Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Andrew Luck News & Updates


Jbro

Recommended Posts

neg rep me if this is a dumb question, but lets say there is a lockout next year and luck does choose to come out, wouldnt he be able to finish school during the lockout and have a big ass contract?

Is anyone else a little worried with just how high the praise is for Luck? Seems too good to be true. :(

I imagine Luck could go back to school if there was a lockout, Rudie.

i've said this a million times (take or give a few hundred thousand)....there is zero incentive for luck to stay if there is a lockout.

if he goes back to school as opposed to declaring for the draft, he increases his chances of falling in the draft because of poor performance/stats or injury. that is a HUGE risk.

the draft is going to happen in 2011 regardless of what happens with the CBA. if he declares, he's going to get drafted. there is no doubt of that. he is going to get drafted incredibly early...there is also no doubt about that. it's harder to become even hotter a prospect than he is right now. when you are lractically a lock for the #1 overall pick, you don't wait around hoping you can go higher later, ther is nothing higher.

so what if he doesn't get paid right away? he's still going to be getting paid as the #1 pick anyway. it may be a few months later....but contracts for #1 overall usually don't get locked up until training camp starts anyway. there would be lots of time to get it all squared away.

if he decides to stay, what does he have to gain? education can come at anytime. if there is no football, he can still finish school and have been drafted. he just wouldn't be able to play football for stanford.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can make an argument for Cam Newton, but Mallett? Come on :nonod:

Of course, if you're going to go online with football opinions, it'd help if you actually talked about something that made sense as opposed to saying he's not a franchise QB because "he just isn't", calling him a dork, spouting ESPN conspiracy theories and talking like a third grader :lol:

Pretty sure nobody in the NFL consults ESPN about who they ought to draft.

(except maybe Bill Tobin)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea that video was stupid.

Ok guys let's not draft Luck because some fat youtube guy kept saying "Luck no, just no" over and over again.

If we end up with the 2nd overall instead of first, then we can consider Newton.

No one considering the possibility that the Bengals could choose Newton instead?

Style-wise, Luck is essentially a better version of Palmer. If they really wanted to go in a different direction, why not go for Newton?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one considering the possibility that the Bengals could choose Newton instead?

Style-wise, Luck is essentially a better version of Palmer. If they really wanted to go in a different direction, why not go for Newton?

I suppose they could, and I would hope in that situation that they would, for our sake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one considering the possibility that the Bengals could choose Newton instead?

Style-wise, Luck is essentially a better version of Palmer. If they really wanted to go in a different direction, why not go for Newton?

stylistically that wouldn't be a bad fit, actually. depends on who their next coach is, obviously.

palmer is due $50mil over the next 4 years. they could cut him after their last game and not have it effect their cap whenever the new one kicks in (assuming it's soon), but that still means that he would be getting paid $50mil to not play...i suppose. i'm not sure how much of that money is guaranteed. at any rate, the same situation that made it possible for JR/hurney to cut so many vets will still allow mike brown to cut plamer without penalty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Too late to edit above but the quote is from this Diane Russini article in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5941684/2024/11/23/russinis-what-im-hearing-the-day-the-jets-fell-apart-and-the-broncos-rallied-belichick-best-fits/ Okay.. there you have sorry I left that out the first post.  Also waivers keep the contract intact. That is the major difference in released and waived. It's all in that link from the other post.
    • Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
    • Well, we got our answer on Army today.
×
×
  • Create New...