What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

RGIII vs Luck - Season 2 (1 Viewer)

Short Term Contract League (4 to 5 yr term)

  • RGIII

    Votes: 55 49.5%
  • Andrew Luck

    Votes: 56 50.5%

  • Total voters
    111

KellysHeroes

Footballguy
I think after last FF season the majority of fantasy owners had RGIII higher than Luck prior to his ACL injury. During the off-season Andrew Luck was rated higher in almost all rankings but they still remained very close. But with every news clip on RGIII being very positive and he appears to be having an ADP like recovery I do believe that RGIII may be surpassing Luck especially in the 4pt passing TD / 6 pt rushing TD format. I set up a couple of polls and would love to get some responses and thoughts.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Luck all the way. I love RGIII but I have to think he is going to run alot less due to the knee. Not only this year but going forward as well. He's not a big guy and can't take the kind of pounding he did last year. So by reducing his greatest asset puts Luck ahead of him imho.

 
I think redraft, with all the positive news of the recovery I think I'd take RG over Luck. Yeah their going to reduce his rushing attempts but hes still going to have a lot more than Luck and more Rushing TDs.

In dynasty I can see taking Luck in fear that RGIII career may and will most likely be a little shorter.

 
Griffin over Luck in all formats. I don't think enough attention has been paid to just how superior Luck's receivers were. Griffin's two leading receivers were Pierre Garcon and Fred Davis, who played in just 17 total games and had just 1200 receiving yards between them. And one of the games Garcon played was the game Griffin missed, which means Griffin only played 9 games with his best receiver last year. If you just take those 9 games and pro-rate those numbers to 16 games, Griffin would have had 251 completions on 368 attempts (68.1%), 3500 passing yards (9.4 YPA*), 25 TDs, and 3.6 INTs (0.97% INT rate** and 7:1 TD:INT ratio***), for a QB rating of 116.4****. So, in other words, in the 9 games where Robert Griffin was throwing to someone other than Josh Morgan, Leonard Hankerson, and Logan Paulson, he was basically the most efficient quarterback in the history of football. I have a really hard time ignoring that, and this is even before we start looking at his rushing production.

*This is not a typo. Note that this would be the 8th highest total in league history, and the 3rd highest total since 1954.

**This is not a typo. Note that this would be the 5th best rate in league history.

***This is not a typo. Note that this would be the 6th best ratio in league history, and the 4th best among players with more than 151 attempts.

****This is not a typo. Note that this would be the 4th best rating in league history, behind MVP seasons from Manning, Rodgers, and Brady.

 
Love it when Mr Harstad makes my point for me. I suppose we can move on now that everything has been settled

;)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Everyone always knocks RGIII saying, "His rushing yards and TDs will certainly go down this year." I never see anyone say that about Luck though and his rushing numbers scare me more than RGIII's in regards to potential for decline.

Luck rushed for 255 yards and 5 TDs last season. Can we really expect 5 rushing TDs per year from this guy? Maybe he is like Rodgers and we can, but until we see it, I'm skeptical. That is 55.5 points on the ground from a guy who is not a mobile QB.

Lets go to the extreme and say he rushes for no TDs this year. From pure passing numbers, he'd have to make up those numbers through the air. He'd have to throw for over 5,000 yards (from 4,300) with 28 TDs (from 23) to make up for those points. 5,000 yards and 28 TDs is A LOT to ask, and that will just get him back to last year.

Now lets not go to the extreme and assume just some cut back rather than all in his rushing game. Lets say he rushes for 130 and 2 TDs which are more common numbers from someone viewed as a "pure pocket passer." He'd need the following numbers JUST TO EQUAL his fantasy point production from last year:

- 4,700 yards

- 26 TDs

- 130 rushing yards

- 2 TDs

The numbers above are still asking for a lot from a 2nd year QB who is learning a new base offense. So unless you expect another 250+ rushing yards and 5 TDs from Andrew Luck, I think you're going to be dissapointed if you're expecting him to score significantly more fantasy points than he did last year simply because he would have to enter the 5,000 yard and 30+ TD arena in order to do it and that club is one with rare, rare membership.

 
Everyone always knocks RGIII saying, "His rushing yards and TDs will certainly go down this year." I never see anyone say that about Luck though and his rushing numbers scare me more than RGIII's in regards to potential for decline.

Luck rushed for 255 yards and 5 TDs last season. Can we really expect 5 rushing TDs per year from this guy? Maybe he is like Rodgers and we can, but until we see it, I'm skeptical. That is 55.5 points on the ground from a guy who is not a mobile QB.
Not a mobile QB? Among all of Luck's underrated talents, his athleticism is his most underrated. I understand why that is, because RG3 is SOO athletic he kind of overshadows everybody, but describing Luck as 'not a mobile QB' is just wrong IMO.

Let's compare Luck's combine with another QB (Player A) in the league.

Height: Luck is 6'4", Player A is 6'5"

Weight: Luck is 239lbs, Player A is 245lbs

Forty: Luck ran 4.67, Player A ran 4.59

3-cone: Luck ran 6.80, Player A ran 6.92

Shuttle: Luck ran 4.28, Player A ran 4.18

Broad: Luck jumped 10'4", Player A jumped 10'6"

Vertical: Luck jumped 36", Player A jumped 35"

And player A?

Cam Newton.

Now Luck doesn't run as much because he's a more classic drop back passer than Newton and RG3, but let's not pretend that he isn't mobile and athletic because he is. He's more than physically equipped to take off if he needs too, as this play shows:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4_w-puInqY

I can easily see Luck running for 5 TDs a year on a consistent basis.

Returning to the original question, I'd take RG3 in redraft as I think in the short term RG3's athleticism means he'll outscore Luck. But I'd want Luck in dynasty for a couple of reasons:

1) RG3 is more of an injury risk because of his build and his playing style. He can't keep taking big hits, and two ACL injuries are a concern. Luck is built to take punishment a bit more. Changing his playing style may well mean fewer runs, which would impact his value.

2) I think Luck's upside as a pure passer is better than RG3. With an offense built around him, I see easily foresee him regularly putting up Brees/Brady style passing numbers for the next 12-15 years. When you add the running numbers as well, I think long term he's the number 1 dynasty QB.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Griffin over Luck in all formats. I don't think enough attention has been paid to just how superior Luck's receivers were. Griffin's two leading receivers were Pierre Garcon and Fred Davis, who played in just 17 total games and had just 1200 receiving yards between them. And one of the games Garcon played was the game Griffin missed, which means Griffin only played 9 games with his best receiver last year. If you just take those 9 games and pro-rate those numbers to 16 games, Griffin would have had 251 completions on 368 attempts (68.1%), 3500 passing yards (9.4 YPA*), 25 TDs, and 3.6 INTs (0.97% INT rate** and 7:1 TD:INT ratio***), for a QB rating of 116.4****. So, in other words, in the 9 games where Robert Griffin was throwing to someone other than Josh Morgan, Leonard Hankerson, and Logan Paulson, he was basically the most efficient quarterback in the history of football. I have a really hard time ignoring that, and this is even before we start looking at his rushing production.

*This is not a typo. Note that this would be the 8th highest total in league history, and the 3rd highest total since 1954.

**This is not a typo. Note that this would be the 5th best rate in league history.

***This is not a typo. Note that this would be the 6th best ratio in league history, and the 4th best among players with more than 151 attempts.

****This is not a typo. Note that this would be the 4th best rating in league history, behind MVP seasons from Manning, Rodgers, and Brady.
Case closed.

 
Good posting by UKColt on Luck's athleticism, but while I think it is reasonable to expect 200-300 yds rushing from him on an annual basis, I wouldnt expect 5 TDs. Besides the "running" QBs, you rarely see one get more than 2-3 TDs during a season. In this part of the game though, I do think Luck is overlooked and 3 rushing TDs per year is reachable. He is remarkably similar to Rodgers with his running/scrambling abilities.

 
Historically has a running QB ever been a consistent top 10 performer for a 3/5/10 year stretch? I know things are changing however quarterbacks who take extra hits due to their running ability typically are not guys at the top of the leader board for very long. When you consider RG3 frame/build I don't know why anyone would pass on Luck for him long-term.

 
Griffin has all the talent in the world, but his frame just isn't built to take the punishment his legs will get him into. He looks skinny compared to Luck's thick body. I think Luck is more durable and is the safer pick for me.

 
Griffin over Luck in all formats. I don't think enough attention has been paid to just how superior Luck's receivers were. Griffin's two leading receivers were Pierre Garcon and Fred Davis, who played in just 17 total games and had just 1200 receiving yards between them. And one of the games Garcon played was the game Griffin missed, which means Griffin only played 9 games with his best receiver last year. If you just take those 9 games and pro-rate those numbers to 16 games, Griffin would have had 251 completions on 368 attempts (68.1%), 3500 passing yards (9.4 YPA*), 25 TDs, and 3.6 INTs (0.97% INT rate** and 7:1 TD:INT ratio***), for a QB rating of 116.4****. So, in other words, in the 9 games where Robert Griffin was throwing to someone other than Josh Morgan, Leonard Hankerson, and Logan Paulson, he was basically the most efficient quarterback in the history of football. I have a really hard time ignoring that, and this is even before we start looking at his rushing production.

*This is not a typo. Note that this would be the 8th highest total in league history, and the 3rd highest total since 1954.

**This is not a typo. Note that this would be the 5th best rate in league history.

***This is not a typo. Note that this would be the 6th best ratio in league history, and the 4th best among players with more than 151 attempts.

****This is not a typo. Note that this would be the 4th best rating in league history, behind MVP seasons from Manning, Rodgers, and Brady.
Case closed.
Disagree...9 games is small sample size. I do think Griffin is an underrated passer and I love his talent but I can't ignore 2 acl's in 4 years. I do think Griffin has a slightly higher ceiling then Luck but he has a much lower floor. Plus like others said Luck's athleticism is vastly underrated so no reason to think he can't get a few rushing TD's and a couple of hundreds yards rushing every year.

 
Historically has a running QB ever been a consistent top 10 performer for a 3/5/10 year stretch? I know things are changing however quarterbacks who take extra hits due to their running ability typically are not guys at the top of the leader board for very long. When you consider RG3 frame/build I don't know why anyone would pass on Luck for him long-term.
Steve Young.

 
I'm much more inclined to go with the traditional pocket passer, especially in dynasty formats, but usually in redraft as well. It's a risk/reward decision for me. I believe the ceiling on RGIII is only slightly higher than Luck's, but the floor on RGIII is much, much lower than Luck's, largely because of the injury factor.

Let's assume for the moment that they'll both fulfill their potential, to me it's like asking "Who would you rather have, Aaron Rogers or Cam Newton?" One is a highly productive passer who adds a nice chuck of fantasy points with his running ability, and the other is a very good passer who relies on his running ability for a significant portion of his fantasy points. They're both great options, but for me I go with Rogers, just like I'd go with Luck.

 
I think RG3 definitely has a higher ceiling, but his risk is greater. I see Luck being around the same as Matt Stafford's numbers for his career. Which is a solid Top 10 QB and borderline Top 5. I think RG3 can push for that #1 spot.

 
Griffin this year. Luck in dynasty by a smidge, and when I say dynasty, I mean like 8 years. As he gets older, Griffin will likely run a little less often, whether that's from getting slower, getting hit more, etc. By then Luck may be in the unstoppable Peyton or at least Matt Ryan zone, throwing for 4500/30-35 on the reg and always worth a top-3 pick at QB simply because he has almost no risk factor. I prefer Griffin slightly for at least the next 4-5 years, and of course reserve the right to change my mind on both guys after year 2 or 3.

 
Griffin this year. Luck in dynasty by a smidge, and when I say dynasty, I mean like 8 years. As he gets older, Griffin will likely run a little less often, whether that's from getting slower, getting hit more, etc. By then Luck may be in the unstoppable Peyton or at least Matt Ryan zone, throwing for 4500/30-35 on the reg and always worth a top-3 pick at QB simply because he has almost no risk factor. I prefer Griffin slightly for at least the next 4-5 years, and of course reserve the right to change my mind on both guys after year 2 or 3.
No can do....you already typed it.....no going back now.

 
Historically has a running QB ever been a consistent top 10 performer for a 3/5/10 year stretch? I know things are changing however quarterbacks who take extra hits due to their running ability typically are not guys at the top of the leader board for very long. When you consider RG3 frame/build I don't know why anyone would pass on Luck for him long-term.
Steve Young.
Good call. RG3's build still concerns me though.

 
Historically has a running QB ever been a consistent top 10 performer for a 3/5/10 year stretch? I know things are changing however quarterbacks who take extra hits due to their running ability typically are not guys at the top of the leader board for very long. When you consider RG3 frame/build I don't know why anyone would pass on Luck for him long-term.
Steve Young.
I consider Steve Young to be much more comparable to Luck than to RGIII. Young ran for roughly 55 attempts a season, almost exactly what Luck had last year. Guys like Cam Newton, Michael Vick, and even back to Randall Cunningham ran for at least double that number of attempts, those are running QBs. RGIII had 120 rush attempts last season and didn't even play the whole year, that's a "running qb". Steve Young was a pocket passer with outstanding running ability just like Luck and Rogers (Rogers also averages about 55 rush attempts a season).

 
I'm much more inclined to go with the traditional pocket passer, especially in dynasty formats, but usually in redraft as well. It's a risk/reward decision for me. I believe the ceiling on RGIII is only slightly higher than Luck's, but the floor on RGIII is much, much lower than Luck's, largely because of the injury factor.

Let's assume for the moment that they'll both fulfill their potential, to me it's like asking "Who would you rather have, Aaron Rogers or Cam Newton?" One is a highly productive passer who adds a nice chuck of fantasy points with his running ability, and the other is a very good passer who relies on his running ability for a significant portion of his fantasy points. They're both great options, but for me I go with Rogers, just like I'd go with Luck.
IMO, the Luck injury risk is being significantly ignored. He was hit 122 times last year (IIRC -- stat comes from FO), which was something like 30+ times more than any other passer. Hopefully with Arians gone and a better OL and fewer dropbacks, that number goes down. But that's an insane number of hits, and if he keeps taking a pounding, he's going to miss games. I think moving to a WCO could help, but we need to see it in practice first.

 
Historically has a running QB ever been a consistent top 10 performer for a 3/5/10 year stretch? I know things are changing however quarterbacks who take extra hits due to their running ability typically are not guys at the top of the leader board for very long. When you consider RG3 frame/build I don't know why anyone would pass on Luck for him long-term.
Steve Young.
I put Steve Young in a different camp. He's more like Aaron Rodgers in his rushing than RG3. Young averaged 4.3 rushes/game throughout his career. Rodgers has averaged 3.6 rushes/game. RG3 averaged 8 rushes/game in year 1, almost double the amount of rushes Young averaged.

 
Griffin over Luck in all formats. I don't think enough attention has been paid to just how superior Luck's receivers were. Griffin's two leading receivers were Pierre Garcon and Fred Davis, who played in just 17 total games and had just 1200 receiving yards between them. And one of the games Garcon played was the game Griffin missed, which means Griffin only played 9 games with his best receiver last year. If you just take those 9 games and pro-rate those numbers to 16 games, Griffin would have had 251 completions on 368 attempts (68.1%), 3500 passing yards (9.4 YPA*), 25 TDs, and 3.6 INTs (0.97% INT rate** and 7:1 TD:INT ratio***), for a QB rating of 116.4****. So, in other words, in the 9 games where Robert Griffin was throwing to someone other than Josh Morgan, Leonard Hankerson, and Logan Paulson, he was basically the most efficient quarterback in the history of football. I have a really hard time ignoring that, and this is even before we start looking at his rushing production.

*This is not a typo. Note that this would be the 8th highest total in league history, and the 3rd highest total since 1954.

**This is not a typo. Note that this would be the 5th best rate in league history.

***This is not a typo. Note that this would be the 6th best ratio in league history, and the 4th best among players with more than 151 attempts.

****This is not a typo. Note that this would be the 4th best rating in league history, behind MVP seasons from Manning, Rodgers, and Brady.
Case closed.
not really, Davis and Garcon are returning from major injuries.

 
I'm much more inclined to go with the traditional pocket passer, especially in dynasty formats, but usually in redraft as well. It's a risk/reward decision for me. I believe the ceiling on RGIII is only slightly higher than Luck's, but the floor on RGIII is much, much lower than Luck's, largely because of the injury factor.

Let's assume for the moment that they'll both fulfill their potential, to me it's like asking "Who would you rather have, Aaron Rogers or Cam Newton?" One is a highly productive passer who adds a nice chuck of fantasy points with his running ability, and the other is a very good passer who relies on his running ability for a significant portion of his fantasy points. They're both great options, but for me I go with Rogers, just like I'd go with Luck.
IMO, the Luck injury risk is being significantly ignored. He was hit 122 times last year (IIRC -- stat comes from FO), which was something like 30+ times more than any other passer. Hopefully with Arians gone and a better OL and fewer dropbacks, that number goes down. But that's an insane number of hits, and if he keeps taking a pounding, he's going to miss games. I think moving to a WCO could help, but we need to see it in practice first.
I do agree that Luck took way too many hits last year. The WCO should make a huge difference in reducing that number.

 
I'm much more inclined to go with the traditional pocket passer, especially in dynasty formats, but usually in redraft as well. It's a risk/reward decision for me. I believe the ceiling on RGIII is only slightly higher than Luck's, but the floor on RGIII is much, much lower than Luck's, largely because of the injury factor.

Let's assume for the moment that they'll both fulfill their potential, to me it's like asking "Who would you rather have, Aaron Rogers or Cam Newton?" One is a highly productive passer who adds a nice chuck of fantasy points with his running ability, and the other is a very good passer who relies on his running ability for a significant portion of his fantasy points. They're both great options, but for me I go with Rogers, just like I'd go with Luck.
IMO, the Luck injury risk is being significantly ignored. He was hit 122 times last year (IIRC -- stat comes from FO), which was something like 30+ times more than any other passer. Hopefully with Arians gone and a better OL and fewer dropbacks, that number goes down. But that's an insane number of hits, and if he keeps taking a pounding, he's going to miss games. I think moving to a WCO could help, but we need to see it in practice first.
I do agree that Luck took way too many hits last year. The WCO should make a huge difference in reducing that number.
Arians is going to get Palmer killed. Luck had the size to take it but if Arians was his OC for 5 more yrs I be scared to own Luck.

 
Everyone always knocks RGIII saying, "His rushing yards and TDs will certainly go down this year." I never see anyone say that about Luck though and his rushing numbers scare me more than RGIII's in regards to potential for decline.

Luck rushed for 255 yards and 5 TDs last season. Can we really expect 5 rushing TDs per year from this guy? Maybe he is like Rodgers and we can, but until we see it, I'm skeptical. That is 55.5 points on the ground from a guy who is not a mobile QB.
Not a mobile QB? Among all of Luck's underrated talents, his athleticism is his most underrated. I understand why that is, because RG3 is SOO athletic he kind of overshadows everybody, but describing Luck as 'not a mobile QB' is just wrong IMO.

Let's compare Luck's combine with another QB (Player A) in the league.

Height: Luck is 6'4", Player A is 6'5"

Weight: Luck is 239lbs, Player A is 245lbs

Forty: Luck ran 4.67, Player A ran 4.59

3-cone: Luck ran 6.80, Player A ran 6.92

Shuttle: Luck ran 4.28, Player A ran 4.18

Broad: Luck jumped 10'4", Player A jumped 10'6"

Vertical: Luck jumped 36", Player A jumped 35"

And player A?

Cam Newton.

Now Luck doesn't run as much because he's a more classic drop back passer than Newton and RG3, but let's not pretend that he isn't mobile and athletic because he is. He's more than physically equipped to take off if he needs too, as this play shows:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4_w-puInqY

I can easily see Luck running for 5 TDs a year on a consistent basis.

Returning to the original question, I'd take RG3 in redraft as I think in the short term RG3's athleticism means he'll outscore Luck. But I'd want Luck in dynasty for a couple of reasons:

1) RG3 is more of an injury risk because of his build and his playing style. He can't keep taking big hits, and two ACL injuries are a concern. Luck is built to take punishment a bit more. Changing his playing style may well mean fewer runs, which would impact his value.

2) I think Luck's upside as a pure passer is better than RG3. With an offense built around him, I see easily foresee him regularly putting up Brees/Brady style passing numbers for the next 12-15 years. When you add the running numbers as well, I think long term he's the number 1 dynasty QB.
very nice post

 
I'm an RG3 owner. But this is like comparing Apples to Oranges. I mean come one. RG3 has a good run blocking Oline and his team has a better RB, (Morris vs Vick Ballard.) And Luck has better REC options in TY Hilton, Wayne and Fleener and Allen. So how is it even close? Luck will have to throw more based on offense and strength of overall offense. Luck will outperform RG3 by quite a bit. (Granted I think Luck is a slightly better pocket passer and overall QB too.) But I just don't even see how or why we need to compare these two??? :shrug:

 
I can see the argument for RGIII in redraft but there isn't another young (under 25) qb that I would rather own in dynasty than Luck. RGIII needs to be able to put together a full season and stay reasonably injury free for him to alleviate my concerns that his style of play will have a very short shelf life at this level. Also I would need to see some evidence that RGIII's play on third down from pocket has improved considerably. He can beat you with his legs on third down but he'll need to be able to more consistently do it with his arm as well.

 
Griffin over Luck in all formats. I don't think enough attention has been paid to just how superior Luck's receivers were. Griffin's two leading receivers were Pierre Garcon and Fred Davis, who played in just 17 total games and had just 1200 receiving yards between them. And one of the games Garcon played was the game Griffin missed, which means Griffin only played 9 games with his best receiver last year. If you just take those 9 games and pro-rate those numbers to 16 games, Griffin would have had 251 completions on 368 attempts (68.1%), 3500 passing yards (9.4 YPA*), 25 TDs, and 3.6 INTs (0.97% INT rate** and 7:1 TD:INT ratio***), for a QB rating of 116.4****. So, in other words, in the 9 games where Robert Griffin was throwing to someone other than Josh Morgan, Leonard Hankerson, and Logan Paulson, he was basically the most efficient quarterback in the history of football. I have a really hard time ignoring that, and this is even before we start looking at his rushing production.

*This is not a typo. Note that this would be the 8th highest total in league history, and the 3rd highest total since 1954.

**This is not a typo. Note that this would be the 5th best rate in league history.

***This is not a typo. Note that this would be the 6th best ratio in league history, and the 4th best among players with more than 151 attempts.

****This is not a typo. Note that this would be the 4th best rating in league history, behind MVP seasons from Manning, Rodgers, and Brady.
Interesting take, but this is a small sample taken when playing against temas with a limited amount of film on the guy.

Is the WR sitiation any better this year? Can you count on those guys to stay healthy?

I agree that RG3 is underrated as a passer and Luck is underrated as a runner

 
I'm an RG3 owner. But this is like comparing Apples to Oranges. I mean come one. RG3 has a good run blocking Oline and his team has a better RB, (Morris vs Vick Ballard.) And Luck has better REC options in TY Hilton, Wayne and Fleener and Allen. So how is it even close? Luck will have to throw more based on offense and strength of overall offense. Luck will outperform RG3 by quite a bit. (Granted I think Luck is a slightly better pocket passer and overall QB too.) But I just don't even see how or why we need to compare these two??? :shrug:
Interesting point about Luck having better receiving options, which has been made a couple of times. I think there is a bit of hindsight applied when talking about this, in the sense that because Hilton & Allen performed so well the perception is that Luck went into the season with better options. I remember last off-season, one of the biggest concerns was that after Wayne, Luck had no one to throw to. I remember the most regular conversation among Colts fans wasn't the horrible o-line, it was "Who the hell is catching passes for us?!"

Looking at the 2012 depth charts 1 week before the season started, if you'd lined up the offenses side by side you'd have definitely said Washington had the better receiving options overall.

RB: Brown = Royster

WR1: Wayne > Garcon

WR2: Avery < Morgan

WR3: Hilton < Moss

TE: Allen < Davis

Now obviously injuries struck Garcon and Davis which weakened the Redskins, but it wasn't like Luck was playing with Pro-Bowl receivers himself. If you take Garcon and Davis out of the depth chart above then it's still fairly equal:

RB: Brown = Royster

WR1: Wayne > Morgan

WR2: Avery < Moss

WR3: Hilton = Hankerson

TE: Allen > Paul

When you add in the significantly better OL than the Redskins had, it's pretty clear that Luck went into the worse situation in just about every category. The fact he still performed like he did is telling of his quality, in my (admittedly slightly biased) opinion.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is also the possibility that Luck made his receivers better while RG3 didn't and decided to run instead.

 
I'm an RG3 owner. But this is like comparing Apples to Oranges. I mean come one. RG3 has a good run blocking Oline and his team has a better RB, (Morris vs Vick Ballard.) And Luck has better REC options in TY Hilton, Wayne and Fleener and Allen. So how is it even close? Luck will have to throw more based on offense and strength of overall offense. Luck will outperform RG3 by quite a bit. (Granted I think Luck is a slightly better pocket passer and overall QB too.) But I just don't even see how or why we need to compare these two??? :shrug:
Well, because that's what we do, we compare all the players before the season and rank them to see if our powers of prognostication will carry us to a championship. And specifically, Luck and RGIII will forever be linked because they were supremely highly touted prospects drafted the same year. There will always be the question, "Did the Colts select the best QB with the #1 pick?"

It's a lot like the Peyton Manning vs. Ryan Leaf debate that occurred back in 1998, although that debate was put to rest rather quickly. Good summary from Wikipedia: "Most observers, however, believed that it would not greatly matter whether Manning or Leaf was drafted first because either would greatly benefit his team." and "The San Diego Chargers needed a new quarterback after having scored the fewest touchdowns in the league in the previous season. To obtain the second draft pick, the team traded its third overall pick, a future first round pick, a second round pick, and three-time Pro Bowler Eric Metcalf to the Arizona Cardinals, guaranteeing the Chargers the right to draft whichever of the two quarterbacks Indianapolis did not take first."

 
I think it's very close, but I went with RG3 across the board. He carries more risk, but has the higher upside. I could seriously envision VBD records from RG3 if things really go well. Not saying that WILL happen, just that it could. I don't see Luck in that same category. I could see him becoming Rodgers which would be awesome of course for anyone lucky enough to have him. I could see RG3 becoming something BEYOND Rodgers/Manning/Brady (in fantasy terms) with the system he is in.

 
Chase Stuart said:
King of the Jungle said:
Historically has a running QB ever been a consistent top 10 performer for a 3/5/10 year stretch? I know things are changing however quarterbacks who take extra hits due to their running ability typically are not guys at the top of the leader board for very long. When you consider RG3 frame/build I don't know why anyone would pass on Luck for him long-term.
Steve Young.
I believe the worst knee injury Young had was a strained knee. Having already had two ACL tears one year into his career raises some concerns for me.

 
Chase Stuart said:
King of the Jungle said:
Historically has a running QB ever been a consistent top 10 performer for a 3/5/10 year stretch? I know things are changing however quarterbacks who take extra hits due to their running ability typically are not guys at the top of the leader board for very long. When you consider RG3 frame/build I don't know why anyone would pass on Luck for him long-term.
Steve Young.
I believe the worst knee injury Young had was a strained knee. Having already had two ACL tears one year into his career raises some concerns for me.
Common misconception out there that the Redskins aren't doing anything to correct, but RG3 didnt actually tear his ACL this time, so still just once. While Andrews was in there (well, his younger surgeon) he basically tightened the old reconstructed ACL up. That's part of why he's recovered so fast, it was mostly just the LCL. But the media has run with it and no ones doing much to clarify. It's a better story and more controversial.

 
Luck all the way. I love RGIII but I have to think he is going to run alot less due to the knee. Not only this year but going forward as well. He's not a big guy and can't take the kind of pounding he did last year. So by reducing his greatest asset puts Luck ahead of him imho.
You're not taking into account the additional passes RG3 will have due to not running as much. It's not like RG3 can't pass.

 
UKColt said:
JMJ said:
Everyone always knocks RGIII saying, "His rushing yards and TDs will certainly go down this year." I never see anyone say that about Luck though and his rushing numbers scare me more than RGIII's in regards to potential for decline.

Luck rushed for 255 yards and 5 TDs last season. Can we really expect 5 rushing TDs per year from this guy? Maybe he is like Rodgers and we can, but until we see it, I'm skeptical. That is 55.5 points on the ground from a guy who is not a mobile QB.
Not a mobile QB? Among all of Luck's underrated talents, his athleticism is his most underrated. I understand why that is, because RG3 is SOO athletic he kind of overshadows everybody, but describing Luck as 'not a mobile QB' is just wrong IMO.

Let's compare Luck's combine with another QB (Player A) in the league.

Height: Luck is 6'4", Player A is 6'5"

Weight: Luck is 239lbs, Player A is 245lbs

Forty: Luck ran 4.67, Player A ran 4.59

3-cone: Luck ran 6.80, Player A ran 6.92

Shuttle: Luck ran 4.28, Player A ran 4.18

Broad: Luck jumped 10'4", Player A jumped 10'6"

Vertical: Luck jumped 36", Player A jumped 35"

And player A?

Cam Newton.

Now Luck doesn't run as much because he's a more classic drop back passer than Newton and RG3, but let's not pretend that he isn't mobile and athletic because he is. He's more than physically equipped to take off if he needs too, as this play shows:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4_w-puInqY

I can easily see Luck running for 5 TDs a year on a consistent basis.

Returning to the original question, I'd take RG3 in redraft as I think in the short term RG3's athleticism means he'll outscore Luck. But I'd want Luck in dynasty for a couple of reasons:

1) RG3 is more of an injury risk because of his build and his playing style. He can't keep taking big hits, and two ACL injuries are a concern. Luck is built to take punishment a bit more. Changing his playing style may well mean fewer runs, which would impact his value.

2) I think Luck's upside as a pure passer is better than RG3. With an offense built around him, I see easily foresee him regularly putting up Brees/Brady style passing numbers for the next 12-15 years. When you add the running numbers as well, I think long term he's the number 1 dynasty QB.
You really think he will run for 5 td's annually? That's silly and flies against history of guys that throw as much as him. He has a better backfield now and will not be getting three rushing TD's in one game like he did last year.

 
Luck all the way. I love RGIII but I have to think he is going to run alot less due to the knee. Not only this year but going forward as well. He's not a big guy and can't take the kind of pounding he did last year. So by reducing his greatest asset puts Luck ahead of him imho.
You're not taking into account the additional passes RG3 will have due to not running as much. It's not like RG3 can't pass.
I didn't say he can't pass in fact I said he's an underrated passer in another post. I just think Luck is better in that regard and has better weapons at his disposal.

 
This year, I'm going with RGIII. In dynasty format, I'm taking R. Wilson. For a QB that runs, he is as smart as they come and does a good job not taking the big hits. He won't pass enough to put up the really big numbers this year, but I think that will increase over the years.

 
This year, I'm going with RGIII. In dynasty format, I'm taking R. Wilson. For a QB that runs, he is as smart as they come and does a good job not taking the big hits. He won't pass enough to put up the really big numbers this year, but I think that will increase over the years.
Apart from being off topic you are going to have to unpack this one for me, Snowman. RW will have to improve in just about every stat category in order to get to where RGIII is at, so please explain how he is going to accelerate past. (Don't bring up the injury thing, it's just disingenuous).

 
I keep reading that RG3 has a higher ceiling which I really don't think is true at all.

Luck's ceiling is no different then the greats like Rogers, Brees, Brady and Manning in their prime. All guys who have had QB1 fantasy seasons at some stage of their career and are consistent top 5 performers.

RG3 also has that same high ceiling but I really don't think it is higher than Lucks. Both guys at some stage of their careers will probably finish as the top scoring qb in a fantasy season. Both also seem destined to be perennial top 5 guys.

Therefore due to both guys having such high and similar ceilings, I am going to go with the guy that is safer to play in all 16 games and have a longer career which to me is Luck.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chase Stuart said:
King of the Jungle said:
Historically has a running QB ever been a consistent top 10 performer for a 3/5/10 year stretch? I know things are changing however quarterbacks who take extra hits due to their running ability typically are not guys at the top of the leader board for very long. When you consider RG3 frame/build I don't know why anyone would pass on Luck for him long-term.
Steve Young.
I believe the worst knee injury Young had was a strained knee. Having already had two ACL tears one year into his career raises some concerns for me.
Common misconception out there that the Redskins aren't doing anything to correct,
did they replace the field yet?

 
I keep reading that RG3 has a higher ceiling which I really don't think is true at all.

Luck's ceiling is no different then the greats like Rogers, Brees, Brady and Manning in their prime. All guys who have had QB1 fantasy seasons at some stage of their career and are consistent top 5 performers.

RG3 also has that same high ceiling but I really don't think it is higher than Lucks. Both guys at some stage of their careers will probably finish as the top scoring qb in a fantasy season. Both also seem destined to be perennial top 5 guys.

Therefore due to both guys having such high and similar ceilings, I am going to go with the guy that is safer to play in all 16 games and have a longer career which to me is Luck.
I agree that Luck is more than capable of being a Rodgers like QB1, but RGIII pretty much finished QB5 or higher in just about all my leagues.

 
Chase Stuart said:
King of the Jungle said:
Historically has a running QB ever been a consistent top 10 performer for a 3/5/10 year stretch? I know things are changing however quarterbacks who take extra hits due to their running ability typically are not guys at the top of the leader board for very long. When you consider RG3 frame/build I don't know why anyone would pass on Luck for him long-term.
Steve Young.
I believe the worst knee injury Young had was a strained knee. Having already had two ACL tears one year into his career raises some concerns for me.
Common misconception out there that the Redskins aren't doing anything to correct,
did they replace the field yet?
No, but they will be re-sodding at mid-season or so.

 
UKColt said:
JMJ said:
Everyone always knocks RGIII saying, "His rushing yards and TDs will certainly go down this year." I never see anyone say that about Luck though and his rushing numbers scare me more than RGIII's in regards to potential for decline.

Luck rushed for 255 yards and 5 TDs last season. Can we really expect 5 rushing TDs per year from this guy? Maybe he is like Rodgers and we can, but until we see it, I'm skeptical. That is 55.5 points on the ground from a guy who is not a mobile QB.
Not a mobile QB? Among all of Luck's underrated talents, his athleticism is his most underrated. I understand why that is, because RG3 is SOO athletic he kind of overshadows everybody, but describing Luck as 'not a mobile QB' is just wrong IMO.

Let's compare Luck's combine with another QB (Player A) in the league.

Height: Luck is 6'4", Player A is 6'5"

Weight: Luck is 239lbs, Player A is 245lbs

Forty: Luck ran 4.67, Player A ran 4.59

3-cone: Luck ran 6.80, Player A ran 6.92

Shuttle: Luck ran 4.28, Player A ran 4.18

Broad: Luck jumped 10'4", Player A jumped 10'6"

Vertical: Luck jumped 36", Player A jumped 35"

And player A?

Cam Newton.

Now Luck doesn't run as much because he's a more classic drop back passer than Newton and RG3, but let's not pretend that he isn't mobile and athletic because he is. He's more than physically equipped to take off if he needs too, as this play shows:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4_w-puInqY

I can easily see Luck running for 5 TDs a year on a consistent basis.

Returning to the original question, I'd take RG3 in redraft as I think in the short term RG3's athleticism means he'll outscore Luck. But I'd want Luck in dynasty for a couple of reasons:

1) RG3 is more of an injury risk because of his build and his playing style. He can't keep taking big hits, and two ACL injuries are a concern. Luck is built to take punishment a bit more. Changing his playing style may well mean fewer runs, which would impact his value.

2) I think Luck's upside as a pure passer is better than RG3. With an offense built around him, I see easily foresee him regularly putting up Brees/Brady style passing numbers for the next 12-15 years. When you add the running numbers as well, I think long term he's the number 1 dynasty QB.
You really think he will run for 5 td's annually? That's silly and flies against history of guys that throw as much as him. He has a better backfield now and will not be getting three rushing TD's in one game like he did last year.
No, I don't think he WILL. But it's not as hugely unrealistic as people are pretending, and he'll be good for 2 or 3 a season.

He also didn't have 3TDs rushing in a game.

 
I keep reading that RG3 has a higher ceiling which I really don't think is true at all.

Luck's ceiling is no different then the greats like Rogers, Brees, Brady and Manning in their prime. All guys who have had QB1 fantasy seasons at some stage of their career and are consistent top 5 performers.

RG3 also has that same high ceiling but I really don't think it is higher than Lucks. Both guys at some stage of their careers will probably finish as the top scoring qb in a fantasy season. Both also seem destined to be perennial top 5 guys.

Therefore due to both guys having such high and similar ceilings, I am going to go with the guy that is safer to play in all 16 games and have a longer career which to me is Luck.
I agree that Luck is more than capable of being a Rodgers like QB1, but RGIII pretty much finished QB5 or higher in just about all my leagues.
RGIII was awesome last year no doubt, but all things whole, their ceilings are similar enough where I feel more comfortable with the guy less likely to get hurt.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top