Andrew Luck Has an Old Samsung Burner for a Cell Phone
After being brought on by the Indianapolis Colts as a backup for Andrew Luck, former Seahawks star Matt Hasselbeck tweeted out one of the star quarterback’s best-kept secrets—his cell phone quite possibly predates the "Willenium" album.
Yessir.. twitpic.com/cjv4hz— Matthew Hasselbeck (@Hasselbeck) April 16, 2013
Yes, this is what we’re talking about today, and don’t act like it doesn’t surprise you that a 23-year-old professional football player with a $22 million dollar contract owns a cell phone that looks like it could be used and disposed of to avoid wire taps.
They'll never get a wire up on Andrew Luck's phone. #Burners— The Wire (@TheWireADay) April 17, 2013
In a day and age where people are becoming more and more dependent on their smart phones, it would appear Luck is taking the simple route—rocking a simple Samsung flip phone.
Whereas most young people spend time worrying whether or not their Wifi is “organic” and “Kindle-ing” their significant others, the Colts superstar is kicking it old school.
Is it a lame move on Luck’s part? Complete indifference? Or is it genius?
In all likelihood, there’s nothing more to this story than Luck not caring what device he uses to communicate with others, but it’s worth noting that his lack of a smart phone could be a true masterstroke of planning by the young man.
By forgoing a smart phone, Luck shuts himself off to an entire world of distractions. By saying “Spotify care” to social media applications on his phone, like Twitter and Facebook, Luck greatly reduces his risk of sharing something that lands him in hot water with the media, fans and his franchise—something young athletes do all the time.
Granted, Luck isn’t exactly a Johnny Manziel-esque character for whom saying the wrong thing is a constant issue, but it doesn’t hurt to be thorough.
Not to mention, Bill Belichick would have to go through all sorts of hell trying to get a tap on Luck’s burner.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?