I know we have touched on this before but things are heating up...
That's fine. Many have pointed out that Luck has all the capabilities of being a success in the NFL.
We have been hearing all about Luck for the past 18 months, some would say that we nave heard too much...that with all the talk when coupled with a couple of of Luck's performances that there might be a backlash taking place.
Hard to know, but some are looking a little closer at both Matt Barkley and Andrew Luck.
Barkley had a better 2011 season. He should have been the first-team All-Pac-12 quarterback, and he’s more worthy of the Heisman Trophy.
The Heisman doesn’t go to the player with the most pro potential; it goes to the most outstanding college football player in a given season. Whether Barkley is a better candidate than Robert Griffin III or Trent Richardson is another subject for another time. What’s clear is that Barkley is a better candidate than Luck.
Let’s start with the numbers. Barkley passed for more touchdowns (39) than Luck (35) and threw fewer interceptions (seven to Luck’s nine). Barkley passed for more yards (3,528 to Luck’s 3,170). Their completion percentages were almost identical (Luck 70.0, Barkley 69.1).
Let’s dig even further. Barkley and Luck faced seven common opponents: Arizona, Cal, Colorado, Notre Dame, Oregon, UCLA and Washington. In those games, Luck completed 71.4 percent of his passes for 1,837 yards with 19 touchdowns and five interceptions. Barkley completed 71.0 percent for 2,125 yards with 26 TDs and three picks.
Numbers don't lie, but like the BCS everyone has an agenda.
Even Stanford coach David Shaw is trying to get the point across that Luck is best choice with video tape...
I know that it is Shaw's duty to pump his guy up but when you have to start pointing things out here and there using video like you;re trying to break down game tape, it seems a little too much like a used car salesman.
Kiffn on the other hand simply stated that Barkley was probably treated unfairly because of USC's probation.
Kiffin elaborated on the point...
"If Andrew Luck is favored to win it, there's no way you can't have Matt Barkley there because of what he's done," Kiffin said on "Max and Marcellus" on ESPN 710 in Los Angeles. "If you actually compare what they've done vs. the same teams, Matt's actually outperformed Andrew. That's with a bunch of new kids and all these freshmen around him playing.
"We had two Heisman-winning quarterbacks here before and, if you break down their seasons, Matt's season is actually better than both of them. It's pretty interesting."
Luck has had some nice performances.
But Barkley has some as well. Both had bad losses, though I think Stanford's loss to UO was worse than USC's loss to ASU. Luck didn't look well at all for all the hype while Barkley's loss was bad that performance as off the grid.
Barkley's Heisman moment was against Oregon...he cemented it against UCLA.
Lucks last two games against Cal and Notre Dame were not the explosive games that we have to expect.
Hard to know what exactly the voters are thinking, ( HP probably knows better than most). Will Barkley get a fair shake and a second look?
I think Barkley's chances are a long shot to win it, but he should be in NYC for the ceremony...his overall performance clearly backs that up!