Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Ashor

I do not want Newton, Do you?

Was OJ Simpson's murder trial a trial of all black men in America   18 members have voted

  1. 1. Was OJ Simpson's murder trial a trial of all black men in America

    • Yes
      1
    • No
      19

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

274 posts in this topic

No. Then again, Luck and Cam are absolutely nothing alike...

You are correct, Cam has a deep passion for football, Luck has a deep passion for architecture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Then again, Luck and Cam are absolutely nothing alike...

You are correct. Cam outscored Oregon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Then again, Luck and Cam are absolutely nothing alike...

Both have the ability to be franchise QBs. Maybe Luck is a bit safer but should we wait until we have a chance to draft a QB as safe as Andrew Luck before we address the position? Do you think that we will still be picking in the top 5 picks where QBs like Andrew Luck get taken off the board the next couple of years?? I know Rivera hopes not.

Do we wait until a later round to get a QB where there is a success rate of about 5%??

Do we get a QB that may have even less gifts with similar risks ask Cam if we are picking #15 in a later draft?

I know where you are coming from and a lot of smart people agree with you, but I don't; we have a chance to get a big time franchise QB and it is an opportunity that may not come up again for a while. Or if it does, it may have an even higher risk with much less reward from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are correct, Cam has a deep passion for football, Luck has a deep passion for architecture.

I like this guy... :cheers2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both have the ability to be franchise QBs. Maybe Luck is a bit safer but should we wait until we have a chance to draft a QB as safe as Andrew Luck before we address the position? Do you think that we will still be picking in the top 5 picks where QBs like Andrew Luck get taken off the board the next couple of years?? I know Rivera hopes not.

Do we wait until a later round to get a QB where there is a success rate of about 5%??

Do we get a QB that may have even less gifts with similar risks ask Cam if we are picking #15 in a later draft?

I know where you are coming from and a lot of smart people agree with you, but I don't; we have a chance to get a big time franchise QB and it is an opportunity that may not come up again for a while. Or if it does, it may have an even higher risk with much less reward from it.

preach!!!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Lots of stuff*

Well, we could just ignore those options you mentioned and do what I suggested with Clausen instead. One of three things would happen:

1) He plays really well and is now our franchise QB.

2) He doesn't play well and we get stuck with a top 5-10 pick (Luck or Barkley or Jones or whoever) who will then be our franchise QB.

3) He plays like an average QB and we stick with him since he is showing lots of improvement.

Whether Rivera hopes we aren't up there again doesn't matter because I really doubt we are going to be competitive next year anyway... unless Clausen is awesome or we take Cam and he actually *is* the greatest thing since sex and becomes the MVP with Brady's passing ability and Vick's mobility like everyone here thinks he will and we win Super Bowls for the next 15 years.

However, since he is indeed a high risk/high reward player, if we draft him and he busts, we are probably going to be one of the worst teams in the NFL for the next 5-6 years. I don't think I could say that about any other pick besides Gabbert, who I also don't want. I am on the "take the safest pick" side. Taking a QB that was pretty much in an offense completely opposite of what Chud does kind of scares me.

In any case, neither of us is going to persuade the other to think differently so how about we just agree to disagree? :)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In any case, neither of us is going to persuade the other to think differently so how about we just agree to disagree? :)

That isn't the way it works here. We like to beat dead horses into the ground to the point that we stop using logical arguments and just start calling people racists haters or stupid blind nut huggers.

Your new here but work on it??

BTW if Luck and Barkley are really that good. They won't be there at 5-10.

No one thinks Clausen is a franchise QB. Most people now believe that his ceiling is Jake Delhomme.

Plsu who says Jimmy Clausen will beat out Matt Moore if the RFA'a hold and Matt Moore is on out roster next year??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That isn't the way it works here. We like to beat dead horses into the ground to the point that we stop using logical arguments and just start calling people racists haters or stupid blind nut huggers.

Your new here but work on it??

BTW if Luck and Barkley are really that good. They won't be there at 5-10.

No one thinks Clausen is a franchise QB. Most people now believe that his ceiling is Jake Delhomme.

Plsu who says Jimmy Clausen will beat out Matt Moore if the RFA'a hold and Matt Moore is on out roster next year??

there is no way clausen could beat moore out in a fair competition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Few points to make. If the coach ask you to run 20 times a game because your good at it,what are you going to say no?

no, no, no. you mis-understand me, i am not blaming him for the running 20 times, but i do think that's an issue, coming from that offense will make it a tougher for him. it's the coaches fault for having this offense. i dont care if you are a great runner, you dont run 20 times in a game (if you are the QB), it's too risky and can result in injuries

As far as the vick thing goes,i don't call making it to the playoffs the majority of the time a bad thing. If defenses figured out how to be him,he wouldn't have been in the nfc championship.

he made it his rookie year, then he got hurt. i call that bad. Lucky the Eagles have helped him and now he's not running after his first read and defenses DID learn to beat him (when he was in Atlanta), his first years, great, but watch the last years in Atlanta, that's when Vick was figured out, then he came back to the Eagles, learned from McNabb and now he's better and it shows.

The Golden Calf of Bristol did sit behind a superior passer all season. but he did see action in a few early games i feel newton can come in and do some of the same things early.

i feel he will NOT be able to do those things early. i think he will run to soon which will result in very short gains or sacks, make bad reads and not be ready to start, like Clausen was last year. NOW, if Newton is treated like The Golden Calf of Bristol was, THEN i see him being good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not a pure passer? Why cause hes black? Jesus Christ u racist losers are dumb as hell 7U0Z1.gif

Why is it that when someone says something like this, people say, oh he's racist. Well people said the same thing about The Golden Calf of Bristol and i dont hear people calling for other's heads saying they are racist. it's not racism, it's just how people feel. he ran alot in college, something i know he was asked to do yes, but the point is he did run alot and that will have to stop. Young tried to run alot too, now Vince Young doesnt run as much as he used to and i think Vince Young is faster than Newton or at least similar with speed.

Rodgers takes off more than any QB in the league outside of Vick. You guys try to downplay all the rushing yards he picks up because he kills your "only stiff pocket passers win Super Bowls theories". Rodgers is a running QB in a WCO.

Rodgers is NOT and i repeat NOT a running Quarterback. Vick WAS a running QB, BUT now he's learned to pass more from the pocket. Rodgers doesnt take off all the time, yes he runs, but he runs when he has too, he looks for a pass first though, the same thing for Luck, except Luck is slower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rodgers is NOT and i repeat NOT a running Quarterback. Vick WAS a running QB, BUT now he's learned to pass more from the pocket. Rodgers doesnt take off all the time, yes he runs, but he runs when he has too, he looks for a pass first though, the same thing for Luck, except Luck is slower.

So you are satisfied with he amount of times Rodgers ran on passing plays? Me too.

Rather than settle for their Potter Stewart-esque explanations (“I know it when I see it”), we at Universal Draft have chosen to rely on facts and figures, isolating details rather than buying vagaries. The natural and undeniable conclusion is that nobody should accuse Cameron Newton of being a ‘run-first’ quarterback, or a glorified running back, or anything of the kind. The fact of the matter is we have isolated every single snap (both pass and run) of Cam Newton’s over his final six games against Ole Miss, Chattanooga, Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina and Oregon. What we found is that Newton only scrambled for yardage on a total of 15 of 169 pass snaps. The other 80 or so runs were called as run plays from the sidelines. The rate (just under 9%) at which Newton pulled down the ball and ran for yardage rather than continuing to try and pass the ball, was comparable with the rate at which Aaron Rodgers did the same (just under 8%) for the Green Bay Packers during the 2010 regular season, according to Pro Football Focus.

http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/sports/columnists/hyde/blog/2011/02/draft_winds_a_thorough_breakdo_1.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in the span they looked at, he ran more times than he completed passes. plus, they're looking at less than half his season.

to me, it is not a very good argument that Newton is a pass first quarterback when nearly a third of his snaps end up in him running for yards... Perhaps he is a "dual threat" quarterback, that's fine, but let's stop with the "statistical" comparisons to Rodgers, please.

edit: however, to the central point of this thread, he's nothing like Russell and the OP is totally wrong. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites