LUCK is the next MARINO???

[TedSlimmJr]

Ryan Leaf was not considered a high risk gamble. He was considered a sure thing. He was basically tied with Peyton Manning as the top QB prospect.

No he wasn't... Peyton Manning was a 4 year starter that dominated as a freshman from the moment he stepped on the field in Knoxville. Most everyone had Peyton Manning pegged as a sure fire pro before his sophomore season was even finished. Ryan Leaf was barely only a 2 year starter that only had ONE big season and entered the draft early as an underclassman.

The only thing Ryan Leaf had over Peyton Manning was arm strength. That's it.


It's obvious that you don't watch college football or really study draft prospects. Basically, you just buy into whatever rumors or misinformation put out there by some draftnik or beat writer.

Every QB prospect that gets hyped up is NOT equal.

[normaldude]

No he wasn't... Peyton Manning was a 4 year starter that dominated as a freshman from the moment he stepped on the field in Knoxville. Most everyone had Peyton Manning pegged as a sure fire pro before his sophomore season was even finished. Ryan Leaf was barely only a 2 year starter that only had ONE big season and entered the draft early as an underclassman.

The only thing Ryan Leaf had over Peyton Manning was arm strength. That's it.

It's obvious that you don't watch college football or really study draft prospects. Basically, you just buy into whatever rumors or misinformation put out there by some draftnik or beat writer.

Every QB prospect that gets hyped up is NOT equal.

So what you're saying is that everyone else is wrong, and you are the lone expert who can identify which college prospects will become stars in the NFL.

Ok.

Hindsight is 20/20. In 1998, virtually all coaches, writers, fans, everyone had Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf as sure things. It was only a question of who would go #1 and who would go #2.

In 1998, you were saying that Ryan Leaf was a high risk gamble? Ok, prove it. Show me an article you wrote in 1998 stating that. Otherwise, you're just talking trash.

[TedSlimmJr]

So what you're saying is that everyone else is wrong, and you are the lone expert who can identify which college prospects will become stars in the NFL.

Ok.

Hindsight is 20/20. In 1998, virtually all coaches, writers, fans, everyone had Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf as sure things. It was only a question of who would go #1 and who would go #2.

In 1998, you were saying that Ryan Leaf was a high risk gamble? Ok, prove it. Show me an article you wrote in 1998 stating that. Otherwise, you're just talking trash.

A one year wonder, or a 2 year starter with ONE big season is NEVER going to be a sure thing. They're always a gamble and high risk. Peyton Manning was a sure thing based on his PROFILE as much as his talent.

Up until Mark Sanchez, an underclassman QB had NEVER panned out in the NFL. Matthew Stafford might, if he can stay healthy.


Ryan Leaf was a sure fire top 5 pick based on his POTENTIAL and his raw talent, but he wasn't a sure thing. Only Peyton Manning was a sure thing in 1998.


I'm not saying that I knew something everyone else didn't, I'm saying you're wrong that everyone and their dog had Ryan Leaf as a sure thing... it wasn't the case.


Although since you brought it up, I am pretty damn good at indentifying which college prospects will make good pros..
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Namor]

Here's how I feel about Luck..Lets say Henne,who I like,has a great year,,3800 to 4000 plus yds,2.5 to 1 TD/Int ratio...and for some reason
we have the number one pick...Is there any wavering on who to chose?NO..you have Luck wrapped up and signed before the draft.
You always invest in the QB position,especially in today's NFL.
You keep doing it till you get a elite QB.

[Ferretsquig]

Luck is no sure thing. For that matter neither way Manning or Ryan or any of these guys. QB is impossible to judge, because the position and development of the player is so reliant on a confluence of a series of disparate events. I don't care how smart of physically gifted a QB is......he can't do it on his own.

Up until Mark Sanchez, an underclassman QB had NEVER panned out in the NFL. Matthew Stafford might, if he can stay healthy.

That guy up in Philadelphia seems to be doing alright for himself. His neighbor in Pittsburgh doesn't seem to be too shabby either. Does he need to win 3 super bowls before you'd consider him to have panned out? Rodgers? Bledsoe? If you want to play the self proclaimed message board draft guru at least put a little thought into it.

[JCane]

Here's how I feel about Luck..Lets say Henne,who I like,has a great year,,3800 to 4000 plus yds,2.5 to 1 TD/Int ratio...and for some reason
we have the number one pick...Is there any wavering on who to chose?NO..you have Luck wrapped up and signed before the draft.
You always invest in the QB position,especially in today's NFL.
You keep doing it till you get a elite QB.

An unpopular, but correct answer.

The "real fans" have too big of a heart for one guy and one guy only. They can't possibly spread the love.

If this scenario were to happen the outcome would be similar to New York Yankees baseball in the 1960's with the M&M boys.

[TedSlimmJr]

Luck is no sure thing. For that matter neither way Manning or Ryan or any of these guys. QB is impossible to judge, because the position and development of the player is so reliant on a confluence of a series of disparate events. I don't care how smart of physically gifted a QB is......he can't do it on his own.



That guy up in Philadelphia seems to be doing alright for himself. His neighbor in Pittsburgh doesn't seem to be too shabby either. Does he need to win 3 super bowls before you'd consider him to have panned out? Rodgers? Bledsoe? If you want to play the self proclaimed message board draft guru at least put a little thought into it.

I thought about Bledsoe almost immediately after I posted, but really didn't feel like it was relevant to bring him up.... as he was the ONLY underclassmen quarterback that ever panned out into what could be considered franchise caliber until Roethlisberger came along in 2004.... and even Big Ben was a redshirt Junior when he entered the draft. He still had a year of eligibility left, but he was a Senior in preparation. Redshirts still practice, attend meetings, study film, and receive coaching during their redshirt season.


There were 16 underclassmen quarterbacks drafted in the 1st round from 1990-2007. Only 3 of them by my count turned out to be franchise caliber quarterbacks (Bledsoe, Big Ben, and Aaron Rodgers). Rodgers sat on the bench for 3 years behind a Hall of Famer in Brett Favre before he even took a snap.


I don't consider Michael Vick franchise caliber material... it only took him 10 years to get to where he's a functional passer. He was always the lowest rated quarterback in the league in Atlanta every year from inside the pocket. His success is also largely dependent on Andy Reid, who could turn you into a legitimate starting caliber quarterback. Mike Vick would be absolutely lost if he were most anywhere else.

Rex Grossman and Trent Dilfer are the only other 2 during that time period that turned out to be serviceable journeyman type quarterbacks.

Basically, what you have from 1990-2007 is 3 out of 16 underclassmen quarterbacks that turned out to be franchise caliber (Bledsoe, Big Ben, Aaron Rodgers).... that's roughly an 18% chance of happening. You had 2 more that turned out to be serviceable journeyman types, and another that took 10 years to learn how to play the quarterback position (Trent Dilfer, Rex Grossman, and Mike Vick)... that's roughly an 18% chance of happening.

The other 10 were flat out busts and disasters of epic proportions.... that's a bust rate of roughly 63%.





Now, where it gets interesting is from 2004-2010. In that time period, there were 9 underclassmen quarterbacks selected in the 1st round.


Big Ben and Aaron Rodgers already have superbowl rings, and are legitimate franchise quarterbacks. Throw in Matthew Stafford, Mark Sanchez, Josh Freeman, and Sam Bradford, and the early returns are looking rather promising for all these quarterbacks. I don't think any of them would be considered anything even resembling a bust.

Alex Smith, Jamarcus Russell, and Vince Young are the 3 that are considered for the most part, busts.


What you have in this time frame with underclassmen QB's is virtually the exact opposite of what you had in the previous 15 years or so. You have 6 of the 9 that are already well on their way to having outstanding careers..... that's roughly a 67% success rate.

3 of the 9 would be considered busts..... that's roughly a 33% bust rate.



The reason for this in my opinion is simple. It's easier to play quarterback in the NFL nowdays than it was 10, 15, 20 years ago... the rules have made it that way. You can't hardly touch the quarterback anymore, and receivers are allowed to run free, unlike years past. However, the spike in success rate with these underclassmen QB's is also attributed the spread concepts that have found their way into the NFL, directly coinciding with the time period that these QB's entered the league.

More quarterbacks are putting up 100+ QB ratings now than EVER before. More QB's are throwing for 300+ yards a game now than ever before. More young quarterbacks (doesn't matter if they're underclassmen or Seniors) are experiencing success in the league now than ever before. The bust rate for QB's is declining dramatically.... even for the 2nd round-mid round "system" QB's like Colt McCoy, Kyle Orton, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Kevin Kolb, Matt Shaub, etc.... that would be selling furniture had they tried to play quarterback in the NFL 15-20 years ago.

Quarterbacks are in the shotgun 60-70% of the time in the NFL now, as opposed to 25% of time at the most like it used to be. College quarterbacks that come from these spread systems and play their entire college careers in the shotgun without ever having to take a snap from under center isn't as big of deal as it was 15-20 years ago. The game has changed to aid these quarterbacks and give them a MUCH better shot at sticking around.

It's never been less risky to draft a quarterback in the 1st round than it is right now. Combine that with the rookie wage scale and it makes it even less risky than that because the commitment from a monetary standpoint isn't as crippling. It's also never been more important to HAVE a franchise quarterback than it is right now.

When you take all this into consideration, it's no wonder that teams are tripping over themselves to draft questionable QB prospects in the 1st round now. It's a quarterback league.

Andrew Luck is as "sure of a thing" at the quarterback position as I've seen... right up there with Manning and Matt Ryan. If you can't play quarterback in the NFL nowdays and have success, something is terribly wrong... either with you or your coaching staff.

[R&R Express]

Here's how I feel about Luck..Lets say Henne,who I like,has a great year,,3800 to 4000 plus yds,2.5 to 1 TD/Int ratio...and for some reason
we have the number one pick...Is there any wavering on who to chose?NO..you have Luck wrapped up and signed before the draft.
You always invest in the QB position,especially in today's NFL.
You keep doing it till you get a elite QB.

No doubt. You take Luck who's pretty much guaranteed to be a pro bowler in the NFL. If Henne does have a huge year, teams who need a QB will be beating down our door and we'd get at least the 2nd round pick we drafted him with back.

[electrolyte]

Luck's statline tonight as Stanford pounced on Bruins 45-19

completed 23 of 27 passes
3 touchdowns
227 yards

and this one handed catch
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


He's not just a great QB. HE'S A FOOTBALL PLAYER. This kid has greatness written all over him.