If Cam had thrown the ball away in the endzone it would have been a safety anyway. Kinda like how Matt Ryan didn't throw the ball away when he was sacked in our endzone last year, a safety>>turnover.Love it man !!!
The blind and "in love" on this forum will continue to fall back on the "statistics don't matter because Cam is mobile" nonsense...
conveinently forgetting how many other "mobile quarterbacks" there are in the NFL these days...
How mobile is Newton really, when it is a straight pass play???
I saw a 23 year old QB yesterday who largely made no attempt to escape pressure at all...
Zero pocket awareness and a seeming inability to just throw the football away...
Gonna get sacked in your own end zone???
Oh, well...
The Myth of Cam Newton under pressure dispelled
#16
Posted 12 November 2012 - 08:46 PM
#17
Posted 12 November 2012 - 08:51 PM
Cam Newton was put under duress, hit or sacked on 19 of his 45 dropbacks (42.2 pct) in Sunday's game. That's the highest single-game percentage and total for Newton this season, and the highest number of dropbacks under pressure the Broncos defense has forced in a game this season. Newton was sacked seven times, tied for fourth most in a game this season, and finished 1-of-9 for 8 yards and an interception when under duress.
WTF SCAM
#18
Posted 12 November 2012 - 08:58 PM
#19
Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:00 PM
Everyone knows by now that Cam Newton is terrible under pressure and terrible in obvious passing situations...
What everyone DOESN'T know is that he is put under duress far less frequently than MANY QB's in the NFL...including some VERY mobile rookies....ALL of whom are playing better than he is...
#20
Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:02 PM
.....
How mobile is Newton really, when it is a straight pass play???
I saw a 23 year old QB yesterday who largely made no attempt to escape pressure at all...
This is the part that really bothered me yesterday. I think Cam is and can be mobile, but for some reason he seams like he doesnt want to just tuck the ball away and go. It almost like he is trying to hard to not do that. I think all of this will and can solve itself, if and when we get a new staff in here. I think Newton would actually be a better QB if they stopped having in him shotgun the whole game. Yesterday he does that on first two drives, of which we moved the ball, and then it was back to shotgun every play and all runs when he hands it to the guy next to him.
Cam needs to get better in a lot of areas, but until the other problems on this team are fixed I am nowhere close to be down on Cam and glad we have a QB on our team, whom I feel you can still build on. I feel much better this time around trying to fix this cr*p with him on the roster than when it was Carr, Moore, then Clausen.
#21
Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:02 PM
#22
Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:04 PM
Everyone knows by now that Cam Newton is terrible under pressure and terrible in obvious passing situations...
What everyone DOESN'T know is that he is put under duress far less frequently than MANY QB's in the NFL...including some VERY mobile rookies....ALL of whom are playing better than he is...
http://www.footballo...om/stats/qb2012
Mind you Newton is the beneficiary of a coaching staff that's performed so well it's not going to make it past two years.
#23
Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:04 PM
Welcome back TRD.
Not sharp enough to be TRD.
#24
Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:11 PM
http://www.footballo...om/stats/qb2012
Mind you Newton is the beneficiary of a coaching staff that's performed so well it's not going to make it past two years.
The decision to go "all in" with Cam Newton has already cost Hurney his job...
And it will almost certainly result in the firing of Rivera and Chudzinski...
This team was built around Cam Newton
The experiment has failed miserably...
I made a thread in my first week on this fourm stating that Cam Newton needed to be treated like Alex Smith.
I was crucified for it...
Guess what???
It was the truth then.
And it is the truth now.
#25
Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:14 PM
do you
hit enter
so often
it's fuging pain
stop it
you asshat
also I'd like to see what cam could do with a run game and a WR2 that can get out of coverage more than twice a game.
#26
Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:15 PM
All I know is from an eye test standpoint, I find the Football Outsiders' data much more believable.
#27
Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:18 PM
#28
Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:19 PM
These stats are sortable...
Just go to the final two columns to allow some of the complete bombast you have read on this forum to sink in...
Cam Newton has been hit 35 times this season...
Mike Vick?? 77 !!!
RG III ?? 51 !!!
Andrew Luck ?? 60 !!!
Cutler ?? 51 !!!
Rodgers ?? 48 !!!
Ryan ?? 47 !!!
Gabbert ?? 47 !!!
As a matter of fact, Cam Newton has been hit the 12th FEWEST times of any QB in the NFL this season...
Now let's hear it...
Why these numbers really don't apply to Cam...
Why Cam is "different"
Why these stats don't mean anything...
You lack the rest of the stats that tell the story you are trying to pimp....
Carolina is tied for the 30th amount of pass attempts, only 1 team has fewer....
And you would need to combine, hits, sacks, and pressures.
You would need all that to accurately make the point you are pretending to make.
#29
Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:21 PM
He ACTUALLY thinks a line made of Gross, Hangartner(he's awful and that ain't no secret), Jeff Byers(center playing guard), Byron Bell(he's terrible with speed rushers,Amini Silatolu( a rookie, who gets beat constantly in pass pro) are world-beaters, lol.So how do we reconcile Tony's stats with what Sloth provided? Is it maybe because NFL stats are raw numbers, while Football Outsiders analyzes each play individually?
All I know is from an eye test standpoint, I find the Football Outsiders' data much more believable.
#30
Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:24 PM
Same trolling poo as last year. His stupid little forum he tried to create and promote and no one went to left him sad and lonely.
Now that Cam is playing less than great he has come back to try and feel better about himself.
These arguments are the same as they have been and they usually don't hold up under closer scrutiny.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users





