OT - Do you take Luck or Griffin III?
It's a slow day, so here's another NFL Draft question: Do you take Andrew Luck or do you take Robert Griffin III if you have the choice? My choice is Luck but only for the admittedly boring reason that he's already shown what he can do in a pro-style offense. I'm leery of spread guys in the NFL, though Griffin looks great.
Another prediction: Both guys will have to learn to be more careful about when they scramble because of the superior size and speed of NFL defenses. Luck's upright running makes me think that he's going to get clocked a few times in his first year.
It depends on the offense a team wants to run. If I'm the Colts, I take Luck.
Luck for the same reason you stated.
Here in DC the buzz is heavy for RGIII I think people here would want RGIII even if Luck were available.
That said, RGIII.
Maybe, but they basically sold the farm to make it happen. I'd be concerned if I were Griffin.
I'd certainly rather be in Luck's shoes. Washington fans are going to come down on RGIII hard if he doesn't light the world on fire. And the team still won't have those picks even if he does.
idk the Colts cleaned house and have very little talent left on that team. It is hard to believe Luck will have very good numbers there his first few years, Fans aren't very patient.....
Yeah Luck isn't going to have many weapons. Now that Garcon and Anthony Gonzalez are gone, he essentially only has Reggie Wayne as a legitimate target. Austin Collie might be okay, but he did next to nothing without Manning throwing to him last season. They also just cut sparty's Blair White.
So unless the Colts get some decent receivers out of the draft, my guess is that RGIII has a better rookie season.
they have draft picks. Something that Washington has a lot fewer of. Washington probably won't be any good for a few years. And those two traded first round picks should hinder the Redskins.
If Washington does in fact draft RG3, the poor kid doesn't stand a chance. Washington gave up a ton to get the 2nd pick so Snyder will have to throw money at free agents... again and we all know how free agents do in washington.
As a Redskin fan I would much rather have RGIII over Luck. I was concerned the past couple weeks when the Colts GM kept hinting that them taking RGIII was still a possibility.
I think Luck has all of the intangibles to be the next Peyton Manning in Indy. I'd take Luck, but I have a funny feeling that RG3 is gonna be really fun to watch.
They both seem really high on that count (not that you were suggesting otherwise). I think we can at least say that Griffin isn't going to be the Ryan Leaf to Luck's Peyton Manning.
I think Luck and RGIII both have at least 8-10 intangibles while Tannehill only has 3. Definitely good to have more intangibles. If Tannehill had at least 5 intangibles, I might look at him though
All of the intangibles.
LOL.
But how do you know?
Because Mel Kiper Jr. told me so.
He tanged them.
The Colts have had practice building around a cerebral, talented QB with Manning, and I think it would be smart for them to look to do the same with Luck.
Decision Making Skills
Griffin had a higher completion %, same amount of TDs, and fewer INTs.
Maybe both, since depth always helps.
Cousins.....no I wouldn't.
For me it's RG3 for the future upside. Luck is closer to his ceiling than RG3 is in my opinion. You probably can't lose either way though. Both will be excellent representatives for the sport, maybe even the best until Denard comes a knocking!!
I think both have the potential to be very good, but I think Luck is a little bit safer. But who the hell knows how either will adjust to the pro game in the end.
I take Luck, and I don't even consider taking Griffin.
The problem in the short term is that neither team has a particularly good set of RBs, WRs, TEs, or a decent O-line. I suspect both of them are going to get mauled this year.
The Skins have solid TE's. Under Shanihan's system, RB's always seem to do well, so I am not sure your comment holds true. They need a couple of WR's as Moss's best days seem to be behind him.
Although they are gettin RGIII, I'd still rather have Luck, but either way should be a win-win.
also have Pierre Garcon via free agency. Moss, Garcon WR's, and Davis/Cooley as TE's with Helu and Royster/Hightower at RB. RGIII will have offensive weapons. The question for the Skins will be the O-Line.
In a heartbeat, I'd rather spend money to watch RGIII than to watch Luck. If I'm running a team with an already somewhat stable staff and lineup (sans QB), I'm going with RGIII. If I'm an exec of a team that needs to be completely rebuilt from the ground up, I'm going with Luck.
Yes, but teams that need to rebuild from the ground up, or have a dysfunctional offensive line might benefit from Griffin's mobility. Did you ever watch Stafford play behind Georgia's decimated line?
Luck all the way. RGIII feels like a bust in the making - he'll be a decent pro, but I have a feeling that we'll all look back in 3 years and realize that the defenses in the Big 12 were horrible and that his success was at least due in part to being an athletic guy playing below average defenses.
I just watch him throw the ball and I don't see how he'll be any better than Vince Young in the pros, and that might be a stretch.
As if the Pac-16 defenses were any better. It's not like Luck was playing Alabama week in and week out. As to the Vinve Young comparison, the only similarity I see is that they're both black. RGIII is a better passer, decision maker, improvisor, more intelligent, and more mature than Vince Young ever was, yet he delivers in the clutch just as well as Vince Young did. I would take RGII if the franchise I was in charge of wasn't rebuilding from the ground up. Redskins are a perfect situation for RGII. Solid defense and serviceable and improving offensive weapons. Further, the video below dismisses all of the arm-talent questions thrown at RGIII.
This is absolutely idiotic. Where is the Vince Young comparison coming from? Being black isn't a reason to compare quarterbacks. RGIII threw for over 4,000 yards with 37 TD's and only 6 picks. He ran for around 500-600 yards.
Luck seems at first to be the obvious choice, but I just don't know. I think if I were a GM, I'd go with Luck because he's a safer bet, but RGIII just has so much potential.
He could be the first ever fully dual threat QB in the NFL. There have been some great passers who could run a bit (Steve Young comes to mind) and some great runners who throw well enough, but I don't think the NFL has ever seen anyone be really outstanding in both regards.
I'm not sure RGIII will be the first guy to put it all together, but if he does, I'd wager he'll be better than Luck.
Steve Young was a great runner, IMO. He wasn't particularly fast, but I'm pretty sure the 49ers thought about moving him to RB when Montana was still there.
When I'm talking about a great running QB, I'm thinking of a guy who would do well in the NFL even if he was a below-average passer. While I'm certainly in agreement that Young posed a threat with his legs, I don't think he would have been an NFL QB if his passing skills were marginal.
I'd make the same point about McNair too. Although he had seasons where he seemed to click as a passer, his career QB rating is just north of 80. If he couldn't run, he would have been just an average Joe backup.
Bill Walsh thought that Young could have done very well running out of the single wing, which wouldn't have required great passing necessarily. http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3643210
I don't know how to imbed a clip, but here is a link to a video of Young winding his way (somewhat clumsily at the end, admittedly) through the Vikings' defense. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HG_OCaKeiU8
Randall Cunnigham was an athletic freak. Seemed like he won the QB challenge every year.
I'd argue Steve "all-terrain" McNair would fit the truly dual-threat label. He wasn't going 80 yards to the house like Denard or RGIII, but he was going to Tebow out 15 yard chunks of yardage whenever he scrambled. His passing, decision-making, etc., were all-pro level. 1999 Co-NFL MVP with Peyton Manning.
Neither. I'd take Kirk Cousins for sure.
/s
Does it really even matter that much? Both are going to have no offensive help around them for the next couple of years
Luck is ready today to be an NFL QB. He might be able to win right now. I think RG3 needs a little more work, but his ceiling is much higher. The Colts are so bad right now (especially on defense), and I think they need a few-not a couple- more years to develop back into what they were under Manning. By that point, I think RG3 reaches his full potential and is better than Luck.
But it's a risk/reward scenario. You're betting the house that RGIII reaches that a yet-unforeseen level of QB awesomeness. It would be awesome, and in most years, probably worth it the risk just because the reward would be so high.
However, in years when you have a Peyton Manning or a Andrew Luck, you take the sure thing. You can win a Super Bowl with Andrew Luck as QB. There's a small chance that RGIII can win you one on his awesomeness alone, but there's a greater chance he ends up in the Vick-Young range of QBs that will win you some games but lose you others and that you can't win Super Bowls with
But I think that Luck is in a better position to win now. Do the Colts necessarily want that? I would rather take a couple of years, let my QB develop, and build around him with great (higher) draft picks, and (theoretically) have a great, balanced team.
Also, I don't like the comparisons to Vick/Young. I see RG3 as a balanced quarterback. I generally hear more praise for his arms than his legs. Yes, he can run, but he can put the ball on a spot as well as just about any college qb.
You base this on Luck being a "sure thing." Nothing guarantee's Luck is more of a "sure thing" than RGIII is.
I really like everything about Luck, personality, humblness, skill, school-smart, football-smart, etc....
RGIII is a good football player, don't get my wrong. In terms of pro's I see him being a Vick type...but I also don't like his personality as much. He seems very....self-absorbed?
This is a no-brainer to me. I'm a bit of a traditionalist when it comes to football, but what "mobile" QB has taken his team to a Super Bowl victory? I can think of one - Steve Young. The rest of them have been pocket quarterbacks, for the most part - Brady, Dilfer, Favre, Manning, Manning, Montana, Elway, Aikman, etc. Guys like Randall Cunningham, Donovan McNabb, Michael Vick, etc. just don't win the big games.
I understand that there have been fewer mobile quarterbacks, so it's not an exact science. But if you have a guy who has a chance to be the next Michael Vick (minus the drugs and dogfighting) or the next Peyton Manning, you go with Manning. No ifs, ands, or buts.
I go with Luck.
to the list of almost got you there candidates
Where would you classify Ben Roethlisberger? He seems pretty mobile to me. He's won 2 superbowls.
He's mobile in the pocket, but his main asset is moving around, breaking tackles, etc. to throw the ball. He's not going to hurt you much by taking off and running downfield. There's a difference. Elway and Favre were the same way, although Elway was probably the best runner of those three...