RGIII is the 2012 Rookie of The Year! The Official RGIII Rookie of The Year Watch Thread

[TD_washingtonredskins]

You could probably spend days,(probably),debating back and forth between Andrew and Robert and the rookie of the year and find good points for both when it's all said and done. Not surprising to anyone I don't think. Just had to know,(as much as we can anyway),both young men were going to be stellar this season. Though I will say I didn't expect them to be this lights out. Obviously I'll take our guy any day for the R.O.Y..

It really is amazing. I think many thought that they would both look very good in the context of being rookies. I don't think too many would have predicted that both guys would be among the best QBs league-wide.

[Botched]

I still think people are missing how great Russell Wilson has been. I've said, and I stick to, that Russell Wilson is currently my number two as far as rookie of the year voting goes (if I had one).

.

I agree. It's like it was decided before the season even started, that either Luck or Griffin had to be ROY.

Wilson would easily get my vote over Luck.

[IrepDC]

I wonder how many full Colts games people have watched on both sides of the Luck debate. I've made it a priority to watch his games when we were not playing, and I haven't been blown away. He has some really bad moments. He has some really good moments.

The people who have really impressed me are T.Y. Hilton both on special team and as a deep threat, and Reggie Wayne. Maybe Luck motivated Wayne this year, I don't know, but he is CONSTANTLY getting open in that scheme. In fact, at least 4 or 5 times in the games I've watched, Wayne will be running wide open, and Luck will instead take a shot down field into coverage.

Luck reminds me of Grossman in that regard. He forces a ton of passes down field. That's just my observations from actually watching games and not just highlights, though. He's not a bad player. He's just not that good, yet.

---------- Post added December-3rd-2012 at 02:45 PM ----------

And I agree with the above posters- Wilson has been just as clutch as Luck, without being the cause of his team being down in the first place.

---------- Post added December-3rd-2012 at 02:54 PM ----------

This thread has become hilarious and pathetic at the same time. A lot of you have lost credibility when dismissing what Luck has done this year. If he were a 'skin you would be loving him as much as we love RGIII. He is only behind Matt Ryan in come behind wins and is on the cusp of leading his completely revamped team to the playoffs. There is so much that he is doing right, but I just don't feel like listing them quite frankly.

When you soley rely on stats to judge a QB your ignorance gets magnified.

In order to come from behind, your defense has to make multiple 4th quarter stops. How many 4th quarter stops do you think our defense would have made this year? I shouldn't have to point out how our defense has consistently gotten softer late in games whereas the Colts defense has made stops. Even yesterday, the Colts D shut the Lions down in the 4th and didn't let them burn the clock, but Luck gets all the credit?

[skinsfan07]

I wonder how many full Colts games people have watched on both sides of the Luck debate. I've made it a priority to watch his games when we were not playing, and I haven't been blown away. He has some really bad moments. He has some really good moments.

The people who have really impressed me are T.Y. Hilton both on special team and as a deep threat, and Reggie Wayne. Maybe Luck motivated Wayne this year, I don't know, but he is CONSTANTLY getting open in that scheme. In fact, at least 4 or 5 times in the games I've watched, Wayne will be running wide open, and Luck will instead take a shot down field into coverage.

Luck reminds me of Grossman in that regard. He forces a ton of passes down field. That's just my observations from actually watching games and not just highlights, though. He's not a bad player. He's just not that good, yet.

---------- Post added December-3rd-2012 at 02:45 PM ----------

And I agree with the above posters- Wilson has been just as clutch as Luck, without being the cause of his team being down in the first place.

I can say this, I go to the Sports Bar every week, and watch all the games. I keep a close eye on Luck just to see how he stacks up against RGIII, and it really isn't even close. The reason he has 5 come from behind wins, is because his untimely turnovers (kid is an inetrception machine) put all the pressure on his defense to play tougher. When they don't and let teams come back, then Luck has to take his team down the field to win. The difference between him and RGIII, is that if we get a lead, RG3 won't have those costly turnovers that could cost us the game.

[Laron Burgundy]

And anyone who likes to chirp that Indy was a 2-14 team needs to realize they were a double-digit win team for a decade. That isn't a perennial loser like Detroit or Cleveland. What Dalton did in Cinci is more impressive than what Luck is doing in Indy. Luck has been clutch late in the game, and he looks better than Peyton did as a rookie, but he also inherited a pretty solid team that has had a lot of rookies step up. Their net points and turnover differential are more equivalent to a 3 or 4 win team rather than an 8 win team. They've had a lot of luck this season (pun intended!) but if they don't play cleaner football I can see next season being a bounce back year and people talking about Luck's sophomore slump.

[Dan T.]

Here's a pretty good analysis from Bill Barnwell on Grantland comparing Luck and RG3 this season in the context of Rookie of the Year, giving a slight edge to Griffin so far:

The arrival of Andrew Luck and Robert Griffin III into the National Football League could not have gone much more swimmingly. In fact, while expectations were high for the top two picks in the 2012 draft, it's arguable that they've both exceeded whatever lofty expectations they rode in on over the summer. Luck is leading a team that went 2-14 last season on an improbable playoff run in the AFC South, while RG3 has become the league's most exciting player and might even be the best player in the NFC East this year. Fans of the Colts and Redskins — and good football — have to be ecstatic at what their respective organizations are set up to do over the next 15 years.

Which one is the Offensive Rookie of the Year? Since they're about to spend the next 15 years being compared with each other to figure out which player from the Class of 2012 is the more dominant quarterback, there's no reason for that to start any later than now.

I think the best way to figure that out is to make a case for each player from the perspective of his campaign, see whose case makes more sense and is easier to argue, and put that player in the lead with five games to go. Since I've spent the week hearing from just about every Giants fan I know that they're terrified to play RG3 this Monday night, let's start with him.

Continued at:
http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-tr...ie-of-the-year

[Bubble Screen]

No, I said I think it was fishy. They knew Peyton wasn't coming back, so their solution to try and salvage the season was...Kerry Collins. Honestly, they would have been hard-pressed to make a worse choice. Of course he got IR'd, but then we found out from watching the Painter/Orlovsky carousel that it really doesn't mean squat playing behind Peyton Manning after all.

Does that really mean anything? No, but the Colts sure as hell weren't the worst team in football last year, and this year proves that, when their QB is turning the ball over as much as he's scoring, yet they're still 8-4. Teams can still win games with terrible QBs--and the fact that they managed to beat the Texans last year proves my point that they weren't without the capability to win games despite that. I think Jim Irsay is shady owner that likes to rub it in the faces of others that "he" got the new golden boy QB prospect. The whole thing stinks to me. If it were an honest game, the Cleveland Browns would have Andrew Luck right now.

I can't prove any wrongdoing took place, but nor can anyone prove there didn't. So I have an opinion, which I'm not trying to pass off as fact in the slightest. Ease up on the generalizations.



It's funny that you're acting like it's some oddball, radical idea that the Colts may have tanked last season. I'm sure at one point it was crazy to think Bill Belichick was cheating to gain an upper hand too, but we all saw how that turned out. Several people, including analysts, brought up suspicion that they were tanking. There's no need to pin it on me simply because I wouldn't put it past Irsay and his boys to stoop to that level. I always go back to those two words...Kerry Collins.

By the way, I think Luck is having an awesome year, and he's most likely going to win OROY with these clutch wins and a likely playoff berth. However, all I'm saying is that he's not doing it alone because the Colts weren't that bad to start, and they've also had the benefit of an easy schedule.

It's not that I don't think its possible that teams tank to get the top pick, its more that you haven't provided any evidence that would make anyone think they were. Like I've repeatedly explained to you, if they were tanking as you say, then why would they, in Week 16, beat the HOUSTON TEXANS, of all teams. If they were tanking, they wouldn't be trying to beat anyone, much less one of the top teams in the league. And they followed that up by nearly beating the Jags the last week of the season, if I recall.

They weren't tanking. They were just a bad team, that slowly got better as the season progressed. That's natural. You're trying to paint them out to be a 'good' team that was losing games purposedly. That is ridiculous.

And like I said, there were NFL analysts towards the end of the season wondering why they WEREN'T tanking games. You keep throwing out these ridiculous conspiracy theories with nothing substantial to support them.

[DogofWar1]

The thing is RotY is not supposed to be based purely on wins. QBs are definitely important to a team's success, and Luck's play shouldn't be discounted on that fact, but statistics have to enter into it.

Should we weigh stats or wins as more important in the RotY debate? I think last year answered that, Newton won it based on stats, not team record. If we exceed Carolina's record, then I think the debate ought to come down to stats.

The interesting thing there is that Luck is flashy but sloppy, while RGIII has significantly less flash in his stats but insane efficiency. Luck is winning in yards, but that's pretty much it. Similar TD numbers, vastly different INT numbers in RGIII's favor. Completion % is vastly in RGIII's favor as well.

I don't think the difference in yards should give Luck an edge, but if we do consider that, you then have to factor in RGIII's rush yards vs. Luck's, which brings RGIII much closer to Luck.

Ultimately, Luck is having a very good year by rookie standards. RGIII is having a very good year by NFL Veteran standards. I think the media understands this, because while they gush over Luck, anytime a Luck-RGIII comparison happens, RGIII comes out on top unless the guy is arguing wins, which, again, doesn't mean much when considering Newton won it last year over Dalton.

And while I don't like QBR, RGIII is winning there too. RGIII has been the better player this year, and if the trend holds, he should win it.

[Sticksboi05]

QBR is a meaningless statistic. ESPN desperate for attention.

[Bubble Screen]

If RGIII had gone 4 TDs, 3 Ints, sub 50% completion percentage, or thrown 3 picks against the Bears, would he get any pass whatsoever? Considering how being the most dominant rookie QB ever is being ripped apart by "casual football fans" for "throwing too many short passes" (like Tom Brady and Matt Ryan) and being a scrambling QB that's not a pocket passer or only good in the pistol or crap like that.

Luck is good for the low, low standards for rookie QBs. But he's average at best right now. He'll probably become better, I don't see why he wouldn't. But if you actually watch the two play, the comparison is laughable. That's why I think there's a strong racial subtext involved in this debate - because the underlying assumption is that an athletic black QB is not smart/patient/poised/etc enough to be a pocket passer.

Of course Griffin would get a pass with those numbers...if he had WON the game like Luck did, YES...by all means. That's why its silly to even harp on the the 3 picks, when he led them back from 33-21 with under 4:00 left in the game.

---------- Post added December-3rd-2012 at 04:22 PM ----------

Remember, I'm paraphrasing other people, the proverbial "them". When people see RGIII, they think Vick (without any evidence, RGIII and Vick are fast black QBs so they're obviously the same, RGIII is more like a faster, possibly more accurate Steve Young than anything) and when people see Luck, they see Peyton or Aaron Rodgers (though I'm not going to force a comparison to a black QB to even it out, though MAYBE Josh Freeman is a good comp)

Dude, again, no one cares about what some idiot fan of another team thinks. The fact is, Griffin III often gets compared to Aaron Rodgers by a lot of NFL analysts. That's what should matter to you. You're trying to make it racial, when its not. I haven't heard ANY 'qualified' person (someone that covers the NFL for a living/played the game) make comparisons to Vick lately.

[steve09ru]

It's not that I don't think its possible that teams tank to get the top pick, its more that you haven't provided any evidence that would make anyone think they were. Like I've repeatedly explained to you, if they were tanking as you say, then why would they, in Week 16, beat the HOUSTON TEXANS, of all teams. If they were tanking, they wouldn't be trying to beat anyone, much less one of the top teams in the league. And they followed that up by nearly beating the Jags the last week of the season, if I recall.

They weren't tanking. They were just a bad team, that slowly got better as the season progressed. That's natural. You're trying to paint them out to be a 'good' team that was losing games purposedly. That is ridiculous.

And like I said, there were NFL analysts towards the end of the season wondering why they WEREN'T tanking games. You keep throwing out these ridiculous conspiracy theories with nothing substantial to support them.

While I don't necessarily think they tanked the season (like we went into our season with Beck as a possible starter) - they certainly weren't as bad as their record stated. They were in 3/4th of their games in the 4th quarter and late in the 4th quarter.

It just shows, you don't win without a QB. Luck has done great things this year and has been clutch - it's everything pre-4th quarter that he is getting criticized for because his turnover and decision making has been a key contributor to him having to come-back late.

Take yesterday for example, started the day great - 6/10 157 and 2 td's - game goes along and he blows up for 3 int's and at one point is 16-34 or something like that - then the last 5 minutes of the game he is good again.

We see this from Romo all the time - we saw it from Eli in the past - saw it from Favre - he is taking a lot of risks and he's lucky he has a favorable and easy schedule - put him on the Redskins and there is no way they are even 3-8.

[Bubble Screen]

8-4 vs. the easiest schedule in the NFL is what it is.

C'mon, man. The guy inherited the worst team in football and made them into playoff contenders.

---------- Post added December-3rd-2012 at 04:28 PM ----------

Through Week 12:

RG3 opponents' win/loss: 68-63-1.
Luck opponents' win/loss: 56-77.

No contest

Colts record in 2011: 2-14

Semantics, man. Semantics.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

General comment...praising Luck (or Wilson, for that matter) doesn't take away from anything Griffin has done or is doing. They can all be very, very good!

[steve09ru]

Of course Griffin would get a pass with those numbers...if he had WON the game like Luck did, YES...by all means.

that's the problem, things are getting overlooked when they shouldn't - he does that against a decent defense and they lose. If RG3 had the same game - I wouldn't consider it a great game. I would consider it clutch, yes, but in order to be elite, you have to have consistency through all 4 quarters. That is what the knock on Eli has been in years past - he isn't consistent through the whole game.

[Bubble Screen]

General comment...praising Luck (or Wilson, for that matter) doesn't take away from anything Griffin has done or is doing. They can all be very, very good!

Exactly. And I would like to point out that I'm not saying Luck should win ROY over Griffin III. Honestly, it's still too early to call on that. I'm just coming to the defense of Luck against several posters who somehow can't seem to give Luck any credit for what he's managed to accomplish. That's absurd.

---------- Post added December-3rd-2012 at 04:41 PM ----------

I can say this, I go to the Sports Bar every week, and watch all the games. I keep a close eye on Luck just to see how he stacks up against RGIII, and it really isn't even close. The reason he has 5 come from behind wins, is because his untimely turnovers (kid is an inetrception machine) put all the pressure on his defense to play tougher. When they don't and let teams come back, then Luck has to take his team down the field to win. The difference between him and RGIII, is that if we get a lead, RG3 won't have those costly turnovers that could cost us the game.

Cam Newton also turned the ball over a lot last year, but yet his rookie season was considered the greatest of any QB ever. Keep in mind, he only led his team to 6 wins. And only has 9 total, in almost two full seasons. Luck already has 8, and nearly half of them are of the comeback variety. You can knock on Luck for the turnovers all you want, but dude is clutch. And besides, he's still a rookie. Peyton Manning turned it over a lot his first season as well.