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!

     

ESPN article on QB success where drafted


ctrcat

Recommended Posts

Not sure why people here still act like it's something new that individuals in the media think Luck can walk on water.

 

I'm frankly beyond sick of reading about him here. Once again, I suggest a filter for his name, so we no longer have to see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way its looking now the Colts could literally lose out, and not make the playoffs.

Yet the narritive stays the same .

Luck = Greastest Qb prospect since Elway. Last couple of games not his fault its everyone around him.

Cam = Thug. Everything including climate change is his fault.

In total espn hates to be wrong so they stick to there guns no matter what the outcome.

Kinda like cable news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't remember a QB ever handed greatness on a platter like the media has done with Luck.

Narratives are hard to break due to egos in the media. Just see Luck and Cam.

 

I do like Luck as a prospect but the amount of bullshit excuses made for him when the same allowances aren't given to the other QBs in his class (or within the last couple years) is ridiculous...

 

I like Luck and I think he will be great but the very idea of him being in the "hof discussion" at this point is pure insanity.  there's no rational way you can classify those comments outside of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, even with a healthy Reggie Wayne, he throws a game ending INT against the Dolphins at home, while Cam does the exact opposite against the exact same team in the exact same situation on the road-yet no one knows or mentions it-Luck(y) (to play in the AFC South) is HOF bound, no questions asked. It's laughable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That article was just dumb. Very unscientific. Something I would expect a fan to write.

 

As far as Andrew Luck, I was watching him interviewed on the NFL Network, Warren Sapp asks him a question about the Arizona Cardinals and he starts talking about himself. It was clear to me that he misunderstood the question and I kept thinking to myself "this is the Stanford genius everyone talks about". I do not have a Luck bias like all his defenders claim because of the Cam connection. But I have watched him play and he does some bat poo crazy things on a weekly basis. He is pretty good but right now, this Hall of Fame stuff is a myth. Old white guys in the media love the idea of a dorky white guy from Stanford that doesn't celebrate first downs and generally acts boring and old fashioned. They perpetuate this myth that Andrew Luck is a hall of famer and people believe it. He's a nice QB, but there is no telling if he will ever live up to the hype.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Per Adam Schefter: https://x.com/AdamSchefter/status/1920523706624823739 Expected, but just want to rub it in here.
    • I try to keep up and project the roster with color-coded charts.  You can see priorities and gauge who has the best chance of making the roster--you can see the priorities as well.  Here, Yellow is a 2025 draft pick, green is an undrafted free agent, and orange is a free agent. The depth chart will obviously change and I am not sure about roles (positions in all cases), so that is not the real issue at this time, but yellows and oranges show how the team focused on which aspects of the defense:     In the front 5, there were 3 draft picks, 3 free agents (not including players we re-signed), and two undrafted players signed. In the back 6, there was 1 draft pick and 2 free agents (LB, S), and four undrafted free agents. The undrafted free agents are always long shots, but by identifying them, you can tell which longshots might make the roster.
    • The rise of analytics in sports goes back to the use of sabermetrics in baseball.  The ironic thing is that the whole point of Bill James work was to objectively figure out each players contribution to to a team's wins throughout the season.  This is possible in baseball because each at bat is essentially a 1v1 with an objective outcome.  Applying statistical averages also works a lot better with hundreds of plate appearances over 162 games a year. PFF grades plays subjectively, and then puts them into buckets.  They then create different statistics based on those buckets.  That's all well and good and I'm not saying it's useless.  But calling it analytics like it's some kind of objective science is a far cry from what is actually going on.
×
×
  • Create New...