Kravitz: Luck's Pressure over Griffin's Stats
Bob Kravitz chooses a side in the debate: Andrew Luck or Robert Griffin III? Basically, Clark Kent or Bruce Wayne? Kent, the down-to-earth fella' with the straight-edge persona and studious appearance. Wayne, the flashy news piece with a cool public image. Both are handy in a pinch, something the Colts and Redskins are finding out about Luck and RG3. The two teams combined for 7 wins last year; they're on pace for almost double that this year (6 wins through 7 weeks of play). Still, Kravitz sides with Luck, and draws on some key points, such as:
Only 7 percent of Luck's passes have been targeted to running backs, one of the lowest ratios in the league. He throws to his wide receivers a league-high 72 percent of the time. Griffin, by contrast, has checked down with far more frequency. He is last in the league in passes thrown 15 yards or more down the field.
Kravitz's main point, without giving too much away (it's a great article), is that Luck is forced to take more chances, where RG3 has been put in a safer system. Again though, and I can't stress this enough, there isn't a wrong answer here. My rootmmates and I have fought back and forth over Batman vs. Superman, Spiderman vs. Iron Man, Marvel vs. DC - but honestly, does it matter?
... and for me, yeah it does. Superman, Spiderman, and DC. Also, Andrew Luck, 10 times out of 10.
@Jorgelfman
My question is, WHY is Luck taking so few checkdowns? If all his routes are deep he ought to have some running backs open on little delay routes for good gainers. I saw a couple to Ballard, and we all know getting DB open in space is key. Again, I really question BA's skill at utilizing what he's got. I think he might be a better head coach than coordinator, to be honest.
@Coltsheadben That's a good point; defenses are becoming very spread out against the Colts. Still, against Cleveland, Luck was 1 for 9 on deep balls and 15 of 20 for short throws. Out of those 15 short completions, 11 were to wide receivers; they're really clicking at that range. Maybe it's in reverse - they're keeping it close to set up the launch, once in a while.
@Coltsheadben Coaching and play calling that is out of Luck's hands ... Luck did not to this in college ... He was and would be happy to do the TE, RB thing ...
Even when Wormtongue Kravitz writes an article that I basically agree with... he still manages to infuriate me.
I know that is his mission in life... yes, to personally rile me up, and it upsets me to no end that I continue to fall for it.
While I tend to agree with using the advanced stats to show how well Luck has actually played, I'm suspicious of why Wormtongue is going there. Especially since as he admits, he really knows nothing about them. Could it be that he wants to continue to support his get Peyton out of town bring Luck in agenda that he has been perpetuating for over a year? Yes, I think it might just be. (And I'm not here to beat this dead horse, only the duplicitous Mr. Wormtongue's involvement in it. Somewhere along the line and for a price that I would not even begin to speculate on, he agreed to throw whatever clout he has behind it, and he has never backed down.))
"...and I always took New England's Tom Brady over former Colt Peyton Manning in that debate". Yes, yes you did. I wonder why? Because your now beloved stats, either standard or advanced, sure don't support that.
@DougEngland That really bugged me too ... I always thought Manning was a better quarterback, especially after his absence caused a decent team to tank, while the Pats went 11-5 without Brady. Why anyone, especially a Colts writer, would argue against that is beyond me.
I agree about Spider-Man. Super Man is kind of unfair, the dude can fly and is more or less invincible. I also probably prefer Marvel, too many great characters, DC is really just Batman and Super Man, kind of thin after that.
@Colt_Following I like the DC villans way better, mainly; they're a lot more developed, and a lot is put into their backstories. Villans in Marvel seem to be throwaway ideas with no real definition.
