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

[JCSMCPCCrskins]

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 ----------



Colts record in 2011: 2-14

Semantics, man. Semantics.

I dont think its semantics, theyve had an easy schedule, and one bad year doesnt make an overall terrible team. In 2011 we only had 3 more wins than the Colts at 5-11. They only had one bad year where as we have been terrible for a long time.

2010 Colts: 10-6 2009 Colts: 14-2
2010 Skins 6-10 2009 Skins: 4-12

I would say its pretty debatable who inherited the worse team if you look past a single season record.

[windsofcreation]

I dont think its semantics, theyve had an easy schedule, and one bad year doesnt make an overall terrible team. In 2011 we only had 3 more wins than the Colts at 5-11. They only had one bad year where as we have been terrible for a long time.

2010 Colts: 10-6 2009 Colts: 14-2
2010 Skins 6-10 2009 Skins: 4-12

I would say its pretty debatable who inherited the worse team if you look past a single season record.

Dude, they blew up the entire roster aside from Wayne, Freeney, and Mathis.

[steve09ru]

Dude, they blew up the entire roster aside from Wayne, Freeney, and Mathis.

and the players they added this offseason were upgrades to a team that won 36 reg. games over a 3 year span

[JCSMCPCCrskins]

Dude, they blew up the entire roster aside from Wayne, Freeney, and Mathis.

Im not sure how much depth they got rid of, and Reggie Wayne is a difference maker. If Im using your own argument though, he didnt inherit a 2-14 team. He inherited a team with a bunch of people new to the Colts.

My argument is that RG3 inherited a team that is arguably on the same level. With more hindrances such as: a cap penalty, losing its #1 tight end and #1 wr for several games, with a much harder schedule.

[Bubble Screen]

Dude, they blew up the entire roster aside from Wayne, Freeney, and Mathis.

Plus he's not giving Manning his due credit. That team was built around Peyton. They proved they were a garbage team without him.

---------- Post added December-3rd-2012 at 05:37 PM ----------

and the players they added this offseason were upgrades to a team that won 36 reg. games over a 3 year span

Is that why a rookie WR is one of the key contributors on their offense? And Donnie Avery isn't and upgrade to Garcon lol And Fleener and Allen, both rookies, have also been key contributors to their offense. Vick Ballard, too. Does it pain you that much to give Luck credit for their success?

[JCSMCPCCrskins]

Plus he's not giving Manning his due credit. That team was built around Peyton. They proved they were a garbage team without him.

---------- Post added December-3rd-2012 at 05:37 PM ----------

Is that why a rookie WR is one of the key contributors on their offense? And Donnie Avery isn't and upgrade to Garcon lol And Fleener and Allen, both rookies, have also been key contributors to their offense. Vick Ballard, too. Does it pain you that much to give Luck credit for their success?

You used the 2-14 excuse saying he inherited that team, and now youre bringing up rookies that weren't on that 2-14 team. So either hes working with the 2-14 caliber team, or hes working with a team of new players.

I give Luck credit for some of their success, I dont think he is a roty candidate though. I think their schedule has been pretty easy and their defense has helped them win a couple of those games.

I think RG3 got a similar caliber team and is behind 2-3 games (depending on tonight) with a schedule that is much harder than Lucks, and a defense that is worse. So the amount of wins Luck has vs RG3 is a wash to me.

[Laron Burgundy]

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 ----------



Colts record in 2011: 2-14

Semantics, man. Semantics.

Correction, he inherited the team with the worst record in football. By net points they were the 3rd worst team in football. By DVOA they had the 2nd worst team in football. But let's not act like a 2-14 team is 60% worse than a 5-11 team.

Then there's the fact that they've replaced a TON of that roster. 8 new starters from free agency alone, so it isn't particularly like he has that same team. Then, if you believe in the accuracy of football outsider's statistics (which are routinely quoted by major sports magazines), you have indy as the 5th worst team in football this year, they've just massively exceeded their expected win total, and that's thanks to luck (oh man the puns).

I know you're trying to say you're sticking up for Luck and it isn't a crime to say he's played well, but I don't think anyone is saying he's played poorly... for a rookie. His play, however, is more on par with Tony Romo or Phillip Rivers than it is with Peyton or Rodgers. He's had an above-average year for a rookie, but as a professional it's only been an average year.

Had we not had unfortunate last minute losses to the Rams and Giants (both of which were not RG3's fault), we would have the same record as the Colts, with a much more difficult schedule to boot. Luck has had one such loss, but is 7-1 in games decided by 7 points or less, RG3 is 2-4. That is not a sustainable number for luck. It isn't a matter of clutchness, there's just too much that can go wrong in a close game to reliably win them 88% of the time.

The Colts are primed for a serious let-down season next year, even though I expect Luck to progress as a qb.

[Sticksboi05]

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 ----------



Colts record in 2011: 2-14

Semantics, man. Semantics.

Bubble, the Colts tanked. You know it, I know it.

[Bubble Screen]

You used the 2-14 excuse saying he inherited that team, and now youre bringing up rookies that weren't on that 2-14 team. So either hes working with the 2-14 caliber team, or hes working with a team of new players.

I give Luck credit for some of their success, I dont think he is a roty candidate though. I think their schedule has been pretty easy and their defense has helped them win a couple of those games.

I think RG3 got a similar caliber team and is behind 2-3 games (depending on tonight) with a schedule that is much harder than Lucks, and a defense that is worse. So the amount of wins Luck has vs RG3 is a wash to me.

Dude, the poster steve was implying that they upgraded their team this year with additions like Avery. Meaning, he was discounting what Luck has meant to the Colts by saying the team around Luck was improved this year, based off who they added. Which is complete BS. And it's BS because most of Luck's key contributors on offense are also rookies. And unheralded rookies, at that (mostly).

And you don't think Luck is a ROY candidate, yet people like Steve Mariucci (Michael Irvin, too) think he's an MVP candidate? Hmm...

---------- Post added December-3rd-2012 at 08:13 PM ----------

Bubble, the Colts tanked. You know it, I know it.

Don't put words in my mouth. I think it's pretty evident that they weren't tanking. Read back through the thread. You can keep posting your one-liners all you want, but it doesn't change anything.

Not only did they not tank (beat Texans and nearly beat Jags last two weeks), there were analysts wondering aloud why they 'weren't' tanking. I know this for a fact, as I was listening to the Texans game on the radio. Those guys were like "I know it's great they won this game and all, but do they know they could win themselves right out of the services of Luck".

And honestly, even if they WERE tanking (which they clearly weren't), then who could blame them? That's not my issue here. My issue is with you guys that think they were a 'good' team last year that were simply losing games on purpose. The evidence clearly doesn't support you here.

[DogofWar1]

And you don't think Luck is a ROY candidate, yet people like Steve Mariucci (Michael Irvin, too) think he's an MVP candidate? Hmm...

Anytime a team makes the playoffs, their QB gets MVP talk, especially if their team was poor last year, but that doesn't mean they're really in the actual discussion. Brady, P. Manning, and Rodgers are the kinds of QBs who will ultimately win it because their stats are flashy *and* efficient. Luck will get some talk, and maybe a few votes, but any discussion of him as MVP is mostly hyperbole, he's flashy, but not efficient, and while he might soon be on the level with Rodgers, Brady, and P. Manning, he's not quite there yet.

[Redgrape]

Honestly, I think Luck is 3rd, and Wilson and RG3 are battling it out. If it's abouts wins, Russel Wilson has a better resume of wins. If it's about statistics, Wilson and RG3 are dwarfing Luck. Luck has thrown a ton of pics and is airing it out a ton, so that being said yards arent all that impressive.

[Laron Burgundy]

Dude, the poster steve was implying that they upgraded their team this year with additions like Avery. Meaning, he was discounting what Luck has meant to the Colts by saying the team around Luck was improved this year, based off who they added. Which is complete BS. And it's BS because most of Luck's key contributors on offense are also rookies. And unheralded rookies, at that (mostly).

And you don't think Luck is a ROY candidate, yet people like Steve Mariucci (Michael Irvin, too) think he's an MVP candidate? Hmm...

---------- Post added December-3rd-2012 at 08:13 PM ----------

Don't put words in my mouth. I think it's pretty evident that they weren't tanking. Read back through the thread. You can keep posting your one-liners all you want, but it doesn't change anything.

Not only did they not tank (beat Texans and nearly beat Jags last two weeks), there were analysts wondering aloud why they 'weren't' tanking. I know this for a fact, as I was listening to the Texans game on the radio. Those guys were like "I know it's great they won this game and all, but do they know they could win themselves right out of the services of Luck".

And honestly, even if they WERE tanking (which they clearly weren't), then who could blame them? That's not my issue here. My issue is with you guys that think they were a 'good' team last year that were simply losing games on purpose. The evidence clearly doesn't support you here.

Nope, people believe they were an average to slightly below average team last year that tanked to get a qb. Do you honestly think they were a worse overall team than the Jaguars? Were they really a worse team than the Rams? Throw records out the window, look at their rosters from last year and tell me the Colts had a worse roster than those two teams, or a handful of others for that matter.

Orlovsky gave them their best shot at winning and doesn't play until week 13. Ends up going 2-3 against 5 teams whose combined record was 49-31. That was a 7-9 team with orlovsky, ORLOVSKY, as their qb. With that finishing schedule the coach didn't think they COULD knock themselves out of the 1st pick. Caldwell thought he had more leeway for another season (especially after notching some wins), and as a qb-centric coach he was excited at the prospect of getting Luck. That explains why he went 8 full games with Painter as the starter against the easy part of their schedule. After he put Orlovsky in, and Orlovksy started winning, he couldn't well bench him for Painter because then it would be painfully obvious that he was tanking. Regardless, this was a 7-9 team as long as they didn't have a practice squad guy playing as their starter.

[steve09ru]

Is that why a rookie WR is one of the key contributors on their offense? And Donnie Avery isn't and upgrade to Garcon lol And Fleener and Allen, both rookies, have also been key contributors to their offense. Vick Ballard, too. Does it pain you that much to give Luck credit for their success?

Donnie Avery and TY Hilton are upgrades over their #3 WR

Fleener is a 1st rd pick and an upgrade over an aging Dallas Clark who isn't doing anything this year

You said points didn't matter earlier...it's their defense - I pointed to the fact that they have scored over 23 points twice this year

---------- Post added December-3rd-2012 at 10:27 PM ----------

Dude, the poster steve was implying that they upgraded their team this year with additions like Avery. Meaning, he was discounting what Luck has meant to the Colts by saying the team around Luck was improved this year, based off who they added. Which is complete BS. And it's BS because most of Luck's key contributors on offense are also rookies. And unheralded rookies, at that (mostly).

Did I say they upgraded on offense? No - you're putting words in my mouth...I'm saying their overall TEAM is better this year than last year - their Defense is much better, they basically have the same oline - TE is upgraded - RB is a push - WR is a push

You can't use the "rookie" excuse because there are teams with rookies that produce a lot - look at Cruz last year...teams use the draft to upgrade and build talent - they colts did that with the TE and WR position. Donnie Avery is also a very solid option at WR.

And if you really want to look at it, we are without our starting safeties - our defense is giving up everything - we have a rookie running back - we have a converted WR to TE and a Blocking TE used as our #1 TE - backup left tackle - our #1 WR has been injured all year - we have a college LB at FB - our best pass rusher and run stuffer are both on IR

[Sticksboi05]

Dude, the poster steve was implying that they upgraded their team this year with additions like Avery. Meaning, he was discounting what Luck has meant to the Colts by saying the team around Luck was improved this year, based off who they added. Which is complete BS. And it's BS because most of Luck's key contributors on offense are also rookies. And unheralded rookies, at that (mostly).

And you don't think Luck is a ROY candidate, yet people like Steve Mariucci (Michael Irvin, too) think he's an MVP candidate? Hmm...

---------- Post added December-3rd-2012 at 08:13 PM ----------

Don't put words in my mouth. I think it's pretty evident that they weren't tanking. Read back through the thread. You can keep posting your one-liners all you want, but it doesn't change anything.

Not only did they not tank (beat Texans and nearly beat Jags last two weeks), there were analysts wondering aloud why they 'weren't' tanking. I know this for a fact, as I was listening to the Texans game on the radio. Those guys were like "I know it's great they won this game and all, but do they know they could win themselves right out of the services of Luck".

And honestly, even if they WERE tanking (which they clearly weren't), then who could blame them? That's not my issue here. My issue is with you guys that think they were a 'good' team last year that were simply losing games on purpose. The evidence clearly doesn't support you here.

MVP my ass. Joke schedule where he turns the ball over at least once a game and plays teams so bad he still wins? If he had RGIII's schedule, Lord knows how many turnovers he'd have.

He's been very good. He's asked to throw, a lot. But RGIII legs + arm has been superior. That's it. I wish our opponents were 56-77 combined, man we'd be cruising.

[I_Bleed_B&G]

RG3 is ROTY. That is all!