Who is the current OROTY?

[gpngc]

Its obviously going to be co-roys. Like manning McNair that one yr

[xjxdarren]

Originally Posted by Docta

The Colts might have been the worst team last season, but anybody could have seen them getting better. New GM, new coach, new OC, and a good all-around draft.

Look at who the Colts have beaten. Minny, GB, Cleveland, Tenn, Miami, Jax, Buffalo, and Detroit. GB is the only impressive win, but GB were dysfunctional at the time, and Luck didn't even play well for half the game. He almost lost the game for them yesterday.

Them fighting for a WC spot just shows how poorly the AFC has been.

You're right. Novak Djokovic is supposed to win all four majors. Rory McIlroy is supposed to win all four majors. Barcelona is supposed to win all games by five goals; with Messi scoring a hat-trick each time. Miami Heat is supposed to win all 82 games.

If any person or team fails to accomplish what's prescribed above, he or it is no good.

[Docta]

@bbd: The Parcells quote is so overrated. People just use it as a cop out. When the race is this close, it's appropriate to look at who've they've played. And 8-4 is the team's record. Luck didn't win them by himself.

@xjv: I don't even understand what your argument is...

[bigbluedefense]

It's not overrated. You win close games, you lose close games, you win blowouts, you lose blowouts. It all evens out at the end. You are what your record says you are.

Now for the sake of projections, absolutely you have to investigate it further. And in that case you can use it against a team. But let's not undermine what Luck is doing.

Yes he's played an easy schedule, but he also took over the worst team in the league.

Oh and btw his head coach has cancer. Yes the team rallied around Arians, but the Saints are a perfect example of how difficult it can be to play a season without your head coach.

[Docta]

They were the worst team in the league last season, but that was last season. Look at how well the Niners improved in 1 year with just a new coaching staff.

I agree with you on playing without your HC, but the Colts situation is much different. All it takes is for the players to buy-in.

[FUNBUNCHER]

Look, Luck has 25 total turnovers this season. That's 17 INTs and 8 lost fumbles. I believe Luck leads the league in total turnovers. The Colts have a -16 turnover differential, which I think is 3rd worst in the league, just ahead of the Eagles and Chiefs.

THis is no 'what if' scenario. If RGIII had turned the ball over 25 times, there's no way the Skins would be 6-6. I doubt they would have 1 single win.

[xjxdarren]

The guy who first proposed "if" now says there is no "what if". Lol
, no wonder DC folks have no right to vote.

[xjxdarren]

Using poker as an example, let's say you win 9 of the 10 hands each by 100k chips. But the last hand I won 900k. Who wins at the end?

[bigbluedefense]

Originally Posted by xjxdarren

Using poker as an example, let's say you win 9 of the 10 hands each by 100k chips. But the last hand I won 900k. Who wins at the end?

I can't wait for njx to get his hands on this one...

I'm gonna leave it at that. I'm sending njx the bat signal.

[cmarq83]

Originally Posted by FUNBUNCHER

Look, Luck has 25 total turnovers this season. That's 17 INTs and 8 lost fumbles. I believe Luck leads the league in total turnovers. The Colts have a -16 turnover differential, which I think is 3rd worst in the league, just ahead of the Eagles and Chiefs.

THis is no 'what if' scenario. If RGIII had turned the ball over 25 times, there's no way the Skins would be 6-6. I doubt they would have 1 single win.

I think you're being extremely over dramatic. Luck has 21 total turnovers, and a significant chunk of them (11) have come in 3 blowout losses to the Bears, Patriots, and Jets. The Redskins would have some wins even if RG3 turned the ball over more.

[bigbluedefense]

You can't play the hypothetical game. RGIII most likely wouldn't be as successful in Indy, and vice versa.

Both are studs. I'm all for corookie of the years if it came down to it. But if I had to choose 1, I'd go with Luck.

[FUNBUNCHER]

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

Honestly, last night only confirmed my opinion on this. It's Luck.

RGIII isn't asked to make a lot of reads. He has a great run game (that I admit he is a big part of) but bear in mind that run game takes him out of a lot of 3rd and long situations. Look at his success rate on 3rd and 10 when he's in a traditional passing set. It's not very good. But when he's in his read option formations where he can go against basic defenses that are designed to stop the run, he is very successful. A lot of 1 read plays. Lots of slants, or PA roll outs, he isn't asked to make a lot of difficult reads. It's a very basic offense.

I came away more impressed with the OL and running back than RGIII. He's very good, and will be great, and I see him winning a SB some time in his career, but his development isn't close to Luck right now.

I will say this though: RGIII has the best PA pass I ever seen. Nobody sells it better. It's perfect.

How many NFL QBs are successful converting 3rd and long on a regular basis??
THat's not just an issue for Robert.
BTW the fact the SKins finds themselves in 3rd and long situations with regularity has been a major complaint against this team for much of the season.

Just saying what you saw against the Giants isn't how Kyle or Mike gameplan for every opponent.

Kyle ran RGIII almost exclusively out of the pistol against NY because our OTs can't pass block anyone decent.

It would be suicidal for Kyle to go into that game thinking, 'let's drop Grif back from center on a 5 step and hope Osi or JPP don't rip his head off.'

The SKins offense is so eclectic I don't know how a casual fan can notice any trends from one or two games against a division rival.

The offense is literally different for every opponent the SKins play.

[FUNBUNCHER]

Originally Posted by cmarq83

I think you're being extremely over dramatic. Luck has 21 total turnovers, and a significant chunk of them (11) have come in 3 blowout losses to the Bears, Patriots, and Jets. The Redskins would have some wins even if RG3 turned the ball over more.

Luck has 8 fumbles lost and 17 INTs.
http://www.pro-football-reference.co...L/LuckAn00.htm
17 + 8 = 25.

You can believe the SKins would still be a 6 win team if RGIII had 25 total turnovers after 12 games.

I don't.

[bigbluedefense]

Originally Posted by FUNBUNCHER

How many NFL QBs are successful converting 3rd and long on a regular basis??
THat's not just an issue for Robert.
BTW the fact the SKins finds themselves in 3rd and long situations with regularity has been a major complaint against this team for much of the season.

Just saying what you saw against the Giants isn't how Kyle or Mike gameplan for every opponent.

Kyle ran RGIII almost exclusively out of the pistol against NY because our OTs can't pass block anyone decent.

It would be suicidal for Kyle to go into that game thinking, 'let's drop Grif back from center on a 5 step and hope Osi or JPP don't rip his head off.'

The SKins offense is so eclectic I don't know how a casual fan can notice any trends from one or two games against a division rival.

The offense is literally different for every opponent the SKins play.

I've seen 8 Redskins games this year. 2 vs the Giants, the Saints game, the Cowboys game, the Vikings game, the Eagles game, Steelers game, and Falcons game.

So I'm not just basing this off of 1 or 2 games. My fiance is a Redskins fan. I watch the Skins a lot.

[njx9]

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

I can't wait for njx to get his hands on this one...

I'm gonna leave it at that. I'm sending njx the bat signal.

i just... can't. i mean, for starters, the sentence structure itself precludes both players ending with 900k, since one of the players only won 100k per hand, then lost one hand. and one player lost 9 hands before *only* winning 900k. so given that one player is betting enough to win 100k per hand, you can bet he didn't end close to 900k total, including the loss. and the player who won 900k? he probably ended up WAY down, if he was betting that much on the other 9 hands. or he was playing against morons, who didn't notice him suddenly go from betting $1 per hand, to several hundred thousand dollars every hand. in which case he's already not having a very good night, since he probably could've won substantially more, earlier.

[bigbluedefense]

Originally Posted by njx9

i just... can't. i mean, for starters, the sentence structure itself precludes both players ending with 900k, since one of the players only won 100k per hand, then lost one hand. and one player lost 9 hands before *only* winning 900k. so given that one player is betting enough to win 100k per hand, you can bet he didn't end close to 900k total, including the loss. and the player who won 900k? he probably ended up WAY down, if he was betting that much on the other 9 hands. or he was playing against morons, who didn't notice him suddenly go from betting $1 per hand, to several hundred thousand dollars every hand. in which case he's already not having a very good night, since he probably could've won substantially more, earlier.

Not to mention that football isn't poker...

Week 1 and week 16 both count the same way, so using that analogy to begin with makes no sense at all.

[njx9]

well right, but i didn't want to think about it that much. then i thought about it being wrong in a different way and couldn't help it.

[xjxdarren]

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

Not to mention that football isn't poker...

Week 1 and week 16 both count the same way, so using that analogy to begin with makes no sense at all.

My point is comparing ints and fumbles to overall offense merit, not a week one game to a week 17 game.

[xjxdarren]

Even if your opponent has been betting meager amount along the way but suddenly jumps, will you fold if you are holding pocket kings?

[bigbluedefense]

Originally Posted by xjxdarren

My point is comparing ints and fumbles to overall offense merit, not a week one game to a week 17 game.

It still makes no sense. So 10 ints is equal to 1 big fumble? I don't get what youre trying to say.

[bigbluedefense]

Originally Posted by xjxdarren

Even if your opponent has been betting meager amount along the way but suddenly jumps, will you fold if you are holding pocket kings?

Huh? (10 char)

[xjxdarren]

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

It still makes no sense. So 10 ints is equal to 1 big fumble? I don't get what youre trying to say.

Committing turnovers, be it int or fumble, doesn't erase offense contributions.

Luck's offense philosophy as prescribed by Arians dictates he often has to play a hand out even when holding 7&8 of spade, whereas Griffin simply doesn't unless he gets dealt QJ to say the least

[bigbluedefense]

Originally Posted by xjxdarren

Committing turnovers, be it int or fumble, doesn't erase offense contributions.

Ok?

So doesn't that argument help Luck, not RGIII?

[bigbluedefense]

Originally Posted by xjxdarren

Committing turnovers, be it int or fumble, doesn't erase offense contributions.

Luck's offense philosophy as prescribed by Arians dictates he often has to play a hand out even when holding 7&8 of spade, whereas Griffin simply doesn't unless he gets dealt QJ to say the least

Ok, I get it. And I agree with you on this. I was just confused bc earlier you gave the impression that you were discrediting Luck.

[xjxdarren]

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

Ok?

So doesn't that argument help Luck, not RGIII?

Haven't you been reading my posts these couple pages?! Jesus Christ