Why we should NOT draft Andrew Luck

[pantherbiker]

user posts a structured though-out opinion on a topic

user gets flamed and insulted with little real discussion

mods do nothing

good to see the huddle is working as normal, carry on

This is why I don't post on this board..mostly u get attacked by idiots who just want to argue and think they know everything.

[Captain Obvious]

Yes because the argument that "No pac 10" qbs are good in the nfl is such a thought out and based on fact.

Dan Fouts, Oregon HOF

John Elway, Stanford HOF

Warren Moon, Washington HOF

Bob Waterfield, UCLA HOF

Jim Plunkett, Stanford

Troy Aikman, UCLA

Just a few names for you of QB's from the pac 10 (formerly pac 8) :yesnod:

[Dpantherman]

There is a difference btw ESPN thinking something and EVERY SINGLE person that knows football or that is associated with it in any way agreeing that he is a consesus #1. Find scout, coach or player that doesn't think Luck is the real deal. Quote them and bring it to me and I'll eat my words.

[Ohio]

Glad to see some people have my back when we want to debate intelligently.

Yes there have been good Pac10 QB's, but Captain Obvious those QB's are all retired and have not played for a LOOOONG time, so I dont see the point.

Todays culture says "you gotta take a QB with the #1 pick" especially since Matt Ryan, Mark Sanchez, and Sam Bradford all are having success. I just honestly dont think Luck is that guy. If Stanford plays in a BCS game I'll be really interested in seeing how he plays against top notch talent. I would rather just go with a QB whose got 1 year under his belt, getting better every week, and growing with our young WR's over a rookie QB and start the whole process again.

[Cavscout]

Glad to see some people have my back when we want to debate intelligently.

Yes there have been good Pac10 QB's, but Captain Obvious those QB's are all retired and have not played for a LOOOONG time, so I dont see the point.

Todays culture says "you gotta take a QB with the #1 pick" especially since Matt Ryan, Mark Sanchez, and Sam Bradford all are having success. I just honestly dont think Luck is that guy. If Stanford plays in a BCS game I'll be really interested in seeing how he plays against top notch talent. I would rather just go with a QB whose got 1 year under his belt, getting better every week, and growing with our young WR's over a rookie QB and start the whole process again.

OK, We get it...you disagree with EVERY NFL SCOUT...your prerogative

However, No matter how much you try, you are not going to change anyone else's mind so apparently you just like to squabble

[thefuzz]

History is not on Lucks side, but I still think that you have to take him.

Personally, I don't like 2 year starters, especially not with the 1st overall pick. But I still say that you take him at that slot, if the combine goes well, and you really think that the game isn't too big for him.

[pantherfan81]

I'm on the west coast and I watch a lot of PAC-10 football & IMO he's the best QB Ive seen in a minute. I listen to ESPNradio way more than I watch the channel, & I've heard more talk about Cam than Luck.

Aaron Rodgers was great, its kinda scary Luck is much better than he was in the collegiate level. Btw there are great NFL QBs from many NCAA conferences, so I disagree with the concept of picking a QB based on which one they came from. The one thing Luck has no other prospect does is an off the chart IQ.

[Captain Obvious]

Yes there have been good Pac10 QB's, but Captain Obvious those QB's are all retired and have not played for a LOOOONG time, so I dont see the point.

Just showing there are good QB's from out west. His point was there was no good qb's from there. I showed him not only was that wrong but they have some pretty good ones that are in the hall of fame.

Of course there has been some pretty sucky ones too (Leaf= poster child) but to generalize like he did is false.

[Ohio]

We'll see how he does in a BCS game.

What if Luck does awful his rookie year, should we take a QB in the 1st round again?

[rayzor]

no.

[SuperMan]

the one thing that sets him apart from the failures and busts is his intelligence and work ethic, its what makes him such a great prospect remember all the talk about how we would jump up and draft matt ryan? bet you wish we had now, same with luck you just don't pass on a qb that has it all.

[SOJA]

Intriguing argument

[Ohio]

Intriguing argument

Glad someone thinks so.

Jeff Davidsons play calling has been horrific the past 2 years and if you notice our Qb has struggled for 2 straight years.

Glad to have some debate though, guess we'll find out on draft day if I have to keep this argument up

[Lout]

Love him or hate him. If we have the #1 overall pick, we are taking Luck. There is no question. You can bitch and complain all you want, it won't change the fact that we will take the best player on the board, Andrew Luck. What is the use in campaigning that we not take Luck? Who are you trying to convince?

Not taking Luck would be completely illogical. We will never have a #1 overall pick again. You take a franchise QB if you ever have the opportunity. Clausen is not a franchise QB. Yes, he has potential, but you don't skip on Luck for Clausen's potential. Clausen has not shown any promise in his rookie season. He is 0-9 as a starter. You take a franchise QB if the opportunity arises.