Phil Simms: Stanford QB Andrew Luck Won't Be an NFL Savoir

What's he got against Andrew Luck?

View Comments (
)
|
Email
|
Print

    NEWSLETTERS

    TK
    Getty Images
    This man rested his throwing arm Saturday.

    Given that Phil Simms works with human Ambien pill Jim Nantz, you could be lulled into thinking that the CBS lead analyst is a relatively mild, non-controversial media presence. But every once in a while, Phil gets a little bit nutty, and it's been happening more frequently as of late.

    First there were his angry comments about QB stats last year, which essentially made him the NFL's answer to Joe Morgan. Then, he lamented the fact that players aren't able to yell at fans anymore. Now, he's taking issue with people who believe that Stanford quarterback Andrew Luck is a franchise savior for whatever team drafts him:

    I just don't see big-time NFL throws. I don't care what anybody says. I've watched a lot of him. He never takes it and rips it in there. And you can say what you want but, man, you've got to be able to crease that ball every once in a while. We see it every week in these games. Hey, he can develop it but even in the USC game, you know, he's very careful with it, guides it a lot... There's not a lot of rotation on the ball and there's not a tremendous amount of power. Not that you need to have that power arm.

    I like the last sentence because it completely undermines everything Simms just said. As for not being able to make big-time NFL throws, I'll refer you to Luck's highlight reel, which features him making extremely accurate passes into tight coverage, which is exactly the kind of thing NFL scouts look for.

    The glorification of arm strength went out of fashion a long time ago. That happens when the likes of Jeff George and JaMarcus Russell get drafted solely by their ability to blow up watermelons with a tight spiral, and lack virtually every other quality needed to be a success.

    There are many, many more important measures for grading a college QB prospect, most importantly accuracy. And Luck is historically accurate as far as passers go. Of course, Simms wouldn't know such things because he believes the field of statistics is the Devil's carpentry.

    You only need to look to Simms' favorite player in the whole wide world, Tom Brady, to know that arm strength is nowhere near as important as the ability to read defenses quickly and get rid of the ball accurately before the pass rush arrives.

    Of course, Simms also once said that Peyton Manning would never "(let the Colts) draft Andrew Luck." Never mind that Peyton isn't the GM of the Colts and therefore doesn't have the authority to make such decisions. Perhaps Simms is so enamored with the likes of Manning and Brady (two athletes he has spent the bulk of his career praising) that he merely hates the IDEA of Luck being called in to replace Manning, especially when people use stats (THE GALL) to make the case.

    Here's what I think: Phil Simms has never been that good of an NFL analyst. He's been thoroughly outclassed by the likes of Cris Collinsworth in the booth, and I think he's resorting to boneheaded caveman remarks just so that he can be a little more memorable as an analyst. I have no stats to support that theory. I feel it in my GUT. For Phil Simms, that should be enough.