Kiper and McShay recently talked about NFL rookie of the year. They both picked Andrew Luck.

I mean, RG3 I would totally understand. But Luck? Why? Why?

kearly wrote:Kiper and McShay recently talked about NFL rookie of the year. They both picked Andrew Luck.

I mean, RG3 I would totally understand. But Luck? Why? Why?

Pride is a bitch. They both anointed his ass before he had even taken his last college snap.

You mean you had some respect for them before this?

Being somewhat of an outsider here in England, can someone let me know how and why these guy's are considered experts? When it appears to me, the likes of Kearly and English, without anywhere near the resources (I'm assuming), have a better eye for talent?

No surprises here, more of the same from them. Pathetic. Espn needs emdiggy, keep it real.

LOL what a load of crap. Turned it off as soon as they started talking about Tebow again.

SomersetHawk wrote:You mean you had some respect for them before this?

Being somewhat of an outsider here in England, can someone let me know how and why these guy's are considered experts? When it appears to me, the likes of Kearly and English, without anywhere near the resources (I'm assuming), have a better eye for talent?

Because ESPN says they are experts. The truth is Kiper was an amateur scout back in the 70's and than created his own scouting business in the early 80's. Then he joined ESPN. In the mid 90's he created his own scouting reports and some teams starting buying into them. Many people think Kiper gives certain players more hype due to his friend$hip with certain agent$. Kiper has never worked a draft for an NFL team, been part of an NFL front office or been an NFL Scout.

McShay I know little about. All I know is that he worked for a shot time for some scouting publication. Again, never worked for an NFL team either.

In my opinion Mike Mayock is the most knowledgeable and least biased big name guy who truly knows these kids in the draft.

Mayock wipes the floor with those clowns.

Mayock actually played and is a total film junky. He's not always right, but his opinions are actually based on knowledge not BS.

Andrew Luck is not only ROY, but also a legitimate MVP candidate.

Russell Wilson and Robert Griffin have both had spectacular seasons, but Luck inherited a much worse team, and also shouldered a lot more of the offensive burden. He's the best QB to come into the league since the guy he replaced, Peyton Manning.

In two years, Luck will be in the elite class, with Brady, Brees, Rodgers, and Manning. If we can find a legitimate gamebreaking "X" receiver for Wilson, perhaps he will join him.

THE TABS wrote:Andrew Luck is not only ROY, but also a legitimate MVP candidate.

Russell Wilson and Robert Griffin have both had spectacular seasons, but Luck inherited a much worse team, and also shouldered a lot more of the offensive burden. He's the best QB to come into the league since the guy he replaced, Peyton Manning.

In two years, Luck will be in the elite class, with Brady, Brees, Rodgers, and Manning. If we can find a legitimate gamebreaking "X" receiver for Wilson, perhaps he will join him.

So, you want to give him an award based on both his physical skill set, his supposed bad supporting cast, and what he will be in a couple of years? He already got that award, it's called first pick in the draft. It even came with a cash prize.

Listen, I am not convinced Wilson is the rookie of the year, but I am convinced Luck is not. And if you are going to dismiss the just plain ugly completion percentage and pure number of turnovers based on supporting cast, then don't you have to also consider the absolute weakness of the NFL schedule he faced?

Your thinking process on this award is starstruck and dishonest.

Edit: Why do I feel like THE TABS is actually John Clayton?

The debates I have heard lately have it a two horse race between Griffin and Wilson. I think an argument could be made for all three.

Why I dont think Luck should get it. Turnovers. Strength of schedule. Perceived lack of talent. He is throwing to Reggie Wayne. Turnovers.

Kiper/McShay are total Harbaughs.

Scottemojo wrote:So, you want to give him an award based on both his physical skill set, his supposed bad supporting cast, and what he will be in a couple of years? He already got that award, it's called first pick in the draft. It even came with a cash prize.

Listen, I am not convinced Wilson is the rookie of the year, but I am convinced Luck is not. And if you are going to dismiss the just plain ugly completion percentage and pure number of turnovers based on supporting cast, then don't you have to also consider the absolute weakness of the NFL schedule he faced?

Your thinking process on this award is starstruck and dishonest.

I'm not the least bit starstruck; you are in serious denial. Luck had 225 more passing attempts than Wilson, and was asked to shoulder a lot more of the offensive burden. No quarterback in the history of the league has EVER taken a team from 2-14 to the playoffs in one year, let alone a ROOKIE QB. Oh, by the way, he did it having to follow a first-ballot Hall of Famer in Peyton Manning, which is no easy task (just ask Aaron Rodgers).

Look, I admit wholeheartedly that I've drank the Russell Wilson kool-aid, but if you put him on the Colts, they are NOT 10-5 right now.

THE TABS wrote:

Scottemojo wrote:So, you want to give him an award based on both his physical skill set, his supposed bad supporting cast, and what he will be in a couple of years? He already got that award, it's called first pick in the draft. It even came with a cash prize.

Listen, I am not convinced Wilson is the rookie of the year, but I am convinced Luck is not. And if you are going to dismiss the just plain ugly completion percentage and pure number of turnovers based on supporting cast, then don't you have to also consider the absolute weakness of the NFL schedule he faced?

Your thinking process on this award is starstruck and dishonest.

I'm not the least bit starstruck; you are in serious denial. Luck had 225 more passing attempts than Wilson, and was asked to shoulder a lot more of the offensive burden. No quarterback in the history of the league has EVER taken a team from 2-14 to the playoffs in one year, let alone a ROOKIE QB. Oh, by the way, he did it having to follow a first-ballot Hall of Famer in Peyton Manning, which is no easy task (just ask Aaron Rodgers).

Look, I admit wholeheartedly that I've drank the Russell Wilson kool-aid, but if you put him on the Colts, they are NOT 10-5 right now.

You don't know that.

THE TABS wrote:

Scottemojo wrote:So, you want to give him an award based on both his physical skill set, his supposed bad supporting cast, and what he will be in a couple of years? He already got that award, it's called first pick in the draft. It even came with a cash prize.

Listen, I am not convinced Wilson is the rookie of the year, but I am convinced Luck is not. And if you are going to dismiss the just plain ugly completion percentage and pure number of turnovers based on supporting cast, then don't you have to also consider the absolute weakness of the NFL schedule he faced?

Your thinking process on this award is starstruck and dishonest.

I'm not the least bit starstruck; you are in serious denial. Luck had 225 more passing attempts than Wilson, and was asked to shoulder a lot more of the offensive burden. No quarterback in the history of the league has EVER taken a team from 2-14 to the playoffs in one year, let alone a ROOKIE QB. Oh, by the way, he did it having to follow a first-ballot Hall of Famer in Peyton Manning, which is no easy task (just ask Aaron Rodgers).

Look, I admit wholeheartedly that I've drank the Russell Wilson kool-aid, but if you put him on the Colts, they are NOT 10-5 right now.

Really? Why do you think you are the only one saying this opinion? Plenty of people study tape and such, and I do not doubt at all Scotte does as well. I have watched Luck too, and that 10-5 record is a total farce. He's had to make how many comeback wins? Do you know how easy it is to screw those up? One small thing goes different in his "comeback wins" and a win is a loss.

Take for example Luck's comeback against the Lions. I watched his final drive, and before throwing the TD to whathisface, he threw a football right in the hands of a Lions defender, who dropped the pick. If the Lions guy catches that, the Colts for sure lose, and it's because Luck's a dumbass.

You know what's better than close, come from behind wins? Blowout wins. Over much better teams. And that's what Wilson did, he beat the crap out of a much superior defense, while Luck barely survived against a bottom feeder. I know which win is more valuable, that's for sure.

CALIHAWK1 wrote:Why I dont think Luck should get it. Turnovers. Strength of schedule. Perceived lack of talent. He is throwing to Reggie Wayne. Turnovers.

1. Teams with great talent don't go 2-14. Colts have some big holes, but are getting by with better schematics and a unified team rallying around Chuck Pagano and Bruce Arians

2. Curtis Painter had Reggie Wayne too, and they got all the way to 2-14. Lame argument.

THE TABS wrote:

CALIHAWK1 wrote:Why I dont think Luck should get it. Turnovers. Strength of schedule. Perceived lack of talent. He is throwing to Reggie Wayne. Turnovers.

1. Teams with great talent don't go 2-14. Colts have some big holes, but are getting by with better schematics and a unified team rallying around Chuck Pagano and Bruce Arians

2. Curtis Painter had Reggie Wayne too, and they got all the way to 2-14. Lame argument.

And what was the record of that talent the year before? using 2011 to gauge the talent level of the Colts is dishonest, look at the IR report for the 2011 Colts and Manning isn't the only one missing. The defensive line and Linebackers were gutted as well. they lost their best four! defensive tackles to IR. And Curtis Painter? If you put him on the 2012 Hawks, they would be a 5 win team at best. No I can't prove it, just like you can't prove your claim. But Curtis Freakin Painter on a team gutted by IR(honestlymthe real tank job from the Colts last year wan't on the field, it was that they would IR players for a damn hangnail in their pursuit of Luck) equals 2-14 or something like it on most teams.
And since you insist on using Lucks higher number of attempts to deflect the bad numbers, why hasn't his higher number of attempts resulted in a lot more scores? By whatever metric you use, Luck has been only average in efficiency.

Luck is clutch and I don't doubt his future. But only bias can explain choosing him for Rookie of the year.
Answer this honestly please: Who did you think would win Rookie of the year before the season began?

Scottemojo wrote:Why do I feel like THE TABS is actually John Clayton?

MOM, WHEN'S DINNER!!!!!!!???????

Tabs, honesty, you lost all credibility when you said he should be MVP.

THE TABS wrote:Andrew Luck is not only ROY, but also a legitimate MVP candidate.

Russell Wilson and Robert Griffin have both had spectacular seasons, but Luck inherited a much worse team, and also shouldered a lot more of the offensive burden. He's the best QB to come into the league since the guy he replaced, Peyton Manning.

In two years, Luck will be in the elite class, with Brady, Brees, Rodgers, and Manning. If we can find a legitimate gamebreaking "X" receiver for Wilson, perhaps he will join him.

No fn way, that's the biggest load ever. Indy had won 10 games or more for a decade before Manning got hurt last year. If PM played last year they win 11 games again. QB was just bad and I wouldn't bet against them just tanking on purpose. They had plenty of talent, more then DC or Seattle had over the last 5 years.

Scottemojo wrote:Answer this honestly please: Who did you think would win Rookie of the year before the season began?

Dead honest: Trent Richardson.

By the way, I didn't say Luck should be MVP; I said he is a LEGITIMATE MVP CANDIDATE, which he is. Your credibility won't amount to a hill of monkey crap if you're not going to quote me correctly.

THE TABS wrote:

Scottemojo wrote:Answer this honestly please: Who did you think would win Rookie of the year before the season began?

Dead honest: Trent Richardson.

By the way, I didn't say Luck should be MVP; I said he is a LEGITIMATE MVP CANDIDATE, which he is. Your credibility won't amount to a hill of monkey crap if you're not going to quote me correctly.

And no freaking way is he an MVP candidate. Not a chance. A QB for MVP who averages a passing TD a game? Maybe in the 70's.

I covet Trent Richardson so badly, I thought he would be the guy to win it as well.

Scottemojo wrote:And no freaking way is he an MVP candidate. Not a chance. A QB for MVP who averages a passing TD a game? Maybe in the 70's.

So, if Curtis Painter is still the Colts starter, they're in the playoffs this year?

You sir, are on crack.

THE TABS wrote:

Scottemojo wrote:And no freaking way is he an MVP candidate. Not a chance. A QB for MVP who averages a passing TD a game? Maybe in the 70's.

So, if Curtis Painter is still the Colts starter, they're in the playoffs this year?

You sir, are on crack.

There is no Luck to suck for this year, so they would have at least tried and won 8 games.

CPHawk wrote:There is no Luck to suck for this year, so they would have at least tried and won 8 games.

SERIOUSLY?

All you have to do is TRY and you'll automatically go 8-8 every single year? So half the teams in the league weren't even trying this year?

What the Colts have proven over the last two years is what this league has become; no quarterback, no chance. We resemble that as well.

THE TABS wrote:

CPHawk wrote:There is no Luck to suck for this year, so they would have at least tried and won 8 games.

SERIOUSLY?

All you have to do is TRY and you'll automatically go 8-8 every single year? So half the teams in the league weren't even trying this year?

What the Colts have proven over the last two years is what this league has become; no quarterback, no chance. We resemble that as well.

They had a ton of talent last year, it's not like they lost all the guys who had been key to making all those playoff runs. It seems you believe Peyton was really the only great player on the team, with a bunch of chumps.

One of these things isn't like the other.
2005- 14-2
2006- 12-4
2007- 13-3
2008- 12-4
2009- 14-2
2010- 10-6
2011- 2-14
2012- 10-5

Something here doesn't pass the smell test.

Seattle had NO QB last year as well, and still won 7 games.

THE TABS wrote:

Scottemojo wrote:And no freaking way is he an MVP candidate. Not a chance. A QB for MVP who averages a passing TD a game? Maybe in the 70's.

So, if Curtis Painter is still the Colts starter, they're in the playoffs this year?

You sir, are on crack.

Of course not (both to the crack and the Painter). Luck is the MVP of the Colts, nothing more. If Curtis Painter was starting for the 2012 Seahawks, Broncos, Patriots, or Packers, would those teams be in the playoffs? How did Curtis Painter's crappiness become a reason Luck deserves an award?

Hell, by your standard, in 2008 Chad Pennington deserved to be considered for the MVP award for leading the Dolphins to 11-5 because he was 10 wins better than 2007's Jay Feely. But he didn't deserve the award, because he was nowhere near being the league's best palyer

THE TABS wrote:

CALIHAWK1 wrote:Why I dont think Luck should get it. Turnovers. Strength of schedule. Perceived lack of talent. He is throwing to Reggie Wayne. Turnovers.

1. Teams with great talent don't go 2-14. Colts have some big holes, but are getting by with better schematics and a unified team rallying around Chuck Pagano and Bruce Arians

2. Curtis Painter had Reggie Wayne too, and they got all the way to 2-14. Lame argument.

Putting Curtis Painter on the same level as the number one pick overall is even lamer. My point was a has a potential hall of fame receiver to throw to. RG3 and as of now it doesn't look like Wilson do.

Turnovers.

The Colts were a great team before Luck but they had a crap QB. As soon as they replaced him, they started winning.

Are the Caqrdinals a crappy team? No, they are not, they have QBs that give the game away.

Polian won exec of the year 6 times for loading the Colts with talent. They have a decent Oline, 2 Pro Pro Bowl caliber DEs, a Pro Bowl wide out, etc. etc. Add to that, a cupcake schedule and a rookie QB who keeps tossing INTs to mediocre teams and I'd say the Colts are winning in spite of him.

Andrew Luck's passer rating is 75.6, which is more than 10 points below the NFL median. His DVOA (football outsiders value over average all in one smart stat) is at -6.5%, meaning that on an average play he's 6.5% less efficient at scoring or converting first downs than an average QB. PFF's tracking has him just barely above the cutoff point between bad and good, at +2.8.

By comparison, Wilson (98.0) is decimal points away from having the 2nd highest rookie passer rating in NFL history, and RG3 (104.1) is very likely to finish #1 all time. Wilson's +20.8% DVOA efficiency rating is the 2nd highest (since 1991- and very likely of all time) among rookies behind Big Ben in 2004. RG3 is at +17.0%. And regarding PFF, they have Wilson (+33.1) and RG3 (+31.8 ) as the two best rookies this year by a very large margin. Both statistically and based on "eyeball test" tracking from sites like PFF, it's just not close. Wilson and RG3 destroy Andrew Luck.

The only argument that Luck has going for him is that his team was the worst in the NFL last year. That is a myth. The Colts have won 10+ games for 13 of the last 14 seasons (although the latest 10 game winner is a pretender, according to football outsiders the 2012 Colts are statistically the worst team ever to win 10 games). By contrast, both the Seahawks and Redskins had not boasted a winning season since 2007.

The truth is that the real Colts team was somewhere between the good pre-2011 version and the godawful injury ridden Curtis Painter abomination in 2011. Luck may not be an MVP level QB, but compared to Curtis Painter he looks like one. And while it's true that the current Colts team is not boasting the same supporting cast Manning had in his prime, it's still decent. I'd rate Luck's WRs ahead of Griffin's, and behind Wilson's, but not by terribly much.

The one thing I will give Luck credit for is his ability to win close games (something Griffin and Wilson also do well). That said, consider the following QB comparison:

QB A: 6.98 yards per attempt, 28.5 pass attempts per TD, 33.3 pass attempts per interception, played on a bad team, was money in close games, had a .667 overall winning percentage.
QB B: 6.98 yards per attempt, 25 pass attempts per TD, 19.6 pass attempts per interception, played on a bad team, was money in close games, had a .750 overall winning percentage.

QB A is Andrew Luck. QB B is 2011 John Skelton.

Obviously, I think Luck is a very different QB with a much brighter future, but he's alike in that his rookie season is a poster child of why it's a bad idea of judging a player by wins. Luck might have the most appropriate name ever- his 2012 team has absolutely no business having double digit wins, and it's not even because he's been that good. Regression is going to be a bitch in 2013. Unless his schedule somehow gets even easier.

Now you compare that John Skelton-esque debut with the two best rookie performances in NFL history on teams that hadn't posted winning seasons in five years. How is that even a discussion? As I like to say, it's one of those things that makes more sense the less you think about it.

I don't have all the fancy stats kearly does but something that I did do was looked at how these QB's did against teams in the playoff picture. Texans, Broncos, Bengals, Patriots, Colts, Ravens, Falcons, Packers, Vikings, Seahawks, 49ers, Redskins, Bears, Cowboys, and Giants.

Wilson - 6-1. 104/173 for 1333 yards. 60.1%. 15TD's/2 Int's. 39 carries for 200 yards.

Luck - 2-3 with Houston to go. 104/208 for 1415 yards. 50%. 9 TD's/7 Int's. 15 carries for 68 yards and 1 rushing TD.

RG3 - 4-3 with Dallas to go. 115/173 for 1461 yards. 66.5%. 10 TD's/3 Int's. 56 carries for 443 yards and 3 TD's.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wilson has the best record. 2nd best completion %. Least yards passing per game. Most TD's passing per attempt. Least Int's per attempt. 2nd best in rushing stats.

Luck has the worst record. Worst completion %. Most yards passing per game. Worst passing TD's per attempt. Most Int's per attempt. Worst rushing stats.

RG3 has the 2nd best record. Best completion %. 2nd most yards passing per game. 2nd best passing TD's per attempt. 2nd best Int's per attempt. Best rushing stats.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Am I missing something here? It should be between RG3 and Wilson. In fact I would give it to RG3 based on my statistical breakdown and unless RG3 craps the bed against Dallas he would be my winner. In the same amount of games as Wilson, RG3 has 371 more yards, slightly less TD's total and Int's almost the same. A better completion %. And he's more deadly on the run. I wouldn't trade Wilson for RG3 because I know RG3's style of play will probably shorten his career. Wilson also wins big games more often. But Luck shouldn't even be in this conversation with Wilson and RG3.

1.a. RG3
1.b. Wilson
3. Luck

/ End thread

CPHawk wrote:Seattle had NO QB last year as well, and still won 7 games.

Tarvaris Jackson was a decent QB, basically about the same as 2012 Andrew Luck with a lot fewer pass attempts. Was he a good QB? No. But we could have done far, far, far worse. Like Curtis Painter worse. Curtis Painter nearly rivaled Stouffer and Gelbaugh in ineptitude.

Andrew Luck obviously deserves extra credit for being drafted by a team that ran their team so poorly they had a sub-CFL level quarterback waiting in the wings in the case of a Peyton Manning injury.......

Off-topic slightly, has there been any case of any of these jerkoff draftnik types eating crow on the Seattle draft? Haven't seen anything from Kiper or walterfootball or any of those types personally. I figured even if they did they'd preface it with something like "I still think they could've gotten Wilson/Irvin/Wagner later in the draft" or something along those lines so they can still feel semi-right, but it'd still be nice to see even the slightest of admissions that maybe John Schneider and Pete Carroll know a bit more about scouting talent and drafting players than the guys that flap their jaws on twitter and TV who could never get actual NFL personnel jobs do.

Lmao Kearly just closed the book on the ludicrous notion that Luck should be MVP... And narrowed down ROY to RGIII and RW3 in my book. Luck has been good not spectacular for a rookie. The other two have been playing at a sick and different level all year. Should be down to those two if you ask me.

Sent from my Galaxy Note II with my stylus pen because I wanted to be cool like Tech Worlds!!

I agree with you guys that Luck should definitely be out of the discussion. But why is no one even talking about Doug Martin? The guy is right behind Lynch in rushing yards. He's having a very good season and it just seems like everyone is ignoring it. I'm not saying that he should be the OROY, I'm just saying that he should take Luck's place in the discussion.

Alfred Morris too. It would be an absolute sham if Luck won it.