Final Poll - Rookie of the Year 2012-2013 - Page 4

jsagan77 · 01-22-2013, 07:59 PM

RG3 won sports nation OROTY, which is better than the AP one IMO..

bigbluedefense · 01-22-2013, 08:00 PM

You must be really excited.

jsagan77 · 01-23-2013, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

You must be really excited.

Just validated the points Griffin supporters have made throughout this thread. It's not the official award but still a good accomplishment.

bigbluedefense · 01-23-2013, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsagan77

Just validated the points Griffin supporters have made throughout this thread. It's not the official award but still a good accomplishment.

Bro, the only award you should care about is the Super Bowl. Don't waste energy on caring about all the other stuff. It's all irrelevant.

AntoinCD · 01-23-2013, 02:04 PM

I haven't posted in this thread for a good while because it was hurting my head, however I have on thing to say;

What does offensive rookie of the year actually mean?

Is it purely the best overall offensive player? Because I would be tempted to give that to Matt Kalil.

Is it based on wins?

Is it based on stats?

Is it based on efficiency?

Is it based on the eyeball test?

Is it the best QB? - Most likely

IMO it is obviously a mixture of numerous factors and this is why there is so much discussion/argument in this thread.

It's going to be one of the top QBs because QBs win these awards, however how do you separate them then?

Guys who like stats point to RG3 as the main guy. He has the completion percentage, the TD:INT ratio and the Redskins won with him.

Guys who view everything on watching each player perform in different circumstances and take those circumstances into account likely view either Luck or Wilson as the top guy.

I am definitely more in the second category because despite numerous websites who annotate every play and gather statistics being pretty successful, the NFL is not a game which can be clearly defined by a set of stats and rigid rules.

15/20 is 75% completion which is generally very good in the NFL. However that stat tells you very little.

Likewise, 9 for 17 on 3rd down is pretty good in the NFL however without context it is meaningless. Was it 3rd and 1, 3rd an 10 etc because it becomes a lot more difficult to determine what a player has done. Though on the flip side if a team has more 3rd and long situations the question that needs to be asked is why? Is it an issue with the running game, the passing game and/or both.

The issue with this vote is one group of people will be shown to be right and one wrong. However there is no right or wrong answer. Can RG3 be viewed as the top candidate for rookie of the year? In some ways he most certainly can. Can Andrew Luck? In someways definitely? Can Wilson? Yes. Can Morris? Yes. Can Kalil? Yes

The ambiguity of these awards is what really gets me. I had numerous discussions in the MVP thread because what defines "value?" This award is the same because it isn't a simple case of going player a was better than player b. If Andrew Luck wins the award it doesn't mean he is definitively better than RG3 or Wilson and that works in any which way you want to place them. It just means that the people who vote for this award thought in their criteria he was better than the others. But we don't know what their criteria is.

Do they gloss over Luck's completion % and turnover rate because he was asked to do more? Do they gloss over the fact that RG3 had the second leading rusher in the NFL and played in a controlled offense? Do they discount the first half of the season when talking about Russell Wilson?

I have said since about week 12 that Andrew Luck is the winner of the award IMO. I have explained my reasons for this and why it isn't anyone else. However I understand why people think it should be someone else (I disagree with a lot of it though). But if Luck wins the award it doesn't mean that I was right simply because people agreed with me, and likewise if RG3 wins it doesn't mean I was wrong because people disagree with me.

No matter who wins there will be people who come into this thread to either ***** and moan or gloat. Either way who cares? The award is basically meaningless. No rookie in contention won the Super Bowl and that's what matters. Whoever wins this award doesn't be guaranteed a great career. Whoever wins this award doesn't even mean they were the best offensive rookie.

jsagan77 · 01-23-2013, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

Bro, the only award you should care about is the Super Bowl. Don't waste energy on caring about all the other stuff. It's all irrelevant.

This is a once in a career award. You get one shot at it so to me it's special. That and the way people act like Luck is superior to him irks me a bit because I used to be in the same boat and can admit I was wrong. This trophy along with the Heisman should at least give some indication to others that RG3 is better than Luck. That isn't to knock Luck, I think he's amazing, that's just a big pat on the back to RG3 because it takes a very special player to even be considered on the same level as Luck let alone someone giving him the edge in comparrison. Let's face it, both are studs, but RG3 had the Best year, possibly ever as a rookie. How's Luck supposed to compete with that?

If Griff hadn't hurt his knee in the 1st quarter of the Seahawks game we may have gone the distance. You could see something wasn't right after that roll out but it is what it is.

I think people put far too much emphasis on the SB. It's a great way to recognize an excellent team but it takes a lot of luck (and skill) to win one. It's not an easy thing to do and plenty of great QB's haven't won one. That will all reasonate someday though.

Raiderz4Life · 01-23-2013, 02:15 PM

I think we should give it to the one who finished the season in one piece.

FUNBUNCHER · 01-23-2013, 02:18 PM

There probably won't ever be another year like this where so many deserving candidates are vying for OROTY. Usually it's more clear cut.

When's the last time 3 rookie QBs led their teams to the playoffs???
I'd bet never.
All threw for at least 20 TDs and over 3K yards. It's just a fluke type season that's why I don't look at the award this year as being career defining.

AntoinCD · 01-23-2013, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FUNBUNCHER

There probably won't ever be another year like this where so many deserving candidates are vying for OROTY. Usually it's more clear cut.

When's the last time 3 rookie QBs led their teams to the playoffs???
I'd bet never.
All threw for at least 20 TDs and over 3K yards. It's just a fluke type season that's why I don't look at the award this year as being career defining.

I think that's one of the big reasons why this thread has been going on for so long and gotten so heated at times. All 3 guys and others can have a legitimate argument made for them to win the award. You then look back at other years and sometimes guys pretty much win it by default

G Mobile · 01-23-2013, 02:59 PM

In 3 years no one actually cares about RoY for their career. These threads have been a lively debate and there is no clear cut answer. The RoY becomes an interesting footnote on a guy wikipedia page if they are successful or if they are a failure.

Also Luck just got bumped to the pro bowl on an injury replacement. I swear at least a 1/4th of the rosters has been replaced now.

xjxdarren · 01-23-2013, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G Mobile

In 3 years no one actually cares about RoY for their career. These threads have been a lively debate and there is no clear cut answer. The RoY becomes an interesting footnote on a guy wikipedia page if they are successful or if they are a failure.

Also Luck just got bumped to the pro bowl on an injury replacement. I swear at least a 1/4th of the rosters has been replaced now.

Luck's involvement is not due to the mass exodus that's been the convention, he was the first alternative anyway. When the playoffs started most would assume Luck would be automatically picked up for the actual game, because the only scenario that would prevent that was for Flacco or Dalton to go all the way.

I wonder with the huge success of the playing styles of Russell and Robert this year, if some other young mobile qbs who've had limited to moderate (but promising) effectiveness without being schematically used to reap rewards from their athletic ability, such as Locker or Tannehill, would be asked by their teams to do more of the same; or would they continue to be developing down the path that Andrew is on.

bigbluedefense · 01-23-2013, 03:42 PM

Part of me wants to say that Russell Wilson was better than both of them.

jsagan77 · 01-23-2013, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

Part of me wants to say that Russell Wilson was better than both of them.

I've got that itch too. He was great.

Timbathia · 01-23-2013, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsagan77

Just validated the points Griffin supporters have made throughout this thread. It's not the official award but still a good accomplishment.

Then ONLY way that you can be validated in these threads is if Luck does not get a single vote in any of the awards. You have repeatedly knocked the luck supporters as being complete imbeciles for even contemplating that Luck could be thought of in the same sentence as Grifffin for the award.

If Luck even gets a slice of the votes, you have been proven wrong. The arguments in here were never about who would win, it was always about your complete inability to concede that what Luck was doing was even remotely as impressive as RG3.

This is why everyone has neg repped you (well, not me, but seemingly everyone else).

jsagan77 · 01-23-2013, 04:29 PM

I don't buy for one second that the majority of posters supporting Luck have made their determination by watching all three and coming to that conclusion. It takes about 10 seconds of reading to realize that. I've now watched every snap of each QB (thanks to my wife being awesome and allowing me to record every game, though it costs a crap load).

RG3> or = Wilson>Luck

Luck did not 'do more' for the colts than they did for their teams (except for the first part of the season Wilson was brought along slowly). Granted Wilson played great the second half of the season.

A lot of the stuff people have said is the standard stuff people say when comparing a typical drop back passer in a traditional offense in college and a spread/option style QB.

Don't go through progressions
Can't read defenses
Only throws to one guy
Etc

If these guys watched as much football as they acted like they did they'd have a completely different tune.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AntoinCD

I haven't posted in this thread for a good while because it was hurting my head, however I have on thing to say;

What does offensive rookie of the year actually mean?

Is it purely the best overall offensive player? Because I would be tempted to give that to Matt Kalil.

Is it based on wins?

Is it based on stats?

Is it based on efficiency?

Is it based on the eyeball test?

Is it the best QB? - Most likely

IMO it is obviously a mixture of numerous factors and this is why there is so much discussion/argument in this thread.

It's going to be one of the top QBs because QBs win these awards, however how do you separate them then?

Guys who like stats point to RG3 as the main guy. He has the completion percentage, the TD:INT ratio and the Redskins won with him.

Guys who view everything on watching each player perform in different circumstances and take those circumstances into account likely view either Luck or Wilson as the top guy.

I am definitely more in the second category because despite numerous websites who annotate every play and gather statistics being pretty successful, the NFL is not a game which can be clearly defined by a set of stats and rigid rules.

15/20 is 75% completion which is generally very good in the NFL. However that stat tells you very little.

Likewise, 9 for 17 on 3rd down is pretty good in the NFL however without context it is meaningless. Was it 3rd and 1, 3rd an 10 etc because it becomes a lot more difficult to determine what a player has done. Though on the flip side if a team has more 3rd and long situations the question that needs to be asked is why? Is it an issue with the running game, the passing game and/or both.

The issue with this vote is one group of people will be shown to be right and one wrong. However there is no right or wrong answer. Can RG3 be viewed as the top candidate for rookie of the year? In some ways he most certainly can. Can Andrew Luck? In someways definitely? Can Wilson? Yes. Can Morris? Yes. Can Kalil? Yes

The ambiguity of these awards is what really gets me. I had numerous discussions in the MVP thread because what defines "value?" This award is the same because it isn't a simple case of going player a was better than player b. If Andrew Luck wins the award it doesn't mean he is definitively better than RG3 or Wilson and that works in any which way you want to place them. It just means that the people who vote for this award thought in their criteria he was better than the others. But we don't know what their criteria is.

Do they gloss over Luck's completion % and turnover rate because he was asked to do more? Do they gloss over the fact that RG3 had the second leading rusher in the NFL and played in a controlled offense? Do they discount the first half of the season when talking about Russell Wilson?

I have said since about week 12 that Andrew Luck is the winner of the award IMO. I have explained my reasons for this and why it isn't anyone else. However I understand why people think it should be someone else (I disagree with a lot of it though). But if Luck wins the award it doesn't mean that I was right simply because people agreed with me, and likewise if RG3 wins it doesn't mean I was wrong because people disagree with me.

No matter who wins there will be people who come into this thread to either ***** and moan or gloat. Either way who cares? The award is basically meaningless. No rookie in contention won the Super Bowl and that's what matters. Whoever wins this award doesn't be guaranteed a great career. Whoever wins this award doesn't even mean they were the best offensive rookie.

bigbluedefense · 01-23-2013, 04:33 PM

Wilson had an interesting dynamic this year. I think to start the season he was clearly behind RGIII and Luck who were neck and neck for most of the seaosn.

But towards the end of the season, when Wilson put it all together, I can make a strong argument that he was the best of the 3. He was incredible, it was like he was best of both worlds (Luck and RGIII morphed into one player was 2nd half Russell Wilson).

Now how does that effect his ability to win this award? I think bc he had a slow start he won't win it. But I also feel that his peak was more impressive than both Luck and RGIII's peaks their rookie years.

But let's be real here, we're splitting hairs. All 3 of these guys were absolutely amazing. It will probably go down as the best qb class ever. 04 and 82 (?) are neck to neck right now, but this qb class should beat both of them.

It all depends on how many SBs come out of this draft class.

jsagan77 · 01-23-2013, 07:05 PM

I agree with a lot of this though I think Luck was easily the third best. Inconsistent is all I can really classify what I saw. He'd have a string of plays where you were in awe then the classic rookie brain lapses would occur and the most troubling part is he didn't learn from those mistakes.

Wilson's second half was statistically one of the finest half seasons of football by a QB ever -- But RG3 wasn't far behind him. And the fact RG3 had the more complete season is the only reason I think he's the winner. But injuries could be argued against him.

It really comes down to picking your poison.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

Wilson had an interesting dynamic this year. I think to start the season he was clearly behind RGIII and Luck who were neck and neck for most of the seaosn.

But towards the end of the season, when Wilson put it all together, I can make a strong argument that he was the best of the 3. He was incredible, it was like he was best of both worlds (Luck and RGIII morphed into one player was 2nd half Russell Wilson).

Now how does that effect his ability to win this award? I think bc he had a slow start he won't win it. But I also feel that his peak was more impressive than both Luck and RGIII's peaks their rookie years.

But let's be real here, we're splitting hairs. All 3 of these guys were absolutely amazing. It will probably go down as the best qb class ever. 04 and 82 (?) are neck to neck right now, but this qb class should beat both of them.

It all depends on how many SBs come out of this draft class.

xjxdarren · 01-23-2013, 07:33 PM

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blo...ide-receivers/

XxXdragonXxX · 01-23-2013, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjxdarren

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blo...ide-receivers/

Thats because Luck's passes look similiar to this.

Ducks are hard to catch.

xjxdarren · 01-23-2013, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XxXdragonXxX

Thats because Luck's passes look similiar to this.

Ducks are hard to catch.

Good explanation. No wonder Stanford couldn't beat Oregon under Luck's helm. Ducks couldn't be beaten by their same kind could they.

jsagan77 · 01-24-2013, 11:12 AM

I talked to the guy at AP who runs the award and the only criteria is they must be a rookie. The vote is based off of each individual voters opinion of the game tape, stats, hair cut, what ever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AntoinCD

I haven't posted in this thread for a good while because it was hurting my head, however I have on thing to say;

What does offensive rookie of the year actually mean?

Is it purely the best overall offensive player? Because I would be tempted to give that to Matt Kalil.

Is it based on wins?

Is it based on stats?

Is it based on efficiency?

Is it based on the eyeball test?

Is it the best QB? - Most likely

IMO it is obviously a mixture of numerous factors and this is why there is so much discussion/argument in this thread.

It's going to be one of the top QBs because QBs win these awards, however how do you separate them then?

Guys who like stats point to RG3 as the main guy. He has the completion percentage, the TD:INT ratio and the Redskins won with him.

Guys who view everything on watching each player perform in different circumstances and take those circumstances into account likely view either Luck or Wilson as the top guy.

I am definitely more in the second category because despite numerous websites who annotate every play and gather statistics being pretty successful, the NFL is not a game which can be clearly defined by a set of stats and rigid rules.

15/20 is 75% completion which is generally very good in the NFL. However that stat tells you very little.

Likewise, 9 for 17 on 3rd down is pretty good in the NFL however without context it is meaningless. Was it 3rd and 1, 3rd an 10 etc because it becomes a lot more difficult to determine what a player has done. Though on the flip side if a team has more 3rd and long situations the question that needs to be asked is why? Is it an issue with the running game, the passing game and/or both.

The issue with this vote is one group of people will be shown to be right and one wrong. However there is no right or wrong answer. Can RG3 be viewed as the top candidate for rookie of the year? In some ways he most certainly can. Can Andrew Luck? In someways definitely? Can Wilson? Yes. Can Morris? Yes. Can Kalil? Yes

The ambiguity of these awards is what really gets me. I had numerous discussions in the MVP thread because what defines "value?" This award is the same because it isn't a simple case of going player a was better than player b. If Andrew Luck wins the award it doesn't mean he is definitively better than RG3 or Wilson and that works in any which way you want to place them. It just means that the people who vote for this award thought in their criteria he was better than the others. But we don't know what their criteria is.

Do they gloss over Luck's completion % and turnover rate because he was asked to do more? Do they gloss over the fact that RG3 had the second leading rusher in the NFL and played in a controlled offense? Do they discount the first half of the season when talking about Russell Wilson?

I have said since about week 12 that Andrew Luck is the winner of the award IMO. I have explained my reasons for this and why it isn't anyone else. However I understand why people think it should be someone else (I disagree with a lot of it though). But if Luck wins the award it doesn't mean that I was right simply because people agreed with me, and likewise if RG3 wins it doesn't mean I was wrong because people disagree with me.

No matter who wins there will be people who come into this thread to either ***** and moan or gloat. Either way who cares? The award is basically meaningless. No rookie in contention won the Super Bowl and that's what matters. Whoever wins this award doesn't be guaranteed a great career. Whoever wins this award doesn't even mean they were the best offensive rookie.

LonghornsLegend · 01-24-2013, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsagan77

I don't buy for one second that the majority of posters supporting Luck have made their determination by watching all three and coming to that conclusion. It takes about 10 seconds of reading to realize that. I've now watched every snap of each QB (thanks to my wife being awesome and allowing me to record every game, though it costs a crap load).

Is this all you do now? Talk about how nobody else here has seen every snap of all 3 QB's and you have so your opinion>anybody on a forum? The same forum you consistently post on. Always love when people throw this out there...

Trogdor · 01-24-2013, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LonghornsLegend

Is this all you do now? Talk about how nobody else here has seen every snap of all 3 QB's and you have so your opinion>anybody on a forum? The same forum you consistently post on. Always love when people throw this out there...

He watches every snap and yet he doesn't see that the Redskins and Seahawks relied heavily on their league topping rushing attacks rather than on the arm of their quarterback.

He is, and has been, an uber persistent Redskins homer in every single conversation throughout the season. It is not shocking that he has to validate his opinion with frivolity.

As the conversation has been from the start the award winner is dependent on your viewpoint of the award.

MVP: Luck

Efficiency: RGIII

Eye Test: Wilson

To be quite frank if you don't view this as a 3-way-tie you're being a homer in one direction or another. To say that any of the three candidates doesn't belong is cherry picking. Hell one quick "they don't belong" quote for each.

Luck: LOOK AT THE TURNOVERZZZ - (Close second: Efficiency...)

RGIII: #1 RUSHING ATTACKZZZZ - (Close second: 3rd down and punt)

Wilson: BEAAASSST MODEZZZ - (Close second: Attempts 2.167 passes per game)

Monomach · 02-04-2013, 11:18 AM

Russell Wilson named NFL.com Rookie of the Year.

flave1969 · 02-07-2013, 07:40 AM

Never known a year like it. There were 5 players all worthy of winning this year. Morris and Kalil have compelling cases in any normal year.

You can choose any one of Luck, RG3 and Wilson and be happy with the pick.

As a Redskins fan it was electric watching Griffin this year but I would not have grumbled at any of them winning.