If we went RG3 instead of Luck would we still be 6-3?

[indy1888]

It's hard to tell. Who's to say what Luck would do if Reggie Wayne, TY Hilton, and Donnie Avery all went on IR or missed significant portions of the season. That's what RG3 is dealing with in D.C. along with a host of other defensive injuries. A lot of that has contributed to their current record.

The Colts have been just as beat up, especially on defense. On offense, they had a different starting O line for like the first 6 weeks becuase of injuries. I didn't know Bob lost his top 3 receivers to IR, maybe he did though. The Colts lost Austin Collie though, who was the 2nd best receiver on this team. Who knows what Luck would have done had he had Collie. We may have another win or 2, hard to say. It is funny how people throw around Avery though like he has been a pro bowl talent throughout his career. This is a guy who was unemployed until the Colts came calling. He puts up a decent season with Luck and now all the sudden he's a stud and everyone seen it coming. I agree with Superman above, the flip flopping from people over the talent level on this team over the last few months has been comical.

[Yehoodi]

This is laughable to me.

Before the season, all the punditry -- blogs, shows, experts, fans -- had reached a consensus that the Redskins had a better team around Griffin than the Colts had around Luck, and as a result, Griffin and the Redskins would do better this season than Luck and the Colts.

I spent a significant part of this offseason defending the roster moves the Colts had made, preaching to people that our roster is not as bad as it's made out to be, too much had been made of the releases of people like Addai, Brackett, Clark, etc., the departure of Garcon to Washington, etc. My entire argument was not that the Colts were a good team with a bunch of talent and would compete for the playoffs; even I didn't expect us to be in the hunt for a wildcard spot. My argument was simply that we weren't as terrible as people were making us out to be.

Now that the Colts are 6-3 and the Redskins are 3-6, the script is being flipped. Now, the Colts have a better roster and Luck has a stronger supporting cast. This is double-talk at it's finest.

Too many fall captive to the moment. Our roster is slightly better now than it was in August, only because we added a couple of players and our youngsters have grown up a bit. The Redskins roster is probably slightly worse, mostly because of injuries. You don't go from "worse supporting cast" to "better supporting cast" just because one team is doing better than the other.

The Colts weren't getting credit in June for being a more successful franchise over the past decade. All everyone wanted to talk about was how teams who replace their GM, coaching staff and All Pro quarterback with rookies across the board don't have good season, and what the Colts would be doing with the #1 overall pick in the 2013 draft.

I have nothing against the Redskins or Robert Griffin III. I wish them both the best. I have nothing against you, Yehoodi. You're a good poster. But I can't sit here and let someone get away with arguing that the Colts have a better roster and are a better franchise, and using that as ammunition in a discussion about who is doing more for their team between Luck and Griffin. It's too disconnected from reality. Not just the present reality, but the reality we've been coming to terms with since April.

Thanks for the props Superman . . . . and i always ienjoy your posts . . .

I did not really follow the talking heads views of Indy in the last 12 months other than following the whereabout of PMs . . . . I willl say this tho that talkngs head love to talk and I don't really listen to them or often use them as support in the discussion as many times they change their minds, or the majority views swing like a pedulum (so it might not be individuals swings but the overall group with some coming out of the closet to have an opinion to swing it in the otehr direction)

As for the Colts supporting staff . . . my opinion has not change (I know you are not saying that I am), but I look to the 2010 colts with all of those injuries and having the next man up second stringers play, and with a coach that some, and many here on this board felt, was holding them back and perhaps costing them games . . . so for me I look to a franchise that had many starter out and still won 10 games, which by the way are more games than the skins have won in over 20 years (altho they did win 10 games in '99 and '05) . . . so for me if a team is two year removed from a year in which it had many many injuries and ponied up more wins than the other guys team has done in over 20 years is telling in my book any way you want to slice it . . . bottom line for me . . .

teams simply don't fall off the cliff over night, they just don't . . .and as i stated in an earlier post the colts still have most of the key players at the skill positions. . . one of which, AV, helped them win a game in the clutch recently, and we both know that AV has help other QBs in the past in wins . . . conversely Washington's kicker missed one that would of tied, altho it was a 62 yards (v. Stl), but AVs was a 53yarder so not a chip shot . .. both teams had heartbreak losses see the opponent get a long TD to win it. was/nyg, indy/jack (i think?)

Time will tell how RGIII does, I do think Luck is a keeper . . . but regardless of the records or whom they play I take the 52 players on the colts over the 52 players on Washington . . . my two cents . . .

[MR. Blueblood]

Redskins - 27.6 pts per game allowed, Colts - 22.3 pts per game allowed

Redskins - 25.1 pts per game scored, Colts - 20.7 pts per game scored

Turnovers - Redskins +7 while the Colts are -9

To me, the above numbers suggest the Colts are less reliant on Luck than the Redskins are on RG3.

Point differential between O an D is -1.6/gm for the Colts, and -2.5, which is pretty minimal. A difference of 16 in turnovers between the two teams is staggering. If we were sitting at plus 7 instead of -9, our record would be better than what it is. -9 in turnovers usually means you are having to do more to stay in and win games. To me that means we are more reliant on Luck to win for us. I might be wrong but your numbers quoted doesn't jive with your argument.

[chad72]

Point differential between O an D is -1.6/gm for the Colts, and -2.5, which is pretty minimal. A difference of 16 in turnovers between the two teams is staggering. If we were sitting at plus 7 instead of -9, our record would be better than what it is. -9 in turnovers usually means you are having to do more to stay in and win games. To me that means we are more reliant on Luck to win for us. I might be wrong but your numbers quoted doesn't jive with your argument.

I will explain this once to folks who read the above quoted post and that would be it.

15 turnovers on offense and ST for Colts, 9 INTs came from Luck, 2 fumbles came from Luck, 4 turnovers came elsewhere, so Luck is responsible for 11 turnovers. Our D has generated 6 turnovers, 3 of which came in the Jags game, I think. So, a net differential of 9, hence the -9.

For an offense that is top 5 yardage wise in the league (387.3 yards per game), our points per game is low (22nd in the league at 20.7). Those turnovers are a big part of that. Based on how RG3's team has fared defensively, giving up about 5 points more per game (27 plus compared to 22 plus for the Colts), the reliance on RG3 and the offense to win more games is higher in Washington than the reliance on Luck and our offense to win games. Our D has been keeping us in games more than we acknowledge and hence the reliance for wins is higher with RG3 and the Washington's offense due to less defensive support based on 9 games of data in terms of points per game.

Maybe if we remove names from it, reliance on Washington's offense to win games is higher than reliance on the Colts' offense to win games. But since QBs are a big part of it, I extrapolated.

[MR. Blueblood]

I will explain this once to folks who read the above quoted post and that would be it.

15 turnovers on offense and ST for Colts, 9 INTs came from Luck, 2 fumbles came from Luck, 4 turnovers came elsewhere, so Luck is responsible for 11 turnovers. Our D has generated 6 turnovers, 3 of which came in the Jags game, I think. So, a net differential of 9, hence the -9.

For an offense that is top 5 yardage wise in the league (387.3 yards per game), our points per game is low (22nd in the league at 20.7). Those turnovers are a big part of that. Based on how RG3's team has fared defensively, giving up about 5 points more per game (27 plus compared to 22 plus for the Colts), the reliance on RG3 and the offense to win more games is higher in Washington than the reliance on Luck and our offense to win games. Our D has been keeping us in games more than we acknowledge and hence the reliance for wins is higher with RG3 and the Washington's offense due to less defensive support based on 9 games of data in terms of points per game.

Maybe if we remove names from it, reliance on Washington's offense to win games is higher than reliance on the Colts' offense to win games. But since QBs are a big part of it, I extrapolated.

Regardless of names, turnovers (no matter who commits them) puts more pressure on a team to overcome. You ask any player or coach on any team in this league if they would rather be a +7 or -9 in turnovers and I guarantee that they will choose +7. What is one thing that most everybody agrees on that is a deciding factor in winning games? Winning the turnover battle. Regardless of Luck being the cause of a lot of them the Colts are relying more on Luck to help overcome those turnovers because the D isn't getting them in return. A +7 gives the Redskins that many more chances to win. A -9 gives us that many more chances to lose. Big difference if you ask me, but hey I'm not the expert like you so what do I know?

[John Dee]

Point differential between O an D is -1.6/gm for the Colts, and -2.5, which is pretty minimal. A difference of 16 in turnovers between the two teams is staggering. If we were sitting at plus 7 instead of -9, our record would be better than what it is. -9 in turnovers usually means you are having to do more to stay in and win games. To me that means we are more reliant on Luck to win for us. I might be wrong but your numbers quoted doesn't jive with your argument.

They don't... it's an ....

well we all know...

[Jay Kirk]

So Indy is -9 in turnover ratio ... yet they are 6-3 ...

and the D is OVERACHIEVING? Seattle is -4 I think... but their D is "very good" ...

I'll take that kind of underachievement any day of the week..

Normally when an NFL team is in the minus ... they are not very good teams. Good teams overcome a negative turnover ratio.

I don't get how you can poo poo this D. They have stepped up when they have had too.

I agree John theyve been very good considering all the injurys IMO ,and Luck was the right pick in my mind hes the real deal.I do believe both will be very good NFL qbs tho

[FireJimCaldwell]

15 turnovers on offense and ST for Colts, 9 INTs came from Luck, 2 fumbles came from Luck, 4 turnovers came elsewhere, so Luck is responsible for 11 turnovers. Our D has generated 6 turnovers, 3 of which came in the Jags game, I think. So, a net differential of 9, hence the -9.

For sake of accuracy.

Colts Offense/ST 15 turnovers

9 Luck interceptions

4 Luck lost fumbles

1 Wayne fumble

1 Brazill Fumble

Colts Defense/ST6 turnovers

2 Butler interceptions

1 Freeman interception

1 Powers interception

1 Redding Fum Rec

1 Butler Fum Rec

-9 turnover differential.

Redskins Offense 9 turnovers

5 Interceptions RG3(3), Cousins 2

4 Lost Fumbles RG3(2), Moss 1, Morris 1

Redskins Defense/ST 16 turnovers

6 Fumble recoveries

10 interceptions

+7 turnover differential.

[chad72]

I agree John theyve been very good considering all the injurys IMO ,and Luck was the right pick in my mind hes the real deal. I do believe both will be very good NFL qbs tho

I agree. That is also why I dont feel the need to drag down RG3 while giving props to Luck for his poise and leadership. Anyway, I feel RG3 would have 5 wins, if not 6 with the Colts in response to the original question; some dont feel that way. That is perfectly fine, I will just agree to disagree and move on.

[Yehoodi]

For sake of accuracy.

Colts Offense/ST 15 turnovers

9 Luck interceptions

4 Luck lost fumbles

1 Wayne fumble

1 Brazill Fumble

Colts Defense/ST6 turnovers

2 Butler interceptions

1 Freeman interception

1 Powers interception

1 Redding Fum Rec

1 Butler Fum Rec

-9 turnover differential.

Redskins Offense 9 turnovers

5 Interceptions RG3(3), Cousins 2

4 Lost Fumbles RG3(2), Moss 1, Morris 1

Redskins Defense/ST 16 turnovers

6 Fumble recoveries

10 interceptions

+7 turnover differential.

FJC, thanks for saving all of the time for getting all of the stats . . .

for what it is worth and with respect to how teammates help the QB, we should qualify the TO differenial . . .

between the two teams its 16 in favor of the skins, but since luck has contributed 8 more than RGIII, the 52 teammates, RGIII teammates have garndered 8 move in the TO differential . . .

[JWF]

FJC, thanks for saving all of the time for getting all of the stats . . .

for what it is worth and with respect to how teammates help the QB, we should qualify the TO differenial . . .

between the two teams its 16 in favor of the skins, but since luck has contributed 8 more than RGIII, the 52 teammates, RGIII teammates have garndered 8 move in the TO differential . . .

I would expect Luck to have more turnovers considering he has been asked to attempt alot more passes and take alot more chances down the field in the intermediate to deeper intermediate passing game. Griffin has thrown a sizeable percentage of his passes at, near or behind the LOS. Washington has also used alot of bootlegs and zone read play action to simplify his reads so far.

Nothing against Griff either. I like the kid and think he's going to be good. But a big factor playing into the turnover discrepancy is simply Luck has been asked to throw more and take more chances.

I actually find it annoying at times honestly. I think the Colts ask him to do too much. I know Arians trusts him but they need to remember he is still a rookie.

[RGIII]

Personally I don't think so. Not even to knock RG3 because he's been tremendous as well, but when you're watching Luck you're truly seeing greatness develop week in week out.

The Redskins might be 6-3 and the development of Griffin's greatness might be more apparent if they had your schedule. ;)

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure how Griffin would look in Arians' system although I suspect his numbers would be more Luck-like than what they are now. I think Luck would do very well with our coaching staff, though. Our offense would probably be molded a little bit differently than what it is currently but he always seemed like a good natural fit for Shanahan given his athleticism and WCO background.

I didn't know Bob lost his top 3 receivers to IR, maybe he did though.

They're not all on IR but we have lost a considerable amount of our potential offensive production in the passing game.

Fred Davis (TE) - On IR with a blown achilles. By far our most reliable and consistent receiving threat.

Roy Helu (HB) - On IR with a nagging achilles injury. Tremendous receiver out of the backfield, legitimate home-run threat, solid blocker, and dynamic talent. Without him we have to fall back on Evan Royster to spell Morris. Royster is not a great receiver and, most importantly, he's been terrible as a blocker.

Pierre Garcon (WR) - Not on IR but sidelined for most of the season to date due to a foot injury that will likely require surgery. If he's not able or prepared to play through the pain soon he will be shut down for good.

Santana Moss (WR) - Concussed recently in a nasty hit.

Regardless of names, turnovers (no matter who commits them) puts more pressure on a team to overcome. You ask any player or coach on any team in this league if they would rather be a +7 or -9 in turnovers and I guarantee that they will choose +7. What is one thing that most everybody agrees on that is a deciding factor in winning games? Winning the turnover battle. Regardless of Luck being the cause of a lot of them the Colts are relying more on Luck to help overcome those turnovers because the D isn't getting them in return. A +7 gives the Redskins that many more chances to win. A -9 gives us that many more chances to lose. Big difference if you ask me, but hey I'm not the expert like you so what do I know?

The bolded part is not necessarily true. The D doesn't have to get a turnover back to make up for Luck's turnover, they can also make up for the turnover by simply playing sound ball and preventing the opposing team from getting points. We've already established that the Redskins have generated 10 more turnovers than the Colts but we haven't established a very good picture of what happens on the vast majority of plays where a turnover doesn't occur beyond the fact that the Redskins are still allowing 5ppg more despite this major advantage. Allow me to paint a picture for you of just how bad this defense really is...

Right now the Colts are ranked 18th in yards allowed to the Redskins' 28th (a difference of 50 ypg). The Colts also have 50% more sacks than the Redskins (21-14). The Colts are also ranked 12th in the league in preventing third down conversions to the Redskins' 29th (37.3%-43.8%). The Colts are also ranked 14th in total first downs allowed to the Redskins' 26th (182-205). The Colts are also ranked 22nd in yards per play allowed to the Redskins' 30th (5.7-6.2).

To me, that says that our defense is completely and utterly worthless when they are unable to generate a turnover. By the numbers your D isn't great, either, but it does seem more fundamentally sound.

To me, this one is probably a net wash... but I'd lean towards the idea that the Colts defense helps Luck more than the Redskins defense helps Griffin.

[GoColts8818]

Don't know Don't Care.

[Yehoodi]

I would expect Luck to have more turnovers considering he has been asked to attempt alot more passes and take alot more chances down the field in the intermediate to deeper intermediate passing game. Griffin has thrown a sizeable percentage of his passes at, near or behind the LOS. Washington has also used alot of bootlegs and zone read play action to simplify his reads so far.

Nothing against Griff either. I like the kid and think he's going to be good. But a big factor playing into the turnover discrepancy is simply Luck has been asked to throw more and take more chances.

I actually find it annoying at times honestly. I think the Colts ask him to do too much. I know Arians trusts him but they need to remember he is still a rookie.

I agree with 100% . . . and yes the raw TO figure is not a percentage of the times in which one in a position to TO or not (a QB passing a ball and a chance for INT, and a QB handling the ball and chance for fumble)_

I was just bringing it up not in the angle of a qualification of the two QBs, but just that people dont get carried away and say that RGIII teammates have create a difference of 16 TOs, when they have created 8 more differential, which is still a large number . . .

when we all get together and chat about stats, or when we looks at stats on our own, I always look at the stats and say "what do they reprensent", "is there a way to qualify it" (as you did with raw TOs and its better to look at TO as percentage of opportunity), "what constitutes the stats and how does it relate to the player" (like if another player can get teh stat, a QB going play action on the one on first down and throwing for a pass and gettting a passing TD as opposed to handing the ball off to a RB who gets credit for teh TD, and that QB might be veiwed as less efficient, the same holds true if one player/WR/TE is game plannned to be the red zone receiver, like Gronk, and he'll garder more TDs, and so on) . . .

I think is gonna be exciting to see these guys play in the NFL,. hope both of them play as promised, and they, along with a few other young QBs, can carry the torch of the present day greats . . .

[FireJimCaldwell]

I agree with 100% . . . and yes the raw TO figure is not a percentage of the times in which one in a position to TO or not (a QB passing a ball and a chance for INT, and a QB handling the ball and chance for fumble)_

This is sorta along those lines.

A comparison of the two rookies and the Colts opponent this coming Sunday

[chad72]

This is sorta along those lines.

A comparison of the two rookies and the Colts opponent this coming Sunday

Yeah, that Brady guy sure takes good care of the ball, has been the theme throughout his career. Just clone Brady's O-line coach .

[Yehoodi]

This is sorta along those lines.

A comparison of the two rookies and the Colts opponent this coming Sunday

thanks for posting, it is nice to see RGIII's overall touches, not as many as Luck . . . i do like the low ints for RGIII . . .

[FanFromtheWasteland]

This is sorta along those lines.

A comparison of the two rookies and the Colts opponent this coming Sunday

Where do you find all this information? Total number of possessions might be nice to have as well. would give more of a picture of the touches comparison..

[FireJimCaldwell]

Where do you find all this information? Total number of possessions might be nice to have as well. would give more of a picture of the touches comparison..

I use various resources, espn/nfl/si/yahoo, some sites present the material in an easier to read/find presentation so it's easier/quicker to decipher/crunch.

That was simply taking their rushing attempts, Passing attempts and sacks and adding it together and taking a screen capture of a spread sheet as opposed to copying and pasting the data into a jumbled looking mess in the post.

There are a couple of sites that track team wide possessions and such, but Grffin missed some time due to that concussion so the team data really wouldn't be 100% accurate, then you have the kneel downs at the end of a half/end of a game that can distort the #'s as well. One would have to chart each drive on a game by game basis which would be time consuming. For the Colts it would be a bit easier since QB2 hasn't made any appearances.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestats

That information was updated 11/6 so it doesn't include last weeks stats.

This has the Colts with 86 drives and the Redskins with 99.

Since Washington was off last week and was a game up on the Colts, the Colts had 10 drives*(depending on how they account for the final drive, it wasn't a competitive drive, but it wasn't 3 straight kneel downs either. They might count it or they might not) vs. Jacksonville, so that would put the Colts at 96 or 95 drives compared to the Redskins 99. So the #'s are still in line.

[rg3isnumber1]

Redskins should be 8-1 right now, lost the ST Louis game because Morgan is an *. Lost the Giants game because the defense cannot defend (just like jags v colts), Falcons and Bengals is debatable but at least 2 of those games were basically in the bag but we lost bcuz of poor play

could easily be 5-4 at the least but all other games except steelers were winnable. dont even get me started on that steelers game. The colts on the other hand have relied on incredible luck and get blown out in their losses(except jags) Look at the Jets and the Bears. u guys got blown out so badly its laughable, not even noodle arm could have saved u in those games. The titans game was for sure over but some phantom whistle stopped that fumble. There is a lot of LUCK going the colts way and not the redskins thats the difference.

bottom line is numbers dont lie and right now numbers show rg3 is the better qb. wins and losses are a team achievmnet. If the redskins didn have all these injuries, easily could be at least 6-3 if not 7-2 right now. Plus u play in the weakest division in the nfl where the nfc is the toughest. thats why peyton was able to get 10 11 12 wins every year and choke in the playoffs cuz he didnt have any real competition in that divison. Look at the giants, they win 9 or 10 games and win the SB bcuz they have a legit division that challenges them.

[indy1888]

.

They're not all on IR but we have lost a considerable amount of our potential offensive production in the passing game.

Fred Davis (TE) - On IR with a blown achilles. By far our most reliable and consistent receiving threat.

Roy Helu (HB) - On IR with a nagging achilles injury. Tremendous receiver out of the backfield, legitimate home-run threat, solid blocker, and dynamic talent. Without him we have to fall back on Evan Royster to spell Morris. Royster is not a great receiver and, most importantly, he's been terrible as a blocker.

Pierre Garcon (WR) - Not on IR but sidelined for most of the season to date due to a foot injury that will likely require surgery. If he's not able or prepared to play through the pain soon he will be shut down for good.

Santana Moss (WR) - Concussed recently in a nasty hit.

I understand that, but Davis and Moss were not hurt until recently. Moss was hurt just in the last game. The earlier poster made it seems like all his receivers were on IR together.

The Colts have played without their number 2 receiver all year, there starting tightend was also hurt about the same as Davis. I don't feel too sorry for the rushing attack of the Skins, they are still better then the Colts. Morris has been a top 10 rusher all year long. Was actually number 1 for a while.

I just think this injury explanation is a bit of an excuse honestly. Luck has a great receiver in Wayne, then he has a rookie and a guy who was cut by the Titans just last year. It's not like he is working with all world talent. It goes back to what superman said earlier, nobody thought anything of these guys when the season started, they have some success with Luck and now all the sudden the Colts are loaded with talent. It's laughable really. Then you also have to figure in that Luck has been the most under duress QB in all football and for the first 6 weeks was working behind a new line each week because of injuries and i think that evens things out if you wanna play the injury card.

[FireJimCaldwell]

Redskins should be 8-1 right now, lost the ST Louis game because Morgan is an *. Lost the Giants game because the defense cannot defend (just like jags v colts), Falcons and Bengals is debatable but at least 2 of those games were basically in the bag but we lost bcuz of poor play

could easily be 5-4 at the least but all other games except steelers were winnable. dont even get me started on that steelers game. The colts on the other hand have relied on incredible luck and get blown out in their losses(except jags) Look at the Jets and the Bears. u guys got blown out so badly its laughable, not even noodle arm could have saved u in those games. The titans game was for sure over but some phantom whistle stopped that fumble. There is a lot of LUCK going the colts way and not the redskins thats the difference.

bottom line is numbers dont lie and right now numbers show rg3 is the better qb. wins and losses are a team achievmnet. If the redskins didn have all these injuries, easily could be at least 6-3 if not 7-2 right now. Plus u play in the weakest division in the nfl where the nfc is the toughest. thats why peyton was able to get 10 11 12 wins every year and choke in the playoffs cuz he didnt have any real competition in that divison. Look at the giants, they win 9 or 10 games and win the SB bcuz they have a legit division that challenges them.

I'm confused.

Redskins should be 8-1 right now,

could easily be 5-4

​easily could be at least 6-3 if not 7-2 right now.

​hmmmmmmmmmmmm

[rg3isnumber1]

I'm confused.

​hmmmmmmmmmmmm

reading comprehension must be bad

8-1 overall all games

5-4 (2 blown games)

6-3/7-2 w/o injuries

gf

[FanFromtheWasteland]

I use various resources, espn/nfl/si/yahoo, some sites present the material in an easier to read/find presentation so it's easier/quicker to decipher/crunch.

That was simply taking their rushing attempts, Passing attempts and sacks and adding it together and taking a screen capture of a spread sheet as opposed to copying and pasting the data into a jumbled looking mess in the post.

There are a couple of sites that track team wide possessions and such, but Grffin missed some time due to that concussion so the team data really wouldn't be 100% accurate, then you have the kneel downs at the end of a half/end of a game that can distort the #'s as well. One would have to chart each drive on a game by game basis which would be time consuming. For the Colts it would be a bit easier since QB2 hasn't made any appearances.

http://www.footballo...tats/drivestats

That information was updated 11/6 so it doesn't include last weeks stats.

This has the Colts with 86 drives and the Redskins with 99.

Since Washington was off last week and was a game up on the Colts, the Colts had 10 drives*(depending on how they account for the final drive, it wasn't a competitive drive, but it wasn't 3 straight kneel downs either. They might count it or they might not) vs. Jacksonville, so that would put the Colts at 96 or 95 drives compared to the Redskins 99. So the #'s are still in line.

Cool. Thanks for the info FJC. I really appreciate it.

[FireJimCaldwell]

reading comprehension must be bad

8-1 overall all games

5-4 (2 blown games)

6-3/7-2 w/o injuries

gf

My reading comprehension is fine, it's just impossible to be all of those things. One would think you would stick to 8-1, or 7-2, or 6-3, or 5-4, instead of making excuses on why are 3-6.

[rg3isnumber1]

My reading comprehension is fine, it's just impossible to be all of those things. One would think you would stick to 8-1, or 7-2, or 6-3, or 5-4, instead of making excuses on why are 3-6.

just listing possible scenarios

everyone knows this isnt a 3-6 team

[Superman]

reading comprehension must be bad

8-1 overall all games

5-4 (2 blown games)

6-3/7-2 w/o injuries

gf

So, if not for the Redskins having lost six games, they wouldn't have lost six games...right?

[FireJimCaldwell]

just listing possible scenarios

everyone knows this isnt a 3-6 team

What is their record?

Oh your 11 drops you were crying about a few weeks ago. It was actually 5. Embellish much?

[rg3isnumber1]

So, if not for the Redskins having lost six games, they wouldn't have lost six games...right?

im just sayin what other scenarios there were

do u honestly think this is a 3-6 team? we have the best qb in the nfc east and rookie in the league and he cant carry the sorry defense giving up 400 yards a game

[rg3isnumber1]

What is their record?

Oh your 11 drops you were crying about a few weeks ago. It was actually 5. Embellish much?

it was more than 5 drops and even 5 can change the outcome of a game. rg3 cant throw and catch at the same time

[Superman]

im just sayin what other scenarios there were

do u honestly think this is a 3-6 team? we have the best qb in the nfc east and rookie in the league and he cant carry the sorry defense giving up 400 yards a game

Like Bill Parcells says, you are what your record says you are. The Redskins might be more talented than their record reflects, but that doesn't change their record. You talk about the sorry defense giving up 400 yards per game, and that's a big part of the reason the team hasn't won more. You can't just ignore that part of the football team.

Aside from all that, I think maybe you're having trouble being objective. Calling Griffin the best quarterback quarterback in the division is ... how do I put this mildly ... devoid of perspective?

[rg3isnumber1]

Like Bill Parcells says, you are what your record says you are. The Redskins might be more talented than their record reflects, but that doesn't change their record. You talk about the sorry defense giving up 400 yards per game, and that's a big part of the reason the team hasn't won more. You can't just ignore that part of the football team.

Aside from all that, I think maybe you're having trouble being objective. Calling Griffin the best quarterback quarterback in the division is ... how do I put this mildly ... devoid of perspective?

Im just goin by stats RG3 has the highest completion percentage 14 total TDs which is the most, highest qb rating, and the only thing he has less is yards. Numbers dont lie just like stepeh a smith says.

[FireJimCaldwell]

it was more than 5 drops and even 5 can change the outcome of a game. rg3 cant throw and catch at the same time

Actually it was 5. I made a point to look at his #'s later in that week when they finally updated it. Then someone needs to teach him to multitask.

[rg3isnumber1]

Actually it was 5. I made a point to look at his #'s later in that week when they finally updated it. Then someone needs to teach him to multitask.

i look at it as a positive

even with 5 drops and a poor defense he is still a top qb right now and statistically the best in the nfc east right now. we werent going to the sb anyways but my point is rg3 is playi better than luck

[FireJimCaldwell]

i look at it as a positive

even with 5 drops and a poor defense he is still a top qb right now and statistically the best in the nfc east right now. we werent going to the sb anyways but my point is rg3 is playi better than luck

That game was on 10/28. Here is quote I made from that thread.

It sounds like it will. With people other than Redskins fans discussing a high # of them. Like I said, Griffin had 11 entering the game, and if he had anything close to that in one game then that is a really crazy game.

Luck had 13 entering today and its safe to say there were a couple more, nothing close to double digits, but since Luck has thrown more passes, the Griffin drops account for a higher %.

The Redskins now have 20 drops

http://hosted.stats.com/fb/tmleaders.asp?type=Receiving&range=NFL&rank=232

The other teams aren't likely updated from last weeks games yet.

So in the Panthers/Steelers games the Redsksins dropped 9 combined passes. I made it a point to look it up later that week and he was at 16, so it appears they dropped for in the next game.

[rg3isnumber1]

That game was on 10/28. Here is quote I made from that thread.

The Redskins now have 20 drops

http://hosted.stats....ge=NFL&rank=232

The other teams aren't likely updated from last weeks games yet.

So in the Panthers/Steelers games the Redsksins dropped 9 combined passes. I made it a point to look it up later that week and he was at 16, so it appears they dropped for in the next game.

so in his 2 lowest completion percentage games he had the most drops, just shows that he is really that good and proving my point he is the best rookie qb right now and probably top 10

[FireJimCaldwell]

so in his 2 lowest completion percentage games he had the most drops, just shows that he is really that good and proving my point he is the best rookie qb right now and probably top 10

Every QB has drops. I didn't watch the games, but I'm sure Carolina and Pittsburgh had drops in that game too. Some are obvious bigger than other depending on the score/time D&D, etc, but every QB has drops.

He's been impressive. I don't know about top 10, but he has been more impressive than I anticipated.

[Superman]

Im just goin by stats

3-6 is a stat.

RG3 has the highest completion percentage14 total TDs which is the most, highest qb rating, and the only thing he has less is yards. Numbers dont lie just like stepeh a smith says.

Oh my.

Do you seriously believe Robert Griffin III is a better quarterback than Eli Manning?

[BleedingBlue]

Yes.

1. Reggie Wayne.

2. Chuckstrong.

3. Princess Schedule.

[coltsfan_nyc]

heck no!!!! No disrespect, but the Redskins had a team built already to plug a franchise QB into and they are still at the bottom of the wide open NFC East as usual. They even tailor the offense to RG3 with that college option stuff to no avail. Even the Panthers beat them. Plus RG3 seems kind of reckless the way he plays and finally I'm tired of all of his commercials that air every 5 minutes.