David Newton: When Cam Newton takes fewer sacks, Carolina wins

[beastson]

Quote

There's a direct correlation between Newton's effectiveness as a runner and the number of sacks he takes. The past three games are a microcosm of that. Newton has rushed 25 times for 225 yards and a touchdown in those games. In the first three games he rushed 13 times for 46 yards as he rehabbed his surgically repaired shoulder. He was sacked 10 times, including six times in one game during that opening stretch.

Running well does not always equal success. Newton was sacked five times in a loss to Chicago in which he rushed for 50 yards. But he was playing catchup after the Bears turned a fumble and interception into touchdowns.

In general, when Newton runs well he takes fewer sacks, and that turns into wins.

The Panthers are 25-6-1 since 2011 in games when Newton takes one or fewer sacks -- including a game last season when the 2015 NFL MVP was benched for one play at Seattle -- according to ESPN Stats & Information research.

They are 26-23 when Newton takes two to three sacks and 7-14 when he takes four or more sacks.

Source

[Ornias]

and water is wet. 

[wud35]

breaking. water is wet.

[wud35]

1 minute ago, Ornias said:

and water is wet. 

lol perfect timing

[iBBB]

[LinvilleGorge]

18 minutes ago, Ornias said:

and water is wet. 

This. *Insert name of QB* and this will remain true.

[SixMileDrive]

19 minutes ago, Ornias said:

and water is wet. 

It's this type of insight of insight that really makes this forum great...

Title aside, as a math/stats professional, this article is pretty interesting. It delves into the numbers and the reasons why Cam's running impacts his sacks and how it changes the teams winning percentage.

The longer I live in life, the more I realize that the people (like the poster above) who try to claim everything is so obvious "yeah, duh...." just don't have the ability to think past 2+2.

Sorry that the article was above your head, man. Maybe try reading these types of things a couple more times before posting next time.

[Saca312]

@Jeremy Igo does it better.

 

[JARROD]

If you build it... we will come,..

[Moose Hoover]

only if fewer sacks lead to more points since typically scoring more points than the other team is the most likely scenario for a victory.

[jfra78]

[KillerKat]

42 minutes ago, SixMileDrive said:

It's this type of insight of insight that really makes this forum great...

Title aside, as a math/stats professional, this article is pretty interesting. It delves into the numbers and the reasons why Cam's running impacts his sacks and how it changes the teams winning percentage.

The longer I live in life, the more I realize that the people (like the poster above) who try to claim everything is so obvious "yeah, duh...." just don't have the ability to think past 2+2.

Sorry that the article was above your head, man. Maybe try reading these types of things a couple more times before posting next time.

Speaking of heads, maybe instead of trying to make someone else look like an ass, perhaps you should get your head out of your own.

[JawnyBlaze]

Well there ya go. David Newton has cracked the CamVinci Code. 

[L-TownCat]

He’s John Madden with words.

Sacks are bad.  You don’t want sacks.  If your QB is getting sacked he’s not getting yards.  It gets the offense off schedule and usually impacts scoring.

None of this is revolutionary, new, or even informative.

Its lazy and uninspired.  Did anyone learn something they didn’t already know?

If you like numbers great, but tell me how KBs absence seemingly unlocked the door?  How has the Oline magically turned into a solid unit?  Why are we suddenly at the line with 15 or more seconds on the playclock?

Tons of angles for a story this week and this putz goes with- “When Cam isn’t sacked, he plays good”

Wut. tha. fug.