"Who's your Top 10 NFL QB List?"

[buried_in_snow]

Why were the Colts trailing so much? Because Luck made a TON of stupid mistakes with the ball. He was often the cause of his team playing from behind. So funny you mention those stats. RG3 didn't make those kinds of mistakes to put his team in those spots.

It's convenient of you to ignore all the stats splits I mentioned in that post.

Well a huge reason for it is because the Colts defense was atrocious and they had no running game whatsoever.

There mere fact you're trying to dish blame solely on Luck and praise solely on RGIII tells me everything I need to know.

Why is it that Washington had the #1 rushing offense again? You want to take RG3 down a notch by saying this but he was the reason why the Redskins had that ranking on the ground.

No, the reason why you had the #1 rushing offense is because you had a top 2 RB who gained over 1600 yards rushing, averaging nearly 5 yards a carry and over 100 yards a game.

You do realize your coach is known for producing great running games, a great run zone blocking scheme... without QBs who can run like RGIII.

Right?

 

[buried_in_snow]

I could make a strong argument that both Luck and RG3 threw 100% of their passes behind the line of scrimmage.

By all means, try.

You do realize it doesn't say, "throw from behind the LOS" right?

 

[buried_in_snow]

Why were the Colts trailing so much? Because Luck made a TON of stupid mistakes with the ball. He was often the cause of his team playing from behind. So funny you mention those stats. RG3 didn't make those kinds of mistakes to put his team in those spots.

It's convenient of you to ignore all the stats splits I mentioned in that post

Well a huge reason for it is because the Colts defense was atrocious and they had no running game whatsoever.

There mere fact you're trying to dish blame solely on Luck and praise solely on RGIII tells me everything I need to know.

Why is it that Washington had the #1 rushing offense again? You want to take RG3 down a notch by saying this but he was the reason why the Redskins had that ranking on the ground.

No, the reason why you had the #1 rushing offense is because you had a top 2 RB who gained over 1600 yards rushing, averaging nearly 5 yards a carry and over 100 yards a game.

You do realize your coach is known for producing great running games, a great run zone blocking scheme... without QBs who can run like RGIII.

Right?

That's not to say RGIII didn't contribute. Of course he did.

And it's always comical when you bring up what Luck was asked to do. RG3 carried this offense on his back.

lol, even you don't believe that.

He had the #2 rusher in the NFL... trailing only a freak of nature who had a historic season. Typically 1613 yards rushing leads the NFL for a season.

He's what made it go. The Redskins run the same system that the Texans do. And RG3 ran it extremely efficiently while missing two of his primary targets in the passing game for good chunks of the season.

You keep saying that yet it's not true. My guess is you heard that on local sports talk and have been regurgitating it since.

The Texans barely incorporate the read option into the scheme, whereas the Redskins are heavily predicated upon it. The Texans run the ball more in a traditional sense than the Redskins. The Texans are much more of a play action passing offense than the Redskins and don't rely on Schaub reading the DEs and either handing it off, keeping it to throw or keeping it to run.

Anything else?

I'll just wait on you to respond to my posts even though you don't care what other people think of RGIII

 

[buried_in_snow]

Sorry for the double post... kept getting a weird DNS error.

 

[Warpath]

It's convenient of you to ignore all the stats splits I mentioned in that post

Well a huge reason for it is because the Colts defense was atrocious and they had no running game whatsoever.

Typical excuse making. RG3's defense wasn't doing him any favors and it didn't cause him to throw into triple coverage.

There mere fact you're trying to dish blame solely on Luck and praise solely on RGIII tells me everything I need to know.

The fact that you want to try, and I emphasize TRY to disparage RG3 while making excuses for Luck tells me all I need to know about you.

No, the reason why you had the #1 rushing offense is because you had a top 2 RB who gained over 1600 yards rushing, averaging nearly 5 yards a carry and over 100 yards a game.

And Morris had 1600 yards and 5 yards per carry in large part due to the threat that RG3 posed to defenses. Without that threat, Morris isn't as successful. But you'll probably try to dismiss that predictably.

You do realize your coach is known for producing great running games, a great run zone blocking scheme... without QBs who can run like RGIII.

And?

lol, even you don't believe that.

Yes I do.

You keep saying that yet it's not true. My guess is you heard that on local sports talk and have been regurgitating it since.

It is in fact true.

The Texans barely incorporate the read option into the scheme, whereas the Redskins are heavily predicated upon it. The Texans run the ball more in a traditional sense than the Redskins. The Texans are much more of a play action passing offense than the Redskins and don't rely on Schaub reading the DEs and either handing it off, keeping it to throw or keeping it to run.

10 plays a game is heavily predicated upon it? The scheme is exactly the same only run out of the pistol formation. The play designs are the same with the addition of read option, which is run approximately 10 times per game. The only difference is the read option.

I'll just wait on you to respond to my posts even though you don't care what other people think of RGIII

I'll respond to your post, because you took the time to respond to every single one of mine.

Your turn...

 

[jdwills126]

Big Ben has a lot of miles on him and I would be hesitant to put him in the top ten 2013. Maybe 2-3 years ago but not today.

Newton, Luck, RG3, Wilson, and Kaepernick need to show they can sustain their performances. Newton already has regressed but gets the year due to the Panthers just being bad. I would rather have an established passer than a guy that just had a good year.

Brady
Rodgers
Manning
Brees
Rivers
Flacco
Stafford
Cutler
Dalton
E. Manning

 

[buried_in_snow]

Typical excuse making. RG3's defense wasn't doing him any favors and it didn't cause him to throw into triple coverage.

He didn't throw into triple coverage because 70% of his passes were either thrown behind the LOS or 10 yards past it.

You conveniently keep ignoring that stat split.

The fact that you want to try, and I emphasize TRY to disparage RG3 while making excuses for Luck tells me all I need to know about you.

Where am I disparaging RGIII?

Clearly you're too emotional to have rational discourse.

And Morris had 1600 yards and 5 yards per carry in large part due to the threat that RG3 posed to defenses. Without that threat, Morris isn't as successful. But you'll probably try to dismiss that predictably.

lol... I'm starting to get a full understanding of your lack of objectivity.

Unbelievable.

Again, I repeat: Under Shannahan's tutelage and within the run zone blocking scheme of his, the likes of Orlandis Gary, Mike Anderson, Rueben Droughns, and Tatum Bell were all very good to great running backs.

And?

10 plays a game is heavily predicated upon it? The scheme is exactly the same only run out of the pistol formation. The play designs are the same with the addition of read option, which is run approximately 10 times per game. The only difference is the read option.

So you say it's the same but there's a difference.

Makes sense.

 

[Warpath]

He didn't throw into triple coverage because 70% of his passes were either thrown behind the LOS or 10 yards past it.

You conveniently keep ignoring that stat split.

I'm not ignoring it. You keep spouting it as if it matters. Watching them play, seeing Luck have open receivers but choosing to throw into triple coverage has nothing to do with how far down the field he throws and everything to do with poor decision making.

RG3 threw less downfield and still had more TD passes over 40 yards than Luck, or anyone in the league for that matter.

Where am I disparaging RGIII?

Read your posts.

Again, I repeat: Under Shannahan's tutelage and within the run zone blocking scheme of his, the likes of Orlandis Gary, Mike Anderson, Rueben Droughns, and Tatum Bell were all very good to great running backs.

I know Shanahan's history. I'll also point out that he never had a 1600 yard rusher here until he drafted RG3 and implemented read option. If you think Morris would have had the same success without RG3 you're delusional. If Shanahan's zone running scheme was as plug and play as everyone makes it out to be, they would have had the same success without RG3, with other running backs running behind this same offensive line and Rex Grossman throwing the ball.

RG3 was the biggest factor in the success of the running game. He contributed 800 yards of his own and the threat of him running opened up holes that wouldn't have been there for Morris other wise.

So you say it's the same but there's a difference.

The base offense is identical. The read option is the only difference. Shouldn't be difficult to understand.

 

[buried_in_snow]

Like I said, you're way too emotional to be objective or ultimately rational.

Maybe I can provide relief by saying this:

I'm not disparaging RGIII nor trying to diminish your (and other skins fans') hope and jubilation. He's a very good QB who has a ton of upside. If (a big if) he stays healthy, he'll more than likely go down as the best QB in your franchise's history. Not to mention, he's already the best QB prospect your team has had since most of the posters on this forum have been alive.

Of course you should be excited about him and your team's potential with him under center.

Never once have I tried diminishing that, or even came close to disparaging RGIII. And your only retort to said assertion is, "read your posts." I don't have to, I'm writing them. I truly don't think you understand the definition of "disparage" which reads, "Regard or represent as being of little worth."

If you could show me one example of my writing(s) which regard or represent RGIII as being of little worth, I'll concede you were right.

Again, take the emotion out of it and you'll get a clearer picture of what I'm actually saying.

 

[Warpath]

There is no emotion involved. RG3 had the better rookie year than Luck. You took exception to me being tired of the excuse making for Luck by rattling off more excuses.

You want to argue that Luck was better because he threw the ball deeper, thus throwing 4x the inteceptions RG3 did, more power to you. In the end you are just making excuses for poor decision making. Throwing the ball deep is meaningless when it's intercepted because you decide to throw into triple coverage with players underneath who are open.

 

[buried_in_snow]

There is no emotion involved. RG3 had the better rookie year than Luck. You took exception to me being tired of the excuse making for Luck by rattling off more excuses.

Stats and splits aren't excuses. They're facts.

You've done nothing but counter with biased opinion and fabricated assertions you're trying to associate with me.

That's typical of an overly emotional fan.



btw - no attempt to substantiate your claim that I'm disparaging RGIII? Should I just chalk this up as another item you'll conveniently ignore?

 

[Warpath]

And your whole purpose for being here would be what? To make me see the light that Luck was a better player than RG3 in their rookie seasons... Based on statistics that you provided in an attempt to diminish what RG3 did and make excuses for Luck in the same breath. Seems to sum things up.

I have a very clear picture of what you are saying and don't agree with it. If you have to attach emotion to it to dismiss an opinion as irrational, that's your problem.

 

[Warpath]

Stats and splits aren't excuses. They're facts.

You've done nothing but counter with biased opinion and fabricated assertions you're trying to associate with me.

That's typical of an overly emotional fan.



btw - no attempt to substantiate your claim that I'm disparaging RGIII? Should I just chalk this up as another item you'll conveniently ignore?

They are excuses. And I've explained to you how they are excuses. You ignore those points and claim "emotion".

And your posturing is typical of any instigating troll. Which was your schtick on the ESPN boards as well.

 

[buried_in_snow]

I know Shanahan's history. I'll also point out that he never had a 1600 yard rusher here until he drafted RG3 and implemented read option. If you think Morris would have had the same success without RG3 you're delusional. If Shanahan's zone running scheme was as plug and play as everyone makes it out to be, they would have had the same success without RG3, with other running backs running behind this same offensive line and Rex Grossman throwing the ball.

Two seasons out of twenty is a tiny sample size to base an argument on. Not to mention those two seasons also coincide with taking over and rebuilding a debacle of a football team (namely on offense)

I find it laughable that you're crediting RGIII with all of Morris' success. Talk about disparaging a player.

 

[buried_in_snow]

They are excuses. And I've explained to you how they are excuses. You ignore those points and claim "emotion".

Stats and splits are facts. Pointing to them isn't making an excuse.

And you can claim how you've explained it, but it doesn't make it any less false.

And your posturing is typical of any instigating troll. Which was your schtick on the ESPN boards as well.

And here we go... your inability to rationally discuss football without getting all emotional and instantly reverting to a "you're a troll" card just puts the final piece of your puzzle together. It seems like you fall into the category of the typical homer who only wants to read posts that were crafted through the burgundy and gold lenses and can't handle a differing perspective.

Gotcha.

I'll move on to the other skins fans who are more emotionally stable and willing to objectively discuss football.

Good luck to you.

 

[Warpath]

Two seasons out of twenty is a tiny sample size to base an argument on. Not to mention those two seasons also coincide with taking over and rebuilding a debacle of a football team (namely on offense)

I find it laughable that you're crediting RGIII with all of Morris' success. Talk about disparaging a player.

It's realistic. Sorry that you don't live in the real world.

 

[Warpath]

Stats and splits are facts. Pointing to them isn't making an excuse.

Yup, Stats are stats. RG3 threw 5 interceptions. Luck threw how many again?

Cool, thanks.

 

[Warpath]

And here we go... your inability to rationally discuss football without getting all emotional and instantly reverting to a "you're a troll" card just puts the final piece of your puzzle together. It seems like you fall into the category of the typical homer who only wants to read posts that were crafted through the burgundy and gold lenses and can't handle a differing perspective.

Says the guy who is seeking an emotional response. To the point where you apply emotion were there is none.

You want me to agree with you, and when I don't it's because I'm "emotional" or have homer glasses on.

See ya, troll.

 

[Skin'EmAll]

Big Ben has a lot of miles on him and I would be hesitant to put him in the top ten 2013. Maybe 2-3 years ago but not today.



Brady
Rodgers
Manning
Brees
Rivers
Flacco
Stafford
Cutler
Dalton
E. Manning

While you can interpret the tread how you like I was thinking more so based on several years of work, with rookies/young QBs as the exception. So basing a rating going into 2013 wasn't really what I had in mind.

For Instance, I really like your Dalton pick based on wins not numbers. He'd probably be in my Top 15.
But on the other hand Rivers made your top 10 list and you passed on Newton, Luck, RG3, Wilson, and Kaepernick claiming it had to do with trust in performance. While I'm not knocking your choices...It doesn't appear to be consistent.

Once again, I really like the Dalton mention though

 

[buried_in_snow]

Yup, Stats are stats. RG3 threw 5 interceptions. Luck threw how many again?

Cool, thanks.

RGIII attempted how many passes?
Luck attempted how many passes?

What percentage of RGIII's passes were dink and dunks?
What percentage of Luck's passes were dink and dunks?

You conveniently ignore every stat/split that isn't posted through burgundy and gold lenses.