RGIII vs Luck

[realtick]

SkinsHokieFans, you gave a pretty good breakdown in your last post regarding Luck. In terms of RGIII, there are some things I definitely disagree about. I've watched/recorded about 4-5 games of RGIII this season, and he indeed has a simplified spread that involves a lot of "1-read" predetermined passes.

In one game I counted roughly 22 passes (I only started counting after his first two series) that didn't go more than 5-yards past the LOS. So much so that the broadcaster said half-jokingly that they should pass a rule that would limit the amount of bubble screens a team could run.

RGIII is not dropping back in the pocket and going through progressions. Baylor's passing attack is generally short/long. When Griffin does take a deep drop it's more often than not to go deep.

Beyond that, his footwork is herky-jerky and he needs experience from under center.

That's not saying he can not make the transition and develop, but it is saying there will be a learning curve that many prolific college QBs never were able to grasp.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Originally Posted by realtick

Beyond that, his footwork is herky-jerky and he needs experience from under center.

That's not saying he can not make the transition and develop, but it is saying there will be a learning curve that many prolific college QBs never were able to grasp.

Here is the question though from a draft perspective.

Can you coach that into RG3, footwork and progression work in an acceptable time period?

Clearly the physical skills are there for an elite QB (arm strength, accuracy, quick release)

Do you feel he is unable to be coached up in regards to improved footwork, progressions and reading a defense?

[realtick]

Originally Posted by SkinsHokieFan

Agree. He is calling plays on the line.

Again though, this advantage Luck has essentially goes away once the first traning camp is done.

Luck will be learning an entirely new offense (unless he goes to SF)

As will RG3.

Its coaching and development at that point.

I don't think it's that easy. You're talking about a guy in Luck that's already demonstrated he can do it proficiently in a pro-style offense.

RGIII, while intelligent, has never been given that responsibility nor does he have experience to draw upon, and the scheme he did play in college was gimmicky spread.

So it's not as if they are both starting off on level playing ground.

It's like saying two people need to learn a new Microsoft OS. One guy has been using Windows 7 for a few years, and the other guy has only been using a TI-83 calculator.

It's true, neither have used the new OS, and will have to learn some things but who would have the advantag in this case?

[realtick]

Originally Posted by SkinsHokieFan

Here is the question though from a draft perspective.

Can you coach that into RG3, footwork and progression work in an acceptable time period?

Clearly the physical skills are there for an elite QB (arm strength, accuracy, quick release)

Do you feel he is unable to be coached up in regards to improved footwork, progressions and reading a defense?

I look at it differently. One is as pretty close to being a known quantity as there is, while the other is a mystery at this point.

I definitely believe technique can be taught and coached up. RGIII has all the requisite tools to succeed, but I think there will be a steep learning curve for him. I always look at things as if I'm wagering. While I would bet money on RGIII finding success at some point in the NFL, I wouldn't describe it as a "sure bet."

I would say Cam Newton was a more polished (relatively speaking) pro QB prospect than RGIII is coming out.

[TheCount]

Originally Posted by realtick

I don't think it's that easy. You're talking about a guy in Luck that's already demonstrated he can do it proficiently in a pro-style offense.

RGIII, while intelligent, has never been given that responsibility nor does he have experience to draw upon, and the scheme he did play in college was gimmicky spread.

So it's not as if they are both starting off on level playing ground.

It's like saying two people need to learn a new Microsoft OS. One guy has been using Windows 7 for a few years, and the other guy has only been using a TI-83 calculator.

It's true, neither have used the new OS, and will have to learn some things but who would have the advantag in this case?

Depends, is the guy using the TI using it because he doesn't need a computer to run the same calculations? The guy using the TI could be a borderline genius!

As always, context is the key. We heard all the same things about Cam, and i don't know that they added all this read stuff for him, when I've seen him he's been taking real drops and making reads then running if it was there, maybe he meant Tebow, but coming out people said Gabbert would be better even though he ran a spread as well. Completely ignoring just how productive Cam had been at every opportunity.

[joseephuss]

Originally Posted by realtick

SkinsHokieFans, you gave a pretty good breakdown in your last post regarding Luck. In terms of RGIII, there are some things I definitely disagree about. I've watched/recorded about 4-5 games of RGIII this season, and he indeed has a simplified spread that involves a lot of "1-read" predetermined passes.

In one game I counted roughly 22 passes (I only started counting after his first two series) that didn't go more than 5-yards past the LOS. So much so that the broadcaster said half-jokingly that they should pass a rule that would limit the amount of bubble screens a team could run.

RGIII is not dropping back in the pocket and going through progressions. Baylor's passing attack is generally short/long. When Griffin does take a deep drop it's more often than not to go deep.

Beyond that, his footwork is herky-jerky and he needs experience from under center.

[View Full Quote]That's not saying he can not make the transition and develop, but it is saying there will be a learning curve that many prolific college QBs never were able to grasp.

Against Texas, I didn't see Griffin throw a single bubble screen. I don't recall him throwing many if any passes within 5 yards of the LOS.

[super8]

What I don't like…

- Isn't comfortable taking snaps from under center. Has some experience, but doesn't get much depth, wants to settle his feet too quickly and isn't natural off play action yet.

- Doesn't consistently stay in an ideal throwing position from the pocket. Gets upright and narrow with his base and will bounce around trying to stay in rhythm.

- Lacks a great feel going through his progressions at this stage, more of a one side of the field guy who when flushed can find secondary reads.

- Doesn't do a great job pre-snap identifying the blitz and locating the hot man.

- Gets inconsistent with his release point from the pocket at times, but mostly when rolling right. Will drop arm angle and at times looks to guide the football


http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/...HfAPWs.twitter

[realtick]

Originally Posted by TheCount

Depends, is the guy using the TI using it because he doesn't need a computer to run the same calculations? The guy using the TI could be a borderline genius!

Loool, you're right, I didn't consider that possibility.

As always, context is the key. We heard all the same things about Cam, and i don't know that they added all this read stuff for him, when I've seen him he's been taking real drops and making reads then running if it was there, maybe he meant Tebow, but coming out people said Gabbert would be better even though he ran a spread as well. Completely ignoring just how productive Cam had been at every opportunity.

[hairic]

This is from the only Stanford game I capped:

[TheCowboy]

Luck is better but I think RG3 is a great prospect.

[cobra]

This is not even close.

Luck is the best prospect since Manning.

RG3 is not even the best spread-running dual threat QB in the last 12 months.

Luck is not over-hyped. RG3 is getting into over-hyped category when he is compared to Luck.

There is absolutely 0 indication that RG3 can run a pro-style offense. There is a long history of spread college-dominant QBs who fail in the NFL. This doesn't guarantee that RG3 will fail, but the absence of evidence of him being good in a pro style offense makes him significantly less of a prospect than Luck.

Answer me this: as a passer who has to run a pro style offense, what does RG3 have on Case Keenum as a passer? The answer is nothing. They both ran gimmick offense, but Case put up better numbers.

The thing that gets people excited about RG3 is purely his dual threat running ability. And that simply is not what wins in the NFL. History proves this. If it was, Vick would be the greatest ever as he was a FAR better prospect than RG3 is.

[cobra]

Which QB is a better Prospect:

QB A
6' 2" 220
267 for 369 for 3998 yards (72.4%) 36 TDs 6 Ints 23 sacks
Leads his team to a 9-3 record with a 1st round-caliber WR

QB B
6' 2" 210
383 for 534 for 5099 yards (71.7%) 45 TDs 5 ints 15 sacks
Leads his team to a 12-1 record with spares at WR

[Aikbach]

Originally Posted by cobra

This is not even close.

Luck is the best prospect since Manning.

RG3 is not even the best spread-running dual threat QB in the last 12 months.

Luck is not over-hyped. RG3 is getting into over-hyped category when he is compared to Luck.

There is absolutely 0 indication that RG3 can run a pro-style offense. There is a long history of spread college-dominant QBs who fail in the NFL. This doesn't guarantee that RG3 will fail, but the absence of evidence of him being good in a pro style offense makes him significantly less of a prospect than Luck.

Answer me this: as a passer who has to run a pro style offense, what does RG3 have on Case Keenum as a passer? The answer is nothing. They both ran gimmick offense, but Case put up better numbers.

[View Full Quote]The thing that gets people excited about RG3 is purely his dual threat running ability. And that simply is not what wins in the NFL. History proves this. If it was, Vick would be the greatest ever as he was a FAR better prospect than RG3 is.

About the only thing comparable about Keenum and RG3 are that they were both recruited by Art Briles.

RG3 and Luck are both going to be superstars, Baylor ran the ball 54 percent of the time and Griffin still threw for almost 4000 yards and 36 TDs, running six trick plays in a season and having a mobile quarterback doesn't make one a "gimmick" offense.

And winning a Heisman against Big 12 competition isn't even in the universe of going 12-1 against the Conference USA and playing atrociously against the lone ranked team on schedule while losing.

[Aikbach]

Originally Posted by cobra

Which QB is a better Prospect:

QB A
6' 2" 220
267 for 369 for 3998 yards (72.4%) 36 TDs 6 Ints 23 sacks
Leads his team to a 9-3 record with a 1st round-caliber WR

QB B
6' 2" 210
383 for 534 for 5099 yards (71.7%) 45 TDs 5 ints 15 sacks
Leads his team to a 12-1 record with spares at WR

Also compare the level of competition they faced, top to bottom the Big 12 was the fiercest competition in football in 2011, according to the BCS that is.

The Pac 12 was incredibly weak overall this year, a USC team on probation defeated it's eventual "champion" Oregon and the next best team the PAC 12 South could send to the championship game was unranked 6-7 and soon to be 6-8 UCLA, who was thrashed 50-0 by a sidelined USC team.

Outside of Oregon and Stanford the pac 12 is a weak conference, and their records inflated by their weak competition.

The Big 12 fielded 5 ranked teams in the BCS, accounting for half of the conference members, Baylor was 3-2 against said teams, and had another BCS victory against TCU.

How many BCS ranked opponents did Stanford beat? ZERO, they edged out two ranked opponents all season, the punished USC Trojans and Notre Dame.

They lost to Oregon, the rest of their schedule was cake.

[cobra]

Originally Posted by Aikbach

About the only thing comparable about Keenum and RG3 are that they were both recruited by Art Briles.

You're missing my point.

When evaluating whether they can run an NFL passing attack, there is no objective basis to conclude that RGIII is a better prospect than Case Keenum.

Overall RGIII is a better prospect than Case, no doubt. But the reason is because of his athleticism and his running ability. He's a dual threat. Case is not.

The point here is to isolate the variables to point out that people can't sell RGIII as a pocket passer. On that front, he is not special. His performance in the college-gimmick spread offense is not substantially better than Case Keenum or Graham Harrell when he was at Tech or any other such QBs. What makes him special is his dual threat nature.

When it comes to drafting an NFL QB to be your franchise and lead you to championships, there is no doubt that Luck is a better prospect because he is the legit pure pocket passer and it is the legit pure pocket passers that lead your franchise to Lombardis. It's guys like Peyton and Brady and Rogers and Brees. So that is why Luck is the better prospect.

You cannot sell RGIII as a legit pocket passer on par with Luck by pointing to what he did at Baylor because, as I have noted, he is not anything special in that regard. What you can sell RGIII on is an accomplished passing dual threat QB (whether that translates to success at the NFL level is an open question). But that kind of threat does have some value in the NFL. But from evaluating prospects as likely to lead you to a Lombardi, you look to Luck, not a dual threat QB.