Archived

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

nctarheel0619

MMQB Cam should be more like Brees

42 posts in this topic

Yeah, I responded in the comments. It's readily apparent he didn't pay much attention to the schematic demands of the Carolina offense or the circumstances surrounding some of our games.

 

Lol I just read that comment.  You tore into that ass, good job man.

 

post-23470-Jeremiah-Johnson-nod-cropped-

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, we've got the national media writing artilces about why our 3rd year QB is almost as good as a vet and hall of fame QB. 

 

Most of his stuff is cherry picked and even the points me made that were true he tried to make it seem like it was something that the most 3rd year QB's ahve gotton past. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could go through and cherry pick still frames and stats, and write this same article about any QB in the league including Brees, Brady, or Peyton.

This is an example of a guy having an idea for his article and then fishing for evidence and examples to bolster his predetermined assumptions.

I could also just as easily cherry pick still frames and stats to show Cam is one of the best passers in the league.

This is serious nonsense and should be taken very lightly IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Brees' first three years, he was 10-17 as a starter, with 30 TDs and 31 INTs.  He had completed 59.4% of his passes for 5613 yards and 6.17 YPA, and rushed for 232 yards.

 

Cam's in his third year, he's 22-22, with 87 TDs and 40 INTs.  He's completed 59% of his passes for 10,536 yards and 7.7 YPA, and he's rushed for 1894 yards.

 

Who needs to emulate who again?

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That guy needs to basically fug off.

 

Brees is good, noone in their right mind would day he's not, but to say that Cam should emulate him is to say that there is only one kind of QB who can be successful in the NFL.  He's launching everyone back into an old debate.  Might as well change the title of that article to "can a mobile QB be successful in the NFL or do they all have to be 100% pocket passers?".  Funny also how none of these articles ever mention the sheer number of records Cam has set...not all having to do with his legs.  Nor do they like to mention how much better he is as a passer now than he was last year and the clear growth there.  Cam has a unique combination of speed, size, and natural ability.  He's now shown the growth that everyone said he had to show.  He'll continue to do that.  And he'll be more and more scary to opposing DCs every year because of it.

 

Maybe someone over there is just mad that Panthers players don't want to respond to questions about Cam's maturity / leadership anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter King can suck my hairy nuts.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

people still believe that Cam is only a running qb? M(

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't know 62% was such a bad thing. Heck we can argue being that Brees is so short he should be a dual threat QB like Russell Wilson. See, I can play that game too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure I see the big deal.  He's basically saying Cam needs to be more consistent (like Brees) in 3 key areas.  Does anyone really disagree with that?  Then he picks a play to illustrate his point.  He mentions that Cam shouldn't abandon his "sandlot skills" but needs to improve in the pocket.  That sounds great to me.  The final paragraph sums it all up pretty well.

 

I've been interested in his work (on MMQB and NYT) for a while because he sometimes works from my building, although I haven't seen him around lately.  Keep meaning to talk to him when he's around.  I think he's a really strong, analytical writer, and while I love reading fluff pieces on muh QB, I don't see the point in getting bent out of shape when someone takes the time to detail changes that could make Cam, and the team even better.

 

That said, fug Drew Brees and the Saints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LIke Teeray said....it's a lazy article using cherry picked stats to fit the story's narrative.....

 

Tom Brady threw a pass right to Capt Munnerlyn and would have ended the game right there on MNF...I could write an article that says Tom Brady is no longer clutch and needs to work on his accuracy and decision making in the 4th QTR. Has TB lost the magic? Tom can't make avg players into winners anymore. He needs Gronk and Welker-Lite to have an average offense.

 

And of course...where are the articles proclaiming that Aaron Rodgers still needs to be clutch and actually have some 4th QTR comebacks?

 

Cam is a lightning rod on a national sports "news" and this is the best they've got? They want to drive hits/viewers/conversation about his article...but when it comes down to it there's nothing in this article that's insightful.

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • There's merit is there is discrepancy between words and action.  For instance, Saudi Arabia not being held accountable as they are saying all the right things but doing the opposite of following through.
    • Looks like our DE depth is developing nicely.  Let's see his swim move--no wait--if he starts drowning, we'll never get him back in the boat. I still say they were a bit upset with him last season.  Remember the benching during the game following the altercationwith the coach?  Some people never recover fully from a knee injury, especially if they lack the discipline to rehab properly.  I wounder if that is the case? Seriously--he is a TE.
    • http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/carrier-plant-where-trump-saved-jobs-plans-layoffs/ar-BBBsNjX?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp A plant where jobs were purportedly saved by Donald Trump ahead of his inauguration is set to make at least 600 staff cuts, many before Christmas. Carrier had opted in December 2016 not to move a number of jobs to Mexico from its Indianapolis furnace factory, following a visit to the plant by Trump. The president claimed he had convinced Carrier to retain 1,100 jobs in Indianapolis rather than outsourcing them in Mexico. And of those 1,100 jobs Trump spoke of, 300 had reportedly never been threatened with a move to Mexico—meaning a total of 800 jobs had been saved. But the company has since announced that at least 600 employees at the factory will still be laid off, with the final 290 job cuts coming just ahead of Christmas. In a filing seen by CNN, the company announced it would be making an initial 338 job cuts in July, four in October and a further 290 jobs on December 22, just three days before Christmas. During a press conference at Carrier, Trump said: “that big, big beautiful plant behind us… will be even more beautiful in about seven months from now. They're so happy. They're going to have a great Christmas. That's most important. He added: “And that these companies aren't going to be leaving anymore. They're not going to be taking people's hearts out. They're not going to be announcing, like they did at Carrier, that they're closing up and they're moving to Mexico, over 1,100 jobs. “And by the way, that number is going to go up very substantially as they expand this area, this plant. So the 1,100 is going to be a minimum number,” he said. The plant said at the time the number of jobs saved was closer to 800, but explained it would be replacing some of the jobs that were saved with an automated system in order to save money, although CEO Greg Hayes did say there would be less money saved by the company in doing so than if they moved production to Mexico. Carrier did not immediately respond to Newsweek’s request for comment. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm thinking of another person I'd like to see get laid off, or fired.