Much was discussed last week regarding Mike Mayock of the NFL Network and his comments regarding Andrew Luck. In fairness to Mayock, the question posed to him that solicited the comment was what kind of quarterback should a club build around right now? The person who asked the question (names were not listed in the transcript) cited Cam Newton, Matthew Stafford, Matt Ryan, and Andrew Luck, with Luck being referred to as a "once in a generation" prospect.
Here are Mayock's actual words, via NFL Communications, in response to that question (emphasis mine):
When you throw Andrew Luck into that grouping, I think he falls from an intellect with passion for the game of football, somewhere in that kind of Peyton Manning, Matt Ryan mold. That's how much the kid loves it.
As far as ability, I don't think he's quite in the Peyton Manning mold, but I think he's close. I think he's got a little more ability than Matt Ryan did when he came out. But I don't put him up there as a once-in-a-lifetime guy. I've never said that about him.
I think he's in that same category with a Bradford and that kind of guy that came out as a top pick. But I'm not sitting here trying to tell I think he's going to beat Tom Brady or Peyton Manning.
Nothing really earth-shattering about these comments, except that Mayock doesn't view Luck as a "once in a generation" type quarterback. This runs counter to just about everything that everyone has written about Luck. Fair or not, the expectation is that he must become the next John Elway or Peyton Manning, and if he doesn't, he'll be a disappointment.
Hey, this is football, people. Not bridge or shuffle board. Fair has nothing to do with anything. People either meet their expectations, or they fail. This is a game of absolutism. If you want subtly or nuance, watch baseball, cricket, or figure skating.
For me, it isn't Mayock's downgrading of Luck that I find interesting. It's his apparent lack of... I don't know, context, maybe. He's comparing Andrew Luck with Sam Bradford, a player who lacks many of Luck's physical abilities. Bradford is more injury prone, and he never ran an offense at Oklahoma that was anything close to the pro-style offense Luck controlled at Stanford.
So, I don't get it. I'm even further confused by Mayock's answer to a follow-up question on Luck and his abilities:
Q. Would you take [Luck] over Cam?
MIKE MAYOCK: I would probably take him over Cam, yes.
Wait... what?
Cam Newton is viewed by just about everyone as the new generation of quarterback. His physical abilities are off the chart. He's big, strong, fast, and (shockingly) can throw a tight spiral from the pocket. At this point, right now, everyone in the NFL would take Cam Newton over Sam Bradford.
Yes, even the Rams.
Yet, Andrew Luck (who Mayock compares to Bradford) is a prospect he'd select over Cam Newton, the same Cam Newton that just shattered several rookie quarterback records?
Perhaps Mayock's comments were a way of taking pressure off Luck. Mayock is well-respected, and if he thinks Luck isn't the next Elway or Manning, that might, in theory, lesson the burden on the Stanford QB. That's a nice thought, but things don't work that way. If there is any doubt that Luck cannot become the next great quarterback, then all that does is open up the possibility of Robert Griffin III being drafted No. 1 overall.
Like it or not, that is the great debate of this draft: Who is the next great quarterback? The conventional Andrew Luck, or the unconventional Robert Griffin III. Luck is viewed as the safe, pocket-passer type (even though he is very mobile), while RG3 is viewed more in line with Newton.
And no, it's not because he is black. It's because, like Newton and Michael Vick, RG3 scares defenses with his arm and his legs.
Personally, I don't think these views are fair or, for that matter, correct. RG3 is not as big as Cam Newton, and thus cannot absorb the types of hits Newton received his rookie year. Comparing him to Vick is also silly. Vick is a model of inconsistency, and often relies too much of his physical abilities. Great quarterbacking is 90% mental, 10% ability. Tom Brady (6th round, 2000) is living proof of that.
Thus, at the end of the day, I still don't know what to make of Mayock's comments. What I do know is that Luck is still considered a "once in a generation" prospect, and if he does not live up to that billing, he will be considered a disappointment.
0 recs | 31 comments
Funny
Last year I would have taken Andrew Luck over Cam Newton. It wouldn’t even be close. That is if Luck would have declared.
Now, after seeing what Cam Newton did and his desire to be a great QB, I take Newton over Luck. There are no guarantees in life and while Luck may end up being the better QB, after seeing what Newton did with a subpar team you got to feel like he has a chance to be something really special. To completely change the game the way everybody thought Michael Vick would. I predicted that Newton would be a catastrophe. He might still be if he can’t continue to raise his game and outsmart the defensive schemes that started his number declines later into the years. Nobody can take away that ridiculously good rookie season from his though.
Andrew Luck won’t be able to change the game, but he can certainly set the bar for his time like a Brady or Manning.
coltsfanbeforemanning - February 20, 2012
cocaine is a hell of a drug
my subject/verb agreement and general grammar usage is awful in this post. You might lose brain cells if you read it.
coltsfanbeforemanning - February 20, 2012
Brain cells.
Lost.
Good post anyway. Grammar is highly overrated.
Chopaholic - February 20, 2012
I followed Newton closely this year and although he has brilliant talent, in about every other games, there’s those “what the hell is he thinking” moments.
Newton was given full charge of the Carolina offense, rushing more than their really good running backs on many occasions. He threw the ball a lot, and he threw it deep. Majority of his TD passes came on big throws.
But there were those forced throws that had absolutely no sound reasoning behind them. I know Newton’s a rookie (and note I didn’t see Peyton his rookie season, but I know he had many turnovers)… but many of his turnovers were unforced to a certain extent.
I think a lot of Newton’s stats came as a result of the fact that he ruled the offense. Kinda like how Brees puts up insane numbers with the Saints, except Newton runs too.
I just have to wonder the effect of this long term. Yes Newton will get better, but so will the defenses in understanding him.
Luck is a very different player with a different mindset. He is much more balanced, and doesn’t pad his stats (unlike Cam or RG3). He also has incredible consistency for a guy his age. I think, if Cam keeps it up, Cam will definitely have better stats than Luck on almost every season. Hell I don’t see Luck breaking TD records or anything. But I think Luck’s a winner and will win more games than his competition… just judging from what he has done and his approach to the game
DoItAlone - February 20, 2012
Sorry, This Is So Untrue
You didn’t see Manning his rookie season? Well, you didn’t see Manning throw TWENTY EIGHT INTERCEPTIONS that year as compared to Newton’s 17. You also didn’t see him throw 23 INTs in year 4 or 19 INTs in year 5. You also didn’t see him throw 16 INTs in 2009 or 17 INTs in 2010 (an indication that Manning is in decline, because he went from 2003-2008 averaging 11 INTs a season).
“I just have to wonder the effect of this long term. Yes Newton will get better, but so will the defenses in understanding him.”
You do realize that you are talking about a guy who only started for 1 season of college ball, and that in a wildcat option offense? Newton’s capacity for learning how to run an NFL offense is much greater than the ability of defenses to defend a 6’6" guy with a cannon arm, good accuracy (completed 60% of his passes last year) and good mobility.
“I think a lot of Newton’s stats came as a result of the fact that he ruled the offense.”
Peyton Manning did the same. Manning had 500 passing attempts every season he has been in the NFL except for 2004 and 2005, and those years he had 453 and 497. Manning actually attempted 679 passes in 2010, 1 of the 8 times that he exceeded 550 attempts. By contrast, Newton had 517 attempts last year, in contrast with the 575 that Manning had as a rookie.
" Kinda like how Brees puts up insane numbers with the Saints, except Newton runs too."
If Newton wins a Super Bowl like Brees, then it makes their drafting him a success.
“Luck is a very different player with a different mindset. He is much more balanced, and doesn’t pad his stats (unlike Cam or RG3). He also has incredible consistency for a guy his age.”
This is hilarious. It isn’t due to Luck’s mindset, but that he played for a run-heavy offense with a ball-control style. They ran it like that because they had the personnel – offensive linemen and tailbacks – to do so. They also had a complementary defense: #1 in yards per game and #2 in scoring defense in their conference. By contrast, Baylor had a horrible defense (36 points and 477 yards a game) and was nowhere near as good at running the ball, especially when Griffin III’s effort was excluded. They also had a wide open quick strike philosophy. Put Luck in Baylor in that system and with that talent around him, and he plays more like RG3, Sam Bradford and Drew Brees: spread QBs. But put RG3 in Stanford’s offense, and he looks a lot more like a prototypical NFL passer.
“But I think Luck’s a winner and will win more games than his competition… just judging from what he has done and his approach to the game”
Yeah right. When you are considering “what he has done”: check Luck’s record against ranked foes at Stanford … it is a losing one. He also went 1-2 in bowl games. Luck’s “consistency” is due to his playing on a loaded team against unranked competition (Pac-12 foes plus teams like Duke, Wake Forest and Notre Dame out of conference) 10 of this 12 games a year. Stanford had 1 tough game, Oregon, in 2010 and lost by 3 TDs. (Newton meanwhile beat Oregon with a lesser Auburn team than Stanford has.) Stanford has 3 tough games in 2011 (Oregon, Oklahoma State, USC) and loses to Oregon again by 3 TDs (at home), beats USC in overtime but loses to Oklahoma State in overtime.
Meanwhile, Newton won a JUCO national title at Blinn and an FBS national title for an Auburn team that without him was pretty mediocre. Auburn went 7-0 against ranked teams, including 4 top 10 teams in Oregon, Arkansas, LSU and Alabama, and a South Carolina team that they had to beat twice. Please, make the case for Luck – which is a good one – without contriving stuff, and especially without taking shots at other players.
an_auburn_fan - February 20, 2012
Comparing Newton to Manning is a bad idea.
The game was way different back then. It is much easier to be a QB these days, and that is showing. Rookies are doing better than ever before.
And judging Newton (or any of the other rookie QBs) at this point isn’t fair either. My gut feeling is that he isn’t THAT special, but time will be the judge of that.
Personally I prefer Luck over Newton, as he simply seems like the safe pick. I have no doubt he will be effective from the first snap of the 2012 season. Without a ton of mistakes. Sort of like an improved version of Dalton.
Peter Storgaard - February 21, 2012
Did Cam or Luck win a National Title?
brandon44 - February 21, 2012
Relative
I think Mayock meant that he would take Luck over Newton as a prospect.
I think he is putting Luck in relative context to previous prospects – his ideas make sense. Everyone is hyping him so much, he puts his thoughts into a logical context……
Just my 2 cents
Pablo Escobar - February 20, 2012
Agree
I don’t think Mayock was comparing Luck to Bradford directly, at least talent-wise. More that he’s saying Luck is the type of prospect that is a clear-cut No. 1 pick in his draft (as Bradford was in his), but not an automatic Hall of Famer, as many have pre-sold him.
Chris S. - February 20, 2012
MAYOCK
also had Gabbert ahead of Newton. These draft “gurus” aren’t infallible, they make mistakes too. It’s clear that Luck has the talent to play QB at a high level. Equally important, is that he apparently has the passion and intelligence to become elite. He will be an exciting player for the Colts.
javen - February 20, 2012
Gabbert:
He may have a better career than Newton before it’s all said and done. It’s waaaay to early to tell.
Chopaholic - February 20, 2012
IT IS EARLY
but Gabbert looked really bad and Newton looked pretty good.
javen - February 20, 2012
Why do you always type in all caps in the subject line?
James Broschat - February 20, 2012
Gabbert was throwing the ball to NOONE.
Newton had Steve Smith and two great TEs. Gabbert, at best, only had MJD.
Peter Storgaard - February 21, 2012
Yeah and I could wake up tomorrow a billionaire...
Anything is theoretically possible.
Gabbert will be bagging groceries in 4 years. While I am not putting Cam in the HOF. He look like he is gonna be an elite talent and maybe soon…
(206)NightRidah - February 21, 2012 via mobile
So Would I. But The Important Thing Of This Story Is That ...
Merely saying that you prefer one prospect over another doesn’t mean that you believe that one guy will succeed and the other will fail. Even after seeing Cam Newton take Carolina from scoring 12 points a game to 25 points a game and from 2 to 6 wins (with a bunch of losses by a TD or less), throw for 4000 yards and go to the Pro Bowl, he still likes Luck better. That IS NOT saying that he believes that Newton will be a bust in the NFL, because Newton has already had a great NFL season, even if you factor in the inflated offensive numbers last season because of the rules changes and the lost practice time during the lockout. Instead, it is merely saying that he believes that while Newton will be good – a change in tune of his from last year – that Luck will be better. And I agree with him – it is more likely that Luck will be a perennial Pro Bowl QB than either Newton or RG3. No big deal. Not every QB year is a Manning/Leaf type of deal where one is a Hall of Famer and the other totally washes out. Usually, you have several QBs in a class to pan out. Both Stafford and Mark Sanchez have gone to playoff games, and both Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco have as well. Stuff like that.
an_auburn_fan - February 20, 2012
Right
All of this Luck will be a pro bowler while RG3 and Cam will be out of the league in 6 years…or RG3 and Cam will revolutionize QBs and Luck will be the next Leaf/Harrington is excessive. Chances are all three will be good of they are playing for good owners and FO that surround them with talents to match skill sets.
(206)NightRidah - February 20, 2012
That said...
Luck is a better prospect and pick for the Colts…and I’m a huuuuge RG3 fan
(206)NightRidah - February 20, 2012
I don't see any contradictions
All he is saying is “Hey look, that kid named Luck is really good, but I don’t really think he is going to be a Manning, Elway, or Montana.” I think that is a fair analysis.
It’s funny how Luck isn’t even our QB yet and people are already getting their feelings hurt over somebody not calling him the greatest of all time.
Sir Sci - February 20, 2012
thats because he is the greatest of all time
people call me a luck fanboy so i might as well act like it
omahacolt - February 20, 2012
First step to recovery
is admitting you have a problem. Proud of you junior.
shoospa - February 21, 2012
how is that a problem
you being on a football board and knowing nothing about football is a problem for everyone here
omahacolt - February 21, 2012
i actually value shoospa's insight very much
muncie_in_this - February 22, 2012 via Android app
really?
why?
omahacolt - February 22, 2012
i actually value shoospa's insight very much
muncie_in_this - February 22, 2012 via Android app
New generation of QB?
It’s something we’ve rarely seen, but one QB means we’re heading toward a new generation of QB’s?
There are certainly more mobile QB’s in the game today, but saying it’s a new generation because of Cam Newton is just misguided. Don’t say Tim Tebow, because I don’t want to go down that road.
Cam Newton
Michael Vick
Tarvaris Jackson
Tim Tebow
If that’s our new generation of QB’s, then the NFL is in trouble. Cam Newton has been described as physically “rare” for a reason.
TheFreakSFG - February 20, 2012
Why Did You Include Tarvaris Jackson In This List?
Jackson is not a running QB. Never has been, not even in college where he ran a pro-style west coast offense with a former Minnesota Vikings WR and assistant coach as his OC/QB coach. Jackson is just one of the MANY pro-style QBs in the NFL that can’t cut it. Curious that you have him down as otherwise, when the guy has 5 rushing TDs in 6 NFL seasons.
I do agree that they have been talking about “the next generation of QBs” for at least 20 years, at least since Steve McNair and Kordell Stewart came into the NFL. There is a difference, however. You have rarely – if ever – had a running QB enter the NFL after playing in a passing offense the way that RG3 has. By comparison, where RG3 passed for nearly 4300 yards last year alone, Michael Vick passed for barely 3300 yards his entire college career. These spread offenses are allowing dual threat QBs to throw it a lot more than they did a few years ago. Cam Newton, for instance, threw for 2850 yards and 30 TDs (and to largely mediocre WRs) in his last season: unthinkable numbers for a running QB a mere 10 years ago. Donovan McNabb, for example, never reached 2500 passing yards or 25 TD passes.
Another thing: rules changes making it easier to transition from being a running college QB to an NFL one. Had McNair or McNabb in their prime (or to take you back a bit, Steve Young and Randall Cunningham) played in today’s game, they would have DOMINATED. So while it won’t “change the game” as pro-style QBs will still be better, a dual threat QB will be a better option than Jake Delhomme (the Panthers’ prior longterm QB) or Marc Bulger (who actually started 8 years in the NFL for the Rams).
an_auburn_fan - February 20, 2012
Luck is a mobile QB as well.
He is as big as Tebow, his 40 yard dash time is faster and his yards/run stats in college were better.
Peter Storgaard - February 21, 2012
Andrew Luck is great at the sport of football...
…so there is no reason to get upset about the pick. Be happy. It might take a bit, but we are going to be good again.
captaincomeback - February 21, 2012
Great QBs often aren't great prospects
Interesting how all the talk about “once in a generation” prospects focuses on Elway and Manning – the last two really great QBs to start out as the 1st pick in the draft. One could perhaps add Aikman to the list, but the rest of the many QBs taken #1 overall have ranged from absolute busts to solid but not great players like Eli or Drew Bledsoe. The other great QBs over the past three decades have been picked later – Marino was the last pick in the 1st round, Montana, Favre and Brees were 2nd rounders (Favre and Brees didn’t even stick with their original teams). Kelly & Young were mid-1st rounders. Brady was a late round pick.
ex-Viking fan - February 21, 2012
True, but...
Many #1 overall QBs are taken because they happen to be the best QB prospect in the draft class.
Jeff George was pretty good, but had a lot of potential.
Eli Manning was good, but had a lot of potential. Drew Bledsoe was fairly good, but had a lot of potential.
Aikman was pretty good in college, Tim Couch was very good in college. Alex Smith and Mike Vick were exciting and represented a new type of offense. They all had a lot of potential. The one common thread of all #1 QBs is potential.
Drafting Andrew Luck is not something that is based on potential. He is a good football player right now. He will continue to be a good football player because he will work harder and study more than anyone in the building. That is what we have been accustomed to since 1998. Luck will give us continued excellence at the most important position on the field.
captaincomeback - February 21, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Stampede Blue to post a comment.