Will Andrew Luck be ranked above Robert Griffin III on the Top 100?

[cranium cramp]

This is a topic that analysts have talked about over the last few weeks and I cannot believe how many of them think that Luck will not. The way I see it, Luck started an ENTIRE season without injury and won more games than RG3 did last year. He also had more yards and TD passes along with all of the 4th quarter comebacks and game winning drives that he executed. Robert Griffin III had a better completion percentage, however, a big part of that is because he did not throw the ball nearly as much and when he did it was short high-percentage passes.The fact that RG3 won Offensive Rookie of the Year just shows you that the award is nothing but a big popularity contest. It is up to the players votes though. Id love to see what everyone else thinks

Hey, if he ranks above Curtis Painter...................I'm good.

[Dustin]

I think you could make an argument that it wasn't. PFF has stats to show that RG3 had less time before he's sacked, by ~.4 of a second, than Luck did even with Washington being less of a vertical team than Indy was.

The scheme/offense Washington masked A LOT of their deficiencies where our scheme/offense exploited ours. That was my main problem with Arians.

Edit: Worded the above wrong about time to throw, should have been time before player is sacked.

That's because he holds onto the ball longer than almsot any players in the league. 3.01 seconds compared to 2.86 for Luck in an an offense that's not nearly as vertical. That's a sign of a player that doesn't progress through his reads quick enough.

Also, that data your referring to is incomplete as it was written a month before the season ended.

PFF O-line rankings have them 15th in pass blocking, compared to 31 for Indy.

[Narcosys]

Once I saw 11 QBs rated above Big Ben, I knew it was a sham. And I don't even like Big Ben. But putting rookies above a two time Super Bowl winner in his prime. It is a joke.

I think Andrew Luck summed it up best "I shouldn't even be on that list" or something like that.

You do know that the list is not covering their entire careers but their performances from the year before and how they might be the next year right?

[Qwiz]

You do know that the list is not covering their entire careers but their performances from the year before and how they might be the next year right?

Roethlisberger had a better year statistically. Not sure how things are going to look next year though.

[oldunclemark]

Since (as I understand it) its a guess of the Top-100 players of 2013..not 2012...

 

Luck will be higher than RG3...

[SilentHill]

He Should

[AntonMcG]

So... you're saying you do care?

 

 

Completion percentage is generally something that isn't supposed to change based on volume of throws given that you have a sufficient sample size to start with.  That just isn't how percentages work.  Griffin did throw a higher percentage of his throws to the short area than Luck but he was more accurate than Luck throwing to virtually all areas of the field.  It's something that bears out both in the statistical splits and through the good old eyeball test.

 

Really, though, who seriously cares about these rankings?

 

Well that's just not true. This is not an issue of how percentages work... it is an issue of throwing volume affecting what a defense does. By your logic, there is little point in play-action, little point in a running game at all and little point in changing game-plan based on game situation. There are so many other things I could list here but I believe I have made my point.

 

Throwing volume matters, and it greatly affects pass completion percentage.

[adamthyst]

Unfortunately he will, but I don't care. I'm happy with the way Luck plays and proud of what he accomplished as a rookie for the Colts.

[SLILLINGTON10]

i like all our players thinking and playing with a chip on their shoulders

[GoColts8818]

Don't know don't care.

[ruksak]

There was a time when I loved the NFLN. Watched it all the time. 

 

Anymore, these endless arbitrary lists and rankings, their tabloid-esque reporting about Tebow ..... can't stand to watch them anymore. I can't decide which is worse, their dingbat sexy reporters who's job it is to flash leg skin, smile and look pretty or the illiterate ex-pros whom stumble to talk like they have a mouth full of marbles. 

 

They spend so much time engaging in sensationalism, talking about the cowboys and the Jets, Romo Sanchez Tebow over and over. Must be 80% of their program time doing that. 

 

Everytime I flip by their station and it's the same Top Ten Endzone Celebrations show....just roll my eyes and think about the thousands of random games they have in their archive and how they could be showing actual football for the fans. 

[Narcosys]

Roethlisberger had a better year statistically. Not sure how things are going to look next year though.

Luck had more yards and more TD's. he haldo threw nearly 50% more passes and made 50% more completions. Unfortunately that also lowers completion percentage. He had more INT's, but that is expected with the different play styles and number of passes between the two. He also led the Colts to more wins. Which on the end is what counts.

[Qwiz]

Luck had more yards and more TD's. he haldo threw nearly 50% more passes and made 50% more completions. Unfortunately that also lowers completion percentage. He had more INT's, but that is expected with the different play styles and number of passes between the two. He also led the Colts to more wins. Which on the end is what counts.

Roethlisberger threw 26 TDs, 12 threw for 23. And it isn't about how much you throw, the stats are what they are, and Ben put up a 63.3 completion percentage with only 8 INTs to 12's 54 percent completion and 18 INTs. In Ben's first year with Arians he only threw 11 INTs as well and still posted a high completion percentage as well as throwing for 32 TDs. And I know that QBs get the credit for wins but again, as so many around here like to say, it is a team game after all lol. The media isn't going to ask which guy was forced to throw more or not, neither will the history books, it's about the stats themselves. I do agree that it is the wins that count though.

[braveheartcolt]

Roethlisberger threw 26 TDs, 12 threw for 23. And it isn't about how much you throw, the stats are what they are, and Ben put up a 63.3 completion percentage with only 8 INTs to 12's 54 percent completion and 18 INTs. In Ben's first year with Arians he only threw 11 INTs as well and still posted a high completion percentage as well as throwing for 32 TDs. And I know that QBs get the credit for wins but again, as so many around here like to say, it is a team game after all lol. The media isn't going to ask which guy was forced to throw more or not, neither will the history books, it's about the stats themselves. I do agree that it is the wins that count though.

I agree, it a team game. Completions, INT's, TD's, Wins. A QB can't do it on his own.

[Tony Sullivan]

Roethlisberger threw 26 TDs, 12 threw for 23. And it isn't about how much you throw, the stats are what they are, and Ben put up a 63.3 completion percentage with only 8 INTs to 12's 54 percent completion and 18 INTs. In Ben's first year with Arians he only threw 11 INTs as well and still posted a high completion percentage as well as throwing for 32 TDs. And I know that QBs get the credit for wins but again, as so many around here like to say, it is a team game after all lol. The media isn't going to ask which guy was forced to throw more or not, neither will the history books, it's about the stats themselves.

 

The problem with looking just at stats is they look at every play wqually. An int when you're down by 30 with 5 minutes left is the same as an int that leads to a pick 6. Stats don't have a weight-factor for the importance of a play.

 

Saying that I agree Ben was the better passer if you look at every throw, which stats do, but Luck was better in the moments that mattered, which stats don't show.

 

 

 "In Ben's first year with Arians he only threw 11 INTs as well and still posted a high completion percentage as well as throwing for 32 TDs"

 

Ben's first year with Arian's... 4TH year in the league lol.

[Qwiz]

I agree, it a team game. Completions, INT's, TD's, Wins. A QB can't do it on his own.

Exactly. I think that's part of the appeal of football to fans and to teens in high school. A lot of cogs working together for one goal...the win.

[Qwiz]

 

The problem with looking just at stats is they look at every play wqually. An int when you're down by 30 with 5 minutes left is the same as an int that leads to a pick 6. Stats don't have a weight-factor for the importance of a play.

 

Saying that I agree Ben was the better passer if you look at every throw, which stats do, but Luck was better in the moments that mattered, which stats don't show.

 

 

 "In Ben's first year with Arians he only threw 11 INTs as well and still posted a high completion percentage as well as throwing for 32 TDs"

 

Ben's first year with Arian's... 4TH year in the league lol.

Yeah I know that stats don't tell the whole story, I actually got into a long discussion about the subject with a poster on here just a couple of weeks ago. But sometimes it's all they have to show us just how efficient a player really is. I do agree that the magic or "clutch" moments don't show up on the stat sheet and those are indeed some of the best moments in football.

As far as Ben and his 4th year goes I nearly typed rookie, thought about it, and then caught myself lol. I was like hold on...Arians wasn't in Pittsburgh in 2004! Lol. I just threw that in there to show that Ben actually put up slightly better numbers (but less yards) than A12 did in his first year with the same O and coordinator.

[funktacious2]

Healthy all season or not Luck was not both the Heisman winner and ROY. RG3 however was. Luck was a great team leader last season and very clutch, but RG3 is electrifying I could easily see why his peers would rank him higher, but who knows how it'll be 5 years from now.

[RGIII]

I think you missed what he was saying. A percentage is just a ratio. Whether you were 5 of 10, or 30 of 60....its still 50%. I'm assuming his point was that if you're a 55% passer on average, then you'll be a 55% passer whether you attempt 200 or 400 passes. Think of it like probability.

 

Nailed it.  You can't project how Griffin would do in Luck's scheme last year but so long as he stays in our scheme you could reasonably expect to remain at ~65% on completions even if he threw 600+ times.  Because math.

 

That's because he holds onto the ball longer than almsot any players in the league. 3.01 seconds compared to 2.86 for Luck in an an offense that's not nearly as vertical. That's a sign of a player that doesn't progress through his reads quick enough.

Also, that data your referring to is incomplete as it was written a month before the season ended.

PFF O-line rankings have them 15th in pass blocking, compared to 31 for Indy.

 

I don't think that extra sixth of a second is terribly meaningful in a comparison between the two players, especially considering how Griffin was particularly inclined to use his legs to buy time in the face of a pass rush.  Both guys need to improve on their reads.  Griffin may have tended to hold onto the ball longer than was advisable but he also made substantially less mistakes throwing the football than Luck.

 

Neither player will become elite if they don't clean up their flaws over the next couple of seasons.

 

Well that's just not true. This is not an issue of how percentages work... it is an issue of throwing volume affecting what a defense does. By your logic, there is little point in play-action, little point in a running game at all and little point in changing game-plan based on game situation. There are so many other things I could list here but I believe I have made my point.

 

Throwing volume matters, and it greatly affects pass completion percentage.

 

Throwing volume doesn't change anything unless you assume that the increase in volume comes with a radical alteration of how the offense works, which is not something you can project with any small degree of accuracy.  In other words, it's absolutely pointless to say that Griffin would have the same % as Luck in that Colts scheme because you have absolutely no way of knowing whatsoever.  Griffin's numbers might have dropped or he might STILL have completed more passes with less interceptions were he placed in Luck's shoes.

 

I'll concede that if that's truly what was being argued then my point about the math may not have been terribly relevant.  However, those kinds of "what if" scenarios are pretty useless in the grand scheme of things.

[BOTT]

Healthy all season or not Luck was not both the Heisman winner and ROY. RG3 however was. Luck was a great team leader last season and very clutch, but RG3 is electrifying I could easily see why his peers would rank him higher, but who knows how it'll be 5 years from now.

What does winning a joke of an award like the Heisman have to do with anything?

[Narcosys]

Roethlisberger threw 26 TDs, 12 threw for 23. And it isn't about how much you throw, the stats are what they are, and Ben put up a 63.3 completion percentage with only 8 INTs to 12's 54 percent completion and 18 INTs. In Ben's first year with Arians he only threw 11 INTs as well and still posted a high completion percentage as well as throwing for 32 TDs. And I know that QBs get the credit for wins but again, as so many around here like to say, it is a team game after all lol. The media isn't going to ask which guy was forced to throw more or not, neither will the history books, it's about the stats themselves. I do agree that it is the wins that count though.

All true, but you excluded his 5 TD runs. That pits him at 28. Stats can be misleading without context I believe.

[Qwiz]

All true, but you excluded his 5 TD runs. That pits him at 28. Stats can be misleading without context I believe.

Ah yes, the rushing TDs. I was just looking at things from a passing standpoint though.

[Flash7]

Yeah I know that stats don't tell the whole story, I actually got into a long discussion about the subject with a poster on here just a couple of weeks ago. But sometimes it's all they have to show us just how efficient a player really is. I do agree that the magic or "clutch" moments don't show up on the stat sheet and those are indeed some of the best moments in football.

As far as Ben and his 4th year goes I nearly typed rookie, thought about it, and then caught myself lol. I was like hold on...Arians wasn't in Pittsburgh in 2004! Lol. I just threw that in there to show that Ben actually put up slightly better numbers (but less yards) than A12 did in his first year with the same O and coordinator.

Quiz, I understand that it's somewhat relevant to compare Ben's and Luck's stats because they both played under Arians. The difference is that when Ben played under Arians, the Steelers were a winning organization with so much talent-- good receiving corps,  a running game, and terrific defense. Much of that Luck did not have this year. Luck's stats do not compare to Ben's and neither do the 2012 Colts to the teams that Ben played on, yet, with Luck the Colts had a tremendous season. No matter what the stats say, as  Colts fans, we will always know that Luck endured so much more than Big Ben had to--that wasn't self inflicted.

[Qwiz]

Quiz, I understand that it's somewhat relevant to compare Ben's and Luck's stats because they both played under Arians. The difference is that when Ben played under Arians, the Steelers were a winning organization with so much talent-- good receiving corps,  a running game, and terrific defense. Much of that Luck did not have this year. Luck's stats do not compare to Ben's and neither do the 2012 Colts to the teams that Ben played on, yet, with Luck the Colts had a tremendous season. No matter what the stats say, as  Colts fans, we will always know that Luck endured so much more than Big Ben had to--that wasn't self inflicted.

I get that. I'm not downplaying his season. I was just putting the numbers into the equation for those who were saying that Roethlisberger sucked this year or that 12 was exponentially better than him and stuff like that. I know how much you guys appreciate what he did this year, and of course I respect that. A breath of fresh air after 2011, I know that's for sure.

[Flash7]

No, I do not think that Andrew Luck will be ranked above Robert Griffin in the Top100 rankings for the following reasons:

 

1. The rankings are based on polling from the players in the NFL. They do not have time to investigate every player and how well they've performed. They will base their opinion from what they've seen in games, ESPN, and what they've heard. That's hardly a definitive way to judge someone's performance throughout an entire season.

 

2. It's based on NFL players and their perceptions, and the style of play of Robert Griffin will get more attention and notice than Luck's.

 

3. The pistol, read-option became a household name due to RGIII and how well he did in that offense. He made it deadly in the NFL and will get recognized for it. Others copied it due to RGIII's success with it.

 

4. Stats. RGIII had better traditional stats than Luck.

[basketballsteve]

I wouldn't trade Luck for any other player in the NFL. Andrew is a horse, he'll play down after down, for years and years, he's smart, has his head on straight, has an unequaled work ethic and competitiveness (well....maybe Peyton) and he's as talented running and throwing as anyone of the other young QB's. Make an argument that there is a more talented QB in the NFL...Rogers, Brees their careers are more than half over and once upon a time Bert Jones was the most talented QB in the NFL....but it didn't last. Andrew Luck is built to win and built to last.

[Yehoodi]

Although people in QB discussions will look just at "QB" stats to make a determination, I like to step back and look at a larger picture which can encompass handful of things that may not always apply .  . . but here what is important for me is the rushing yards and TD yards of the two QB . . . after all in the end we always need to look at the bigger picture which is the QB contribution to the team, which can come in the form of passing yards or personal rushing yards among a few things. 

 

if we looked at the combines stats RGIII combine numbers are much closer to Luck's numbers than just the traditional QB stats . . .

 

Both QBs help lead the team to the playoffs after having less than stellar seasons the year prior . . . my guess is that RGIII will be higher, fair or not, as he helped lead his team to the PO and only the second division title in some 20 years . . . an indication that the team has kind of been wandering in the wilderness for some time . . .

[Yehoodi]

There was a time when I loved the NFLN. Watched it all the time. 

 

Anymore, these endless arbitrary lists and rankings, their tabloid-esque reporting about Tebow ..... can't stand to watch them anymore. I can't decide which is worse, their dingbat sexy reporters who's job it is to flash leg skin, smile and look pretty or the illiterate ex-pros whom stumble to talk like they have a mouth full of marbles. 

 

They spend so much time engaging in sensationalism, talking about the cowboys and the Jets, Romo Sanchez Tebow over and over. Must be 80% of their program time doing that. 

 

Everytime I flip by their station and it's the same Top Ten Endzone Celebrations show....just roll my eyes and think about the thousands of random games they have in their archive and how they could be showing actual football for the fans. 

 

Yah but would you watch it on Saturday mornings if they had 90 minute Warner Bros Cartoon show like back in the day   maybe they can throw in some School House Rock with the "I'm just a Bill" Bill . . .

 

I agree with you 100%, used to watch a lot of NFLN, I still do but it is getting too much into sensationalism  . . . I find myself DVRing Total Access and watching it later, or have on Around the League while making dinner . . .

[ruksak]

Yah but would you watch it on Saturday mornings if they had 90 minute Warner Bros Cartoon show like back in the day   maybe they can throw in some School House Rock with the "I'm just a Bill" Bill . . .

 

 

Are you speaking ill of Looney Tunes? You better not be.... ;)

 

I agree with you 100%, used to watch a lot of NFLN, I still do but it is getting too much into sensationalism  . . . I find myself DVRing Total Access and watching it later, or have on Around the League while making dinner . . .

 

NLFN was much better in it's infancy. They used to be more about hard football reporting, nitty-gritty insider type stuff. Now, they've given in to sensationalism and it's just so sad. They center their reporting around big market teams, talking ad nauseam about Sanchez, Tebow, Romo, leaving fans of other teams wondering what's up with their teams. 

 

I still prefer it over ESPN, as I don't have to wait to hear football news while watching the latest from the world of golf or whatever. Mostly, I just don't understand why they don't show more game re-airs. The ones they do show seem to be on some cycle, repeating the broadcast over and over again. 

[MikeVander]

Yep. All about the flashy players. That's why RG3 is praised for fumbling

NFL.com suggests that Luck lost 5 fumbles compared to RG3's 2 fumbles lost.

 

The Colts probably were in more passing situations, which would cause that situation to occur more often, but just an interesting statistic to throw out there. I know which fumble you mean in specific, though. 

[buccolts]

There was a time when I loved the NFLN. Watched it all the time. 

 

Anymore, these endless arbitrary lists and rankings, their tabloid-esque reporting about Tebow ..... can't stand to watch them anymore. I can't decide which is worse, their dingbat sexy reporters who's job it is to flash leg skin, smile and look pretty or the illiterate ex-pros whom stumble to talk like they have a mouth full of marbles. 

 

They spend so much time engaging in sensationalism, talking about the cowboys and the Jets, Romo Sanchez Tebow over and over. Must be 80% of their program time doing that. 

 

Everytime I flip by their station and it's the same Top Ten Endzone Celebrations show....just roll my eyes and think about the thousands of random games they have in their archive and how they could be showing actual football for the fans. 

 

I agree, and though I only found Rich Eisen tolerable, I find Andrew Siciliano a huge drop off.

The Top Ten shows are O.K., but how many times can you watch the same ones over, and over.

You're correct, it's a shame they don't show more games during the off season.

[ruksak]

I agree, and though I only found Rich Eisen tolerable, I find Andrew Siciliano a huge drop off.

The Top Ten shows are O.K., but how many times can you watch the same ones over, and over.

You're correct, it's a shame they don't show more games during the off season.

Just to be clear in my comments about the female reporters, so that I don't seem sexist. 

 

Lindsay (Soto) Rhodes is fantastic. Well spoken, knowledgeable, a great fit for the network. 

 

But many of these others are just dressing, and I find such practices to be insulting. As a man, counter to popular opinion, I really don't require everything I watch on TV to be sprinkled with sex appeal. 

 

This trend is just silly. Like on FOX News, where they have those "leg chairs". 

 

 

 

...well, you get the point. Every show they have to make sure there is a pair of sexy legs up front. 

 

People will say this is insulting to women, objectification etc etc. But, isn't this sort of thing kinda insulting to men too? Does this sort of thing actually increase viewers? Are men really this terribly shallow? 

[Yehoodi]

Are you speaking ill of Looney Tunes? You better not be.... ;)

 

 

NLFN was much better in it's infancy. They used to be more about hard football reporting, nitty-gritty insider type stuff. Now, they've given in to sensationalism and it's just so sad. They center their reporting around big market teams, talking ad nauseam about Sanchez, Tebow, Romo, leaving fans of other teams wondering what's up with their teams. 

 

I still prefer it over ESPN, as I don't have to wait to hear football news while watching the latest from the world of golf or whatever. Mostly, I just don't understand why they don't show more game re-airs. The ones they do show seem to be on some cycle, repeating the broadcast over and over again. 

 

Yes I forgot the name, ty  . . . no I as not speaking ill of Looney Tunes . . . just made a point that we would watch any channel provided it had the correct shows  and as I am/was a big fan of Looney Tunes and presume you are, and thus making a point that we would watch NFLN even though we dislike all other programming . . . not my best effort and making a jest/reference to some good ole memories . . . Earlier this evening saw SW's post with a link to a Foghorn Leghorn's cartoon on Youtube, saw your post about TV and got inspired . . . not my best effort I know . . .  

 

yes NFLN has gotten a little out of hand . . . and agree that is does focus on the big market teams . . . the one show that if find does not really do this is Around the League, which I generally watch on Mondays . . .

 

Getting back Looney Tunes and Foghorn Leghorn is one of favorite characters . . . loved the interaction with he and that "dawg"

[buccolts]

Just to be clear in my comments about the female reporters, so that I don't seem sexist. 

 

Lindsay (Soto) Rhodes is fantastic. Well spoken, knowledgeable, a great fit for the network. 

 

But many of these others are just dressing, and I find such practices to be insulting. As a man, counter to popular opinion, I really don't require everything I watch on TV to be sprinkled with sex appeal. 

 

This trend is just silly. Like on FOX News, where they have those "leg chairs". 

 

 

 

...well, you get the point. Every show they have to make sure there is a pair of sexy legs up front. 

 

People will say this is insulting to women, objectification etc etc. But, isn't this sort of thing kinda insulting to men too? Does this sort of thing actually increase viewers? Are men really this terribly shallow? 

 

I agree, and it's not why I watch, but I gotta admit, I'm subject to being distracted sometimes.

Perhaps I'm ADD.

[RGknee]

Of course Luck won't. RG1 leg was/is all the media could talk about, outside of tebow and the jets (cue elton john). Everyone acts like this is the first scrambling, flashy quaterback there has ever been. I'm sure every one remembers his Gatorade commercials talkng about him being a champion before he ever played a snap in the NFL.... It's just ESPN hype that will eventually die off.

[shecolt]

I'm sorry, but this Top 100 thing is a joke and I would say that even if Luck was #1.

 

As I was reading through this thread, I was remembering something Brian Urlacher had said about not voting a year or two ago.  It took me a while to find a link, but here it is:

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/so-who-did-vote-on-the-nfl-networks-top-100-list?urn=nfl,wp3002

 

As you will note, the article says that a total of 413 players voted that year which is less than 25% of all players. 

 

So dependent upon who voted, the results could be heavily skewed.  And, unless a higher % voted this year with equal representation across the league, the results of this poll are worthless IMO. 

 

Not to mention that who a player "thinks" will be good/great in 2013 means nothing if that player doesn't live up to those expectations. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Nobody]

NFL.com suggests that Luck lost 5 fumbles compared to RG3's 2 fumbles lost.

The Colts probably were in more passing situations, which would cause that situation to occur more often, but just an interesting statistic to throw out there. I know which fumble you mean in specific, though.

1. Lost? It should be fumbles period.

2. Luck got sacked more, he didn't fumble when scrambling.

[BOTT]

I'm sorry, but this Top 100 thing is a joke and I would say that even if Luck was #1.

As I was reading through this thread, I was remembering something Brian Urlacher had said about not voting a year or two ago. It took me a while to find a link, but here it is:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/so-who-did-vote-on-the-nfl-networks-top-100-list?urn=nfl,wp3002

As you will note, the article says that a total of 413 players voted that year which is less than 25% of all players.

So dependent upon who voted, the results could be heavily skewed. And, unless a higher % voted this year with equal representation across the league, the results of this poll are worthless IMO.

Not to mention that who a player "thinks" will be good/great in 2013 means nothing if that player doesn't live up to those expectations.

PFT reported a whooping 28% voted this year

[funktacious2]

What does winning a joke of an award like the Heisman have to do with anything?

I would think winning the Heisman might help make RG3's NFL peers respect him more. Pair that with ROY, and I could see why he'd be ranked higher than Luck. I'm not saying he's better, I'm just saying it makes a lot of sense that RG3 would end up ranked higher.

[BOTT]

I would think winning the Heisman might help make RG3's NFL peers respect him more. Pair that with ROY, and I could see why he'd be ranked higher than Luck. I'm not saying he's better, I'm just saying it makes a lot of sense that RG3 would end up ranked higher.

Given the long list of duds that have won the heisman, I can't imagine many players would put much stock I to that. Then again most of the players don't even vote, so it's kinda irrelevant