Will Luck be the #1 overall pick next year? (1 Viewer)

[ffchamp1]

I understand that this year, Luck was as "can't miss" as we have seen at this position since Ryan or possibly Manning.

What happens now that Luck goes back but loses Harbaugh and just as important, DC Vic Faggio?

While I expect Standford to struggle a bit due to the strength of the Pac 10/12 but also that they will miss the coaching staff.

So the question is, will Luck fall back to the pack and/or will Matt Barkley pass him as the franchise signal caller that teams will covet?

I don't believe it is as clear cut as people might first think, my guess is that Barkley will push Luck for the #1 overall pick.

Tom

 

[The Real Hipster Doofus]

I understand that this year, Luck was as "can't miss" as we have seen at this position since Ryan or possibly Manning.What happens now that Luck goes back but loses Harbaugh and just as important, DC Vic Faggio?While I expect Standford to struggle a bit due to the strength of the Pac 10/12 but also that they will miss the coaching staff.So the question is, will Luck fall back to the pack and/or will Matt Barkley pass him as the franchise signal caller that teams will covet?I don't believe it is as clear cut as people might first think, my guess is that Barkley will push Luck for the #1 overall pick.Tom

I don't see that at all. Luck is head and shoulders better than any QB in this years draft and the gap will only be greater next season. Barkley isn't even in the conversation with Luck. Barring injury or a team like the Lions, Rams, etc getting the #1 pick, he will be the #1 pick next year too.

 

[Masked Vigilante]

I'd say there is a 80% chance Luck remains the #1 pick. Barkely is probably the one QB who could upstage him.

 

[EBF]

I'd be surprised. Barkley is a decent prospect, but still prone to extended bouts of inconsistency. I don't see him leapfrogging Luck, who's better right now than Barkley probably will be in 12 months. Add another year of learning/training/development for Luck and it's difficult to see Barkley passing him.

As for Stanford's coaching staff and offensive line, bear in mind that many of the national media "experts" thought Luck might suffer from the absence of Toby Gerhart this past season. That didn't happen. The guy is a great player and he will thrive regardless of his coaching staff and supporting cast. Besides, Stanford has recruited well over the past few years. It will be difficult to replace some of the players they're losing, but they have enough young talent on the roster to approximate those losses. They'll probably still be a good team next year.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Luck is head and shoulders better than any QB in this years draft and the gap will only be greater next season. Barkley isn't even in the conversation with Luck.

A year ago people were saying the same thing about Locker and hardly anyone here knew who Luck was.

 

[EBF]

Luck is head and shoulders better than any QB in this years draft and the gap will only be greater next season. Barkley isn't even in the conversation with Luck.

A year ago people were saying the same thing about Locker and hardly anyone here knew who Luck was.

The difference being that Locker's hype was based on potential whereas Luck's hype is based on results. Jake Locker 2009

Completion Percentage - 58.2%

Yards Per Attempt - 7.09

TD:INT Ratio - 1.91 to 1

Andrew Luck 2010

Completion Percentage - 70.7%

Yards Per Attempt - 8.97

TD:INT Ratio - 4.00 to 1

There's really no comparison in their actual numbers. Nevermind the fact that some Pac-10 homers like myself had Luck ranked higher a year ago and that many had lingering suspicions about Locker's skills. He was never considered a can't-miss superstar. He was considered a guy with incredible physical talent who still hadn't shown elite quarterbacking skills. His hype was based on the assumption that he would improve. Now that another year has passed and he hasn't improved, a lot of people are questioning that assumption.

Luck, on the other hand, is an established quantity. There's always the possibility that he'll play poorly next year and hurt his stock. Personally, I find that unlikely and I can't think of a single 2012 eligible QB prospect who can credibly be argued superior.

 

[Sinrman]

Barring a catastrophic injury or he regresses tremendously, I don't see why he wouldn't be the #1 next year. Bradford had a pretty big

injury, and had fallen after the season ended, but the closer you get to the draft, the quicker players can move up and down. He jumped

right back into the overall consensus #1 pick in just a few month's time.

 

[cobalt_27]

Luck is head and shoulders better than any QB in this years draft and the gap will only be greater next season. Barkley isn't even in the conversation with Luck.

A year ago people were saying the same thing about Locker and hardly anyone here knew who Luck was.

No. Nobody was saying that about Locker. Scouts and media-types seemed to be intrigued with his athleticism. The mood of this board, though, always has been rightfully skeptical about how much he would develop. He never had lights out stats, and was not a "sure thing." Luck is more similar to Bradford, who interestingly stayed another year, got injured, and STILL was atop the QB food chain.Barring him getting a staph infection, and his arm falls off, he'll be the #1 player selected in 2012.

 

[ffchamp1]

I'd be surprised. Barkley is a decent prospect, but still prone to extended bouts of inconsistency. I don't see him leapfrogging Luck, who's better right now than Barkley probably will be in 12 months. Add another year of learning/training/development for Luck and it's difficult to see Barkley passing him. As for Stanford's coaching staff and offensive line, bear in mind that many of the national media "experts" thought Luck might suffer from the absence of Toby Gerhart this past season. That didn't happen. The guy is a great player and he will thrive regardless of his coaching staff and supporting cast. Besides, Stanford has recruited well over the past few years. It will be difficult to replace some of the players they're losing, but they have enough young talent on the roster to approximate those losses. They'll probably still be a good team next year.

EBFI tend to agree with you and as a fan of the Pac 10 myself I agree with you here. The one point I will make is that Barkley just went through his transition year with his new coach whereas Luck is going into his.At this point Luck is ahead of Barkley but I am not so sure it will be as clear 12 months from now.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Luck is head and shoulders better than any QB in this years draft and the gap will only be greater next season. Barkley isn't even in the conversation with Luck.

A year ago people were saying the same thing about Locker and hardly anyone here knew who Luck was.

No. Nobody was saying that about Locker. Scouts and media-types seemed to be intrigued with his athleticism. The mood of this board, though, always has been rightfully skeptical about how much he would develop. He never had lights out stats, and was not a "sure thing." Luck is more similar to Bradford, who interestingly stayed another year, got injured, and STILL was atop the QB food chain.Barring him getting a staph infection, and his arm falls off, he'll be the #1 player selected in 2012.

I think that's a bit of revisionist history. I remember making a post last year after Locker was talking about staying in school, making the parallel of Locker to Jevan Snead. I was met with a response of "no no no, this is different. People were just intrigued with Snead, Locker is a bonified elite prospect" the same way we're seeing with Luck vs. Locker here.And before that, Snead was different than Leinart. And next year, if we find ourselves in this same situation again, <fill in the blank here> will be different than Luck. It's the nature of this board, the same way that everyone acted like Vince Young's throwing motion was never thought of as a big deal when people were talking about Tim Tebow, and the same way people will pretend that no one ever cared that much about Tebow's throwing motion if it ends up not mattering and some other guy comes out with a weird throwing motion 3 years from now.I do agree with EBF's point that Luck's stature is based much more on production than Locker's was, but the same could be said for Matt Leinart and people were just as sure that he'd be the top pick at QB the next year as well. Vince Young? Pffff. At that time the overwhelming majority of this board believed that his upside was being a selected in the 4th round as a WR.

 

[The Real Hipster Doofus]

Luck is head and shoulders better than any QB in this years draft and the gap will only be greater next season. Barkley isn't even in the conversation with Luck.

A year ago people were saying the same thing about Locker and hardly anyone here knew who Luck was.

I addressed this in another thread.Locker was an athlete people were hoping would turn into a good QB. It didn't happen. Luck is already a very good QB. If he didn't improve at all he would still be better than at least a handful of NFL QB's right now. Not even a comparison, IMO

 

[The Real Hipster Doofus]

14. QB Andrew Luck, Stanford (9.10) rSo.

These were my picks. A little bit about each of them:QB Andrew Luck, Stanford (9.10) rSo. - There's almost no way to defend this pick since I took Luck far earlier than he should've gone. I've done a few drafts that allowed a limited number of developmental prospects and I've noticed a consistent phenomenon: as the dev cap approaches, you have to pick your guy earlier than his actual value dictates if you feel like he's a "must have" prospect. Debose and Luck likely would've been available several rounds later in an uncapped draft, but since there were only 2 dev slots left before I took them, I knew that it was either now or never. This league doesn't place a high premium on QBs, Luck probably won't help me for at least a year or two (if ever), and I drafted him ahead of several QBs who have a much higher consensus dynasty value at the moment. In order for him to justify this selection, he practically has to become a top 10 dynasty QB. Thing is, I don't think that's a huge stretch. It's a bit premature to speak about his pro potential, but I think he's probably the best NFL QB prospect in NCAA right now. Since I already drafted a good short term QB in Jay Cutler, my priority at the position was finding the best long term QB to groom behind him for the future. I went into the draft planning to tab Luck for that role and I couldn't talk myself out of it even with several safer options on the board. It was also a bit of a homer pick because I'm a Bay Area guy whose family has Stanford season tickets. Now it will even more fun to watch Luck's career unfold.

I'm in the middle of another startup draft, this time for a 14 team dynasty league that allows 14 developmental prospects to be rostered in the initial draft. All current college players are eligible (except for 2010 draft prospects and 2010 signees). I thought people might be interested in the results. We start 1 QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, and 2 WR/RB/TE FLEX. Scoring is .05 pts per passing yard, .1 pts per rushing/rec yard, 4 pts per passing TD, 6 pts per rushing/rec TD with 1 PPR for RB/WR and 1.5 PPR for TE.1. RB Mark Ingram, Alabama (4.03) Jr.2. RB Trent Richardson, Alabama (5.12) So. 3. WR AJ Green, Georgia (5.13) Jr.4. WR Michael Floyd, Notre Dame (5.14) Jr.5. RB Ryan Williams, Virginia Tech (6.03) rSo.6. RB Jacquizz Rodgers, Oregon State (6.05) Jr.7. WR Jonathan Baldwin, Pittsburgh (7.03) Jr. 8. RB Dion Lewis, Pittsburgh (7.12) So. 9. WR Julio Jones, Alabama (8.02) Jr. 10. RB Bryce Brown, Tennessee (8.10) So.11. RB Jamie Harper, Clemson (8.13) Jr.12. WR Armon Binns, Cincinnati (9.01) Sr.13. WR Andre Debose, Florida (9.09) rFr.14. QB Andrew Luck, Stanford (9.10) rSo. NOTES:- Armon Binns was the only senior selected. - There were four players selected who won't be eligible for the draft until 2012 at the earliest: RB Trent Richardson, RB Dion Lewis, RB Bryce Brown, and WR Andre Debose. - Prominent undrafted players: QB Jake Locker, QB Ryan Mallett, RB Noel Devine, RB LaMichael James, WR DeAndre Brown- No TEs were drafted despite the 1.5 PPR scoring.

A few thoughts....I definitely think thats a better spot for Richardson than the other draft you posted. I agree with you that Luck will end up as a better pro QB than Locker or Mallett. DeAndre Brown should have been drafted. On physical ability alone he is in the top 5.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Luck is head and shoulders better than any QB in this years draft and the gap will only be greater next season. Barkley isn't even in the conversation with Luck.

A year ago people were saying the same thing about Locker and hardly anyone here knew who Luck was.

I addressed this in another thread.Locker was an athlete people were hoping would turn into a good QB. It didn't happen. Luck is already a very good QB. If he didn't improve at all he would still be better than at least a handful of NFL QB's right now. Not even a comparison, IMO

And I addressed what you're saying there, uh, one post up...

 

[EBF]

Every player is a unique event in history. When I was talking up Luck prior to last season, I had people cite Jevan Snead as an example of why you shouldn't get too excited about a young QB prospect who has shown flashes of brilliance. Thing is...Andrew Luck isn't Jevan Snead. He's Andrew Luck. Just because Snead was a fluke didn't somehow guarantee that Luck was also a fluke.

You can bring up names like Matt Leinart and Jake Locker. Personally, I don't think Luck has much in common with those guys. He's a better athlete than Leinart and by all accounts has a MUCH better work ethic. He's a much better passer than Locker. More accurate with a much better feel for the passing game. If I had to compare him to another top QB prospect who made a controversial decision to turn down certain millions, I'd say Sam Bradford is the closest recent parallel. Both guys were fairly brilliant from the moment they stepped on the field. Both have the requisite physical tools to be successful and the rare passing skills and mental intangibles to become top shelf NFL signal callers.

I'll buy the idea that it's risky for players to return to school when their draft stock has peaked. However, I also recognize that not every player whose value spikes is destined for an imminent decline. I think Luck is the real deal, meaning I expect his stock to hold steady over the next 12 months pending utter health disaster. He's on a very high plane, being discussed as one of the best QB prospects of all time. If you believe that the hype is an accurate representation of his abilities then it's hard to envision another college QB vaulting so high up the ladder next season that he surpasses Luck.

 

[TheWheel]

It really depends on how Stanford/Luck do next year. You can't base next years draft on this years stats. Locker has always been a great player with average talent around him. That was the argument for him being a top prospect despite crappy stats. Luck and Stanford had a great year. You don't know how this team will react to Harbaugh leaving. The guy didn't get paid for being alright--he got paid because is an awesome coach. If Luck has a bad year, he could lose his bonafide top pick status (Locker) If he gets injured, he is Sam Bradford. If he repeats his production, a fight for him.

 

[Masked Vigilante]

Too lazy to find a link but I recall people on this board saying a year ago that the Rams should pass on Bradford to draft Suh and wait for Locker next year.