Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Andrew Luck says the whole "suck for Luck thing" is stupid

Grammer

By Grammer,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

Grammer Newbie

Grammer

Posted
Posted

Stanford quarterback Andrew Luck is, once again, the prize gem of the NFL's incoming draft class. But things are a little different this year, as a number of discontented fan bases fired up "Suck for Luck" campaigns in the hopes that their team will be worse than your team and therefor end up drafting the Stanford prospect No. 1 overall.

Awkwardly, Luck's very much aware of these campaigns and, as he told Judy Battista of the New York Times recently, he's not a fan.

"I am aware of it," Luck said. "A couple of guys told me about it. I think it's stupid. Simply put."

It is stupid. And frankly, kind of annoying, given that there are so many fanbases -- the Colts, the Seahawks, the Chiefs and the Dolphins to name a few -- involved this early in the season. (There's nothing wrong with scouting Luck, of course.)

In fact, Chris Joseph, the fella that runs Fins Nation, a Dolphins blog, is quoted in Battista's article as wholeheartedly endorsing the campaign, saying that he "actively rooted" for the Dolphins to lose to San Diego recently.

That's pretty awkward if you're a "real fan" or whatever, but making it even worse is that Luck still has a year of eligibility left. As a redshirt junior, Luck doesn't have to leave Stanford. Though if he wins the Heisman (he's the prohibitive favorite right now) and the first-ever Pac-12 title game, plus a BCS bowl game, he'll be hard pressed to hang around, especially since the Cardinal graduating 23 seniors from this season's team.

But maybe Luck will think twice if the folks who'll end up cheering for him in 2012 spent the entire prior year rooting against their own team.

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22475988/32732322

Am I the only one that's starting to think that there's a real possibility of Luck giving the NFL the finger?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Keith Moons Liver Newbie

Keith Moons Liver

Posted
Posted

So imagine if we had won a few meaningless games down the stretch last season, ended up picking 5th or 6th and had our choice between Blaine Gabbert, Christian Ponder and Jake Locker instead of Cam. Stupid huh?

Exactly. All these teams in the luck sweepstakes are terrible- it's totally worth being slighty more terrible for one season in order to have a shot at greatness rather than muddle about in mediocrity (or worse) for the next 5 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Waldo
      Clowney released

      By Waldo · Posted

      Even limited as he was I still don't think they have replaced his production, and not just the sack stats. The games Clowney missed it was very obvious what his value still was. Risky move but whatever. They only had 32 sacks last year and if that drops then it's going to get ugly. I see the improvement in run stopping but not in pass protect in any way.  
    • pantherclaw
      Houston Texans... You Suck!!!

      By pantherclaw · Posted

      I have zero issues with this.  
    • MHS831
      Panthers start making cuts to roster

      By MHS831 · Posted

      Sorta related.  I just looked up a stat:  Success rates for NFL draft's second rounders.  I was surprised that it is 49%.  The success rate for first rounders is 58%.   Here success does not mean those that did not bust, it means that roughly half of the players selected in the second round become full-time starters at some point in their careers.  Busts do that too.  However, considering the fact that a first round talent is worth up to 1800 points (first overall pick) more than the first pick of the second round and as low as 350 points (last pick in first round) higher than the last pick in round 2, it seems there could be cases in which it would be to your advantage to trade out of round 1 and draft two or three second rounders for the value.  Of course, the elite players are likely to be gone, and some positions overwhelmingly suck after round 1 (traditionally, like QB or LT, for example), but if you need to find starters at positions like DT, G, LB, S, C, TE, RB, etc, there could be a time when you trade back for more starters.  I was surprised that the margin between rounds 1 and 2 was only 9%.    While I realize that some of you sofa scholars are thinking, "Well duh?  Trading back gives you more players." as you wipe the Cheetos off your shirt.  Not the point.  The point is you have to consider the draft,the needs (and the number of them), and you need to scout the second and third rounds like you do the first, the cap, and the long-term impact.  If you can find 2 players with a 49% chance of becoming a starter, are you better off than drafting one player who has a 58% chance in the long term? So if I traded away my first rounder for two second rounders (a trade most teams would make) regularly, when I got 10 second rounders (by trading 5 first rounders), 5 would be starters.  If I did not trade and kept my 5 first rounders, 3 would be starters.  Furthermore, their rookie contracts would be much cheaper than the 5 first rounders. 
×
×
  • Create New...