There is nothing wrong with sucking for Luck

[Mulli]

Yeah and all we had to do was replace Gandy and leave it as good enough.

I mean replacing Gandy while he was a good player is not that TALL of an order, well it's not for most teams, for us it might as well be flying to the moon with a rubber band powered spacecraft.

Ugh, no doubt.

 

[chickenhead]

Today I feel like the Colts are going to go 0-16, have all the leverage, trade the pick for several first rounders from the Dolphins (who will be spending with a new coaching regime as well), and win another Super Bowl with Manning throwing to Jeffery or Blackmon or something.

 

[gamebird98]

In a word, probably. Kurt Warner was able to thrive with the same offensive line. There are some players who are good enough to turn around entire franchises because they are so good. Manning, Montana, Barry Sanders, etc.

Do what you can to get him. He will be damn good. Luck truly is a can't miss prospect that even our FO can't mess up.

According to who?

 

[AsUpRoDiGy]

According to who?

Everyone with credibility

 

[AzStevenCal]

Everyone with credibility

That just isn't so. He's highly regarded and the vast majority do think he'll be a success at the NFL but there are detractors. The biggest concern seems to center around his arm strength. Also, many point to how much more impressive his stats would be if he wasn't playing in a run oriented offense but it also raises concerns about how he'll hold up in a pass heavy league.

Steve

 

[gamebird98]

Everyone with credibility

got any names?

 

[Russ Smith]

That just isn't so. He's highly regarded and the vast majority do think he'll be a success at the NFL but there are detractors. The biggest concern seems to center around his arm strength. Also, many point to how much more impressive his stats would be if he wasn't playing in a run oriented offense but it also raises concerns about how he'll hold up in a pass heavy league.

Steve

I don't think anybody questions his arm strength so much as how well he throws the deep ball.

I can't remember where I read it but Harbaugh talked at length about some of the throws Luck makes from the far hashmark and said I played in the NFL for years and I can tell you there aren't a lot of guys who can make those throws like he can.

My 2 biggest complaints if you will about Luck as someone who's seen just about every game he plays.

1) Doesn't throw the deep ball as well as you'd like. Sometimes he puts too much air under it (got picked a couple of weeks ago doing that), right now he doesn't seem to throw it out in front and let the guy run under.

To be fair they haven't had a lot of deep speed guys for him to throw to.

2) Has a tendency now and then to be high with his throws. Again Stanford plays a bunch of TE's several of whom are quite tall so maybe he's doing that for that reason. But you'll see in a lot of games when the receiver has to reach for the ball it's usually high not low, left or right.

But he does so many thigns well I love the kid. And I have to assume playing with speedy Wr's he'll learn to throw deep. He is so far ahead of the curve in terms of understanding an offense and defense.

 

[Duckjake]

got any names?

The same people with credibility who claimed Ryan Leaf was better than Peyton Manning maybe?

 

[AzStevenCal]

I don't think anybody questions his arm strength so much as how well he throws the deep ball.

I can't remember where I read it but Harbaugh talked at length about some of the throws Luck makes from the far hashmark and said I played in the NFL for years and I can tell you there aren't a lot of guys who can make those throws like he can.

My 2 biggest complaints if you will about Luck as someone who's seen just about every game he plays.

1) Doesn't throw the deep ball as well as you'd like. Sometimes he puts too much air under it (got picked a couple of weeks ago doing that), right now he doesn't seem to throw it out in front and let the guy run under.

To be fair they haven't had a lot of deep speed guys for him to throw to.

2) Has a tendency now and then to be high with his throws. Again Stanford plays a bunch of TE's several of whom are quite tall so maybe he's doing that for that reason. But you'll see in a lot of games when the receiver has to reach for the ball it's usually high not low, left or right.

But he does so many thigns well I love the kid. And I have to assume playing with speedy Wr's he'll learn to throw deep. He is so far ahead of the curve in terms of understanding an offense and defense.

I've also heard about concerns about whether he can put the ball into tight spaces. I think it was Phil Simms that most recently brought it up. He said mostly good things about Luck but also said that to be a great QB you had to be able to make that kind of throw 4 or 5 times a game and he just didn't think Luck had that ability. He can make all the throws in college but it remains to be seen whether he can duplicate this against the speed of the NFL defenses.

Steve

 

[Russ Smith]

I've also heard about concerns about whether he can put the ball into tight spaces. I think it was Phil Simms that most recently brought it up. He said mostly good things about Luck but also said that to be a great QB you had to be able to make that kind of throw 4 or 5 times a game and he just didn't think Luck had that ability. He can make all the throws in college but it remains to be seen whether he can duplicate this against the speed of the NFL defenses.

Steve

Interesting. The system at Stanford just doesn't ask him to do that so I can't say if he can or not. Don't know how Simms can either but he probably has access to a lot of stuff I don't.

The completion % this year is ridiculous but misleading because he doesn't have to make a lot of difficult throws. They run and run and get you into mismatches and then throw against those.

I think he'll be a great pro but it is true that he doesn't squeeze the ball into tight spots so I guess we'll find out if he can at the NFL level.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Interesting. The system at Stanford just doesn't ask him to do that so I can't say if he can or not. Don't know how Simms can either but he probably has access to a lot of stuff I don't.

The completion % this year is ridiculous but misleading because he doesn't have to make a lot of difficult throws. They run and run and get you into mismatches and then throw against those.

I think he'll be a great pro but it is true that he doesn't squeeze the ball into tight spots so I guess we'll find out if he can at the NFL level.

You know, I might be putting words in Phil's mouth. It's possible he said no more than what you're saying. That is, he's yet to see if Luck can do it.

Steve

 

[gamebird98]

The same people with credibility who claimed Ryan Leaf was better than Peyton Manning maybe?

 

[NuttinButTDs]

Why would coaches and players try to lose. It makes it harder for them to get paid. They have a job and if they suck at it, they should be fired.

 

[AsUpRoDiGy]

The same people with credibility who claimed Ryan Leaf was better than Peyton Manning maybe?

Hardly, that was more than a decade ago, I'm sure most of those 'analysts' are long gone by now. Ryan Leaf was not rated 99 on everyone's draft board, by the way, and didn't possess the intagibles that Luck displays. Other than Luck's athleticism and arm, his ability to read the defense and call audibles/line protections is already better than some NFL QB's, plus his maturity is unquestionable. He's not considered a 'project' either, like other failed QB's who were taken high in the draft simply for their athleticism.

 

[Darkside]

I have seen many posters who say they dont wanna lose games to draft a good players. They quote Herm Edwards and go "You play to win the game and all that". But whats wrong with sucking for a great player like Peyton Manning.

Indy enjoyed 10 + years of playoff success because they sucked for a great QB.. Why should a team go through 15 or so years of heartbreak because of a couple of meaningless wins?? a meaningless win makes a fan happy for a week at the most, but a great players gives us 15 years of football viewing pleasure.

Now, if Suck is gonna be as good as Peyton or not is another question. but if we are close to 1st pick and if we win a meaningless game on the 16th week and miss out on him, i would be @#@$$@# pissed....

I am sure some will agree with me.. whats the use of this season? we are out of it in the 5th week..

I would like to requote Herm Edwards.. "You play.. to get into the playoffs" so if needed, lets suck so that we can enjoy some 10+ years of playoff football...

Totally disagree, but I'm not going to rip on the "suck for Luck" campaign like some would, because I truly believe those advocating such a (misguided) premise think it's in the best interests of the team. Having said that, I'll briefly explain why I think it's, well, stupid:

Primarily I think it's important to keep fighting. It builds character. I know our moms and dads all told us that, but it's true. Building character on a team is important. Building chemistry is important, building mental toughness is important. You don't get that toughness by agreeing to lose. You get it by taking your lumps and fighting. If you give a half-assed effort you don't build that character and toughness because there's a built in excuse: they weren't even really trying. That attitude is DANGEROUS in team sport.

Furthermore, you don't learn the nuances of the system (and I don't care if you already hate the system), you don't learn the nuances of opponents, you don't even pay attention to schemes or tells or tendencies because you've stopped caring. Those little "edges" could be (and will be) important going forward.

Then there's just pure football aggression and anger. Nothing will motivate a team more than being b*tchslapped every single Sunday. You won't get that if you just give up (again, a built in excuse).

Look, I've been a Cardinal fan, like many of you, since before they even moved here. You could say I'm accustomed to the losing. I don't like it, obviously, but it happens. That being said, what I really can't stand is a team of quitters. They won't improve going forward, because that quit mentality is already instilled. Every time it gets tough, they're going to give up if they have a history of quitting. People spew a lot of nonsense about Kurt Warner, and admittedly he was a great QB, HOF'er, all that, but what he really brought to this organization (and Whis did the same thing when he got here) was a winning attitude, and by that I mean never giving up. For example, look at a few blowout losses, one to the Jets comes to mind. We were out of that game by halftime, and KW comes back in the 2nd half to score something like 4 TD's or whatever, and we still lost. Point is, that instilled something in this team, even that loss. Something they wouldn't have gotten had they just rolled over at halftime and given up. It made this team believe KW et al could score multiple TD's in a desperate situation. Then you got the D going man, if we can hold them under 30 by halftime (I jest) we got a chance. That's what I'm talking about.

Quitting doesn't help anyone, and who wants a great QB coming to the desert already thinking we're a bunch of quitters? Nobody in their right mind should ever quit, there's stuff to be learned every play, every down, every game.

I've used this analogy before, and I'll use it again: everyone's played a video game at some point. Sometimes you die; sometimes a lot. Sometimes you may even take huge damage early in a level and you know you won't finish it alive, but you carry on just to explore or see what the level has to offer, since it's a "life" you're going to lose anyway. In video games, if you give up and just restart the level, you never know what's ahead, because you die (or are about to) at the same spot every time. You could quit and start over, but you'll never know. Smart players continue playing, knowing they're about to die, or knowing they won't complete the level.

It's like the analogy of the guy driving 100 miles in pitch black darkness and fog, and he makes it home and his wife is like how did you ever make that drive in the fog and all, you couldn't even see your destination, and the husband says I only needed to see 3 feet in front of me and take it 3 feet at a time, eventually I got home. That's the point. No quitting.

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

Give me Tyler Wilson and I'll be happy. I know and have seen that he can put the ball in tight spaces.

 

[AsUpRoDiGy]

Why would coaches and players try to lose. It makes it harder for them to get paid. They have a job and if they suck at it, they should be fired.

Hugh Douglas was on ESPN today, and had some good perspective. He was on the Jets team that was 1-8 at the time (I believe), and he basically said that the feeling in the locker room at that point is you're already expecting to lose, no matter how much the coach tries to instill confidence. So it's not necessarily that they're 'trying to lose', so much as they already know they're going to lose. They still collect their checks no matter what, so that's all they look forward to.

 

[AZCB34]

While the new rookie salary structure makes it somewhat more possible, even if the Cards DID get #1 overall I seriously doubt they would take Luck. Much more likely to trade out. You don't hand $60 million to a QB then the very next offseason draft his replacement

 

[Russ Smith]

While the new rookie salary structure makes it somewhat more possible, even if the Cards DID get #1 overall I seriously doubt they would take Luck. Much more likely to trade out. You don't hand $60 million to a QB then the very next offseason draft his replacement

Hey longtime no see welcome back.

I don't think it matters if you have a chance at Luck you take him unless someone offers you the Herschel Walker deal.

I think Kolb can be better than he looks now but it'd be nuts to pass on Luck if you have the chance IMHO.

 

[Phrazbit]

While the new rookie salary structure makes it somewhat more possible, even if the Cards DID get #1 overall I seriously doubt they would take Luck. Much more likely to trade out. You don't hand $60 million to a QB then the very next offseason draft his replacement

I cant imagine the PR disaster if they traded away Luck just because they stupidly traded for Kolb.

If the Cards are so awful that the finish with the top pick there is no chance in hell they pass up Luck, the fans would go ballistic, and rightfully so.

 

[Cheesebeef]

That just isn't so.

yeah.. it is. I don't know how people keep saying that Luck's not the highest touted prospect of the last 15-20 years. they're comparing his talent to Elway/Manning's.... that's not people on the board who want to suck for luck... it's pretty much EVERYONE in the media.

 

[Cheesebeef]

I cant imagine the PR disaster if they traded away Luck just because they stupidly traded for Kolb.

If the Cards are so awful that the finish with the top pick there is no chance in hell they pass up Luck, the fans would go ballistic, and rightfully so.

seriously, if we're atrocious enough to get Luck, that means Kolb has been atrocious enough to lead us there and if you pass on a guy as highly as touted as luck simply because you **** the bed the previous year, you're just agreeing to lie in a bed you crapped in. that's mental.

 

[AZCB34]

If the Cards are so awful that the finish with the top pick there is no chance in hell they pass up Luck, the fans would go ballistic, and rightfully so.

If the Cards front office cared one damn bit about the fans thoughts on the draft wouldn't Adrian Petersen have been drafted instead of Levi?

Suggs?

Would the Cards have ever been blessed by the amazing Bryant Johnson/Calvin Pace brilliance?

The Cards could care less what you or I think about who they should draft.

I still say, talent or no, they would be more likely to trade out than make the pick due to money invested. Other teams would make the right move and pick Luck but I question whether the Cards would do the right thing because history say otherwise.

 

[Cheesebeef]

If the Cards front office cared one damn bit about the fans thoughts on the draft wouldn't Adrian Petersen have been drafted instead of Levi?

Suggs?

Would the Cards have ever been blessed by the amazing Bryant Johnson/Calvin Pace brilliance?

The Cards could care less what you or I think about who they should draft.

I still say, talent or no, they would be more likely to trade out than make the pick due to money invested. Other teams would make the right move and pick Luck but I question whether the Cards would do the right thing because history say otherwise.

sad but true.

 

[AzStevenCal]

yeah.. it is. I don't know how people keep saying that Luck's not the highest touted prospect of the last 15-20 years. they're comparing his talent to Elway/Manning's.... that's not people on the board who want to suck for luck... it's pretty much EVERYONE in the media.

Maybe you skipped a sentence. I'm saying nothing about the guy or whether he's the highest touted prospect of the last decade or two. I think he is. However, I was disputing someone's contention that "everyone with credibility" considers him "a can't miss prospect". There are detractors out there although admittedly they are a distinct minority. And they all seem to focus on one thing, arm strength.

Steve