Luck's Pick Six

[cmgww]

Eerily reminiscent of Manning's in the Super Bowl, tight game, corner jumped the route and took it to the house...with all the Luck talk and how great he his, let's not forget he's human after all (as is #18),

[Farns01]

This game reminds me of the 2006 AFC Championship game. Stanford is the Colts and USC the Pats. Don't know who'll win but it's fun to watch.

[pacolts56]

Eerily reminiscent of Manning's in the Super Bowl, tight game, corner jumped the route and took it to the house...with all the Luck talk and how great he his, let's not forget he's human after all (as is #18),

Absolutely....and a great play by USC CB Robey.

[chad72]

It was around the same 3:12 left in the 4th qtr. time frame too, the pick six. He looks like Manning, alright, even when he throws a pick six , LOL

Barkley is showing me he is a better No.2 than Landry Jones. Just my opinion

Edited October 30, 2011 by chad72

[pacolts56]

This was one heck of a football game.

USC's O and D-lines played very well and Stanford got nothing easily.

[Blackhawk4]

Luck really did stare down his target though. He gave it away extremely early who he was throwing to and it was a good job of the corner by noticing it and jumping the route. A great game to watch and not the ending I was expecting.

Edited October 30, 2011 by Blackhawk4

[Andy]

You compared the Pick 6 to Manning in the SB, but Luck won the game. He had pressure all night from the USC pass rush, and still made great passes and looked great. Let's not forget how many passes Owusu, and #11 dropped. Luck played in a Manning-like scenario and pulled out the win, and that's something I like to see. As each game goes on, he further convinces me that he's the right guy to pick, and he's clutch... look at that 2 point conversion. This kid reminds me of Aaron Rodgers, and let's hope he ends up like him. I love Andrew Luck!

[chad72]

You compared the Pick 6 to Manning in the SB, but Luck won the game. He had pressure all night from the USC pass rush, and still made great passes and looked great. Let's not forget how many passes Owusu, and #11 dropped. Luck played in a Manning-like scenario and pulled out the win

Luck is way more mobile than Peyton to get a few first downs with his legs, I can see the Rodgers comparison hence. Plus, Peyton was behind 17-24 when he threw it, Luck was tied, so that helped. It did not help Peyton with the final score when Reggie dropped a possible TD pass by the goal line, otherwise we may at least have gone to 24-31. The Colts flat out did not make plays that night, oh well

[Malakai432]

Unfortunately Miami sucks very bad, I've always been on the Luck bandwagon. I'm pretty sure the Colts would draft him, it would he very odd however to have a player of that caliber ride the bench for 3-4 years. You never know though maybe Manning only has another year or two left anyways. We will find out, I have a feeling Colts will win a 2-3 games while Miami continues to skunk it up for maybe 1 win..

[BeaverTeeth]

Is it just me or is Andrew Luck overrated? He doesn't remind me of Peyton Manning in his playing style at all, his throwing motion is ugly and he runs too much in a Tebow like manner. Yeah, he can win some games. In college.

[chad72]

Is it just me or is Andrew Luck overrated? He doesn't remind me of Peyton Manning in his playing style at all, his throwing motion is ugly and he runs too much in a Tebow like manner. Yeah, he can win some games. In college.

To me, he reminds me more like Aaron Rodgers. Rodgers had a few quirks in his throwing motion when he came to the NFL but got it straightened out. Luck has fewer issues with his mechanics than Rodgers had and moves around like Rodgers does. The running is nowhere as much as Tebow did in college. He plays more in a Pro like system than Tebow who played primarily in spread formation systems.

That is the thing with a top pick. Once the combine comes along, every small flaw and blemish gets scrutinized, overanalyzed etc. but you have to examine their entire body of work to evaluate them. Tonight, Luck faced the most pressure I have seen him face in a long time in this season and he did pretty well.

Edited October 30, 2011 by chad72

[pacolts56]

Is it just me or is Andrew Luck overrated? He doesn't remind me of Peyton Manning in his playing style at all, his throwing motion is ugly and he runs too much in a Tebow like manner. Yeah, he can win some games. In college.

You can consider him overrated if you want.... and you'll find some folks here agree.

But nobody has compared any aspect of Luck's game to Peyton Manning with the exception of his play-calling/game management/leadership skills. They are two different QBs.

Luck's throwing motion is fine... but just for kicks, show me an uglier throwing motion than Philip Rivers.

And would you rather he run in a Manning-like manner?

Unpleasant as it may be for you.... Peyton Manning's successor will come from the cursed and condemned (by you) college ranks. I'd prefer that whoever it is will have won consistently on that level.

Or should we draft a loser?

[Ramblinwreck7]

You compared the Pick 6 to Manning in the SB, but Luck won the game. He had pressure all night from the USC pass rush, and still made great passes and looked great. Let's not forget how many passes Owusu, and #11 dropped. Luck played in a Manning-like scenario and pulled out the win, and that's something I like to see. As each game goes on, he further convinces me that he's the right guy to pick, and he's clutch... look at that 2 point conversion. This kid reminds me of Aaron Rodgers, and let's hope he ends up like him. I love Andrew Luck!

Against unranked USC... and your last sentence was awkward.

[Fx Stryker]

I thought the same thing, but maybe it was because we see that play and pick sixes always that way. now.

I was not at all for drafting Luck, but after actually watching the kid play I am all for it. I do not think "tanking" should be an option though. If we are in position to draft 'em and hopefully the idea learning from the G.O.A.T. is something he would enjoy.

[Captain Americolt]

It doesnt matter if usc was ranked or not. Luck faced constant pressure and did pretty darn well.

[Jason_]

It doesnt matter if usc was ranked or not. Luck faced constant pressure and did pretty darn well.

I will agree that he did pretty darn well. But he didn't do "oh my god he's awesome, you simply can't pass on a guy with that kind of talent" good. I wouldn't even say he had a significantly better game than Barkley. Barkley's biggest problem is he tends to get Robert Woods tunnel vision. In that regard, yes I think Luck is better than Barkley. It's also worth noting that Barkley played against the superior defense (Stanford D is ranked #18 and USC defense is ranked #43). Before anyone accuses me of trying to put a negative spin on things...I'm really not. I'm simply trying to keep things in the proper perspective.

Just for comparison and consideration....vs. the same pressuring USC defense:

Andrew Luck, 29/40, 72.5%, 3 TD 1 INT (Luck threw the INT described already)

Nick Foles, 41/53 77.4%, 4 TD 2 INT (first INT was because Juron Criner ran into a stationery defender, other TD the TE slowed on the route and Foles may still have overthrown him)

Stanford, 48 carries for 186 yards with 3.9 ypc

Arizona, 33 carries for 129 yards with 3.9 ypc

I was actually surprised by the rushing numbers...essentially each team got equal production from the running game as far as ypc but Stanford ran it more times so had almost 60 more yards. Both teams actually had a very similar number of plays but Stanford ran 15 more times than Arizona while Foles threw 13 more times than Luck.

[pacolts56]

I will agree that he did pretty darn well. But he didn't do "oh my god he's awesome, you simply can't pass on a guy with that kind of talent" good. I wouldn't even say he had a significantly better game than Barkley. Barkley's biggest problem is he tends to get Robert Woods tunnel vision. In that regard, yes I think Luck is better than Barkley. It's also worth noting that Barkley played against the superior defense (Stanford D is ranked #18 and USC defense is ranked #43). Before anyone accuses me of trying to put a negative spin on things...I'm really not. I'm simply trying to keep things in the proper perspective.

Just for comparison and consideration....vs. the same pressuring USC defense:

Andrew Luck, 29/40, 72.5%, 3 TD 1 INT (Luck threw the INT described already)

Nick Foles, 41/53 77.4%, 4 TD 2 INT (first INT was because Juron Criner ran into a stationery defender, other TD the TE slowed on the route and Foles may still have overthrown him)

Stanford, 48 carries for 186 yards with 3.9 ypc

Arizona, 33 carries for 129 yards with 3.9 ypc

I was actually surprised by the rushing numbers...essentially each team got equal production from the running game as far as ypc but Stanford ran it more times so had almost 60 more yards. Both teams actually had a very similar number of plays but Stanford ran 15 more times than Arizona while Foles threw 13 more times than Luck.

C'mon Jason..... you got to look beyond stat lines because they simply DID NOT apply last night. That was a street fight that very typically was decided by the last turnover.

But I'm curious....did you see ANY value whatsoever in Luck's operation of the 2:00 offense after his Pick-6?

You DID watch the game, right?

Because USC's O-line and D-line won their battles in the trenches for almost the entire game last night. Monte Kiffin called an excellent defensive game plan regardless of the point totals and Luck worked for everything he got.

On the other hand, Stanford's defense..... especially LB Jarek Lancaster.... had a lousy night that included crucial penalties and often some really atrocious tackling.

It just seems like for most of the college season you've painted Stanford's entire team as an unstoppable juggernaut that has allowed Andrew Luck the privilege of coming along for the ride.... and at the same time have pretty much presented Arizona as 80 or so bumbling fools plus Nick Foles, their savior QB.

Somewhere in between both of those situations lies the reality.... and some games, like last night,'s you gotta just say screw the stats. Yes....Foles, Barkley, Griffin and Jones could indeed become excellent NFL QBs.

But when Luck faced adverse conditions last night.... something you yourself have been waiting for, right?..... he rose to the occasion in a pretty hostile environment and led his team to a tough win using the very talents that have everyone cackling about him in the first place.

Using stats for perspective is useful when evaluating a QBs entire body of work.... and then there are those games where we come away saying "there's a QB who just willed his team to win".

[Balzer40]

C'mon Jason..... you got to look beyond stat lines because they simply DID NOT apply last night. That was a street fight that very typically was decided by the last turnover.

But I'm curious....did you see ANY value whatsoever in Luck's operation of the 2:00 offense after his Pick-6?

You DID watch the game, right?

Because USC's O-line and D-line won their battles in the trenches for almost the entire game last night. Monte Kiffin called an excellent defensive game plan regardless of the point totals and Luck worked for everything he got.

On the other hand, Stanford's defense..... especially LB Jarek Lancaster.... had a lousy night that included crucial penalties and often some really atrocious tackling.

It just seems like for most of the college season you've painted Stanford's entire team as an unstoppable juggernaut that has allowed Andrew Luck the privilege of coming along for the ride.... and at the same time have pretty much presented Arizona as 80 or so bumbling fools plus Nick Foles, their savior QB.

Somewhere in between both of those situations lies the reality.... and some games, like last night,'s you gotta just say screw the stats. Yes....Foles, Barkley, Griffin and Jones could indeed become excellent NFL QBs.

But when Luck faced adverse conditions last night.... something you yourself have been waiting for, right?..... he rose to the occasion in a pretty hostile environment and led his team to a tough win using the very talents that have everyone cackling about him in the first place.

Using stats for perspective is useful when evaluating a QBs entire body of work.... and then there are those games where we come away saying "there's a QB who just willed his team to win".

Excellent post pa!!!

[Ramblinwreck7]

C'mon Jason..... you got to look beyond stat lines because they simply DID NOT apply last night. That was a street fight that very typically was decided by the last turnover.

But I'm curious....did you see ANY value whatsoever in Luck's operation of the 2:00 offense after his Pick-6?

You DID watch the game, right?

Because USC's O-line and D-line won their battles in the trenches for almost the entire game last night. Monte Kiffin called an excellent defensive game plan regardless of the point totals and Luck worked for everything he got.

On the other hand, Stanford's defense..... especially LB Jarek Lancaster.... had a lousy night that included crucial penalties and often some really atrocious tackling.

It just seems like for most of the college season you've painted Stanford's entire team as an unstoppable juggernaut that has allowed Andrew Luck the privilege of coming along for the ride.... and at the same time have pretty much presented Arizona as 80 or so bumbling fools plus Nick Foles, their savior QB.

Somewhere in between both of those situations lies the reality.... and some games, like last night,'s you gotta just say screw the stats. Yes....Foles, Barkley, Griffin and Jones could indeed become excellent NFL QBs.

But when Luck faced adverse conditions last night.... something you yourself have been waiting for, right?..... he rose to the occasion in a pretty hostile environment and led his team to a tough win using the very talents that have everyone cackling about him in the first place.

Using stats for perspective is useful when evaluating a QBs entire body of work.... and then there are those games where we come away saying "there's a QB who just willed his team to win".

USC didn't call an excellent defensive gameplan????? Neither did Stanford. Any time you give up 41 points in regulation, then it's a shootout.

[chad72]

USC didn't call an excellent defensive gameplan????? Neither did Stanford. Any time you give up 41 points in regulation, then it's a shootout.

The most important thing that USC did was shut down Stanford's run and forced Luck's arm to beat them, IMO. That is what I gathered from this game. The ungodly amount of running yards Stanford gained in other games was nowhere to be found in this game. 41 points in college in regulation is what I call average, not a shootout because for every first down, the clock stops in college while it keeps running in the NFL. It is a shootout in the NFL, not in college.

Actually, this was a good game to evaluate the Stanford O-linemen since I felt they struggled to pick up stunts every now and then and that led to Luck scrambling more than usual compared to previous games. Considering that USC was an unranked team, they gave Stanford all that Stanford could handle in the trenches, that is what I saw.

[doogansquest]

The most important thing that USC did was shut down Stanford's run and forced Luck's arm to beat them, IMO. That is what I gathered from this game. The ungodly amount of running yards Stanford gained in other games was nowhere to be found in this game. 41 points in college in regulation is what I call average, not a shootout because for every first down, the clock stops in college while it keeps running in the NFL. It is a shootout in the NFL, not in college.

Actually, this was a good game to evaluate the Stanford O-linemen since I felt they struggled to pick up stunts every now and then and that led to Luck scrambling more than usual compared to previous games. Considering that USC was an unranked team, they gave Stanford all that Stanford could handle in the trenches, that is what I saw.

Stanford still rushed for 183 yards. It wasn't their normal 250+, but it was still pretty good.

You compared the Pick 6 to Manning in the SB, but Luck won the game. He had pressure all night from the USC pass rush, and still made great passes and looked great. Let's not forget how many passes Owusu, and #11 dropped. Luck played in a Manning-like scenario and pulled out the win, and that's something I like to see. As each game goes on, he further convinces me that he's the right guy to pick, and he's clutch... look at that 2 point conversion. This kid reminds me of Aaron Rodgers, and let's hope he ends up like him. I love Andrew Luck!

Aaron Rodgers? You mean you want him to have an awkward throwing motion, no ability to drive through the pass, and a slow wind up while he sits on the bench for 3 years developing into a real QB? Someone who shows the ability to hang on to the ball for far too long once he does get in the game, and then can't win until he has a ridiculous team around him?

That's what you want?

You're seeing what you believe, instead of the other way around.

Luck is mega-talented, but last night had nothing to do with whether he was going to be the "right" pick. If we take him, it's because he's the best player available, and we didn't like any of the trade scenarios. We'd be wasting a #1 overall pick by taking a guy to not impact the team, but that's an aside.

Really, you should be saying that Barkley's the right pick. I mean, his HB had to fumble for them to lose the game; otherwise, he was doing easily as well as Luck against the top defense in the PAC 10/12/whatever they are now.

Edited October 30, 2011 by doogansquest

[Andy]

Stanford still rushed for 183 yards. It wasn't their normal 250+, but it was still pretty good.

Aaron Rodgers? You mean you want him to have an awkward throwing motion, no ability to drive through the pass, and a slow wind up while he sits on the bench for 3 years developing into a real QB? Someone who shows the ability to hang on to the ball for far too long once he does get in the game, and then can't win until he has a ridiculous team around him?

That's what you want?

You're seeing what you believe, instead of the other way around.

Luck is mega-talented, but last night had nothing to do with whether he was going to be the "right" pick. If we take him, it's because he's the best player available, and we didn't like any of the trade scenarios. We'd be wasting a #1 overall pick by taking a guy to not impact the team, but that's an aside.

Really, you should be saying that Barkley's the right pick. I mean, his HB had to fumble for them to lose the game; otherwise, he was doing easily as well as Luck against the top defense in the PAC 10/12/whatever they are now.

Who cares what his throwing motion is like, are you telling me you don't want a future Aaron Rodgers on your team in the future... and how is his wind up slow, he has a quicker release than any other quarterback in the league and that's a fact (Sport Science).

[pacolts56]

The most important thing that USC did was shut down Stanford's run and forced Luck's arm to beat them, IMO. That is what I gathered from this game. The ungodly amount of running yards Stanford gained in other games was nowhere to be found in this game. 41 points in college in regulation is what I call average, not a shootout because for every first down, the clock stops in college while it keeps running in the NFL. It is a shootout in the NFL, not in college.

Actually, this was a good game to evaluate the Stanford O-linemen since I felt they struggled to pick up stunts every now and then and that led to Luck scrambling more than usual compared to previous games. Considering that USC was an unranked team, they gave Stanford all that Stanford could handle in the trenches, that is what I saw.

Exactly... USC DC Monte Kiffin dialed up alot of different looks and the Trojan defense pressured Luck WAY more than Barkley was pressured by the Stanford defense.

And as far as the Stanford rushing attack.... Luck had the longest run, 15 yards, of the entire game by a Stanford player. In no way, shape or form was the Stanford rushing attack anywhere near as effective as in previous games.

I think its safe to say that USC should be or at least should have been a ranked team going into last nights game. But the BCS has always had issues in that regard.

[Ramblinwreck7]

The most important thing that USC did was shut down Stanford's run and forced Luck's arm to beat them, IMO. That is what I gathered from this game. The ungodly amount of running yards Stanford gained in other games was nowhere to be found in this game. 41 points in college in regulation is what I call average, not a shootout because for every first down, the clock stops in college while it keeps running in the NFL. It is a shootout in the NFL, not in college.

Actually, this was a good game to evaluate the Stanford O-linemen since I felt they struggled to pick up stunts every now and then and that led to Luck scrambling more than usual compared to previous games. Considering that USC was an unranked team, they gave Stanford all that Stanford could handle in the trenches, that is what I saw.

Sorry your wrong, that was a shootout. The number 10 scoring offense in the NCAA averages 40 points a game. Since there are 120 teams in the FBS, then that's a high scoring game. Also, Stanford ran for 186 yards, which is a lot considering they ran it for 3.9 yards per carry.

[Jason_]

C'mon Jason..... you got to look beyond stat lines because they simply DID NOT apply last night. That was a street fight that very typically was decided by the last turnover.

But I'm curious....did you see ANY value whatsoever in Luck's operation of the 2:00 offense after his Pick-6?

Of course I did...the way he handled throwing the INT by coming back out and picking right back up where he left off was impressive.

You DID watch the game, right?

Yes but only up to the end of the 2nd OT because I only set the DVR to record 30 min. past the live recording time instead of an hour.

Because USC's O-line and D-line won their battles in the trenches for almost the entire game last night. Monte Kiffin called an excellent defensive game plan regardless of the point totals and Luck worked for everything he got.

Yes he did have to work for everything he got. I'll definitely give you that. However Foles has been working for everything he's gotten the entire season because his OL has been allowing that same kind of pressure all season long.

On the other hand, Stanford's defense..... especially LB Jarek Lancaster.... had a lousy night that included crucial penalties and often some really atrocious tackling.

I'd agree with that...but do you think Luck is going to get more help from the Colts defense? lol

It just seems like for most of the college season you've painted Stanford's entire team as an unstoppable juggernaut that has allowed Andrew Luck the privilege of coming along for the ride.... and at the same time have pretty much presented Arizona as 80 or so bumbling fools plus Nick Foles, their savior QB.

Wow, talk about exaggerating. I've been saying Luck has a more talented team around him than most of the other top QBs, especially Foles. That still holds true. I never claimed anything to the extremes you're accusing me of.

Somewhere in between both of those situations lies the reality.... and some games, like last night,'s you gotta just say screw the stats. Yes....Foles, Barkley, Griffin and Jones could indeed become excellent NFL QBs.

But when Luck faced adverse conditions last night.... something you yourself have been waiting for, right?..... he rose to the occasion in a pretty hostile environment and led his team to a tough win using the very talents that have everyone cackling about him in the first place.

Yes I absolutely agree....if you re-read my post I was not trying to take anything away from his performance. What I said was I still didn't see the "he's the once in lifetime player that you simply can't pass up on" type of player. And the reason I brought Foles into the equation was to show that there is another QB who had very similar production against the same teams, and yes the fact is that he has less overall talent around him than Luck does. That doens't mean that Luck isn't a great QB...it means that he's not the only great QB.

Using stats for perspective is useful when evaluating a QBs entire body of work.... and then there are those games where we come away saying "there's a QB who just willed his team to win".

It's easier to will the team to win when you have more talent around you. Whether you realize it or not, these 2 games are an excellent opportunity to compare Luck and Foles. They each played the same USC defense and both played at USC. I figured someone would point out "But Stanford won and Arizona lost so clearly Luck is better". That's not exactly what you said but it was pretty close. So I wanted to be prepared so I examined both games.

The first thought that came to mind was Arizona's defense and to a large degree I was right. USC scored 48 points in both games, but Arizona gave up those 48 points in regulation whereas it took USC regulation plus multiple OT periods to get to 48 points against Stanford.

Luck and Stanford scored 34 points vs. USC defense in regulation. In the same amount of time, Foles and Arizona scored 41 points.

Based on that alone, if Arizona had gotten the same production from their defense that Stanford did, then Arizona beats USC in regulation. Again, it's easier to "will your team to win" when you're getting more help from those around you.

if you want to take even a closer look...I already pointed out that USC scored 48 points. Stanford scored 54 whereas Arizona only scored 41. If Arizona scores one more TD then they force OT just like Stanford did. So what was the difference in scoring? I already mentioned that Luck threw 1 INT and Foles threw 2. Luck's INT was largely his fault and one of the INTs that Foles threw was largely his fault. The other INT that Foles threw was due to his WR Juron Criner completely breaking off of his route, running into a stationery defender and then he just stopped. Foles threw the post route, which was what Criner was supposed to be running (he admitted this after the game) and since the WR was no where near the ball it turned into an easy interception for USC. So again, it's easier to "will your team to win" when you have better overall talent around you.

So again, the point I've been trying to make is not that Andrew Luck is a bad QB or that Nick Foles is a savior but rather that there are other QBs who can be and are as individually productive, if not moreso, than Luck is...and in some cases (like Foles) with less overall talent around him. So if you have 2 QBs who can even have equal productivity, then why do you HAVE to spend the #1 pick on one of them instead of trading back and taking the other, which allows you to build a better overall team around the second QB which will only make his job easier?

[Captain Americolt]

Does anyone ever think that a young unknown college QB can be great later on in years to come? We dont NEED a qb in this draft if we re-sign painter and of course keep manning.....

[pacolts56]

I'd agree with that...but do you think Luck is going to get more help from the Colts defense? lol

Well...ya got me on that point.... and believe me, if there were a blue chip "Ngata/Suh" caliber DT prospect coming out this year, I'd be tempted to favor someone like that over Luck if Peyton's return was a certainty, even for just two years. But there isn't anyone remotely that dominant at the DT position this year.

The truth is.... we will need a multi-pronged approach of free agency and the draft if winning another SB with Peyton is realistic.

Wow, talk about exaggerating. I've been saying Luck has a more talented team around him than most of the other top QBs, especially Foles. That still holds true. I never claimed anything to the extremes you're accusing me of.

LOL.... just having a little fun there.

But IMO....last night indicates that Stanford is a solid, but not bulletproof team. USC won the trench battles and despite the Stanford rushing stats being thrown around by others in today's debate, we both know there was nothing dominant about their run game vs USC compared to the lesser competition they've played so far. In fact, Luck had the longest run of the night of 15 yards and 36 out of their 186 yd total.....running away from a USC defense that sacked him twice, but others claim didn't even show up for the contest. I know what 54-48 sounds like.... but it was 10-6 at the half. That game was alot tougher and more physical than your typical "track meet" shootout.

Yes I absolutely agree....if you re-read my post I was not trying to take anything away from his performance. What I said was I still didn't see the "he's the once in lifetime player that you simply can't pass up on" type of player. And the reason I brought Foles into the equation was to show that there is another QB who had very similar production against the same teams, and yes the fact is that he has less overall talent around him than Luck does. That doens't mean that Luck isn't a great QB...it means that he's not the only great QB.

This is where we will just have to let time prove our cases.....and I hope we're both right.

I do have to make the point again that stats may be very useful as an indicator of consistency and the player's full body of work. But when a QB is being considered for the top pick in the draft.... they BETTER have shown at some point that they can handle adverse situations and overcome them.... especially their own mistakes, and hopefully using alot of different weapons in the process. Because they are all gonna make them. Manning, Brady, Rodgers, Brees.... all of them.

In the situation Luck had to respond to last night.... he absolutely excelled, but the stat sheet wouldn't have told that story. And I'll be honest with you.... had he pouted his way off the field or gone into some Vince Young-like catatonic state after that pick-6....that would have been a major red flag for me. He did the polar opposite, kept his cool and dissected USC in an outstanding 2:00 scoring drive which we wouldn't find in the stats either.

It's easier to will the team to win when you have more talent around you. Whether you realize it or not, these 2 games are an excellent opportunity to compare Luck and Foles. They each played the same USC defense and both played at USC. I figured someone would point out "But Stanford won and Arizona lost so clearly Luck is better". That's not exactly what you said but it was pretty close. So I wanted to be prepared so I examined both games.

Jason.....it's HOW he engineered the win. That's what I'm talking about with this guy.

The first thought that came to mind was Arizona's defense and to a large degree I was right. USC scored 48 points in both games, but Arizona gave up those 48 points in regulation whereas it took USC regulation plus multiple OT periods to get to 48 points against Stanford.

Luck and Stanford scored 34 points vs. USC defense in regulation. In the same amount of time, Foles and Arizona scored 41 points.

Based on that alone, if Arizona had gotten the same production from their defense that Stanford did, then Arizona beats USC in regulation. Again, it's easier to "will your team to win" when you're getting more help from those around you.

if you want to take even a closer look...I already pointed out that USC scored 48 points. Stanford scored 54 whereas Arizona only scored 41. If Arizona scores one more TD then they force OT just like Stanford did. So what was the difference in scoring? I already mentioned that Luck threw 1 INT and Foles threw 2. Luck's INT was largely his fault and one of the INTs that Foles threw was largely his fault. The other INT that Foles threw was due to his WR Juron Criner completely breaking off of his route, running into a stationery defender and then he just stopped. Foles threw the post route, which was what Criner was supposed to be running (he admitted this after the game) and since the WR was no where near the ball it turned into an easy interception for USC. So again, it's easier to "will your team to win" when you have better overall talent around you.

I have no doubt about Foles' ability to produce as a QB.... and Arizona is clearly not as good a team as Stanford. But at some point I wanna see him win on a big stage such as last night's game was for Luck. Playing on an Arizona team that is admittedly lacking compared to Stanford, I guess all we can hope for is a major upset. A win over Washington yesterday woulda helped.

So again, the point I've been trying to make is not that Andrew Luck is a bad QB or that Nick Foles is a savior but rather that there are other QBs who can be and are as individually productive, if not moreso, than Luck is...and in some cases (like Foles) with less overall talent around him. So if you have 2 QBs who can even have equal productivity, then why do you HAVE to spend the #1 pick on one of them instead of trading back and taking the other, which allows you to build a better overall team around the second QB which will only make his job easier?

Because productivity measured by stats doesn't tell the whole story. I have a very hard time believing that Arizona's running game, for instance, is THAT bad, rather than Foles benefitting from a deliberate philosophy of passing first..... and we've seen THAT movie before. I mean the guy throws the ball darn near 50 times a week.... none of that is by design?

I just wish we could get a clearer read on his ability to operate a balanced offensive attack.... and reliably check his team into and out of run plays as the situation dictates. Those abilities, fair or unfair, are something we don't have a clear enough picture of with Foles. He may be great at it.... we just don't know.

This year's performance by the Colts has exposed many areas that need to improve, and I'm quite sure all the extra prospects we'd get would take time to develop as impact contributors.

What I'm not sure of is will the Polian's select the right players.

I'm sorry.... but I'll need further evidence than this train wreck of a season that last year's draft....a good one at first glance... is the start of several successful drafts. So IMO, we need to be a bit cautious and guard against passing up a guy who could really be special for 3-4 other guys who may or may not pan out and will take 1-2 seasons to have an impact in any event.

It's a crapshoot.... why make it more of one?

[Jason_]

Jason.....it's HOW he engineered the win. That's what I'm talking about with this guy.

Yes I agree, Luck did will his team to win and it was a very impressive performance. He had a great game despite the one bad pick, but even the best QBs make a bad throw from time to time. So, he definitely did do everything he had to do to put his team in a position to win. That coupled with the #23 (out of 120...I know you know this but in case there are others reading the thread who may not know how many college teams there are included in this ranking) ranked defense allowed Stanford to get the win.

Nick Foles also willed his team to win. He did everything he needed to do to put his team in a position to win. However he has the #113 (again out of the 120) ranked defense behind him so Arizona lost.

So we have 2 QBs who are doing everything they can to put their teams in a position to win, but one of them has a significantly weaker defense than the other....honestly now...which one of those 2 sounds more like Manning? Ok that was a cheap shot...I know. lol Still though, there is some truth to it.

You said the stats don't always tell the whole story, and I agree with many of the additional points you made. But wins/losses is another stat that can be deceptive. Is one team losing because the QB didn't step up and play big when he needed to or are they losing because they have a defense that ranks in the bottom of the league? If it's the former then absolutely you can count wins/losses, but if it's the latter then I don't see how you can because that is completely out of the hands of the QB.

Edited October 30, 2011 by Jason

[pacolts56]

Yes I agree, Luck did will his team to win and it was a very impressive performance. He had a great game despite the one bad pick, but even the best QBs make a bad throw from time to time. So, he definitely did do everything he had to do to put his team in a position to win. That coupled with the #23 (out of 120...I know you know this but in case there are others reading the thread who may not know how many college teams there are included in this ranking) ranked defense allowed Stanford to get the win.

Nick Foles also willed his team to win. He did everything he needed to do to put his team in a position to win. However he has the #113 (again out of the 120) ranked defense behind him so Arizona lost.

So we have 2 QBs who are doing everything they can to put their teams in a position to win, but one of them has a significantly weaker defense than the other....honestly now...which one of those 2 sounds more like Manning? Ok that was a cheap shot...I know. lol Still though, there is some truth to it.

LOL.... don't sweat it, we've all been frustrated with the Colts D for most of the last 10 seasons. Foles does well considering the Wildcats defense put him behind the 8-ball. It's too bad because with any kind of defense, they'd have a pretty good record and he'd be able to present a more well-rounded offense. It doesn't help their running game when their always 1-2 TD behind.

You said the stats don't always tell the whole story, and I agree with many of the additional points you made. But wins/losses is another stat that can be deceptive. Is one team losing because the QB didn't step up and play big when he needed to or are they losing because they have a defense that ranks in the bottom of the league? If it's the former then absolutely you can count wins/losses, but if it's the latter then I don't see how you can because that is completely out of the hands of the QB.

Yes....it is a team game and 21 other guys have to do their jobs. How the Colts play this will be interesting to see whether they have the 1st overall pick or not. But either way the Polian's better have the best draft of their lives in 2012 because the next 5 years could be messy if they foul it up.

Especially if Peyton is down to 1-2 years left.

[Jason_]

Yes....it is a team game and 21 other guys have to do their jobs. How the Colts play this will be interesting to see whether they have the 1st overall pick or not. But either way the Polian's better have the best draft of their lives in 2012 because the next 5 years could be messy if they foul it up.

Could...not....agree....more. lol yeah this upcoming draft is definitely a big one.

[rockywoj]

Taken away from the game, Matt Kalil did well.

The only weakness I saw was one time a speed rush gave him a little trouble around to the outside, though Barker threw it away before the guy could get to him.

Also, Kalil would seem to stop on plays several times after he finished off his guy, even though the play was still in progress. I would have liked to see Kalil continue to run into the play in search and destroy mode, until the whistle blows ending the play. There was a time or two the play actually came back to the area Kalil was in, with him just kind of standing around instead of engaging other victims to block.

Regardless, Kalil still looks like a stub to me. Would love to see the Colts get him.

Edited October 31, 2011 by rockywoj

[Jason_]

Taken away from the game, Matt Kalil did well.

The only weakness I saw was one time a speed rush gave him a little trouble around to the outside, though Barker threw it away before the guy could get to him.

Also, Kalil would seem to stop on plays several times after he finished off his guy, even though the play was still in progress. I would have liked to see Kalil continue to run into the play in search and destroy mode, until the whistle blows ending the play. There was a time or two the play actually came back to the area Kalil was in, with him just kind of standing around instead of engaging other victims to block.

Regardless, Kalil still looks like a stub to me. Would love to see the Colts get him.

Colts might draft a Guard or 2, or maybe a G and C but no way do I see them using a top 5 pick on Kalil after spending 2 early picks last year on OT. If you want to go OL in the first round, trade back and we can get David DeCastro or Cordy Glenn.

[tonychen]

One thing indicated by coming back from the pick6 and win in a 3-OT is that the kid has a character Manning doesn't have - he is just darn "Luck-y" ;)

[tonychen]

To become a great QB one needs to have the skill, the physicality, the will to study, and a lot of things.... But there is one more thing: The QB needs to be lucky - to avoid injury, to have some crucial game situations leaning his way, to have certain teammates helping him - to become great in NFL.

Surely Andrew never lacks "Luck" I would like to bet on his brilliant NFL career even if he ends up on other teams.

[FireJimCaldwell]

Did his receiver run a horrible route and did the DB get lucky with the read on Luck's pick six the same way Reggie ran a horrible route/gave up on it, etc, while the Saints DB got lucky it wasn't our Combo route with 87 flying by him on an "In and up" combo route? I'm waiting on that game to download so I can look at it in depth.

[Ramblinwreck7]

Colts might draft a Guard or 2, or maybe a G and C but no way do I see them using a top 5 pick on Kalil after spending 2 early picks last year on OT. If you want to go OL in the first round, trade back and we can get David DeCastro or Cordy Glenn.

No way man, I'm stuck on Kelchi Osemele right now lol. If we can get him early in the 2nd round then we will have an extrememly talented O-line next year. This is only if we trade back and get an extra 1st and/or 2nd round pick from along with a high pick in the 1st for Morris Claiborne!

Edited October 31, 2011 by Ramblinwreck7

[Jason_]

No way man, I'm stuck on Kelchi Osemele right now lol. If we can get him early in the 2nd round then we will have an extrememly talented O-line next year. This is only if we trade back and get an extra 1st and/or 2nd round pick from along with a high pick in the 1st for Morris Claiborne!

Absolutely agreed, I would do the same. I didn't mean to imply that the Colts should draft OL in round 1, but simply if they were to choose to then at least choose a player who has been dominant at the position that we will need him to play. I've got no problem with Osemele in the 2nd or Kevin Zeitler in the 3rd/4th.

[pacolts56]

Did his receiver run a horrible route and did the DB get lucky with the read on Luck's pick six the same way Reggie ran a horrible route/gave up on it, etc, while the Saints DB got lucky it wasn't our Combo route with 87 flying by him on an "In and up" combo route? I'm waiting on that game to download so I can look at it in depth.

No.... quite honestly Luck did not look the CB Robey off that WR and Robey made a great play jumping the route. His gamble paid off with a pick-6.

Now..... had Luck pump faked and his WR proceeded on a go route it would've been an easy TD. But the down and distance dictated otherwise and Robey just made a great play.

Enjoy the game.... it was a good one.

[bap1331]

I wouldnt like to pick him up

....he likes to wear Bradys number

[super8todd]

Inaccurate title. Who cares if Luck throws one pick-seven. He won the game and that's all that matters. Peyton throws picks all the time and still wins games. no one is 100% in the nfl, but its the person that IS the extra 1% that matters.