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. RG3

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

  • #91
    Re: Luck vs. RG3

    Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
    Both have heart and brains but only one is NFL ready.

    Here is a point from one sport writer that makes sense and has been expressed on PD multiple time.



    Luck was 67 out 69 in scoring in the red zone and only 2 misses were FG's. Thats really impressive and his TD to FG ratio is also very high.

    Luck is ready RG3 isn't and more importantly the Colts don't have what RG3 needs. Two really good TE's and good bubble screen WR (Garcon) who can also run deep post routes.
    I think what the writer said about that analysis between Luck and RGIII vs. Oklahoma St. is what makes Luck a better QB prospect.

    With RGIII, you're hoping his arm and athleticism make him some kind of transcendent talent that redefines the QB position. And that's primary rationale among RGIII supporters.

    And that's not a bad thing, as RGIII's talents are considerable, but when you look at Luck, you see a lot more of what the top tier QBs of the past decade possess: Namely, being able to make reads, checkdowns, changing plays at the line, being accustomed to pro formations. It's these qualities that have made the Bradys, Mannings, Brees and Rodgers successful.

    He's shown more of the qualities of what already successful NFL QBs in the NFL possess. This to go along with his above average arm, size and athleticism. That's why he's going #1.

    Perhaps RGIII really is able to redefine the position with his considerable abilities. Maybe he is that transcendent talent. But if I were a betting man, I'd go with the guy who has shown more obvious signs of possessing the traits of QBs that have ALREADY proven to win in the NFL.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Luck vs. RG3

      Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
      I would argue that Luck looks quite a bit better than Manning coming out of college. And that is saying a LOT. I absolutely love what Manning became in his career. Huge Manning fan.

      Manning wasn't necessarily a once-in-a-generation QB when he came out. I still felt Manning was better than Leaf... the similarities to Leaf and RG3 aren't that far off, tbo, but don't let the RG3 fans hear that. But Manning wasn't Elway. He was very highly regarded, but had arm-strength concerns, happy feet, and "couldn't win the big one". He was also fairly immobile. He had flaws.

      With Luck.... man you REALLY gotta nit-pick to find any flaws in his game. He can do it all. Everyone says he's the best since Manning --- I say the best since Elway. Even then, there's things that Luck does that Elway couldn't do. Elway had the cannon advantage...
      Dont care to get into comparisons, but to say you gotta nit-pick to find flows is a stretch IMO. Luck took gambles that blew up in his face (10 picks, saw some bad decision making myself in the Stanford-ND game)

      I have also heard that Luck can scramble, but his decision making (and mechanics) take a hit (no pun intended) when he throws on the run.

      As far as RG3 and Leaf comparisons, I dont remember Leaf coming out (and the media wasnt nearly as crazy as it is now) but one thing I know for sure is diffrent: we know have tests like wonderlic and examine these guys 100000% more then we did back with Leaf.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Luck vs. RG3

        Originally posted by d_c View Post
        I think what the writer said about that analysis between Luck and RGIII vs. Oklahoma St. is what makes Luck a better QB prospect.

        With RGIII, you're hoping his arm and athleticism make him some kind of transcendent talent that redefines the QB position. And that's primary rationale among RGIII supporters.

        And that's not a bad thing, as RGIII's talents are considerable, but when you look at Luck, you see a lot more of what the top tier QBs of the past decade possess: Namely, being able to make reads, checkdowns, changing plays at the line, being accustomed to pro formations. It's these qualities that have made the Bradys, Mannings, Brees and Rodgers successful.

        He's shown more of the qualities of what already successful NFL QBs in the NFL possess. This to go along with his above average arm, size and athleticism. That's why he's going #1.

        Perhaps RGIII really is able to redefine the position with his considerable abilities. Maybe he is that transcendent talent. But if I were a betting man, I'd go with the guy who has shown more obvious signs of possessing the traits of QBs that have ALREADY proven to win in the NFL.
        IMO that is what it boils down to. Will Isray take the kid who ran a pro system (IMO he would be crazy not to) or will he take the kid who is a gamble but could have a huge payoff (if I was him I would be scared to death to do it).

        A guy in my office swears that Isray watches Sports Center 4 hours every AM and is on twitter and is going to buy the hype and draft RG3.

        Regardless of what happens, I will be happy with either as the number 2 pick. If there was a year to make the risk of moving up, this was the one IMO. Time will tell if the risk was worth it

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Luck vs. RG3

          Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
          IMO that is what it boils down to. Will Isray take the kid who ran a pro system (IMO he would be crazy not to) or will he take the kid who is a gamble but could have a huge payoff (if I was him I would be scared to death to do it).

          A guy in my office swears that Isray watches Sports Center 4 hours every AM and is on twitter and is going to buy the hype and draft RG3.

          Regardless of what happens, I will be happy with either as the number 2 pick. If there was a year to make the risk of moving up, this was the one IMO. Time will tell if the risk was worth it
          Irsay is going to take luck so don't be fooled by the smoke screen he sent out last week. Imo you always go for the more proven and durable talent. Grigson being a philly guy should have learn that lesson with vick. Mobile QBs get hurt and you can't win games if your best player is on the sidelines.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Luck vs. RG3

            Originally posted by CreekShow View Post
            And just what has Luck done to "prove" that he has these qualities more than RGlll?
            He has played in a system that requires the QB to make intelligent reads much like in the NFL. He has proven he can run an NFL type offense. Griffin has not. Nobody is saying he cant, just saying he hasnt. That is the conclusion of just about every NFL scout and GM I have heard. Only a few exceptions.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Luck vs. RG3

              Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
              ............. but one thing I know for sure is diffrent: we know have tests like wonderlic and examine these guys 100000% more then we did back with Leaf.
              And that increase in scrutiny brings JaMarcus Russell as a #1 pick.

              It just not an exact science. Hard to anticipate what will happen to a kid (yeah - they're all kids when they get drafted) when he get a few million $$ in his pockets. Some handle it well, some just don't.

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Luck vs. RG3

                Guys who fly up the charts prior to the draft (*cough*RG3*cough*) rarely live up to snuff.

                Just a few months ago there was a time he was barely considered a top 10 pick. But then he "interviewed well", "combined well", and then "pro day'd well", and voila --- flavor of the month. He went from like 9th on the "big board" to 2nd.... went from a score of 92 to a score of 97 (Luck's been stuck at 99 all season) --- without having played a down of football. That was all post-bowl game. Still don't see this guy coming close to Luck on the field.
                Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 03-31-2012, 11:56 AM.
                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


                • #98
                  Re: Luck vs. RG3

                  Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                  Guys who fly up the charts prior to the draft (*cough*RG3*cough*) rarely live up to snuff.

                  Just a few months ago there was a time he was barely considered a top 10 pick. But then he "interviewed well", "combined well", and then "pro day'd well", and voila --- flavor of the month. He went from like 9th on the "big board" to 2nd.... went from a score of 92 to a score of 97 (Luck's been stuck at 99 all season) --- without having played a down of football. That was all post-bowl game. Still don't see this guy coming close to Luck on the field.
                  Reminds me of how fast Jeff George flew up the draft board. I think he did it on the basis of one throw where he nailed a WR 75 yards down field in stride. That worked out well didnt it?

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Luck vs. RG3

                    Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                    Guys who fly up the charts prior to the draft (*cough*RG3*cough*) rarely live up to snuff.

                    Just a few months ago there was a time he was barely considered a top 10 pick. But then he "interviewed well", "combined well", and then "pro day'd well", and voila --- flavor of the month. He went from like 9th on the "big board" to 2nd.... went from a score of 92 to a score of 97 (Luck's been stuck at 99 all season) --- without having played a down of football. That was all post-bowl game. Still don't see this guy coming close to Luck on the field.
                    If I remember correctly he was behind Matt Barkley as the third best QB prospect and the only reason he is considered the second overall pick is because Matt Barkley went back to school. If anything it would have been a tough call for teams to choose Barkley or RG3.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Luck vs. RG3

                      Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                      Guys who fly up the charts prior to the draft (*cough*RG3*cough*) rarely live up to snuff.

                      Just a few months ago there was a time he was barely considered a top 10 pick. But then he "interviewed well", "combined well", and then "pro day'd well", and voila --- flavor of the month. He went from like 9th on the "big board" to 2nd.... went from a score of 92 to a score of 97 (Luck's been stuck at 99 all season) --- without having played a down of football. That was all post-bowl game. Still don't see this guy coming close to Luck on the field.
                      He did not fly under the draft charts, he was looked over, primarily due to the team he played on and perceptions about his height. He had good stats for years and always showed promise, at the beginning of the year before people started to recognize what he was doing I thought he would go top 20 and thought it would not be a bad idea for the Colts to trade the #1 overall pic(if they got it) and selecting him with the 10th or 15th or so, but once he finally got attention I knew that was over.

                      Also guys often fall or go up boards after the season because that is when people look at game tape vigorously and try to find weaknesses and strengths. When they did this with RG3 they saw some of their previous things were not right.

                      Just for conversation sake, their 1st year was fairly similar as far as stats
                      http://espn.go.com/college-football/...rt-griffin-iii
                      http://espn.go.com/college-football/...70/andrew-luck

                      RG3 a little higher in some categories, but by the end of 4 years they put up similar numbers again.

                      I think RG3's problem starting out was people saw he was fast and thought of him as a rushing QB, and the more they watched tape they saw he was a passing qb with a lot of upside who was also super fast. RG3's accuracy has always been pretty good, and I believe he will have a better than average career in the NFL as a QB, the same way I feel about Luck.

                      I am taking Luck though, if I am the Colts, but have no problem with Griffin going #2.
                      Why so SERIOUS

                      Comment


                      • Re: Luck vs. RG3

                        Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                        If I remember correctly he was behind Matt Barkley as the third best QB prospect and the only reason he is considered the second overall pick is because Matt Barkley went back to school. If anything it would have been a tough call for teams to choose Barkley or RG3.
                        He would have jumped Barkley just from a talent and potential standpoint. Like I said when people watch tape after the seasoin things change, Griffin did not come into the draft process not putting up good stats or ideal stats for a top pick and then his tape showed he could be very good in the NFL, he had the stats to back him up as well, not like some QB's who get hype, and then get over selected(Blaine Gabbert).
                        Why so SERIOUS

                        Comment


                        • Re: Luck vs. RG3

                          What's this I'm reading on Twitter about us considering taking a running back instead of Luck? Seriously?

                          *edit* I'm pretty sure it was just a fake CBS Sports twitter account; nevermind.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Luck vs. RG3

                            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                            What's this I'm reading on Twitter about us considering taking a running back instead of Luck? Seriously?

                            *edit* I'm pretty sure it was just a fake CBS Sports twitter account; nevermind.
                            April 1 came early this year.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Luck vs. RG3

                              Originally posted by Really? View Post
                              He did not fly under the draft charts, he was looked over, primarily due to the team he played on and perceptions about his height. He had good stats for years and always showed promise, at the beginning of the year before people started to recognize what he was doing I thought he would go top 20 and thought it would not be a bad idea for the Colts to trade the #1 overall pic(if they got it) and selecting him with the 10th or 15th or so, but once he finally got attention I knew that was over.

                              Also guys often fall or go up boards after the season because that is when people look at game tape vigorously and try to find weaknesses and strengths. When they did this with RG3 they saw some of their previous things were not right.

                              Just for conversation sake, their 1st year was fairly similar as far as stats
                              http://espn.go.com/college-football/...rt-griffin-iii
                              http://espn.go.com/college-football/...70/andrew-luck

                              RG3 a little higher in some categories, but by the end of 4 years they put up similar numbers again.

                              I think RG3's problem starting out was people saw he was fast and thought of him as a rushing QB, and the more they watched tape they saw he was a passing qb with a lot of upside who was also super fast. RG3's accuracy has always been pretty good, and I believe he will have a better than average career in the NFL as a QB, the same way I feel about Luck.

                              I am taking Luck though, if I am the Colts, but have no problem with Griffin going #2.
                              Lotta misquotes here.

                              1) I didn't say he flew under the charts --- he rocketed up after the season ended. That's usually because of extraordinary workouts --- which don't mean **** in the NFL.

                              2) I also didn't say he's not worthy of the 2nd pick. My main point is to NOT take him over Luck. Luck is gold; RG3 is fool's gold. Fool's gold still looks nice. :P

                              It will be apparent in a few years, but right now for people not doing homework and just taking a sky-high view, and going off workouts and stats, they're gonna think RG3 is "close", or even better.
                              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. RG3

                                Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                                Lotta misquotes here.

                                1) I didn't say he flew under the charts --- he rocketed up after the season ended. That's usually because of extraordinary workouts --- which don't mean **** in the NFL.

                                2) I also didn't say he's not worthy of the 2nd pick. My main point is to NOT take him over Luck. Luck is gold; RG3 is fool's gold. Fool's gold still looks nice. :P

                                It will be apparent in a few years, but right now for people not doing homework and just taking a sky-high view, and going off workouts and stats, they're gonna think RG3 is "close", or even better.
                                Never said you didn't think RG3 was worthy of 2, just saying that is my thought. Really, RG3 started the beginning of the year as a 2nd round pick, then half way through he was late first near the end he was tens, once he got the Heisman he was around top 10.

                                And you can ask pretty much any scout, workouts are just there to verify what you see on tape, what boosted him up was tape, what got all the non football people talking was the workouts because it was more of a tangible think they could grab.

                                For this same reason this is why 31 of 32 GM's still have Luck above Griffin, they look at tape and saw that Luck is the best prospect coming out in a long time.

                                And sorry about the flying under the charts thing.
                                Why so SERIOUS

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X