Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Those who want Cam Newton First overall...


  • Please log in to reply
307 replies to this topic

#241 Actionman0z

Actionman0z

    Strong Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,785 posts

Posted 15 December 2010 - 05:34 PM

I would have taken The Golden Calf of Bristol in the 3rd round where he was supposed to go if I had hit in the 1st and 2nd. Without a first last year, and drafting Clausen I would have been against it. I have not made a decision on what he will do in the NFL, all I know is I do NOT want Newton.

#242 CRA

CRA

    Senior Member

  • Moderators
  • 24,085 posts

Posted 15 December 2010 - 05:37 PM

Like I said, yea we could resurface next year but we would be better off rebuilding a couple of years and if I'm not mistaken Atlanta was already rebuilding before the 4-12 year they just had a better record. maybe 6-10 or 7-9.


Atlanta just had bad coaches. Insert a good coach and you see instant change.

#243 TheRealDeal

TheRealDeal

    Senior Member

  • TROLLOLOL
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,418 posts

Posted 15 December 2010 - 05:38 PM

Agree that Vick looks night and day from his Atlanta days.

My question is how much of that improvement is due to the Philly system? the reason I ask is that Garcia and McNabb also looked great in that system. McNabb now looks like poo in Washington.

Not saying anythign bad about Vick...just a thought.


That system is very very stat friendly. That's why as you pointed out, many who leave it can't produce elsewhere.

That's why many people are against signing Kolb.

#244 Mvp2014

Mvp2014

    Phenom

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,569 posts

Posted 15 December 2010 - 05:44 PM

Atlanta just had bad coaches. Insert a good coach and you see instant change.


It'll be interesting to see which direction we go

#245 Cracka McNasty

Cracka McNasty

    WWNPHD?

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,623 posts

Posted 15 December 2010 - 05:57 PM

ok people the luck-newton comparisons are completely retahded.

Newton plays in a SPREAD offense that utilizes his athleticism to make plays. he often comes against 8-9 in the box to try and stop the run. this is how he has managed to throw for 28 touchdowns. you know who else did the exact same poo? yeah, tim jesus The Golden Calf of Bristol. 32, 30, 21. those are how many PASSING TDs he threw over his three year career as a starter. it's kind of hella easy to pass when you have all your receivers running 1 on 1 throughout their D. throw it near them and watch good things happen. it's not that hard to do.

now look at Newton's PASSING numbers.

165/246 for a 67.1% completion percentage

2589 yards

28 TDs

6 INTs

10.5 yds/attempt

Those numbers are pretty good aren't they? well here's The Golden Calf of Bristol's best season's stats:

234/350 for a 66.9% completion percentage

3289 yards

32 TDs

6 INTs

9.4 yds/attempt

The Golden Calf of Bristol actually had the better season passing, threw a poo ton more, and basically had the same completion percentage. For those who say that The Golden Calf of Bristol is less accurate than newton, you are just plain wrong Their completion Percentage is nearly identical. they ran the same kind of spread offense designed around the QB running and then throwing. I'm not saying it's the same one, I'm saying it's the same philosophy. don't even argue with me on that.

Now let's take a look at our boy Andrew Luck's numbers this year:

245/349 for a 70.2 completion percentage

3051 yards

28 TDs

7 INTs

8.74 yds/attempt

Luck plays in an NFL style offense and still managed a higher completion percentage than those of two spread QBs. Spread QBs are suppose to have higher completion percentages because they aren't under center so they have more time to read the D. Not only did Luck have the same number of completions than Newton had attempts, he had a better completion percentage on top of that too. meaning, when he threw it, he threw it well, many more times than Newton ever did.

I will not argue that Newton deserved the hiesman this year, he earned it, he was the best college player this year. but i swear to god, don't tell me he isn't similar to The Golden Calf of Bristol. yeah newton is faster and doesn't have a funky wind-up, but so what. passing wise, they are on the exact same level, and that's what a QB is suppose to do, pass, not run, in the NFL. Luck is leaps and bounds above them in that department. When you look at QBs like Newton and The Golden Calf of Bristol, you need to take their stats with a grain of salt because their numbers are inflated by an offense that relies on getting 8-9 men in the box so you can then toss it to your wide open dude. no reads are necessary, just roll out and toss.

Yes newton is flashy and fun to watch, but he is no where near the passing QB andrew luck is. we don't need flashy, we need consistent QB play.

The manning-leaf debate was centered around this very similar situation. an under center QB vs. a spread-O QB. leaf had the better PHYSICAL attributes, but manning had the intangibles along with a damn good set of physical attributes as well.

to say that cam newton is worthy of the #1 overall pick is laughable when you compare him to Luck, who is quite possibly, the best QB prospect to come out since the dude I just mentioned above (manning, not leaf smart-asses)

If Luck is not available, I don't want to draft The Golden Calf of Bristol 2.0, I'll take some different Kool-aid. maybe some AJ Green or Patrick peterson, but no way in hell do I want Cam Newton First overall.

Edited by Cracka McNasty, 15 December 2010 - 06:05 PM.


#246 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,505 posts
  • LocationAt the lake

Posted 15 December 2010 - 06:03 PM

Like I said, yea we could resurface next year but we would be better off rebuilding a couple of years and if I'm not mistaken Atlanta was already rebuilding before the 4-12 year they just had a better record. maybe 6-10 or 7-9.


Now you are grasping at straws. Using that philosophy we must have been rebuilding as well since we went 8-8 last year before we went what will be 1-15 or 2-14 this year. The reality is that the year they went 4-12 was the last year under the old regime. They hire Mike Smith, bring in Ryan and in his first year they go 11-5. No need for sucking for years or stockpiling picks through the draft. Besides look at the bottom dwellers like Detroit and Buffalo for example. They have has high draft picks for years and still mostly suck. It isn't the draft picks with the exception of a franchise quarterback, it is the coach and his staff. In each case they are better more because they have a new coach and staff rather than just getting better draft picks.

We can do the same thing. Bring in a good coach, get our franchise quarterback and bring a few free agents and we can back in the mix in 2011. The whole "you got suck a few years and it is in our best interest to suck" is really a bogus argument.

#247 Cracka McNasty

Cracka McNasty

    WWNPHD?

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,623 posts

Posted 15 December 2010 - 06:19 PM

i did not mean to pie myself. woopsies.

#248 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,505 posts
  • LocationAt the lake

Posted 15 December 2010 - 06:38 PM

ok people the luck-newton comparisons are completely retahded.

Newton plays in a SPREAD offense that utilizes his athleticism to make plays. he often comes against 8-9 in the box to try and stop the run. this is how he has managed to throw for 28 touchdowns. you know who else did the exact same poo? yeah, tim jesus The Golden Calf of Bristol. 32, 30, 21. those are how many PASSING TDs he threw over his three year career as a starter. it's kind of hella easy to pass when you have all your receivers running 1 on 1 throughout their D. throw it near them and watch good things happen. it's not that hard to do.

now look at Newton's PASSING numbers.

165/246 for a 67.1% completion percentage

2589 yards

28 TDs

6 INTs

10.5 yds/attempt

Those numbers are pretty good aren't they? well here's The Golden Calf of Bristol's best season's stats:

234/350 for a 66.9% completion percentage

3289 yards

32 TDs

6 INTs

9.4 yds/attempt

The Golden Calf of Bristol actually had the better season passing, threw a poo ton more, and basically had the same completion percentage. For those who say that The Golden Calf of Bristol is less accurate than newton, you are just plain wrong Their completion Percentage is nearly identical. they ran the same kind of spread offense designed around the QB running and then throwing. I'm not saying it's the same one, I'm saying it's the same philosophy. don't even argue with me on that.

Now let's take a look at our boy Andrew Luck's numbers this year:

245/349 for a 70.2 completion percentage

3051 yards

28 TDs

7 INTs

8.74 yds/attempt

Luck plays in an NFL style offense and still managed a higher completion percentage than those of two spread QBs. Spread QBs are suppose to have higher completion percentages because they aren't under center so they have more time to read the D. Not only did Luck have the same number of completions than Newton had attempts, he had a better completion percentage on top of that too. meaning, when he threw it, he threw it well, many more times than Newton ever did.

I will not argue that Newton deserved the hiesman this year, he earned it, he was the best college player this year. but i swear to god, don't tell me he isn't similar to The Golden Calf of Bristol. yeah newton is faster and doesn't have a funky wind-up, but so what. passing wise, they are on the exact same level, and that's what a QB is suppose to do, pass, not run, in the NFL. Luck is leaps and bounds above them in that department.

Yes newton is flashy and fun to watch, but he is no where near the passing QB andrew luck is. we don't need flashy, we need consistent QB play.

The manning-leaf debate was centered around this very similar situation. an under center QB vs. a spread-O QB. leaf had the better PHYSICAL attributes, but manning had the intangibles along with a damn good set of physical attributes as well.

to say that cam newton is worthy of the #1 overall pick is laughable when you compare him to Luck, who is quite possibly, the best QB prospect to come out since the dude I just mentioned above (manning, not leaf smart-asses)

If Luck is not available, I don't want to draft The Golden Calf of Bristol 2.0, I'll take some different Kool-aid. maybe some AJ Green or Patrick peterson, but no way in hell do I want Cam Newton First overall.


You went a long way to prove nothing. Florida had much better talent while The Golden Calf of Bristol was there versus the talent Auburn has this year. Secondly The Golden Calf of Bristol was in that system for 3 years while this is the first for newton which makes a huge difference. So you are comparing Tebows best season of the 3 against Newton's first year numbers and assuming that the talent between a very good Florida team and a very average Auburn team without Newton is equal. Well that is a fail across the board. Secondly most teams don't play an 8 or 9 man box against the spread they play zone. The fact that they have to load the box to stop Newton is a testament to his skill not a reason he is successful. If you stack the box he throws over the top. If you don't stack the box he runs all day. That is the point. You do what the defense gives you. Hell if Clausen could do that we wouldn't be 1-12 at this point.


Then you use Lucks numbers in a different system in a difference conference and assume you can make direct comparisons??? Not even close. You make the assumption that Luck's numbers are better but fail to notice that he has been in the same system for 2 years versus newton being in his first year. Plus he plays in a prostyle offense with better coaching and scheming which naturally gives him an advantage. It is a combination of the system and the player. Then you fail to mention that Newton has played a number of games against ranked teams while Stanford has played 1 ranked team this year and lost.

Lets compare Lucks numbers last year with Newton's this year- both their first years in the system.

Last year Luck was 162 for 288 (56% completion)for 2572 yards- a YPA of 8.9, 13 TDs, 4 Ints, and a passer rating of 143.
This year Newton- 165 of 246 (67% completion) for 2589 yards- A YPa of 10.5, 28 Tds, and 6 Ints. Passer rating of 188.

Newton picked things faster likely because a spread offense is easier to learn. Still it shows that he masters things easily

The Manning Leaf debate happened over a decade ago and there have been multiple quarterbacks from the spread offense that have done very well in the NFL. Include Flacco, Ryan, and Bradford in that mix. So the Ryan Leaf thing is old and tired and needs to be retired.

As for the The Golden Calf of Bristol comparisons, the knock on The Golden Calf of Bristol was his throwing motion which is actually the knock on Luck not Newton. Of the three Newton has the best arm, best accuracy, and best mechanics.

With all that said Luck would be a great pick. But Newton won't be a bust unless he goes a team that doesn't develop him and work with him.

#249 Cracka McNasty

Cracka McNasty

    WWNPHD?

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,623 posts

Posted 15 December 2010 - 06:54 PM

You went a long way to prove nothing. Florida had much better talent while The Golden Calf of Bristol was there versus the talent Auburn has this year. Secondly The Golden Calf of Bristol was in that system for 3 years while this is the first for newton which makes a huge difference. So you are comparing Tebows best season of the 3 against Newton's first year numbers and assuming that the talent between a very good Florida team and a very average Auburn team without Newton is equal. Well that is a fail across the board. Secondly most teams don't play an 8 or 9 man box against the spread they play zone. The fact that they have to load the box to stop Newton is a testament to his skill not a reason he is successful. If you stack the box he throws over the top. If you don't stack the box he runs all day. That is the point. You do what the defense gives you. Hell if Clausen could do that we wouldn't be 1-12 at this point.


Then you use Lucks numbers in a different system in a difference conference and assume you can make direct comparisons??? Not even close. You make the assumption that Luck's numbers are better but fail to notice that he has been in the same system for 2 years versus newton being in his first year. Plus he plays in a prostyle offense with better coaching and scheming which naturally gives him an advantage. It is a combination of the system and the player. Then you fail to mention that Newton has played a number of games against ranked teams while Stanford has played 1 ranked team this year and lost.

Lets compare Lucks numbers last year with Newton's this year- both their first years in the system.

Last year Luck was 162 for 288 (56% completion)for 2572 yards- a YPA of 8.9, 13 TDs, 4 Ints, and a passer rating of 143.
This year Newton- 165 of 246 (67% completion) for 2589 yards- A YPa of 10.5, 28 Tds, and 6 Ints. Passer rating of 188.

Newton picked things faster likely because a spread offense is easier to learn. Still it shows that he masters things easily

The Manning Leaf debate happened over a decade ago and there have been multiple quarterbacks from the spread offense that have done very well in the NFL. Include Flacco, Ryan, and Bradford in that mix. So the Ryan Leaf thing is old and tired and needs to be retired.

As for the The Golden Calf of Bristol comparisons, the knock on The Golden Calf of Bristol was his throwing motion which is actually the knock on Luck not Newton. Of the three Newton has the best arm, best accuracy, and best mechanics.

With all that said Luck would be a great pick. But Newton won't be a bust unless he goes a team that doesn't develop him and work with him.


I'm not going to turn this into a pissing contest, BUT, I will say, the The Golden Calf of Bristol year i chose was his heisman winning year, the year he was a sophmore. he had but one season as a back up to learn the system before he was a starter, but newton has been in a similar offense each of his three seasons. I'm not saying he's not athletic, I'm just saying that when you are as athletic as he is, it's easy to run that kind of offense. luck learned a pro style offense in 1 year. that's pretty damn beast if you ask me.

What i chose to focus on were passing stats. not running stats or athletic ability. passing skills. looking at the big picture of it all, comparing the types of offenses run and the types of offenses that the NFL runs, Luck had a way better year as a prospect.

I am not arguing that newton isn't a beast, I'm arguing that I don't think he is near as good as a pro prospect as Luck is.

#250 rmoneyg35

rmoneyg35

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,440 posts

Posted 15 December 2010 - 07:02 PM

I agree that Cam isn't worthy of the #1 pick but I think he could be successful in the NFL. For those comparing him to The Golden Calf of Bristol remember Cam has rushed for 1400 yards 5.8 avereage and has 20 TD's, The Golden Calf of Bristol only rushed for 900, 4.2 average and 14 touchdowns. Cam is 6'6 250 where as Tim is 6'3 245. Cam is huge and will be a hard target for defenders to take down. Look at how hard it is for defenders to take down big Ben who is 6'5 240. Cam also has a lot more speed than Ben. I could see Cam being very succesful in the NFL, I mean he has completed 67% of his passes in the SEC.

#251 Mvp2014

Mvp2014

    Phenom

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,569 posts

Posted 15 December 2010 - 07:37 PM

Now you are grasping at straws. Using that philosophy we must have been rebuilding as well since we went 8-8 last year before we went what will be 1-15 or 2-14 this year. The reality is that the year they went 4-12 was the last year under the old regime. They hire Mike Smith, bring in Ryan and in his first year they go 11-5. No need for sucking for years or stockpiling picks through the draft. Besides look at the bottom dwellers like Detroit and Buffalo for example. They have has high draft picks for years and still mostly suck. It isn't the draft picks with the exception of a franchise quarterback, it is the coach and his staff. In each case they are better more because they have a new coach and staff rather than just getting better draft picks.

We can do the same thing. Bring in a good coach, get our franchise quarterback and bring a few free agents and we can back in the mix in 2011. The whole "you got suck a few years and it is in our best interest to suck" is really a bogus argument.


Oh sorry, I guess I dont consider trading your 1st, 3rd, and 5th pick rebuilding when you do nothing in free agency and let the best player in the history of your club go in free agency. Its all dependent on if Luck comes out, what free agents we get, coaches, and so on, We'll see whos grasping for straws when Luck stays in school and we go 5-11 next year

#252 Rhys

Rhys

    Not Rhys Lloyd

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 923 posts

Posted 15 December 2010 - 08:34 PM

You went a long way to prove nothing. [...]
With all that said Luck would be a great pick. But Newton won't be a bust unless he goes a team that doesn't develop him and work with him.


One could just as easily dissect your argument and declare it useless.


Florida had much better talent while The Golden Calf of Bristol was there versus the talent Auburn has this year.


Does Stanford have equal the talent of Auburn? Meaning you could use the same argument that Luck has done what he's done at Stanford with less talent than Newton has with Auburn.

Secondly The Golden Calf of Bristol was in that system for 3 years while this is the first for newton which makes a huge difference.


Newton was AT FLORIDA for two years, you think he learned nothing of the spread while he was there? Though you could consider it less, could he not derive any experience at QB from the year he spent at Blinn and the national title he took them to?

So you are comparing Tebows best season of the 3 against Newton's first year numbers and assuming that the talent between a very good Florida team and a very average Auburn team without Newton is equal.


Yet you compare Newton's JUNIOR season to Luck's FRESHMAN season. That's a perfectly equal comparison too. :rolleyes:

The fact that they have to load the box to stop Newton is a testament to his skill not a reason he is successful.


Something he won't face in the NFL with any consistency like he did in college. So how relevant is that?

Then you use Lucks numbers in a different system in a difference conference and assume you can make direct comparisons??? Not even close.



Show me the data that proves QBs coming out of the oh-so-powerful-god-like SEC do better than QBs coming out of other BCS conferences?

Newton picked things faster likely because a spread offense is easier to learn. Still it shows that he masters things easily



Again you assume that the time he spent in Florida learning under The Golden Calf of Bristol/Meyer is null.

The Manning Leaf debate happened over a decade ago and there have been multiple quarterbacks from the spread offense that have done very well in the NFL. Include Flacco, Ryan, and Bradford in that mix. So the Ryan Leaf thing is old and tired and needs to be retired.



That point is valid, not because of the spread vs pro-style, but because of the level of maturity/work ethic, a quality that transcends time in relevance.

Something I've been harping on for a while are the concerns about Newton's maturity given all that he has gone through at Florida and Auburn.

Before you declare someone's entire post as "nothing" why don't you actually think about what the guy is saying and not dissect the sh*t out of his argument to make it seem ridiculous.

Edited by Rhys, 15 December 2010 - 08:47 PM.


#253 Rhys

Rhys

    Not Rhys Lloyd

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 923 posts

Posted 15 December 2010 - 08:36 PM

With that said, I understand some of the things you're saying P55, but Luck is the hands down consensus #1 pick amongst most ALL the NFL scouts and analysts for some reason.

#254 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,505 posts
  • LocationAt the lake

Posted 15 December 2010 - 09:30 PM

Oh sorry, I guess I dont consider trading your 1st, 3rd, and 5th pick rebuilding when you do nothing in free agency and let the best player in the history of your club go in free agency. Its all dependent on if Luck comes out, what free agents we get, coaches, and so on, We'll see whos grasping for straws when Luck stays in school and we go 5-11 next year


As I said Atlanta rebuilt in a year and so can we. The old rebuilding takes years is crap. Stop while you are behind.

#255 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,505 posts
  • LocationAt the lake

Posted 15 December 2010 - 09:34 PM

With that said, I understand some of the things you're saying P55, but Luck is the hands down consensus #1 pick amongst most ALL the NFL scouts and analysts for some reason.


First of all lets see how they feel after the combine and all the dog and pony shows. If they all still believe the Luck is hands down the best player, I would tend to feel like they are right. I don't think that you would go wrong with Luck. He seems to be a great draft choice.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.