Originally Posted by thunderkyss
That's because many have a reading comprehension problem.
I don't care who those numbers belong to, they do not scream starting QB, much less future H.O.F. I can't remember back to 1998 to remember what people thought of Peyton's rookie season, but he got better his second & third season. If he didn't he wouldn't be a starting QB in the NFL, because those numbers are not good enough for a starting QB in the NFL.
Find me one starter that turned in those numbers year after year & kept his starting job. Other than Blaine Gabbert who most don't believe should be starting.
I can find you several who had numbers similar to Russel Wilson & RG3's rookie season & stayed in the league year after year after year. I can find you several starters who never had numbers as good as RG3 but kept their starting job.
One name... that's easy.
Troy Aikman. For grins I'll throw in another.. Eli Manning. Both of these guys represent 5 SB championships and multiple SB MVP trophies. When you throw in Terry Bradshaw, those numbers get even more rediculous. Go figure.
Your problem is your critique is WAY too stat driven. You don't judge a rookie QB by "stats". They usually always hit different hurdles that they have to face as they navigate their way through the learning process of the hardest position to learn in professional sports. You judge them by how they handle those hurdles and are able to overcome them. If you do that, Andrew Luck passed with flying colors and had a fantastic rookie season, but I thought that was obvious. I mean really, who actually believes the guy had a bad season?