Andrew Luck - Contrarian Post

[stony]

John Elway?

 

The man was the face for "The Vortex"

[The AntiFin]

For the people bringing up leaf and Russell..... REALLY?!?!? Leaf was a huge headcase and Russell was lazy as anything. This was their MO in college. This wasn't shocking when it happened in the pros. If you can find the obvious knock on him that may come back to haunt who picks him, then I'll credit that. At this point if he misses it will likely be either due to an awful line, or poor coaching. As long as he's not totally shell shocked he should be a gimme to be better than those two. I think at this point it's not a matter of if he's good, but how good and will he land in a decent spot.

Context, please. Some of us were talking about giving up an entire draft for a No.1 one overall, so Russell and Leaf (#2 overall) came up. But I'll bite. I give you Alex Smith and Eli Manning -- both No. 1 overall picks. I don't recall either being a "huge headcase" or "lazy as anything." They both allegedly were "the second coming," and -- well, judge their pro careers for yourself.

 

Smith: Went 21-1 as a starter at Utah and scored a 40 on the Wonderlic and had a GPA of 3.75. He was dubbed a "can't miss prospect" by many. Before the draft, I can't tell you how many times I heard the words "sure thing" associated with Smith.

 

Manning: A simple search didn't yield his complete college record, but he "tied 45 single-game, season and career records" at Ole Miss. In other words, not too shabby. He scored a 39 on the Wonderlic and had a GPA > 3.4. His pedigree speaks for itself.

 

Both players are "MEH," but I'll give Manning credit for being on a team that won the Super Bowl. (I give the same credit to Trent Dilfer).

 

I'm also not going to "find the obvious knock on him." And I'm not saying Luck couldn't be the next Joe Montana. As you point out, he could very well end up on a bad team (as most #1 overall picks do) and then it would be up to him whether he's the next Peyton Manning -- or the next Alex Smith. We likely won't know which for years.

[NoSaint]

Context, please. Some of us were talking about giving up an entire draft for a No.1 one overall, so Russell and Leaf (#2 overall) came up. But I'll bite. I give you Alex Smith and Eli Manning -- both No. 1 overall picks. I don't recall either being a "huge headcase" or "lazy as anything." They both allegedly were "the second coming," and -- well, judge their pro careers for yourself.

 

Smith: Went 21-1 as a starter at Utah and scored a 40 on the Wonderlic and had a GPA of 3.75. He was dubbed a "can't miss prospect" by many. Before the draft, I can't tell you how many times I heard the words "sure thing" associated with Smith.

 

Manning: A simple search didn't yield his complete college record, but he "tied 45 single-game, season and career records" at Ole Miss. In other words, not too shabby. He scored a 39 on the Wonderlic and had a GPA > 3.4. His pedigree speaks for itself.

 

Both players are "MEH," but I'll give Manning credit for being on a team that won the Super Bowl. (I give the same credit to Trent Dilfer).

 

I'm also not going to "find the obvious knock on him." And I'm not saying Luck couldn't be the next Joe Montana. As you point out, he could very well end up on a bad team (as most #1 overall picks do) and then it would be up to him whether he's the next Peyton Manning -- or the next Alex Smith. We likely won't know which for years.

 

 

my point being that in the discussion, talking about eli manning or alex smith is FAAAAAAAR more reasonable than using jamarcus and leaf - two guys that flamed out of the league fast, are broke, have had legal trouble etc.... if you believe eli manning is the low end of the spectrum - you are in great shape. by the way - i remember questions about smith being in the spread, and eli being overrated for his name. i havent heard real questions about this kid.

 

luck seems to be able to make every throw on the field accurately, and with needed touch

luck seems to be able to read defenses and make progressions

luck seems to be a great teammate and leader

luck seems to be able to thrive in multiple systems

luck seems to be a very smart guy

 

if the bracket on the kid is "somewhere between the two mannings" for best and worst case - i make that trade any day of the week. i dont make the trade for a guy with work ethic issues, character issues, or glaring holes and question marks in their game.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Because of his soundness as a person and his pedigree, there are only a few things which could derail the Andrew Luck Express, IMO.

 

1) He's not able to adjust to the level of competition. This occasionally happens.

 

2) He lands in a bad situation and gets physically and mentally traumatized (David Carr, Joey Harrington, and NUMEROUS others). This makes me wonder if his team will try to leverage certain organizations into not drafting him, although I think Andrew seems the good soldier type and would report to the team which drafted him.

 

I certainly don't see a JaMarcus Russell, Ryan Leaf flameout in his future at all.

 

But as in everything, there are dozens of levels of relative success and failure.

Edited October 19, 2011 by San Jose Bills Fan

[NoSaint]

Because of his soundness as a person and his pedigree, there are only a few things which could derail the Andrew Luck Express, IMO.

 

1) He's not able to adjust to the level of competition. This occasionally happens.

 

2) He lands in a bad situation and gets physically and mentally traumatized (David Carr, Joey Harrington, and NUMEROUS others). This makes me wonder if his team will try to leverage certain organizations into not drafting him, although I think Andrew seems the good soldier type and would report to the team which drafted him.

 

I certainly don't see a JaMarcus Russell, Ryan Leaf flameout in his future at all.

 

But as in everything, there are dozens of levels of relative success and failure.

 

thats definitely where i fall on this one. i will be disappointed for his sake if he ends up just a very good qb, and people look at it as a bust because he isnt all time great. if he isnt atleast a quality starter, i would be surprised if it cant be traced back to some sort of organizational fault (ie team in shambles, first year he gets pummeled, change head coaches and systems)

Edited October 19, 2011 by NoSaint

[ieatcrayonz]

Because of his soundness as a person and his pedigree, there are only a few things which could derail the Andrew Luck Express, IMO.

 

1) He's not able to adjust to the level of competition. This occasionally happens.

 

2) He lands in a bad situation and gets physically and mentally traumatized (David Carr, Joey Harrington, and NUMEROUS others). This makes me wonder if his team will try to leverage certain organizations into not drafting him, although I think Andrew seems the good soldier type and would report to the team which drafted him.

 

I certainly don't see a JaMarcus Russell, Ryan Leaf flameout in his future at all.

 

But as in everything, there are dozens of levels of relative success and failure.

Lolololololololololololol. Pedigree. Lolololololololololololol

 

Do you even know what that word means?

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Lolololololololololololol. Pedigree. Lolololololololololololol

 

Do you even know what that word means?

Well, yes. I know it's literal meaning, what it denotes, what it connotes, how it has come to be used, etc.

 

But I'm not the one "self-mapping in complex infocologies…"

 

Edited October 19, 2011 by San Jose Bills Fan

[ieatcrayonz]

Well, yes. I know it's literal meaning, what it denotes, what it connotes, how it has come to be used, etc.

 

But I'm not the one "self-mapping in complex infocologies…"

 

Was the father of this year's Kentucky Derby winner Rusty the farting horse from Seinfeld?

 

And what are you rambling about with the self mapping stuff?

Edited October 19, 2011 by ieatcrayonz

[snamsnoops]

Well, yes. I know it's literal meaning, what it denotes, what it connotes, how it has come to be used, etc.

 

But I'm not the one "self-mapping in complex infocologies…"

 

 

 

ENGRISH PREASE ENGRISH!

[The AntiFin]

my point being that in the discussion, talking about eli manning or alex smith is FAAAAAAAR more reasonable than using jamarcus and leaf - two guys that flamed out of the league fast, are broke, have had legal trouble etc....

Got it. That's why I brought up Eli and Alex. So at least we're closer to "apples to apples."

 

if you believe eli manning is the low end of the spectrum - you are in great shape.

By "MEH" I mean mediocre. I don't think anyone can argue that he's not inconsistent. You never know which Eli you're going to get on any given Sunday. For better or worse, I have a lot of friends who are Giants fans. Most think he's average, and they're right. Eli is better than Alex, without question. But he is not an "elite" QB in this league, IMO. I'll take Brady, Rodgers, Brees, P. Manning, Rivers over Eli any day. Jury's still out on Vick (as a passer), Newton, Stafford, Bradford -- But I'd wager three of the four end up with better numbers/careers than Eli when all is said and done.

 

by the way - i remember questions about smith being in the spread, and eli being overrated for his name.

For every question, there was praise. This happens every year -- with every prospect.

 

i havent heard real questions about this kid.

Let's revisit this in the weeks leading up to draft day. You'll hear plenty -- as well as accolades. You'll likely hear BOTH from the SAME "expert" in a three-month span, so that talking head can say he was "right" one way or the other. Happens all the time.

 

Look, I don't disagree with your assessment of Luck. He's a heckuva college QB. But you said it yourself -- It all depends on the situation he falls in to.

 

... "somewhere between the two mannings" for best and worst case - i make that trade any day of the week. i dont make the trade for a guy with work ethic issues, character issues, or glaring holes and question marks in their game.

 

Meaning you'd trade every draft pick of 2012 for Luck if he were somewhere between Eli and Peyton? That would be a Phillip Rivers type. That's where we disagree -- and there's nothing wrong with differing opinions.

 

This team is vastly improved over last year, but this team, right now, does not win with "Phillip Rivers" at QB. Far too many holes, still. We need that draft.

[Orton's Arm]

No way. Andrew Luck could be a god, but if he doesn't have the likes of Wood and Levitre protecting him or Lee and Stevie to throw to, he's just a tackling dummy. Montana, Kelly, Elway, Marino -- same deal. Dilfer showed us that a very mediocre QB can win a Super Bowl. I guess my "argument" is that I wouldn't sacrifice a team for one player. I wouldn't even sacrifice the Bills' 2011 draft for Rogers. Our defense is horrible despite some nice picks. Imagine what it would be like without them. Rodgers couldn't win that type of shootout week in and week out.

 

I have to say, though, I really like your style of posting. You research stats, make valid points and offer an interesting perspective.

Thanks for the compliment. I appreciate it!

 

When I wrote my earlier post, I thought to myself, the image that will come to people's minds is of Aaron Rodgers trying to win games by himself, without any real talent at all around him. No one--not even someone as good as Rodgers--can succeed after having been set up to fail so dramatically.

 

But a trade doesn't have to result in a situation as dire as that. A lot of times, getting rid of one player makes room for another to emerge. The departure of Terrell Owens made room for Stevie Johnson to contribute. Trading away Lee Evans gave Easley the chance to contribute. Easley's injury created more playing time for Nelson. I realize it's overly optimistic to assume that every hole on one's team can automatically and instantly be filled in this manner. But it would be overly pessimistic to assume that no holes would be filled like this, especially over the long run.

 

Suppose the ten players I mentioned earlier were in their primes, and on the Bills' roster. How much would the Bills lose by trading all ten of them away?

 

Player lost: Nate Clements. Replacement player: Aaron Williams. Comparison: too early in Williams' career to compare.

 

Player lost: Aaron Schobel. Replacement player: Marcel Dareus. Comparison: Dareus appears better than Schobel.

 

Player lost: Terrence McGee. Replacement player: Leodis McKelvin. Comparison: McGee in his prime is better than McKelvin.

 

Player lost: Lee Evans. Replacement player: Easley. Comparison: Evans is the better player for an offense which needs a deep threat; Easley is the better player for the Bills' current offense.

 

Player lost: Kyle Williams. Replacement player: Kellen Heard. Comparison: Williams in his prime is better than Heard, but that's not to take anything away from Heard!

 

Player lost: Demetrius Bell. Replacement player: Hairston. Comparison: the two players appear to provide roughly similar levels of play, though it's too early to be sure.

 

Player lost: Stevie Johnson. Replacement player: Nelson. Comparison: Johnson has proven more thus far, but Nelson shows significant potential.

 

Player lost: Eric Wood. Replacement player: the backup center from Carolina we recently released. Comparison: Wood is significantly better.

 

Player lost: Jairus Byrd. Replacement player: George Wilson (with Bryan Scott as starting SS). Comparison: this would result in a moderate downgrade of play at the safety position.

 

Player lost: Andy Levitre. Replacement player: Rhinehart. Comparison: Levitre is a significant step up from Rhinehart.

 

There would be a noticeable amount of pain associated with trading away the ten players I mentioned. On the other hand, the benefit of having a franchise QB is huge. Does anyone think that Green Bay would have won a single playoff game, let alone the Super Bowl, if Rodgers had gone down with a season-ending injury?

 

After acquiring Aaron Rodgers in a trade like this, the Bills would still need a year or two to become legitimate Super Bowl contenders. That time would be required to fill their (self-created) holes at center, CB, and elsewhere. But it's a lot easier to find reasonably good players to fill in holes like that than it is to find a quarterback like Aaron Rodgers! Under a scenario like this, the Bills would be virtually certain to become legitimate Super Bowl contenders within a year or two of making the trade.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Was the father of this year's Kentucky Derby winner Rusty the farting horse from Seinfeld?

 

And what are you rambling about with the self mapping stuff?

The answer can be found in Occam's Shaver.

[NoSaint]

Thanks for the compliment. I appreciate it!

 

When I wrote my earlier post, I thought to myself, the image that will come to people's minds is of Aaron Rodgers trying to win games by himself, without any real talent at all around him. No one--not even someone as good as Rodgers--can succeed after having been set up to fail so dramatically.

 

But a trade doesn't have to result in a situation as dire as that. A lot of times, getting rid of one player makes room for another to emerge. The departure of Terrell Owens made room for Stevie Johnson to contribute. Trading away Lee Evans gave Easley the chance to contribute. Easley's injury created more playing time for Nelson. I realize it's overly optimistic to assume that every hole on one's team can automatically and instantly be filled in this manner. But it would be overly pessimistic to assume that no holes would be filled like this, especially over the long run.

 

Suppose the ten players I mentioned earlier were in their primes, and on the Bills' roster. How much would the Bills lose by trading all ten of them away?

 

Player lost: Nate Clements. Replacement player: Aaron Williams. Comparison: too early in Williams' career to compare.

 

Player lost: Aaron Schobel. Replacement player: Marcel Dareus. Comparison: Dareus appears better than Schobel.

 

Player lost: Terrence McGee. Replacement player: Leodis McKelvin. Comparison: McGee in his prime is better than McKelvin.

 

Player lost: Lee Evans. Replacement player: Easley. Comparison: Evans is the better player for an offense which needs a deep threat; Easley is the better player for the Bills' current offense.

 

Player lost: Kyle Williams. Replacement player: Kellen Heard. Comparison: Williams in his prime is better than Heard, but that's not to take anything away from Heard!

 

Player lost: Demetrius Bell. Replacement player: Hairston. Comparison: the two players appear to provide roughly similar levels of play, though it's too early to be sure.

 

Player lost: Stevie Johnson. Replacement player: Nelson. Comparison: Johnson has proven more thus far, but Nelson shows significant potential.

 

Player lost: Eric Wood. Replacement player: the backup center from Carolina we recently released. Comparison: Wood is significantly better.

 

Player lost: Jairus Byrd. Replacement player: George Wilson (with Bryan Scott as starting SS). Comparison: this would result in a moderate downgrade of play at the safety position.

 

Player lost: Andy Levitre. Replacement player: Rhinehart. Comparison: Levitre is a significant step up from Rhinehart.

 

There would be a noticeable amount of pain associated with trading away the ten players I mentioned. On the other hand, the benefit of having a franchise QB is huge. Does anyone think that Green Bay would have won a single playoff game, let alone the Super Bowl, if Rodgers had gone down with a season-ending injury?

 

After acquiring Aaron Rodgers in a trade like this, the Bills would still need a year or two to become legitimate Super Bowl contenders. That time would be required to fill their (self-created) holes at center, CB, and elsewhere. But it's a lot easier to find reasonably good players to fill in holes like that than it is to find a quarterback like Aaron Rodgers! Under a scenario like this, the Bills would be virtually certain to become legitimate Super Bowl contenders within a year or two of making the trade.

 

and to speak to this issue, rodgers did win the superbowl missing an incredible number of players from that greenbay roster due to injury.

[Koufax]

I have two words to add: Ryan Leaf... bottom line is that no matter how highly a prospect is touted, you never know how they will turn out.

 

Sure, but you do know that Leaf was a certified head case while at Washington State right? (I lived there at the time and the local media covered it pretty well). And you did see the completion percentages in their last two years in college:

 

Leaf: 52% and 55%

Luck: 70% and 73%

 

A lot can happen, and I really hope he doesn't land with the Dolphins, but the comparisons are much more fitting to Manning and not Leaf. He is so fundamentally different than Leaf in terms of personality (Leaf's downfall) and accuracy that if he does turn in to a bust, it will be for completely different reasons than that. Tim Couch (66% and 72%) would be the much better parallel. If he fails it would be much more likely to be in a Tim Couch way.

[gizmo6824]

I have watched five or six complete games now. My take is that he is more of a system QB than a franchise QB. I see lots of great things in terms of vision and accuracy with just enough athleticism. However most of his throws are short and intermediate routes to TE's, RB's, and curl patterns to WR's. He has a wonderful offensive line, rarely gets any pressure, and an outstanding running game. His deep ball floats and his over the middle and sideline throws don't seem to have a lot of velocity. This past week against lowly Washington State he had several bad deep throws in the first half.

I'm not saying he won't be the top pick in the draft but he is looking less like John Elway and and more like Matt Leinart.

Myself personally id prefer Landry from Oklahoma, his passes are on a wire,.. amazed watching the ball leave his hands how quickly it gets to the receiver anywhere on the field.

[The AntiFin]

When I wrote my earlier post, I thought to myself, the image that will come to people's minds is of Aaron Rodgers trying to win games by himself, without any real talent at all around him. No one--not even someone as good as Rodgers--can succeed after having been set up to fail so dramatically...

Again, some very valid points. I think the strategy could work for the right team -- maybe a team that is one or two players away. I just don't think we're that team right now.

 

I realize it's overly optimistic to assume that every hole on one's team can automatically and instantly be filled in this manner. But it would be overly pessimistic to assume that no holes would be filled like this, especially over the long run.

For a team that hasn't sniffed the playoffs in 11 years, I don't see how this flies. Let's face it, unless "the long run" is measured in days, I don't think Ralph is buying. Chan builds through the draft -- He's not buying. I'm not sure the fans would buy. I'm a patient guy -- I could be persuaded to buy. But there's no indication Ralph is leaving me the team.

 

On the other hand, the benefit of having a franchise QB is huge.

Again, I completely agree. And I love Fitzmagic. Great story. But I don't believe he's a franchise QB. I think he works for the moment, though. One of these years we're going to get the next Jim Kelly in the draft. I believe Chan and Buddy can find that guy. And we won't have to trade a thing for him.

 

Does anyone think that Green Bay would have won a single playoff game, let alone the Super Bowl, if Rodgers had gone down with a season-ending injury?

No, what he did last year was nothing short of spectacular. I thought he was a good player last year. After the SB, I thought he was a great player. Seeing him carry that in to this year, the guy could become a legend. And, for those who thought Favre was a "class act" (prior to him becoming a d-bag these past two years) -- Well, he had nothing on Rodgers. Also, regarding GB, they had scrub running backs. Every once in a blue moon a player steps up and carries a team on his shoulders. No question that player was Rodgers last year. Dissecting the situation in Indy, no question that was Manning for 12 years.

 

After acquiring Aaron Rodgers in a trade like this, the Bills would still need a year or two to become legitimate Super Bowl contenders.

This is where I hit the proverbial wall. In 2005, Alex Smith was the guy everyone was drooling over -- and of course he went #1 overall. Rodgers went 24th. NOBODY saw this coming from Rodgers. They assumed it would come from Smith. I'm a betting man -- But those stakes are too high for me. If I'm not mistaken, Campbell went a pick later -- And he's pretty much done. If a GM does this and gets "a Rodgers," he's a genius -- provided he's around when he blossoms. If a GM does this and gets "a Smith/Campbell" -- He's fired. Remember, Rodgers wasn't a stud right away -- It took time. (Just ask Favre )

 

That time would be required to fill their (self-created) holes at center, CB, and elsewhere. But it's a lot easier to find reasonably good players to fill in holes like that than it is to find a quarterback like Aaron Rodgers!

So, I guess my question is this: Do you believe Luck is the next Rodgers? I want you on record. If your answer is yes, point taken. I will say, I think the chances of Trent Edwards being named Super Bowl MVP are greater than the chances of any NFL team trading every draft pick for Luck. I'd put big money on that.

[Dragonborn10]

I don't disagree -- IF you're 100% sure that what you're getting is a "sure thing," which as we all know is impossible. For every Rodgers and Manning there's a Leaf and Russell. Rodgers was hardly a sure thing when GB drafted him. The knock on Peyton was that he never won big games (yes, he since has proved that wrong). Personal statistics aside, I (personally) don't believe Rivers is in the same league as the other two. I don't believe he'll ever win a championship even though he's got all the talent around him to do so.

 

I'd be interested to know how many on this board would be comfortable trading all of our 2012 picks for a young Phillip Rivers. Which reminds me -- Didn't Eli go #1 that year? Even better -- Who would trade all of our 2012 draft picks for a young Eli Manning?

He's lost more big games than he has won...Just sayin...

[Orton's Arm]

Again, some very valid points. I think the strategy could work for the right team -- maybe a team that is one or two players away. I just don't think we're that team right now.

 

 

For a team that hasn't sniffed the playoffs in 11 years, I don't see how this flies. Let's face it, unless "the long run" is measured in days, I don't think Ralph is buying. Chan builds through the draft -- He's not buying. I'm not sure the fans would buy. I'm a patient guy -- I could be persuaded to buy. But there's no indication Ralph is leaving me the team.

 

 

Again, I completely agree. And I love Fitzmagic. Great story. But I don't believe he's a franchise QB. I think he works for the moment, though. One of these years we're going to get the next Jim Kelly in the draft. I believe Chan and Buddy can find that guy. And we won't have to trade a thing for him.

 

 

No, what he did last year was nothing short of spectacular. I thought he was a good player last year. After the SB, I thought he was a great player. Seeing him carry that in to this year, the guy could become a legend. And, for those who thought Favre was a "class act" (prior to him becoming a d-bag these past two years) -- Well, he had nothing on Rodgers. Also, regarding GB, they had scrub running backs. Every once in a blue moon a player steps up and carries a team on his shoulders. No question that player was Rodgers last year. Dissecting the situation in Indy, no question that was Manning for 12 years.

 

 

This is where I hit the proverbial wall. In 2005, Alex Smith was the guy everyone was drooling over -- and of course he went #1 overall. Rodgers went 24th. NOBODY saw this coming from Rodgers. They assumed it would come from Smith. I'm a betting man -- But those stakes are too high for me. If I'm not mistaken, Campbell went a pick later -- And he's pretty much done. If a GM does this and gets "a Rodgers," he's a genius -- provided he's around when he blossoms. If a GM does this and gets "a Smith/Campbell" -- He's fired. Remember, Rodgers wasn't a stud right away -- It took time. (Just ask Favre )

 

 

So, I guess my question is this: Do you believe Luck is the next Rodgers? I want you on record. If your answer is yes, point taken. I will say, I think the chances of Trent Edwards being named Super Bowl MVP are greater than the chances of any NFL team trading every draft pick for Luck. I'd put big money on that.

At least based on last season, Aaron Rodgers was playing football at a higher level than any other quarterback. That includes Tom Brady and Peyton Manning. Do I think that Andrew Luck will do that? No. I think the most likely outcome is for Luck to be very close to the level of Rodgers/Manning/Brady, but just a little bit worse. For a player like that, I would trade away the fruits of ten years of Bills' drafting. (The Bills' drafts of 2000 - 2009.)

[Mr. WEO]

Sure, but you do know that Leaf was a certified head case while at Washington State right? (I lived there at the time and the local media covered it pretty well). And you did see the completion percentages in their last two years in college:

 

Leaf: 52% and 55%

Luck: 70% and 73%

 

A lot can happen, and I really hope he doesn't land with the Dolphins, but the comparisons are much more fitting to Manning and not Leaf. He is so fundamentally different than Leaf in terms of personality (Leaf's downfall) and accuracy that if he does turn in to a bust, it will be for completely different reasons than that. Tim Couch (66% and 72%) would be the much better parallel. If he fails it would be much more likely to be in a Tim Couch way.

I agree--simply bringing up Leaf in this discussion and comparing him to Luck shows no grasp of what is being discussed.

[BuffaloBillsMagic1]

John Elway?

Has to mean John Unitis. Elway had a howitzer.