PDA

View Full Version : Football If you could mold your team around one of these quarterbacks, which would you take?


Deberg_1990
02-17-2012, 09:08 AM
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2012/02/would-you-take-cam-newton-or-andrew-luck-mike-mayock-gives-his-answer/1




You're an NFL GM. Your offense is stocked with good players ... except one. You need a quarterback.

So we're giving you the choice of the first QBs selected in the past four drafts or the one expected to go first overall two months from now.
Who do you take?



•Matt Ryan: Going into Year 5, he's been solid if rarely spectacular for the Falcons. There's little question about the dedication, intelligence or leadership of the one-time Pro Bowler. Ryan boasts a 43-19 (.694) regular-season record highlighted by efficient play (88.4 career passer rating), but he's notably gone 0-3 in the playoffs, a stark contrast to 2008 draftmate Joe Flacco.

•Matthew Stafford: Finally healthy for a full season in 2011, his abilities were showcased for all to see as he became the fourth player in league history to pass for 5,000 yards in a season while leading the Lions to their first playoff berth since 1999. Is this the rule or the exception for a player who missed 19 games in his first two seasons.

•Sam Bradford: His 2010 rookie year was one of the best ever by an NFL freshman quarterback, though it may be relegated to the shadows given what Cam Newton did in 2011. Bradford struggled in '11 with a new offensive coordinator, injuries and a lack of weapons. Expect him to have more support and better health in 2012, though he will have to learn a third playbook. But we're betting he reverts to his rookie of the year form.

•Newton: Wow. Dissected and pureed physically and psychologically prior to the 2011 draft, he broke from the gate with arguably the finest campaign every by a rookie signal caller. Is the 6-6, 250-pound, rocket-armed, 16-cylinder Newton the template of the 21st-century quarterback?

•Andrew Luck: Much buzz to fulfill. The next Elway? The next Peyton? Even better? If he reaches that level in the NFL, how do you not pick him?
The Huddle posed this choice Wednesday to NFL Network chief draft analyst Mike Mayock, a man whose opinion we greatly respect.



"It would be really hard to put Andrew Luck up there (with the others)," said Mayock. "I'll probably go with the known commodities."

He ceded that Stafford and Bradford both need to prove they can avoid injuries and that Ryan "needs to take the next step."

"Cam Newton had a year that was mind-boggling," Mayock added. He wants to see Newton continue to work hard while wondering "how well will NFL defenses adapt to what Carolina did?"

Mayock said Luck's passion for football rivals any of the game's current greats, but he's reluctant to put his abilities on the same level with Peyton Manning or Tom Brady.

"I don't put (Luck) up there as a once-in-a-lifetime guy," said Mayock, letting some air out of the hype balloon that's inflated around the Stanford star.

But ... Mayock did admit he'd take Luck ahead of Newton if forced to pick.

And you?

Dr. Gigglepants
02-17-2012, 09:10 AM
$cam baybay!
Posted via Mobile Device

KILLER_CLOWN
02-17-2012, 09:12 AM
I'll take Luck over Cassel any day of the week, This should not be in doubt.

Fairplay
02-17-2012, 09:14 AM
I would guess that Luck should win this.

However i am a Sam Bradford fan. He just needs a better team around him to
make a name for himself.

Deberg_1990
02-17-2012, 09:15 AM
I would guess that Luck should win this.



You would take Luck over proven commodities? Its an interesting dilemma.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-17-2012, 09:16 AM
I would guess that Luck should win this.

However i am a Sam Bradford fan. He just needs a better team around him to
make a name for himself.

He should be traded to the Chiefs then, 1 for 1 Cassel for Bradford.

Dayze
02-17-2012, 09:17 AM
Cam

I didn't pick Luck because I haven't seen anything from him in the NFL yet.
of the others, I'd take Cam any day of the week. Followed by Stafford, Ryan, and Bradford.

Sofa King
02-17-2012, 09:18 AM
You would take Luck over proven commodities? Its an interesting dilemma.

Who's proven what exactly?

Stafford is very good, but injury prone.

Ryan has had a very good team around him, and hasn't got it done.

Bradford hasn't done shit.

Newton was great last year, we'll see how he progresses.

Luck is totally unproven but has tremendous upside.

Chiefnj2
02-17-2012, 09:22 AM
What Newton did with limited talent around him was amazing.

oldandslow
02-17-2012, 09:32 AM
Stafford...that team is gonna be winning everything before very long

lcarus
02-17-2012, 09:42 AM
I'd take any one of them over what we have, but I went with Luck. So many skills. It would be a shocker to me if he didn't do well.

suds79
02-17-2012, 09:48 AM
I don't understand how Cam isn't winning this. Maybe Stafford but Luck? He hasn't played a single down in the NFL yet.

People talk about the adjustments RG3 will have to make on the next level. How about Luck?

- He comes from a power running game offense where he was set up with 2nd & 5s all day long
- Their offense made for an easy & effective play action game

Now he'll be coming to a team where he'll be throwing it twice as much from spread formations and he'll be the first option on his team.

No, the so called "best QB prospect since John Elway" came out last year. His name is Cam Newton.

KevB
02-17-2012, 09:52 AM
I went Stafford on the basis that the op states the offense is loaded with talent. Put talent around Stafford and he's a monster. If you told me you were building a team from scratch, I'd go Newton. I think he's more capable of carrying an offense with limited talent.

Bump
02-17-2012, 10:08 AM
What Newton did with limited talent around him was amazing.

But he's just another Mike Vick, you know....because he's black

/cp

cdcox
02-17-2012, 10:08 AM
Maylock didn't state a clear pick but from what he did say, his order is something like this:

1. Stafford (injury prone)
2. Bradford (injury prone)
3. Ryan (needs to take the next step)
4. Luck (not as good as the proven commodities)
5. Newton (would take Luck before Newton)

bevischief
02-17-2012, 10:52 AM
Newton.

Chiefnj2
02-17-2012, 11:18 AM
But he's just another Mike Vick, you know....because he's black

/cp

I can't fathom why anyone wouldn't take Newton.

2010 Panthers - All QB's
52.9 %, 2,635 yards, 9 TD, 21 INT, 5.4 y/a and 50 sacks.

2011 Cam Newton
60%, 4,051 yards, 21 TD, 17 INT, 7.8 y/a and 35 sacks.

Strike shortened season with essentially the same team and the productivity jump is amazing. Plus 14 rushing TDs. Jamaal Charles' career high is 7.


I'm beginning to wonder if RGIII was white and went to USC if people would think differently of him.

Old Dog
02-17-2012, 11:27 AM
Luck
Stafford
Newton
Ryan
Bradford

Okie_Apparition
02-17-2012, 11:30 AM
The unknown & the 1 year guy is beating out the more experienced
We learned something today

ChiefsNow
02-17-2012, 11:46 AM
Newton was impressive, No telling on Luck.

smittysbar
02-17-2012, 11:51 AM
Stafford is the real deal

BoneKrusher
02-17-2012, 12:14 PM
Newton

Pioli Zombie
02-17-2012, 12:41 PM
How the fuck does anybody pick Luck, a guy who is the latest can't miss guy, over Stafford, who just passed for 5,000 yards and has the look of a guy who is poised to take the Lions to the Super Bowl as early as next year?

Psyko Tek
02-17-2012, 06:13 PM
I went for newton
think if he keeps it together he can own the league
Stafford is also a good pick
I would take any over what we have

BigMeatballDave
02-17-2012, 06:17 PM
I love Matt Stafford, but his injuries bother me.

I voted Luck.

notorious
02-17-2012, 06:21 PM
Newton.

jd1020
02-17-2012, 06:22 PM
Its hard not to like what Newton can bring and what he brought for at least 1 season.

Gotta go with Newton on this one.

Stafford has a pretty long injury history.
Bradford and been trash.
Ryan has been the opposite of Sanchez... good in the regular season, trash in the post season.
Luck isn't even in the NFL yet.

DJ's left nut
02-17-2012, 06:35 PM
Stafford.

There's no better arm in the league, IMO and his decisionmaking improves every game. Yeah, he's had a couple of injuries, but he's strong as an ox and ultimately I don't see any reason to believe those were more than mere flukes. His body is built to handle the abuse.

Everyone love's Luck, but Stafford's physical abilities are even better and it's not as though he's a drooling imbicil out there. You have to love what Newton did last season, but I still worry about QBs that like to run; just how long is their shelf life? Additionally, that's a different animal to build a team around - not a lot of teams have won big around running QBs. Call me old fashioned, but I still like my gunslinging pocket-passers.

Stafford
Luck
Newton
Bradford (higher ceiling than Ryan, IMO)
Ryan (a true 'game manager' as opposed to just the label people tend to put on shitty QBs)

WhiteWhale
02-17-2012, 06:37 PM
Newton. He's the youngest and the best athlete. He did just have the best rookie season any QB has ever had in the history of the NFL.

I think Ryan is over-rated (he's good, don't get me wrong). It was nice to see Stafford stay healthy for a change, but that's still concerning. Bradford was awful last year. Andrew Luck, as of now, is still just a hyped up prospect.

I'd take Stafford easily if not for the injury history. His arm is incredible.

WhiteWhale
02-17-2012, 06:38 PM
Stafford.

There's no better arm in the league, IMO and his decisionmaking improves every game. Yeah, he's had a couple of injuries, but he's strong as an ox and ultimately I don't see any reason to believe those were more than mere flukes. His body is built to handle the abuse.

Everyone love's Luck, but Stafford's physical abilities are even better and it's not as though he's a drooling imbicil out there. You have to love what Newton did last season, but I still worry about QBs that like to run; just how long is their shelf life? Additionally, that's a different animal to build a team around - not a lot of teams have won big around running QBs. Call me old fashioned, but I still like my gunslinging pocket-passers.

Stafford
Luck
Newton
Bradford (higher ceiling than Ryan, IMO)
Ryan (a true 'game manager' as opposed to just the label people tend to put on shitty QBs)

QB's that like to run? Like Steve Young and John Elway?

He's not a running QB. He's a QB that can run.

kysirsoze
02-17-2012, 06:43 PM
I went with Luck, but it was a close race with Newton. It's a total win-win, though. I just worry that NFL defenses will figure Newton out. Luck looks like he could step in to some more proven NFL offensive approaches and thrive. Newton could easily end up being the better of the two, though.

DJ's left nut
02-17-2012, 06:43 PM
QB's that like to run? Like Steve Young and John Elway?

Young's career ended because of concussions, no? Oh, and he ran about 60% as often as Newton did last year in his best season as a rusher. For the most part he averaged right at 60 rushes/season, going over 70 twice.

Elway only rushed the ball more than 60 times once. Newton did twice that this season.

No, neither Steve Young or John Elway qualify as 'running' QBs. Try again.

Newton ran the ball 1/4 as often as he threw it - that means he would've tucked the ball and run at least once on any average sustained drive. Yeah, I'd say that's a quarterback that likes to run the football.

Gadzooks
02-17-2012, 06:50 PM
You have to love what Newton did last season, but I still worry about QBs that like to run

You consider him a running QB because he's black.
http://static.fjcdn.com/gifs/THAT_a49cdb_65476.gif

DJ's left nut
02-17-2012, 07:00 PM
You consider him a running QB because he's black.
http://static.fjcdn.com/gifs/THAT_a49cdb_65476.gif

8 carries/gm is a damn running QB.

Tim Tebow, the patron saint of running QBs, the guy that ran the MFing option for crying out loud, ran the ball just a hair under nine times/game. So a guy that everyone said was essentially a fullback taking the snap ran the ball only slightly more often than Newton. He ran the ball more than twice as often last season than the original running QB - Fran Tarkenton - did in his most prolific rushing season. Randall Cunningham - the undisputed King of running QBs never ran the ball as many times in a season as Newton did last year. MICHEAL VICK never has never had as many rushing attempts as Cam Newton had last season.

Cam Newton's a running quarterback. People desperately want this to be a racial thing but it isn't. He's a running quarterback because he runs - not because he's black. Put him alongside every other 'running' quarterback in NFL history and his carries/gm compare favorably.

He can also throw the ball, but he's still a guy that's going to get hit 100 more times than a pocket passer. He's a running quarterback.

jd1020
02-17-2012, 07:03 PM
8 carries/gm is a damn running QB.

Its a shame. If he wasn't running 8 times a game he could have set a record for rookie passing yards.

DJ's left nut
02-17-2012, 07:05 PM
Its a shame. If he wasn't running 8 times a game he could have set a record for rookie passing yards.

Maybe - but his legs set up a lot of the downfield passes he completed.

He's a hell of a quarterback - but that's 100 more times/season that he's going to get hit than a pocket-passer and right now NFL defenses are putting targets on these guys anytime they get a good look at them. As it becomes more and more difficult to hit a QB in the pocket or defend their WRs downfield, teams are going to be more and more focused on drilling those guys any chance they get a clean look.

When the QB is in the open field, there's no better time to blast them.

jd1020
02-17-2012, 07:07 PM
I think a 250lb QB can take a hit from a 230lb LB.

Easy 6
02-17-2012, 07:12 PM
Dont care what people say, i'm taking Bradford.

He's in a shit football town on a bad football team, the guy can hit every single throw with accuracy, force & touch... put him in Detroit & his completion percentage would be five points higher than Stafford.

WhiteWhale
02-17-2012, 07:13 PM
Young's career ended because of concussions, no? Oh, and he ran about 60% as often as Newton did last year in his best season as a rusher. For the most part he averaged right at 60 rushes/season, going over 70 twice.

Elway only rushed the ball more than 60 times once. Newton did twice that this season.

No, neither Steve Young or John Elway qualify as 'running' QBs. Try again.

Newton ran the ball 1/4 as often as he threw it - that means he would've tucked the ball and run at least once on any average sustained drive. Yeah, I'd say that's a quarterback that likes to run the football.

Look, I get what you're saying but 'running QB's' don't throw for 4000 yards. He can and does run. I'm not disputing that. He can also sling it from the pocket. You make him sound one dimensional.

DJ's left nut
02-17-2012, 07:21 PM
I think a 250lb QB can take a hit from a 230lb LB.

Nah, bigger players never get hit by smaller players that are using themselves as projectiles or anything. They never get rolled on when they're in a pile or smoked when they're sliding or otherwise giving themselves up. Afterall, being 250 lbs is going to make up for a helmet to helmet collision (legal when he's on the run, as long as it's not a spear).

It take one awkward hit to end him for a season and you have no problem with the fact that he's subjecting himself to 100 more of them?

He's exposing himself to a hell of a lot of risk by how he plays the game.

jd1020
02-17-2012, 07:23 PM
Nah, bigger players never get hit by smaller players that are using themselves as projectiles or anything. They never get rolled on when they're in a pile or smoked when they're sliding or otherwise giving themselves up. Afterall, being 250 lbs is going to make up for a helmet to helmet collision (legal when he's on the run, as long as it's not a spear).

It take one awkward hit to end him for a season and you have no problem with the fact that he's subjecting himself to 100 more of them?

He's exposing himself to a hell of a lot of risk by how he plays the game.

Boring.

If only Brady would have stayed in the pocket he wouldn't have been injured for the season and the Chiefs might not have traded for Cassel.

Newton is built like a FB and passed for a rookie record. So your claim of him being a running QB is fucking retarded.

jspchief
02-17-2012, 07:24 PM
Nah, bigger players never get hit by smaller players that are using themselves as projectiles or anything. They never get rolled on when they're in a pile or smoked when they're sliding or otherwise giving themselves up. Afterall, being 250 lbs is going to make up for a helmet to helmet collision (legal when he's on the run, as long as it's not a spear).

It take one awkward hit to end him for a season and you have no problem with the fact that he's subjecting himself to 100 more of them?

He's exposing himself to a hell of a lot of risk by how he plays the game.

Agree. It's not about his ability to pass. Its how much danger he exposes himself to.

WhiteWhale
02-17-2012, 07:25 PM
Nah, bigger players never get hit by smaller players that are using themselves as projectiles or anything. They never get rolled on when they're in a pile or smoked when they're sliding or otherwise giving themselves up. Afterall, being 250 lbs is going to make up for a helmet to helmet collision (legal when he's on the run, as long as it's not a spear).

It take one awkward hit to end him for a season and you have no problem with the fact that he's subjecting himself to 100 more of them?

He's exposing himself to a hell of a lot of risk by how he plays the game.

QB's get hit a lot when you drop them back over 600 times a season. The number will likely go down when he's not carrying the whole team on his back. "Running Qb" indicates he's a one dimensional player.

jd1020
02-17-2012, 07:32 PM
How many of Newtons runs were caused by a collapsed pocket in which most any other QB gets flushed and throws the ball away?

Having a QB who can throw the ball and have the athleticism to make something out of a broken play... devastating.

Dr. Gigglepants
02-17-2012, 07:59 PM
Stafford can definitely have a good/great career. I just think 20 years from now were going to be talking about Cam in the same way we now talk about Barry Sanders. A special player.
Posted via Mobile Device

Gadzooks
02-17-2012, 10:05 PM
8 carries/gm is a damn running QB.

Tim Tebow, the patron saint of running QBs, the guy that ran the MFing option for crying out loud, ran the ball just a hair under nine times/game. So a guy that everyone said was essentially a fullback taking the snap ran the ball only slightly more often than Newton. He ran the ball more than twice as often last season than the original running QB - Fran Tarkenton - did in his most prolific rushing season. Randall Cunningham - the undisputed King of running QBs never ran the ball as many times in a season as Newton did last year. MICHEAL VICK never has never had as many rushing attempts as Cam Newton had last season.

Cam Newton's a running quarterback. People desperately want this to be a racial thing but it isn't. He's a running quarterback because he runs - not because he's black. Put him alongside every other 'running' quarterback in NFL history and his carries/gm compare favorably.

He can also throw the ball, but he's still a guy that's going to get hit 100 more times than a pocket passer. He's a running quarterback.

I was j/k aboot the racist thing.
Tebow ran the ball 9x every fourth quarter when God flicked the switch. The fact is, Newton plays on a shitty team a shitty OL and shitty WRs. When all options were unavailable and the pocket closed he ran. The guy's passing stats prove that he's passing QB and the fact that he can turn something out of nothing with a run is merely a bonus.

keg in kc
02-17-2012, 10:19 PM
Newton's not a running quarterback so much as a quarterback who can run. There is a difference. Full disclosure, I didn't think that he was coming out of college, and I didn't think he should have gone number one a year ago, but the reality is that he's shown himself to be way more as a pro than I ever expected.

The "Tebow runs slightly more" argument only (sort-of but not really) works if you disregard how many times Newton passed the ball. That being 517 times, or 32.3 times/game. Whereas Tebow threw it 261 times in 11 starts, meaning 23.7 times/start.

Tebow was basically another running back in the backfield for a team whose entire offense was centered around running the ball (546 rushes/429 passes for the year). Whereas the Panthers passed more than they ran (445 rushes/519 passes), and Newton completed 60% of his passes for more than 4000 yards at a very respectable 7.8 yards/attempt.

Those numbers are no joke...

And right now, he would be the guy I'd build around. He could be a generational player.

But it's one of those things where the answer will probably change annually. 12 months ago I probably would have said Bradford.

DJ's left nut
02-17-2012, 10:33 PM
Newton's not a running quarterback so much as a quarterback who can run.

You have to love what Newton did last season, but I still worry about QBs that like to run

I don't really see a distinction here.

But idiots like jd that are incapable of actually parsing through a discussion without going to the "you said something different than me, so you're a fucking retard" well seem to have a basic reading comprehension problem.

A 'running quarterback' is a quarterback that runs. Jerry Rice was a deep threat; but he was a hell of a lot more than Alvin Harper. Adrian Peterson is a power running back - but he can also hit the seam and go for 80. Tony Gonzalez was a pass-catching TE, but also seen as an excellent blocker. Being one thing does not even begin to preclude being more than just that one thing.

Cam Newton ran the ball more frequently than Michael Vick, Randall Cunningham or any of the rest of the 'run-first' quarterbacks. He is unquestionably a quarterback that 'likes to run' with the football. It's not just that he had a shitty team around him; lots of quarterbacks have had shitty teams around them that didn't run the ball 126 times. Does that mean he's incapable of passing? Oh hell no, that much is clear. But he is absolutely a running quarterback.

I'm not sure what is so difficult to grasp about this.

jd1020
02-17-2012, 10:37 PM
But idiots like jd that are incapable of actually parsing through a discussion without going to the "you said something different than me, so you're a ****ing retard" well seem to have a basic reading comprehension problem.

Nah. You are an idiot because you are incapable of seeing how good Newton is as a passer and continue to brand him as a "running QB."

You can't comprehend that Newton just broke records as a PASSER.

You are worried about Newton getting injured as a "runner" and want to build around a "passer" who's been injured his entire career.

32 ppg vs 8 rpg = Run first............................................................................................... ........................................................................

DJ's left nut
02-17-2012, 10:44 PM
Nah. You are an idiot because you are incapable of seeing how good Newton is as a passer and continue to brand him as a "running QB."

You can't comprehend that Newton just broke records as a PASSER.

You are worried about Newton getting injured as a "runner" and want to build around a "passer" who's been injured his entire career.

32 ppg vs 8 rpg = Run first./

Present it, shithead. Show me a single time I've belittled Cam Newton as a passer.

I have twice referred to him as a good passer. Never once have I knocked his ability to throw the football. I am well aware that he's a good passing quarterback.

I've said only that I prefer pocket passers for health reasons. The fact is that the kid is going to get hit a LOT more than a conventional passer because he runs the football. If you need me to type out "he's a quarterback that runs the football" everytime instead of "he's a running quarterback", I can do that for you. Alas, I thought perhaps you had the critical thinking skills of a house-cat. It appears I was mistaken in that impression.

EDIT: Caught your edit - once again; present a single time I've said he was a run-first quarterback. The fact that you're now having to simply re-label what I've said to fit your dipshit 'argument' is concession enough that you never truly had a point to begin with. You have a reading comprehension issue as well as a complete inability to defend a stated position. As such, rather than retreat from your bullshit, you're simply attempting to change my argument in an attempt to force me to defend a position I've never actually taken. It's a nice trick...if you're debating a 6 year-old.

jd1020
02-17-2012, 10:47 PM
I've said only that I prefer pocket passers for health reasons. The fact is that the kid is going to get hit a LOT more than a conventional passer because he runs the football. If you need me to type out "he's a quarterback that runs the football" everytime instead of "he's a running quarterback", I can do that for you. Alas, I thought perhaps you had the critical thinking skills of a house-cat. It appears I was mistaken in that impression.

Stafford has been the model of health.

jd1020
02-17-2012, 10:50 PM
Cam Newton ran the ball more frequently than Michael Vick, Randall Cunningham or any of the rest of the 'run-first' quarterbacks.

What are you calling him?

He's a QB that ran more than other 'run-first' QB's. So what does that make Newton?

DJ's left nut
02-17-2012, 10:53 PM
What are you calling him?

"the rest of the run first quarterbacks" would be the people that I am comparing him to, sport.

He ran more than....<list>

I then further stated the position that he is a 'quarterback that likes to run' in the very next sentence.

See how that works? Expressio unius est exclusio alterius; if I wanted him in the list, I'd have included him in the list - not set him against it.

Once again, you have a fundamental reading comprehension problem that seems to make you really suck at this 'debate' thing.

jd1020
02-17-2012, 10:56 PM
Once again, you have a fundamental reading comprehension problem that seems to make you really suck at this 'debate' thing.

You are really good at this whole debate thing as well...

Give me the guy that took 3 years to finish 1 complete season because he's more healthy than the 'runner' who completed his first full season in year 1 and broke records in the process.

Stellar, bro. Just... Stellar.

EDIT: He also threw for more yards on average than your healthy pocket passer who likes to pass first.

DJ's left nut
02-17-2012, 10:59 PM
What are you calling him?

He's a QB that ran more than other 'run-first' QB's. So what does that make Newton?

Again - saw your edit

You're undercutting your own position here. Do you deny that any of the other QBs on that list are run-first QBs? I doubt it. So if you are trying to say that by making the statement that he ran as much as the other 'run-first' QBs means that I am saying he's a run first QB...well aren't you stuck in the same situation? Afterall, was anything I said in that exchange actually incorrect? If that sentence creates a absolute presumption from you that I'm claiming that he's a run-first quarterback, then aren't you really the one saying it? Afterall, all I gave you were numbers and names.

The facts are the facts. The quarterbacks I listed were unquestionably run-first QBs. He ran more than they did. Now if I wanted to include him in that group, I'd have done it. But the fact that I expressly stated he was something other than that group makes my point quite clear.

keg in kc
02-17-2012, 11:05 PM
Cam Newton ran the ball more frequently than Michael VickThat's true for 2011, but it wouldn't be true for any other season in Vick's career:

Newton 643 total plays, 126 runs (<20%)

Vick
2011 499 total plays, 76 runs (15.2%)
2010 472 total plays, 100 runs (21.2%)
2006 511 total plays, 123 runs (24.1%)
2005 489 total plays, 102 runs (20.9%)
2004 441 total plays, 120 runs (27.2%)
2002 534 total plays, 113 runs (21.2%)

So if we're talking gross number of runs, then, yes, Newton ran more times, but he didn't run as often, aside from Vick last season, which was an aberration based on his career to date (but was bound to happen as he grew older). The simple fact is that Newton was on the field in 2011 for many more plays than Vick has ever been in any single season in his career. And in fact, again 2011 aside, Newton threw more passes last year than Vick had total plays in any season in his career.

None of which has anything to do with the point I was and will be trying to make, but I just wanted to remedy the idea that Newton ran the ball more frequently than Vick has, traditionally.

The difference in my mind between a quarterback who can run and a running quarterback is a subjective thing and has to deal with how well said player can perform *as a quarterback*. It's intangibles that mark the difference between a player like Tebow (obviously a running quarterback...) and Newton. The ability to read defenses and deliver the ball accurately to receivers, the ability to throw different kinds of passes with different touch and elevation. Running quarterbacks tend to be primarily, in my opinion of course, athletes who rely on their natural gifts, whereas a quarterback who can run has worked and developed the poise and pocket awareness of a traditional quarterback, above and beyond what they have naturally.

Another way to look at it, and the way I usually think of it, is the difference between an athlete playing quarterback, and an quarterback who's an athlete. The emphasis being on how they perform at the position rather than sliding by on their natural gifts.

It's something that I think can be developed, if the player works hard enough. To me, early on Robert Griffin was more of an athlete than a quarterback. He was a different player in 2011 than he was in 2008 (shocking I know). He's grown into a quarterback.

I think the difference in Newton from 2010 to 2011 was night-and-day as well, and I wonder how much of that was simply because of the role he was given in college, compared with his role in the pros. I'll be curious to watch his further development.

DJ's left nut
02-17-2012, 11:06 PM
You are really good at this whole debate thing as well...

Give me the guy that took 3 years to finish 1 complete season because he's more healthy than the 'runner' who completed his first full season in year 1 and broke records in the process.

Stellar, bro. Just... Stellar.

EDIT: He also threw for more yards on average than your healthy pocket passer who likes to pass first.

Yup - Newton made it through a great 1st season.

Now what was my question again? "Just how long is their shelf-life?" I'm fairly certain that's more than a 1-year inquiry. What I am absolutely certain of is that Newton's style of play exposes him to more hits than Staffords does. Over 10 years of their respective styles, I prefer the pocket passer over the one that likes to run.

We'll see how long ol' Cam holds up to that abuse. You can tell luck from skill by its duration; Newton has many years to go before we know just how durable he is.

keg in kc
02-17-2012, 11:13 PM
I would imagine that Newton will run less as he grows into the role. I think in a perfect world, you'd think of his as being more Donovan McNabb (in terms of pass/run ratio, not necessarily quality) than Michael Vick. The reality is you don't want any quarterback taking hits if you can avoid it. It's been a big problem for pocket passers over the years, too. Just look at Roethlisberger the last few years, as that line fell apart.

The thing you hope with Newton is that, on one hand, he has the frame and body type to absorb the punishment of being an NFL QB, and on the other, as he grows into his role, he'll take fewer and fewer hits.

DJ's left nut
02-17-2012, 11:14 PM
That's true for 2011, but it wouldn't be true for any other season in Vick's career:

Newton 643 total plays, 126 runs (<20%)

Vick
2011 499 total plays, 76 runs (15.2%)
2010 472 total plays, 100 runs (21.2%)
2006 511 total plays, 123 runs (24.1%)
2005 489 total plays, 102 runs (20.9%)
2004 441 total plays, 120 runs (27.2%)
2002 534 total plays, 113 runs (21.2%)

So if we're talking gross number of runs, then, yes, Newton ran more times, but he didn't run as often, aside from Vick last season, which was an aberration based on his career to date (but was bound to happen as he grew older). The simple fact is that Newton was on the field in 2011 for many more plays than Vick has ever been in any single season in his career. And in fact, again 2011 aside, Newton threw more passes last year than Vick had total plays in any season in his career.

None of which has anything to do with the point I was and will be trying to make, but I just wanted to remedy the idea that Newton ran the ball more frequently than Vick has, traditionally.

The difference in my mind between a quarterback who can run and a running quarterback is a subjective thing and has to deal with how well said player can perform *as a quarterback*. It's intangibles that mark the difference between a player like Tebow (obviously a running quarterback...) and Newton. The ability to read defenses and deliver the ball accurately to receivers, the ability to throw different kinds of passes with different touch and elevation. Running quarterbacks tend to be primarily, in my opinion of course, athletes who rely on their natural gifts, whereas a quarterback who can run has worked and developed the poise and pocket awareness of a traditional quarterback, above and beyond what they have naturally.

Another way to look at it, and the way I usually think of it, is the difference between an athlete playing quarterback, and an quarterback who's an athlete. The emphasis being on how they perform at the position rather than sliding by on their natural gifts.

It's something that I think can be developed, if the player works hard enough. To me, early on Robert Griffin was more of an athlete than a quarterback. He was a different player in 2011 than he was in 2008 (shocking I know). He's grown into a quarterback.

I think the difference in Newton from 2010 to 2011 was night-and-day as well, and I wonder how much of that was simply because of the role he was given in college, compared with his role in the pros. I'll be curious to watch his further development.

All fair points (and I should've said 'more often' rather than 'more frequently').

Question - how many games did you see of Newtons? I think I saw 4, and not entire games but stopovers, etc... on Sunday Ticket.

Did you get the feeling that he was reading defenses? I didn't. He was using his legs to break down defenses and then firing the ball into windows that his legs were opening up. In other words, if you stuck his feet to the turf - do you think he would remain an effective passer?

You said it's a subjective title and I think you're probably right. There are 'run first' quarterbacks like Vick and Cunningham that really aren't good throwers. Than there were guys like Young that would run the ball, but were clearly effective even if they would've lost all mobility.

Do you think Newton is the former or the latter? I think he is capable of making throws that few quarterbacks with his athleticism have been able to make. However, I don't see him as a guy that's really going through his progressions, timing up his routes and finding/throwing guys open. I see him as creating openings in the defense through his legs and using those openings to great advantage. In essence, I see him as a guy that has to run in order to remain an extremely prolific passer. Without that threat he's probably closer to someone like Jay Cutler (lots of highlights, lots of great throws, lots of questionable decisions thrown in there with 'em).

So is he Drew Brees with size and speed (more importantly, can he get there)? Or is he Jay Cutler with same?

If he's the former, he's the guy to take over Stafford or Luck...or Manning or Brady or Montana. But I don't think that's what he is. I think he's Jay Cutler with wheels to spare and I just don't trust the long-term viability of that kind of quarterback.

keg in kc
02-17-2012, 11:27 PM
Newton was a rookie, so it's kind of hard to really say for sure what he is or what he isn't, but I saw signs that maybe he can become a Steve Young type of player given time. Which I would not have believed possible had you asked me that in April of 2011.

As far as progressions and timing, I'll reiterate that he was a rookie. You don't tend to see much of quite that early in a career, even with the best. It takes time to learn the NFL game, and early success for quarterbacks usually comes in terms of them being fortunate enough to be on a team strong enough in other areas to carry them through the rough patches (i.e. early Roethlisberger, Sanchez). Which I don't think was the case with Newton; I believe he actually made Carolina a better team, rather than the other way around.

But the real answer to "what is Newton?" probably won't be answered until 2014 or 2015. What he could be, though, is why I have him first on my list.

I should add that having him first is not an indication that there's anything at all wrong with the other four. I'd probably go Newton, Stafford, Bradford, Ryan, Luck (last only because he's a complete unknown at the pro level...). But I'd be thrilled to have any of them.

Mr. Laz
02-17-2012, 11:38 PM
we haven't seen Luck play in the pros yet
Bradford looks breakable
Stafford might still be breakable
Ryan doesn't look elite

So i went with Cam Newton even though QB's that run a lot usually don't develop fully

milkman
02-18-2012, 06:42 AM
All fair points (and I should've said 'more often' rather than 'more frequently').

Question - how many games did you see of Newtons? I think I saw 4, and not entire games but stopovers, etc... on Sunday Ticket.

Did you get the feeling that he was reading defenses? I didn't. He was using his legs to break down defenses and then firing the ball into windows that his legs were opening up. In other words, if you stuck his feet to the turf - do you think he would remain an effective passer?

You said it's a subjective title and I think you're probably right. There are 'run first' quarterbacks like Vick and Cunningham that really aren't good throwers. Than there were guys like Young that would run the ball, but were clearly effective even if they would've lost all mobility.

Do you think Newton is the former or the latter? I think he is capable of making throws that few quarterbacks with his athleticism have been able to make. However, I don't see him as a guy that's really going through his progressions, timing up his routes and finding/throwing guys open. I see him as creating openings in the defense through his legs and using those openings to great advantage. In essence, I see him as a guy that has to run in order to remain an extremely prolific passer. Without that threat he's probably closer to someone like Jay Cutler (lots of highlights, lots of great throws, lots of questionable decisions thrown in there with 'em).

So is he Drew Brees with size and speed (more importantly, can he get there)? Or is he Jay Cutler with same?

If he's the former, he's the guy to take over Stafford or Luck...or Manning or Brady or Montana. But I don't think that's what he is. I think he's Jay Cutler with wheels to spare and I just don't trust the long-term viability of that kind of quarterback.

Early on in Steve Young's career, and even in the early years of his time with San Francisco, he was much like Newton was last season.

He developed into a pocket passer over time, and he himself, said as much.

Cam Newton, as a rookie, is way ahead of where Young was as a rookie.

milkman
02-18-2012, 06:46 AM
To answer this poll, as the league has evolved with more emphasis on the passing game, thus putting more emphasis on pass rushers, pocket passers are being subjected to more hits than ever, and QBs with mobility are avoiding those hits.

As Newton progresses, he will not be taking the hits he took as a rookie because he, like Aaron Rogers, will be making more plays with his arm after escaping pressure, than with his legs.

I'd take Newton to build around.

Okie_Apparition
02-19-2012, 08:09 AM
It's like monkies in a jungle jumping from one grapevine to the next
This year it's Newton, last year at this time it was Bradford's nuts
Not to long ago it was Ryan's ball sack people were swinging from

Pasta Giant Meatball
02-19-2012, 08:12 AM
Tebow/slapdick Denver fan

milkman
02-19-2012, 08:19 AM
It's like monkies in a jungle jumping from one grapevine to the next
This year it's Newton, last year at this time it was Bradford's nuts
Not to long ago it was Ryan's ball sack people were swinging from

I rarely respond to you, because you are a fucking idiot.

But you do raise an interesting point here.

Bradford might well be a guy that you can win a SB with, but he's a guy that will need a complete team around him.

Cam Newton looks like a guy that can carry a flawed team to a SB.

I now return you to your regurlarly scheduled fucking idiocy.

Okie_Apparition
02-19-2012, 08:24 AM
Free Credit Score.com just bumped me up