09-28-2012, 06:16 AM
(This post was last modified: 09-28-2012, 07:03 AM by OutsiderFan.)
Reading some of the game stories it appears the media can't help but continue to affix all Stanford's recent success to Andrew Luck. Even though Stanford beat USC without him, the media just can't wait to jump on that "they miss Luck" meme.
The reality of course is a Top 10 program is suppose to have better than the 75th rated passer in FBS, at least Top 50, and probably higher than that. After Thursday, Nunes is out of Top 100, with a PER of 114. The 100th rated passer has a PER of 118. It simply is disingenuous to say Stanford missed Luck in this game, when the reality is they missed Luck, Trent Edwards, Randy Fasani, Steve Stenstrom, Todd Husak, or any number of past Stanford QBs who were at least average. An Andrew Luck talent isn't necessary for Stanford to beat Washington.
So while it is obviously accurate to say Stanford misses Luck, that really glosses over the point that Stanford really just needs any QB who can complete 60% of his passes, can avoid delay of game penalties, and at least average.
The reality of course is a Top 10 program is suppose to have better than the 75th rated passer in FBS, at least Top 50, and probably higher than that. After Thursday, Nunes is out of Top 100, with a PER of 114. The 100th rated passer has a PER of 118. It simply is disingenuous to say Stanford missed Luck in this game, when the reality is they missed Luck, Trent Edwards, Randy Fasani, Steve Stenstrom, Todd Husak, or any number of past Stanford QBs who were at least average. An Andrew Luck talent isn't necessary for Stanford to beat Washington.
So while it is obviously accurate to say Stanford misses Luck, that really glosses over the point that Stanford really just needs any QB who can complete 60% of his passes, can avoid delay of game penalties, and at least average.


