Better than Moore. What 'invisibles' do he possess that Keenum and Moore don't?
-
You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.
HuskerMax readers can save 50% on Omaha Steaks .
Locked due to no posts in 60 days. Report 1st post if need unlocked Heisman Finalists Named
- Thread starter HuskerWeatherman
- Start date
- Status
Better than Moore. What 'invisibles' do he possess that Keenum and Moore don't?
See post #23 of this thread and the link therein.
I figured you were going to use that as your argument. I thought you were going to insight me on something.
It could be argued, that check downs and audibles are the same as calling 90% of the plays. A qb is suppose to make the proper calls at the LOS if they see something in the defense. I haven't watch all of Standford's games but I've seen him look to the sideline a lot more than 10% of the time. If he isn't looking to get a play what is he looking over there for. And how does a player on the sideline know when to sub in before players go to the huddle. And what is the need for an OC on Stanford's staff if he isn't calling the plays.
So again the 'invisibles' that I am missing I would like for you to please fill me in. Because at the moment I don't see him being no better than Keenum and Moore..(not that he isn't an elite qb, just not superior at that little passage tried to make him out to be.
I think most definitely Luck will be a better pro QB than Moore or Keenum (Closer call on the USC QB if he comes out), and thats what that video does... it addresses his pro potential more than if he is heisman worthy. And Cardinal, it would be better if you had an objective opposing coach talking about Luck that way than his own head coach. His bias shows almost as much as yours!
Well, then don't come on the board arguing their point then. Tell them to pony up $20 for the discussions. If you wish throw and occasional "+1" after their posts....
.Not sure Heisman winner is necessarily supposed to = best NFL prospect (and frequently doesn't,) but I'm not sure anymore what the criteria has become. It seems good stats and a top 10 team is the #1 qualifier, and being on a top 3 SEC team is qualifier #2. I certainly think Luck has hugely elevated his team as has RG3, CK, and Kellen Moore. I personally wouldn't have an issue with any of those four winning the Heisman even though it appears only two are in contention. IMO Wisconsin could have been in the same position they are in without Ball, but take away Wilson and they are a 7-5 team. As great and talented as Trent Richardson and the Honey Badger seem to be, I think that it's very likely their teams would be in the same position they are with or without them, and their inclusion frankly sours me on the entire event.
Well, then don't come on the board arguing their point then. Tell them to pony up $20 for the discussions. If you wish throw and occasional "+1" after their posts....
Good post. And I agree that who will be the best in the NFL is not, and should not be, the criteria for winning the Heisman. That's why I said somewhere above that I have no problem with RGIII winning it (which it seems almost assured he will). One can excel, especially at QB, at the college level without certain skill sets that the pro game requires. For example, extreme athleticism gets you a lot more mileage as a college QB than it will in the NFL, where you need additional skills that many college QBs can succeed without.
Luck will be in good company when RGIII's name is announced Saturday night - none of the greatest QBs to ever play the game of football won the Heisman - Montana, Elway, Manning, Namath, (maybe Rodgers if he keeps it up for about five or more years), Otto Graham, Johnny Unitas, Marino, Steve Young, Favre, Starr, Y.A. Tittle, et al.
Last edited:
This is a very fair and accurate assessment IMO. Simply put, RGIII is a better college QB, versus the drool-worthy NFL qualities of Luck. Because of the inconsistency of college players in general, having a guy at QB who can run, pass and make TD's out of broken plays is like finding GOLD to a team. Hence, the argument that RGIII is the most outstanding player in collegiate football. But, no QB this year has the combination of pure passing ability and decision making that Andrew Luck has as demonstrated against significant competition.
It's pretty cool how Griffin and Luck both took programs that were rock bottom three or four years ago and turned them around (with a little help from their friends, no doubt). That may be my only beef about Griffin over Luck ... that Luck took his dumpster program considerably higher than RGIII (25-2 over the last two seasons; one and maybe two BCS game wins; 4th in the nation last year and possibly second, third or fourth this year if they beat OSU, etc). But Griffin is a great choice, if he in fact ends up winning it.
Last edited:
+1. That's one way I look at the Heisman race. How would your team perform without you on the field. Which is why I don't understand how certain past winners (Mark Ingram) got in and others didn't (Suh). I for one think that players who seem to be the heart beat of the success for their teams should be in NY. Guess like RGIII, Luck, Keenum, Moore, Wilson..... Guys like Ball, Richardson, Mathieu..... are great athletes but haven't excel passed the need of their team. Not saying they aren't great, hell Ball 38 TD.....that's a big plus, but would he be able to do that behind a line that isn't Wisconsin's. Look at LJ for Oregon. Hell of an athlete, but how much did they miss him those couple games he was out....not a whole lot. Heisman winners should excel passed the need of the team where as if they aren't in the game, it obvious on the production, IMO. Not that they should fall all the way off but you should be able to see that there is a need for them to hurry and get back. I think at times that may have hindered guys like Tommie Frazier (outside of bias votes). Frazier coming out of the game, we had Berringer to continue the moment with no drop off at all.
Which kind of brings me to another point. What happens to these programs after the loss of their generals.
Luck heads to the next level, do they have someone whom has significant game time that's able to keep moment going into next season. Griffin has another year I believe but I think he may move on, being that he graduates this semester and is looking to go straight to law school. Also he has mentioned that he still has dreams of competing in the Olympics at some point in Track & Field.
Perhaps the gist is simply do you like the best QB on the varsity team or the best QB on the jv?
Good post. And I agree that who will be the best in the NFL is not, and should not be, the criteria for winning the Heisman. That's why I said somewhere above that I have no problem with RGIII winning it (which it seems almost assured he will). One can excel, especially at QB, at the college level without certain skill sets that the pro game requires. For example, extreme athleticism gets you a lot more mileage as a college QB than it will in the NFL, where you need additional skills that many college QBs can succeed without.
Luck will be in good company when RGIII's name is announced Saturday night - none of the greatest QBs to ever play the game of football won the Heisman - Montana, Elway, Manning, Namath, (maybe Rodgers if he keeps it up for about five or more years), Otto Graham, Johnny Unitas, Marino, Steve Young, Favre, Starr, Y.A. Tittle, et al.
IMO Manning was robbed, but interestingly, the guy that robbed him is one of a few Heisman winners that went on to a great NFL career. Of the Heisman winners in the last 25 years, really only Woodson, Barry Sanders and Tim Brown have had truly great pro careers, with many others being total NFL busts i.e. Crouch, Jason White, Wuerffel, Salaam, Andre Ware, Gino Torretta, Ron Dayne, etc. I guess technically Charlie Ward had a respectable professional career
even though I could never root for him after the Huskers got robbed.I wouldn't have a problem at all though if your man Luck won the trophy (although given the track record of Heisman winners he might be better off coming in second.) He truly elevated Stanford and represents them well on and off the field, on and off camera. Up to the Oregon game, I thought Stanford might truly be the best team, but the loss seemed to have taken away some of their mojo as they didn't really seem as dominant in their last two games. And to Shaw's (and Luck's) credit, they didn't play the season for the Heisman, they played to win a championship. And I wonder if Harbaugh had stayed whether they would be undefeated and playing LSU in a month with Luck having a Heisman in hand...
- Status
