge a QB are by a combination of physical tools, decision making, and work ethic.
Luck has the physical tools, no question. But that alone isn't enough. See JaMarcus Russell, Ryan Leaf, etc.
By all accounts, Luck has the work ethic. Again, not enough by itself. See Tim Tebow.
That leaves decision making, the biggest question surrounding Luck.
So... Luck's pick 6 last night. Horrible decision. Almost cost the game. And with the game on the line, Stanford ran the ball to force OT and to win in OT. It wasn't Luck.
Mrlns Fn said 10/31, 10:19 PM
nothing to argue against, so I guess I'll just recap.
Look, I like Luck. I hope he does well.
The point I'm making is this - history has shown us that the media tends to annoint certain guys as cant-miss prospects. And history has also shown us that these guys don't always pan out, and rarely are they as good as we were led to believe.
So now the uber-prospect is Andrew Luck. So I got to thinking, what can we tell about his NCAA career that indicates he's worth all the hype.
And as I listed above, there are certain attributes that Luck undeniably has.
But there are also unknowns about him, mainly his decision making.
The fact of the matter is we really don't know what to expect when Luck faces NFL defenses. The defenses he faces now are not even close to NFL caliber, and it's true that when Stanford played their toughest opponent this year (USC), Luck almost singlehandedly cost his team the game, and Stanford wound up relying on their running game to score the game tying TD and eventually win in OT.
I'm not saying he'll fail.
Just saying we don't know for sure, but to say without question that he's a lock is stupid.
And the Prophecy Read said 11/01, 05:33 PM
Ok. So your one problem in Lucks game is his decision making. Which I don't really understand.
And I don't think anyone is saying Luck is a lock. I think everyone has learned that there is no such thing as a lock.
But with what Luck does off the field, his preparation, his film study, his work ethic, his leadership on and off the field, and so on is what is getting teams excited for the kid. Then you look at what he does on the field and you have yourself the best PROSPECT in years.
You just keep mentioning busts and all the busts you mention had plenty of red flags. Either something off the field or with their game play. Luck has a minimal amount of red flags. I for one don't see too many major ones other than his ridiculous half beard thing.
Luck is as an ideal of a prospect that I can remember seeing. I am 21 years old and have been following drafts and what nots for years and Luck is the first that I wish my Bengals would have tanked the season for. If Luck fails then it'll be because of his play, unlike most others that waste their talent by off field immaturity. You don't have to worry about that and Luck.
|2||7#bag _ Com||1098||333||88||75.2%|
|5||Dyhard is a certified stoner||54||25||3||67.7%|
- Awful Announcing
- Free Darko
- Pro Football Talk
- The Big Lead
- Joe Posnanski
- The Sporting Blog
- Big League Stew
- Bugs and Cranks
- Every day Should Be Saturday
- Mr. Irrelevant
- With Leather
- The Sports Hernia