Luck's Pick Six

[Captain Americolt]

The title IS accurate. The whole thread is about his pick six. It isnt about how bad luck is, cuz he isnt.

[Jason_]

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.

Easy there princess....don't get into a hissy. No one said that Luck's pick 6 made him a bad QB.

[super8todd]

Easy there princess....don't get into a hissy. No one said that Luck's pick 6 made him a bad QB.

Im realistic, and if calling me a princess makes you feel better, so be it. I'm confident my wife is hotter than yours, :yay: . I was just pointing out that this article is useless and that like everyone else says, no one is 100%, so when Luck does 1 thing bad someone jumps at an excuse to belittle him for 1 pick (and yes i said PICK-7, because thats what it is, its 7points, no one goes for the two and its stupid to call it pick-six for some trendy named rhyming title.. 7 points is what realistically happens, not 6, 7!).

[super8todd]

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)

BTW, I cannot wait to see Foles drafted in the 5th round, and be declared a bust. Its ridiculous you even compare him to Luck. The future cannot come soon enough.

[Jason_]

Im realistic, and if calling me a princess makes you feel better, so be it. I'm confident my wife is hotter than yours, :yay: . I was just pointing out that this article is useless and that like everyone else says, no one is 100%, so when Luck does 1 thing bad someone jumps at an excuse to belittle him for 1 pick (and yes i said PICK-7, because thats what it is, its 7points, no one goes for the two and its stupid to call it pick-six for some trendy named rhyming title.. 7 points is what realistically happens, not 6, 7!).

LOL....it's common (or so I thought) knowledge that the TD is worth 6 points and the extra point makes it 7. If the extra point is blocked or missed, is it still a pick-7? Um, no. That's why, when they talk about how many points a player has scored, they give 6 points for scoring a TD. The other point is scored by and awarded to the kicker. So for that play, the CB was responsible for scoring 6 points and the kicker was responsible for scoring 1 point. Not rocket science here.

And no one is belittling Luck for throwing a pick, merely pointing out that he is human unlike the god that others try to make him out to be.

Edited November 2, 2011 by Jason

[Jason_]

BTW, I cannot wait to see Foles drafted in the 5th round, and be declared a bust. Its ridiculous you even compare him to Luck. The future cannot come soon enough.

Stay classy dude. Wishing a player to bust and miss out on his dream of being a successful NFL QB just so you can be proven right in a meaningless argument. Well done. :slaphead:

[super8todd]

LOL....it's common (or so I thought) knowledge that the TD is worth 6 points and the extra point makes it 7. If the extra point is blocked or missed, is it still a pick-7? Um, no. That's why, when they talk about how many points a player has scored, they give 6 points for scoring a TD. The other point is scored by and awarded to the kicker. So for that play, the CB was responsible for scoring 6 points and the kicker was responsible for scoring 1 point. Not rocket science here.

I am with the new talked about theory that every touchdown is 7 points automatically. Eliminate the stupid PAT, no one misses. its dumb they even have it. Then if the team wants to try for the 2-pt conversion (+1) they get the 8. But if they fail, they they get the -1 point to make it 6. It makes more sense and speeds up the game... this rule is close to be implemented, only a matter of time. And yes, pick-six is a stupid moniker of a name, this isn't the lottery, its football; they should just refer to it as an interception, old school style, this isn't rocket science either.

[super8todd]

Stay classy dude. Wishing a player to bust and miss out on his dream of being a successful NFL QB just so you can be proven right in a meaningless argument. Well done. :slaphead:

I don't wish any player anything. I just statistically know he will be a bust. I have better odds (in that) he has to do more to overcome and to prove me wrong than i do in proving myself right.

[JoKeR]

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

Stanford would also be unranked if not for Luck.

[JoKeR]

I wouldnt like to pick him up

....he likes to wear Bradys number

Why doesn't wear 7? My guess is he's been sick of the puns since he was little. Maybe he's a Brady fan

j/k

[Jason_]

Stanford would also be unranked if not for Luck.

That's absurd. Stanford's defense isn't the best in the pac12 because of Luck. They don't run the ball for 200+ yards per game because of Luck (some QBs do affect the running game because the team passes first to setup the run...this is not how the Stanford offense works). David DeCastro and Jonathan Martin aren't both considered top 10 picks because of Luck.

Luck is a very good QB but he also plays for a very good team.

[pacolts56]

That's absurd. Stanford's defense isn't the best in the pac12 because of Luck. They don't run the ball for 200+ yards per game because of Luck (some QBs do affect the running game because the team passes first to setup the run...this is not how the Stanford offense works). David DeCastro and Jonathan Martin aren't both considered top 10 picks because of Luck. Luck is a very good QB but he also plays for a very good team.

Don't you think Luck's defensive reads and subsequent play-calling and audibles into running plays have something to do with the success of the Cardinal running game, Jason?

Because your post sounds as if Stanford could put Stevie Wonder in at QB and they'd still rush for 200+ yards per game.

I would also add that the FAT scoreboard margins that Luck engineers probably helps the defense achieve their lofty ranking.

Edited November 4, 2011 by pacolts56

[Jason_]

Don't you think Luck's defensive reads and subsequent play-calling and audibles into running plays have something to do with the success of the Cardinal running game, Jason?

Because your post sounds as if Stanford could put Stevie Wonder in at QB and they'd still rush for 200+ yards per game.

I would also add that the FAT scoreboard margins that Luck engineers probably helps the defense achieve their lofty ranking.

I've already answered this in other threads, but no I don't think Luck has anything to do with their running game. In years past, maybe but I can't say. I'm talking from what I've seen from him and Stanford this year. They are a power running team first, and a passing team second. I don't think Luck is any more responsible for the success of the Stanford running game than Alex Smith is responsible for the success of San Fran's running game.

And no, I never said that Stevie Wonder could QB their offense and be successful. I do think that you could put pretty much any of the top 10 QB prospects on the current Stanford team and they would be equally successful.

[pacolts56]

I've already answered this in other threads, but no I don't think Luck has anything to do with their running game. In years past, maybe but I can't say. I'm talking from what I've seen from him and Stanford this year. They are a power running team first, and a passing team second. I don't think Luck is any more responsible for the success of the Stanford running game than Alex Smith is responsible for the success of San Fran's running game.

And no, I never said that Stevie Wonder could QB their offense and be successful. I do think that you could put pretty much any of the top 10 QB prospects on the current Stanford team and they would be equally successful.

Then your answer is wrong....because your saying that a QB with the authority to play-call and make line-of-scrimmage audibles into favorable run plays has nothing to do with an offense's running game.

THAT is patently and utterly absurd......a complete fail....and I'm not just talking about Stanford and Luck either. Your own Nick Foles probably tries to do this....and should, when the defensive read dictates it.

Why in the world does darn near every NFL QB read defenses and make adjustments at the line of scrimmage into run plays....just for kicks???

Jason....you make some good points in these Luck/Foles/Jones/Griffin/Moore QB debates......this sure as heck ain't one of them.

[Jason_]

Then your answer is wrong....because your saying that a QB with the authority to play-call and make line-of-scrimmage audibles into favorable run plays has nothing to do with an offense's running game.

1) I think his "authority to play-call" is blown out of proportion. 2) All of the better college QBs make checks at the LOS and most of them have the authority to audible. Foles, Barkley, Jones, Moore, and many others do this.

THAT is patently and utterly absurd......a complete fail....and I'm not just talking about Stanford and Luck either. Your own Nick Foles probably tries to do this....and should, when the defensive read dictates it.

Why in the world does darn near every NFL QB read defenses and make adjustments at the line of scrimmage into run plays....just for kicks???

Jason....you make some good points in these Luck/Foles/Jones/Griffin/Moore QB debates......this sure as heck ain't one of them.

You're right...every QB does do this, and as I said so do most, if not all, of the better college QBs. So I will admit, I was wrong when I said he has "nothing" to do with the success of the running game. I should have said I do not believe he has any more to do with their running success than any other QB who makes checks and audibles at the LOS.

When I said he has "nothing' to do with it I was thinking more along the lines of their passing game not having any influence on the running game and I still stand by that. Overall though I should have been more specific. Yes, with his LOS reads etc I'm sure he does often times put them in a position to run a successful play. But by your words, every other NFL QB does this as well because they're taught how to do it. Yes Luck is doing that at an NFL level right now and that's great.....for a team who needs him to start right away.

I will admit, saying he has "nothing" to do with their running success

[Jason_]

I will admit, saying he has "nothing" to do with their running success

not sure what happened there, either I didn't finish the thought or there was an editing error so I'll finish it now...

I will admit that saying he has "nothing" to do with their running success was incorrect. He is partially responsible based on checks at the LOS, audibles etc. However the blockers and backs still have to execute. If Luck reads the defense correctly and calls the right play but a blocker misses their assignment and the play results in a loss, would you consider Luck partially to blame for the loss on the play? No of course not. Proper play-calling will put the offense in a great position to exceed, but the rest of the team has to execute as well and the players around him have proven more than capable of executing those plays. Therefore I wouldn't give any more credit to Luck than I would to Foles, Barkley, Jones, Moore or any other college QB who checks to the correct play at the LOS.

I will also admit I woke up this morning in kind of a foul mood and that resulted in me clearly not explaining my position as well as I could and should have.