Luck ranked #1 among qbs so far

[strat1080]

the qbr def has flaws, but the standard passer rating isn't much better......

I disagree. I really don't understand why so many people bash the traditional passer rating. Few people know but it is the most accurate indicator of team success in the NFL. Even more than turnover margin. It is the most useful statistic out there but for some reason a lot of people think its a useless stat. The QB with the higher passer rating wins over 80% of the time dating back to the merger. There isn't another stat that so clearly indicates who is going to win or lose a game.

ESPN's QBR is a total joke. Check out this article. Last year there was a week in which ESPN's QBR rated Tebow higher than Rodgers. Aaron Rodgers threw for 396 yards with no turnovers that week and Tebow was 4 of 10. Just read the 1st paragraph. Its comical that ESPN started publishing this thing without even putting it through its paces first.

The traditional passer rating is a very useful stat. ESPN's QBR not so much. The problem is it is totally subjective. If factors in human opinion on how hard or not hard a pass was to make or when the play happened. I think clutch play is grossly overrated in sports. If a QB plays well for the entire game he doesn't need to be clutch.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/espns-total-qbr-stat-makes-as-much-sense-to-aaron-rodgers-as-it-does-to-me?urn=nfl,wp9534

[BOTT]

I disagree. I really don't understand why so many people bash the traditional passer rating. Few people know but it is the most accurate indicator of team success in the NFL. Even more than turnover margin. It is the most useful statistic out there but for some reason a lot of people think its a useless stat. The QB with the higher passer rating wins over 80% of the time dating back to the merger. There isn't another stat that so clearly indicates who is going to win or lose a game.

ESPN's QBR is a total joke. Check out this article. Last year there was a week in which ESPN's QBR rated Tebow higher than Rodgers. Aaron Rodgers threw for 396 yards with no turnovers that week and Tebow was 4 of 10. Just read the 1st paragraph. Its comical that ESPN started publishing this thing without even putting it through its paces first.

The traditional passer rating is a very useful stat. ESPN's QBR not so much. The problem is it is totally subjective. If factors in human opinion on how hard or not hard a pass was to make or when the play happened. I think clutch play is grossly overrated in sports. If a QB plays well for the entire game he doesn't need to be clutch.

http://sports.yahoo....?urn=nfl,wp9534

and the traditional passer rating is so exact tony romo is the second highest rated qb in the history of the nfl.......

[RGIII]

He's been more impressive IMO than rg3 just because rg3 has a great team around him and he dumps the ball off and his WR do all the work.

This isn't the first time I've seen this said, so it isn't the first time I've been left scratching my head wondering whether people are watching the games or making judgments based on what plays on Sportscenter. Griffin is in a good system that does a lot to get guys open and is loaded with solid receiving targets (none spectacular but all talented)... but it's flat out wrong to say that the receivers are doing most of the work in the passing game. Griffin has consistently been hitting guys in tight windows in the intermediate to long passing game throughout the season and plays with big YAC components are actually in the minority of all of his completions.

and the traditional passer rating is so exact tony romo is the second highest rated qb in the history of the nfl.......

Romo is a good quarterback. He has some absolutely horrendous games every now and then and has had a rough go of it this season... but that's to be expected when you have to carry your team every week. Fortunately for us, Jerry Jones is a bad GM and both Jason Garrett and Rob Ryan are bad coaches. Romo would probably be scary good under the tutelage of a more talented offensive mind.

[JoKeR]

Tony Romo carries his team? A good friend of mine, whos a huge Cowboys fan, told me recently he's done with Romo because he holds them back.

[shakedownstreet]

Romo is a good quarterback. He has some absolutely horrendous games every now and then and has had a rough go of it this season... but that's to be expected when you have to carry your team every week. Fortunately for us, Jerry Jones is a bad GM and both Jason Garrett and Rob Ryan are bad coaches. Romo would probably be scary good under the tutelage of a more talented offensive mind.

agree on all counts. romo needs culture. put him in... say pittsburgh, and he could be great

[TKnight24]

Tony Romo carries his team? A good friend of mine, whos a huge Cowboys fan, told me recently he's done with Romo because he holds them back.

Inconsistent he is. Holding them back? Yes. Time is running out for Mr. Romo in Dallas. And Dez Bryant will be on the Hot Seat soon too if he can't get his off the field problems & inability to catch a 3-5 yard slant pattern together

[RGIII]

Tony Romo carries his team? A good friend of mine, whos a huge Cowboys fan, told me recently he's done with Romo because he holds them back.

Since when is anything a Cowboys fan says taken as trustworthy information? Especially when said Cowboys fan is talking about his own team. ;)

[braveheartcolt]

Romo is an average QB. He can be very good one week, very poor the next. Which averages out to, er, average.....

[JoKeR]

Since when is anything a Cowboys fan says taken as trustworthy information? Especially when said Cowboys fan is talking about his own team. ;)

I trust his eyes on this plus he's NOT making excuses for Tony. He says Romo is just too careless with the ball whether when he's scrambling or when throwing into double coverage on a prayer. His failures to make the playoffs, then his failure to win playoff games is proof he's never going to be what he needs to be. He prefers Orton rightnow because he plays conservatively.

[GrizzColt]

I'm on the Redskins side of this argument. I hope Romo and company keep on losing.

[BOTT]

This isn't the first time I've seen this said, so it isn't the first time I've been left scratching my head wondering whether people are watching the games or making judgments based on what plays on Sportscenter. Griffin is in a good system that does a lot to get guys open and is loaded with solid receiving targets (none spectacular but all talented)... but it's flat out wrong to say that the receivers are doing most of the work in the passing game. Griffin has consistently been hitting guys in tight windows in the intermediate to long passing game throughout the season and plays with big YAC components are actually in the minority of all of his completions.

Romo is a good quarterback. He has some absolutely horrendous games every now and then and has had a rough go of it this season... but that's to be expected when you have to carry your team every week. Fortunately for us, Jerry Jones is a bad GM and both Jason Garrett and Rob Ryan are bad coaches. Romo would probably be scary good under the tutelage of a more talented offensive mind.

i totally agree about romo....not his fault that jerry jones runs off coaches like jimmy johnson/bill parcells and hires guys that should be assistants. but that doesn't have anything to do with the point i was trying to make.

[BOTT]

Romo is an average QB. He can be very good one week, very poor the next. Which averages out to, er, average.....

you really think eli manning or drew brees would having the kind of success they have had if their head coach was wade philips?

[RGIII]

I trust his eyes on this plus he's NOT making excuses for Tony. He says Romo is just too careless with the ball whether when he's scrambling or when throwing into double coverage on a prayer. His failures to make the playoffs, then his failure to win playoff games is proof he's never going to be what he needs to be. He prefers Orton rightnow because he plays conservatively.

Romo has a gunslinger mentality and that does tend to get guys in trouble particularly in late game situations. However, he's more careful with the ball than his idol (Brett Favre) was and he's not that much more turnover prone than most very good QBs in the league. On average, over any five game period Romo turns the ball over once more than Peyton Manning does during the same stretch and he is actually less turnover prone than Eli who has had no problem winning a couple rings in spite of some risky play.

He's not clutch, that's for sure... but neither is Orton (who has not once managed to lead his team into the playoffs after his rookie season where he wasn't really leading anything, not even in 2009 when the Broncos got off to an 6-0 start). Romo would be great in a San Francisco, Houston, or Washington style offense and I could easily see him succeeding under a coach like Andy Reid (despite all of the walrus' flaws, he's great at catering to his QBs) or with the culture and surrounding talent you'd expect to find in an organization like the Steelers (nod to shakedown) or Ravens have.

you really think eli manning or drew brees would having the kind of success they have had if their head coach was wade philips?

It's still amazing to me just how good Wade is as a defensive coordinator when contrasted with how bad he is as a head coach. Same goes for Norv in San Diego on the offensive side of things.

[Arodgers12]

Hope we can pressure Luck. If we don't I am worried.

[BrentMc11]

Romo is an average QB. He can be very good one week, very poor the next. Which averages out to, er, average.....

Kudos Braveheart. ....he is a hero when the team wins, a goat when not...I do in any way mean....Greatest of All time! (GOAT)

Media kills QBs....and makes some religious heros.....HMMMMMM! Luck is going to be as good as his health allows......and a good draft and FA next year!!!!!

[braveheartcolt]

Romo has a gunslinger mentality and that does tend to get guys in trouble particularly in late game situations. However, he's more careful with the ball than his idol (Brett Favre) was and he's not that much more turnover prone than most very good QBs in the league. On average, over any five game period Romo turns the ball over once more than Peyton Manning does during the same stretch and he is actually less turnover prone than Eli who has had no problem winning a couple rings in spite of some risky play.

He's not clutch, that's for sure... but neither is Orton (who has not once managed to lead his team into the playoffs after his rookie season where he wasn't really leading anything, not even in 2009 when the Broncos got off to an 6-0 start). Romo would be great in a San Francisco, Houston, or Washington style offense and I could easily see him succeeding under a coach like Andy Reid (despite all of the walrus' flaws, he's great at catering to his QBs) or with the culture and surrounding talent you'd expect to find in an organization like the Steelers (nod to shakedown) or Ravens have.

It's still amazing to me just how good Wade is as a defensive coordinator when contrasted with how bad he is as a head coach. Same goes for Norv in San Diego on the offensive side of things.

Romo has too many bad games to be considered anywhere near a good QB. The essentials of being a good/great/elite QB is consistency and Romo is consistently inconsistent. I'm sticking with average, coaching or not.

[BrentMc11]

Hope we can pressure Luck. If we don't I am worried.

You really should be worried if you pressure too much.......just sayin... Just like us getting to Rodgers......both can kill ya on the run! Glad you are here btw!

[Arodgers12]

I know we need this win. We have the Texans next week @Houston. No way we can win down there.

[RGIII]

Romo has too many bad games to be considered anywhere near a good QB. The essentials of being a good/great/elite QB is consistency and Romo is consistently inconsistent. I'm sticking with average, coaching or not.

Over the whole of his career, he actually has been pretty consistent from game to game. ALL QBs have off-games, Romo just has the misfortune of Cowboys off-games being spotlighted by the media and celebrated by many.

[Arodgers12]

This will be a tough game. I will be happy if we win by a touchdown or less.

[RGIII]

This will be a tough game. I will be happy if we win by a touchdown or less.

If my suspicions about your offense being back on track for the rest of the season are correct, this will not be a one-score game. Packers defense looks the best it's been since they won the Super Bowl (not quite THAT good but much closer than last season's effort). This game will be a good showcase for Luck as a he goes toe-to-toe with an elite QB for the first time... but I'm not sure the Colts are enough of a finished product on the whole to make a game of this one.

Then again, the NFL is awfully unpredictable.

[braveheartcolt]

Over the whole of his career, he actually has been pretty consistent from game to game. ALL QBs have off-games, Romo just has the misfortune of Cowboys off-games being spotlighted by the media and celebrated by many.

Yep, I agree. Consistently average. I have Game Pass and watch many Cowboys games, and have done for many years. He is not a great QB. And arguably not a good one either, although I'd settle for good at a push.....

[braveheartcolt]

I know we need this win. We have the Texans next week @Houston. No way we can win down there.

Rubbish. Of course you can win down there. Texans are looking good, but are not invincible by any means. Even Vance and Qboy will attest to that....

[stat2883]

interesting stat I saw on my twitter feed from ESPN concerning Griffin and QBR

"@ESPNStatsInfo Robert Griffin III leads NFL in comp pct (77.3%), yds/attempt (14.7) and #TotalQBR (97.3) against 5+ pass rushers this season."

Regardless of people's perceptions of him and his offense (or even the accuracy of those perceptions), the kid has been as poised and calm as any rookie QB I've seen in years - and I've watched him closely this year as well as all the studying I've done of Luck the past week. Right now, this instant, I'd say Griff is the better QB. Ask me that in a few months or next season, and things may change. The general consensus has always been that Griff has the higher ceiling, but Luck is more pro-ready and the prototypical pocket passer. Whether or not Griff reaches his ceiling is another question. But based on only 4 games (3 for Luck), I have to say that I'd take Griffin. Ask me again after the season and we'll see.

**none of this is a knock on Luck

[Jules]

Luck has also only played 3 games, runs for his life every time he throws the ball, has an average run game at best, seems clutch so far, is replacing a legend, is starting on a team who was lucky not to go 0-16 last year and now his head coach has cancer.

I think Luck is overcoming more then anyone right now honestly.......

Sometimes people need to get their heads out of the stats and look at some intangibles too.

Besides, that Peyton guy threw more picks then TDs his rookie season and his team won 3 games. He turned out OKAY.

I still don't want anyone else but Luck in the league right now to build around for the future, unless you could give me a healthy Manning in his prime years.

Thats my story and I am sticking to it.

[the cardinal]

interesting stat I saw on my twitter feed from ESPN concerning Griffin and QBR

"@ESPNStatsInfo Robert Griffin III leads NFL in comp pct (77.3%), yds/attempt (14.7) and #TotalQBR (97.3) against 5+ pass rushers this season."

Regardless of people's perceptions of him and his offense (or even the accuracy of those perceptions), the kid has been as poised and calm as any rookie QB I've seen in years - and I've watched him closely this year as well as all the studying I've done of Luck the past week. Right now, this instant, I'd say Griff is the better QB. Ask me that in a few months or next season, and things may change. The general consensus has always been that Griff has the higher ceiling, but Luck is more pro-ready and the prototypical pocket passer. Whether or not Griff reaches his ceiling is another question. But based on only 4 games (3 for Luck), I have to say that I'd take Griffin. Ask me again after the season and we'll see.

**none of this is a knock on Luck

To be fair I wonder how poised Griffin would look if he had to throw the ball 45 times twice out of his first three games? And without the crutch of running of the triple option when the offense stalls? (Like they had to do in the Cincy game after he played a pretty terrible 1st half.) Also, I don't think it's a coincidence that the Griffin's worst outing so far was against the Bears. He looked as unpoised and sped up against the Bears in that game as Luck did, more so really.

[BOTT]

interesting stat I saw on my twitter feed from ESPN concerning Griffin and QBR

"@ESPNStatsInfo Robert Griffin III leads NFL in comp pct (77.3%), yds/attempt (14.7) and #TotalQBR (97.3) against 5+ pass rushers this season."

Regardless of people's perceptions of him and his offense (or even the accuracy of those perceptions), the kid has been as poised and calm as any rookie QB I've seen in years - and I've watched him closely this year as well as all the studying I've done of Luck the past week. Right now, this instant, I'd say Griff is the better QB. Ask me that in a few months or next season, and things may change. The general consensus has always been that Griff has the higher ceiling, but Luck is more pro-ready and the prototypical pocket passer. Whether or not Griff reaches his ceiling is another question. But based on only 4 games (3 for Luck), I have to say that I'd take Griffin. Ask me again after the season and we'll see.

**none of this is a knock on Luck

meh...i've never seen a qb throw so many screen passes and get some much yardage from them. he's been impressive but not as impressive as his stats may indicate.

[strat1080]

and the traditional passer rating is so exact tony romo is the second highest rated qb in the history of the nfl.......

Hey, I never said it was an exact stat. I just said that it is the most accurate indicator of team success so therefore, those that try to imply that it's some worthless stat just don't know very much about football. There are going to be those weird exceptions or anomalies.

For the most part a higher QB Rating tends to correlate with a good W/L record. For whatever reason, that doesn't seem to be the case with Tony Romo. For the most part thought, Romo has been a very solid QB. His issue is that in big moments of big games he doesn't deliver. At the same time, he has been surrounded by pretty good offensive talent his whole career so it really shouldn't be surprising that he has a pretty good QB Rating. It isn't a perfect stat but it isn't as useless as some people think it is. That's all I was saying.

I just have a bone to pick with anybody who thinks throwing a TD in the 4th quarter or at the end of a half is more important than at another point during the game. A QB that plays at a consistently high level throughout the game can allow his defense to play with a lead and make the other team one-dimensional. Aaron Rodgers is a guy that a lot of people criticize for not being a clutch QB. If being clutch is so important how could the Packers go 15-1 last year and win the Super Bowl the year before. He's been clutch when he's needed to be but people put way too much stock into being clutch. Statistically throughout history, teams that win a lot of close games don't tend to sustain greatness. Teams that dominate large stretches of games consistently sustain greatness. That's my issue with ESPN's QBR. A guy can completely torch a team for 400 yards and get pulled halfway through the 4th quarter with no 4th quarter pass attempts and ESPN will say some guy who was sluggish for the 1st half but got it done at the end of the game was better.

I want my QB playing consistently throughout the game to build a lead and be on the bench at the end of the game.

[BOTT]

Hey, I never said it was an exact stat. I just said that it is the most accurate indicator of team success so therefore, those that try to imply that it's some worthless stat just don't know very much about football. There are going to be those weird exceptions or anomalies.

For the most part a higher QB Rating tends to correlate with a good W/L record. For whatever reason, that doesn't seem to be the case with Tony Romo. For the most part thought, Romo has been a very solid QB. His issue is that in big moments of big games he doesn't deliver. At the same time, he has been surrounded by pretty good offensive talent his whole career so it really shouldn't be surprising that he has a pretty good QB Rating. It isn't a perfect stat but it isn't as useless as some people think it is. That's all I was saying.

I just have a bone to pick with anybody who thinks throwing a TD in the 4th quarter or at the end of a half is more important than at another point during the game. A QB that plays at a consistently high level throughout the game can allow his defense to play with a lead and make the other team one-dimensional. Aaron Rodgers is a guy that a lot of people criticize for not being a clutch QB. If being clutch is so important how could the Packers go 15-1 last year and win the Super Bowl the year before. He's been clutch when he's needed to be but people put way too much stock into being clutch. Statistically throughout history, teams that win a lot of close games don't tend to sustain greatness. Teams that dominate large stretches of games consistently sustain greatness. That's my issue with ESPN's QBR. A guy can completely torch a team for 400 yards and get pulled halfway through the 4th quarter with no 4th quarter pass attempts and ESPN will say some guy who was sluggish for the 1st half but got it done at the end of the game was better.

I want my QB playing consistently throughout the game to build a lead and be on the bench at the end of the game.

it's probably less of an anomaly than the case of tim tebow in a game where he threw the ball eight times.....such a small sample size is always going to be skewed. that would be akin to using antwaan randle el's passer rating of 128 to diminish the standard passer rating.

and i'm sure the qbr rating can be tied to a teams winning % also. i'm sure qbr is flawed and doesn't always pass the eye test, but i like the fact that they try to look a little deeper than just black and white stats.....which can be very misleading in football.

[Vance]

Rubbish. Of course you can win down there. Texans are looking good, but are not invincible by any means. Even Vance and Qboy will attest to that....

You'll never hear me say it's an automatic win, no matter who our opponent is...but of course we can lose to GB

[stat2883]

To be fair I wonder how poised Griffin would look if he had to throw the ball 45 times twice out of his first three games? And without the crutch of running of the triple option when the offense stalls? (Like they had to do in the Cincy game after he played a pretty terrible 1st half.) Also, I don't think it's a coincidence that the Griffin's worst outing so far was against the Bears. He looked as unpoised and sped up against the Bears in that game as Luck did, more so really.

I haven't seen anything to make me think he can't handle throwing 40 times in a game. He did fine this last week without running the triple option....same as the first two games of the season. Cincy was really the only time they used it extensively and that was after a half time adjustment to how Cincy defended him the 1st half. Griff actually played alright in the 1st half considering the protection issues after their LT went down on the first drive and the backup gave up 3 sacks and a few hurries. Even so, I wouldn't call the triple option a crutch by any means - its another style of play a defense has to think about, making Griff a more dynamic and versatile player to defend.

The Bears was a preseason game and very basic offense as well as the OL being overmatched. I'm not putting any weight on anything that happened in the preseason....if you want to, that's fine.

[stat2883]

meh...i've never seen a qb throw so many screen passes and get some much yardage from them. he's been impressive but not as impressive as his stats may indicate.

personally don't really care what the QBR says about Griff or anyone...I just posted that because it was related to the thread topic and meant to illustrate that you can manipulate stats to show all kinds of things. All the proof I require is on tape.

When you have questionable pass-pro, how do you slow it down? By running the ball and throwing screens which are the responsibility of the DEs to read and contain -- thus slowing down the rush. The screen calls are a product of game-planning and masking a weakness. Once you establish the run and short passing game, take a deep shot, which Griff has done well. He has been more accurate than Luck in both intermediate and deep throws, in the pocket and on the run, and you could probably argue for him on the short throws as well. Griff has performed better than Luck with defenders in his face for the most part as well. Griff's presence on the field also opens up the running game to an extent, causing DEs and even LBs to hesitate on the play-action and read option plays - something you don't worry about with Luck. That isn't Griff's only bag though either, aside from a stronger arm and equal if not better accuracy, and a more dangerous threat on the ground, he can be a very good pocket passer as he demonstrated at various times the first three weeks and featured prominently this past week at Tampa. Griff goes through his progressions pretty quickly too - rarely forces throws as evidenced by his low INT numbers, hits the open man and takes what the defense gives them, and his accuracy on the crossing patterns and drags are what enables all the YAC. Simple proof is that the skins ran a lot of the same passing concepts last year with Grossman, but their YAC was among the worst in the league.

I've watched both Luck's and Griff's games 3-4 times each, both broadcast and all-22 views, and dissected how defenses were attacking each of them and how they responded. Simple fact of the matter is that so far, Griff has shown superior arm strength and accuracy and every bit the poise and leadership that Luck has on the field. Luck doesn't have the physical tools that Griff has - where he's going to make his mark is above the shoulders. However that takes time to develop whereas the skins are able to utilize Griff's physical tools from the start. Even with that, Griff hasn't shown any reason he can't handle more of a traditional passing game if he were asked to do so.

----now...all that being said, the only real high-end defense either of them has faced was Chicago. Let's see how Griff handles the Giants or Eagles. But like I said in my first post, going off what I've seen through the first month of the season, I'd take Griff.

[braveheartcolt]

Personally, I'd say Griffin has had the better start, but both have looked very good for rookies. Longevity is another key attribute, and Griffin will not be able to maintain his current style of play if he wants to stay healthy. This has a lot to do with the long term vision, and how the coaches/back office see the future direction of their franchise. Luck could definitely use his legs way more than he is doing now, but I believe the Colts are in no (relative) hurry to get back in the Super Bowl hunt, whereas the Redskins are desperate to do so, after so many lean years. They are ignoring the dangers of Griffins style of play. A side issue perhaps, but an important one.....

From the very small sample of games to date, Luck's long ball is not his strongest suite, that is for sure. If the same applies in year 3, then I'd be worried.

[BOTT]

personally don't really care what the QBR says about Griff or anyone...I just posted that because it was related to the thread topic and meant to illustrate that you can manipulate stats to show all kinds of things. All the proof I require is on tape.

When you have questionable pass-pro, how do you slow it down? By running the ball and throwing screens which are the responsibility of the DEs to read and contain -- thus slowing down the rush. The screen calls are a product of game-planning and masking a weakness. Once you establish the run and short passing game, take a deep shot, which Griff has done well. He has been more accurate than Luck in both intermediate and deep throws, in the pocket and on the run, and you could probably argue for him on the short throws as well. Griff has performed better than Luck with defenders in his face for the most part as well. Griff's presence on the field also opens up the running game to an extent, causing DEs and even LBs to hesitate on the play-action and read option plays - something you don't worry about with Luck. That isn't Griff's only bag though either, aside from a stronger arm and equal if not better accuracy, and a more dangerous threat on the ground, he can be a very good pocket passer as he demonstrated at various times the first three weeks and featured prominently this past week at Tampa. Griff goes through his progressions pretty quickly too - rarely forces throws as evidenced by his low INT numbers, hits the open man and takes what the defense gives them, and his accuracy on the crossing patterns and drags are what enables all the YAC. Simple proof is that the skins ran a lot of the same passing concepts last year with Grossman, but their YAC was among the worst in the league.

I've watched both Luck's and Griff's games 3-4 times each, both broadcast and all-22 views, and dissected how defenses were attacking each of them and how they responded. Simple fact of the matter is that so far, Griff has shown superior arm strength and accuracy and every bit the poise and leadership that Luck has on the field. Luck doesn't have the physical tools that Griff has - where he's going to make his mark is above the shoulders. However that takes time to develop whereas the skins are able to utilize Griff's physical tools from the start. Even with that, Griff hasn't shown any reason he can't handle more of a traditional passing game if he were asked to do so.

----now...all that being said, the only real high-end defense either of them has faced was Chicago. Let's see how Griff handles the Giants or Eagles. But like I said in my first post, going off what I've seen through the first month of the season, I'd take Griff.

TL:DR

[Qwiz]

personally don't really care what the QBR says about Griff or anyone...I just posted that because it was related to the thread topic and meant to illustrate that you can manipulate stats to show all kinds of things. All the proof I require is on tape.

When you have questionable pass-pro, how do you slow it down? By running the ball and throwing screens which are the responsibility of the DEs to read and contain -- thus slowing down the rush. The screen calls are a product of game-planning and masking a weakness. Once you establish the run and short passing game, take a deep shot, which Griff has done well. He has been more accurate than Luck in both intermediate and deep throws, in the pocket and on the run, and you could probably argue for him on the short throws as well. Griff has performed better than Luck with defenders in his face for the most part as well. Griff's presence on the field also opens up the running game to an extent, causing DEs and even LBs to hesitate on the play-action and read option plays - something you don't worry about with Luck. That isn't Griff's only bag though either, aside from a stronger arm and equal if not better accuracy, and a more dangerous threat on the ground, he can be a very good pocket passer as he demonstrated at various times the first three weeks and featured prominently this past week at Tampa. Griff goes through his progressions pretty quickly too - rarely forces throws as evidenced by his low INT numbers, hits the open man and takes what the defense gives them, and his accuracy on the crossing patterns and drags are what enables all the YAC. Simple proof is that the skins ran a lot of the same passing concepts last year with Grossman, but their YAC was among the worst in the league.

I've watched both Luck's and Griff's games 3-4 times each, both broadcast and all-22 views, and dissected how defenses were attacking each of them and how they responded. Simple fact of the matter is that so far, Griff has shown superior arm strength and accuracy and every bit the poise and leadership that Luck has on the field. Luck doesn't have the physical tools that Griff has - where he's going to make his mark is above the shoulders. However that takes time to develop whereas the skins are able to utilize Griff's physical tools from the start. Even with that, Griff hasn't shown any reason he can't handle more of a traditional passing game if he were asked to do so.

----now...all that being said, the only real high-end defense either of them has faced was Chicago. Let's see how Griff handles the Giants or Eagles. But like I said in my first post, going off what I've seen through the first month of the season, I'd take Griff.

I agree. He plays smart football as well, that's always a plus. I've seen him throw bombs down the field, which, purposely or not, are overthrown and inaccurate and the receiver gets a PI call on at least one or two occasions. He is also good with the screen of course and his physicality and leadership is stupendous. I've also seen him take the hits that so many predicted he wouldn't survive only to see him get up and do the same thing again, as long as his team got the first down. He's gonna be good, as will 12. Gonna be a privilege watching them play.

[Qwiz]

Rubbish. Of course you can win down there. Texans are looking good, but are not invincible by any means. Even Vance and Qboy will attest to that....

Of course we're not invincible, every team has a weakness. It gets pretty loud down here though...

[BrentMc11]

Of course we're not invincible, every team has a weakness. It gets pretty loud down here though...

I hope I can see this game.....I would even lend Schaub a piece of my ear lobe to blow out the Tebows......the debacle known as the Jets.

[Qwiz]

I hope I can see this game.....I would even lend Schaub a piece of my ear lobe to blow out the Tebows......the debacle known as the Jets.

Yeah, 'cause he sure needs one . I'll be at work for like the first quarter and maybe part of the second but then I'll be at home, kicking back, and watching the massacre as well hahaha. We owe Tebow...I don't think he'll come in though, unless the game gets out of reach, say 24-3, in the first half or something.

[Flash7]

interesting stat I saw on my twitter feed from ESPN concerning Griffin and QBR

"@ESPNStatsInfo Robert Griffin III leads NFL in comp pct (77.3%), yds/attempt (14.7) and #TotalQBR (97.3) against 5+ pass rushers this season."

Regardless of people's perceptions of him and his offense (or even the accuracy of those perceptions), the kid has been as poised and calm as any rookie QB I've seen in years - and I've watched him closely this year as well as all the studying I've done of Luck the past week. Right now, this instant, I'd say Griff is the better QB. Ask me that in a few months or next season, and things may change. The general consensus has always been that Griff has the higher ceiling, but Luck is more pro-ready and the prototypical pocket passer. Whether or not Griff reaches his ceiling is another question. But based on only 4 games (3 for Luck), I have to say that I'd take Griffin. Ask me again after the season and we'll see.

**none of this is a knock on Luck

Griff has been playing lights out. I will give him all the credit in the world. He looks very poised, not just as a rookie, but overall as a QB. The Redskins have done a great job of creating an offense that utilizes all of his skills, and Griff has many.

But if we are to compare Luck and Griff, we have to take several factors into account. Of all QB's in the league after three weeks, Luck had the highest percentage of plays where he faced pressure. Higher than any other QB in the league according to NFL statistics, (can't find the stats at the moment, but it was provided on another thread). We are also ranked among the lowest teams for rush yards, while the Redskins have one of the best. We all know that a good rushing offense is a QBs best friend. This means basically that Luck has to carry the Colt's offense, while Griff has the luxury to play his role in the offense. This is not a knock on Griffen, as he has performed brilliantly. Nonetheless, I always find myself asking what would happen if they had switched teams?

Everyone speculated that Griff would have the better rookie season because he would join a better team. I think that's what we are seeing, but perhaps a little more than expected from Griff.

[BrentMc11]

Yeah, 'cause he sure needs one . I'll be at work for like the first quarter and maybe part of the second but then I'll be at home, kicking back, and watching the massacre as well hahaha. We owe Tebow...I don't think he'll come in though, unless the game gets out of reach, say 24-3, in the first half or something.

All the 'experts' are saying 30-6 or so....it will be deafening in there for sure....just like here for the Pack!!!