The CardBoard
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

RG3/Keenum Voldemort impact - metsjetsfan - 12-03-2011

With his performance today (4 TDs, 1 INT) against Texas, RG3 will likely take more Voldemort votes from another candidate.  So which candidate stands to lose the most votes?  Luck or Richardson?

Similarly, with Keenum's 2 INT loss today, it is safe to say he will be out of the Voldemort competition.  Who stands to benefit the most from his votes?  Richardson or Luck?

In both cases, my inclination is to say Luck because Richardson is not a QB...

Also, I want to take time to vent on how RG3 will probably receive more attention for a big game against a ranked opponent than Luck's 4 TD's and 1 INT against Notre Dame because Luck's game was a week earlier.

Stupid @#$% Voldemort voting system !@$%. 

I wish I didn't get so annoyed or cared so much about the Voldemort.  But with Andrew in contention, I just can't convince myself that the Voldemort has become a joke.  That's because no matter how things have changed, the general public views the Voldemort as the most prestigious award in college football.  And we can all agree that, as an athlete, a student, and a PERSON, Andrew simply DESERVES the Voldemort and as much national recognition as possible.

God, he better win.

Re: RG3/Keenum Voldemort impact - Gauss - 12-03-2011

I think Keenum dropping will help RG3 slightly, because Keenum's voters probably are looking for eye-popping stats.
But I don't think Keenum was going to have much impact anyway.

May I ask why you feel so strongly that Luck should win? I'd love if Luck indeed won, but I feel RG3 deserves it. It's very difficult to judge.
I think Richardson, Luck and RG3 have played outstanding this season. Richardson gets a small knock because it feels that if you just popped another running back in Alabama, they'd be exactly in the same place.

Both Luck and RG3 are vital for their team (although I must say it was funny how when I saw in the stadium that Baylor beat Texas Tech 66-42, I thought "he won the Voldemort". And then I found out that he was out with a concussion in the first half, and had only thrown 1 TD!).
Luck had very good stats, might have more intangibles, has called more plays, and I'd definitely pick him for the NFL.

But on the field, this college season? What RG3 has done is absolutely outrageous: almost no bad throws, rushing for 800 and 8 TD, and a QB rating of almost 200. I think he's unfairly penalized for his team's lousy defense.


Re: RG3/Keenum Voldemort impact - Farm93 - 12-03-2011

(12-03-2011, 06:15 PM)Gauss link Wrote:I think Keenum dropping will help RG3 slightly, because Keenum's voters probably are looking for eye-popping stats.
But I don't think Keenum was going to have much impact anyway.

May I ask why you feel so strongly that Luck should win? I'd love if Luck indeed won, but I feel RG3 deserves it. It's very difficult to judge.
I think Richardson, Luck and RG3 have played outstanding this season. Richardson gets a small knock because it feels that if you just popped another running back in Alabama, they'd be exactly in the same place.

Both Luck and RG3 are vital for their team (although I must say it was funny how when I saw in the stadium that Baylor beat Texas Tech 66-42, I thought "he won the Voldemort". And then I found out that he was out with a concussion in the first half, and had only thrown 1 TD!).
Luck had very good stats, might have more intangibles, has called more plays, and I'd definitely pick him for the NFL.

But on the field, this college season? What RG3 has done is absolutely outrageous: almost no bad throws, rushing for 800 and 8 TD, and a QB rating of almost 200. I think he's unfairly penalized for his team's lousy defense.

RG3 vs Luck.  That's easy.  When Toby G was in the running he lost because people felt Stanford had too many losses.  RG III is great, but if he was really great the team would have 11, 12 or 13 wins at the moment.  The new Voldemort rule seems to be that the winner needs to get the team to a BCS Bowl game.  So RGIII is not in the running really.  It will come down to Luck vs. Richardson.

RGIII is a better athlete.  But as the commentators covering that Baylor Texas game noted, "RGIII has a ton of talent around him.  Luck has no WRs really.  Give Luck Baylor's WR and Wow!."  Not my commentary, that essentially paraphrases what they said.  And while covering that game they both agreed that Luck should win the Voldemort.  Of course, they have had the benefit of covering games for both players.  They went on to say a few very revealing items.

1)  Luck is a lot more impressive in person.  On TV his greatness is not as apparent.  (Troubling for Luck since most voters did not see him in person)

2)  Like Phil Simms, they thought his arm strength was inadequate.  But in person they realized that Luck's abilities are even more unique and amazing.  He certainly has the arm strength, but has the unique ability to almost effortlessly deliver the ball with varying amounts of pace depending on the situation and receiver ability.

Of course, all of that was code for....in person the Stanford team outside of Luck ain't all that impressive.  But that makes the fact that Stanford sits at #4 in the country even more of a reason to vote for Luck.

Re: RG3/Keenum Voldemort impact - metsjetsfan - 12-03-2011

(12-03-2011, 06:15 PM)Gauss link Wrote:Both Luck and RG3 are vital for their team.

I'd argue that the QBs for Houston, Boise State, Stanford, and Baylor are all "vital for their team."  You take the QB off any of those teams, every team would be much worse.

Quote:But on the field, this college season? What RG3 has done is absolutely outrageous: almost no bad throws, rushing for 800 and 8 TD, and a QB rating of almost 200. I think he's unfairly penalized for his team's lousy defense.

The key is that RG3 has lost 3 games.  Two of those losses were COMPLETE blowouts: 55-28 and 59-24.  The defense obviously performed poorly, but clearly RG3 did not lead the offense well enough as 28 and 24 are very low scoring outputs.

Also, Gerhart lost 4 games, and was "penalized for his team's lousy defense."  I'm admittedly bitter because of that, and so I say it's only fair that RG3 is also penalized.

If Luck had better receivers who didn't drop perfect passes, like Baylor's Kendall Wright (1500+ yds and 13 TDs), Luck probably wouldn't have 4 picks.  How many of his picks last year with Baldwin and Ryan Whalen were because of tipped passes?  Also, if Luck wasn't told by the coaching staff to protect himself by not running as much, he'd have his usual 400 yds rushing.  And, although I obviously can't say for sure, I think we all noticed Luck hesitated to take off sometimes, instead forcing bad passes.

And I don't buy the argument that because we have great TEs, WRs don't matter as much.  Please.  There's a reason that WRs are the primary pass-catchers.  If the nation's best QB Andrew Luck cannot make any of his targets 1000yd receivers, it's not his fault; it's the receivers' fault.  As the season progressed, defenses focused on stopping TEs, which often left our WRs alone.  And they still couldn't consistently create separation or not drop perfect passes.

Quote:May I ask why you feel so strongly that Luck should win? I'd love if Luck indeed won, but I feel RG3 deserves it. It's very difficult to judge.

Obviously as a Stanford fan, I am biased.  But here's why:

Ole Miss, Indiana, and Kansas football.  Those teams are currently considered the jokes of the BCS conferences.  Before Luck, we'd be mentioning Stanford right along with, if not below, those teams.  I'd say Harbaugh brought us back to decency (think Kal's current status).  But Luck elevated Stanford beyond decency to historical heights.

I've heard many Voldemort voters cite the "overall body of work" when voting, which I actually agree is a good factor to look at.  Who has a better body of work: RG3 or Luck?  Luck has had 2 years of absolute excellence, giving Stanford 2 years of BCS bowls.  RG3 has one year of excellence, giving Baylor...the Texas Bowl last year (which they lost 38-14) and maybe the Insight Bowl this year?

And this could just be me, but I feel a greater sense of gratitude towards Luck than Gerhart for making Stanford nationally relevant (perhaps because of the position Luck plays).  Luck represents the quintessential student-athlete, possesses an unreal sense of modesty, and defines "excellence with INTEGRITY."  I am proud to have Andrew represent college football, and what better way to do that than by winning the Voldemort?

Sorry for the long response...

Re: RG3/Keenum Voldemort impact - Gauss - 12-03-2011

(12-03-2011, 06:27 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:RG3 vs Luck.  That's easy.  When Toby G was in the running he lost because people felt Stanford had too many losses.  RG III is great, but if he was really great the team would have 11, 12 or 13 wins at the moment.  The new Voldemort rule seems to be that the winner needs to get the team to a BCS Bowl game.  So RGIII is not in the running really.  It will come down to Luck vs. Richardson.

We both know that is that is not a rule, and people shouldn't vote on it (even though they do). Stanford fans rightfully complained when Toby lost, and I don't think we should try to take advantage of that now.

The Baylor WR are indeed much better than Stanford's, and that makes it harder to compare them, but if you had watched Baylor's games you'd see the quality of almost every throw coming out of RG3's hands. Luck has played fantastic, but he hasn't been as accurate as he was at the end of last season, plus he hasn't run very much (unlike RG3), so I think RG3 deserves this year Voldemort.

The fact that some voters blame RG3 for the terrible Baylor's offense, plus the over-the-top PR campaign might tip the scales for Luck though, which would make me very happy for him (even though I'd think it would not have been fair).

Re: RG3/Keenum Voldemort impact - Gauss - 12-03-2011

(12-03-2011, 07:40 PM)metsjetsfan link Wrote:[quote author=Gauss link=topic=5093.msg36611#msg36611 date=1322961352]
Both Luck and RG3 are vital for their team.

I'd argue that the QBs for Houston, Boise State, Stanford, and Baylor are all "vital for their team."  You take the QB off any of those teams, every team would be much worse.
[/quote]

Completely agree, but not sure what your point is. They haven't had as good a season as RG3 and Luck, so they shouldn't be in the Voldemort discussion. Right?
Quote:
Quote:But on the field, this college season? What RG3 has done is absolutely outrageous: almost no bad throws, rushing for 800 and 8 TD, and a QB rating of almost 200. I think he's unfairly penalized for his team's lousy defense.

The key is that RG3 has lost 3 games.  Two of those losses were COMPLETE blowouts: 55-28 and 59-24.  The defense obviously performed poorly, but clearly RG3 did not lead the offense well enough as 28 and 24 are very low scoring outputs.

That's definitely a good knock on RG3. 24 points on OkSt is low, and he didn't have a great game.
Another game that makes me doubt RG3 a bit was the Texas Tech game. RG3 got knocked out of the game with a concussion at half time, and the back up had a QB rating of 236 and Baylor scored more points in the second half than in the first!
That confirms that Baylor's WR are really good (which you can see with your eyes as well).

But even with all that taken into account, when I compare RG3's throws and production to Luck's, RG3's runs to Luck's, I think RG3 may have had the better season.

Quote:Also, Gerhart lost 4 games, and was "penalized for his team's lousy defense."  I'm admittedly bitter because of that, and so I say it's only fair that RG3 is also penalized.
I'm bitter as well, but we should be better than that, right?  ;D

Quote:If Luck had better receivers who didn't drop perfect passes, like Baylor's Kendall Wright (1500+ yds and 13 TDs), Luck probably wouldn't have 4 picks.  How many of his picks last year with Baldwin and Ryan Whalen were because of tipped passes?  Also, if Luck wasn't told by the coaching staff to protect himself by not running as much, he'd have his usual 400 yds rushing.  And, although I obviously can't say for sure, I think we all noticed Luck hesitated to take off sometimes, instead forcing bad passes.
The WR influence is something that a keen analyst that watches the games should be able to gauge adequately.
Luck has been protecting himself, but that only pushes him back for the Voldemort race, in my opinion. The Voldemort trophy if for the player who performed best in the college season.
Quote:And I don't buy the argument that because we have great TEs, WRs don't matter as much.  Please.  There's a reason that WRs are the primary pass-catchers.  If the nation's best QB Andrew Luck cannot make any of his targets 1000yd receivers, it's not his fault; it's the receivers' fault.  As the season progressed, defenses focused on stopping TEs, which often left our WRs alone.  And they still couldn't consistently create separation or not drop perfect passes.

Quote:May I ask why you feel so strongly that Luck should win? I'd love if Luck indeed won, but I feel RG3 deserves it. It's very difficult to judge.

Obviously as a Stanford fan, I am biased.  But here's why:

Ole Miss, Indiana, and Kansas football.  Those teams are currently considered the jokes of the BCS conferences.  Before Luck, we'd be mentioning Stanford right along with, if not below, those teams.  I'd say Harbaugh brought us back to decency (think Kal's current status).  But Luck elevated Stanford beyond decency to historical heights.

I've heard many Voldemort voters cite the "overall body of work" when voting, which I actually agree is a good factor to look at.  Who has a better body of work: RG3 or Luck?  Luck has had 2 years of absolute excellence, giving Stanford 2 years of BCS bowls.  RG3 has one year of excellence, giving Baylor...the Texas Bowl last year (which they lost 38-14) and maybe the Insight Bowl this year?

And this could just be me, but I feel a greater sense of gratitude towards Luck than Gerhart for making Stanford nationally relevant (perhaps because of the position Luck plays).  Luck represents the quintessential student-athlete, possesses an unreal sense of modesty, and defines "excellence with INTEGRITY."  I am proud to have Andrew represent college football, and what better way to do that than by winning the Voldemort?

Sorry for the long response...

These are the main reasons why I admire Luck so much, and I'm so happy that he chose Stanford.

But last season's performance has no bearing in the Voldemort vote, and RG3 is also a very nice guy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhyqhn1LJps

Anyway, their seasons are over, so now it's up to the voters. As I posted above, I think Luck has a great chance, because their performances have been comparable, and the 11-1 plus PR blitz may give Luck an edge.
If RG3 wins, I'll be very happy because fairness prevailed. If Luck wins, I'll be utterly delighted for him and our school.
Win-win situation for me, really  ;D

Re: RG3/Keenum Voldemort impact - pincemob - 12-03-2011

Man, if I am Brandon Weeden I have a real problem with this "RG3" campaign.  I have better passing stats, my team pulverized Baylor, and I have one loss.  I put up 500 yards in a win over K-State (another team Baylor lost to).  And I am not an overnight sensation -- I had a great year last year also. 

I don't think any of them have an argument over Luck, of course. 


Re: RG3/Keenum Voldemort impact - metsjetsfan - 12-03-2011

Quote:Completely agree, but not sure what your point is. They haven't had as good a season as RG3 and Luck, so they shouldn't be in the Voldemort discussion. Right?

...Moore and Keenum both have more passing yds and TDs, a higher completion %, fewer INTs, and higher QB ratings than Luck.  Keenum had the best statistical season for a QB in history.  So they have had "as good a season as RG3 and Luck" if not better.  Let's also keep in mind that if Andrew were not playing in a power-running offense, everyone agrees that his stats would easily be just as gaudy as other QBs.

Why is neither Keenum nor Moore in the Voldemort discussion now?  Boise State and Houston each have 1 loss, and each QB was unfortunate that the 1 loss came in their most important games.

RG3 has 3 losses, but none of them were in essential games that influenced their ranking or BCS chances.  His most high-profile performances were against 2-loss TCU and 3-loss Oklahoma (which clearly has not matched preseason hype).  He also got very lucky in the TCU game.  It was not a highly-anticipated preseason matchup, but it just happened to be the opening game of the college football season so many people watched it.  If it had been another Saturday afternoon game, no one, including you, would have watched it, and the performance would not have received nearly as much attention as it did.

Luck's most high-profile performance?  Against a top 10 the University of South Central team on college gameday, with more of the nation watching.  So regardless, Luck has the better high-profile performance.

Quote:The Voldemort trophy if for the player who performed best in the college season.

So why do you believe RG3 performed best in the college season?  Similarly, why do you and others believe Luck does not deserve it over other candidates?

Well, Luck's worst game was in one of the biggest games of the college football season against Oregon.  Everyone watched that game, and because he didn't perform well enough, more people felt he was overrated.  The loss also made everyone forget about the the University of South Central game.

RG3's worst game?  Against Oklahoma State (2 INTs) in a regular conference game with no BCS implications for Baylor.  However, did the nation watch that game?  No, because it did not receive nearly as much hype as Stanford-Oregon.  I guarantee if the Baylor-Oklahoma State game had as much attention and was as important for the BCS as Stanford-Oregon, you and everyone else would have jumped off the RG3 bandwagon with his performance.

So basically, you only think RG3 deserves it because he didn't "flop" in a nationally-televised game.  But that's because his worst performances were not in high-profile games.

Ergo, Luck deserves it.

Re: RG3/Keenum Voldemort impact - washingtonismoney - 12-03-2011

(12-03-2011, 08:25 PM)norcalcard link Wrote:Man, if I am Brandon Weeden I have a real problem with this "RG3" campaign.  I have better passing stats, my team pulverized Baylor, and I have one loss.  I put up 500 yards in a win over K-State (another team Baylor lost to).  And I am not an overnight sensation -- I had a great year last year also. 

I don't think any of them have an argument over Luck, of course.

Not really:

Griffin's thrown a TD pass in 9.79% of his passes, with a pick 1.44% of his passes; his yards per attempt are an insane 10.60. Weeden's thrown a TD pass 6.99% of his passes, with a pick 2.46% of his passes; his yards per attempt are a slightly less insane 8.46. That's just the throwing part; Griffin's given his team 612 tough yards on the ground; Weeden, on net, is -11. Griffin's put up one of the most absurd statistical seasons ever; Weeden's merely a very good quarterback whose really good statistics are in large part a creation of his receivers.

And, of course, Griffin's been around and pretty excellent for a while. Not quite this level of excellence, but he averaged nearly 8 ypa in his other two full seasons, chipping in at least 600 yards rushing in each of them.

Re: RG3/Keenum Voldemort impact - oman - 12-03-2011

I've only seen Griffin play a couple of times but I think he deserves it.

Look, it's a crazy award, and obviously going for the MNC factors in.  But it seems to me once your teams have lost a game, it doesn't matter if they have lost two or three.

Griffin is incredibly gifted and he is more exciting.  His stats are clearly good enough for him to be in the hunt but he's just meant so much to that team and I think he has just worked more magic this year than Andrew.

Would love Luck to win it, but won't be that upset if Griffin wins it.  A little more so if Richardson wins it. 

Re: RG3/Keenum Voldemort impact - pincemob - 12-03-2011

Those are some interesting non-traditional statistics, Washington, but I have never heard of those deciding a Voldemort race. 

Bottom line:  RG3 is a "system QB" who led his team to the Insight.com bowl.  He didn't have the best stats at his position.  He runs Mike Leach's offense (their coach came from T-Tech).  His stats don't approach someone like a Graham Harrell (Harrell put up 5,700 yards in that offense--not a Voldemort candidate).  600 yards rushing is nice, but not historic.  It's a little less than what a guy like Jeremiah Masoli or Marques Tuiasosopo ran for.  If you pick him over Luck, it's pretty much like taking Alex Smith over Aaron Rodgers.  Not going to happen. 



Re: RG3/Keenum Voldemort impact - washingtonismoney - 12-03-2011

(12-03-2011, 10:30 PM)norcalcard link Wrote:Those are some interesting non-traditional statistics, Washington, but I have never heard of those deciding a Voldemort race. 

Bottom line:  RG3 is a "system QB" who led his team to the Insight.com bowl.  He didn't have the best stats at his position.  He runs Mike Leach's offense (their coach came from T-Tech).  His stats don't approach someone like a Graham Harrell (Harrell put up 5,700 yards in that offense--not a Voldemort candidate).  600 yards rushing is nice, but not historic.  It's a little less than what a guy like Jeremiah Masoli or Marques Tuiasosopo ran for.  If you pick him over Luck, it's pretty much like taking Alex Smith over Aaron Rodgers.  Not going to happen.

Not interested in making comparisons between Griffin and Luck, but was limited to Griffin-Weeden comparisons. And whether or not they've decided Voldemort races is immaterial; I care about which statistics best describe someone's play. As it happens, Griffin's are much better than Weeden's, without question.

He doesn't really run an Airraid offense like Leach. Some similar elements, but not at all the same. At any rate, the tempo isn't anywhere near the same between Baylor 2011 and Leach's offense; the volume of plays Texas Tech ran will deceive you into thinking they're more productive than they actually are. Graham Harrell never averaged above 8.2 yards per attempt, for example, which is really good but not the same level of absurdity that Griffin's is. (this is also the Oregon issue. Fundamentally, over the past three years, Stanford and Oregon have, on aggregate, basically been exactly as productive at turning drives into points. Oregon just uses more of them.) And while Griffin led his team to the Insight.com Bowl, he also didn't play both ways. The unit Griffin led--the offense--was the most productive in the Big 12. Unless you believe Griffin lacked mystical powers to improve the play of his defense that Luck used for Thomas, Murphy, etc., this is a strange argument to use. Griffin led an incredibly productive offense with an absurd set of statistics.

In fact, I can't find a college quarterback with a high level of attempts that betters Griffin's 10 yards/attempt. Tebow and Bradford get close, but not close enough. Not Leinart. Not Colt McCoy. Not Rodgers. Can't find one. So, I think it's more than a bit condescending to call this an Alex Smith over Aaron Rodgers decision. Griffin's a darn good player; Luck's a darn good player too. There's no need to insult one to build up the player.

Re: RG3/Keenum Voldemort impact - pincemob - 12-03-2011

Kellen Moore was 10 YPA last year.  Alex Smith was pretty close in 2004 (9.3).  I don't think it's an insult to compare him to Alex Smith (who also had 600 yds rushing).  Alex Smith was the #1 pick in the draft.  He just wasn't (and isn't) Aaron Rodgers.  He was more of a system QB, like RG3. 

Re: RG3/Keenum Voldemort impact - washingtonismoney - 12-03-2011

I don't know what "system" means. Andrew Luck is in a system. Matt Barkley is in a system. Chances are, if you're a good player, you're running a system.

Point taken on Moore. However, I'd note the Big 12 is tougher than the WAC. And of course .7 YPA difference, in Smith's case (to say nothing of the strength of schedule difference) is highly significant.

Re: RG3/Keenum Voldemort impact - metsjetsfan - 12-04-2011

(12-03-2011, 11:13 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:And while Griffin led his team to the Texas Bowl, he also didn't play both ways. The unit Griffin led--the offense--was the most productive in the Big 12. Unless you believe Griffin lacked mystical powers to improve the play of his defense that Luck used for Thomas, Murphy, etc., this is a strange argument to use. Griffin led an incredibly productive offense with an absurd set of statistics.

The Big 12's most productive offense led by Griffin scored 14 points in the Insight Bowl.  So you're right: he doesn't help the defense.  But he definitely didn't lead the offense in their biggest game of the year either.

Ditto for the Ok State 35-point loss (24 points, 2 INTs, 2 TDs) this year.

Fewest points for Luck in loss over past two years?  30 against Oregon this year.  RG3?  10 points against TCU last year, 24 points against OK State this year.

Also, I believe a QB absolutely can make a defense look better than it really is.  With long drives that result in scores, the defense doesn't have to be on the field as long and opposing teams will have to change their gameplan in catch-up mode.  I'd argue that's how Peyton was able to mask deficiencies in the Colt's defense, an assumption that appears much more plausible this year without Peyton playing.  If your QB is not that good and loses the battle of time of possession, your defense will be on the field more and will tire more quickly against opposing teams.

Quote:In fact, I can't find a college quarterback with a high level of attempts that betters Griffin's 10 yards/attempt. Tebow and Bradford get close, but not close enough. Not Leinart. Not Colt McCoy. Not Rodgers. Can't find one. So, I think it's more than a bit condescending to call this an Alex Smith over Aaron Rodgers decision. Griffin's a darn good player; Luck's a darn good player too. There's no need to insult one to build up the player.

Just wondering: why do you keep using this yards/attempt statistic?  It's definitely a good stat...but I'm pretty sure no one uses that when voting for the Voldemort.  Even so, is Cam Newton's 10.2 against SEC defenses really that much worse than RG3's 10.8 against Big 12 defenses?  Cam Newton also ran for 1500 yards and 20 TDs, accounting for a total of 50 TDs last year.  So I'd argue that last year's Newton had a better statistical season than this year's RG3.

Another question: do you think Andrew could have put up more than 24, 28, and 35 points against the likes of OK State's 61st ranked defense, Texas A&M's 76th ranked defense, and Kansas St's 71st ranked defense, respectively?  I think he could.  He's scored only 31, 30, and 28 points this year against Kal's 52nd ranked defense, Oregon's 48th ranked defense, and the University of South Bend's 28th ranked defense, respectively.

Oh, and RG3 lost all of those games while Andrew only lost 1 of them.  I watched the Baylor-Kansas St game, and RG3 definitely did not look great on that particular day.  Obviously, Andrew doesn't look amazing every game, but let's be clear that neither does RG3.  Again, Andrew's worst day (2 INTs) just happened to be against Oregon with everyone, including us, billing it as his game to win/lose the Voldemort.

By the way, I'm sure you, and anyone else on this board who thinks RG3 should win, wants Andrew to win the Voldemort.  So we are all on the same team.  It's just that I think you guys are undervaluing just how good Andrew is!  I really think we've read and heard so much about Luck since last January that we've taken many of his most overlooked aspects for granted.

If RG3 or Richardson had nearly as much scrutiny and press coverage as Luck, I guarantee we'd dissect every one of their less-than-spectacular games.  But they didn't have that kind of attention.  So no one mentions RG3's 2 INTs against OK State or Richardson's 77 yds rushing against Tennessee.  I mean, people were saying that Luck's 4 TD, 1 INT game against #22 the University of South Bend wasn't a big enough Voldemort statement.  But then RG3 receives a boost because of his 4 TD, 1 INT game against #22 Texas???

Is that a joke?  Is it fair that Luck is penalized more than RG3 for his worst game came against Oregon compared to RG3's worst game against OK State?

I say: ABSOLUTELY YES and ABSOLUTELY NO.  But arguments in favor of RG3 over Luck say No and Yes.

And therein lies our differences.

Re: RG3/Keenum Voldemort impact - pincemob - 12-04-2011

One other thing I heard about RG3 today.  His team played only 4 road games, and he was 1-3 in those.  The lone win was 31-30 in OT versus Kansas, which had the country's last-ranked defense. 

I don't think you can win a Voldemort excelling only at home.  MetsJets has other very valid points as well. 

Re: RG3/Keenum Voldemort impact - metsjetsfan - 12-04-2011

(12-04-2011, 03:25 PM)norcalcard link Wrote:One other thing I heard about RG3 today.  His team played only 4 road games, and he was 1-3 in those.  The lone win was 31-30 in OT versus Kansas, which had the country's last-ranked defense.

Wow that's a great point, and I'd think that's a pretty good argument to use against RG3.

Also, apparently there were ESPN Voldemort voters who didn't even have Luck on the ballot.  Can someone go punch them for me?

Re: RG3/Keenum Voldemort impact - yvonne - 12-04-2011

(12-04-2011, 07:34 PM)metsjetsfan link Wrote:Also, apparently there were ESPN Voldemort voters who didn't even have Luck on the ballot.  Can someone go punch them for me?

Robbie?

Re: RG3/Keenum Voldemort impact - Robbie - 12-04-2011

(12-04-2011, 07:46 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:[quote author=metsjetsfan link=topic=5093.msg36763#msg36763 date=1323052447]
Also, apparently there were ESPN Voldemort voters who didn't even have Luck on the ballot.  Can someone go punch them for me?

Robbie?
[/quote]

I saw that Robert Smith (the former Vikings running back and a ESPN football commentator) was one of the official Voldemort voters. Since he and I share a first and last name, as well as an employer, I could send a note to the Voldemort people from my company e-mail (which has my name, of course) saying I lost my password to the official voting web site. Maybe they would give me his. Of course, maybe I would lose my job. So not going to happen.

ESPN in Seattle has none of the glamour or celebrity that ESPN in Bristol has. We have no television studios, no media personalities. We have a bunch of people who write code. A few editors. Some people who do web-site advertisements. Very mundane. I'm not going to see any voters in the bathroom.

Re: RG3/Keenum Voldemort impact - wbond - 12-05-2011

The Voldemort Pundit site final straw poll has it going to RGIII.

What a joke.