I don't really know who should win, but this notion that you're an idiot if you think Andrew Luck should win Rookie of the Year is so misguided. Luck has been asked to do more than any rookie QB I can think of in the last 10 years. While efficiency is important, workload is extremely relevant. Every QB's numbers get worse as they're asked to throw more, usually because it means the volume of difficult throws (deep throws) is increasing.
The standard statistics don't always tell the whole story, and anyone watching the specific sport should see that. RG3 has a higher completion percentage, higher YPA, and less turnovers than Tom Brady. Raise your hand if you think he was better than Brady this season.
Neither RG3 nor Wilson finished with 400 attempts this season. RG3 is playing in a simplistic offense that plays to his skill set (kudos to the Redskins), similar to his college offense, that's transitioning him into the NFL. Everything they do stems from their run game and off of play action. This isn't to discredit RG3, but he's simply being asked to do a lot less, make easier reads, etc.
RG3 was 7th this season in Expected Points Added (advanced stat) while Luck was 8th, and Wilson was 10th. Luck throws deep (15+ yards) more than any QB (27%), Wilson is 7th (23%), and RG3 was 27th (18%).
If I had a vote, I might lean towards Wilson because of his efficiency, and despite not being asked to do a lot compared to other QB's, he isn't playing in a gimmick offense, and actually is asked to make a lot of difficult throws (the stat I just alluded to).
My whole point is that while I completely understand not voting for Luck, these people calling guys like Matt Williamson (NFL scout, says Luck should win) idiots are A) not watching these 3 enough, B) looking at standard statistics without context, or C) a Redskins/Seahawks fan.
For reference, this is what Williamson (writes "Rookie Watch" for ESPN) wrote today:
Russell Wilson was No. 1 on this list the past two weeks, but the space between Wilson,Andrew Luck and Robert Griffin III has been minimal of late.
All three are fantastic quarterback prospects. In fact, they are all already excellent NFL quarterbacks -- even when comparing them to the veterans starting in the league. In the end, I chose Luck as my NFL Offensive Rookie of the Year by the narrowest of margins over Wilson and Griffin. Why? Because I thought he finished the regular season stronger in Week 17 than the other two, and because I feel that more was asked of Luck from the start.
Luck does have WR Reggie Wayne, which is huge, and an impressive crew of young skill-position players (three of whom are listed as honorable mentions) who are developing with their quarterback. But Wilson and Griffin had superb running games (which their great run skills clearly enhance) to lean on, and Wilson had perhaps the league's best defense, which made his role easier.
Unlike Wilson and Griffin, who were brought along much more slowly, Luck was given the keys to the offense from day one -- and he excelled. Yes, he makes too many questionable throws and decisions, and this is surely an angle that all of you Wilson and Griffin supporters will stress in your arguments, but the Colts also throw deep downfield more than any team in the league. Luck has been asked to make many more "NFL throws" than his two counterparts, who often take their shots downfield off play-action.
Again, what these three quarterbacks have done in Year 1 is remarkable, but in the end, I feel that Luck had the most impressive season of any rookie in 2012 and was more instrumental in getting his team to the postseason than either Wilson or Griffin. This didn't factor into my choice, but I would also pick Luck going forward -- again, by a slight margin -- to build my franchise around over any young player in the league right now.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Stampede Blue's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Stampede Blue's writers or editors.