Jello_Biafra
Footballguy
I agree, but this is an unusual year for rookies, and QBs will always be valued more. For good reason, too.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Breaking down the Rookie of the Year (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Warrior
- Start date
biju
Footballguy
Seahawks homer here: there is no way to shake the numbers out that will make me think Griffin shouldn't win the award. He's been pretty amazing this year in a year of fantastic rookie performances.
I'm not a fan of the Luck argument of quantity of quality. I'm also not a fan of the "2-14" argument either as they were a playoff team in 2010 and as other people have mentioned there was enough turnover on the team to make that argument irrelevant either way.
I think if Wilson had gotten all of the preseason reps and they didn't put training wheels on him for the first half of the season it might be a different story, but as it stands his numbers are favor an "efficiency" argument although Griffin might still have him in a few categories. The only angle Wilson has is that he was a 3rd round pick and the "Valuable" in MVP means he was expected to do less than his counterparts.
As a matter of fact, I don't think Morris has the season he has if Griffin isn't there. It might be symbiotic in nature there too, but that's what we have to go on--anything else would be subjective.
But if I had a vote, I'd vote Griffin.
I'm not a fan of the Luck argument of quantity of quality. I'm also not a fan of the "2-14" argument either as they were a playoff team in 2010 and as other people have mentioned there was enough turnover on the team to make that argument irrelevant either way.
I think if Wilson had gotten all of the preseason reps and they didn't put training wheels on him for the first half of the season it might be a different story, but as it stands his numbers are favor an "efficiency" argument although Griffin might still have him in a few categories. The only angle Wilson has is that he was a 3rd round pick and the "Valuable" in MVP means he was expected to do less than his counterparts.
As a matter of fact, I don't think Morris has the season he has if Griffin isn't there. It might be symbiotic in nature there too, but that's what we have to go on--anything else would be subjective.
But if I had a vote, I'd vote Griffin.
If we're just recognizing rookies who had great seasons, then Hilton deserves to be in the discussion. Only Calvin, Brandon, Roddy, Andre, and Demaryius had more 100 yard receiving games. He was a big part of Luck's success. He has the exact same chance of winning the award as Morris. The point of bringing it up is to show how stupid it is to suggest that one rookie's season was less impressive because he shared the field with another impressive rookie. And YPA means EVERYTHING. 7 of the top 8 teams in net yards per attempt made the playoffs. The one team that missed was New Orleans, which set a record for most yards allowed, and actually gave up a higher NY/A than they averaged. No simple statistic correlates as well with wins as YPA and YPA allowed. While it's true that a good ground game can open up the pass, it's also irrelevant, since (A) Griffin was a major driving force behind that good ground game (more rushing yards than Michael Turner, an NFL best ypc average, masterful control of the option opening a lot of those yards up for Morris), and (B) a good passing game can open things up for the run. Again, Griffin led the league in yards per pass attempt AND yards per rush attempt. AS A ROOKIE. Luck led the league in INTs and dropped INTs. No comparison.
killing joke
Footballguy
I'd give the league MVP to my guy Bobby 3-Sticks
Don't be asinine. I'm offering dropped interceptions as yet another data point in my argument. My point is that luck hit opposing players in the numbers more than any other player in the league. You're not stupid, so I'm assuming you understand that (the point was hardly opaque), you just resorted to sarcasm because you didn't have any other retort. Luck with the passing yardage record might mean more if Wilson didn't get the passing TD record, and Griffin didn't get the QB rating and YPA records (minimum 300 passes). And Wilson finished second in YPA among rookie QBs for good measure. Seriously, Luck's season was a lot like Matt Stafford's- threw the ball a metric crapton, piled up infinity billion yards, but did so ridiculously inefficiently. Griffin's numbers, on the other hand, are a lot more comparable to Aaron Rodgers. Do you give Stafford the MVP over Rodgers because he passed for more yards? Of course not, because Stafford was profoundly mediocre on any given attempt, while Rodgers was scintillating. Same principle. When the guy with more yards has a QB rating THIRTY POINTS lower than the guy who absolutely dominated his competition without coughing up the ball every time a defense looked at him funny, then he doesn't get any serious run in awards discussions.Luck had a great season for a rookie. RGIII had a great season- period, full stop, no qualifiers required. If Griffin doesn't win the award in a landslide over Luck, it will raise serious questions of whether the voters actually watched any football this year.'pizzatyme said:
Actually, let's expand on this Stafford vs. Rodgers comparison. Here are the stats from all 4 players.
Stafford: 435/727 (59.8%), 4967 yards (6.8 YPA), 20 TDs, 17 INTs, 79.8 rating, 5.81 ANY/A
Luck: 339/627 (54.1%), 4374 yards (7.0 YPA), 23 TDs, 18 INTs, 76.5 rating, 5.66 ANY/A
Rodgers: 371/552 (67.2%), 4295 yards (7.8 YPA), 39 TDs, 8 INTs, 108.0 rating, 7.33 ANY/A
Griffin: 258/393 (65.6%), 3200 yards (8.1 YPA), 20 TDs, 5 INTs, 102.4 rating, 7.47 ANY/A (15 games)
Factor in rushing yardage, and Stafford got about 500 more yards than Rodgers. Factor in rushing yardage, and Luck got about 600 more yards than Griffin (in 1 more game). Rodgers, on the other hand, had 8% better comp%, 1 more YPA, a 5:1 TD:INT ratio (vs. Stafford's almost even one), 28 point higher QB rating, and 1.5 better ANY/A. Griffin, on the other hand, had 11% better comp%, 1 more YPA, a 4:1 TD:INT ratio (vs. Luck's almost even one), 26 point higher QB rating, and 1.8 better ANY/A. And, it should be noted, that Griffin had easily the worst receivers of the four.
Andrew Luck was the Mathew Stafford of rookies. Robert Griffin was the Aaron Rodgers. Given that both teams made the playoffs, I don't see how anyone could possibly give the award to Luck.
Stafford: 435/727 (59.8%), 4967 yards (6.8 YPA), 20 TDs, 17 INTs, 79.8 rating, 5.81 ANY/A
Luck: 339/627 (54.1%), 4374 yards (7.0 YPA), 23 TDs, 18 INTs, 76.5 rating, 5.66 ANY/A
Rodgers: 371/552 (67.2%), 4295 yards (7.8 YPA), 39 TDs, 8 INTs, 108.0 rating, 7.33 ANY/A
Griffin: 258/393 (65.6%), 3200 yards (8.1 YPA), 20 TDs, 5 INTs, 102.4 rating, 7.47 ANY/A (15 games)
Factor in rushing yardage, and Stafford got about 500 more yards than Rodgers. Factor in rushing yardage, and Luck got about 600 more yards than Griffin (in 1 more game). Rodgers, on the other hand, had 8% better comp%, 1 more YPA, a 5:1 TD:INT ratio (vs. Stafford's almost even one), 28 point higher QB rating, and 1.5 better ANY/A. Griffin, on the other hand, had 11% better comp%, 1 more YPA, a 4:1 TD:INT ratio (vs. Luck's almost even one), 26 point higher QB rating, and 1.8 better ANY/A. And, it should be noted, that Griffin had easily the worst receivers of the four.
Andrew Luck was the Mathew Stafford of rookies. Robert Griffin was the Aaron Rodgers. Given that both teams made the playoffs, I don't see how anyone could possibly give the award to Luck.
Putting things in caps doesn't make them true. You can't count the Vikings as a playoff team for Luck and not for Griffin. And you're ignoring the fact that Griffin had three wins against NYG and Dal to end the season- either of which would have been a playoff team if not for the fact that Griffin put up three wins against them to end the season. I'm not sure you want to get into schedule discussions, here. Indy had far and away the easiest schedule in the league. Indy had a negative scoring differential on the season. Washington's offense was substantially better than Indy's, to boot.
pizzatyme
Footballguy
I missed the Vikes. I stand corrected there.If the Skins lose to either the Boys or the Gints then they don't make the playoffs, so I don't see how that helps your argument. Not sure the Colts schedule is that much easier than playing the NFC East, NFC South, and AFC North. And I'm wondering what the Skins differential would have been had they played New England in New England this year?
Last edited by a moderator:
Riversco
Footballguy
If they redid the 2012 NFL draft today, knowing what we know now, the first overall pick would be Russell Wilson. You can't just look at the stats. The Seahawks have really opened up the playbook for Wilson over the past 2 months and they've become an explosive offense. He's way ahead in his development compared to the other two. He studies so hard and is learning so fast. I think they might score 500 points next year.
pizzatyme
Footballguy
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
Corrected.Pretty sure Wilson move into the top 15 picks but no chance he goes over Luck or RGIII.
Last edited by a moderator:
Apple Jack
Footballguy
Enough with the Cousins brought the Skins back in the BAL game nonsense. He didn't even play a drive in that game. The tying drive was almost all Griffin and an interference penalty. The two point conversion was all the call, which was opened up because why? Griffin was out and the defense made an adjustment for that which cost them. Cousins was good and he was good in the Cleveland game, but you Wilson homers sound like fools trying to take the BAL game away from Griffin.
And let's trace the geneology ofthe boom in Seattles offense. Where did that come from?
And let's trace the geneology ofthe boom in Seattles offense. Where did that come from?
Last edited by a moderator:
fatness
Footballguy
This is so wrong it's awesome.
Hang 10
Footballguy
This is so wrong it's awesome.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
And then those teams would have been playoff teams, so would you then be saying that Griffin couldn't beat playoff teams? Oh, but because he did beat them and kept them out of the playoffs, he gets no credit for that, right? Against teams that are 8-8 or better: RG3: 5-4 (and if you want to take away RG3's win for missing the very end of the Baltimore game, then we have to take away his loss for missing the end of the Atlanta game) Luck: 3-3It is also worth pointing out that RG3's four losses there were by 7, 7, 15 and 4 points; Luck's three losses were by 20, 35 and 12. Throw in the Colts losing to the Jets by 26, and it's clear that Luck and the Colts worst moments were far worse than RG3's and the Redskins.
Last edited by a moderator:
Apple Jack
Footballguy
Speaking of Green Bay, on the flip side of that ridiculous notion that Griffin doesn't get the BAL win, you have Wilson getting credit for a win the replacement officials are responsible for.
Hang 10
Footballguy
Just stop. Your guy has a passer rating lower than Blane effing Gabbert. Now beat it.Quality of wins. Luck- Houston & Green BayRGIII- ?? Pittsburgh & Tampa?Heck, I'm starting to think Wilson should be above Griffin as he has more quality wins. Let me check with the DGHTLMAVOA crew and see what his YOCRAP/A is and get back to you.
I believe Luck should be ROY because without him the Colts have the first pick overall again. He made that team a winner. Looking at the stats I am very impressed with Griffin. Throwing only 5 interceptions is awesome. He is a top notch player. I don't think Wilson should be in the discussion. He threw under 200 yards passing 9 times this year. Luck had the 7th most passing yards, Weeden 19th, tannenhill 20th, Griffen 22nd, and wilson 23rd.
AlfredMorris should definitely be in the discussion as well. Also Doug Martin and Blair Walsh should be at least mentioned. If you put Luck on Washington they would have won 13 games this year.
AlfredMorris should definitely be in the discussion as well. Also Doug Martin and Blair Walsh should be at least mentioned. If you put Luck on Washington they would have won 13 games this year.
Domination
Footballguy
Funny part about this thread is that Wilson & Luck supporters bring facts as to why they should be considered, while acknowledging the RG III did.
RG III supporters seem to be very defensive & have a complex. Most downplay any successes of Wilson or Luck to promote RG III. Why, I'm not sure, b/c they are all very deserving candidates.
RG III supporters seem to be very defensive & have a complex. Most downplay any successes of Wilson or Luck to promote RG III. Why, I'm not sure, b/c they are all very deserving candidates.
Hang 10
Footballguy
What facts are the Luck supporters bringing? RGIII's numbers speak for themselves. Do you really need people to reiterate them? I think there's a decent argument to made for Wilson but Luck isn't even in the discussion. Luck should be behind Morris and Martin.
jurb26
Footballguy
It's pretty simple. Luck plays on a far worse team. He's done more with less. What do you think would be the record of these teams if they did not have their respective QBs?I'd guess;Seattle, 9 or 10 wins still and in the playoffs.Wash, 7 or 8 wins out of the playoffs.Indy, 3 or 4 wins drafting top 5 again.Brining up things like Hilton and Allen lead me to believe your intentionally playing devils advocate though. That is just silly. Especially in comparison to Morris, who set a Wash franchise record as a rookie and had one of the best rushing season in NFL history as a rookie. We're talking about a history making season vs. a couple of rookies who were just OK. You loose some credibility by even trying to play that angle IMO.
Hang 10
Footballguy
Redskins win 8 games with Grossman and John Beck?
jurb26
Footballguy
Neither of those guys are the backup to RG3 so why bring them up?
pizzatyme
Footballguy
I've said it before and I'll say it again, there are 5 deserving candidates (the top 3 QBs and top 2 RBs). I'd be okay with any of the 5. What does it really matter in the grand scheme of things?
My guy is Luck. Good luck to the rest. All of their fans should be very excited.
My guy is Luck. Good luck to the rest. All of their fans should be very excited.
Hang 10
Footballguy
Because the quality of their current backup adds nothing to the discussion.
CapnJB
Footballguy
Wilson beat the Patriots, Packers, Vikings, and the 49'ers. (And Chicago and Dallas who would be playoff teams had Seattle not beaten them).So I guess that metric goes to Wilson.
pizzatyme
Footballguy
I would agree. He has really grown on me and I look forward to seeing him progress.
If Washington had lost to Dallas on Sunday, then they would have two wins against playoff teams. They should have just done that so you'd think their resume was more impressive, because apparently one win against the playoff-bound Cowboys is more impressive than two wins against a team that just missed it. As for how the Colts' schedule was so much easier... They played 10 games against teams picking in the top 12, including 3 against the Chiefs and Jags. Washington played 3 games against teams picking in the top 12. T. H. R. E. E. Washington had games against #4 Philly (twice) and #6 Cleveland. Indy also played #6 Cleveland, but added #1 KC, #2 Jax (twice), #5 Detroit, #8 Buffalo, #9 Detroit, #10 Tennessee (twice), and #12 Miami. Washington's fourth easiest game (Tampa) would qualify as Indy's ELEVENTH easiest game. According to SRS, Washington's schedule was 14th in the league. Indy's was 32nd. As for Washington's margin of victory... Washington was +48 on the year despite facing an average schedule. Indy was -30 against the easiest schedule in the NFL. If you took New England off of Indy and put them on Washington, and if New England won by 35 (despite Washington being a superior team whose largest loss of the season was 15 points), then Washington would STILL have a better points differential despite Washington having one of the toughest schedules in the league and Indy's already-Charmin-soft becoming a Division II Cupcake-fest.
What facts are Luck supporters bringing? The fact that he broke the yardage record? Wilson broke the TD record and had the second best YPA of a rookie qb, and Griffin broke the YPA (min 300 attempts) and QB Rating records. Those are facts, too. The "fact" that Indy would be drafting #1 overall without Luck? That's not a fact. You've got the fact that Luck's QB rating is 30 points lower, that he gave away the football like he was Football Santa, that his team played the easiest schedule in the NFL and still got outscored by 30 points on the year... these are facts, too, even if Luck supporters would like to pretend otherwise.
Oh, so Luck is RoY because his backup sucks. I got it. You can't penalize Griffin for having a good backup. Put Cousins in Indy and you still think they're a 3-4 win team? Against THAT schedule? No freaking way.
jurb26
Footballguy
That was never the point and I never made any statement as such. The point is that Wash has a better TEAM around RG3. Wilson has a better team in Sea than ether of the other 2.It's a fact that Indy was the worst team in the NFL last year. Its a fact they won 11 games this year, which is more than Wash. It's a fact Luck won more games than RG3 this year despite your displeasure with his stats. It's also a fact that they had 37 new players on their roster. Just because you don't like some of the facts others have brought to the table doesn't make them any less of a fact. It just makes you look again bias with you're dismissle of them. Seems to be a theme here....
Last edited by a moderator:
CapnJB
Footballguy
Where does Seattle's schedule fit in with their +167 margin of victory?
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
Why are some talking like wins are the end-all be-all?
Are Christian Ponder and Jay Cutler better than Drew Brees because they won more games than he did this year? Of course not. Just like Luck and Wilson winning one more game (or two or three) than RG3 doesn't make them better rookies.
Are Christian Ponder and Jay Cutler better than Drew Brees because they won more games than he did this year? Of course not. Just like Luck and Wilson winning one more game (or two or three) than RG3 doesn't make them better rookies.
pizzatyme
Footballguy
Well, if its not about wins or stats, then I submit Kirk Cousins as ROY. far outplayed the other QB on his team.
jurb26
Footballguy
Nobody is saying the wins are the be all end all. SSOG asked a question why some people see Luck as the deserving winner. The reason is simple, he led the best turnaround in football, he did so on a team that had 37 new players on it and he was basically given the keys and told to run with it.Why are people acting as if stats are the be all end all?This is a debate and naturally people see things differently and have their opinion of what should be weighted more. Wins are part of the equation. Stats too.There are 3 deserving winners of the award, only 1 can win it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
I am aware. And I do think Luck played better than his stats indicated, especially given how they had a weak running game and a porous defense; he had to shoulder much more of the load than either RG3 or Wilson did. But RG3 was as prolific as Luck was when it came to touchdowns (thrown or scored by himself) and led his offense to a lot more points than Luck did. The Colts going +9 in the win column this year vs. +5 for the Redskins was all about how awful the Colts were at QB last year (which was obviously cause they didn't know until late that Peyton would miss time, much less the whole season).
jurb26
Footballguy
I have no problem with any of these QBs winning the Rookie of the Year. An argument can be made for all 3 and I would accept it. It just sucks that only 1 can because in most seasons any of these guys win it 9 times out of 10.
LarryAllen'sJockstrap
Footballguy
Pizzaperson, you're grasping at straws and making yourself look foolish in the process. Wilson and Griffin (especially) had amazingly efficient seasons as passers; period. They all 3 lead their teams to the playoffs. Luck is awesome and I won't be surprised if he wins a title, MVP, or more someday, but this year Russell and Griffin outplayed him. He was a stat compiler. Griffin's season was historic, regardless of his tenure. He was a super efficient passer and had a top 10 all time (maybe top 5) rushing year for a QB.Since when is YPA a "record"?Cousins broke the passing yards by a single game starting rookie QB. It's his ROY to lose!!!
Washington has a much better defense, for sure- even without Orakpo. Of course, Wayne/Hilton/Allen/Fleener is a huge sight better than anyone Griffin had to throw to. Of course, that's exactly the kind of combo- awful defense, great receivers- that leads to huge passing totals.I really don't get how people keep bringing up the win totals. How many times do I have to point out how Charmin-soft Indy's schedule was? Easiest schedule in the league. It's a fact that Luck's wins have nothing to do with my displeasure over his stats and everything to do with his Charmin-soft schedule. The fact is, I'm not displeased with his stats. He had phenomenal stats for a rookie. The fact that it's his first season and he's already essentially Matt Stafford is incredibly impressive. It took Matt Stafford years to become Matt Stafford, and Matt Stafford is all he'll ever be. If Luck has Matt Stafford as a starting point, his potential ending points are off the charts- Brett Favre, Dan Marino, Steve Young... these are all in play here. I'm not at all trying to suggest that Luck had anything other than a great rookie year. I'm just suggesting that as great as it was, it was nowhere near as good as Griffin's, which was the best season I have ever seen by any rookie at any position in all my years of watching football. I mean, I never saw Campbell's rookie season, so I'm leaving open the possibility that there's been a better one, I've just never seen it.
CapnJB
Footballguy
With the 70th pick of the 2012 NFL draft, the Jacksonville Jaguars select Bryan Anger, Punter - California.....................With the 75th pick of the 2012 NFL draft, the Seattle Seahawks select Russell Wilson, Quarterback - Wisconsin. 
jurb26
Footballguy
How many Colt games have you watched?Also, why exactly can a 23 year old QB, Luck, improve so much more than a 24 year old QB, Stafford?I'd imagine both guys are going to get better and better.
Last edited by a moderator:
mad sweeney
Footballguy
That pretty much invalidates the whole "took a 2-14 team to 11-5" since it most assuredly doesn't look much at all like last year's team.Being that G3 was hobbled and turned in a pedestrian game (for him), Wilson had a chance to really slam his foot in the door and engineer an upset win (I think he pretty much can overcome any odds on anything it seems). Of course he didn't know how G3 would play at the time he was on the field, but even still he had a pedestrian game himself and IMO let the door shut on his upset bid. He needed a strong game coupled with a bad game from G3 to win it and that didn't happen. I see it as:
RG3 - Wilson - Luck - Morris
As for DROY, it looks like Seattle will be the bridesmaid yet again with Keuchly snatching the title away from Bobby Wagner
Keuchly - Wagner - Jenkins
What would really be great is to have a Draft of the Year category. Would arguably go down to Sea vs Was again, only with Seattle actually getting this prize. Having 2 players each in the top 3-4 for ROY categories is pretty stellar, but Seattle pulls just ahead with more impact starters.
