12-08-2011, 04:16 PM
Lately there's been an influx of Baylor fans, and I think we got a pretty good debate about the two Voldemort frontrunners (well, lately it looks like the frontrunner and Luck :( ).
I am a Stanford student who obviously supports Stanford, and would be delighted if Luck won (especially after what happened in 2009, ugh), but I think this year, RG3 deserves it. I found several labmates agreeing with me, so I was wondering what the proportion would be in this forum.
I think there are good cases for both:
For RG3
- RG3 has passed much better this year: RG3 stats are incredible, but I think they overstate the case. However, even after discounting the yards he got because his very good receivers got great separation, or made a play after the catch, his passing looked to me superior to Lucks (I've watched every snap Luck has taken, and about 5 Baylor games). He was really accurate.
- RG3 ran the option magnificently: some of this runs and decisions were superb, and you can't sniff at 644 yards. Luck, probably because he was being protected, just didn't run as much as other seasons.
For Luck
- Luck seemed to control the game and read defenses more effectively than RG3: RG3 was more flashy, but Luck seemed to take the right decision more often. I especially felt it in third downs, and sure enough, when I checked the stats, Stanford has a 52% conversion, versus 45% Baylor (both are obviously very good).
- Luck is better in the red zone: this is a subset of the previous point, making better decisions. But decisions in the red zone are even more important.
It seemed to me that even Baylor's coach didn't fully trust RG3 in the red zone. In their first drive against Oklahoma St, they had a clear running situation with first and goal, and sure enough, they tried rushing 4 times in a row. OkSt's defense stopped them. I was thinking all along that the rushing was so obvious that they should have passed at least once. Of course, a couple of drives later, again on first and goal RG3 tries to pass, and got intercepted in the end zone (he got another ugly end zone interception against Texas).
It seems to me that Stanford's success in the Red zone (1st with 98% Vs 95th with 76%) is directly attributable to Luck's making the right decisions.
So overall, I don't believe it's such a slam dunk as some of the Voldemort voters seem to think, but I think RG3's better passing and rushing somewhat outweighs Luck's better decisions.
I am a Stanford student who obviously supports Stanford, and would be delighted if Luck won (especially after what happened in 2009, ugh), but I think this year, RG3 deserves it. I found several labmates agreeing with me, so I was wondering what the proportion would be in this forum.
I think there are good cases for both:
For RG3
- RG3 has passed much better this year: RG3 stats are incredible, but I think they overstate the case. However, even after discounting the yards he got because his very good receivers got great separation, or made a play after the catch, his passing looked to me superior to Lucks (I've watched every snap Luck has taken, and about 5 Baylor games). He was really accurate.
- RG3 ran the option magnificently: some of this runs and decisions were superb, and you can't sniff at 644 yards. Luck, probably because he was being protected, just didn't run as much as other seasons.
For Luck
- Luck seemed to control the game and read defenses more effectively than RG3: RG3 was more flashy, but Luck seemed to take the right decision more often. I especially felt it in third downs, and sure enough, when I checked the stats, Stanford has a 52% conversion, versus 45% Baylor (both are obviously very good).
- Luck is better in the red zone: this is a subset of the previous point, making better decisions. But decisions in the red zone are even more important.
It seemed to me that even Baylor's coach didn't fully trust RG3 in the red zone. In their first drive against Oklahoma St, they had a clear running situation with first and goal, and sure enough, they tried rushing 4 times in a row. OkSt's defense stopped them. I was thinking all along that the rushing was so obvious that they should have passed at least once. Of course, a couple of drives later, again on first and goal RG3 tries to pass, and got intercepted in the end zone (he got another ugly end zone interception against Texas).
It seems to me that Stanford's success in the Red zone (1st with 98% Vs 95th with 76%) is directly attributable to Luck's making the right decisions.
So overall, I don't believe it's such a slam dunk as some of the Voldemort voters seem to think, but I think RG3's better passing and rushing somewhat outweighs Luck's better decisions.
