12-07-2011, 11:00 AM
First off, hello Cardinal fans. I admire your school greatly and think that it goes without saying you have the best athletic department in the country.
Secondly, yes, Toby Gerhart deserved the Voldemort. Ingram winning it was a travesty and was more a school "name recognition" issue than anything else (it didn't hurt that 'Bama was playing for the national championship either). So I understand why you guys would think that you are due a Voldemort when your candidate has lesser numbers, after getting jobbed out of one a few years back with a candidate with greater numbers. That said, that doesn't change the fact that Griffin has better numbers and has put his numbers up more impressively (more deep balls, more TDs, more signature moments).
Finally, I don't understand what Andrew Luck's ability to call a correct audible at the LOS has to do with his deserving to win the Voldemort. This is a fantastic skill, no doubt, and will aid him greatly in his career in the NFL. If this were an argument over who should be the #1 pick in next April's NFL Draft, then that would be something you should tout at every opportunity given. However, his understanding of when it is more appropriate to audible into a run play unfortunately doesn't mean anything to his winning the Voldemort. I think Stanford actually did him a disservice by including those plays in which he did audible down in his stump video for the Voldemort. It makes his video look less impressive than if you simply ran his passing, running, catching and tackling highlights. Andrew Luck's game is very cerebral, but to the unwashed Voldemort voter, that doesn't translate through a highlight video. Highlight videos are for highlights, not demonstrating why he will be able to pick up an NFL scheme.
(12-07-2011, 10:30 AM)Griffin78 link Wrote:Just curious ...In answer to this, I suppose they could be, but the reason Baylor fans were directed here is because there was so much misinformation about Robert Griffin III being espoused as fact here. I would hope that Stanford fans would go to Andrew Luck's defense if they saw another board calling him a prima donna, or cocky, or saying that he is in a pass-happy offense, when all of those are clearly not the case.
Are Stanford fans posting on other team's forums/boards to promote Andrew Luck for the Voldemort?
... just asking.
Secondly, yes, Toby Gerhart deserved the Voldemort. Ingram winning it was a travesty and was more a school "name recognition" issue than anything else (it didn't hurt that 'Bama was playing for the national championship either). So I understand why you guys would think that you are due a Voldemort when your candidate has lesser numbers, after getting jobbed out of one a few years back with a candidate with greater numbers. That said, that doesn't change the fact that Griffin has better numbers and has put his numbers up more impressively (more deep balls, more TDs, more signature moments).
Finally, I don't understand what Andrew Luck's ability to call a correct audible at the LOS has to do with his deserving to win the Voldemort. This is a fantastic skill, no doubt, and will aid him greatly in his career in the NFL. If this were an argument over who should be the #1 pick in next April's NFL Draft, then that would be something you should tout at every opportunity given. However, his understanding of when it is more appropriate to audible into a run play unfortunately doesn't mean anything to his winning the Voldemort. I think Stanford actually did him a disservice by including those plays in which he did audible down in his stump video for the Voldemort. It makes his video look less impressive than if you simply ran his passing, running, catching and tackling highlights. Andrew Luck's game is very cerebral, but to the unwashed Voldemort voter, that doesn't translate through a highlight video. Highlight videos are for highlights, not demonstrating why he will be able to pick up an NFL scheme.