Man, it's worth at least an 8.5

that was a fair grade

Like I said, RG3 has a very high ceiling, but hasn't done much of anything yet.

I would have gave him a 7 if he knew how to slide.

Yall are pretending he didn't carry a crappy team to the playoffs. He was throwing to Aldrick Robinson for fucks sake gtfo

NFC East is garb.

RG3's rookie season was 100% worth an 8-9. I would've gave him a higher rating in this but he's just been a little too inconsistent (or pretty much almost all trash last season). But there isn't too much bad to say about his rookie season.. he looked elite most of the time & didn't seem fluke-ish Flacco elite. To me 7.5 seemed legit enough to give him for a current rating.

I would give RG3's rookie season an 8. IMO

Batman wrote:

*Razor's upset post*

You are allowed to make your ratings. And the new outlier-based system wasn't made to purposely cancel out your ratings or anything... it was made to fix that flaw in the system.

People didn't like that you gave Vick a rating WAY lower than the average everyone else gave him. The outlier system fixes some of those problems of completely changing a player's average with 1 rating.
(Plus the fact you said you only knew a few QB's and that you were basing the rating partly based on the fact he killed dogs when it says in the rules it's based on their production & skillz)


I bet you'd be the first to get mad upset if this was a list of WWE superstars and someone like Cena was given a 0 rating.

Man, all of y'all are trippin trying to give RG3 a 9 for making the playoffs in that weak ass division. He was really good, but not that good.

Luck basically did the same thing, & ain't no one trying to show love.

No I wouldn't. I would think it's dumb, but I wouldn't care.

I hate Michael Vick for being a cockhead irl and what he did to those dogs should cause him to be fired, but the NFL doesn't give a shit about morals.

That said, I didn't give him a 0 only because of that (I mean, I hate Roethlesberger for being a rapist, but I still gave him a 5.) I gave him a 0 because I genuinely think he is the worst QB ever. I based it purely off last season, which wasn't very fair if I was supposed to take into account all the seasons before that, but last season he was complete garbage.

Also, from the first post:
"ex: 1 = out of the league in a few years, "
Before it said "0 = out of the league in a few years."

If Vick continues to play the way he played last season, he won't be around for more than a few years. So in a sense, I was right with that anyway.

That said, you know perfectly damn well people were mad that I gave Vick a 0 simply because they disagreed. I was joking when I said I only knew 8 people, I knew a good portion of the people on the list. And like I said in my "upset post", I ranked those who I didn't know based on the ratings before me. I took all those into account to see the general consensus and I rated them based off that. I rated those that I did know based off MY OPINION of them, which I assumed the thread was about anyway.

I wasn't even "upset" until everybody and their grandmas decided to throw a giant bitchfit over one person's rankings. To be fair, it's my own fault. I should've known you people would take a stupid little game like this insanely seriously and get butthurt over someone choosing something they didn't agree with. I shouldn't have posted in this thread in the first place, it's a retarded atmosphere.

I don't know why I argue with you clowns. Luck was mediocre at best as a rookie.

Brian Hoyer is good

Rookie season
RG3 > Luck

I'm not trying to say 2012 Luck > 2012 RG3...but let's see RG3 (or any other rookie) try to throw almost 700 times. Nigga please.

Both of those guys deserve A LOT of credit considering the circumstances, tho.

Luck had 18 interceptions and led the league in dropped interceptions with 9 if I remember right. I'm glad he threw the ball 627 times otherwise that would look a lot worse.

But anyway, my point wasn't that RGIII>Luck, it was RGIII did perform well. He's not Geno Smith as far as "aint done shit"

Different schemes, different circumstances. It was a high risk, low reward type offense - ask Drew Brees. No coincidence Carson Palmer has similar numbers the next year in the same scheme.

You mean "high risk, high reward?" cause otherwise you're making the scheme seem really dumb.

Anyways, I understand, but 27 should-have-been interceptions is still a lot. He looked very similar to Palmer in the offense and Palmer isn't regarded as a top ten QB anywhere.

No, "low-reward" because all of the INTs you're going to throw.

All I am saying is that if RG3 is in the same offense the numbers are different. Not many rookies who are asked to throw 600-700 times are going to have numbers that look pretty.

You're right, in part because RGIII's offense was better tooled to his skill set than Luck's.

Señor Drächen wrote:

No, "low-reward" because all of the INTs you're going to throw.

The INT's is why it's high risk... you can't just classify the system as high-risk AND low-reward for that reason. It's still high-reward because of all the yards and TD's you're going to get at the same time.


I don't think that I consider RG3 to be as good as Ian thinks, but I have faith in RG3 to turn it around next season as well. Also, RG3 > Luck by next February IMO. Luck might regress or be about the same player, I fully expect one of those two. I'm not sure how much better I could truly picture him doing than last season with his current skillset & system. RG3's going to have a very solid up year if he stays healthy.

Nigga, shut up

Make your ratings, NFL-guru.

I own this nigga every year in FF & he wants to come at me w/ stats and his analysis. You trippin.