NFL Draft 2012: Is the 'Suck for Luck' Campaign as Bad as It's Made out to Be?

Terry MurphyContributor INovember 3, 2011

LOS ANGELES, CA - OCTOBER 29:  Quarterback Andrew Luck #12 of the Stanford Cardinal throws a pass against the USC Trojans at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum on October 29, 2011 in Los Angeles, California.  (Photo by Stephen Dunn/Getty Images)
Stephen Dunn/Getty Images

For the second straight year now, draft talk has been centered around the Stanford star, Andrew Luck. Last year, he was considered to be the clear pick to go No. 1 overall.

This year’s no different.

With his size, arm strength, accuracy, ability to read defenses, and just about everything else, he seems a godsend to any NFL team struggling at the quarterback position.

Let’s think ahead. If I could promise a general manager that this kid will be the best quarterback since Joe Montana, to what lengths would a team go to draft him?

A lot of rumors have been circulating lately, that a team may tank the end of their season in attempt to get the No. 1 overall pick. Now, I ask, is this really that wrong? The NFL has become a passing league and defenses are complicated. The quarterback has become the most important player on most any team. With a prospect like this within reach, how far would you go?

In 2009, the Indianapolis Colts started the season 14-0. They clinched the No. 1 seed in the AFC, so they sat their starters for the final two games, losing both. Clearly, they did not give their best effort to win. That, however, is considered the smart thing to do. Is it no different for a team sitting at 2-10 to give up the final four games?

If you were caught deceiving the system, you’d be scrutinized, but in 10 years, when you've won three Super Bowls, would it even matter? You have a good defense, you have good receivers, good runners. You’re only lacking a quarterback. It’s in the team’s best interest to lose!

At this point, no team should even consider this. As the Colts and Dolphins make nice in the NFL’s gutter, with teams like St. Louis, Arizona and Denver sitting just outside, their seasons are far from over. I am in no way saying that one of these teams should strive for 2-14—or worse. But come, say, Week 11, when you’re clearly out, why not?



Now, before everyone turns on me, remember I said if I could tell you he'd be the next Montana. Obviously, I can't. Teams should always take the field with the intention of winning, whether in this case or the 2009 Colts.

"This is what's great about sports. This is what the greatest thing about sports is. You play to win the game. Hello? You play to win the game. You don't play it to just play it. That's the great thing about sports: you play to win, and I don't care if you don't have any wins. You go play to win. When you start tellin' me it doesn't matter, then retire. Get out! 'Cause it matters." -Herm Edwards

That's how it should be. No matter how many games you've won.