Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Why we should NOT draft Andrew Luck


  • Please log in to reply
106 replies to this topic

#31 Dpantherman

Dpantherman

    certified pee-on

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,443 posts

Posted 03 December 2010 - 08:01 PM

There is a difference btw ESPN thinking something and EVERY SINGLE person that knows football or that is associated with it in any way agreeing that he is a consesus #1. Find scout, coach or player that doesn't think Luck is the real deal. Quote them and bring it to me and I'll eat my words.

#32 Ohio

Ohio

    The Wizzard of Wisdom

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,177 posts

Posted 03 December 2010 - 11:59 PM

Glad to see some people have my back when we want to debate intelligently.

Yes there have been good Pac10 QB's, but Captain Obvious those QB's are all retired and have not played for a LOOOONG time, so I dont see the point.

Todays culture says "you gotta take a QB with the #1 pick" especially since Matt Ryan, Mark Sanchez, and Sam Bradford all are having success. I just honestly dont think Luck is that guy. If Stanford plays in a BCS game I'll be really interested in seeing how he plays against top notch talent. I would rather just go with a QB whose got 1 year under his belt, getting better every week, and growing with our young WR's over a rookie QB and start the whole process again.

#33 Cavscout

Cavscout

    HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,496 posts

Posted 04 December 2010 - 04:59 AM

Glad to see some people have my back when we want to debate intelligently.

Yes there have been good Pac10 QB's, but Captain Obvious those QB's are all retired and have not played for a LOOOONG time, so I dont see the point.

Todays culture says "you gotta take a QB with the #1 pick" especially since Matt Ryan, Mark Sanchez, and Sam Bradford all are having success. I just honestly dont think Luck is that guy. If Stanford plays in a BCS game I'll be really interested in seeing how he plays against top notch talent. I would rather just go with a QB whose got 1 year under his belt, getting better every week, and growing with our young WR's over a rookie QB and start the whole process again.


OK, We get it...you disagree with EVERY NFL SCOUT...your prerogative

However, No matter how much you try, you are not going to change anyone else's mind so apparently you just like to squabble

Edited by Cavscout, 04 December 2010 - 05:47 AM.


#34 thefuzz

thefuzz

    coppin a feel

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,868 posts

Posted 04 December 2010 - 10:44 AM

History is not on Lucks side, but I still think that you have to take him.

Personally, I don't like 2 year starters, especially not with the 1st overall pick. But I still say that you take him at that slot, if the combine goes well, and you really think that the game isn't too big for him.

#35 pantherfan81

pantherfan81

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,258 posts

Posted 04 December 2010 - 10:59 AM

I'm on the west coast and I watch a lot of PAC-10 football & IMO he's the best QB Ive seen in a minute. I listen to ESPNradio way more than I watch the channel, & I've heard more talk about Cam than Luck.

Aaron Rodgers was great, its kinda scary Luck is much better than he was in the collegiate level. Btw there are great NFL QBs from many NCAA conferences, so I disagree with the concept of picking a QB based on which one they came from. The one thing Luck has no other prospect does is an off the chart IQ.

#36 Captain Obvious

Captain Obvious

    i want to have Ronda Rousey's children

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,870 posts

Posted 04 December 2010 - 02:04 PM

Yes there have been good Pac10 QB's, but Captain Obvious those QB's are all retired and have not played for a LOOOONG time, so I dont see the point.

Just showing there are good QB's from out west. His point was there was no good qb's from there. I showed him not only was that wrong but they have some pretty good ones that are in the hall of fame.

Of course there has been some pretty sucky ones too (Leaf= poster child) but to generalize like he did is false.

Edited by Captain Obvious, 04 December 2010 - 02:07 PM.


#37 Ohio

Ohio

    The Wizzard of Wisdom

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,177 posts

Posted 05 December 2010 - 12:02 PM

We'll see how he does in a BCS game.

What if Luck does awful his rookie year, should we take a QB in the 1st round again?

#38 rayzor

rayzor

    shula is who i thought he was.

  • Moderators
  • -29,936 posts

Posted 05 December 2010 - 12:57 PM

no.

#39 SuperMan

SuperMan

    I'm always holding back.

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,265 posts
  • LocationRaleigh,NC

Posted 05 December 2010 - 02:55 PM

the one thing that sets him apart from the failures and busts is his intelligence and work ethic, its what makes him such a great prospect remember all the talk about how we would jump up and draft matt ryan? bet you wish we had now, same with luck you just don't pass on a qb that has it all.

#40 SOJA

SOJA

    King McNutt 2016

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,175 posts

Posted 05 December 2010 - 09:42 PM

Intriguing argument

#41 Ohio

Ohio

    The Wizzard of Wisdom

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,177 posts

Posted 05 December 2010 - 11:32 PM

Intriguing argument


Glad someone thinks so.

Jeff Davidsons play calling has been horrific the past 2 years and if you notice our Qb has struggled for 2 straight years.

Glad to have some debate though, guess we'll find out on draft day if I have to keep this argument up

#42 Lout

Lout

    Draft Guru

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,414 posts
  • LocationTulsa, OK

Posted 06 December 2010 - 11:07 AM

Love him or hate him. If we have the #1 overall pick, we are taking Luck. There is no question. You can bitch and complain all you want, it won't change the fact that we will take the best player on the board, Andrew Luck. What is the use in campaigning that we not take Luck? Who are you trying to convince?

Not taking Luck would be completely illogical. We will never have a #1 overall pick again. You take a franchise QB if you ever have the opportunity. Clausen is not a franchise QB. Yes, he has potential, but you don't skip on Luck for Clausen's potential. Clausen has not shown any promise in his rookie season. He is 0-9 as a starter. You take a franchise QB if the opportunity arises.

Edited by Lout, 06 December 2010 - 11:13 AM.


#43 unicar15

unicar15

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,612 posts

Posted 06 December 2010 - 11:35 AM

What is it...200 pass attempts and counting without a TD for Clausen. I think that is a reason right there for why you take Luck. One out of every 200 attempts is like...3 TD passes per season IF you are throwing the ball ALOT. The guy should have stayed in college because he is the farthest thing from being ready to play pro football.

#44 NCPanthers

NCPanthers

    Junior Member

  • NEWB
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 06 December 2010 - 11:55 AM

I tend to fancy the 2011 Draft and off season as a chance for rehabilitation. Remember what the Jets did the past two years in the draft and with free agency and that same thing could be accomplished with us.

There are an extraordinary amount of most likely unrestricted free agents coming out this year but not so many from the Panthers, except ones that want to be here. Yes we will have to pay DWill but if we let him go we are losing the best running back to play for us and a player with probably 3 or 4 great pro bowl years left. I like JStew but with Sutton and Goodson behind him we could possibly trade him for a early second MAYBE a late desperate Colts first round pick if we send them a 3rd.

The 2011 draft holds so many possibilities, the draft is rich in many positions with a few being less than desirable beyond the top 3. The Panthers could use, in no particular order, a CB QB WR DT DE. This team is nowhere near is bad as it seems. We are not like the 0-16 Lions of recent memory, this is an incredibly young team with no sense of direction. Jim Druckenmiller was the first quarterback taken in the NFL draft in 1997. In 1998 Peyton Manning was the first QB taken, my point is do you think if the team who drafted Jim had a chance they would've picked Peyton? I do, and this is exactly what we are dealing with this year. Andrew Luck may be the next Tim Couch, but at the very least we need to HOPE he is the next Peyton Manning. Jimmy Clausen has shown improvement albeit at a slower pace than we would like. But before the Matt Ryan Joe Flacco year it took QB's a couple to three years for them to show up.

That being said....AJ Green would be fantastic if you don't believe that Gettis and Lafell can handle the bulk in two years with AE helping out more and more as Smitty inches closer to retirement. Take your pick between Prince Amukamara and Patrick Patterson if you want a CB. Patterson will definitely help out with returns while being a great corner but Amukamara is THE lock down corner. As far as a Defensive End, Bowers or Robert Quinn are as good as you'll get if we trade down a few spots and Clayborn late 1st round. I personally do not want a DT after the two that came out last year but if so Farley over Dareus.

Final thought, Jim Harbaugh and Andrew Luck together in Carolina. He is an offensive guy with some good defensive roots as well but I am sure Luck's maturation and growth would be quicker with Harbaugh coaching him. Plus Harbaugh would know how to recruit the free agents to our wonderful Carolinas.

#45 Ohio

Ohio

    The Wizzard of Wisdom

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,177 posts

Posted 07 December 2010 - 12:27 AM

I hope for all you Luck guys, he plays under the same Jeff Davidson system we've been running for 3 years and see how much you like Luck then. Jimmy gets a bad name for Davidsons idiocy.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.