RG3/Keenum Voldemort impact - Printable Version

RG3/Keenum Voldemort impact - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: RG3/Keenum Voldemort impact (/thread-2510.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Re: RG3/Keenum Voldemort impact - D. C. Bear - 12-07-2011

Quote:That was a very civil post!Â Thank you.
The problem with the statistical comparisons is that they only can capture a portion of what a quarterback is asked to do and the material/opportunity he has to do it.

A large measure of Stanford's success as a team this year has been due to Luck's ability to read and recognize defenses and call plays at the line.Â Quite often he will call a running play at exactly the right time for the good of the team that actually works out to be to the detriment of his stats.Â How do you measure playcalling in a statistical line?Â Do you give Luck credit for a lot of the yards earned by our running backs?Â

Luck is the first college quarterback in living memory who controls the game so effectively with his playcalling.Â How do you measure that?Â The answer is:Â you can't.Â Which is why statistical comparisons can only go so far.

Statistics do only go so far, but RGIII isn't short on "intangibles," either. A very large measure of Baylor's success is based on RGIII's ability to read defenses, too. Unfortunately, he couldn't read ours in a game, because it was ranked 109th in the nation in scoring! Stanford's scoring defense was 23rd, and we'd trade our senior kicker for that. OK, we'd trade our senior kicker for a couple of In-n-Our Burgers, but that's another story.

I'd give Griffin credit for a lot of Baylor's rushing stats, too. Not just the 600-plus he got by running himself, but also a significant chunk of other back's yards. He's not just making a pre-snap read. On a lot of plays, he's making post-snap reads, too. Helping to determine who carries the ball, or if it is a pass play. Briles' offense is not a call-the-play-and-hope-it-works proposition. When University of Houston's Kevin Kolb, Briles' other starting college QB, started to interview with NFL teams, his draft stock shot up like a rocket, and he's an NFL starter today. Teams realized how complex Briles' offense is and how good the QB who ran it was required to be at making reads. Call is a wash, and RGIII wins on points.

Luck is a great quarterback. I loved what he did against the "the University of South Central." His calm demeanor in leading that comeback was beautiful to watch. At the same time, watching RGIII and crew take apart the fifth-ranked Oklahoma Sooners on that final drive was simply Elway-esque: No time outs, 51 seconds. 80 yards to go. A first down would force overtime. After a four-yard gain by Ganaway, Bob Stoops called time out. Then, a 22-yard run by RGIII, out-of-bounds stopping the clock. An eight-yard run by Griffin, out of bounds stopping the clock. A 12-yard pass for a first down, and, then, the play. Moving to his left to avoid the rush, RGIII threw a 34-yard strike to the opposite side corner of the endzone hitting a secondary receiver who had flat-out dropped a sure touchdown pass earlier in the game. Game over. Highest-ranked opponent Baylor's had beaten since a third-ranked the University of South Central in 1985.

Again, Luck is a great college quarterback. While I am biased, I think RGIII is a greater college quarterback this year. If the uniforms were reversed, I am sure you'd feel the same way.

Re: RG3/Keenum Voldemort impact - needle - 12-07-2011

I happened to watch the Kansas State vs. Baylor game, and I guess I just don't like how RGIII's interception in a really big game never gets brought up, while Luck's interception against Oregon always gets brought up.

Quote:His interception in the closing minutes set up Anthony Cantele's 31-yard field goal with 3:10 left, and the Wildcats held on to beat No. 15 Baylor 36-35 on Saturday.
...

It was the first interception thrown by Griffin all season, and spoiled another virtuoso performance by the Voldemort Trophy candidate. He came into the game having thrown more touchdown passes than incompletions, and it remained that way until late in the fourth quarter.

Griffin finished 23 of 31 for 346 yards and five touchdowns -- and one big interception.

"I take sole responsibility for that," he said. "I'm the leader of this team. I'm the guy that's in the Voldemort race, so I've got to help us win that game, and we didn't win it. So you can look at a billion different things, but if you're going to point the finger, point it at me, because I'll take the praise and I'll take the blame as well."

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/recap?gameId=312742306

Re: RG3/Keenum Voldemort impact - washingtonismoney - 12-07-2011

(12-07-2011, 09:29 AM)needle link Wrote:I happened to watch the Kansas State vs. Baylor game, and I guess I just don't like how RGIII's interception in a really big game never gets brought up, while Luck's interception against Oregon always gets brought up.

The arbitrary selection of big games bothers me. What, Luck bringing us back from the dead against USC doesn't count as a big performance in a big game? I remember a ton of people saying at the time, "Well, looks like he's got the Voldemort locked up" for the exact reason. Now no one seems to be able to remember a thing about it. The media--goldfish have better powers of concentration, I swear.

Re: RG3/Keenum Voldemort impact - Griffins78 - 12-07-2011

Just curious ...

Are Stanford fans posting on other team's forums/boards to promote Andrew Luck for the Voldemort?

... just asking.

Re: RG3/Keenum Voldemort impact - 76lsjumb - 12-07-2011

D.C. B.e.a.r. --Â Although I know someone has already said this elsewhere, I think it's worth repeating because, at least in my mind, it's one of the main reasons why I have trouble with the "just look at the usual statistics" argument for Griffin.Â Not too very long ago, we all thought we had pretty good Voldemort candidate, who put up a monster last game of the season and had pretty good stats.Â indeed, as this quote from a cbs.sportsline article at the time noted:

Ingram has rushed for 1,542 yards and scored 15 touchdowns for No. 1 Alabama.

Stanford's Gerhart, meanwhile, has run for more yards (1,736) and scored more touchdowns (26) than any player in the nation.

And Nebraska's Suh had 4½ sacks in an attention-grabbing performance against Texas in the Big 12 title game. He is the first defensive player to be a finalist since 1997, when Michigan cornerback Charles Woodson became the first full-time defensive player to win the Voldemort.

So, having better stats on a team that he largely carried on his back means he should win the Voldemort, right?Â That seems to be your argument in a nutshell?Â Except Gerhart didn't win it, and the explanation most often given was that his team had too many losses.Â Okay, then, two years later, let's apply the same reasoning, right?Â Wait a minute..what's that you say?Â It REALLY is about statistics and having a great last game, NOT about how many losses your team has?Â Sheesh...can we make up our minds here...

Griffin did look like a pretty good quarterback and his "usual" stats are, indeed, [marginally] better than Luck's [I would be interested in knowing his red zone efficiency stat, though, as Luck's is...otherworldly].Â However, I think it is worht noting that, somewhat unusually, we have some evidence [as opposed to simply the standard proffer of opinion] on the issue of whether Baylor would have been as good without Griffin -- the Texas Tech game, where Griffin played one half and the backup QB played one half, on the same day against the same team.Â From the stats, at least [and I'm subject to being corrected, since I didn't see the game and the stats may mislead (see prior discussion in this messageÂ ;) )] it looks like the backup QB actually performed a little bit better -- or at least well enough to suggest that Baylor might have done pretty well this season even without Griffin.

In the final analysis, at least for me, Griffin has a much better argument than anyone else on the list [especially Richardson] besides Luck, but, in light of what happened to Toby G. two years ago, as well as the general feeling that the Griffin "surge," at least in the media, is based less on merits and more on a sort of "Luck fatigue" factor, it is ... annoying, for lack of a better term... to consider that Luck may not get it.Â At least it is to me.Â But, from everything I read and hear, probably not as much for Andrew himself.Â Ironic.

One last thing we can probably all agree upon -- It's sure nice Suh didn't get it...

Re: RG3/Keenum Voldemort impact - 76lsjumb - 12-07-2011

Oh, and one more thing..., when Luck did his "Voldemort pose" in the the University of South Bend game, it was actually in the course of stiff-arming a defender in a real play to gain real yardage...none of this "posing in the end zone for the cameras [a la Howard]" stuff.Â

That oughtta count for something... You just don't get more authentic than this guy.

Re: RG3/Keenum Voldemort impact - halaleezy - 12-07-2011

First off, hello Cardinal fans. I admire your school greatly and think that it goes without saying you have the best athletic department in the country.

(12-07-2011, 10:30 AM)Griffin78 link Wrote:Just curious ...

Are Stanford fans posting on other team's forums/boards to promote Andrew Luck for the Voldemort?

... just asking.

In answer to this, I suppose they could be, but the reason Baylor fans were directed here is because there was so much misinformation about Robert Griffin III being espoused as fact here. I would hope that Stanford fans would go to Andrew Luck's defense if they saw another board calling him a prima donna, or cocky, or saying that he is in a pass-happy offense, when all of those are clearly not the case.

Secondly, yes, Toby Gerhart deserved the Voldemort. Ingram winning it was a travesty and was more a school "name recognition" issue than anything else (it didn't hurt that 'Bama was playing for the national championship either). So I understand why you guys would think that you are due a Voldemort when your candidate has lesser numbers, after getting jobbed out of one a few years back with a candidate with greater numbers. That said, that doesn't change the fact that Griffin has better numbers and has put his numbers up more impressively (more deep balls, more TDs, more signature moments).

Finally, I don't understand what Andrew Luck's ability to call a correct audible at the LOS has to do with his deserving to win the Voldemort. This is a fantastic skill, no doubt, and will aid him greatly in his career in the NFL. If this were an argument over who should be the #1 pick in next April's NFL Draft, then that would be something you should tout at every opportunity given. However, his understanding of when it is more appropriate to audible into a run play unfortunately doesn't mean anything to his winning the Voldemort. I think Stanford actually did him a disservice by including those plays in which he did audible down in his stump video for the Voldemort. It makes his video look less impressive than if you simply ran his passing, running, catching and tackling highlights. Andrew Luck's game is very cerebral, but to the unwashed Voldemort voter, that doesn't translate through a highlight video. Highlight videos are for highlights, not demonstrating why he will be able to pick up an NFL scheme.

Re: RG3/Keenum Voldemort impact - yvonne - 12-07-2011

(12-07-2011, 10:30 AM)Griffin78 link Wrote:Just curious ...

Are Stanford fans posting on other team's forums/boards to promote Andrew Luck for the Voldemort?

... just asking.

No, most Stanford fans realize that posting on another team's board is not going to have any impact on the Voldemort race.

I never imagined that the CardBoard would have an influx of members because a player didn't win the Voldemort!Â :D

Re: RG3/Keenum Voldemort impact - TreeFitty - 12-07-2011

(12-07-2011, 10:30 AM)Griffin78 link Wrote:Just curious ...

Are Stanford fans posting on other team's forums/boards to promote Andrew Luck for the Voldemort?

... just asking.

Nope, we've got other things to get worked up about. Like hotel reservations to go to our BCS bowl.

Re: RG3/Keenum Voldemort impact - halaleezy - 12-07-2011

(12-07-2011, 10:47 AM)76lsjumb link Wrote:Griffin did look like a pretty good quarterback and his "usual" stats are, indeed, [marginally] better than Luck's [I would be interested in knowing his red zone efficiency stat, though, as Luck's is...otherworldly].Â However, I think it is worht noting that, somewhat unusually, we have some evidence [as opposed to simply the standard proffer of opinion] on the issue of whether Baylor would have been as good without Griffin -- the Texas Tech game, where Griffin played one half and the backup QB played one half, on the same day against the same team.Â From the stats, at least [and I'm subject to being corrected, since I didn't see the game and the stats may mislead (see prior discussion in this messageÂ ;) )] it looks like the backup QB actually performed a little bit better -- or at least well enough to suggest that Baylor might have done pretty well this season even without Griffin.

I also think this deserves some attention. Stanford's redzone efficiency this year was otherworldly. Luck was fantastic in the redzone, and that truly is a stat that you can throw out in which Luck clearly bests Griffin (I believe it is the only statistic of any significance in which he does, however). Baylor's redzone efficiency as a team, ranked 94th in the country, at 75.86%, while Stanford's ranked 1st, at a staggering 98.44%. If you want to make an argument for Luck, make it on this statistic, not the nebulous "but he calls GREAT audibles."

In regards to the argument that Griffin's backup, Nick Florence, posted better stats in a half that Griffin sat out due to "concussion-like symptoms," you would have had to see the game to realize the way Texas Tech's defense dramatically shifted their gameplan once Griffin went out. They brought their secondary in close, blitzed more often, and essentially dared Baylor to throw over the top. Florence did so effectively, but there is no chance that Tech would have played that way had Griffin been in the game. The only teams all year that have dared Griffin to go up top on them are TCU (see 359 yards, 5 TDs in the opening game) and Texas on the first two drives Saturday (we scored twice in 7 plays and beat a team over the top twice that hadn't allowed a TD pass longer than 19 yards all season). In short, had Tech played Griffin the way they played Florence, Griffin would have had something ridiculous like 7 TD passes and we wouldn't even be arguing about a Voldemort race, because it would be a runaway.

Anyway, thanks for reading. Congrats to you guys on a fantastic season, a great QB who has made this a fun Voldemort race, and good luck against Oklahoma State in the Fiesta Bowl. Enjoy your time in the Valley of the Sun, it's gorgeous this time of year!

Re: RG3/Keenum Voldemort impact - D. C. Bear - 12-07-2011

(12-07-2011, 10:47 AM)76lsjumb link Wrote:D.C. B.e.a.r. --Â Although I know someone has already said this elsewhere, I think it's worth repeating because, at least in my mind, it's one of the main reasons why I have trouble with the "just look at the usual statistics" argument for Griffin.Â Not too very long ago, we all thought we had pretty good Voldemort candidate, who put up a monster last game of the season and had pretty good stats.Â indeed, as this quote from a cbs.sportsline article at the time noted:

Ingram has rushed for 1,542 yards and scored 15 touchdowns for No. 1 Alabama.

Stanford's Gerhart, meanwhile, has run for more yards (1,736) and scored more touchdowns (26) than any player in the nation.

And Nebraska's Suh had 4½ sacks in an attention-grabbing performance against Texas in the Big 12 title game. He is the first defensive player to be a finalist since 1997, when Michigan cornerback Charles Woodson became the first full-time defensive player to win the Voldemort.

So, having better stats on a team that he largely carried on his back means he should win the Voldemort, right?Â That seems to be your argument in a nutshell?Â Except Gerhart didn't win it, and the explanation most often given was that his team had too many losses.Â Okay, then, two years later, let's apply the same reasoning, right?Â Wait a minute..what's that you say?Â It REALLY is about statistics and having a great last game, NOT about how many losses your team has?Â Sheesh...can we make up our minds here...

Griffin did look like a pretty good quarterback and his "usual" stats are, indeed, [marginally] better than Luck's [I would be interested in knowing his red zone efficiency stat, though, as Luck's is...otherworldly].Â However, I think it is worht noting that, somewhat unusually, we have some evidence [as opposed to simply the standard proffer of opinion] on the issue of whether Baylor would have been as good without Griffin -- the Texas Tech game, where Griffin played one half and the backup QB played one half, on the same day against the same team.Â From the stats, at least [and I'm subject to being corrected, since I didn't see the game and the stats may mislead (see prior discussion in this messageÂ ;) )] it looks like the backup QB actually performed a little bit better -- or at least well enough to suggest that Baylor might have done pretty well this season even without Griffin.

In the final analysis, at least for me, Griffin has a much better argument than anyone else on the list [especially Richardson] besides Luck, but, in light of what happened to Toby G. two years ago, as well as the general feeling that the Griffin "surge," at least in the media, is based less on merits and more on a sort of "Luck fatigue" factor, it is ... annoying, for lack of a better term... to consider that Luck may not get it.Â At least it is to me.Â But, from everything I read and hear, probably not as much for Andrew himself.Â Ironic.

One last thing we can probably all agree upon -- It's sure nice Suh didn't get it...

Re: RG3/Keenum Voldemort impact - dabigv13 - 12-07-2011

I appreciate your support of your guy, and I certainly think RGIII had a stellar year- he would be a worthy Voldemort winner. But why are you Baylor fans here? You're not convincing any of us, and you're just coming off as pretty douchey and a bit condescending.

[Image: duty_calls.png]

Re: RG3/Keenum Voldemort impact - D. C. Bear - 12-07-2011

(12-07-2011, 02:37 PM)garvin link Wrote:...

Griffin may be a better pure passer than Andrew Luck. I think Matt Barkley of the University of South Central possibly is, too. But playing quarterback entails much more than throwing the ball. A quarterback has to read defenses at the line of scrimmage and read them again as the play unfolds. He has to call audibles. He has to manage the game. Somebody who can't do these things is not a quarterback, no matter how strong and accurate his arm, but just a thrower.

The Voldemort is supposed to go to the best player in college football. For a quarterback to win the award, he's got to do all the things I mentioned, and do them better than any other quarterback. You say it doesn't matter that Luck is brilliant at calling audibles. And that tells me that what you think is uninformed and unimportant.

The reason that it doesn't matter to me that Luck is brilliant at reading defenses with regard to the Voldemort race is that RGIII is also brilliant at reading defenses. I don't know if RGIII is a better pure passer than Luck, but I know that both of them are extremely good. I've watched RGIII do incredible things with a football, and you don't get projected as the first pick in the NFL draft as Luck did without being a wonderful "pure passer."

Briles' offense is not some kind of call-a-play-then-chunk-and-pray proposition. It is a very complex offense that requires a QB who can read the defense both before and after the snap and take what it gives. Against Texas, for example, on the second play of the game, Griffin had to decide post-snap whether to hand off the ball, keep the ball and run it himself, or throw the ball downfield. He chose wisely, and he usually did this season, and that is why he had a record-setting QB rating--because he did it better than anyone else in the country this year.

He was in the same "system" last year, with many of the same players. His QB rating then was a comparably paltry 144.2. He got that much better. His deep ball accuracy improved. He sees the field better than he did before. This year, he did it with a defense held together with duct tape and baling wire. None of this takes anything away from the greatness of Andrew Luck.

RGIII is not Luck, but he isn't lucky, either, and he is not the product of a system that would make a Voldemort candidate of Nick Florence, as some seem to imply. With RGIII, you get a combination of high intelligence, incredible athletic ability, a work ethic equal to anyone and near-flawless execution. He got his numbers the old fashioned way.

To those who asked why I was posting here I like lively, friendly football discussion with intelligent commentary. On the Baylor board, pretty much everyone will be in agreement that RGIII deserves the Voldemort. I'm not interested in "convincing" anyone, just having some friendly discussion. As I said from the start, we all view these things through glasses tinged with our own school colors. As for "pretty douchey and condescending," it seems pretty "pretty douchey and a bit condescending" to me to imply that RGIII lacks the intelligence to be a real quarterback.

Re: RG3/Keenum Voldemort impact - needle - 12-07-2011

But, before you go, what do you think about your women's hoops team?

I trust the sizeable contingent here took note of UConn whooping up on A&M.

Here's a maybe semi-decent take on some potential common opponents come March:

Defending champ can't handle UConn 'D'

http://espn.go.com/womens-college-basketball/story/_/id/7325400/connecticut-huskies-beat-texas-aggies-own-game

Quote: The defending champs entered forcing an average of 24.7 turnovers per game, better even than a season ago. Louisville turned over the ball 27 times against Texas A&M this season. Iowa did it 25 times and Temple 27 times. All of those teams expect to have games to play when the NCAA tournament begins.

At halftime at the XL Center, the Huskies had five turnovers. The Aggies had 14. Guess which team had the 36-24 lead.

It could have been worse. The Aggies turned the ball over 11 times in the first 12 minutes, allowing the Huskies to race to a 25-11 lead. A team that still has veterans Tyra White, Sydney Carter and Adaora Elonu from its championship rotation rallied, at least briefly, to go basket for basket for the rest of the half, but the damage was done.

P.S. For any Baylor people, thread drift is pretty much the rule rather than the exception around here, and I think we all kind of like it (especially when the original topic has kind of been beaten to death).

Re: RG3/Keenum Voldemort impact - 76lsjumb - 12-07-2011

(12-07-2011, 03:15 PM)D. C. Bear link Wrote:[quote author=76lsjumb link=topic=5093.msg37034#msg37034 date=1323280047]

D.C. B.e.a.r. --Â Although I know someone has already said this elsewhere, I think it's worth repeating because, at least in my mind, it's one of the main reasons why I have trouble with the "just look at the usual statistics" argument for Griffin.Â Not too very long ago, we all thought we had pretty good Voldemort candidate, who put up a monster last game of the season and had pretty good stats.Â indeed, as this quote from a cbs.sportsline article at the time noted:

Ingram has rushed for 1,542 yards and scored 15 touchdowns for No. 1 Alabama.

Stanford's Gerhart, meanwhile, has run for more yards (1,736) and scored more touchdowns (26) than any player in the nation.

And Nebraska's Suh had 4½ sacks in an attention-grabbing performance against Texas in the Big 12 title game. He is the first defensive player to be a finalist since 1997, when Michigan cornerback Charles Woodson became the first full-time defensive player to win the Voldemort.

So, having better stats on a team that he largely carried on his back means he should win the Voldemort, right?Â That seems to be your argument in a nutshell?Â Except Gerhart didn't win it, and the explanation most often given was that his team had too many losses.Â Okay, then, two years later, let's apply the same reasoning, right?Â Wait a minute..what's that you say?Â It REALLY is about statistics and having a great last game, NOT about how many losses your team has?Â Sheesh...can we make up our minds here...

Griffin did look like a pretty good quarterback and his "usual" stats are, indeed, [marginally] better than Luck's [I would be interested in knowing his red zone efficiency stat, though, as Luck's is...otherworldly].Â However, I think it is worht noting that, somewhat unusually, we have some evidence [as opposed to simply the standard proffer of opinion] on the issue of whether Baylor would have been as good without Griffin -- the Texas Tech game, where Griffin played one half and the backup QB played one half, on the same day against the same team.Â From the stats, at least [and I'm subject to being corrected, since I didn't see the game and the stats may mislead (see prior discussion in this messageÂ ;) )] it looks like the backup QB actually performed a little bit better -- or at least well enough to suggest that Baylor might have done pretty well this season even without Griffin.

In the final analysis, at least for me, Griffin has a much better argument than anyone else on the list [especially Richardson] besides Luck, but, in light of what happened to Toby G. two years ago, as well as the general feeling that the Griffin "surge," at least in the media, is based less on merits and more on a sort of "Luck fatigue" factor, it is ... annoying, for lack of a better term... to consider that Luck may not get it.Â At least it is to me.Â But, from everything I read and hear, probably not as much for Andrew himself.Â Ironic.

One last thing we can probably all agree upon -- It's sure nice Suh didn't get it...

I would argue that two wrongs don't make a right. If RGIII loses out to Luck this year, it will be a similar situation that Gerhart had with Ingram.

As for the Tech game, Griffin played well. Leading your team to 31 points at halftime and scoring on all five possessions except for the one that started with eight seconds left isn't bad. Usually, that kind of performance will put you comfortably ahead. However, with our defense and Tech's offense, it was still a three-point game at the half. While Baylor scored and additional 35 points in the second half, it included just 28 scored on offense, since there was pick six mixed in. However, it also included two lost fumbles, a missed field goal and Baylor's only punt of the night. So, scoring percentage in the first half for Baylor's non-half ending possessions, 100 percent. For the second half, 50 percent scoring on offensive possessions. The missed field goal in the second half was a 44-yard attempt, the made field goal in the first half was a 28-yard kick. Clearly, Baylor was missing RGIII quite a bit in the second half. The argument that Nick Florence, who would start for a lot of teams not named "Baylor" or "Stanford," is just as good as RGIII is simply not a rational one.
[/quote]

D.C. B.e.a.r. -- Thanks for your response.Â Although you probably didn't mean to, however, I think your arguments actually support my main points.Â First, I've got no problem agreeing with the old "two wrongs" saw, but, when you're the party that has to experience the short end of BOTH the wrong AND the right, I don't think you're necessarily required to be happy about it.Â In fact, I think you have a pretty good right to be frustrated [or to argue that consistency is, itself, a "right."Â I appreciate that you thought Toby Gerhart not getting it was wrong, but you have to admit that it's a whole lot easier for you to express that sentiment at this point -- along with its corollary that Griffin should NOT suffer the same fate -- than it is for those of us who support Luck now and simply want the same reasoning to be applied at least over the space of just 3 short years.Â

Second, your explanation of all the reasons that Florence's apparently better stats could not lead to a "rational" conclusion that he is just as good as Griffin seems very plausible to me.Â Indeed, just as plausible as the various explanations that have been offered to to explain why the better stats do not lead to a "rational" conclusion that Griffin is as good as Luck...Â ;)

Re: RG3/Keenum Voldemort impact - halaleezy - 12-07-2011

(12-07-2011, 02:37 PM)garvin link Wrote:
Quote:His understanding of when it is more appropriate to audible into a run play unfortunately doesn't mean anything to his winning the Voldemort.

I'm not unfriendly to the Baylor fans who've posted here (nor to your quarterback, who's very, very good), but this quote sums up why I don't think you know very much about football, quarterbacks or the Voldemort.

Griffin may be a better pure passer than Andrew Luck. I think Matt Barkley of the University of South Central possibly is, too. But playing quarterback entails much more than throwing the ball. A quarterback has to read defenses at the line of scrimmage and read them again as the play unfolds. He has to call audibles. He has to manage the game. Somebody who can't do these things is not a quarterback, no matter how strong and accurate his arm, but just a thrower.

The Voldemort is supposed to go to the best player in college football. For a quarterback to win the award, he's got to do all the things I mentioned, and do them better than any other quarterback. You say it doesn't matter that Luck is brilliant at calling audibles. And that tells me that what you think is uninformed and unimportant.

That's a pretty bold claim to make without knowing anything about my background or experience, but it would appear sweeping generalizations tend to be the norm around here. Nowhere did I say that it wasn't important to being a good QB. Nowhere did I say a brilliant QB doesn't deserve to win the Voldemort. What I did say, if you read my post in context, is that Stanford did Luck a great disservice by having half of his highlight video be of him changing a play and handing off. If you're making an argument for your QB, you might want to show him actually throwing the ball. Luck's brilliance in making audibles into run plays in not a quantifiable thing. It's an intangible that will make him an outstanding NFL player, but Heismans are not awarded on NFL aptitude.

You'll notice not one single Baylor fan has stated that RGIII should be picked #1 ahead of Luck next April. You guys already won the "best pro prospect debate." We're having the "best college player debate" here. I realize I am not changing anyone's mind, nor are you changing mine, but I would hope we can have a spirited discussion over the merits of our quarterback without devolving into insulting the other person's football intelligence.

Re: RG3/Keenum Voldemort impact - Canalejas - 12-07-2011

(12-07-2011, 05:34 PM)halaleezy link Wrote:[quote author=garvin link=topic=5093.msg37058#msg37058 date=1323293829]

Quote:His understanding of when it is more appropriate to audible into a run play unfortunately doesn't mean anything to his winning the Voldemort.

I'm not unfriendly to the Baylor fans who've posted here (nor to your quarterback, who's very, very good), but this quote sums up why I don't think you know very much about football, quarterbacks or the Voldemort.

Griffin may be a better pure passer than Andrew Luck. I think Matt Barkley of the University of South Central possibly is, too. But playing quarterback entails much more than throwing the ball. A quarterback has to read defenses at the line of scrimmage and read them again as the play unfolds. He has to call audibles. He has to manage the game. Somebody who can't do these things is not a quarterback, no matter how strong and accurate his arm, but just a thrower.

The Voldemort is supposed to go to the best player in college football. For a quarterback to win the award, he's got to do all the things I mentioned, and do them better than any other quarterback. You say it doesn't matter that Luck is brilliant at calling audibles. And that tells me that what you think is uninformed and unimportant.

Re: RG3/Keenum Voldemort impact - metsjetsfan - 12-07-2011

(12-07-2011, 04:00 PM)D. C. Bear link Wrote:Griffin had to decide post-snap whether to hand off the ball, keep the ball and run it himself, or throw the ball downfield.

Boy, that sounds pretty complicated.Â Needing to decide what to do in an option?Â No quarterback in the nation can do that.Â In fact, I don't think even Cam Newton, Denard Robinson, Terrelle Pryor, Darron Thomas, Tyrod Taylor, etc. could do that in college.

On the other hand, Luck needing to choose his own play from a variety of choices at the line of scrimmage after identifying the coverage presented by the defense?Â That's pretty easy.Â Every starting college QB and 3rd string QB in the NFL can do that.

Re: RG3/Keenum Voldemort impact - D. C. Bear - 12-07-2011

(12-07-2011, 07:40 PM)metsjetsfan link Wrote:[quote author=D. C. Bear link=topic=5093.msg37066#msg37066 date=1323298850]
Griffin had to decide post-snap whether to hand off the ball, keep the ball and run it himself, or throw the ball downfield.

Re: RG3/Keenum Voldemort impact - dabigv13 - 12-07-2011

Here's the difference, put succinctly. RGIII is an exceptional athlete, and the major cog in Briles' offensive system, which is 6th in overall scoring. Luck is an exceptional athlete, and the engineer of our 5th rated scoring offense. RGIII executes, Luck creates.

Clearly the most outstanding player should have exceptional athletic ability and execution, but it's Luck's role as the primary decision maker in our offense that sets him apart. Doesn't appear that voters know how to account for that.

I'd also venture to say that if Stanford had Baylor's defense, Luck's offensive numbers would have been much more impressive. So many of our games were over early in the 3rd quarter, there was no reason for Luck to air it out. So it's silly to cite that as something impressive RGIII has overcome. I also wish people would have seen that what, 5, 6? of Luck's interceptions came off of drops from his WRs before they criticize him for having 9 INTs.

In any case, it looks as though RGIII has it wrapped up- he's got 11/5 odds I think I last saw. And I don't think he's an undeserving winner, certainly more so than a lot of other winners. But I think Luck was the most uniquely outstanding college football player of the past decade (Jason White? Matt Leinart? Mark Ingram? Troy Smith? So many of them don't even come close) at least, seems a shame he won't win it.