Cam Newton coming back to earth!

[Dee Dub]

Re: Cam Newton coming back to earth!

[quote=snarky]

In this case, for this thread, no. Cam Newton has plenty of quality players to throw too.

OK, but in this very thread you said we couldn't/shouldn't compare Cam's rookie numbers to Terry Bradshaw's rookie numbers because of who Bradshaw was throwing to. Wow dude, you change your story so much you can't even keep it straight. In this thread you were making the case that WRs matter. In the other case you seemed to be making the opposite case.

Not going to address the rest of what you said because it is just plain nonsense.

I didnt bring up Bradshaw in this thread. Ruthless did. I just pointed who Bradshaw was throwing to in 1970.

What I think is...any comparison of Can Newton Terry Bradshaw is ridiculous. Whatever the comparison is too. We are talking about a 4 time super bowl champion to one I dont think will ever win any championships.

IIRC, Ruthless compared Bradshaw's rookie year to Newton's rookie season which seems legitimate enough. Anyway, it matters little who brought it up. Once it was brought up you chimed in with a list of his receivers which (seemingly) was an attempt to justify his low production that year.[/quote:wje5qzgx]

Before he did that I compared similar types of QB's to Cam Newton. Michael Vick, Randall Cunningham, Kordell Stewart. I thought they were viable comparisons as they are similar types of QB's.

Then Ruthless, decided to throw Bradshaw in my face not to prove a point but to attack me. Otherwise he wouldnt have felt the need to add "That's the guy who you say is unquestionably better than Tom Brady."

[Dee Dub]

Re: Cam Newton coming back to earth!

[quote=RuthlessBurgher]

you gotta know most every thread I put out here whether it is right on or not, it's going to generate discussion.

Congratulations. You're becoming the Mark Madden of message board posters. Just post some ridiculous nonsense like Pouncey's a wuss or Cam Newton sucks, and people will respond to the sheer absurdity of it all. You may get the attention you crave, but in the process might start to lose the respect of the knowledgable folks that know that you are better than the schtick that you are currently flinging (throwing out a random opinion then refusing to even consider any other even slightly different opinion, regardless of how much your point has been refuted).

Really?? First of all these threads are my honest opinions. I would hardly say I am seeking attention for then. We all arent alike. And Ruthless does it really matter what people on a message board think of me? Or whether or not they respect me? Seriously? I dont come here for that. I come here to talk football and give/vent my opinion about it. Am I suppose to be trying to get inside of some cool car of guys on this board so i can be liked? I respect others on this forum because of who I am inside. The fact that I have given my life over to God. But I dont expect others to respect me just because of what I think about football.

Where did I ever say Cam Newton sucks? I just dont think he will ever make it in the league as a passer. Period.

But I get it. It's cool.

I have read enough of your posts over the years to know you are knowledgeable about football. I respect that. You add to this board no doubt. But lately you have been spewing contrarian type opinions (which you are certainly entitled to do, but there seems to be a "shock jock" aspect to them now...maybe not to a Howard Stern degree or anything like that, but perhaps in line with the types of things that Mark Madden or Colin Cowherd might say, just because they know they'll be a line of people waiting to disagree with them). My intent is not to insult you or anything by saying this, just pointing out what I have noticed of late...no offense intended whatsoever. Carry on.[/quote:3lndpuil]

I dont see how you can read my thread post here and come away with that (?). There was a poster on this forum who said at the beginning of the season they would rather have Cam Newton over Ben Roethlisberger. I think that this is a valid post to show that Cam Newton isnt the same Cam Newton as he was at the time the comment was made.

I think this thread was more to prove a point than to get shock value. But hey..if that is how you see me then so be it. It doesn't matter. But if you are a moderator..which I think you are??....I would expect a little more from you. And if you are can you please remind some about the rules of conduct?

Thanks.

Peace.

[RuthlessBurgher]

Re: Cam Newton coming back to earth!

[quote=Dee Dub][quote=snarky]

In this case, for this thread, no. Cam Newton has plenty of quality players to throw too.

OK, but in this very thread you said we couldn't/shouldn't compare Cam's rookie numbers to Terry Bradshaw's rookie numbers because of who Bradshaw was throwing to. Wow dude, you change your story so much you can't even keep it straight. In this thread you were making the case that WRs matter. In the other case you seemed to be making the opposite case.

Not going to address the rest of what you said because it is just plain nonsense.

I didnt bring up Bradshaw in this thread. Ruthless did. I just pointed who Bradshaw was throwing to in 1970.

What I think is...any comparison of Can Newton Terry Bradshaw is ridiculous. Whatever the comparison is too. We are talking about a 4 time super bowl champion to one I dont think will ever win any championships.

IIRC, Ruthless compared Bradshaw's rookie year to Newton's rookie season which seems legitimate enough. Anyway, it matters little who brought it up. Once it was brought up you chimed in with a list of his receivers which (seemingly) was an attempt to justify his low production that year.[/quote:1ulwzgye]

Before he did that I compared similar types of QB's to Cam Newton. Michael Vick, Randall Cunningham, Kordell Stewart. I thought they were viable comparisons as they are similar types of QB's.

Then Ruthless, decided to throw Bradshaw in my face not to prove a point but to attack me. Otherwise he wouldnt have felt the need to add "That's the guy who you say is unquestionably better than Tom Brady."[/quote:1ulwzgye]

That's attacking? You are condemning a rookie QB because he throws more INT's than TD's and has a low completion percentage. Then you gave some other examples of guys who also threw more INT's than TD's and had a low completion percentages rookies, pointing out that these guys never won championships. So, I provided another example of a rookie QB who did go on to win championships in spite of throwing more INT's than TD's and having a low completion percentage as a rookie. The fact that you just happened to declare Bradshaw as unquestionably better than Brady just a few short days ago just allowed me to tie it all together with a nice little bow. I'm not attacking you...you can throw out stats to defend your opinion, and I can throw out stats to defend mine.

[Dee Dub]

Re: Cam Newton coming back to earth!

That's attacking? You are condemning a rookie QB because he throws more INT's than TD's and has a low completion percentage. Then you gave some other examples of guys who also threw more INT's than TD's and had a low completion percentages rookies, pointing out that these guys never won championships. So, I provided another example of a rookie QB who did go on to win championships in spite of throwing more INT's than TD's and having a low completion percentage as a rookie. The fact that you just happened to declare Bradshaw as unquestionably better than Brady just a few short days ago just allowed me to tie it all together with a nice little bow. I'm not attacking you...you can throw out stats to defend your opinion, and I can throw out stats to defend mine.

Well that's a little hard to see when you throw the jab at the end...but ok. It's all good.

[RuthlessBurgher]

Re: Cam Newton coming back to earth!

I dont see how you can read my thread post here and come away with that (?). There was a poster on this forum who said at the beginning of the season they would rather have Cam Newton over Ben Roethlisberger. I think that this is a valid post to show that Cam Newton isnt the same Cam Newton as he was at the time the comment was made.

I think this thread was more to prove a point than to get shock value. But hey..if that is how you see me then so be it. It doesn't matter. But if you are a moderator..which I think you are??....I would expect a little more from you. And if you are can you please remind some about the rules of conduct?

Thanks.

Peace.

I agree that Cam Newton is no Ben Roethlisberger. But I'd take him over, say, Mark Sanchez or Joe Flacco, a couple of other guys who were drafted high in recent years. Put Newton on the Jets or Ravens, and put Sanchez or Flacco on the Panthers, and I think you might see some Louis Winthorpe III/Billy Ray Valentine parallels.

You may or may not be making such posts of late with the sole intention of grabbing attention (although you did seem awfully proud of yourself when mentioning how much discussion your threads were generating), it was merely an observation I made. Take it however you want to take it. I have done something similar with another poster on the board a little while ago, pointing out how I've noticed his posting style has changed of late (not in a malicious way to degrade someone, but pointing out something I had seen lately to someone whose football opinions I respect, and I don't think it resulted in any ill will between us...I hope this doesn't either). If you were some anonymous schmoe who didn't add anything to the board, I wouldn't have even bothered to waste my time pointing anything out...hopefully that means something.

Lastly, do you seriously want me to formally warn someone because they called you a fool in a post? Seriously? I will, since that is what a moderator should do according to the strict letter of the Code of Conduct, but really? It's not like someone called you a douchebag or anything. Hines Ward calls Brett Keisel a fool in a Head & Shoulders commercial...it isn't exactly scathing degradation there.

[RuthlessBurgher]

Re: Cam Newton coming back to earth!

That's attacking? You are condemning a rookie QB because he throws more INT's than TD's and has a low completion percentage. Then you gave some other examples of guys who also threw more INT's than TD's and had a low completion percentages rookies, pointing out that these guys never won championships. So, I provided another example of a rookie QB who did go on to win championships in spite of throwing more INT's than TD's and having a low completion percentage as a rookie. The fact that you just happened to declare Bradshaw as unquestionably better than Brady just a few short days ago just allowed me to tie it all together with a nice little bow. I'm not attacking you...you can throw out stats to defend your opinion, and I can throw out stats to defend mine.

Well that's a little hard to see when you throw the jab at the end...but ok. It's all good.

Jabs at the end are what makes things fun around here. That one was too easy. You threw me a softball there.

[Dee Dub]

Re: Cam Newton coming back to earth!

....You may or may not be making such posts of late with the sole intention of grabbing attention (although you did seem awfully proud of yourself when mentioning how much discussion your threads were generating)....

That is what you got out of that?

Dude most of these poster are against me here. So how could that be about patting myself on the back? If anything it was a knock at myself.

I an assure you when I made this comment...

Dee Dub wrote:
you gotta know most every thread I put out here whether it is right on or not, it's going to generate discussion.

...it was a far from patting myself on the back as could be.

[Dee Dub]

Re: Cam Newton coming back to earth!

Jabs at the end are what makes things fun around here. That one was too easy. You threw me a softball there.

..and that's how I saw this..

7 pages of discussion on Cam Newton???

you gotta know most every thread I put out here whether it is right on or not, it's going to generate discussion.

[snarky]

Re: Cam Newton coming back to earth!

[quote=Dee Dub][quote=snarky]

In this case, for this thread, no. Cam Newton has plenty of quality players to throw too.

OK, but in this very thread you said we couldn't/shouldn't compare Cam's rookie numbers to Terry Bradshaw's rookie numbers because of who Bradshaw was throwing to. Wow dude, you change your story so much you can't even keep it straight. In this thread you were making the case that WRs matter. In the other case you seemed to be making the opposite case.

Not going to address the rest of what you said because it is just plain nonsense.

I didnt bring up Bradshaw in this thread. Ruthless did. I just pointed who Bradshaw was throwing to in 1970.

What I think is...any comparison of Can Newton Terry Bradshaw is ridiculous. Whatever the comparison is too. We are talking about a 4 time super bowl champion to one I dont think will ever win any championships.

IIRC, Ruthless compared Bradshaw's rookie year to Newton's rookie season which seems legitimate enough. Anyway, it matters little who brought it up. Once it was brought up you chimed in with a list of his receivers which (seemingly) was an attempt to justify his low production that year.[/quote:3piqpdpv]

Before he did that I compared similar types of QB's to Cam Newton. Michael Vick, Randall Cunningham, Kordell Stewart. I thought they were viable comparisons as they are similar types of QB's.

Then Ruthless, decided to throw Bradshaw in my face not to prove a point but to attack me. Otherwise he wouldnt have felt the need to add "That's the guy who you say is unquestionably better than Tom Brady."[/quote:3piqpdpv]

I'm not going to get into a debate over what Ruthless's motives were. But the fact remains that a comparison was made between QBs and you threw out one of the QBs receiving corps to excuse his poor numbers. And I guess I'm just curious why Frenchy Fuqua et al are relevant to Bradshaw but David Patten et al are not relevant to Brady.

[feltdizz]

Re: Cam Newton coming back to earth!

I dont see how you can read my thread post here and come away with that (?). There was a poster on this forum who said at the beginning of the season they would rather have Cam Newton over Ben Roethlisberger. I think that this is a valid post to show that Cam Newton isnt the same Cam Newton as he was at the time the comment was made.

I think this thread was more to prove a point than to get shock value. But hey..if that is how you see me then so be it. It doesn't matter. But if you are a moderator..which I think you are??....I would expect a little more from you. And if you are can you please remind some about the rules of conduct?

Thanks.

Peace.

I agree that Cam Newton is no Ben Roethlisberger. But I'd take him over, say, Mark Sanchez or Joe Flacco, a couple of other guys who were drafted high in recent years. Put Newton on the Jets or Ravens, and put Sanchez or Flacco on the Panthers, and I think you might see some Louis Winthorpe III/Billy Ray Valentine parallels.

You may or may not be making such posts of late with the sole intention of grabbing attention (although you did seem awfully proud of yourself when mentioning how much discussion your threads were generating), it was merely an observation I made. Take it however you want to take it. I have done something similar with another poster on the board a little while ago, pointing out how I've noticed his posting style has changed of late (not in a malicious way to degrade someone, but pointing out something I had seen lately to someone whose football opinions I respect, and I don't think it resulted in any ill will between us...I hope this doesn't either). If you were some anonymous schmoe who didn't add anything to the board, I wouldn't have even bothered to waste my time pointing anything out...hopefully that means something.

Lastly, do you seriously want me to formally warn someone because they called you a fool in a post? Seriously? I will, since that is what a moderator should do according to the strict letter of the Code of Conduct, but really? It's not like someone called you a douchebag or anything. Hines Ward calls Brett Keisel a fool in a Head & Shoulders commercial...it isn't exactly scathing degradation there.

[Dee Dub]

Re: Cam Newton coming back to earth!

16 INT's (more than TD's) in 13 games, and a completion percentage of 59.7%. That means Cam Newton isnt a very accurate passer. And in the NFL that is Paramount to being a successful QB.

But hey...he is an exciting runner isnt he?

[snarky]

Re: Cam Newton coming back to earth!

16 INT's (more than TD's) in 13 games, and a completion percentage of 59.7%. That means Cam Newton isnt a very accurate passer. And in the NFL that is Paramount to being a successful QB.

But hey...he is an exciting runner isnt he?

I think it's safe to say that there are some TDs coming off his passing stats simply because he is able to run the ball into the EZ. In other words, you can only accumulate one TD or INT per drive and the fact that he is able to run the ball in for a score when they are in the red zone means they are passing less than they would if he was a traditional pocket passer. Given that, I think the 15/16 ratio is more than acceptable.

Oh and this...

[url="http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&year_min=192 0&year_max=2011&season_start=1&season_end=1&age_mi n=18&age_max=24&draft_round_min=0&draft_round_max= 99&league_id=&team_id=&is_active=&is_hof=&pos_is_q b=Y&c1stat=pass_cmp_perc&c1comp=gt&c1val=55&c2stat =pass_yds&c2comp=gt&c2val=3000&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c 3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=pass_cmp_p erc"]http://www.pro-football-reference.com/p ... s_cmp_perc[/url]

[Dee Dub]

Re: Cam Newton coming back to earth!

16 INT's (more than TD's) in 13 games, and a completion percentage of 59.7%. That means Cam Newton isnt a very accurate passer. And in the NFL that is Paramount to being a successful QB.

But hey...he is an exciting runner isnt he?

I think it's safe to say that there are some TDs coming off his passing stats simply because he is able to run the ball into the EZ. In other words, you can only accumulate one TD or INT per drive and the fact that he is able to run the ball in for a score when they are in the red zone means they are passing less than they would if he was a traditional pocket passer. Given that, I think the 15/16 ratio is more than acceptable.

I would agree with that to a point. But as I have pointed out, running QB (those who run as much as Newton, Vick, Cunningham, Stewart), have not had success in the NFL in regards to winning championships.

Oh and this...

[url="http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&year_min=192 0&year_max=2011&season_start=1&season_end=1&age_mi n=18&age_max=24&draft_round_min=0&draft_round_max= 99&league_id=&team_id=&is_active=&is_hof=&pos_is_q b=Y&c1stat=pass_cmp_perc&c1comp=gt&c1val=55&c2stat =pass_yds&c2comp=gt&c2val=3000&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c 3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=pass_cmp_p erc"]http://www.pro-football-reference.com/p ... s_cmp_perc[/url]

Those are traditional pocket passers. I dont think they are viable comparisons to who Cam Newton is. That is why I had the comparisons of Vick, Cunningham, and Stewart. He is more them than he is Peyton Manning, Sam Bradford, and Matt Ryan.

[snarky]

Re: Cam Newton coming back to earth!

[quote=Dee Dub][quote=snarky]

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/p ... s_cmp_perc[/url]

Those are traditional pocket passers. I dont think they are viable comparisons to who Cam Newton is. That is why I had the comparisons of Vick, Cunningham, and Stewart. He is more them than he is Peyton Manning, Sam Bradford, and Matt Ryan.[/quote:15suwhhp]

I guess my point is that his rookie completion percentage compares favorably to pretty much every true rookie QB in the history of the league who has been asked to throw the ball as much as he has. Take away the tag of a running QB or pocket QB

In fact, if Newton throws for at least 132 yards this week, he will have more yards in his first 14 games than the career highs for Vick, Cunningham and Stewart. And his rookie completion percentage is at least 3 points higher than any of them achieved in their first year as a starter.

He might be a quarterback that can run as well as those other guys, but so far it looks like his passing is superior.

[Dee Dub]

Re: Cam Newton coming back to earth!

[quote=snarky][quote=Dee Dub]

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/p ... s_cmp_perc[/url]

Those are traditional pocket passers. I dont think they are viable comparisons to who Cam Newton is. That is why I had the comparisons of Vick, Cunningham, and Stewart. He is more them than he is Peyton Manning, Sam Bradford, and Matt Ryan.

I guess my point is that his rookie completion percentage compares favorably to pretty much every true rookie QB in the history of the league who has been asked to throw the ball as much as he has. Take away the tag of a running QB or pocket QB

In fact, if Newton throws for at least 132 yards this week, he will have more yards in his first 14 games than the career highs for Vick, Cunningham and Stewart. And his rookie completion percentage is at least 3 points higher than any of them achieved in their first year as a starter.

He might be a quarterback that can run as well as those other guys, but so far it looks like his passing is superior.[/quote:13awyhm2]

I dint use Vick’s and Cunningham’s rookie stats. I used their career stats. The point I am trying to make is just like them, in my opinion, Cam Newton will never develop into a great passer.

But if you want to use comparable rookie stats to a similar type of QB then use Kordell Stewart's first year as a starting QB. And Kordell never developed into an above average passer.

3020 passing yards, 21 TD's, 17 INT's, 53.6% completion percentage, 476 yards rushing and 11 TD's rushing. At that time Kordell looked as if his future was bright. As if the Steelers hit on the next great QB.

Rest of his career? 56 TD's passing and 67 INT's.