Mr. Scot

If you want to go that route, then answer this: Are the guys chasing those quarterbacks the same as the ones who were chasing Staubach and Tarkenton?

Is that the reason he's failing as a quarterback? If it isn't, what is? Are you saying that if he were a better athlete, he could be a good quarterback too?

But he has good athleticism. I'm being told that this is a vital characteristic and that it can make up for the other deficiencies. Are you telling me that it can't?

Same question then: Can we win with Sam Darnold? He's certainly a fine athlete. Heck, during the first part of last season, he ran for more touchdowns than any other quarterback in the league. He's shown that he's capable of throwing the ball far or throwing it hard as well as running for first downs or even touchdowns when needed. Using the criteria you've set yourself, he should be a perfectly capable quarterback. So can we win games with him? And if the answer is no, what's the specific reason why?

Where have I ever said that winning and losing aren't team things? But if that's the route that you want to go, then answer this: Can we win with Sam Darnold?

Let me put it this way: Would you want to go into a season with Kevin Kolb, AJ Feeley or Koy Detmer as your quarterback? Every one of those guys produced good stats and even won games in an Andy Reid system. Is that evidence that they were good quarterbacks?

Two things... Yes, lots of quarterbacks are capable of occasionally running for a first down if something opens up. Considering them "dual threat" quarterbacks or even mobile quarterbacks strictly based on that criteria is a huge stretch. By that definition, you could put Jake Delhomme in one of those categories. Second, and probably more important, you're arguing against a viewpoint that doesn't exist (at least not with me, but I can only speak for myself). It's not that you have to be a pocket passer to win. It's that you have to be a capable passer to win, regardless of what you can or can't do as a runner. The notion that you have to be able to run just isn't true, never has been. If you're capable of running, great. That adds value to your quarterback skill set. But it's the best that you can do is run for an occasional first down when something breaks open, that's okay too. Also to be clear, very little of what I've been talking about is any direct discussion of Malik Willis. I'm not a big Willis fan, but for most of the topic here I've been talking about general concepts more so than Willis himself. But focusing on him directly, this is how I'd summarize it. If he can develop into a solid passer, then yes he will succeed in the NFL. If he can't, it doesn't matter if he's more athletic than Vick, Newton and Jackson combined. He's going to wash out as a quarterback.

Yet still didn't succeed, even with arguably the best quarterback coach in the game helping him. Improved stats aren't the same as winning.

If we have a winning season next year, I'm going to say "well that was fun". I'm also going to say "sh-t, another year of Matt Rhule". Glass always slightly off...

Newton could throw. Jackson can throw. But Vick? No. Heck, I remember Falcon fans arguing for years that their receivers were terrible only to see them suddenly turn around and get a lot better after Vick left. And that was no accident. (that on top of the whole "how many years does it take to learn the West Coast Offense" silliness) Gearing the Atlanta offense around Vick's running was actually the better choice. It wasn't going to work, but it was still the smarter play given his abilities. Rivera built around Newton using the same concepts Buddy Ryan did with Randall Cunningham. The idea was that if you had a quarterback who could make two or three big plays a game, the defense would handle the rest. While Rivera did get closer to succeeding with that approach than Ryan ever did, it still ultimately failed and wasn't really built to last anyway. What Newton could have done with better will always be a huge unanswered question. It's also one of the big reasons why while I think Rivera the Man is worthy of respect, Rivera the Coach is somebody I just can't like.

I don't know that I'd consider them a unified front at this point. Fitterer seems to want to build for the long term. Matt Rhule can't necessarily afford to do that.

The offense under Shula, yeah. And as odd as it might feel, the Shula years up to 2015 were the most successful years we had. There were entire articles dissecting the kind of run concepts and ideas that Shula was using to make the offense go. Unfortunately, Dan Quinn and Wade Phillips dissected them too. Once there was an answer out there, Shula wasn't good enough to respond. Turner actually did a better job developing Newton, and I've always believed that if we'd have had someone like Turner from the beginning, things could have been different.

That's not really working out so well with Lance so far. And to be clear, those "ifs" are the problem, especially if he's a Panther. (I agree with you he'd be better off to not be)

No visit set with Penning? I mean, the obvious thing to do with him would be to take him to a horror movie.

What I would want to do and what would the Panthers do are different questions. They're also two things that hardly ever match up

That doesn't really help the argument though given that what Newton's injury affected was his passing, not his running. To be honest, Cam Newton discussions in general don't really benefit Malik Willis because Newton wasn't a running quarterback. He was a dual threat. Willis could conceivably turn out to be a dual threat, but arguing that he's one now would be a pretty big reach.

It's never worked, and until somebody shows a way to make it work, it's not gonna change. But chances are not too many teams are going to do that because, as mentioned, up to now it's never worked. It'd also be a pretty extreme reversal of history because when the NFL started, there was no such thing as the forward pass. It was the AFL that introduced the forward pass. Purists from back then hated it but now it's everything. I seriously don't see that being reversed. As to Newton specifically, his running ability might still be the same but his passing clearly isn't. Pretty much everyone acknowledges this is why teams aren't clamoring to sign him.

Well...

The Panthers would certainly like for teams to think so. I don't buy it.

Not exactly... If you have a quarterback who can't run, it doesn't matter because you're still going to have wide receivers, tight ends and running backs who can. If you have a quarterback who can't pass, are you going to ask one of the other skill positions to throw passes for them? Over the past 20 years, I've seen two teams try to work with an offense built primarily around running. One was Michael Vick's Falcons, the other was us with Newton. Neither won a championship. We got closer because Newton was a far better passer than Vick, but we couldn't keep it up for much longer than they did. Future seasons with Norv Turner as OC told us that if we had tried a more balanced attack and spent more time teaching Newton to be a better passer, we could have had greater success. But we hadn't...so we didn't. In today's NFL, especially with the rules set up the way they are, you can win with a balanced attack, you can win with a pass heavy attack, but you're not going to win championships with a primarily run based attack. (heck, that's why we constantly have the arguments we do about how much we paid McCaffrey)

People thought it would. It really hasn't.

That might leave our resident UNC homeowners with a bit of a dilemma

Old friend update... Of course he did

Don't we all wish...

On that note...