Stumbled across the vote breakdown for ORoY this past season:

RG3: 29 votes
Luck: 11 votes
Wilson: 10 votes

On defense, the Wagner wasn't a close 2nd:

Kuechly: 28
Wagner: 11

Although Wagner did get one vote more than Wilson got, hah.

I'm not upset that Wagner or Wilson lost, but I think the vote should have been much closer in both cases. In fairness to RG3, the vote was held before the regular season was even over (which is really dumb, IMO), and when a lot of the votes were submitted RG3 had a strong statistical edge over Wilson. I also don't blame Andrew Luck for anything- it's not his fault that more than 25% of the voting press corps are idiots and/or just badly want to further a storyline they'd been pushing for over a year with Luck.

But still, 3rd place for Wilson? That's going to look pretty dumb a couple years from now.

This is why I hate people that hop on the bandwagon after the fact. All you pundits that are going to be on our jock this year, shut the hell up and get the frig out.

kearly wrote:But still, 3rd place for Wilson? That's going to look pretty dumb a couple years from now.

I don't think that's true. There is not such a huge gulf between the three that would make Wilson coming in 3rd such a travesty.

We are a little blinded by Wilson's light, of course. But RGIII had a great year and Luck was pretty impressive too, especially with all argumentative points that have been discussed in here ad nausea.

As a regular season vote, there's not much to fuss about.

FlyingGreg wrote:

kearly wrote:But still, 3rd place for Wilson? That's going to look pretty dumb a couple years from now.

I don't think that's true. There is not such a huge gulf between the three that would make Wilson coming in 3rd such a travesty.

We are a little blinded by Wilson's light, of course. But RGIII had a great year and Luck was pretty impressive too, especially with all argumentative points that have been discussed in here ad nausea.

As a regular season vote, there's not much to fuss about.

I think there is clearly a gulf between Wilson and Luck. RG3 might actually be better than Wilson if injuries didn't factor, but they do. RG3 and especially Luck were on teams that massively overachieved last season and the Seahawks actually underachieved by two wins (FO).

I think people will look back and think "really, 3 times more votes for RG3?" Not because Wilson is so much better, but because the vote should have been very close.

I think people will laugh when they see that Luck got one more vote than Wilson did. His rookie year was relatively pedestrian and I suspect he's going to have an Andy Dalton type career.

Wilson's climb started too late in the season...he had to shake off that game manager label which a lot of voters probably had.

Is Wilson better than Luck? I think so, clearly. But not to the point of making the vote look "pretty dumb", not to mention I doubt many people look back at Rookie of the Year voting with that much interest.

What they will look at is playoff success.

If Luck won OROTY I would have barfed. A sub 55% completion average is terrible. Sanchez got smoked for having a better one.

I get it, Wilson came on late in the season (week 13 on), and God did he ever come on like nobody in NFL history, but it was PC and Bevell's choice to limit his playbook early on instead of letting the kid play, and nobody outside of Seattle cares that that happened.

RG3 was a highlight reel from week 1, even his injurys were replayed for weeks. Of course he was going to win.

It would have been so much worse if his stats for the season were flipped (if he started hot and regressed) and won the ROY. Could you imagine the let down that would be?
But the ROY voting is horrible, and should be done after the season. So stupid.

I don't mind that the others got more votes. Wilson got some votes being a third round draft pick that until the second half of the season wasn't asked to do much.

All that matters to me is that Wilson is a Seahawk. I like having the chip-on-shoulder players because it gives them fire.

By the end of the season, Wilson was playing better than most of the QB's in the league, not just the rookies and the two others were exceptional players with a lot more attention.

We will continue to support Wilson and he will continue to do whatever he can to improve and win football games. One thing is for sure, the NFL media is giving Wilson and the Seahawks a lot more love than they are Luck and RG3. In any other year, Wilson would be ROY, he is in some pretty good company as part of the conversation.

FlyingGreg wrote:Is Wilson better than Luck? I think so, clearly. But not to the point of making the vote look "pretty dumb", not to mention I doubt many people look back at Rookie of the Year voting with that much interest.

It is already dumb and will just look dumber with time, but you are right about the latter part. It will be forgotten by most and noticed by few. It's just one of those things that if someone stumbles across this 3 years from now they'll think "wow. really?"

kearly wrote:

FlyingGreg wrote:Is Wilson better than Luck? I think so, clearly. But not to the point of making the vote look "pretty dumb", not to mention I doubt many people look back at Rookie of the Year voting with that much interest.

It is already dumb and will just look dumber with time, but you are right about the latter part. It will be forgotten by most and noticed by few. It's just one of those things that if someone stumbles across this 3 years from now they'll think "wow. really?"

What I find dumb is the concept that Luck is an untouchable. He's already had a lot of people making convenient excuses for his poor completion percentage. He was the "ordained" from Day 1. The non-stop slobbering all over him last season was pathetic.

One example - I remember the media freaking out over his "game winning TD pass" against the Lions. In essence, he threw a 4-yard dump off to Avery who did all the work. Big whoop...

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-high ... highlights

kearly wrote:But still, 3rd place for Wilson? That's going to look pretty dumb a couple years from now.

Especially when he winds up being the most marketable player among the three legendary rookie QBs of '12. RG3 is fun to watch when healthy, but I question his long-term viability in the NFL, and Luck represents what remains of old school pocket passing QBs. Granted, Luck has mobility, it's just not a big feature in his game. The modern NFL seems to be gravitating towards an option attack with a mobile QB, which is a lot more fun to watch (to my eyes), than traditional drop back 'n pass. Wilson was a one man highlight reel for the latter 10 games of the season. To my eyes, he was just a better QB than both RG3 and Luck in that he had the same throwing ability as both while possessing mobility, elusiveness unlike anything the NFL has had to deal with in a long time, and the rare ability to progress through 3 and 4 reads on seemingly every play. RG3 is fast, but did not look as comfortable sitting in the pocket, going through his reads, as Wilson did in the latter half of the season.

I feel Russell's 385 yard, 2 passing, 1 rushing TD performance in Atlanta was the face of the Russell Wilson we will see through the best parts of his career here. Accurate passing and reading the defense is still of the utmost importance in the NFL and Russell is now the prototypical mobile quarterback, though in 5 years he will probably still be the shortest. Just as deadly throwing on the run as he is in the pocket, and a threat to break a big rush, sliding before a linebacker or safety can take his head off. RG3, brilliant as he was, struck me as a flash-in-the-pan type of player, not unlike the feeling I get from Colin Kaepernick, or got from Michael Vick. Russell plays smart. He plays with the "big picture" clearly in focus. I see that quality in Luck, but not in RG3.

If Russell's postseason is a fair indication of what we can expect from him in the future, this will be Russell Wilson's NFL and everyone else will merely be playing in it. He has the potential for that kind of gravitas.

Wagner was only 15 or so sacks behind Kuechly until the Hawks went on a tear. Teams just weren't running against us as much as they were against Carolina later in the season and Kuechly just kept gaining. Imo Wagner could just as easily been the man.

The perception is that Luck carried the Colts, no-name receivers (minus Wayne), poor defense and they made the playoffs.

Most people assume that our defense and run game made Russell look good, is it true. No but perception is perception.

Stats aren't everything, the one stat that matters is wins and luck took a bad team and won 11 games, Luck had a great rookie year and has a very bright future ahead of him, I think this class will go down as the greatest QB class of all time with wilson and luck becoming HOFers and RG3 being very good but having injuries be a problem.

Luck's numbers last year, besides total passing yards/attempts (who cares when you throw a high int to td ratio?), were a joke compared to Wilson's.

I'm with you more often than not Kearly, but this was and is ridiculous. Find 5 Colts games from this season to watch and come back here and tell us what you found. Andrew Luck was from another planet this season, and it is one of those things you'll just never understand until you watch it.

Andy Dalton? How can we quantify this for some sort of friendly wager?

Once upon a time I had doubts about Luck. I have since admitted I was terribly wrong and moved on with my life. Dude, he's really, really good. Is he going to be Peyton Manning? Who knows? But Andy Dalton?

How do we know Luck's team was bad? Luck supporters have an inherent contradiction in their argumentation. It goes something like this . . .

Luck fan: Luck took a team that won two games in 2011 and won 11 games. Luck alone did this, the rest of the team was a two win team . . .

Luck critic: that two win team won 10 games the year prior. It was injuries and bad coaching that made them play down to two wins. in reality Andrew Luck took a healthy ten win team and added a win.

Luck fan: the new GM and coach completely turned over the roster in 2012. It wasn't the same team as the 2010-2011 team.

The problem is the second response undermines the first. We're the 2012 Colts simply the 2011 Colts plus Andrew Luck, or were they an entirely different team? The answer is largely the latter. Ad if that's the case, why are all the wins attributed to the single player, rather than the largely new roster and entirely new coaching staff? Perhaps the win increase has as much to do with remaining vets being healthy, new players across the board stepping up (rookies Vic Ballard, TY Hilton, Dwayne Allen, veterans Donnie Avery, Samson Satele, Vontae Davis) and a coachingstaff that won coach of the year?

The Colts improvement in record was not due to the addition of Luck. it was a perfect storm of health, player acquisition and improvement and quality coaching. In other words, it was a team achievement.

I also forgot to mention the Clts played one of the league's easiest schedules.

Tical21 wrote:I'm with you more often than not Kearly, but this was and is ridiculous. Find 5 Colts games from this season to watch and come back here and tell us what you found. Andrew Luck was from another planet this season, and it is one of those things you'll just never understand until you watch it.

Andy Dalton? How can we quantify this for some sort of friendly wager?

Once upon a time I had doubts about Luck. I have since admitted I was terribly wrong and moved on with my life. Dude, he's really, really good. Is he going to be Peyton Manning? Who knows? But Andy Dalton?

I agree that Luck is good, and probably destined for great things, but I wouldn't say he was "from another planet this season". I watched all of the rookie QBs this season, including Tannehill and Weeden, and to my eyes, Luck was easily the third best of the group.

had he broke Peyton's record instead of just tying it, would that have pushed him into the lead... ? i feel bad for him that he didn't get the award, but as a fan i could care less, we know what we have with him.. and all those aculades will come in time.

McGruff wrote:How do we know Luck's team was bad? Luck supporters have an inherent contradiction in their argumentation. It goes something like this . . .

Luck fan: Luck took a team that won two games in 2011 and won 11 games. Luck alone did this, the rest of the team was a two win team . . .

Luck critic: that two win team won 10 games the year prior. It was injuries and bad coaching that made them play down to two wins. in reality Andrew Luck took a healthy ten win team and added a win.

Luck fan: the new GM and coach completely turned over the roster in 2012. It wasn't the same team as the 2010-2011 team.

The problem is the second response undermines the first. We're the 2012 Colts simply the 2011 Colts plus Andrew Luck, or were they an entirely different team? The answer is largely the latter. Ad if that's the case, why are all the wins attributed to the single player, rather than the largely new roster and entirely new coaching staff? Perhaps the win increase has as much to do with remaining vets being healthy, new players across the board stepping up (rookies Vic Ballard, TY Hilton, Dwayne Allen, veterans Donnie Avery, Samson Satele, Vontae Davis) and a coachingstaff that won coach of the year?

The Colts improvement in record was not due to the addition of Luck. it was a perfect storm of health, player acquisition and improvement and quality coaching. In other words, it was a team achievement.

This. Seriously, that showman of an owner in Indy put the absolute WORST quarterbacks on the field that year. No leadership, no faith, etc by the team , they suxored pretty bad. Then voila' in comes Luck and they're awesome again? The team was great. The QB's they chose were the worst. I can't decide if it was the most underhanded scheme of all time to tank the season by your own sabotage, or the most ingenious. I don't want to take anything away from Luck but I refuse to give him the credit for "turning a losing team into a winning one".

Wilson tied (or would've broken) Manning's rookie record in the last game of the season. From what I understand, the voting was already over then, so it wouldn't have made a difference.

Tical21 wrote:I'm with you more often than not Kearly, but this was and is ridiculous. Find 5 Colts games from this season to watch and come back here and tell us what you found. Andrew Luck was from another planet this season, and it is one of those things you'll just never understand until you watch it.

Andy Dalton? How can we quantify this for some sort of friendly wager?

Once upon a time I had doubts about Luck. I have since admitted I was terribly wrong and moved on with my life. Dude, he's really, really good. Is he going to be Peyton Manning? Who knows? But Andy Dalton?

He's got Dalton written all over him. Book it!

I think RGIII and Wilson were lumped into being very comparable, with Luck representing the 'classic' QB. I'm not saying I agree with the logic, but it's just how I understand it...

If the race was between Wilson and Luck, most of the Griffin voters would have swayed to Wilson, so I don't really see Wilson as coming in 3rd. If not for Griffin Luck would have been second and Wilson 1st.

At least that's what I've told myself to have it all make sense.

As RW and Luck are currently facing off in the Madden voting we have something of a rematch happening