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?
kearly wrote: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?
SomersetHawk wrote: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?
THE TABS wrote: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.
Scottemojo wrote: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.
THE TABS wrote:Scottemojo wrote: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.
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.
THE TABS wrote:Scottemojo wrote: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.
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.
CALIHAWK1 wrote:Why I dont think Luck should get it. Turnovers. Strength of schedule. Perceived lack of talent. He is throwing to Reggie Wayne. Turnovers.
THE TABS wrote:CALIHAWK1 wrote:Why I dont think Luck should get it. Turnovers. Strength of schedule. Perceived lack of talent. He is throwing to Reggie Wayne. Turnovers.
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.
Scottemojo wrote:Why do I feel like THE TABS is actually John Clayton?
THE TABS wrote: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.
Scottemojo wrote:Answer this honestly please: Who did you think would win Rookie of the year before the season began?
THE TABS wrote:Scottemojo wrote:Answer this honestly please: Who did you think would win Rookie of the year before the season began?
Dead honest: Trent Richardson.
By the way, I didn't say Luck should be MVP; I said he is a LEGITIMATE MVP CANDIDATE, which he is. Your credibility won't amount to a hill of monkey crap if you're not going to quote me correctly.
Scottemojo wrote:And no freaking way is he an MVP candidate. Not a chance. A QB for MVP who averages a passing TD a game? Maybe in the 70's.
THE TABS wrote:Scottemojo wrote:And no freaking way is he an MVP candidate. Not a chance. A QB for MVP who averages a passing TD a game? Maybe in the 70's.
So, if Curtis Painter is still the Colts starter, they're in the playoffs this year?
You sir, are on crack.
CPHawk wrote:There is no Luck to suck for this year, so they would have at least tried and won 8 games.
THE TABS wrote:CPHawk wrote:There is no Luck to suck for this year, so they would have at least tried and won 8 games.
SERIOUSLY?![]()
All you have to do is TRY and you'll automatically go 8-8 every single year? So half the teams in the league weren't even trying this year?
What the Colts have proven over the last two years is what this league has become; no quarterback, no chance. We resemble that as well.
THE TABS wrote:Scottemojo wrote:And no freaking way is he an MVP candidate. Not a chance. A QB for MVP who averages a passing TD a game? Maybe in the 70's.
So, if Curtis Painter is still the Colts starter, they're in the playoffs this year?
You sir, are on crack.
THE TABS wrote:CALIHAWK1 wrote:Why I dont think Luck should get it. Turnovers. Strength of schedule. Perceived lack of talent. He is throwing to Reggie Wayne. Turnovers.
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.
CPHawk wrote:Seattle had NO QB last year as well, and still won 7 games.
It is currently Thu Apr 26, 2018 5:44 am
Return to [ THE NCAA FOOTBALL & PRO DRAFT FORUM ]