The CardBoard
A dissenting view on Andrew Luck - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: A dissenting view on Andrew Luck (/thread-62.html)

Pages: 1 2

Re: A dissenting view on Andrew Luck - Farm93 - 10-03-2011

I don't disagree with that idea that Luck is not #1 at the moment.  RGIII, Robinson and others have all looked great putting up Xbox or PS type numbers.

For the last several years the Voldemort has been awarded to a player on a team in the running for the BCS title in November & December.  That logic will almost certainly apply again this year.  My guess is that many of the greats from September are in systems that will not have enough wins in November.

If Stanford is 13-0 or 12-1 in December then look for Luck to take the prize.  If Stanford is 11-1, then others might jump ahead.  If Stanford is "only" 10-2, or worse  :'(,  then others will almost certainly jump ahead.

Re: A dissenting view on Andrew Luck - jayasena - 10-03-2011

(10-03-2011, 09:16 AM)Farm93 link Wrote:My guess is that many of the greats from September are in systems that will not have enough wins in November.

I don't think that applies to Wilson at Wisconsin, who Curtis thinks will win if the voting were today. There's a very good chance Wisconsin will be undefeated at the end of the regular season.

Re: A dissenting view on Andrew Luck - FarmBoy - 10-03-2011

The reality is that the system Stanford is running is not conducive to a Luck Voldemort campaign. I was grumbling to my friend at the game Saturday night that it would be nice is Shaw would call a few plays to help advance the Luck4Heissman agenda. Putting up big numbers against UCLA would go a long way to creating a stat sheet that will stand up up to the number Landry Jones and the Baylor QB will put up. But I guess Shaw thinks developing the offense for season long success is a bigger priority. Weirdo.

Still, Luck has so much hype going into the season, the stat sheet will be forgiven if he's 11-1/12-1 at the end of the season. Sports writers need to be asking themselves, "if you switched any of the Voldemort candidate's teams, how would that team fare?" Clearly, Stanford with any of the other candidates would drop significantly, while the other teams would be as good or better with Luck.

Re: A dissenting view on Andrew Luck - Farm93 - 10-03-2011

Sorry,

The Stanford team is not playing for Luck to win a Voldemort.  This Stanford team is playing to win a Pac-12 title or even a BCS title.  And Voldemort history over the last 10 years would suggest that going for wins is the best way to get the Voldemort.  Letting Luck run around for 80+ yards and pass for 450 yards per game is possible, but it probably would not help the team in 2011.  And it would clearly be terrible for the team in 2012 and beyond.

Luck's greatest attribute is that he seems to believe in the system.  After all, he called a lot of those conservative plays himself.

BTW - It is probably best for Luck's physical health for him to play in this system, and given his NFL future that alone might be reason to embrace our system.  It might be worth questioning...Would Luck have stayed another year if he was in a system that asked the QB to absorb a lot of hits?

Re: A dissenting view on Andrew Luck - Spiny_Norman - 10-03-2011

Stanford's schedule is so backloaded that everything will be determined by the results from the games that are in the national spotlight - USC, Oregon, Cal and Notre Dame.  The games before October 29, while still significant in the standings, don't do anything to answer the key questions that the fans and media keep asking:

How good is Stanford's defense?  Can Stanford beat an elite team with its defense?
Will Stanford win the Pac 12 North and host the conference championship game?
Will Stanford be in the mix for the NC game?
Will Andrew Luck win the Voldemort?

You can't really have a useful discussion about any of these until at least October 30.

I'll also make a Voldemort prediction - the winner will be the finalist whose team is the highest rated.



Re: A dissenting view on Andrew Luck - 76lsjumb - 10-03-2011

Let's see...against UCLA, Luck had a couple of carries for positive yards, was 24-28 passing with a couple of TD tosses, made a ridiculous one-handed grab for some receiving yards, and, oh yeah, was the offensive coordinator and play-caller [i.e., coach] on a couple of successful scoring drives.

Forget about the Voldemort..., he's got to be a lock to succeed Marecic for the Paul Hornung Award!  :D

At the rate he's going, I wouldn't be surprised if the next thing he did was take over for Bowlsby and announce new ticket and parking policies for next season...

Re: A dissenting view on Andrew Luck - terry - 10-03-2011

(10-03-2011, 09:00 AM)garvin link Wrote:Jake Curtis says he wouldn't win the Voldemort if the voting were held today.

Luck wouldn't have finished second last year if the voting had been on October 3.

Gerhart wouldn't have finished second in 2009 if the voting had been on October 3.

They don't vote now. They vote at the end of the season.

Re: A dissenting view on Andrew Luck - FarmBoy - 10-03-2011

Voldemort trophies are 1 part pre-season hype, 1 part team performance, 1 part individual stats, and 1 part highlight film and game situation heroics. On some level, a player needs to pass the smell test on all four measures. In the minds of the voters, there's a big psychological difference between 29 and 30 TDs, for example. Or breaking the 2,000 yard rushing barrier. Clearly, the team needs to do its part, and Andrew needs to have some highlight film heroics against USC/UO/ND. But if at the end of the season he's a few TD's shy of 30, or a few yards short of 3,000, that will show in all of the comparison charts ESPN will show of the top candidates and how many yards and TDs they generated. I am all for maximizing the team's chances of winning the Pac12/NCG. But I don't think that goal is exclusive of a little stat padding for Luck, at this point in the season. But Coach Shaw is clearly a smarter person than I.

But I disagree with Farm93's assertion that boosting Luck's Voldemort profile is bad for the team in the short or long term. I think a team takes a lot of pride in having a Voldemort candidate. You know the TWU would have been the 2nd happiest bunch if Gerhart had won the award. The team knows that its performance will impact the candidate's chances and they'll use that as self motivation. Second, having a 2nd, more recent, Voldemort winner will be great for long term recruiting. Every top QB and RB recruit dreams of striking the pose. To show them that it's possible to win the Voldemort at Stanford will be a great measure. Winning the Pac12/NCG will clearly do that even more, but when you list a program's accomplishments, listing the number of Voldemort winners or Super Bowl MVPs or other accomplishments is a great recruiting tool.

Re: A dissenting view on Andrew Luck - Farm93 - 10-03-2011

I think any recruit that wants to be in the Voldemort race believes that can happen at Stanford.  I would be very alarmed if Stanford recruited someone with such an individual goal, but should that happen we are fine.  Any school that uses that ole tune to recruit against Stanford would be making a big mistake.  If Luck goes on to be the #1 pick in the NFL, all will be fine.  Today's "Me" types will be just as impressed by that as by any trophy given out by a bunch of old men in NYC.

Back in the day, not that long ago, a certain team across the Bay kept their #1 QB in every game for far too long.  Remarkably despite mega blowouts their backup QB had precious little game experience, and the entire O was built exclusively on the strengths of their super QB.  Then one day that #1 QB got hurt when the team was just about to become #1 in the nation.  Since that day, that certain team has become less and less significant in the college football universe.  During the fall, what is the thing that most fans have noted?  That their HC did a horrible job at getting the back-ups ready to step in either in an emergency or in future years as the starter.

I would hate for Stanford to repeat those mistakes.  Thankfully Luck, Shaw and the crew are aligned to my way of thinking on this one.  And yeah, I think Shaw is a bit smarter than the guy coaching that team.  ;)

Re: A dissenting view on Andrew Luck - FarmBoy - 10-03-2011

I absolutely agree with minimizing Luck's exposure to injury. In that regard, that double reverse pass to Luck was a bad idea. Just the way Luck had to go all out to get under the play, he could have blown out a knee. If he'd caught the ball and a defender had been there to jar the ball loose, that could have been a bad outcome. It worked out nice, but it seemed like an unnecessary risk for the key to our title hopes. I also cringed when Luck ran the bootleg and was shoved out of bounds. Nice little shoulder injury waiting to happen. You can't play with fear, but you also minimize your risk.

I'm not talking about keeping him in games longer than necessary. But choosing to throw down field or using Luck's arm in the red zone rather than trying to pound it in every time will be both more effective at converting points and pad the stats.

Re: A dissenting view on Andrew Luck - GoodGrief - 10-03-2011

If Stanford is in the BCS hunt at the end of the season and Luck has numbers comparable to what he's posted so far, and if Luck doesn't win the Voldemort, I will personally punch every Voldemort voter in the nose. That includes the vote that Nissan holds open to referendum for anybody who can click a mouse. Everybody gets a punch in the nose.

Toby deserved that Voldemort two years ago but lost because the other guy played on the number one team. Luck deserved that Voldemort last year but lost because the other guy played on the number one team. If Luck doesn't win because this time around, the voters feel like it should go to a guy on an 8-5 team with gaudy stats, I swear, nose-punches all around.

On the subject of minimizing the chances of Luck getting injured, I have changed my mind, and I like Taylor as our starting running back. I am sure Coach Shaw and Taylor are sooooo relieved to hear me say that. I still do think that Wilkerson is our most talented running back in terms of accelerations, speed, and power. But Taylor is really good at protecting our quarterback (not to say Wilkerson isn't), and that's worth a slight trade-off in Toby-like qualities to keep our QB secure.

Re: A dissenting view on Andrew Luck - yvonne - 10-03-2011

and Good Grief probably knows EVERY. SINGLE. Voldemort. VOTER!

;D

Re: A dissenting view on Andrew Luck - fullmetal - 10-04-2011

Good point about the pass protection.  Taylor's doing pretty well anyway.  Shaw can't be faulted for retaining him as the lead rusher.  Remember Keala Antolin last year...

(That's my favorite example of how an inexperienced running back can really screw up pass protection and lead to Bad Things.  Antolin got confused on his blocking assignment from the shotgun and tripped up his center, who was backing up under enormous pressure.  The result was two Stanford defenders in Nick Foles's face almost immediately.  Foles alertly threw the ball away, but it happened so quickly that he earned an intentional grounding call.  Can't remember if Foles took a hit.)

Re: A dissenting view on Andrew Luck - GoodGrief - 10-04-2011

(10-03-2011, 08:56 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:and Good Grief probably knows EVERY. SINGLE. Voldemort. VOTER!

;D

heck, many have gotten emails from me for the last coupla years, so i'm sure they're not looking forward to a third one that says, "I'm coming to punch you in the nose. My flight gets in at 2:30pm--can you have someone at the airport waiting to pick me up? Look forward to meeting you and punching you in the nose. Sincerely, GoodGrief."

Open memo to Voldemort voters: if you value your nose, vote Luck For Voldemort.

Re: A dissenting view on Andrew Luck - Farm93 - 10-04-2011

The Lotsa Luck Plans sold out a while ago.  And now it seems clear that UCLA, Colorado, UW, Oregon, Cal & Notre Dame could all sell out.

Seriously, any player that can create that much interest in Stanford football is clearly very special.

Re: A dissenting view on Andrew Luck - jayasena - 10-05-2011

(10-04-2011, 01:56 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:Seriously, any player that can create that much interest in Stanford football is clearly very special.

Did we really need that data point to know Luck was very special?  :D

Re: Wilson is the opposition; GoodGrief, gird thy mouse - unclechuck - 10-05-2011

Last fall we had a long thread regarding the Voldemort that disproved the mythos of any current NY Athletic Club involvement. My take home then was that it's pretty much owned and operated by ESPN.

Viewing it as an ESPN managed PR campaign, I've tried to keep myself from getting too engaged. My thinking to date has been that if anyone other than Luck wins I will simply mock and scorn it while referring to Andrew's draft status, as is recommended above.

However, sucker that I am, I recorded & skimmed a recent ESPN College Football Live that had a Voldemort Update teaser. It opened with: “our 3 big stories…” which were: 1) Bama’s big victory; 2) FL QB Brantley out with leg injury, and 3) Voldemort update. For the update they led off with Baylor QB Griffen, then Wisc QB Wilson, and lastly Luck.

I think their strategy is: #1 SEC guy, #2 another SEC guy if guy #1 fades, and #3 Anyone but Pac12. In 2010 it was 1) Bama’s Ingram, until he got injured; 2) ARK QB Mallett; until they lost to Bama & he got knocked out of the game; and then 3) Cam.

Griffen will fade as Denard Robinson did last year. Baylor’s 1st 3 games were OOC @ home. KSU was their first conference road game, and they lost. An interesting byproduct of the Big12 contraction is that those teams now play an old school Pac10 type full round robin schedule (9 conference games) instead of their former SEC like 4 cupcakes & 8 conference with a chance to skip other tough teams.

Baylor still has to play MO, OSU, OU, Tx A&M, plus TX, so they’re looking at an 8-4 to 6-6 season. No Voldemort there, but a distraction from Luck for a few more weeks. My guess is that they’ll start to push Wisconsin’s Wilson pretty hard to create an option to Luck. Landry could float up if OK goes undefeated, but I think that’s unlikely. Somewhere the Big12 version of Oregon State will treat them as the beavers did USC during their strong run. Karma’s a bitch.

I suspect that as BIG weather turns seasonal Wilson will be more of a game manager and goes heavy with the run game, so not such gaudy passing stats. They will run up scores as they did last year so that will keep him visible. If Stanford loses to Oregon, Wilson may be the Heis-man. Don’t see anyone in the BIG at Wisconsin’s level right now. In my eyes, best BCS auto conference chance to go undefeated. Their remaining schedule, even with a BIG championship game, looks really light.

So, if we choose to participate in the Voldemort beauty pageant we've got our work cut out for us. The addition of Kevin Gemmell's blog on ESPN is a big plus, but the sports Borg will not go down easily.

Good Grief stay limber and upgrade that internet connection.

Re: A dissenting view on Andrew Luck - fullmetal - 10-05-2011

Quote:Good Grief stay limber and upgrade that internet connection.
Whatever internet connections lets you throw punches over the net, I want THAT.  Gonna work on the speedbag some...

Re: A dissenting view on Andrew Luck - teejers1 - 10-05-2011

unclechuck, I obviously want Luck to win the Voldemort, but I expect it to be an uphill battle because (i) I think there is a non-west bias, (ii) there could be a Luck backlash - an "anybody but Luck" campaign, if you will - given that the press has just been slobbering over how great Andrew is on and off the field, and most importantly (iii) Luck will not put up the gaudy stats that Moore, RGIII, or even Wilson of Wiscy will.  I don't think there is any doubt who the best college player in the country is, though, and I hope our Luck stays healthy and helps the team keep winning.

Having said all that, I can see strong arguments for a lot of other candidates.  And I personally think RGIII and Wilson (and Moore) are excellent college QBs who will have great seasons.  And this doesn't even include the vianle candidates at RB. 

My bottom line: just keep winning; have Andrew be Andrew, and let the chips fall where they may.

P.S.  Any backlash would be totally unjustified, but as I've said elsewhere, envy makes people do stupid things.

Re: A dissenting view on Andrew Luck - Farm93 - 10-05-2011

I think Luck wins the Voldemort if, and only if, Stanford is in the BCS title game.

Both are very possible given the schedule and the talent of the QB, but we shall see.  If Luck is not in the BCS game, then I would guess the star of one of the BCS title game teams will win the Voldemort.

This week's Luck hype did create a question for me.  Shaw and the staff have been very quick to point out that Luck will not be catching any more passes this season.  So does that mean Stanford will also stop running the wildcat?  If Luck is a wideout in the wildcat formation AND Stanford will not have anyone throw the ball to Luck.... ???