Kiper and McShay recently talked about NFL rookie of the year. They both picked Andrew Luck.

I mean, RG3 I would totally understand. But Luck? Why? Why?

Pride is a bitch. They both anointed his ass before he had even taken his last college snap.

_________________
SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need

You mean you had some respect for them before this?

Being somewhat of an outsider here in England, can someone let me know how and why these guy's are considered experts? When it appears to me, the likes of Kearly and English, without anywhere near the resources (I'm assuming), have a better eye for talent?

No surprises here, more of the same from them. Pathetic. Espn needs emdiggy, keep it real.

LOL what a load of crap. Turned it off as soon as they started talking about Tebow again.

Because ESPN says they are experts. The truth is Kiper was an amateur scout back in the 70's and than created his own scouting business in the early 80's. Then he joined ESPN. In the mid 90's he created his own scouting reports and some teams starting buying into them. Many people think Kiper gives certain players more hype due to his friend$hip with certain agent$. Kiper has never worked a draft for an NFL team, been part of an NFL front office or been an NFL Scout.

McShay I know little about. All I know is that he worked for a shot time for some scouting publication. Again, never worked for an NFL team either.

In my opinion Mike Mayock is the most knowledgeable and least biased big name guy who truly knows these kids in the draft.

Mayock wipes the floor with those clowns.

_________________

3elieve

Mayock actually played and is a total film junky. He's not always right, but his opinions are actually based on knowledge not BS.

_________________
Help bring peace to the South LA / Puget Sound communities. Are you in?
http://www.abetterla.org | https://www.causes.com/fb/donations/new?cause_id=62891&fundraiser_id=14387774&m=2799c87f
http://www.abetterseattle.com | https://twitter.com/#!/ABetterSeattle

_________________

Andrew Luck is not only ROY, but also a legitimate MVP candidate.

Russell Wilson and Robert Griffin have both had spectacular seasons, but Luck inherited a much worse team, and also shouldered a lot more of the offensive burden. He's the best QB to come into the league since the guy he replaced, Peyton Manning.

In two years, Luck will be in the elite class, with Brady, Brees, Rodgers, and Manning. If we can find a legitimate gamebreaking "X" receiver for Wilson, perhaps he will join him.

_________________
ben@thetabs

So, you want to give him an award based on both his physical skill set, his supposed bad supporting cast, and what he will be in a couple of years? He already got that award, it's called first pick in the draft. It even came with a cash prize.

Listen, I am not convinced Wilson is the rookie of the year, but I am convinced Luck is not. And if you are going to dismiss the just plain ugly completion percentage and pure number of turnovers based on supporting cast, then don't you have to also consider the absolute weakness of the NFL schedule he faced?

Your thinking process on this award is starstruck and dishonest.

Edit: Why do I feel like THE TABS is actually John Clayton?

_________________
SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need

The debates I have heard lately have it a two horse race between Griffin and Wilson. I think an argument could be made for all three.

Why I dont think Luck should get it. Turnovers. Strength of schedule. Perceived lack of talent. He is throwing to Reggie Wayne. Turnovers.

Kiper/McShay are total Harbaughs.

_________________

I'm not the least bit starstruck; you are in serious denial. Luck had 225 more passing attempts than Wilson, and was asked to shoulder a lot more of the offensive burden. No quarterback in the history of the league has EVER taken a team from 2-14 to the playoffs in one year, let alone a ROOKIE QB. Oh, by the way, he did it having to follow a first-ballot Hall of Famer in Peyton Manning, which is no easy task (just ask Aaron Rodgers).

Look, I admit wholeheartedly that I've drank the Russell Wilson kool-aid, but if you put him on the Colts, they are NOT 10-5 right now.

_________________
ben@thetabs

You don't know that.

_________________

Really? Why do you think you are the only one saying this opinion? Plenty of people study tape and such, and I do not doubt at all Scotte does as well. I have watched Luck too, and that 10-5 record is a total farce. He's had to make how many comeback wins? Do you know how easy it is to screw those up? One small thing goes different in his "comeback wins" and a win is a loss.

Take for example Luck's comeback against the Lions. I watched his final drive, and before throwing the TD to whathisface, he threw a football right in the hands of a Lions defender, who dropped the pick. If the Lions guy catches that, the Colts for sure lose, and it's because Luck's a dumbass.

You know what's better than close, come from behind wins? Blowout wins. Over much better teams. And that's what Wilson did, he beat the crap out of a much superior defense, while Luck barely survived against a bottom feeder. I know which win is more valuable, that's for sure.

1. Teams with great talent don't go 2-14. Colts have some big holes, but are getting by with better schematics and a unified team rallying around Chuck Pagano and Bruce Arians

2. Curtis Painter had Reggie Wayne too, and they got all the way to 2-14. Lame argument.

_________________
ben@thetabs

And what was the record of that talent the year before? using 2011 to gauge the talent level of the Colts is dishonest, look at the IR report for the 2011 Colts and Manning isn't the only one missing. The defensive line and Linebackers were gutted as well. they lost their best four! defensive tackles to IR. And Curtis Painter? If you put him on the 2012 Hawks, they would be a 5 win team at best. No I can't prove it, just like you can't prove your claim. But Curtis Freakin Painter on a team gutted by IR(honestlymthe real tank job from the Colts last year wan't on the field, it was that they would IR players for a damn hangnail in their pursuit of Luck) equals 2-14 or something like it on most teams.
And since you insist on using Lucks higher number of attempts to deflect the bad numbers, why hasn't his higher number of attempts resulted in a lot more scores? By whatever metric you use, Luck has been only average in efficiency.

Luck is clutch and I don't doubt his future. But only bias can explain choosing him for Rookie of the year.
Answer this honestly please: Who did you think would win Rookie of the year before the season began?

_________________
SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need

MOM, WHEN'S DINNER!!!!!!!???????

_________________
ben@thetabs

Tabs, honesty, you lost all credibility when you said he should be MVP.

_________________
SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need