clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Jameis Winston is a much better choice than Andrew Luck to start a franchise with

New, comments

Luck hasn’t lived up to the hype, while Winston is just getting started.

If you buy something from an SB Nation link, Vox Media may earn a commission. See our ethics statement.

MLB: All-Star Game Jasen Vinlove-USA TODAY Sports

Here’s an interesting question: if you could pick any players to start a franchise with, who would you choose? I feel like most Tampa Bay Buccaneers would pick Jameis Winston, and rightly so: he’s arguably the most promising young quarterback in the league. He’s just 23 and hasn’t nearly reached his ceiling.

So why is it that both SB Nation’s Adam Stites and Pro Football Focus’ Daniel Kelley choose Andrew Luck well before Winston comes off the board?

Fun fact: Andrew Luck will be 28 years old this season, Jameis Winston 23. The last time Luck made a Pro Bowl was after the 2014 season, and he’s barely been better than Winston the past two seasons. Luck seems to have reached a plateau, and has struggled with turnovers, accuracy and consistency throughout his career.

So why in the world would you pick Luck over Winston, when the latter is younger and has much more room to grow? Yes, Winston throws too many interceptions and needs to work on his accuracy—but that’s exactly where Luck is struggling, too. Luck may have been the most-hyped first overall pick in ages, but he really hasn’t lived up to that hype in the NFL.

I can get why you’d pick Aaron Rodgers over Winston, he’s arguably the best quarterback in the NFL. I can get Russell Wilson, who has been amazingly effective even if those teams are pretty defense-driven, too. I can get Derek Carr, who’s seen a meteoric rise the past year. I can even get picking Marcus Mariota over Winston, kind of, even though he’s basically performed the same as Winston.

But Andrew Luck? What? Is he just cruising off the hype now? What’s going on here?