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!

     

Charlotte Observer: Fact or Fiction


pantherfan81

Recommended Posts

Cam Newton comes to town this week for the job interview that could make him the first pick in this month's NFL draft.

He'll talk football with the Carolina Panthers, who own that pick, but perhaps as many of the questions will be about off-the-field topics. From controversies at each college stop to scouting reports that border on personal attacks, Newton has always been in the eye of the storm, for reasons that only occasionally involve his play.

The Panthers have to decide if the potential payoff is worth the alleged risk.

"They want to know everything; They want to know who I really am," Newton said when asked what teams want to see when he makes in-house visits. "During this whole process, I've done a lot of explaining of who I really am. And I'm extremely comfortable with that, because I know this is a multi-million dollar investment, and they have to know who they're picking.

"You know, it's fun, and I look forward to talking to team after team about who I really am."

Who that is depends on who you listen to.

Former coaches describe him as a grinder and a leader. Critics call him a thief and a phony. Game tape shows a different kind of athlete, a quarterback who could change the way the position is played.

When he arrives in Charlotte on Tursday, he'll have a chance to state his case, including during a meeting with owner Jerry Richardson.

Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/04/02/2192205/newton-fact-or-fiction.html#ixzz1IPsSp8DZ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I the only one that doesn't see Cam Newton "redefining" the quarterback position, even if he becomes an elite QB?

People have been throwing that idea around for years, and it's never happened. And these days, with the rules changed to heavily favor passing, I strongly doubt that it ever will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are reasons bigger than Cam Newton that are redefining the QB position. In 20 years there will be more Cam Newtons than Andrew Lucks in the NFL. It has a lot more to do with the changes to college football offenses and the willingness or even necessity to have athletes at the QB position.

Even pro style schools like UNC have changed their recruiting to target more athletes at the position.

Pretty soon the NFL will have little choice but to evolve because the amount of classical pocket passers available will be diminished.

20 years ago almost all college QBs were drop back passers. Now they are a rarity.

Even Andrew Luck is a more mobile type QB.

I could write 20 pages on this but I will cut it off there. :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you think that being a mobile QB is somehow redefining the position?

I don't think mobile quarterbacks are redefining the position as much as the position in college is evolving to where the premium is on mobile QBs.

An athlete with Cam Newton's attributes would have never played QB 20 years ago. He would have become a reciever or a TE. Not that he isn't a capable QB but an athlete like that back then would be more beneficial to the team at another position.

But as offenses continue to evolve in college there is more emphasis on athletic QBs. Before long there will be more athletes at QB like Cam than traditional drop back passers like Mallett. I am not implying drop back passers will become obsolete, but there will be less of them bc there is less demand for them in the college game.

Then if Luck busts you will see a big change on how the QB position is evaluated in the future.

Again these are just cliff notes. It would take several pages to make my case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
    • Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...