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 isn't good at the short, quick throws"

Jeremy Igo

By Jeremy Igo,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

Jeremy Igo Newbie

Jeremy Igo

Posted
Posted

One argument I have seen against changing up the offense a bit is that Cam isn't particularly good at short quick throws. 

Fug that. 

It might have something to do with Cam spending the entire OTA and training camp in a system that calls for him holding onto the ball for 4 seconds and throwing deep ball after deep ball. 

I have said since Cam was drafted every year in camp I am amazed about how long it takes for the plays to develop and Cam to throw the ball. It was not like that under the Fox regime. 

A new offensive coordinator is needed. One that can take an intelligent, physical freak like Cam Newton to the next level. Cam has hit his ceiling under the current regime, but personally he still has much more room to grow. 

There is no doubt in my mind that with a proper mentor, Newton could become that Aaron Rodgers type player. Deadly in the long game, deadly in the short game, and a threat to run. 

 

/rant

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stirs Grand Master

stirs

Posted
Posted
Just now, Jeremy Igo said:

Consistent mechanics require a coaching staff with a keen eye and the balls to speak up. 

Could be chicken or the egg thing here.

What if, the staff does not hold the opinion that he can excel in a quick hit offense and therefore goes to his strong suit which is the vertical passing attack?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stirs Grand Master

stirs

Posted
Posted

You really think that an NFL coaching staff could not figure out things like this?  I know, quick and easy to say what we are not doing is what we should be doing and vice versa.  But, behind the scenes, is there a reason?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
d-dave Grand Master

d-dave

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, stirs said:

You really think that an NFL coaching staff could not figure out things like this?  I know, quick and easy to say what we are not doing is what we should be doing and vice versa.  But, behind the scenes, is there a reason?

Man, I would hope that an NFL coaching staff would be considerably smarter than us.  Then again, as we have seen year after year, they are very mortal!

You have to wonder is it a player limitation?  Or is it a pride thing from the coaches?  Or do they really see this playstyle as the best thing for him and the team?

I have a feeling there is a good bit of everything in our arguments.  It's going to take work on Cam's part, the OC (Shula or not), and the rest of the team to turn things around.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jesse Rising Star

Jesse

Posted
Posted

The thing Cam needs to do is lighten up on those balls. If you look at guys like Rogers and Brady, they are able to almost float it to where the receivers are going to be on crossing routes every time. That takes reps, trust, and damn good accuracy. Cam on the other hand lasers his passes to the receivers whether it's 5 or 40 yards away. 

 

All I want to see Cam have a higher completion percentage by incorporating more crossing routes and 5-10 yard routes. Bad coaches try to fit their players into their schemes, and not mold their scheme around their talent. Our offensive line this year was not able to block like they did last year which greatly affected Cam's numbers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cuttinedge Proficient

Cuttinedge

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, stirs said:

You really think that an NFL coaching staff could not figure out things like this?  I know, quick and easy to say what we are not doing is what we should be doing and vice versa.  But, behind the scenes, is there a reason?

I don't give this coaching staff that much credit. Just look at the lack of halftime adjustments on both sides of the ball. Or the vanilla game plans week after week. 

I think a competent coaching staff could figure it out.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheRed Newbie

TheRed

Posted
Posted

Watching that Packers game last night was kind of depressing seeing the work Rodgers WR's put in for him.

Many times he just put it in reach for them, and they made a sick catch, and got good YAC.

We have such little room for error in our offense, and Cam has to put his passes in the absolute tightest windows to ensure completions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Raleigh PF
      Giannis

      By Raleigh PF · Posted

      It looks like the Bucks and Giannis are headed for a divorce. He says he's ready to play and the Bucks say that he has told them he isn't. It really doesn't matter except that it likely means the end for Giannis in Milwaukee. He's 31 years old, but still an elite producer.  So, as GM, would you go after him this offseason? Remember, the Hornets have two 1st round picks this year and potentially THREE first round picks next year. What would a trade look like?
    • MHS831
      Some homers' opinions of the OTs that we may realistically be able to get at 19

      By MHS831 · Posted

      I agree with you, if all things are equal--assuming we are on the same page as to what that means.  If a DT and OT are there at 19 and you have them equal, which do you take? The DT would be rotational and get 25 snaps a game or so, and the OT is probably a reserve for most of the season.  What if Walker plays out of his mind and Ickey comes back strong? To me, there are just too many variables at T and Morgan met the needs for 2 starters.  Nothing about that screams lets "go OT in round 1" to me. I could see an Edge or a DT at 19 before I see OT.  I could see a TE or S before an OT--and I (personally) would rather have an OT over DT, Edge, TE, or S--but I do not see the logic.  In fact, CB is a position that resembles OT--who do we have behind our starters and are we happy with Smith-Wade?  A CB would be on the field more than a reserve OT.  How is the Walker at LT situation different than the the Bryce situation? He is basically on a 1-year deal and if he is injured, Forsythe becomes Pickett.  Would you take Simpson in the draft?  Dont get me wrong--I usually agree with you  and I get your point.  I am an OL guru--but I just do not see this particular group of Tackles making us better than Walker.  In addition, I think we can address OT once the Ickey situation clears up.  Short arms, poor run blocking, issues with strength--I am simply not impressed with the OTs.  For clarity, "developmental" refers to players who are still a year or two away from starting.  We are all developmental, but there are prospects who need a season to transition to the pro game. I see 1--maybe 2 OTs who could step into a starting role right now. In college, for example, taking snaps under center requires a different approach than blocking for the shotgun.  There is less to learn if you play a position that does not require much adjustment to transition to the NFL.
    • pantherclaw
      Canales doesn't sound all the way sold on Bryce

      By pantherclaw · Posted

      The natural progression of ANY QB is to take more control of the offense.  Which is all Dave said. He doesn't have a narrative to push. He is says what is the natural thing to say in this situation whether it's Bryce, or any other QB.  THE THREAD TITLE ALONE TWISTS THE NARRATIVE.   so yes, many of you refuse to acknowledge anything other than your screwed perspective, for whatever reason, when it comes to Bryce.  Y'all have a great Easter. 
×
×
  • Create New...