You see you've just confirmed for us all that you don't know what you're talking about (at least in regards to this) by making unsubstantiated claims that he runs the ball a "high percentage of the time on option plays". Go ahead back away from that and now delve into other area's not mentioned in my post. but okay I'll play your goal post moving game.
No goal posts are moving. Let me rephrase it for you to make it very clear and clear up anything I may have misspoken on. I probably threw around the word "option" too loosely, so allow me to apologize for that and make my point clearly and clear up my mistake. Are you seriously going to sit here and state the "huge majority" of his runs are
NOT from designed plays (option or otherwise) and are because of pocket collapses? Throw out the words "option plays" if it bugs you so much. Are you seriously telling me that of 120 runs, the "huge majority" were because his pocket collapsed? Because
EVERY SINGLE RUN Sunday night was a designed play of some sort for him to run it. I've seen 4 of RG3's games and the pattern repeats itself. Did he scramble because of pocket issues? Absolutely. Were all his runs (or a "huge majority") because of this? Absolutely not.
Another poster put it best when I mentioned that another Skins fan claimed the "huge majority" of his runs were because of pocket collapses and not from designed plays: "He is wrong."
Do you even understand why we're discussing designed runs vs. actual scrambles? I don't care what RG3 does one way or another, but the stats paint a reality different than what Redskins fans here are portraying. The whole argument started because I said Shanahan needs to sharply reduce the number of designed run plays (whether from option or not) in order to ensure his longevity. Then I was flooded with "He only runs when he HAS TO!" or "He'll duck out of bounds on every play!" The former is patently false, and the latter is questionable.
More complex? Maybe, I'm not privy to the complexities of their respective playbooks but since you do know maybe they should dumb it down for Luck. He seems to struggle throwing more touchdowns than interceptions.
Luck throws interceptions because he is constantly under pressure and earlier in the season, forced the ball way too much and that resulted in overthrows. He tried to make the big play and it backfired. In many cases, he should've eaten the ball and taken the sack or rolled out of the pocket and thrown it away.
Also, keep in mind that outside of Wayne, Luck's entire receiving corps is full of rookies (Hilton, Brazill, Allen, Fleener) and 1 journeyman (Avery). Collie is injured and hasn't played forever. There have been lots of drops and miscommunication between Luck and his receivers but I don't really believe that this has contributed much to his interception issue (I'd say 2 or 3 of his INTs, tops, were the result of this but that is just a ballpark guess and may be high or low).
At any rate, Luck made these mistakes early and often, no one denies that. I also think he didn't expect the speed of the game, especially early in the season. You could see it on his throws. He had an infuriating tendency in his first few games to lob throws and that resulted in incompletions and unfortunately, interceptions. You can get away with those throws at Stanford but you can't get away with them against most NFL-caliber defenses. Many of his INTs would've been completions in college, but the NFL moves way too fast and I don't think he correctly anticipated this. In short, he screwed up. As I mentioned, in the last quarter of the season, he threw 1 actual INT which was a great improvement.
Being thrown to the wolves early will help him in the long term, just like it did Manning. Manning had more INTs his rookie year than RG3 and Luck combined and was on arguably a better offensive team.
Traditionally you're right, but there's nothing tranditional about RGIII and I think thats what is stuck in your crawl. 76 rushing yards and a touchdown 9-18 and 100yrds passing with the win.
63 rushing yards on 6 carries, to be exact. The guy is a rocket when he turns the corner and he didn't seem to be hampered by a bum knee.
IMO it wasn't bad game. And yes his play was affected by his knee but again you have no leg to stand on when it comes to what he does on the field because you don't watch RGIII play, no, you sit on the sideline like some sports authority spouting off BS without an modicum of evidence.
I did watch the game in question. The
only reason I brought this point up was because in another thread, Redskins fans blamed his performance on a bad knee. They need to do what I do -- blame the player. I blame Luck for his interception problems. Why can't Redskins fans just say "RG3 had a bad game" and leave it at that?
I watched the Dallas game (the game where it was claimed his knee caused his bad play) and he had no issues running the ball. How did this knee hamper his throwing but not his running? Better yet, why did it hamper his throwing THIS game but not LAST game? Did he reinjure the knee in that last game? Because my understanding was the knee was actually hurt not last game, but before that. Is my understanding incorrect?
But that's OK, if you all want to play the "You didn't watch his games" game, the same can be said of all of you regarding Luck. Notice I've never used that argument.