Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
No registered users viewing this page.
Announcements
-
-
Thread of the Week
-
-
Topics
-
-
Posts
-
By EastStreet · Posted
Luck had a lot of talent around him at Stanford, and was playing in a very weak Pac12 at the time. The Pac12 IIRC had very bad Ds too during those years Only Oregon and USC where good (really only on O), and USC was highly erratic in those years. Luck had an awesome line, and had guys like Gafney, Gerhart, and Taylor at RB, TEs like Fleener and Ertz, and some decent WRs like Whalen and more. The only thing much better about Clemson was the D, and Stanford still had guys like Richard Sherman.... -
-
By NewColtsFan · Posted
I’m a Luck guy and count me as one who clearly acknowledges that Lawrence’s first year was far better than Luck’s.  Not even close.  The only mitigating factor is that Lawrence was on a much better team.  Surrounded by far superior players on both sides of the ball.  Made his job much easier.  Still...  Lawrence would get the edge comparing their respective first years on the field. -
By chrisfarley · Posted
i didn't see the presser, I'm going to have to check it out now. hopefully it was just frustration. But that weaknesses thing, man, how good are NFL scouts? makes me a bit nauseous, that's how good that weaknesses assessment is. -
By Moosejawcolt · Posted
Dallas won't let him go. They traded a 1st round pick for him and even if he isn't worth it, Dallas would still resign him
-
-
Members
-
.thumb.jpg.ffc6dad925a32fa3da70aa3bff19d25a.jpg)
