Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

    Luck is better, okay. This shouldn't be a question. Look at both of their attempts per game. Luck throws for almost 50 times A GAME. RG3 maybe throws for a bout 15-20. RG3 relies on his running backs to rush for 100+ yards, so he can fake the defense in the read option. If they play a team like San Francisco or New England, they will be screwed, because their running game will not exist and RG3 will be sacked all day, and throw 30 times and complete maybe 40% of them. The majority of his passes are barely over 5 yards. If Arians' offense featured more of those, Luck would have an incredible completion percentage and QB rating. Luck runs an aggressive, risk taking offense, and RG3 doesn't. Luck > RG3
    Smothered Chicken!

    Comment


    • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

      Originally posted by Coopdog23 View Post
      Luck throws for almost 50 times A GAME.
      41

      RG3 maybe throws about 15-20.
      27


      (against top teams) RG3 will be sacked all day, and throw 30 times and complete maybe 40% of them.
      He averages 27 throws against everyone, and completes 66.4 % of them. That they are indeed lower risk, higher percentage passes should make him no more mistake-prone against even the good defenses. Avoiding stupid negative plays is an important and too often overlooked QB skill.

      Hey, I'd prefer to have Luck too, but I just don't see the need to bash RG3 especially when to do so involves twisting around some of the basic facts. They are both very promising rookies.
      Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 12-13-2012, 01:58 PM.
      The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

      Comment


      • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

        Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
        That they are indeed lower risk, higher percentage passes should make him no more mistake-prone against even the good defenses. Avoiding stupid negative plays is an important and too often overlooked QB skill.
        Just to jump in... I'm not an RG3 "basher". But the bolded part of your sentence has tremendous bearing on the rest of your sentence. You're absolutely right that the defense has no bearing --- because the offense has been designed that way. It's there to eliminate opportunites for the QB to make mistakes, while still progressing the ball forward. It's a nifty offense.

        But it's the opposite of what Luck is running. And that's why you see the discrepancies in Luck's and RG3's stats. As long as RG3 runs that spread/option/westcoast hybrid offense, he'll have low interceptions and high passing % and rating. Stick him in Luck's offense, and you'll see all that drop. That's sort of the knock on RG3 --- he's running a very simple, college-style offense. Simple works... for awhile. A difference of almost 15 passing attempts per game is actually pretty massive on a number of fronts. It means they are running it way more... the defense can't throw a million guys in coverage, and thus it's easier for Rob to get his passes off downfield. But they 'Skins don't run a pure west coast offense... they run some sort of hybrid of westcoast, option, spread... and he's getting out on a lot of designed run plays or option scrambles with near distrastrous outcomes. RG3 is running something that a lot of people have long-term doubts about, because they know what happens to players and offenses like his. It actually reminds me a LOT of Vick's Falcons when he first entered the league and Vick took the league by storm. And there's no concrete evidence that it's a superior offensive scheme... they have a worse record while he's piled up those gawdy INT and % numbers. They may not make the playoffs. They had a better team going into the season. Once the losses started coming for the 'Skins and the wins came in for the Colts, that all completely shifted in the media's eyes --- "Oh the Colts weren't as bad as we thought". Bullsh*t. They are exactly what we said they were --- a hodgepodge grouping of mediocre players being lifted up by the best quarterback prospect in decades to enter a "quarterback's league".

        Just a lot of questionmarks... at least from myself. It's not just emotional bashing. It's me knowing what I know about football, and observing the two systems and recognizing what's actually going on.
        Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 12-13-2012, 02:14 PM.
        There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

        Comment


        • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

          I'd agree that Shanahan's system gives RG3 a chance to complete a high percentage, avoid turnovers, and get a high passer rating, but focusing on it seems to imply that other QBs Washington could plug in there would have a similar advantage. I don't think many QBs could take RG3's spot and do nearly as well. Like you, I also have doubts as to whether the spread/option facets of the Washington offense will last, in terms of effectiveness and in terms of keeping the QB healthy. I'd bet that a focus of the Washington offseason will be to move a bit away from that and add the type of receiving threats necessary to do so.

          I don't think that you are an RG3 basher and didn't mean to imply that everyone posting here is either, but seeing people say things like he would only complete 40% of his passes vs. a good team is just silly and should be challenged IMO. Basically I see no need to try to make Luck look better by taking down RG3 using exaggerated stats (again, not something that you did, but it was the poster I was responding to above).
          The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

          Comment


          • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

            Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
            41



            27




            He averages 27 throws against everyone, and completes 66.4 % of them. That they are indeed lower risk, higher percentage passes should make him no more mistake-prone against even the good defenses. Avoiding stupid negative plays is an important and too often overlooked QB skill.

            Hey, I'd prefer to have Luck too, but I just don't see the need to bash RG3 especially when to do so involves twisting around some of the basic facts. They are both very promising rookies.
            I like RG3, but I'm tired of everybody and I mean everybody making such a big deal about RG3, when he doesn't take as many risks as Luck does. Peyton threw 26 INTs as a rookie and look at him now. I think Luck is better now and always will be better than RG3
            Smothered Chicken!

            Comment


            • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

              Honestly, the media love fest between Luck and RGIII is pretty even at this point.


              Comment


              • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

                Originally posted by Coopdog23 View Post
                I like RG3, but I'm tired of everybody and I mean everybody making such a big deal about RG3, when he doesn't take as many risks as Luck does. Peyton threw 26 INTs as a rookie and look at him now. I think Luck is better now and always will be better than RG3
                And Tom Brady threw 12 INT's is rookie year. What's the point? The number of INT's simply means Luck is taking a number of unnecessary chances that RGIII isn't. One could easily argue that Luck is better, but the fact that he takes unnecessary chances many times throughout the game isn't a reason to say that he's better.

                Comment


                • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

                  Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                  Just to jump in... I'm not an RG3 "basher". But the bolded part of your sentence has tremendous bearing on the rest of your sentence. You're absolutely right that the defense has no bearing --- because the offense has been designed that way. It's there to eliminate opportunites for the QB to make mistakes, while still progressing the ball forward. It's a nifty offense.

                  But it's the opposite of what Luck is running. And that's why you see the discrepancies in Luck's and RG3's stats. As long as RG3 runs that spread/option/westcoast hybrid offense, he'll have low interceptions and high passing % and rating. Stick him in Luck's offense, and you'll see all that drop. That's sort of the knock on RG3 --- he's running a very simple, college-style offense. Simple works... for awhile. A difference of almost 15 passing attempts per game is actually pretty massive on a number of fronts. It means they are running it way more... the defense can't throw a million guys in coverage, and thus it's easier for Rob to get his passes off downfield. But they 'Skins don't run a pure west coast offense... they run some sort of hybrid of westcoast, option, spread... and he's getting out on a lot of designed run plays or option scrambles with near distrastrous outcomes. RG3 is running something that a lot of people have long-term doubts about, because they know what happens to players and offenses like his. It actually reminds me a LOT of Vick's Falcons when he first entered the league and Vick took the league by storm. And there's no concrete evidence that it's a superior offensive scheme... they have a worse record while he's piled up those gawdy INT and % numbers. They may not make the playoffs. They had a better team going into the season. Once the losses started coming for the 'Skins and the wins came in for the Colts, that all completely shifted in the media's eyes --- "Oh the Colts weren't as bad as we thought". Bullsh*t. They are exactly what we said they were --- a hodgepodge grouping of mediocre players being lifted up by the best quarterback prospect in decades to enter a "quarterback's league".

                  Just a lot of questionmarks... at least from myself. It's not just emotional bashing. It's me knowing what I know about football, and observing the two systems and recognizing what's actually going on.
                  Just a few things from this post:

                  1. Their offense is somewhat similar to what they ran in ATL with the exception that RGIII has 3 options downfield (RB, one receiver that's short, and one that's intermediate to deep--most times) whereas ATL's offense was two reads and that's all. Also, even though Vick was "taking the league by storm" he still was only completing 55% of his passes, while throwing for a tad under 3,000 yds (pretty good for 1st yr starter back then) and had an 16/8 TD:INT ratio. You can compare the two, but RGIII is light years ahead of Vick (already has 2,900 yds, 18td and only 4 INT) during his first season as a starter (though it's also more of a QB league than it was then)

                  2. Yes the redskins had a better team, but they have dealt with injuries to key players, much like the Colts. Garcon has been out a lot of the yr, Brian Orakpo has been out for most of the yr, Carriker has been out, their secondary (much like ours) has been depleted. So while they were a better team going into the season, it's not as if the Skins were even close to a .500 team last year. They were 3 games better than us

                  3. The skins have also faced a much tougher record than the colts have. The Colts have only played 4 teams with a winning record this year(2-2). The skins have defeated played 9 (5-4) So even though we have a better record, we haven't had as easy of a schedule to do so. (though I'm a big believer in you can only play the games that are on your schedule)

                  As far as who will be the better QB in the future, NFL history would suggest the more traditional QB would have the advantage 99% of the time. So because of this, I def think that Luck will be better. But I could see how one would believe that RGIII has had a more impressive rookie year thus far.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

                    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                    And Tom Brady threw 12 INT's is rookie year. What's the point? The number of INT's simply means Luck is taking a number of unnecessary chances that RGIII isn't. One could easily argue that Luck is better, but the fact that he takes unnecessary chances many times throughout the game isn't a reason to say that he's better.
                    No this is saying that Luck is trying harder to win and he's relied on more to win games than RG3
                    Smothered Chicken!

                    Comment


                    • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

                      Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                      Hey, I'd prefer to have Luck too, but I just don't see the need to bash RG3 especially when to do so involves twisting around some of the basic facts. They are both very promising rookies.
                      I agree with this. RGIII is a helluva player and you can't take anything away from what what he's accomplished this season. The rookie seasons of Luck and RGIII will always be remembered. There's no reason to spite one just so you can prop up the other. I don't think that most people here have anything against RGIII per se. But having RGIII inserted into every Luck thread from April to November (you know what I'm talking about) probably predisposed people here to root against RGIII so that they could "spike the ball" so to speak. I don't think most people here have anything against him though and he probably wouldn't be brought up as much here if he hadn't been inserted into every thread for six straight months.

                      This is looking waaaaaaaaay head, but the Skins are scheduled to come to Indy in 2014. Both will be in their third year by then and will have some solid experience under their belt. There will be some exciting hype. Next year we have Peyton coming into town and the year after RGIII. Nationally televised games are returning to Indy after a brief hiatus.
                      Last edited by Sollozzo; 12-14-2012, 09:57 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

                        Originally posted by Coopdog23 View Post
                        No this is saying that Luck is trying harder to win and he's relied on more to win games than RG3
                        Relied upon more often to win games maybe. Trying harder to win games? Not in the least bit.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

                          Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                          Relied upon more often to win games maybe. Trying harder to win games? Not in the least bit.
                          You can be a fan of Luck man, it's okay. You don't have to do the "yea but" thing when people praise Luck. We all acknowledge RG3 as a talent, but Luck is our guy. You spend more time countering our praise and defending RG3 than makes logical sense for someone who is supposed to be a fan. Objective or whatever... just root for the guy, lol. Spending 3 paragraphs supporting RG3 and then ending with a sentence that says "but Luck is the safe pick and traditional, he'll probly be better"... sounds like you're trying to convince yourself that Luck is better than RG3 and not being all that successful doing so... almost like you're trying your hardest not to come out and say "Hm RG3 might be better."

                          If you believe that, fine... if not, whatever. Luck will be the better QB when all the RG3 smoke clears out, though.
                          Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 12-14-2012, 03:23 PM.
                          There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

                            Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                            Relied upon more often to win games maybe. Trying harder to win games? Not in the least bit.
                            Luck has no help with the running game. RG3's running backs get 100+ yards a game.
                            Smothered Chicken!

                            Comment


                            • Given a lot of those picks came when we were playing from behind, some of the risks were neccesary.

                              Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk 2

                              Comment


                              • Re: Luck vs Griffin - let it begin.

                                Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                                You can be a fan of Luck man, it's okay. You don't have to do the "yea but" thing when people praise Luck. We all acknowledge RG3 as a talent, but Luck is our guy. You spend more time countering our praise and defending RG3 than makes logical sense for someone who is supposed to be a fan. Objective or whatever... just root for the guy, lol. Spending 3 paragraphs supporting RG3 and then ending with a sentence that says "but Luck is the safe pick and traditional, he'll probly be better"... sounds like you're trying to convince yourself that Luck is better than RG3 and not being all that successful doing so... almost like you're trying your hardest not to come out and say "Hm RG3 might be better."

                                If you believe that, fine... if not, whatever. Luck will be the better QB when all the RG3 smoke clears out, though.
                                Lol that's not what I was doing at all. I don't think that the gap between the two is as wide as I think you believe. I provide stats and facts in favor of Griffin sometimes, and I provide stats and facts in favor of Luck sometimes. It's all for simple means of subjectivity within the forum. You may not like it, but I happen to think it's necessary sometimes.

                                All in all; I believe RGIII is having a better rookie season overall, but I believe that Luck is the better player both now and has a higher ceiling than RGIII.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X