OT - Do you take Luck or Griffin III?

Submitted by Erik_in_Dayton on April 26th, 2012 at 1:42 PM

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. 




April 26th, 2012 at 3:06 PM ^

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. 


April 26th, 2012 at 2:44 PM ^

 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.

Darker Blue

April 26th, 2012 at 1:48 PM ^

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. 


April 26th, 2012 at 1:51 PM ^

For me the top two things you have to look for is pocket mobility and accuracy. Both QBs are plus in that catagory. So the next thing to look at is decision making skills and I believe Luck is ahead on that front. Plus Luck has a bit more height, also the pro-style pedigree. I would take Luck however RG3 is going to be very fun to watch and will help whatever offense he's on put up a bunch of points throughout his career. Luck just may manage his team better.


April 26th, 2012 at 1:57 PM ^

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!!


April 26th, 2012 at 1:58 PM ^

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.


April 26th, 2012 at 2:35 PM ^

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.


April 26th, 2012 at 2:00 PM ^

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.


April 26th, 2012 at 2:01 PM ^

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.

Two Hearted Ale

April 26th, 2012 at 2:22 PM ^

Vince Young's issues had everything to do with his head. He had the physical tools (still does) but he didn't appear to have the aptitude to run an NFL offense and he's mentally unstable which seems to work well for wide receivers but not quarterback. RG3 doesn't appear to suffer from mental illness or lack of aptitude.


April 26th, 2012 at 2:22 PM ^

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.



April 26th, 2012 at 2:04 PM ^

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.


April 26th, 2012 at 2:36 PM ^

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.


April 26th, 2012 at 2:40 PM ^

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 

Cheesecake Wizard

April 26th, 2012 at 2:05 PM ^

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.


April 26th, 2012 at 2:23 PM ^

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

Cheesecake Wizard

April 26th, 2012 at 2:46 PM ^

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.


April 26th, 2012 at 2:06 PM ^

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?


April 26th, 2012 at 2:19 PM ^

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.


April 26th, 2012 at 2:43 PM ^

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...