I was going to post the following as a response to someone's (Redskins) comment, but I figure you all might wanna see this without having to parse through random jibber jabber.
There's rumors flying around that " Robert Griffin dealt with 4 times the pressure Luck had yet his turnover ratio is lower." Its really quite something when a fan, describing themselves as "objective" because they view their own game film, goes making random claims which he asserts are not his opinion, but the objective reality, but then decides not to name sources or plays or stats.... if this is what being objective is, we live is a sad world.
So let's look at the facts. Below is a breakdown of the teams that each quaterback faced (Baylor first, Stanford second). The stats show the total defensive rating, yards/game, yards/play allowed of each opponent. Also I found the stats for the number of sacks and interceptions the team had/made during the season. Take a good look at these numbers. Notice how they are practically identical! Both teams played defenses with an average rating of 79. The rest of the totals are hardly distinguishable. And keep in mind that I left the non FCS team (Stephen Austin) out of Baylor's totals.... and its a safe assumption that that worked in Baylor's favor.
<a href="http://tinypic.com?ref=v58jrs" target="_blank"><img src="http://i42.tinypic.com/v58jrs.png" border="0" alt="Image and video hosting by TinyPic"></a>
So what does this mean?
Basically it is fiction that RG3 played better defenses. Both QB's really werent all that challenged defensively. But they did face pressure. Both QB's will struggle early in the NFL. The worst defense in the league is arguably better than the best defense in the NCAA.
So this addresses one issue. But let's delve a little deeper. I highlighted the two common opponents in the schedule. In those games (just for comparison):
Against Ok St:
Baylor lost 59-24. RG3 was 33-50 for 425 yards, 1 TD, 2 int and 16 rushes for 27 yards
Stanford lost 41-38 (OT) due to two botched 30 yard field goals (as far as I'm concerned they shoulda won.. I could kick those fgs). Luck was 27-31 for 347 yards, 2 TD, 1 int
Baylor won 67 - 56. RG3 was 24-33 for 295 yards. 1 TD, 0 int, and 18 rushes for 55 yards
Stanford won 65-21. Luck was 16-21 for 169 yards and 2 TDs, 0 int, and 3 rushes for 23 yards.
What sticks out? First the scoreline, but of course Stanford was a much better team overall that Baylor, so we cant compare that (sarcasm). Fine. Look at the stats. And a quick disclaimer... I happened to watch all four games, but Id rather not go off solely my opinion. Regardless, the stats dont lie here.
Claim: RG3 is a better pocket passer. More ridiculous claim: People in the Colts organization think this. (Note: WTF is what I'm thinking right now)
Notice the Ok St game. I'd assume the QB's faced similar pressure... but in reality Luck faced more. Why? It was the second place bowl game and both teams prepared for a month. Regardless, lets suppose the same pressure. Now look at the completion percentage. Note that Luck usually always throws in the pocket... but he made some great clutch throws on the run. RG3 threw the ball 50 times with little success other than increasing yard count. Why does he do that? Because RG3 has not been able to adjust to defenses yet. He just isnt there and is definitely not on Lucks level yet. Surely, you factor this in when considering pocket passing skills.
The Washington game supports this argument. Washington played both teams to control the pass. What did RG3 do?... not much. Their team struggled. RG3 threw, sometimes unnecessarily. In the end they won off their running game. What did Luck do? Again not much... but he was smart enough to realize the whole game that he's better off handing the ball off. And that's exactly what he did. Stanford dominated the ball and never struggled in that game. But even then, Luck chose his passes wisely, threw 76% with 2 TD's. Not saying that RG3 did bad. The point is Luck did better.
Claim: People think Luck will be better because he ran a pro style offense.
Wrong! Thats not the issue here. Its how he functioned in that pro style offense. You all have heard this, so I don't understand why people insist on twisting facts. Luck added many plays to the complicated Stanford playbook. He called his own audibles instead of getting upstairs help. He, in three short years (and even less considering he dominated 2 straight seasons), learned how to read college defenses, study film, and then at the line of scrimmage, expose weaknesses. And no I'm not just saying this. I watched all the Stanford games, including when he shredded my college team. The dude plays so meticulously and methodical its mind boggling. And this is why he's more pro ready.
Look, I know I'm pro Luck. And now I've become anti-Griffin. It's just my nature as a fan. I still hate Brady because I love Manning. And when Luck puts on a Colts uniform, I will dislike all other QB's.
At the same time, I don't base my opinions off heresay. I watched their games and listen to their interviews. Both are critical. In terms of their games... RG3 has phenomenal talent. But I don't think it'll be as easy to nurture as people claim. He ran a very scripted offense at Baylor and we only saw one year of stardom... lets lots of risk. I think he will learn, but he really needs to get his head straight and learn to protect himself. That way, 3 or 5 years from now, he can understand the whole pocket presence concept and be healthy enough to do some good things. In my last post I said I think he may be top 10 in 5 years. Well, heres why.
Now with Luck... we saw him dominate for 2 seasons on a national level. You don't see that very often anymore... not like how he does it. And he doesn't just run pro plays, he calls them by making necessary adjustments, exposing weaknesses, etc. He has a lot of room to grow, but I think he's more easy to nurture. The kid has an absolutely ridiculous work ethic and a great, humble attitude. He is a student of the game. That combined, with his already great skill level, is why comparisons to Chris Chandler is just erroneous. For some retarded reason, people see Luck as a finished product. It's because he's so consistent, people just seem to think that that's all he is. Well guess what folks... there's throws Luck can't make yet that he's practicing (like the fade) and the deep ball (with the aid of speedier receivers that can get separation). And above all, he will be in the film room studying NFL defenses.
RG3 will be too, but he'll have his coaching posse with him (yes I took a shot at him - get at me).