The definition of "impact" for a rookie can be ranging. Obviously, Cam Newton had tremendous success last year. No one's questioning that; he was worth a couple wins in 2011, which is no small feat for a rookie. But there's an argument that guys like Von Miller, A.J. Green, Julio Jones, and Aldon Smith had a bigger impact in terms of putting talented teams over the edge for the playoffs.
In assessing the top impact rookies, I'm factoring in statistical production, actual game impact, and playoff impact as well. So, yeah, it stinks to be a quarterback taken with the top pick. You'll make an impact, but short of leading your team to a miraculous playoff berth, you're not locking up the top spot here. In other words, please don't write in the comments and tell me what an idiot I am just because RG3 isn't on the top of this list.
[...]6. Robert Griffin III, QB, Redskins: Yes, I'm aware that it looks like I'm selling both RG3 and Luck short. Again, they will have big seasons. I expect them to. But they won't have seasons that end up with their teams making the playoffs, and that's partially the point of the exercise here. In almost any other division, I'd give RG3 more props, but the Cowboys, Eagles and Giants could all be better. If Griffin guaranteed a division title, it would make more sense than Rex Grossman doing it last year, but it would also be more improbable. He's essentially operating on the (mostly misconceived) public notion that he'll put up Newtonian stats. He won't -- he'll be good, but he won't be that good. And the Redskins will finish at the bottom of the NFC East, despite a hope-infused season and great numbers from Griffin.
His criteria seems kinda weird. It's like a mix between how good the surrounding talent is and how tough the teams on the schedule are ... sort of ... but not much about how good the actual player he's talking about is.
Given such nebulous rankings I'm not surprised he went with a Cowboy at #1. They've been 'a player away' for the past 15 years.
There was no team in the division last year with a record above 9-7 and yet this writer seems to think the NFC East is in mid-1980's mode with 3 legitimate contenders on hand.
The Eagles are the preseason Super Bowl favorites every year as Dallas used to be 20 years ago and yet they always seem to fail. Last year their crash and burn was really as bad as the one Washington had in 2000 at 8-8 but the media didn't have their knives out for Andy Reid so the Eagles got a lot more of a pass for being mediocre despite adding all of those players to their roster in free agency and trades.
That list just might the dumbest breakdown I've ever read...no hyperbole...literally the dumbest thing in print.
So a linebacker in NE is going to have more of an impact on his team than a team lIke Washington that couldn't possibly have been any more devoid at QB? We lost 6 games by 7pts or less and our Starting QB was averaging something like 2 INT's a game and couldn't avoid a sack to save his life yet a linebacker who wasn't that stellar in college on a perennial defensive big dog will have more impact?
I'm going to take the easy way out here by not accepting his definition of what an "impact" player is. I define an impact player as one who eliminates a glaring deficiency in a team's game enough to improve their record substantially.
Take Andrew Luck for example-his statement saying he could bring the Colts, who were truly awful at QB last season, up to six or seven wins in my way of thinking automatically puts Luck in the position of an "impact" player. If Griffin brings the Redskins to eight wins-or plays consistently good enough to win the types of games Grossman couldn't have won he, in my mind, is an impact player.
Even using his criterion,I can think of one omission he made, IMO. Playoff improvement? If Jerel Worthy takes enough pressure off Clay Matthews and contributes enough QB pressure to substantially improve the Green Bay Packers dismal pass D from last season they're back in the SB hunt big time. I found it interesting he didn't mention him-I'm sure there are others.
Oh, and Claiborne-I have to agree that if he does what's projected he will be an impact player for the Cowbums-but they have other problems that keep them from being the SB favorites that so many want to insist they are seemingly every pre-season.
__________________ Saying that you're a nice guy is like a restaurant whose only selling point is that the food doesn't make you sick. Be useful.
It is beyond me how he came up with his definition of an impact player. Only players who are lucky enough to get drafted on teams that only have one or two positions away from the Super Bowl are eligible in his definition. One should look beyond the next year or two. You can't tell me that Cam Newton was not and is an impact player. I predict that both Luck and Griffin will be impact players for their teams respectively. It just may take two or three years to show up.
There is probably no bigger impact player than RG3 coming into the league.
His success or lack of will determine much more than just wins and losses. He will determine much of Mike's later legacy, he may determine Kyle's future in the league, and he may also impact Bruce's tenure in DC.