Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Cam Newton has the longest streak of sub 50% completion rate (4) since The Golden Calf of Bristol (6)


Ricky Spanish

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, nctarheel0619 said:

Question for everyone here.  Russell Wilson throws at a 66 percent clip, has 14 TDs and 10 INTs.  While Cam throws at a 54 percent clip, and has 20 TDS and 9 ints.  Who would people rather have at this point?  

I'll take the 20 touchdowns and 1 less pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, nctarheel0619 said:

Question for everyone here.  Russell Wilson throws at a 66 percent clip, has 14 TDs and 10 INTs.  While Cam throws at a 54 percent clip, and has 20 TDS and 9 ints.  Who would people rather have at this point?  

I see where you are going, but I kinda disagree with it.

Higher completion % keeps your defense on the sideline, and their defense on the field.  It keeps you ahead of the down and distance, and allows you to control the game.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of "guys who score points" but you also need to be methodical at times as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TylerVagyler said:

Cam says he doesn't care about his completion % even though last season he set a goal to have at least 60%. 

Cam is more than capable of 60%+. He did it in 2013 with a short, dink-and-dunk offense. But that's not his style. We take shots down the field, so he's not going to look like Alex Smith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's definitely something he's gotta fix. With the way this offense is ran, I can accept his completion % being around 57 - 61 percent. I say it's something he's got to fix, because I know it's something he's highlighted as an area of opportunity before. 

The whole team is trash right now, and just like the team will be better next year, so will Cam. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TN05 said:

Cam is more than capable of 60%+. He did it in 2013 with a short, dink-and-dunk offense. But that's not his style. We take shots down the field, so he's not going to look like Alex Smith.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I just don't buy that he "doesn't care" what his completion % is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
    • Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...