What is it about Andrew Luck

[Nova]

Fair enough. I appreciate all of the answers.

How much superior is he as a prospect to say: Sam Bradford,Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco and Matt Stafford. ( Just naming recent top picks)

I can't say I've ever seen so much hype for a player out of college.

I honestly can't divulge a great opinion since I've still yet to see him play (mostly due to the fact, like most College phenoms, the hype for him jumped just prior to this season... I think it has something to do with ratings, tbh)

But like I said, I haven't seen him play, so I've been curious but skeptical.

In comparison to Bradford...

Bradford: 565/824 7,841 yards 68.5% 16 ints 9.0 y/a
Luck: 425/665 5,913 yards 63.9% 12 ints 8.8 y/a

Just numbers, but thought it may help. Based on that, I don't see what the big deal is but I know that doesn't tell the story.

I'm also skeptical because I'm not big on PAC qb's. A lot of quarterbacks from that conference in the NFL today, but...

Derek Anderson
Trent Edwards
Matt Moore
Carson Palmer (not too bad, but what the hell happened?)
Matt Cassel
Mark Sanchez
Dennis Dixon
Matt Leinart
Kellen Clemens
AJ Feeley
and Mark Brunell

The only exception is Aaron Rodgers.

 

[realtick]

I can't say I've ever seen so much hype for a player out of college.

I honestly can't divulge a great opinion since I've still yet to see him play (mostly due to the fact, like most College phenoms, the hype for him jumped just prior to this season... I think it has something to do with ratings, tbh)

But like I said, I haven't seen him play, so I've been curious but skeptical.

In comparison to Bradford...

Bradford: 565/824 7,841 yards 68.5% 16 ints 9.0 y/a
Luck: 425/665 5,913 yards 63.9% 12 ints 8.8 y/a

Just numbers, but thought it may help. Based on that, I don't see what the big deal is but I know that doesn't tell the story.

I'm also skeptical because I'm not big on PAC qb's. A lot of quarterbacks from that conference in the NFL today, but...

Derek Anderson
Trent Edwards
Matt Moore
Carson Palmer (not too bad, but what the hell happened?)
Matt Cassel
Mark Sanchez
Dennis Dixon
Matt Leinart
Kellen Clemens
AJ Feeley
and Mark Brunell

The only exception is Aaron Rodgers.

The "hype" about Luck started the beginning of last college season. Much of the hubbub going into this season was the fact he bypassed the draft when he was unanimously projected to go #1 overall.

Being a great prospect isn't necessarily about who puts up the best stats. Otherwise, guys like Graham Harrell would have been #1 overall.

I sense some bias with your view of the Pac-10. Someone could just as easily put together a list of no-name QBs from the past 10-15 years from say, the SEC.

BTW, in a list of supposed QB disappointments, how can you list Carson Palmer, Mark Brunnell or even Matt Cassell, lol? C'mon man.

What's you criteria? That they be HOFers?

Either way, you forget Troy Aikman (UCLA), Warren Moon (Wash. St.), John Elway (Stanford), as well as guys like Aaron Rodgers, Palmer, Brunnell, Drew Bledsoe, and Cassel.

 

[rkell87]

I can't say I've ever seen so much hype for a player out of college.

I honestly can't divulge a great opinion since I've still yet to see him play (mostly due to the fact, like most College phenoms, the hype for him jumped just prior to this season... I think it has something to do with ratings, tbh)

But like I said, I haven't seen him play, so I've been curious but skeptical.

In comparison to Bradford...

Bradford: 565/824 7,841 yards 68.5% 16 ints 9.0 y/a
Luck: 425/665 5,913 yards 63.9% 12 ints 8.8 y/a

Just numbers, but thought it may help. Based on that, I don't see what the big deal is but I know that doesn't tell the story.

I'm also skeptical because I'm not big on PAC qb's. A lot of quarterbacks from that conference in the NFL today, but...

Derek Anderson
Trent Edwards
Matt Moore
Carson Palmer (not too bad, but what the hell happened?)
Matt Cassel
Mark Sanchez
Dennis Dixon
Matt Leinart
Kellen Clemens
AJ Feeley
and Mark Brunell

The only exception is Aaron Rodgers.

spread vs pro offense and OU caliber players vs Stanford caliber players

manning in college over 4 years
ATT COMP COMP% YARDS INT TDS 8.27 Y/A

1354 851 62.85 11201 33 90

 

[joseephuss]

Good company as only four number one pick QB's in history have ever accomplished the goal of winning a Super Bowl, they are in order: Terry Bradshaw, Troy Aikman, John Elway and Peyton Manning, every other top pick quarterback has failed at this to date in the 92 year history of the NFL and 45 year history of the Super Bowl.

Those are the #1 overall picks who won Superbowls with the team that drafted them. Jim Plunkett was also a #1 overall pick who won a Superbowl. He didn't win with the New England Patriots who drafted him, but he did win with the Raiders. Plunkett also went to Stanford like Elway and Luck. Also, except for Manning, those guys all won more than one Superbowl. They all got their teams to multiple Superbowls.

 

[SkinsHokieFan]

I saw Luck play in the Orange Bowl and destroy my Hokies.

Here is what got me about Luck that day. 1) Teams rarely have great PASSING days against VT, our secondary is very solid now and he adjusted very well after a ho-hum first half

But 2) Sitting near the Stanford sideline, I saw this guy as a leader in the 2nd half of the game. He was all over the place, talking up his lineman, talking to coaches, whatever. He had complete command of that huddle. He was simply what you want in the QB of your team, always in control, calm, and in charge.

I have now watched every college throw he has made, and I am unable to find any weakness from his delivery, to his footwork, to his pocket presence. What is even more impressive is just how much he improves every year

 

[DFWJC]

Stanford, at the undergrad level is better than Harvard or Yale.

At least we can agree that he went to a great school....but Stanford undergrad is not rated higher than harvard and yale:
Current rating:
1) Harvard
2) Princeton
3) Yale
4) Columbia
5) tied at 5th: MIT, Standord, Cal Tech.


back to football....

The Stanford QB that many compare this kid too is John Elway.

FWIW, he's only had one other QB ver rated as highly as Luck. I assume it was Elway, but maybe that was too long ago.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

There are a lot of things to like about Luck:

He's got prototypical size for the position at 6'4" 225+....
He's mobile...
He's hard-nosed... Check out some of his runs and tackles
He's very accurate...
He's very smart...
Great arm and can make all the throws...
Has demonstrated success at Stanford...
He's pro-ready having played in Harbaugh's pro-style offense the past few seasons...

this sums it up. he's not a perfect prospect by any means, but really has no negatives. doesn't have michael vick type mobility, but i would compare his to aaron rogers. doesn't have a cam newton arm, but i would say more than strong enough to make any nfl throw. very accurate, great mechanics, great footwork and has the production to match the measurables.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

Although this probably does not mean much to a deal of scouts or teams I will add another plus for Luck.

His father was a College QB and Played in the pros for some years, mostly as a backup.

 

[ghst187]

Yeah, I agree with most of the above....there's really nothing to dislike or be concerned about with Luck, his case is pretty airtight. If Payton comes back and Indy puts the top pick up for bidding there are about 25 teams that would be foolish NOT to try to mortgage their entire draft to get him....and I would include us on that list of 25. I love Romo, but if there is a remote possibility that you could get a guy who could be the next Payton or Elway....you're an idiot not to try.

I actually thought Barkley would better rival Luck for the top pick however he hasn't developed as quickly as I thought he would. I'm sure coaching changes, lesser recruiting, and all the USC shakeup didn't help him.

 

[burntricersx]

He's athletic too:
http://youtu.be/0zuBoOarPMQ

 

[CowboyMike]

At his best an in his prime, Bledsoe was a good QB. I have a very hard time trying to call him "elite."

There was a time for a couple of seasons in the mid-90s, just as he was coming into his prime, that Bledsoe was thought of as maybe the best quarterback in the league going into those seasons. Given time, even late in his career, his arm could still pick a defense apart. He just didn't have left any of what little mobility he had to begin with, and his line wasn't built to give him time to just stand there in the pocket. One thing about Bledsoe that no one ever really gave him credit for was his absolute toughness. It was directly due to his lack of pocket mobility, too. He took a ton of hits and always shook it off and kept coming back.

 

[CowboyMike]

Andrew Luck seems to be the absolute complete quarterback prospect. It seems like he's the type of prototypical QB one would dream up in their head. You could take any other quarterback and point out one or two absolute strengths that set them apart. Elway's mobility and arm strength, Aikman's accuracy, Peyton's intelligence and awareness, Marino's quick release.

Luck doesn't really have any specific aspects about his talent and game that stand out like the others. However, he still has them all. While they may not be the best at any particularly quality, they are definitely Top 5.

It's more about Andrew Luck having absolutely no weaknesses rather than the fact that he stands out in any particular aspect.

I hate to bring Madden ratings into the equation, but it's like having a QB with a rating of 95 across the board rather than one that has 99 throw power but 85 accuracy and awareness.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Good company as only four number one pick QB's in history have ever accomplished the goal of winning a Super Bowl, they are in order: Terry Bradshaw, Troy Aikman, John Elway and Peyton Manning, every other top pick quarterback has failed at this to date in the 92 year history of the NFL and 45 year history of the Super Bowl.

Somebody mentioned Plunkett, but you're also missing Eli (also technically not with his "original" team).

There have only been 24 QBs taken #1 since 1955 (plausible SB participants), so the fact that those 24 have accounted for 13 SB wins and 18 appearances is pretty impressive. Especially when that list includes Newton, Bradford, and Stafford, who have a long way to go. In fact, if we start with Bradshaw in 1970 and end with Eli in 2004, we get 14 QBs, 7 of whom made the SB and 6 who won it.

 

[Nova]

The "hype" about Luck started the beginning of last college season. Much of the hubbub going into this season was the fact he bypassed the draft when he was unanimously projected to go #1 overall.

Being a great prospect isn't necessarily about who puts up the best stats. Otherwise, guys like Graham Harrell would have been #1 overall.

I sense some bias with your view of the Pac-10. Someone could just as easily put together a list of no-name QBs from the past 10-15 years from say, the SEC.

BTW, in a list of supposed QB disappointments, how can you list Carson Palmer, Mark Brunnell or even Matt Cassell, lol? C'mon man.

What's you criteria? That they be HOFers?

Either way, you forget Troy Aikman (UCLA), Warren Moon (Wash. St.), John Elway (Stanford), as well as guys like Aaron Rodgers, Palmer, Brunnell, Drew Bledsoe, and Cassel.

I am biased against the PAC because the defenses out there aren't too great. The guys I listed were guys that are in the NFL now and came out of a more recent PAC (minus Brunell). It was to illustrate that a lot of guys from that conference get unjustified hype. Are Palmer, Brunnell, or Cassell even close to top 10 QBs? That's the point I'm getting at.

Like I said, I know numbers don't tell the whole story, but I'm a skeptic until I see Andrew Luck play. I'm sure the hype isn't complete garbage, but perhaps the amount of it is. That's all I'm saying.

I've seen highlights and I think he's got a good set of skills that SHOULD translate into NFL success, but I can't make an accurate judgment based on what he does well in a small sample size.

 

[DFWJC]

I can't say I've ever seen so much hype for a player out of college.

I honestly can't divulge a great opinion since I've still yet to see him play (mostly due to the fact, like most College phenoms, the hype for him jumped just prior to this season... I think it has something to do with ratings, tbh)

But like I said, I haven't seen him play, so I've been curious but skeptical.

In comparison to Bradford...

Bradford: 565/824 7,841 yards 68.5% 16 ints 9.0 y/a
Luck: 425/665 5,913 yards 63.9% 12 ints 8.8 y/a

Just numbers, but thought it may help. Based on that, I don't see what the big deal is but I know that doesn't tell the story.

I'm also skeptical because I'm not big on PAC qb's. A lot of quarterbacks from that conference in the NFL today, but...

Derek Anderson
Trent Edwards
Matt Moore
Carson Palmer (not too bad, but what the hell happened?)
Matt Cassel
Mark Sanchez
Dennis Dixon
Matt Leinart
Kellen Clemens
AJ Feeley
and Mark Brunell

The only exception is Aaron Rodgers.

Well, you left an incredible number of QBs off that list. And using one of best QBs in the league (Rodgers) as an exception hurts the argument.

More importantly, that list almost proves the exact opposite of what you are trying to prove.
Only two of those guys were 1st rounds picks (3 with Rodgers) and several were late rounders or not drafted at all. Yet look at how many are in the league. That could say they were UNDERrated.

So even if this is not the heyday for Pac 12 QBs, there are 4 of them currently starting in the NFL and a 5th is sitting out by choice.

Bottomline is that you could put together a long list of QBs that did not live up to expectation from any conference.

 

[ringmaster]

There was a time for a couple of seasons in the mid-90s, just as he was coming into his prime, that Bledsoe was thought of as maybe the best quarterback in the league going into those seasons. Given time, even late in his career, his arm could still pick a defense apart. He just didn't have left any of what little mobility he had to begin with, and his line wasn't built to give him time to just stand there in the pocket. One thing about Bledsoe that no one ever really gave him credit for was his absolute toughness. It was directly due to his lack of pocket mobility, too. He took a ton of hits and always shook it off and kept coming back.

I agree about Bledsoe early on in his career and one thing is for sure he had one of the best throwing arms I've ever seen it was a thing of beauty to watch him throw the ball.

Aside from that what irked me about him was his willingness to hold on to the ball to long and get sacked or him throwing it to the other team but when he was on his game he was a top tier QB for sure.

 

[ringmaster]

Well, you left an incredible number of QBs off that list. And using one of best QBs in the league (Rodgers) as an exception hurts the argument.

More importantly, that list almost proves the exact opposite of what you are trying to prove.
Only two of those guys were 1st rounds picks (3 with Rodgers) and several were late rounders or not drafted at all. Yet look at how many are in the league. That could say they were UNDERrated.

So even if this is not the heyday for Pac 12 QBs, there are 4 of them currently starting in the NFL and a 5th is sitting out by choice.

Bottomline is that you could put together a long list of QBs that did not live up to expectation from any conference.

He also missed the fact that Elway, Aikman, and Rodgers as you mentioned came from the Pac 10/12 that has won the SB.

It would be an interesting thread as to which college conference produce the most SB winning QBs.

 

[joseephuss]

He also missed the fact that Elway, Aikman, and Rodgers as you mentioned came from the Pac 10/12 that has won the SB.

It would be an interesting thread as to which college conference produce the most SB winning QBs.

Of the big conferences:

7 for the Big 10
Purdue has two different QBs with Bob Griese and Drew Brees

7 for the SEC
Alabama has three different QBs with Bart Starr, Joe Namath and Kenny Stabler winning 4 titles

8 for the Pac 10
Stanford has two different QBs with Jim Plunkett and John Elway winning 4 titles

Navy of course has Roger Staubach with 2 titles

BYU has played in a few different conferences and produced Jim McMahon and Steve Young with 2 titles

Notre Dame as an independent produced Joe Theisman and Joe Montana with 5 titles

 

[DFWJC]

Of the big conferences:

7 for the Big 10
Purdue has two different QBs with Bob Griese and Drew Brees

7 for the SEC
Alabama has three different QBs with Bart Starr, Joe Namath and Kenny Stabler winning 4 titles

8 for the Pac 10
Stanford has two different QBs with Jim Plunkett and John Elway winning 4 titles

Navy of course has Roger Staubach with 2 titles

BYU has played in a few different conferences and produced Jim McMahon and Steve Young with 2 titles

Notre Dame as an independent produced Joe Theisman and Joe Montana with 5 titles

I was just going to say....

I bet there are almost as many (or more) winning Super Bowl QBs that did not play in "BCS" conferences.

Staubach, Favre, Montana, Theisman, Young, Bradshaw, Roethlisberger, Warner, McMahon, Simms, Williams......the list is long and impressive.

 

[realtick]

I am biased against the PAC because the defenses out there aren't too great. The guys I listed were guys that are in the NFL now and came out of a more recent PAC (minus Brunell). It was to illustrate that a lot of guys from that conference get unjustified hype. Are Palmer, Brunnell, or Cassell even close to top 10 QBs? That's the point I'm getting at.

Lol, I can't even begin to argue with such a vague statement like "the defenses aren't too great."

Um yeah, Carson Palmer was at one time a Top 10 QB, no question. So was Mark Brunnell back in his prime with the Jaguars. Matt Cassell just came off a Pro Bowl season last year and has been a quality starter since becoming a starter in this league. I fail to see how you would think any of those players can't be considered good either now or in the past.

Like I said, I know numbers don't tell the whole story, but I'm a skeptic until I see Andrew Luck play. I'm sure the hype isn't complete garbage, but perhaps the amount of it is. That's all I'm saying.

Again, numbers (statistics) can't be the sole indicator of whether a player is "good" or not. If it was, Graham Harrell would be the greatest player to have ever laced them up.