[metsjetsfan]

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.

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.

[metsjetsfan]

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.

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.