Cam Newton will not consistently be great IMO

[NinerSickness]

So here's my take on Cam Newton:

QBs wgo rely heavily on running but aren't extremely accurate passers sometimes look unstoppable, but it never lasts. Vince Young made the probowl his rookie year too (which wass stupid), but the NFL eventually saw he wasn't a very good passer.

Like Michael Vick, Cam Newton will look amazing at times, and he'll get a bunch of hype because he'll have a great highlight reel. However, I don't see him developing into an extremely cool, accuarate QB like Roethlisberger or Eli. I just see him as a bigger Michael Vick, and Vick is not a great QB. He had one great season (like McNabb & Randal Cunningham did), but he's never been a great pure passer, which is why his play is so up and down.

This isn't to say he'll be ab bust like I thought he'd be (it's still possible, but it's ont likely). Cam actually had a lot of talent on offense last season, and I agree with Alex that total yards in a season is a very unimportant stat. I think YPA and interception percentage are much more important. I don't think TD percentage is as important as the other two things; I think it's more important to look points per drive. That says more about the QB's performance than TD percentage IMO. Obviously that depends heavily on the 11 offensive players, but so does everything else. Completion percentage is important too, but a high completion percentage and a low YPA just says you're checking down a lot.


There's only been one guy who's ever been both a consistently great passer and runner, and we all know who that is. It rhymes with Sleve Tongue (no, not Matt Williams). The closest thing we've seen to him so far is actually Aaron Rogers.

 

[NinerSickness]

And before anyone says, "It's too early to tell" or "He's only been playing 1 year" or something to that effect, I'm just making a prediction. He just doesn't seem like an extremely efficient, accurate passer to me. The bar for a great QB is extremely high.

 

[threelittleturds]

I disagree. For an offense to go from 32nd 32nd to 5th/7th... the QB is the difference.

And saying Rodgers is closest we've seen of Steve Young... not only no, but Fuck No.

That dude only gains yards because the WRs clear out the middle of the field and he gets to run 15-20 yards and then slide... that sure doesn't conjure up images of Steve Young to me...

 

[wartyOne]

So here's my take on Cam Newton:

QBs wgo rely heavily on running but aren't extremely accurate passers sometimes look unstoppable, but it never lasts. Vince Young made the probowl his rookie year too (which wass stupid), but the NFL eventually saw he wasn't a very good passer.

Like Michael Vick, Cam Newton will look amazing at times, and he'll get a bunch of hype because he'll have a great highlight reel. However, I don't see him developing into an extremely cool, accuarate QB like Roethlisberger or Eli. I just see him as a bigger Michael Vick, and Vick is not a great QB. He had one great season (like McNabb & Randal Cunningham did), but he's never been a great pure passer, which is why his play is so up and down.

This isn't to say he'll be ab bust like I thought he'd be (it's still possible, but it's ont likely). Cam actually had a lot of talent on offense last season, and I agree with Alex that total yards in a season is a very unimportant stat. I think YPA and interception percentage are much more important. I don't think TD percentage is as important as the other two things; I think it's more important to look points per drive. That says more about the QB's performance than TD percentage IMO. Obviously that depends heavily on the 11 offensive players, but so does everything else. Completion percentage is important too, but a high completion percentage and a low YPA just says you're checking down a lot.


There's only been one guy who's ever been both a consistently great passer and runner, and we all know who that is. It rhymes with Sleve Tongue (no, not Matt Williams). The closest thing we've seen to him so far is actually Aaron Rogers.

Didn't he break Peyton Manning's rookie PASSING record?

 

[NinerSickness]

I disagree. For an offense to go from 32nd 32nd to 5th/7th... the QB is the difference.

Ok this is the Peyton VS Curtis Painter aguement. Yes, the QB is the difference. However, we're not comparing him to great QBs here. We're comparing him to the worst QB in the history of universe: Jimmy Clausen.

And saying Rodgers is closest we've seen of Steve Young... not only no, but Fuck No. That dude only gains yards because the WRs clear out the middle of the field and he gets to run 15-20 yards and then slide... that sure doesn't conjure up images of Steve Young to me...

I didn't say he was as good as Young in either aspect of the game. I said he was probably the closest thing the NFL's seen to him since because he's a QB who can run very well but is primarily a great passer. Running QBs Vick, Vince Young & McNabb were not those things. And the great QBs since Young, for the most part, have not been great runners (Peyton, Brady, Warner, Brees, Rivers, Roethlisberger, Eli, etc).

Didn't he break Peyton Manning's rookie PASSING record?

This is where I agree with Alex. Total passing yards don't tell very much (especially comparing them statically; 4000 passing yards in a season isn't what it used to be). If total yards meant good play then Bledsoe would've been a great QB and Favre & Marino would be top 2 all time. He had a great rookie year. Granted. I still don't see him as an extremely accurate, cool, efficient passer. A good passer? At this point I'd have to say he probably will be. Great? I don't see it. I see much more Michael Vick in him than Ben Roethlisberger (despite the size similarity / disparity). He'll probably have 1 or 2 AMAZING seasons like Steve McNair did though.

 

[threelittleturds]

My comparison had nothing to do with Manning and Painter...

It had to do with the 2010 Panthers being 32/32 in offense... and the 2011 Panters being 5/7

Cam is the obvious difference.

 

[NinerSickness]

My comparison had nothing to do with Manning and Painter...

It had to do with the 2010 Panthers being 32/32 in offense... and the 2011 Panters being 5/7

Cam is the obvious difference.

I know your comparison had nothing to do with Peyton & Painter. My original point was that I don't think Cam will be a GREAT QB. My secondary point was that a lot of QBs could have done drastically better than Jimmy Clausen. Clausen is the worst QB in the NFL; hense the Peyton VS Painter analogy. People were saying how important Peyton was because of how bad they were without him. However, they replaced him with QBs who didn't even belong in the NFL. Painter & Collins would've made Tim Rattay look great. The same principle is true with Clausen.

 

[Jikkle]

The concern with Cam like with all QBs in the Vick/Young mold is they rely too much on their athleticism and ability to run to help set up their passing.

That style works on average and bad defenses but once you get to the playoffs you'll start seeing elite defenses where athleticism alone isn't going to beat them. To beat the top defenses in the league you need to be excellent in reading defenses and making good decisions and you need to be very accurate in your passing.

This will be a good year to get a good feel if Cam is legit or not because now defenses will have some decent tape on him and overall will be in better shape than the lockout shorter offseason of last year.

I'm leaning on him being a regular season killer that beats up poor defenses but come playoff time will maybe win one and face a great defense and be ousted.

 

[clyde_carbon]

This is where I agree with Alex. Total passing yards don't tell very much (especially comparing them statically; 4000 passing yards in a season isn't what it used to be). If total yards meant good play then Bledsoe would've been a great QB and Favre & Marino would be top 2 all time. He had a great rookie year. Granted. I still don't see him as an extremely accurate, cool, efficient passer. A good passer? At this point I'd have to say he probably will be. Great? I don't see it. I see much more Michael Vick in him than Ben Roethlisberger (despite the size similarity / disparity). He'll probably have 1 or 2 AMAZING seasons like Steve McNair did though.

Actually, some people do consider Peyton and Marino as the top-2 QBs of all time. It's all opinion and what people place value on more.

And the notion that passing yards don't tell much is ridiculous. More passing yards = more opportunities for points. A QB with less passing yards is giving his team less chances to score points than a QB with more passing yards.

 

[NinerSickness]

Actually, some people do consider Peyton and Marino as the top-2 QBs of all time. It's all opinion and what people place value on more.

Peyton I can see. Marino? That's just dumb IMO. I know everyone is entitled to his opinion, but that doens't mean some opinions aren't stupid.

And the notion that passing yards don't tell much is ridiculous. More passing yards = more opportunities for points. A QB with less passing yards is giving his team less chances to score points than a QB with more passing yards.

Wrong. More passing yards, a lot of times, means you have a bad defense (see Alex's example). If you're down by double digits for the majority of the game, you're going to pass a lot more. The reverse is true as well. If a QB's defense holds a team to one score all game, that team's QB isn't going to throw the ball very much. They're going to run the ball, especially with a big lead, in order to run the clock out.

Total yards means very little. Efficiency is everything.

 

[deep9er]

what are the parameters for "consistently great"? i'm assuming the emphasis is on 'consistent' as opposed to 'great'?

is Brady consistently great? Peyton? Brees?

 

[NinerSickness]

is Brady consistently great? Peyton? Brees?

Yes, yes and yes.

Vick is not. McNair was not. Cunningham was not.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

I disagree. For an offense to go from 32nd 32nd to 5th/7th... the QB is the difference.

And saying Rodgers is closest we've seen of Steve Young... not only no, but Fuck No.

That dude only gains yards because the WRs clear out the middle of the field and he gets to run 15-20 yards and then slide... that sure doesn't conjure up images of Steve Young to me...

Obviously Newton was the driving force in their improvement, but they also saw upgrades at RB (Williams was healthy), WR (Naane wasn't great, but better than Gettis; Steve Smith was healthy), and a significant upgrade at TE (Olsen and Shockey combined to be a pretty darn good TE combo).

I think Sick raises an interesting point. I haven't seen much of Newton, and don't have a strong argument, but the examples he cites are relevant. Teams often struggle to contain particularly mobile QBs early in their careers. However, as the league adjusts to those guys, they can struggle if their passing skills can't elevate their play. It will be interesting to see what happens with Newton. Will teams catch up to him, or will he continue to hone his skills? Based purely on his game logs, it appears that by the end of the season he was playing smart football and the team was improving.

 

[deep9er]

Yes, yes and yes.

Vick is not. McNair was not. Cunningham was not.

ok, so it essentially means "H-O-F", and what percentage of QB's make the H-O-F?

by saying Newton won't be a hall-of-famer, is that saying much?

 

[Bamabino]

He's the Camdingo. Of course he's a stud.

 

[CalamityX11]

What happens if Newton posts average #s next year? does it reflect him or the defeneses now properly defending him?

We'll see what year 2 will do for the Fantasy playmaker...

 

[wartyOne]

Peyton I can see. Marino? That's just dumb IMO. I know everyone is entitled to his opinion, but that doens't mean some opinions aren't stupid.



Wrong. More passing yards, a lot of times, means you have a bad defense (see Alex's example). If you're down by double digits for the majority of the game, you're going to pass a lot more. The reverse is true as well. If a QB's defense holds a team to one score all game, that team's QB isn't going to throw the ball very much. They're going to run the ball, especially with a big lead, in order to run the clock out.

Total yards means very little. Efficiency is everything.

For a rookie, he was more than efficient enough. He probably would have thrown for 40 TD's if he hadn't run for so many.

I'm willing to let this one play itself out, but I think putting Newton in the same vein of passer as Vick is just flatly wrong. Vick in a hundred years won't be the passer that Newton is. In fact, Vick in his BEST year was only marginally better than Newton in his rookie year.

Mandatory llama -

 

[RobertPhD01]

Interesting discussion, Vick of course is very athletic he ran a 4.3 40 and can throw the ball about 80 yards downfield. His problem has been staying on the field over the years. Newton is 6'5 and also very athletic, so far he has impressed with his arm and has done very well running. Griffen is in the middle of this group for size but is a hurdler and can run 4.3 40. I think that the potential for each one will be determined as to whom they are throwing to, whom they hand the ball off to, and their blocking. Of course we want all of them to stay on the field and show their skills! Go 49ers!!

 

[NinerSickness]

For a rookie, he was more than efficient enough.

True. He had a great rookie year. I'll give him that.

 

[CalamityX11]

stats wise, very hard to think of a better year for a rookie QB.