The 3 No's to Newton

[monstercat]

You know, they did try to run some zone read option when Vick was in Atlanta, which worked for a minute, but they couldn't sustain it. That was only the running game though.

Just imagine how good those teams would have been though, if Vick was working on his game instead of partying and fighting dogs back then. They ran a WCO then just like Philly does today, so we're finally starting to see what could have been.

This is why I believe in Cam. He is showing me that he is willing to work at it, instead of just relying on his God given talent like Vick did for so long. Regardless of what he did in the past, he certainly seems to get it right now, and that's all that matters to me.

[forrest]

Well, the draft is certainly important...realistically rookies won't be much help to Panthers in 2011. Cam Newton--certainly represents the wishes for a transformational miracle to the Panthers--not so much a serious choice. Coaches have the major tree to climb in 2011. Cam Newton won't help.

[grateflday]

Well, the draft is certainly important...realistically rookies won't be much help to Panthers in 2011. Cam Newton--certainly represents the wishes for a transformational miracle to the Panthers--not so much a serious choice. Coaches have the major tree to climb in 2011. Cam Newton won't help.

I dont understand or get this post. You say the draft is important, we can agree on that. The statement rookies wont help much in 2011 is generally true for most rookies drafted any year. Yet you go on to say how they coaches have a major tree to climb in 2011 and that Cam wont help. Yet, you just stated in your post no rookie will help in 2011. So then its irrelevant who they pick because they really only count for the future anyway right??? Well then this team, in desperate need of a QB should be taking a serious look at drafting one.

[Cat'sGrowl]

We aren't drafting Cam Newton. Period.

Unless he slips to the 3rd.

[nationsford]

We aren't drafting Cam Newton. Period.

Unless he slips to the 3rd.

Ron? Hurney? JR?... what make YOU so sure?

[Mvp2014]

I like the kid but reason #1 says it all

[monstercat]

I hope everybody realizes that it's Auburns' problem if the NCAA can prove that they paid Newton's father. No NFL team is gonna pass on a player over that crap if they think he can help them win more games. Reggie Bush says hello.

[blackcatgrowl]

I hope everybody realizes that it's Auburns' problem if the NCAA can prove that they paid Newton's father. No NFL team is gonna pass on a player over that crap if they think he can help them win more games. Reggie Bush says hello.

Given the option of this:

Or this:

Any PRO Football player is going to go with that sweet ass ring and the millions that come with it.

[SorthNarolina]

So what is this franchise going to do?? Depend on just Clausen, and some Veteren out there who is not the long term solution? or maybe trade a bunch more picks for Orton (Whom I dont think Denver will be trading) or Colb??

Eventually every team has to pick a QB in round 1, etc and it is usually going to be a massive risk. I am not saying Newton is the guy, but it would be great if he was. Otherwise we will be having this conversation next season - no matter what.

they can do a mix but going into 2011 with the same QB corp is ridiculous and a rookie QB doesn't fix that. It's still a big question mark, it won't fix it. A Peyton Manning-like rookie year wouldn't stabilize the QB position.

As bad as Clausen played to draft two QBs with your first pick two years in a row is not a good sign of a quality franchise. Need to see if the investment will pay off.

This can be tempered by the fact that we have new coaches so I won't pitch a fit if we draft a QB #1. But it won't stabilize the position at all.

[monstercat]

they can do a mix but going into 2011 with the same QB corp is ridiculous and a rookie QB doesn't fix that. It's still a big question mark, it won't fix it. A Peyton Manning-like rookie year wouldn't stabilize the QB position.

As bad as Clausen played to draft two QBs with your first pick two years in a row is not a good sign of a quality franchise. Need to see if the investment will pay off.

This can be tempered by the fact that we have new coaches so I won't pitch a fit if we draft a QB #1. But it won't stabilize the position at all.

You're right that any rookie, including Andrew Luck, probably won't fix it right away, but how is an aging veteran gonna fix it, when there is no guarantee that he will win any more games, and will have to be replaced in a year or two anyway? At least if we draft a QB, we will have the future taken care of.

[paulSM]

Really!?!?!? Cause that's what happened last time we drafted a QB right? I don't think anybody in this draft would take care of the future for us :eek:

That being said, do we really know if our current QBs are as bad as last year? (aside from pike... he sucks... period). How do we know it wasn't a product of the offense? Our offensive line didn't play all that well even when it was mostly healthy, and we have one of the best collections of O-lines out there. Our RBs didn't perform all that great... sure they were stacked against us, but that didn't stop us two years ago. Maybe our game planning, scouting, play calling, etc. all just sucked from top to bottom. So let's not rule out what we have, especially if the only option is to trust our whole future on one of the dudes in this draft. Maybe an open competition between moore, clausen, and trent edwards wouldn't look too bad in the end. I bet it would look better then Cam newton playing in over his head.

that being said...

[paulSM]

As bad as Clausen played to draft two QBs with your first pick two years in a row is not a good sign of a quality franchise.

Really? does it? I'm not so sure. here's something I posted in a different thread.

Drafting a QB: here's a question for everyone. Since QB has become by far the most important position for winning a championship, and given the apparent randomness of success (anywhere from first to seventh round, etc); should NFL teams without a franchise signal caller simply keep drafting intruiging QBs until they get one that works out. if they get more even better. Kind of like what detroit did with WRs a few years back. So with us, we struck out on pike last year, and probably on clausen. so this year should we draft Newton, Dalton, and somebody in the seventh... and if that doesn't work, try it all over again next year until we get OUR GUY? just a thought

[monstercat]

Really!?!?!? Cause that's what happened last time we drafted a QB right? I don't think anybody in this draft would take care of the future for us :eek:

That being said, do we really know if our current QBs are as bad as last year? (aside from pike... he sucks... period). How do we know it wasn't a product of the offense? Our offensive line didn't play all that well even when it was mostly healthy, and we have one of the best collections of O-lines out there. Our RBs didn't perform all that great... sure they were stacked against us, but that didn't stop us two years ago. Maybe our game planning, scouting, play calling, etc. all just sucked from top to bottom. So let's not rule out what we have, especially if the only option is to trust our whole future on one of the dudes in this draft. Maybe an open competition between moore, clausen, and trent edwards wouldn't look too bad in the end. I bet it would look better then Cam newton playing in over his head.

that being said...

So we should just give up on drafting QB's because one of them may not work out?

[paulSM]

So we should just give up on drafting QB's because one of them may not work out?

No, I wouldn't use my #1 on any of them though. I would have used it on Luck without thinking twice. If you read my next post you'd know that I think stocking up on QB prospects (any round as long as their talent dictates their postision, not the lack of other prospects talent) might be a good idea.