Originally Posted by Guru
I notice a lot of underrating of RG3 in this thread. Ive been to a lot of boards that think he should of won and the AP eco's that sentiment. Why were so many against him winning it? Luck and wilson were great but why so much underration for RG3? and why now can no one admit they were wrong?
If you read this thread and the others about the same topic, then you will understand it was never about underrating RG3. All of these threads were kept alive by a RG3 supporter that refused to allow any voice of support for Luck and riducled anyone that did for knowing nothing about football.
How exactly did you want people to admit they were wrong? Do you want the 50 people that thought Luck deserved it to all post a line saying that they were wrong? Most of them all said it was going to be a close finish. I am not sure that anyone ever said RG3 wouldnt be a deserving winner. People just said for a variety of reasons that Luck was as deserving or perhaps even slightly more. Luck still got 20% of the vote in the national award. This means that some of the so called "experts" believed what some of the posters in here thought. Pehaps the RG3 supporters that have been underrating Luck should come in here to say they were wrong.