Matt Maiocco has us taking Newton # 1 overall

[panthers55]

For those who want a guy who can play from day 1 might want to rethink the notion that a guy like Fairley will come in and tear it up. Outside of Suh last year how many defensive tackles taken in the top 10 picks have been good performers in their first season?

Over the past five years this is what has happened:

2010

Gerald McCoy- picked 3rd- 28 tackles- 3 sacks (considered similar to Fairley)

2009-

BJ Raji- picked 9th- 25 tackles- 1 sack

2008-

Glenn Dorsey picked 5th- 46 tackles, 1 sack

Sean Ellis picked 7th- 20 tackles, 4 sacks

2007-

Amobi 0koye- picked 10th- 32 tackles- 5.5 sacks (most he had in his career)

2006-

Highest taken- Haloti Ngata-picked 12th- 31 tackles- 1 sack

Compare that to the Panthers pitiful DTs last year-

Landri- 43 tackles and 3 sacks

Hayden- 31 tackles, 1 sack

I went all this way to say that most DTs in the NFL are projects their rookie year. Most of them take a year or two to develop. Anyone thinking that Fairley is going to tear up the league his rookie year or is even assured of a starting role needs to look at history.

If the logic is that a number 1 drafted player has to produce and play from day 1, then DT isn't the way to go. So The folks who say we need a productive player at the first pick then look at Fairley obviously are ignoring the reality of the last five years and perhaps are pinning their hopes that Fairley is the next Suh. Sorry folks but he isn't by a long shot.

In fact if you look at the numbers regarding which positions have the best production being drafted from the top 10 picks, you would look at QB, DB, and OL before DT.

So lets put the "we need to draft Fairley because he will come in and be productive" myth to rest. He likely won't be better than who we have there right now based on the numbers his rookie year. Down the road he might be a beast. But not his rookie year.

[mav1234]

Gabbert ran a spread option at Mizzou very similar to the one Auburn runs. Mizzou ran their offense more to Gabbert's strengths as Auburn did for Cam so they didn't really look a lot alike but the concepts were very similar.

Mizzou did NOT run an option offense. The type of spread that Missouri runs relies on totally different plays and play styles from it's quarterback compared to the offense Malzahn runs.

Edit: Honestly we'll need to develop any #1 we take. I think many people just feel that Fairley, Green, etc's impact will be greater sooner than Newton's would be.

[teeray]

It is a option offense. Gabbert had 112 rushes this year. 103 last season. An average of a little over 8 a game. Not nearly as high as Newton but that was because he obviously isn't the runner Newton is. The offense was run to Gabbert's strengths which is a passer but he did have 22 carries against Nebraska, 14 carries against K State, 11 carries against Kansas, and 13 against Iowa.

The offense Mizzou ran looked more like what Auburn ran last year with Chris Todd than what Auburn ran this year with Cam Newton but with actually more read option plays because Todd was flat out slow.

[panthers55]

Auburn's offense was often a one read and throw offense and a one read and run offense. The reason for that was simple. Malzahn's offense is based on the hurry up concept and complex formations to get their results. They use a power running attack and run most of the running plays employed by a power I team. They just do it out of the shotgun instead of from a center snap.

The goal is to run 80 plays a game with mutiple looks and constant motion. The offense is supposed to snap the ball within 5 seconds of getting set and involves multiple fakes to men in motion to confuse the defense. It gives the defense little time to prepare and line up resulting in easy mismatches and big chunks of yards.

So those saying it is a one read offense mistake the point of the offense. They are not keying off the defense but dictating to the defense and attacking and confusing it. That does make it somewhat different from a traditional pro offense which keys off the defense and uses multiple audibles but is not simplistic. It just doesn't require a lot of pre-reads and focuses on what happens after the ball is snapped. The biggest initial read for the quarterback is to see if the DE is collapsing or going upfield.

http://www.shakinthesouthland.com/2010/7/21/1555582/auburn-a-primer-on-the-gus-malzahn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_offense

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Deconstructing-Auburn-s-Malzahn-at-the-gates-a?urn=ncaaf-193416

Newton will have to learn the pro offense and how to read defenses and go through progressions. But he did everything that was asked of him at Auburn and was highly successful. There is no reason to believe he won't master the game at the next level. After all we already saw how much of a help being in a pro style offense was for Jimmy preparing him to play his rookie year.

[mav1234]

It is a option offense. Gabbert had 112 rushes this year. 103 last season. An average of a little over 8 a game. Not nearly as high as Newton but that was because he obviously isn't the runner Newton is. The offense was run to Gabbert's strengths which is a passer but he did have 22 carries against Nebraska, 14 carries against K State, 11 carries against Kansas, and 13 against Iowa.

The offense Mizzou ran looked more like what Auburn ran last year with Chris Todd than what Auburn ran this year with Cam Newton but with actually more read option plays because Todd was flat out slow.

dude you're flat out wrong. Mizzou did not run an option offense. While they did use the occasional designed run for the quarterback, ESPECIALLY on short yardage, the VAST majority of Gabbert's run attempts were while fleeing the pocket because of protection issues. He averaged 2 yards a carry for a reason. Yes he ran a lot against Nebraska because he was running for his freaking life. Yes, he had an average of 3 yards. You know why? He had ONE big run in that game (a 30 yarder). The majority of attempts, he was fleeing the pocket because of pressure. That's not an option offense.

While the offense may have resembled Auburn's last year, all I can tell you is that Malzahn's offense this year was VERY run heavy, more than anything Missouri ran, despite the fact the Tigers had more TDs on the ground as a percentage of their total scored than Auburn. For instance, Cam Newton had as many attempts as Missouri's top three running backs combined. Auburn's second back had more than the top two Missouri backs combined, and a half again more than even Gabbert's apparently massive rushing numbers.

Yes, by attempts, Gabbert was his team's leading rusher, but he wasn't by yards, by TDs, or by YPC... He was NOT looking to run first on many plays at all.

All you need to do is look at run/pass selection and it's pretty obvious the offenses were not simply a slight variation in utilizing talent but truly had different emphasises.

[teeray]

dude you're flat out wrong. Mizzou did not run an option offense. While they did use the occasional designed run for the quarterback, ESPECIALLY on short yardage, the VAST majority of Gabbert's run attempts were while fleeing the pocket because of protection issues. He averaged 2 yards a carry for a reason. Yes he ran a lot against Nebraska because he was running for his freaking life. Yes, he had an average of 3 yards. You know why? He had ONE big run in that game (a 30 yarder). The majority of attempts, he was fleeing the pocket because of pressure. That's not an option offense.

While the offense may have resembled Auburn's last year, all I can tell you is that Malzahn's offense this year was VERY run heavy, more than anything Missouri ran, despite the fact the Tigers had more TDs on the ground as a percentage of their total scored than Auburn. For instance, Cam Newton had as many attempts as Missouri's top three running backs combined.

All you need to do is look at run/pass selection and it's pretty obvious the offenses were not simply a slight variation in utilizing talent but truly had different emphasises.

I know that. The offense is designed to play to a QB's strengths. If Mizzou had Cam Newton on their team he would have had just as many carries as he did with Auburn and vice versa with Gabbert. The offenses are very similar but it adapts to the strengths of your QB.

I understand what you are saying but it is essentially the same offense. There is just a BIG difference in the play calling this year because they had two different QB's with different strengths. But at it's heart they are very similar.

I know what you are saying though.

[panthers55]

http://www.cornnation.com/2008/10/2/627142/the-spread-offense-why-is

Good article on Missouri's spread offense. It does do more pre-reads than Auburn's does and uses fewer formations. It doesn't use as much hurry up and is distinctly different.

[panthers55]

Mizzou did NOT run an option offense. The type of spread that Missouri runs relies on totally different plays and play styles from it's quarterback compared to the offense Malzahn runs.

Edit: Honestly we'll need to develop any #1 we take. I think many people just feel that Fairley, Green, etc's impact will be greater sooner than Newton's would be.

Missouri didn't run an option spread but some folks think it is more gimmicky than Auburn's attack. It does call for the quarterback to read the cover shells and operates under a more traditional passing attack which requires the quarterback to read the number of defenders in the box and call the play at the line of scrimmage. But it doesn't use the running game very effectively.Their leading rusher had 435 yards in 2010. It is one dimensional in that regard. If you look at the Panthers which will be a strong rushing team and use vertical passing routes you could make the argument that it would play to the strengths of Newton over Gabbert assuming that Cam can learn the pro passing game. Both quarterbacks would bring positives to the position but neither would be able to come in and light it up right away.

[mav1234]

haha, I was not trying to imply Missouri's offense was some kind of pro-style at all, but they Gabbert DID make more reads than some other spread quarterbacks. As to if he could succeed in our offense or not, I don't know, but I think it is presumptuous to say he couldn't or that Cam Newton would necessarily do better, as both have great arm strength. That's just my opinion, though.

Also, I agree that any quarterback out of this first round is going to need some adjustment (don't they all?) but I'm not certain they will all have the same adjustment time and I'm not sure what the outcome for each of them will be.

I don't hide that I like Gabbert, but I also think #1 is just not gonna happen for him. and I'm a bit of a homer for him, but I also recognize he has some serious flaws.

[panthers55]

haha, I was not trying to imply Missouri's offense was some kind of pro-style at all, but they Gabbert DID make more reads than some other spread quarterbacks. As to if he could succeed in our offense or not, I don't know, but I think it is presumptuous to say he couldn't or that Cam Newton would necessarily do better, as both have great arm strength. That's just my opinion, though.

Also, I agree that any quarterback out of this first round is going to need some adjustment (don't they all?) but I'm not certain they will all have the same adjustment time and I'm not sure what the outcome for each of them will be.

I don't hide that I like Gabbert, but I also think #1 is just not gonna happen for him. and I'm a bit of a homer for him, but I also recognize he has some serious flaws.

Some folks think that if we don't draft him at 1 he will be picked up by a team like Buffalo who has continued to ignore the quarterback position despite their difficulties. Fitz would be a good veteran to come in and play while they groom his eventual replacement.

[teeray]

http://www.cornnation.com/2008/10/2/627142/the-spread-offense-why-is

Good article on Missouri's spread offense. It does do more pre-reads than Auburn's does and uses fewer formations. It doesn't use as much hurry up and is distinctly different.

I recognonize isn't comparing apples to apples. I was referring to the basic core principles of the two offenses not the way the offenses were implemented. But I will concede the point and chalk it up as a loss on this debate My apologies.

The point I have been trying to make in regard to Cam though, which I don't think I have articulated very well, is that there are one read then run plays by design with the way Gus ran his offense this year. But that isn't the entire crux of his passing offense.

People were using these designed plays as evidence that Cam either never had to make his way through progressions or chose not to and wasn't patient in the pocket which isn't the case. On his true passing plays he often displayed patience in the pocket and very good pocket presence. He would go through his progressions and make good decisions when he did.

So I think my point was that people were using designed plays as evidence that Cam couldn't read defenses after the ball was snapped. And in addition to that, they were insinuating that the entire pass offense was based in a one read and run concept which it isn't.

I have said from day one that my main concern with Cam wasn't his footwork or ability to read defenses and go through his progressions, it was his ability to pre-read defenses before the snap. That I think he will have to make up the most ground. But that is true of most QB's whether they played in a pro system or not in college.

[panthers55]

I recognonize isn't comparing apples to apples. I was referring to the basic core principles of the two offenses not the way the offenses were implemented. But I will concede the point and chalk it up as a loss on this debate My apologies.

The point I have been trying to make in regard to Cam though, which I don't think I have articulated very well, is that there are one read then run plays by design with the way Gus ran his offense this year. But that isn't the entire crux of his passing offense.

People were using these designed plays as evidence that Cam either never had to make his way through progressions or chose not to and wasn't patient in the pocket which isn't the case. On his true passing plays he often displayed patience in the pocket and very good pocket presence. He would go through his progressions and make good decisions when he did.

So I think my point was that people were using designed plays as evidence that Cam couldn't read defenses after the ball was snapped. And in addition to that, they were insinuating that the entire pass offense was based in a one read and run concept which it isn't.

I have said from day one that my main concern with Cam wasn't his footwork or ability to read defenses and go through his progressions, it was his ability to pre-read defenses before the snap. That I think he will have to make up the most ground. But that is true of most QB's whether they played in a pro system or not in college.

The smartest thing Cam has done is hire a pro style quarterback coach to work with him over the next couple of months. I agree with you that his deficiencies are not the result of a lack of ability but the offense which Auburn ran. But others who say he will have work to do to convert to a prostyle passing attack have a point as well. He isn't as versed as some other draft choices in reading the defense and calling a play accordingly. Perhaps playing in Auburn's system for only 1 year may be a good thing. He won't have to unlearn quite as much. LOL

Newton will be a project but might not be as big a one as some folks think if he can pick things up quickly. As you say, he did a pretty good at avoiding pressure and showed good pocket presence. I am not as worried as some about how he will adjust to the NFL given it was going to take time no matter what system he came out of short of a pro-style one like Luck had. I just don't know what the FO is thinking at this point and whether they will pull the trigger on another quarterback this year after taking Clausen. It is very possible we will pass completely on a Qb. If we do go QB, both Newton and Gabbert would be good choices, IMO.

As for losing the debate, I wish folks would stop looking a this message board as a win/lose proposition. It is a place to share ideas and learn from others who have good knowledge. You have good things to share as do many posters here.

[mav1234]

On that note, P55, I was wondering earlier where Clausen would be ranked in the QBs if he some how managed to cause a time flux and instead had his junior year this year, his sophmore year last year, etc, and was coming out this year...

[panthers55]

On that note, P55, I was wondering earlier where Clausen would be ranked in the QBs if he some how managed to cause a time flux and instead had his junior year this year, his sophmore year last year, etc, and was coming out this year...

Hard to say really. Some guys like Locker and even Gabbert had better junior years than senior ones. With Weiss gone Clausen could have regressed. It will be interesting to see what happens to Luck with Harbaugh gone. He could improve or regress depending on the system the new coach runs.

In the long run Clausen right now is better than he would have been if he were coming out of college. At least he has one pro season under his belt. He could have been drafted higher perhaps. If we used the time continuum theory would that mean next year would have been similar to this year in the pros for him?? You don't want to relive 2010, do you? LOL