lets say Andrew Luck decides to come out in 2011

[nctarheel0619]

1 minute ago, Rags said:

I'd still take Cam.

Luck is more accurate yes, but I'd far from say Cam is inaccurate. He let's some go and rushes his mechanics. But when he's in a groove and the offense is geling, he's one of the best QBs in the league.

Look up Cam's accuracy every year.  All below 60 percent, except 2011, and 2013.  That's inaccurate, sir.  

[Rags]

21 minutes ago, nctarheel0619 said:

Look up Cam's accuracy every year.  All below 60 percent, including 2015.  That's inaccurate, sir.  

First of all 2011 and 2013 Cam's % was 60.00 and 61.7 respectively. 2015 was 59.8. Last year was the only season below 55%. You know. The year where he has a torn rotator cuff and the whole o-line was a mess.

Your boy Luck? Has only been at 60% in a season only once more than Cam. Has been at 55% or lower two times.  In fact, Luck's career completion percentage is only 1.2 higher than Cam's and both are below 60%. Guess Luck is inaccurate too. 

Completion Percentages don't tell the whole story, nor is it the only thing to make a QB. Otherwise Sam Bradford would be the best QB in the NFL.

[nctarheel0619]

5 minutes ago, Rags said:

First of all 2011 and 2013 Cam's % was 60.00 and 61.7 respectively. 2015 was 59.8. Last year was the only season below 55%. You know. The year where he has a torn rotator cuff and the whole o-line was a mess.

Your boy Luck? Has only been at 60% in a season only once more than Cam. Has been at 55% or lower two times.  In fact, Luck's career completion percentage is only 1.2 higher than Cam's and both are below 60%. Guess Luck is inaccurate too. 

Completion Percentages don't tell the whole story, nor is it the only thing to make a QB. Otherwise Sam Bradford would be the best QB in the NFL.

Look how many people had completion percentages above Cam last year, it was awful.  And the torn rotator cuff happened with four games left.  So, that's an excuse.  Can't use it.

Also, Luck hasn't played as many seasons as Cam.  Either way, I would still take Luck, currently.  Unless somehow this year proves Cam's problems always were lack of weapons.  

[Saca312]

53 minutes ago, nctarheel0619 said:

No statistical facts to back up any of that, just FYI.  

Oh lord, a "but muh completion percentage" guy who thinks that equates to accuracy and Cam being trash. 

Cam Newton is the 4th most accurate QB on all throws that go beyond five yards in 2016. His inaccuracy is a myth developed by an unreliable completion percentage statistic, which favors the short passers.

Cam Newton threw less than five yards on 32.43% of his throws; the least amount in the NFL. In comparison, Sam Bradford threw fewer than five yards on 62.13% of his throws. Bradford boasts having the best completion percentage of 2016, while Cam Newton was dead last.

To add on, Newton experienced the 2nd most failed receptions (throws the receiver should have caught) of any team in 2016 with 59 failed receptions, only behind Aaron Rodgers with 67 catches on the field. Newton lost 845 yards on these passes, also 2nd to Rodgers’ 875.

See the trend? That is why completion percentage is a completely useless fact when determining accuracy.

Both Andrew Luck and Cam Newton are exceptionally good quarterbacks in terrible systems. You could find reasons you'd take one over the other coming out, and it would be justifiable.

However, Cam Newton has proven he can take a load of mediocre scraps and lead them to a Superbowl. He has proven he's more successful at the NFL level, and consistently works to better the lack of talent surrounding him. I'd take Newton over Luck any day of the week, and it's not even close.

[Rags]

16 minutes ago, nctarheel0619 said:

Look how many people had completion percentages above Cam last year, it was awful.  And the torn rotator cuff happened with four games left.  So, that's an excuse.  Can't use it.

Also, Luck hasn't played as many seasons as Cam.  Either way, I would still take Luck, currently.  Unless somehow this year proves Cam's problems always were lack of weapons.  

Okay and the O-line? Gonna pretend like that's not a problem? Or the fact the whole fuging offense was a mess? 

Its also bullshit to say the last 4 games Don't Count but hey let's look at those last 4 Games

37, 55, 42, and 56.

The three games before that were all in the 40s. Before that? Everything was in the 50s.

So yes, it is fair to say "Cam was hurt." Because he obviously was hurt. He was more than likely concused before the rotator cuff. Cam was not 100% most of last year.

And yes, Cam has been in the league a whopping one more year than Luck. But your argument was Cam is inaccurate, and Luck is way more accurate. Stats, which is what you're going by ignoring inragibles, football iq, and athleticism, Luck is only 1.2% accurate than Cam, and since they're both below %60 that means Luck is inaccurate too.

[nctarheel0619]

5 minutes ago, Saca312 said:

Oh lord, a "but muh completion percentage" guy who thinks that equates to accuracy and Cam being trash. 

Cam Newton is the 4th most accurate QB on all throws that go beyond five yards in 2016. His inaccuracy is a myth developed by an unreliable completion percentage statistic, which favors the short passers.

Cam Newton threw less than five yards on 32.43% of his throws; the least amount in the NFL. In comparison, Sam Bradford threw fewer than five yards on 62.13% of his throws. Bradford boasts having the best completion percentage of 2016, while Cam Newton was dead last.

To add on, Newton experienced the 2nd most failed receptions (throws the receiver should have caught) of any team in 2016 with 59 failed receptions, only behind Aaron Rodgers with 67 catches on the field. Newton lost 845 yards on these passes, also 2nd to Rodgers’ 875.

See the trend? That is why completion percentage is a completely useless fact when determining accuracy.

Both Andrew Luck and Cam Newton are exceptionally good quarterbacks in terrible systems. You could find reasons you'd take one over the other coming out, and it would be justifiable.

However, Cam Newton has proven he can take a load of mediocre scraps and lead them to a Superbowl. He has proven he's more successful at the NFL level, and consistently works to better the lack of talent surrounding him. I'd take Newton over Luck any day of the week, and it's not even close.

So, what's the excuse for Cam having bad passing percentage years every other year?  And man, presnapreads.com huh?  Shucks.  That's a phenomenal site, I venture there often.  Said no one ever.  

[Saca312]

1 minute ago, nctarheel0619 said:

And man, presnapreads.com huh?  Shucks.  That's a phenomenal site, I venture there often.  Said no one ever.  

Don't tell him the guy's from Football Outsiders.

You're really dumb, aren't you?

[nctarheel0619]

2 minutes ago, Rags said:

Okay and the O-line? Gonna pretend like that's not a problem? Or the fact the whole fuging offense was a mess? 

And Cam 

Its also bullshit to say the last 4 games Don't Count but hey let's look at those last 4 Games

37, 55, 42, and 56.

The three games before that were all in the 40s. Before that? Everything was in the 50s.

So yes, it is fair to say "Cam was hurt." Because he obviously was hurt. He was more than likely concused before the rotator cuff. Cam was not 100% most of last year.

And yes, Cam has been in the league a whopping one more year than Luck. But your argument was Cam is inaccurate, and Luck is way more accurate. Stats, which is what you're going by ignoring inragibles, football iq, and athleticism, Luck is only 1.2% accurate than Cam, and since they're both below %60 that means Luck is inaccurate too.

Aaron Rodgers always has a bad o-line.  Nobody ever talks about that.  Aaron Rodgers had a damn WR as his RB last year, nobody ever talks about that.  Tom Brady, the year before had a horrible O-Line, no one ever talks about that.  Another damn excuse.  If you want to be honest, both are average-below average QBs.  I would still take Luck currently.  Because in the end, I think he'll win more Super Bowls.  Because, at least his coaching staff actually gives a fug about what's around him.  Which took over 6 damn years for the Panthers to figure that out.  

[Saca312]

Just now, nctarheel0619 said:

 If you want to be honest, both are average-below average QBs. 

You really are retarded.

@Rags you really shouldn't be wasting your time with this nutcase.

[Rags]

5 minutes ago, Saca312 said:

Bradford boasts having the best completion percentage of 2016

So what you're saying is trade Cam for Sam Bradford

[nctarheel0619]

2 minutes ago, Saca312 said:

Don't tell him the guy's from Football Outsiders.

You're really dumb, aren't you?

HAHAHA, oh God.  Not a guy that lives in Europe covering NFL stats.  You mean the guy that's on 99.9 the Fan here in Raleigh/Durham all Summer long?  You mean the guy, that no matter how bad Cam does constantly blames the weapons and personnel around him?  Oh you mean that guy?  Yeah, I know that guy very well.  I actually laugh sometimes when he's on there.  And to be fair, he said he didn't see much a difference between Cam the year before (2015), and this year until the last four games.  That, good sir.  Is not a good thing.    

[nctarheel0619]

2 minutes ago, Saca312 said:

You really are retarded.

@Rags you really shouldn't be wasting your time with this nutcase.

I'm retarded?  You're the one posting random ass sites, and spewing constant positive bull poo about a 6-10 team.  Just shut the f uck up, you clown and move the f uck on.  McCaffrey needs his dick wiped, he's waiting on you.  

Make another thread about some bull s hit.  Come on, make another thread about McCaffrey being the second coming of Barry Sanders.  Come on boy.  Do it.  

[theDIRTYcode2]

The one major difference is you guys would be the 'darlings' of the NFL, which seems to be a popular thing around here. Neck beard memes instead of romper ones. 

[Rags]

3 minutes ago, nctarheel0619 said:

Aaron Rodgers always has a bad o-line.  

I'm gonna go ahead and stop you right here because 1) the packers offense is tooled to get passes out a HELL of a lot quicker than ours and 2) The Packers had one of the best O-lines last year, rated 5th by PFF.