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!
You can't ignore his speed. Remember the havoc Michael Vick played on the league with his legs? I can see RG3 having a similar impact. His speed is ridiculous. You can't compare Luck athletically to RG3.
Luck is an athletic guy in his own right. But, he's not going to utilize that athleticism nearly on the level that Griffin will. I imagine Griffin could have 700 rushing yards right out of the gates, if he played a full 16 game schedule. Luck would be best to stay put and rush for 100 or 200 yards, at most. So, in theory, I see a 50 point advantage for Griffin right out of the gates. The rest, then, will depend on scheme, how quickly the two develop, supporting cast, etc. Taken together, I support the hypothesis that RGiii will outscore Luck in the first couple of years.Long-term, though, I foresee Luck being a fantasy monster.
How could you not see fantasy potential in Griffin?
I'm in Charlotte and their offense was bad the past couple years, Cam came in and quickly made Steve Smith relevant again and the Panthers actually scored the 5th most points last year. The Panthers went from 196 points scored in 2010, dead freaking last (next worst was 271 points) to 406 points in 2011, which was as good as any offense aside from Detroit and of course the ridiculous numbers the Saints, Packers and Patriots put up.If Luck and Griffin are that good, they will be fantasy relevant. In fact, if they go to Indy and Cleveland, I would say with their bad running games of 2011, Luck and Griffin could be in line for a lot more fantasy relevance. Luck and Griffin are both good enough on the ground to get extra points with their feet due to lack of running games.I would bet money on Luck first. Even though Indy sucked, they should have a healthy Clark, Collie and maybe Garcon/Wayne. Throw in their bad defense and FF numbers could be plentiful. Griffin on Cleveland has a not so bad defense, so that could hurt Griffin. Look at Cam last year, in order to break even (i.e. try to win) on points against, Luck and Cam need to put up over 400 points (their D's in 2011 let up almost as many as the #4 offense), but Griffin needs only 300 to break even. That's another 16 TDs, so I like Luck a lot more, better weapons and a worse D.
Can we compare Luck to Cam? They both posted the similar 40 times, Broad and Vert Jump scores and Luck's size is comparable to Cam's, I'm just not sure if a NFL coordinator would use Luck as a goal line back like Carolina uses Newton. But Luck is athletic enough and big enough and athletic enough to be durable and productive outside the pocket. Maybe Rodgers like production rushing wise? ETA: nevermind, I didn't realize RGIII weighed in at 222.'JohnnyU said:
People compared Blaine Gabbert to Cam because they had similar 40 times, broad and vert jumps. We know how that turned out. Cam was simple a better runner due to experience, instincts and agility. Luck is a good runner but not really compariable to Cam.
You can ignore it for the fact that he hardly ever uses it outside the pocket, unlike Vick or Newton. He also doesn't have close to the speed of Vick, he's more comparable to a guy like Joe Webb when it comes to his size/speed combination (Webb is actually a bit taller too...look it up). RGIII will pick up some yardage on the ground and an occasional rushing touchdown, unlike Luck, but he is predominantly a pocket passing quarterback, and a very good one at that.
