Re: The Pro Days Thread
 

[quote=SirClintonPortis;902706]Luck's attractiveness is a step below RGIII's.[/quote]

Tell me about it, my GF's friends were over when I was watching the NFL network coverage on the 2. And they collectively said those are the 2 ugliest QB's they've ever seen lol.

Re: The Pro Days Thread
 

[quote=44Deezel;902680]Underthrowing a lot of deep balls. Guess that's because of the wind. Colts are definitely taking him, but wouldn't be depressed if he dropped to us. He's got that big dufus look that seems to work well in the NFL - Eli, Peyton, Big Ben, Rivers, Cutler, etc.[/quote]

El oh el! Peyton's little brother does it the best though

[QUOTE=mbedner3420;902704]For those that have seen both, what is your sense? Is there a clear and immediate winner? Given yesterdays performance, do you think the colts will select RG3 over Luck?[/QUOTE]

I think the pro days were pretty even so I think Luck will stay at 1 and Rg at 2.

Re: The Pro Days Thread
 

[quote=mbedner3420;902704]For those that have seen both, what is your sense? Is there a clear and immediate winner? Given yesterdays performance, do you think the colts will select RG3 over Luck?[/quote]

Luck #1
RG3 #2

Pro days aren't a big factor at all in the overall decision making of teams. It's like a cherry on top, a very small one at that. I think both teams made up their minds long ago.

Re: The Pro Days Thread
 

eli always has that damn i just pooped my pants look

Re: The Pro Days Thread
 

[quote=SirClintonPortis;902706]Luck's attractiveness is a step below RGIII's.[/quote]

Excellent! That had me a bit concerned. We don't want to have to look at the ugly guy for the next 15 years...

[QUOTE=Shadowbyte;902708]Tell me about it, my GF's friends were over when I was watching the NFL network coverage on the 2. And they collectively said those are the 2 ugliest QB's they've ever seen lol.[/QUOTE]

They're quite ugly but pretty doesn't matter unless ya want a supermodel wife.

Re: The Pro Days Thread
 

[quote=Mattyk;902711]Luck #1
RG3 #2

[B]Pro days aren't a big factor [/B]at all in the overall decision making of teams. It's like a cherry on top, a very small one at that. I think both teams made up their minds long ago.[/quote]

I agree, but the hype-meter has gone through the roof since Griffin's pro day yesterday. I always wonder if something like that may sway a GM on the fence.

Re: The Pro Days Thread
 

The only reason Cam Newton was so good last year was because he is good looking.

Re: The Pro Days Thread
 

[quote=Duffman003;902716]The only reason Cam Newton was so good last year was because he is good looking.[/quote]

Amen!

Re: The Pro Days Thread
 

RG3 will look good throwing bombs and in the endzone for us. thats all i care about. F cam and his GQ ass

Re: The Pro Days Thread
 

[quote=Duffman003;902716]The only reason Cam Newton was so good last year was because he is good looking.[/quote]..........

Re: The Pro Days Thread
 

[quote=30gut;902721]..........[/quote]

Hahaha perhaps it is time to steer the conversation back to pro day talk and specifically who we think can help out the redskins more.

Re: The Pro Days Thread
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;902607]I've been thinking this for a while but haven't had the balls to say it honestly. In essence, RGIII is nothing like Vick except for speed. The comparisons to Steve Young are more accurate because he's not so shifty as he is fast. And just like Young he uses his feet to move the pocket versus using his feet to run for the first down.[/quote]

I think it's a natural reaction to compare black quarterbacks with one another. For instance, last season I would hear commentators compare RGIII to Cam Newton frequently instead of, say, Matt Barkley who was/is still in college.

What's funny is that the reverse never happens. Football analysts don't compare white QBs to, say, Donovan McNabb or even Vince Young. It's usually Vince Young, McNabb, David Gerrard, Cam Newton -- they lump them together. Not always, but more often than not. But if you look at the top all-time leading rushing quarterbacks, off the top of my head, I would say it's Michael Vick, Randall Cunningham, Steve McNair, Steve Young in there somewhere, and Fran Tarkenton. John Elway has to be in the top ten, too. So it's actually pretty even once you remove race and look at statistics.

I guess my point is, in all of my rambling, there's a tendency to attribute athletic prowess first when analyzing black quarterbacks over football acumen and mechanics, which are typically attributed to white quarterbacks. When a white QB scrambles well we hear words like, "he's mobile". When a black guy moves well outside the pocket, we here "he's athletic". Not that any of this is racist or people are willfully ignorant, I think we've sub-consciously absorbed a lot of "old thinking" when comparing certain positions.

Rant over. I hope you guys didn't take any of this the wrong way.

Re: The Pro Days Thread
 

*hear

Re: The Pro Days Thread
 

[quote=12thMan;902723]I think it's a natural reaction to compare black quarterbacks with one another. For instance, last season I would hear commentators compare RGIII to Cam Newton frequently instead of, say, Matt Barkley who was/is still in college.

What's funny is that the reverse never happens. Football analysts don't compare white QBs to, say, Donovan McNabb or even Vince Young. It's usually Vince Young, McNabb, David Gerrard, Cam Newton -- they lump them together. Not always, but more often than not. But if you look at the top all-time leading rushing quarterbacks, off the top of my head, I would say it's Michael Vick, Randall Cunningham, Steve McNair, Steve Young in there somewhere, and Fran Tarkenton. John Elway has to be in the top ten, too. So it's actually pretty even once you remove race and look at statistics. [/quote]

"Natural reaction" is a good way of putting it, because I don't think it is racial or even conscious. People have a "natural" tendency to view others in groups, rather than as individuals. For example, if you support Ron Paul, then you must be some militiaman conspiracy whacko, or if you are an Eagles fan you are as dumb as a rock. :)

Re: The Pro Days Thread
 

After watching both pro days, I'm stoked we will get either guy. Both guys are going to be great pro's.. Our FO has done a great job building this team, and now putting us in position to draft a great QB.

Re: The Pro Days Thread
 

[quote=Duffman003;902716]The only reason Cam Newton was so good last year was because he is good looking.[/quote]

Duffman says a lot of things! OOOOOOH YEAH.

--Duffman

Source: [url=http://skrappy60.tripod.com/id44.htm]The Wisdom of Duff Man[/url]

Re: The Pro Days Thread
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;902725]"Natural reaction" is a good way of putting it, because I don't think it is racial or even conscious. People have a "natural" tendency to view others in groups, rather than as individuals. For example, if you support Ron Paul, then you must be some militiaman conspiracy whacko, [B]or if you are an Eagles fan you are as dumb as a rock. [/B]:)[/quote]

You're thinking of Cowboys fans (seriously, the most moronic fanbase I've ever spoken to). Eagles fans are just assholes, ;).

Re: The Pro Days Thread
 

[quote=12thMan;902723]I think it's a natural reaction to compare black quarterbacks with one another. For instance, last season I would hear commentators compare RGIII to Cam Newton frequently instead of, say, Matt Barkley who was/is still in college.

What's funny is that the reverse never happens. Football analysts don't compare white QBs to, say, Donovan McNabb or even Vince Young. It's usually Vince Young, McNabb, David Gerrard, Cam Newton -- they lump them together. Not always, but more often than not. But if you look at the top all-time leading rushing quarterbacks, off the top of my head, I would say it's Michael Vick, Randall Cunningham, Steve McNair, Steve Young in there somewhere, and Fran Tarkenton. John Elway has to be in the top ten, too. So it's actually pretty even once you remove race and look at statistics.

I guess my point is, in all of my rambling, there's a tendency to attribute athletic prowess first when analyzing black quarterbacks over football acumen and mechanics, which are typically attributed to white quarterbacks. When a white QB scrambles well we hear words like, "he's mobile". When a black guy moves well outside the pocket, we here "he's athletic". Not that any of this is racist or people are willfully ignorant, I think we've sub-consciously absorbed a lot of "old thinking" when comparing certain positions.

Rant over. I hope you guys didn't take any of this the wrong way.[/quote]

Astute post. The behaviors you describe can be explained by [I]schemas[/I], and we don't like to have our schemas change. Info follows.

[url=http://psychology.about.com/od/sindex/g/def_schema.htm]Schema - What Is a Schema[/url]

[quote]A schema is a cognitive framework or concept that helps organize and interpret information. Schemas can be useful, because they allow us to take shortcuts in interpreting a vast amount of information. However, these mental frameworks also cause us to exclude pertinent information in favor of information that confirms our pre-existing beliefs and ideas. Schemas can contribute to stereotypes and make it difficult to retain new information that does not conform to our established schemas.
[/quote]


[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schema_(psychology)#Background_research]Schema (psychology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]
[quote]The original concept of schemata is linked with that of reconstructive memory as proposed and demonstrated in a series of experiments by Bartlett (1932). By presenting participants with information that was unfamiliar to their cultural backgrounds and expectations and then monitoring how they recalled these different items of information (stories, etc.), Bartlett was able to establish that individuals' existing schemata and stereotypes influence not only how they interpret "schema-foreign" new information but also how they recall the information over time. One of his most famous investigations involved asking participants to read a Native American folk tale, "The War of the Ghosts", and recall it several times up to a year later. All the participants transformed the details of the story in such a way that it reflected their cultural norms and expectations, i.e. in line with their schemata. The factors that influenced their recall were:

Omission of information that was considered irrelevant to a participant;

Transformation of some of the details, or of the order in which events, etc., were recalled; a shift of focus and emphasis in terms of what was considered the most important aspects of the tale;

Rationalization: details and aspects of the tale that would not make sense would be "padded out" and explained in an attempt to render them comprehensible to the individual in question;

Cultural shifts: the content and the style of the story were altered in order to appear more coherent and appropriate in terms of the cultural background of the participant. [/quote]

Re: The Pro Days Thread
 

[quote=mbedner3420;902715]I agree, but the hype-meter has gone through the roof since Griffin's pro day yesterday. I always wonder if something like that may sway a GM on the fence.[/quote]

I think hype-meters are mostly for the fans.

If Griff has a year like cam did we will al be happy every Sunday

Re: The Pro Days Thread
 

[quote=Shadowbyte;902707]To be honest they both looked great. We can't lose I'm satisfied with either.[/quote]

I agree, they both looked great, I liked the fact that Luck did his outdoors, you know Skins outdoors Colts indoors.

Re: The Pro Days Thread
 

[quote=SirClintonPortis;902706]Luck's attractiveness is a step below RGIII's.[/quote]

Griffin woul be fine if he cut the dreads. Luck should just be happy he's a tall star QB

Re: The Pro Days Thread
 

[quote=mbedner3420;902704]For those that have seen both, what is your sense? Is there a clear and immediate winner? Given yesterdays performance, do you think the colts will select RG3 over Luck?[/quote]Luck throws on the move a lot better than Griffin does. Something struck me as negative about the way Griffin was selling his play fakes from under center. I'm probably overanalyzing something that was very foreign to him, but Griffin likes to set his feet before releasing the ball, and that's going to be interesting in the zone/stretch/boot game. I think Luck profiles better as the play action quarterback.

Griffin sells play action really well from the gun though, so if the Redskins want to incoporate shotgun running into their offense this year, Griffin gives them an excellent centerpiece to build that around.

From the pocket, it was tough to make a comparison. Griffin can absolutely drive the ball downfield. Luck threw it really, really well downfield in the conditions, but it wasn't as impressive as Griffin, maybe just because Griffin was throwing indoors.

The ball jumps off of Griffin's hand. You can see even just by looking at his delivery that he drives the football pretty effortlessly. Luck doesn't ever look like hes throwing hard, but he has an absolute gun in the intermediate game. Hard to say if that translates to the deep passing game, where he displayed impressive distance, but the ball kept hanging on him in the wind.

Overall, I thought Luck was more impressive at his pro day, but that could just be an effect of the way each workout was scripted. Griffin wanted to show that he could do 90% under center stuff, and that's just not all that exciting. The opinion that teaching a shotgun passer footwork is difficult is so very 2003. Luck showed a lot more because he entered with fewer doubters, IMO.

Re: The Pro Days Thread
 

[quote=Dirtbag59;902757]Griffin woul be fine if he cut the dreads. Luck should just be happy he's a tall star QB[/quote]

This cracks me up that we all talk about how attractive each is.

Tony freakin' Romo is tapping models and actresses... It's obvious it doesn't matter what you look like.

Re: The Pro Days Thread
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;902759]This cracks me up that we all talk about how attractive each is.

Tony freakin' Romo is tapping models and actresses... It's obvious it doesn't matter what you look like.[/quote]


Well said.

Re: The Pro Days Thread
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;902759]This cracks me up that we all talk about how attractive each is.

Tony freakin' Romo is tapping models and actresses... It's obvious it doesn't matter what you look like.[/quote]

So true... they've got money, fame, and women. And they play football for a freaking living. Something we'd all die to be able to do.

Meanwhile us internet geeks are taking shots at their looks, hilarious.

Re: The Pro Days Thread
 

I watched both and felt RGIII did better. He showed his quick feet, made the accurate passes and he played thriller in the background. Luck had a simulated rush but everyone knows what RGIII can do under pressure. I feel that RGIII's performance was scripted for the Redskins.

Re: The Pro Days Thread
 

[quote=tmandoug1;902739]I agree, they both looked great, I liked the fact that Luck did his outdoors, you know Skins outdoors Colts indoors.[/quote]

RG3 did his indoors because he heard about our NEW practice bubble. LOL:)

Re: The Pro Days Thread
 

After coming home early from work to watch both, Luck was absolutely better... But that's to be expected he's the better prospect.

Like Mayock said though, it's a win-win.

Re: The Pro Days Thread
 

[quote=diehardskin2982;902773]I watched both and felt RGIII did better. He showed his quick feet, made the accurate passes and he played thriller in the background. Luck had a simulated rush but everyone knows what RGIII can do under pressure. I feel that RGIII's performance was scripted for the Redskins.[/quote]

That is NOT important.

The big question is, who would look best in a tux?

Who cares what they look like? I wouldn't care if they looked like Mork the Ork as long as they can play football.

Re: The Pro Days Thread
 

[quote=mooby;902782]Who cares what they look like? I wouldn't care if they looked like Mork the Ork as long as they can play football.[/quote]

Dammit mooby,

[SIZE=7]I CARE.[SIZE=1]

[SIZE=2]Maybe when you get older you'll understand.[/SIZE]
[/SIZE][/SIZE]

Re: The Pro Days Thread
 

[url=http://sonofwashington.com/2012/03/22/love-is-in-the-air-as-rg3-puts-on-a-show-at-pro-day/]Love is in the Air as RG3 Puts on a Show at Pro Day « The Son of Washington[/url]

Re: The Pro Days Thread
 

I'd rather have RG3 over Luck, because I feel like RG3 has the Vick running demention that will help him out when he is a rookie and a play just isn't there. Luck can run too, but he has straight-line speed, so he isn't as quick and shifty as RG3 is. Also I feel like RG3's ceiling is higher than Lucks, because we know what Luck looks like in a Pro offense, we can only imagine how great RG3 could be in one. Like people say its a win-win situation. But rookie year-wise, RG3 will be a better player than Luck.

Re: The Pro Days Thread
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;902780]That is NOT important.

The big question is, who would look best in a tux?[/quote]

Apparently Griffin.....
[IMG]https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSalGtLarPTthCtn81c_SIGdl7aI3s-zDP0m1RJEfGXPmQPiL7Jzg[/IMG]
What up Heisman!?!

Pros and Cons
 

[B][I]RG3[/I][/B]
[B][U]Pros[/U] [/B]
Won Heisman
Strong Arm
Accurate

[B][U]Cons[/U][/B]
Girlfriend isn't hot enough
Sort of Ugly

[B][I]Luck[/I][/B]
[B][I][U]Pros [/U][/I][/B]
Heisman Finalist
Strong Arm
Coached by Harbaugh

[B][I][U]Cons[/U][/I][/B]
Hesiman Finalist
Ugly
Very Ugly
So Ugly

Re: The Pro Days Thread
 

Also I loved that when they asked RG3 about the bounty punishments he just shrugged it off like it was irrelevant. Shows what he's really focused on.
I know it's random, aha.

Re: The Pro Days Thread
 

[quote=mooby;902782]Who cares what they look like? I wouldn't care if they looked like Mork the Ork as long as they can play football.[/quote]

It's a measurable. Irrelevant, but still a measurable. This is the time to talk about measurables. ;)