[Farm93]

I didn\'t think Luck showed anything special for the NFL scouts. ... The great majority of his throws were targeted within 10 yards of the line of scrimmage, and on his deep throws I would say he missed on more than he hit - the Whalen shot downfield 1-1 that was underthrown, the Reuland flag play that he plain missed, and a Baldwin post that was completed but required the receiver to go to ground rather than stay on his feet and gain more yardage.

What?!  I think this shows just how spoiled we have become.  Locker, widely considered a top 10 OVERALL pick looked like a chump on the same field.  Bad throws?  Must be the rain.  Bad reads?  Stanford blitzes did not give him time and/or the guys were not on the same page.  I am not kidding, replay the game coverage and you will hear those excuses.

Meanwhile Luck, now widely considered the number #1 pick overall was 19/26 in the rain and wind on the road at Husky Stadium.  The INT was a totally unnecessary coach\'s request.  So realistically Luck was 19 of 25.  NFL Pro scouts want to see 60+%.  Luck is often tossing above 70% this year, and there have been a few days at 80+%.

The scouts know Luck can throw deep.  They know Luck can read coverages and change the play on the line.  The numbers show he is accurate long, medium and short.  He is elusive enough.  He can read defenses.  And he can even look off safeties.  The deep throw was not necessary last night.  With the weather and team injuries at WR the deep stuff just was not there.  In many ways, his appeal was likely enhanced by not insisting on demanding a deep throw in a game that didn\'t need it.

The TEs are open, and are clearly the team\'s strength.  Why insist on tossing to a covered WR 25 yards down the field when the TE is open 15 yards away?

Arm, accuracy & decision making = first overall pick

Does anyone really think an NFL draft analyst is going to move him down on the board after a 41-0 beating on the road against the #2 QB?

[Farm93]

I didn\'t think Luck showed anything special for the NFL scouts. ... The great majority of his throws were targeted within 10 yards of the line of scrimmage, and on his deep throws I would say he missed on more than he hit - the Whalen shot downfield 1-1 that was underthrown, the Reuland flag play that he plain missed, and a Baldwin post that was completed but required the receiver to go to ground rather than stay on his feet and gain more yardage.

What?!  I think this shows just how spoiled we have become.  Locker, widely considered a top 10 OVERALL pick looked like a chump on the same field.  Bad throws?  Must be the rain.  Bad reads?  Stanford blitzes did not give him time and/or the guys were not on the same page.  I am not kidding, replay the game coverage and you will hear those excuses.

Meanwhile Luck, now widely considered the number #1 pick overall was 19/26 in the rain and wind on the road at Husky Stadium.  The INT was a totally unnecessary coach\'s request.  So realistically Luck was 19 of 25.  NFL Pro scouts want to see 60+%.  Luck is often tossing above 70% this year, and there have been a few days at 80+%.

The scouts know Luck can throw deep.  They know Luck can read coverages and change the play on the line.  The numbers show he is accurate long, medium and short.  He is elusive enough.  He can read defenses.  And he can even look off safeties.  The deep throw was not necessary last night.  With the weather and team injuries at WR the deep stuff just was not there.  In many ways, his appeal was likely enhanced by not insisting on demanding a deep throw in a game that didn\'t need it.

The TEs are open, and are clearly the team\'s strength.  Why insist on tossing to a covered WR 25 yards down the field when the TE is open 15 yards away?

Arm, accuracy & decision making = first overall pick

Does anyone really think an NFL draft analyst is going to move him down on the board after a 41-0 beating on the road against the #2 QB?