The NFL Draft begins Thursday, and, much to the lingering surprise of many, Andrew Luck will not be the first player to cross Radio City Music Hall’s stage. Instead of waiting in the green room for Roger Goodell to call his name, he’ll be going through the motions of your average college student. It’s midterm season, after all, and Luck is still on the Farm, having decided to remain at the helm of the Stanford football program for another year.
The result? Despite losing half its starters to graduation, the Cardinal is viewed widely as a preseason top-10 team. The main justification lies on the shoulders of its star quarterback: since Stanford has the top returning player in the college game, the team has to be viewed highly. That is not to say that such prognostications ignore other talent, but it does throw Luck up on a towering pedestal. It’s warranted, but if such an emphasis is being placed on one player, it begs the question: what happens to Stanford at this time next year, when Luck will almost certainly be leaving campus for the NFL?
To answer that, let’s look back at Stanford’s rise. It’s common to choose specific personalities, but it’s too easy (and lazy) to give all of the credit to the three people that most readily come to mind: Jim Harbaugh, Toby Gerhart and Luck. Certainly, Harbaugh was a dynamic if not painfully unique figure who encapsulated everything that Stanford football should be trying to do—play physically and with a chip on its shoulder, and when out on the recruiting trail, treat academics as an advantage, not a deterrent. Gerhart and Luck represent two of the best players in Cardinal history at their respective positions—the timing of their tenures on the Farm was fortuitous and should not be undervalued.
But football, by design, is driven by more than just a trio of stars. Put Jimmer Fredette or Kemba Walker on Stanford’s men’s basketball team, and I guarantee you that it finishes near the top of the Pac-10; such is the power of the superior athlete in that sport. It’s different on the gridiron. Sure, Luck and Gerhart were instrumental in countless Cardinal victories, but without a supporting cast, there’s not a whole lot that even the best quarterback or running back can do—both players, for example, benefited from superb offensive lines, without which both would have suffered. It doesn’t take anything away from Luck or Gerhart; it’s merely the nature of the game.
For proof, look no further than these quotes about a former Stanford passer. Tell me if he reminds you of anyone:
“[He] has all of the tools to be the best quarterback in the country. He has the size, uncanny accuracy and tremendous arm strength.”
“[He] never gets rattled in the pocket, and he is always looking downfield for that receiver to break into the clear.”
Those are quotes from a 2001 USA Today write-up of Trent Edwards—then a high school senior—who quarterbacked at Stanford from 2002-2006. He was a five-star recruit and was ranked higher in 2001 than Luck was in 2008. But his collegiate career, which coincided with the dark ages of Cardinal football, did not have nearly the success that Luck’s has had to date. Playing behind a line that was inconsistent at best, Edwards was sacked 84 times in 36 games. For comparison, Luck has been sacked just 13 times over his first 25 contests. Edwards’s offensive line was so porous that, when he was able to stand upright for an entire game, it was newsworthy. As one can imagine, the results were not pretty, and Edwards suffered serious injuries in three of his four years as the Cardinal’s starter while never fulfilling the potential he showed in high school.
To be fair, there are a number of factors that go into a quarterback’s success, and ratings of players when they’re 17 don’t always translate. But the point remains that, without a strong supporting cast around him, even someone with Edwards’s talent—despite a relatively unsuccessful collegiate career, he still went in the third round of the 2007 NFL Draft—needs people to help him succeed.
The same goes for Luck, and the same went for Harbaugh. His recruiting success is not nearly as high if he doesn’t have a superb recruiting coordinator in Lance Anderson or people who are notably fantastic on the trail, such as Willie Taggart or Brian Polian. While Harbaugh deserves obvious credit for pinpointing that coaching talent, it is, and always has been, a staff-wide effort, even if Harbaugh was the right character, at the right time, to lead a revival.
Ultimately, it’s the entire cast that matters, from the principal players to the ensemble. That’s not to say that in April 2012 Stanford fans should feel dandy about the upcoming season—no quarterback has come close to solidifying an “heir apparent” role, and, as detailed last week, Luck could be joined by quite a few of his Cardinal teammates in the 2012 draft. And no one knows how David Shaw, his reassembled coaches or the new Stanford starters will do in 2011.
The variables are numerous, and that’s the rub. Life after Luck is not something I care to envision until absolutely necessary, and it is impossible to overstate the skills of arguably the most gifted player ever to don a Cardinal uniform. But football, more so than any other team sport, relies on everyone involved with the program. Just like it’s easy to place all of Stanford’s potential 2011 success on Luck’s shoulders, it is misguided to automatically assume that as soon as he leaves, the walls will come crashing down.
Wyndam Makowsky wouldn’t have fulfilled his high school potential without a solid line of editors. Find out what we’ll be missing next year at makowsky “at” stanford.edu.