Nobody
Super Bowl MVP
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2011
- Messages
- 9,474
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Virginia Beach, VA
- Military Branch
I watched it and it was bad. This is one of those examples of stats telling a blatant lie. This was a horrible game for Luck, and most of these stats were inflated on gimmes when there was nothing left to play for, including one pass that was something like a 55-58 yarder when it didn't matter. Take that one play out, and he wouldn't have had 200 yards in that game. He just looked flat from whistle to whistle.Guess you could make the case Luck was "mediocre or poor" against Oregon....his whole team was. I didn't see any of it live, so all I have to go on is the numbers and reporting. Anyone see the whole thing?
http://espn.go.com/ncf/recap?gameId=313160024
Luck: 27-41 (65.8%), 256 yds (6.2), 3 TD, 2 INT, QB Rating 132.7 (NCAA), 87.0 (NFL)
Like Mike, I watched a few of the games, and I never watched one where I was impressed. Every time I watched Luck play, the only thought I could muster was, "all that hype for this?"
The problem with just going by box scores, is because they don't tell the story of the game. If a team is up huge in the 4th quarter and the other team has given up, it's easy to inflate your stats, but those extra stats don't mean you had a phenomenal game. Just like scoring TDs and gaining 100 yards in garbage time means nothing.