PDA

View Full Version : Luck vs. Barkely on Display Tonight!


bucfan12
10-29-2011, 07:02 PM
I know this won't make a difference who gets drafted 1st obviously, but it should give us a nice shwoing the Number 1 QB and overall prospect in Luck vs some analysts who think Barkely is number 2 QB.

shylo3716
10-29-2011, 07:24 PM
I know this won't make a difference who gets drafted 1st obviously, but it should give us a nice shwoing the Number 1 QB and overall prospect in Luck vs some analysts who think Barkely is number 2 QB.

What happens if Barkley outplays Luck tonight in the matchup, many still rate Landry Jones #2.

49erNation85
10-29-2011, 07:26 PM
It is high doubtful that Barkley out plays Luck.

RaiderNation
10-29-2011, 07:31 PM
Both have looked good on their 1st drives. Woods dropped a long pass from Barkley that could have been a TD.

bucfan12
10-29-2011, 07:40 PM
Luck looks liek the real deal. Just looking at his pocket presence, awareness, the way steps into his throws and fires the ball accurately.

49erNation85
10-29-2011, 07:45 PM
Barkley is actually pretty impressive right now.He is on target and throwing with zip on the ball as well.I wouldn't him in SF, but we are picking high right to even have a chance.He bee good in Seattle if they get him.

RaiderNation
10-29-2011, 07:47 PM
I've been saying all year that Barkley has been the #2 QB behind Luck, and hes looked like it so far. Possibly 2 TDs taken away from him on a drop and a PI that wasn't called.

Me Likey Rookies
10-29-2011, 08:34 PM
Luck looks liek the real deal. Just looking at his pocket presence, awareness, the way steps into his throws and fires the ball accurately.

its easy to look good when your oline/run game is as elite as Stanford's is. I'd like to see how Luck plays when its all on his shoulders without a run game to lean on.

armageddon
10-29-2011, 08:44 PM
How is future Rams LT Kalil looking ?

Babylon
10-29-2011, 08:55 PM
How is future Rams LT Kalil looking ?

Very good, excellant footwork. Their future QB (Luck) looks good too, assuming they trade Bradford for the #2 pick.

armageddon
10-29-2011, 09:00 PM
Very good, excellant footwork. Their future QB (Luck) looks good too, assuming they trade Bradford for the #2 pick.


They don't need Luck. They just need to give Bradford protection and a couple real WR's. My only concern is, if they get the #1 pick and trade it for a heist, they could drop down too far and miss on Kalil. Kalil is top 3-4 imo.

bucfan12
10-29-2011, 10:50 PM
For how good Luck is, I don't understand why Stanford runs that Wild Cat. I wouldn't take the ball out of that kids hands.

Complex
10-29-2011, 11:19 PM
I thought he called his own plays, that is what I keep hearing on college football live.

descendency
10-29-2011, 11:22 PM
I know it's blasphemy but Barkley looked better than Luck most of the night...

that said, Luck's OL was getting abused and Luck's receivers look like division 3 guys. That stanford defense couldn't stop a high school offense.

soybean
10-29-2011, 11:34 PM
I know it's blasphemy but Barkley looked better than Luck most of the night...

that said, Luck's OL was getting abused and Luck's receivers look like division 3 guys. That stanford defense couldn't a high school offense.

I agree. that stanford defense definitely couldn't a high school offense.

descendency
10-29-2011, 11:36 PM
I agree. that stanford defense definitely couldn't a high school offense.

I tried to think of a more witty way to say that and I ended up looking stupid :(

RaiderNation
10-29-2011, 11:50 PM
Both QBs started off pretty slow in the 1st half but I came away impressed by both at the end of the game. Barkley is for sure my #2 QB for the draft and will be a top 10 pick. Luck once again shows us he is the leader and QB prospect we all think he is.

benchod
10-29-2011, 11:56 PM
Both QBs started off pretty slow in the 1st half but I came away impressed by both at the end of the game. Barkley is for sure my #2 QB for the draft and will be a top 10 pick. Luck once again shows us he is the leader and QB prospect we all think he is.

He is who we thought he was.

/Dennis Green

Babylon
10-30-2011, 12:21 AM
They don't need Luck. They just need to give Bradford protection and a couple real WR's. My only concern is, if they get the #1 pick and trade it for a heist, they could drop down too far and miss on Kalil. Kalil is top 3-4 imo.

My thinking on that is if the Rams had the #1 pick and somone picking 2nd or 3rd wanted Bradford you could make the deal and have the 1st and 2nd or 3rd pick. If you ask me do i want Bradford and Kalil or Luck and Kalil i take the latter, plus you get Luck for a lot less money.

Complex
10-30-2011, 12:30 AM
How are you going to get Luck and Kalil again?

Babylon
10-30-2011, 12:35 AM
How are you going to get Luck and Kalil again?

Rams end up with the #1 pick and then trade Bradford to the team with the 2nd pick, assuming they're in need of a QB. Then the Rams have the 1st two picks, won't happen but it could.

Complex
10-30-2011, 12:38 AM
I misread it for some reason my bad.

nepg
10-30-2011, 01:04 AM
Kalil looked like **** tonight.

nepg
10-30-2011, 01:06 AM
My thinking on that is if the Rams had the #1 pick and somone picking 2nd or 3rd wanted Bradford you could make the deal and have the 1st and 2nd or 3rd pick. If you ask me do i want Bradford and Kalil or Luck and Kalil i take the latter, plus you get Luck for a lot less money.
They'd still owe the guaranteed part of Bradford's contract.

FUNBUNCHER
10-30-2011, 09:34 AM
Rams end up with the #1 pick and then trade Bradford to the team with the 2nd pick, assuming they're in need of a QB. Then the Rams have the 1st two picks, won't happen but it could.


I could see an unlikely scenario where Bradford is traded for a 1st rounder, but not the 2nd pick overall in the draft. I guess it depends on the team.

Luck is still mortal. If an NFL team expects him to dominate in the pros, you can't put him on a team like the Rams as presently constructed and expect him to win a ton of ballgames.

Punisher
10-30-2011, 10:18 AM
Kalil looked like **** tonight.

Jonathan Martin got abused all night by Nick Perry.

Shane P. Hallam
10-30-2011, 10:23 AM
Kalil looked like **** tonight.

Huh? They ran behind him all day, he sealed the edge well and showcased some great run blocking ability. I came away impressed with Kalil, unimpressed with Martin.

BRAVEHEART
10-30-2011, 10:42 AM
Kalil beasted, what is this guy talking about?

Babylon
10-30-2011, 11:17 AM
Kalil beasted, what is this guy talking about?

Kalil was dominant and really neutralized Thomas who add to move from one side to the other to get work done.

The guy i keep coming away really impressed with is DeCastro for Stanford, he pretty much blocks two guys on every run play. He chips on an inside lineman then goes out and drives a linebacker down the field. Along with Steve Hutchinson the best guard i've seen come out in years.

nepg
10-30-2011, 11:55 AM
Huh? They ran behind him all day, he sealed the edge well and showcased some great run blocking ability. I came away impressed with Kalil, unimpressed with Martin.
I watched him get roasted a bunch early. He was struggling. Had a terrible first step earlier in the game.

Rabscuttle
10-30-2011, 12:26 PM
I don't see the team with the second pick trading for Bradford when Barkley is on the board if quarterback is their focus.

While Luck's numbers take a beating with those receivers, two really good fifths of a line and a system that takes the ball out of his hands a lot, we do get to see how he handles pressure and make things happen under less than ideal circumstances. Lots of quarterbacks shine under ideal conditions, but aren't really battle tested. Luck delivered all night with guys in his face. His biggest issue is his arm strength which isn't bad and strength isn't static. It's not like he's Colt Brennan, but it's something he will work on.

I like Barkley a lot, if it wasn't for Luck we would be talking about him a lot. He makes some really pretty throws and is pretty advanced when it comes to reading a defence. He fits throws into small windows when called for, so it's not just scheme getting him nice numbers.

Big Bird
10-30-2011, 12:32 PM
Barkley has been a Top 10 pick (at worse) all along. It really shouldn't of taken this game for people to realize.

But sadly, most just pay attention to box scores and see Landry Jones putting up gaudy stats and think that warrants a Top 10 pick...

SolidGold
10-30-2011, 12:37 PM
Barkley has been a Top 10 pick (at worse) all along. It really shouldn't of taken this game for people to realize.

But sadly, most just pay attention to box scores and see Landry Jones putting up gaudy stats and think that warrants a Top 10 pick...

Not to mention people ranking Griffin above Barkley.

niel89
10-30-2011, 12:39 PM
It was a real great game to see how each guy played in a tight game with some adversity.

Rabscuttle
10-30-2011, 12:58 PM
It was a real great game to see how each guy played in a tight game with some adversity.

Exactly. Guys delivering under pressure with pass rushers in their face and breathing down their necks is huge.

descendency
10-31-2011, 11:54 AM
Barkley has been a Top 10 pick (at worse) all along. It really shouldn't of taken this game for people to realize.

I think people need to realize that there is a pretty good chance that (depending on who has the picks), the first and second picks could be Luck and Barkley. I don't even think the order is set yet on those two. Luck's arm strength (zip and depth) just is so average. Gun to my head, I'd take Luck over Barkley because a lot of QBs 'develop' arm strength in the pros, but most of that comes from mechanics refinements. Luck just doesn't have a lot of head room in that respect.

DraftSavant
10-31-2011, 12:01 PM
I think people need to realize that there is a pretty good chance that (depending on who has the picks), the first and second picks could be Luck and Barkley. I don't even think the order is set yet on those two. Luck's arm strength (zip and depth) just is so average. Gun to my head, I'd take Luck over Barkley because a lot of QBs 'develop' arm strength in the pros, but most of that comes from mechanics refinements. Luck just doesn't have a lot of head room in that respect.

I think both of them have vastly improved their velocity from last season. They both try to hard to "push" or "place" their deep balls, though. They both need to just step into the throw and let it rip instead of short arming and placing.

bucfan12
10-31-2011, 12:34 PM
I'll say this: Kahlil looks like the real deal though at LT. Definately a top 3 overall pick.

Babylon
10-31-2011, 01:46 PM
I'll say this: Kahlil looks like the real deal though at LT. Definately a top 3 overall pick.

He definitely is. I'd compare him probably more to a Eugene Monroe coming out than a Joe Thomas but i think he's the best LT playing at the college level no matter what year they're in. Kalil probably doesnt get picked by the Dolphins (Jake Long) or the Colts (Anthony Castonso) but he wont get by teams like the Rams or Cardinals.

JBCX
10-31-2011, 01:52 PM
Kalil is tailor-made for the Cardinals.

whatadai
10-31-2011, 04:26 PM
In my opinion Luck was never going to fall out of the 1st pick and Barkley solidified himself to everyone that he'll be the #2 pick in the draft if the first 2 teams are QB needy. Some things that worked against Barkley in the game...Robert Woods and his stone hands...seriously what was up with him that game. Maybe it's the homer in me...but the referees were really bad...yes there were no calls that USC should have had like a hold here or there...but Stanford's CBs were holding and commiting PIs against USC receivers all day, some blatant ones too that left me confused as to why they weren't called. I honestly think Stanford will get the Colts effect when they lose Luck...that team is nothing without him. Even without some of the big penalty calls...they still racked up 11 penalties.

Cardinal96
11-01-2011, 11:53 AM
In my opinion Luck was never going to fall out of the 1st pick and Barkley solidified himself to everyone that he'll be the #2 pick in the draft if the first 2 teams are QB needy. Some things that worked against Barkley in the game...Robert Woods and his stone hands...seriously what was up with him that game. Maybe it's the homer in me...but the referees were really bad...yes there were no calls that USC should have had like a hold here or there...but Stanford's CBs were holding and commiting PIs against USC receivers all day, some blatant ones too that left me confused as to why they weren't called. I honestly think Stanford will get the Colts effect when they lose Luck...that team is nothing without him. Even without some of the big penalty calls...they still racked up 11 penalties.

Without Luck, Stanford is probably 7-1 this season. Their defense and running game is good enough to have won the first 7 games of their schedule with Nottingham as a QB. Against USC, we probably lose by 14 points without Andrew Luck. We would have zero chance against Oregon without Luck and Notre Dame would be a coin toss.

Bias does play a role here. As a Stanford fan, I was noticing blatant holding penalties go uncalled against USC and have a hard time seeing how we benefitted from bad officiating given the lopsidedness in penalties called.

Back to the topic, Barkley played pretty well that game and he is the number 2 QB on my list. I have seen Landry Jones play and I think he benefits from playing in an offense that can stick any serviceable QB and create tons of yardage.

When comparing Luck to Barkley, was I the only one who noticed the glaring discrepancy in talent level between the USC wide receivers and Stanford wide receivers. Luck had a less talented supporting cast and was getting more pressure in the pocket. And he still outplayed Barkley. It is amazing to think what Luck could do with actual NFL receivers.

Halsey
11-01-2011, 12:03 PM
Yeah, Stanford's roster is so good that Oliver Luck could guide them to wins...

Just remember this, Stanford fan:

Losses for Stanford in the 3 years Luck has been QB: 6
Losses the year before Luck became the starter: 7

Stanford hasn't been this relevant in football since...forever. It's not a coincidence that Stanford is suddenly a powerhouse since Luck became the starter.

Of course it's not all about Luck, but they're not nearly this good with your average starting college QB.

soybean
11-01-2011, 12:49 PM
Yeah, Stanford's roster is so good that Oliver Luck could guide them to wins...

Just remember this, Stanford fan:

Losses for Stanford in the 3 years Luck has been QB: 6
Losses the year before Luck became the starter: 7

Stanford hasn't been this relevant in football since...forever. It's not a coincidence that Stanford is suddenly a powerhouse since Luck became the starter.

Of course it's not all about Luck, but they're not nearly this good with your average starting college QB.

Harbaugh brought in an army of good recruits.

Halsey
11-01-2011, 01:30 PM
Harbaugh brought in an army of good recruits.

The clear top recruit being a certain QB from Houston, Texas.

AntoinCD
11-01-2011, 01:43 PM
When comparing Luck to Barkley, was I the only one who noticed the glaring discrepancy in talent level between the USC wide receivers and Stanford wide receivers. Luck had a less talented supporting cast and was getting more pressure in the pocket. And he still outplayed Barkley. It is amazing to think what Luck could do with actual NFL receivers.

But on the flip side some NFL teams would love to have Stanford's offensive line and TEs.

They probably have 3 TEs who will play in the NFL and everyone knows about Martin and DeCastro already

kalbears13
11-01-2011, 01:54 PM
The clear top recruit being a certain QB from Houston, Texas.

You could tell the program was turning around before Luck stepped in. Harbaugh just did a great job with everything. They wouldn't be as good with Luck but they definitely have a way better team than they did before Harbaugh.

A Perfect Score
11-01-2011, 02:30 PM
He definitely is. I'd compare him probably more to a Eugene Monroe coming out than a Joe Thomas but i think he's the best LT playing at the college level no matter what year they're in. Kalil probably doesnt get picked by the Dolphins (Jake Long) or the Colts (Anthony Castonso) but he wont get by teams like the Rams or Cardinals.

I would be extremely shocked if the Colts pass on Kalil because Castonzo is there. If you draft Kalil, Castonzo moves to RT and Ijalana slides to G. So instead of having a guy playing out of position anyways, you strengthen your team in 3 positions.

AntoinCD
11-01-2011, 02:37 PM
I would be extremely shocked if the Colts pass on Kalil because Castonzo is there. If you draft Kalil, Castonzo moves to RT and Ijalana slides to G. So instead of having a guy playing out of position anyways, you strengthen your team in 3 positions.

I think this is the way the Colts should go unless they get the first pick. Castonzo will be an ok LT who could be above average at RT. Ijalana would be a much better guard and Kalil could be a pro bowl LT. There's 3 upgrades IMO with one pick.

niel89
11-01-2011, 02:37 PM
Stanford was already getting better before Luck fully stepped in. Harbaugh completely changed the team's culture, attitude, goals, and talent level. Without Luck Stanford would still run the ball well and would still win a good amount of games.

Cardinal96
11-01-2011, 03:42 PM
Yeah, Stanford's roster is so good that Oliver Luck could guide them to wins...

Just remember this, Stanford fan:

Losses for Stanford in the 3 years Luck has been QB: 6
Losses the year before Luck became the starter: 7

Stanford hasn't been this relevant in football since...forever. It's not a coincidence that Stanford is suddenly a powerhouse since Luck became the starter.

Of course it's not all about Luck, but they're not nearly this good with your average starting college QB.

I agree and disagree. There is no question that Luck is what makes Stanford special. The reason I say that Stanford would still be 7-1 is that those 7 victories prior to USC were by 26 points or more and only one came against a team with a winning record (Washington). Is Andrew Luck worth 26 points? Prior to USC, Stanford was able to dominate the line of scrimmage on both sides and you can win with an average QB when you do that.

However, even if you take out Andrew Luck, this is a top 15-25 team. They have an elite offensive line and tight ends and a solid defense. Not LSU or Bama good but good, particularly when Delano Howell gets back in at strong safety.

Cardinal96
11-01-2011, 03:45 PM
I think people need to realize that there is a pretty good chance that (depending on who has the picks), the first and second picks could be Luck and Barkley. I don't even think the order is set yet on those two. Luck's arm strength (zip and depth) just is so average. Gun to my head, I'd take Luck over Barkley because a lot of QBs 'develop' arm strength in the pros, but most of that comes from mechanics refinements. Luck just doesn't have a lot of head room in that respect.

I beg to differ. Outside of a horrific injury, Andrew Luck is a shoo-in to be drafted ahead of Matt Barkley. If you saw that game, it is clear that Luck is far ahead of Barkley and was able to pull his team to victory with, at best, an equal supporting cast.

soybean
11-01-2011, 05:06 PM
I beg to differ. Outside of a horrific injury, Andrew Luck is a shoo-in to be drafted ahead of Matt Barkley. If you saw that game, it is clear that Luck is far ahead of Barkley and was able to pull his team to victory with, at best, an equal supporting cast.

I don't think there was anything in that game that made it look as if Luck was far and away better than barkley.

but anyways, yeah of course luck is going to go first, especially considering his athleticism for a pocket passer.

socentre44
11-02-2011, 11:20 AM
I love the dichotomy of Stanford's offense vs. Oregon's offense. Many programs have geared their defensive rosters to defend against the spread offenses in the Pac-12 (speed over size), and here is Stanford going in the opposite direction with power, ball control football. I don't think Oregon or Stanford can stop the others offense, but if Stanford can dominate time of possession at home, they will win at home.

As for Stanford, it'll be very difficult to sustain this kind of success after Luck. The guy is probably the best QB in the conference since Elway. The benchmark for Stanford's program post Luck IMO will be Cal's program under Tedford the past 10 years.

whatadai
11-03-2011, 01:01 AM
Without Luck, Stanford is probably 7-1 this season. Their defense and running game is good enough to have won the first 7 games of their schedule with Nottingham as a QB. Against USC, we probably lose by 14 points without Andrew Luck. We would have zero chance against Oregon without Luck and Notre Dame would be a coin toss.

Bias does play a role here. As a Stanford fan, I was noticing blatant holding penalties go uncalled against USC and have a hard time seeing how we benefitted from bad officiating given the lopsidedness in penalties called.

Back to the topic, Barkley played pretty well that game and he is the number 2 QB on my list. I have seen Landry Jones play and I think he benefits from playing in an offense that can stick any serviceable QB and create tons of yardage.

When comparing Luck to Barkley, was I the only one who noticed the glaring discrepancy in talent level between the USC wide receivers and Stanford wide receivers. Luck had a less talented supporting cast and was getting more pressure in the pocket. And he still outplayed Barkley. It is amazing to think what Luck could do with actual NFL receivers.

The end of the first half should have been 10-7, Stanford. There were a couple PIs that weren't called on Stanford...most were slightly arguable but there were two that were very obvious. The most obvious one would have been USC's first drive where Barkley threw what would have been a TD to I believe Woods in the endzone. Woods was facing Barkley completely and leaping up for the catch. The CB NEVER turned around, started his tackle with his shoulder in Woods' ribs before the ball even came. He started tackling just because Woods was leaping up and was about a foot or 2 away so he couldn't leap up to fight for the ball so he went straight for the tackle way too early. That was the most obvious one and being at the game...the crowd was angry. There was no way to even argue that it wasn't a PI. That would have given USC another 4 points before the end of the 4th quarter and the win. Yeah, the game shouldn't have come down to that...but the worse non calls that I saw on USC were holds. USC's defense played like **** giving up all the 3rd and 4th down conversions along with big game losing penalties, that's what lost us the game. I don't blame the game completely on the officiating but it was seriously one of the most blatant PI that I have ever seen.

descendency
11-03-2011, 01:13 AM
I beg to differ. Outside of a horrific injury, Andrew Luck is a shoo-in to be drafted ahead of Matt Barkley. If you saw that game, it is clear that Luck is far ahead of Barkley and was able to pull his team to victory with, at best, an equal supporting cast.

Except, Barkley didn't lose the game (it wasn't in any way his fault that the ball was fumbled) and Barkley had some excellent throws late in the game. I'm not saying Barkley is better. I'm just saying that his physical tools will make him an equally attractive candidate for a few teams. It's not like Barkley is JaMarcus Russell (all tangibles, no intangibles). Trust me, there will be teams that will worry about Luck's physical tools.

If your line can hold blocks for long enough for a QB to make 2 reads, plant, and throw and as long as receivers can get open and catch, it really doesn't make much difference if your receivers can go deep or get huge YAC. The QBs job (for the most part) is done when the ball is in the hands of his receiver. I didn't see either team have issues with that so I feel confident in my evaluations of each QB. I'm not box score scouting. I don't care if one team had 500 yards and another had 350.

I was thoroughly impressed by both guys.