[76lsjumb]

D.C. B.e.a.r. --  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.  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.  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?  That seems to be your argument in a nutshell?  Except Gerhart didn't win it, and the explanation most often given was that his team had too many losses.  Okay, then, two years later, let's apply the same reasoning, right?  Wait a minute..what's that you say?  It REALLY is about statistics and having a great last game, NOT about how many losses your team has?  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].  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.  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 message  ;) )] 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.  At least it is to me.  But, from everything I read and hear, probably not as much for Andrew himself.  Ironic.

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

[76lsjumb]

D.C. B.e.a.r. --  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.  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.  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?  That seems to be your argument in a nutshell?  Except Gerhart didn't win it, and the explanation most often given was that his team had too many losses.  Okay, then, two years later, let's apply the same reasoning, right?  Wait a minute..what's that you say?  It REALLY is about statistics and having a great last game, NOT about how many losses your team has?  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].  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.  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 message  ;) )] 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.  At least it is to me.  But, from everything I read and hear, probably not as much for Andrew himself.  Ironic.

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