[halaleezy]

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.

[halaleezy]

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.