A Closer Look at 2011 QB Prospects:Cam Newton

[darrelgreenie]

Great find on the vid DG!

After watching the video, some things I liked:

Very quick release, looked smooth, and comfortable under center, didn't make any ill advised throws, quick, and accurate drops from center, was not afraid to throw stick throws, or passes into tight windows...

Some things he needs to continue to work on:

base was too narrow when he threw, didn't step into his throws b/c of narrow base, held ball too long on a few plays causing the WR to have to make tougher catches, or the causing the passes to be deflected, every pass was a fastball, no touch, pulled a JC( he ran into a sack lol)...

All in all he looked much further along than i thought he would be at this point in terms of his development as a passer...most of the things that I saw as negatives can be fixed with study, and practice. I still believe that Cam is going to be the best QB out of this draft, and I'm really rooting for the dude...

I get the same feeling watching Cam throw as I did with young Flacco it takes me a second to get over their arm strength and how they make tough velocity throws look easy.

Cam's offseason work appears to be paying off; he looks comfortable for the most part.(I wonder what he sounds like in the huddle?)

I'm glad to see they're forcing him undercenter although I wanted to see more drop back passing.

I hope they're really strict with the a heavy emphasis on drop back rhythm passing from undercenter because in a play-action offense that's where many of the chunk plays will come from.

I like that he was aggressive with downfield throws.

When he did checkdown there were a couples times when he was needlessly hesitant limiting the YAC potential.

I think the people/pundits that are down on Cam's draft class aren't being honest in their assessments.

I think prospects like Cam and Locker are better prospects then Luck.

[Going Commando]

Jtyler, about that narrow base, I see what you mean. Look at the effect it has on his arm as he throws. He gets by all on arm strength and to me it looks like he's aiming the ball too much. I think the narrow base is most noticeable on those fades.

I think that tendency to aim the ball rather than pass often either comes as a result of laziness/overconfidence or uncomfortability/overthinking. It's something I remember Colt McCoy doing in college because he threw the ball so much and so he tended to just wing it around since he knew he could get away with it at that level. I get more of the second feeling from Cam. He is a very inexperienced passer, even by college player standards. On the short stuff his throws look problematic because he's still feeling out the moving parts and consciously aiming for windows he knows he'll have to hit in the NFL. And it's clear that honing in on first reads & and failure of proper head movement on about 90% of his dropbacks and shotgun snaps caused him problems on most of his underneath throws. I only saw a couple of passes where he had the right movement and urgency to his process, including a RB screen and one of the deeper throws he completed on the run.

I think he's still very much feeling his way out from a mechanical standpoint + he's trying to become something he wasn't in college + he's adjusting to NFL speed and the demands it will place on his body + he's trying to learn the offense + he's trying to become the locker room leader + he's going to be under more scrutiny than any other rookie, maybe even any other quarterback in the league. I really don't like the idea of starting Cam day one. Ideally, he wouldn't start at all this year. Carolina isn't a very good team despite having decent talent levels on both offense and defense. He'll take a massive beating this year if he starts. Cam needs experience, but there is a lot going on beyond his on the field throws. It makes more sense for his long term development for Carolina to look for a stopgap veteran to take the starting job for this season and let Cam develop at a much more natural pace, particularly since he lost minicamps. Otherwise, Carolina is going to have to be very patient with him because he's going to struggle this year and have to rely on defensive breakdowns and improvising with his feet to tread water.

That's why I liked what Tennessee and Minnesota did in getting that veteran to slow the pace down for Locker and Ponder. Jacksonville was fortunate to already have a top ten QB on the roster before drafting Gabbert. None of those guys are going to start this season, and all will benefit from that arrangement. I think it's very possible that none of them will start next season either given the quality of the QBs ahead of them. That's a situation I would welcome if I were a fan of those teams, because QBs who get the proper time to develop as professionals, develop their bodies, master their offenses, learn the pace of the game, etc. from sitting several years seem to have had very good success rates recently (Rivers, Rodgers, Schaub, etc.).

[mistertim]

I think prospects like Cam and Locker are better prospects then Luck.

DG, I certainly respect your opinion on these things but that sentence gave me a bit of a "wtf?" moment. Why would you say that Newton and Locker are better prospects than Luck unless you're talking about pure physical attributes (even though Luck is no slouch there, either)?

[darrelgreenie]

I really don't like the idea of starting Cam day one. Ideally, he wouldn't start at all this year. Carolina isn't a very good team despite having decent talent levels on both offense and defense. He'll take a massive beating this year if he starts. Cam needs experience, but there is a lot going on beyond his on the field throws. It makes more sense for his long term development for Carolina to look for a stopgap veteran to take the starting job for this season and let Cam develop at a much more natural pace, particularly since he lost minicamps. Otherwise, Carolina is going to have to be very patient with him because he's going to struggle this year and have to rely on defensive breakdowns and improvising with his feet to tread water.

I don't think the Panthers have said they're gonna start Cam.

Its an open comp and the Panthers brought in Derek Anderson because of his experience with OC Chudz and his experience executing the offense at a high level.

Imo ideally Derek starts a few games then Cam takes over ala Eli, Cutler and Freeman.

Cam reminds me of Flacco and I think they fit within the Coryell offense the same way: both are power throwers that can get the ball downfield and execute play-action and movment passes very well.

Cam has the added ability to pick up yards, extend drives, extend plays, and make plays with his legs.

Maybe Cam struggles maybe he doesn't some rookie QBs struggle some don't.

But the Panthers have a decent enough cast around him where I wouldn't be surprised if he was good out of the gate.

---------- Post added August-9th-2011 at 10:09 AM ----------

DG, I certainly respect your opinion on these things but that sentence gave me a bit of a "wtf?" moment. Why would you say that Newton and Locker are better prospects than Luck unless you're talking about pure physical attributes (even though Luck is no slouch there, either)?

I'll try be as concise as a I can.

For me Luck is a good prospect mainly because of his playmaking ability but Newton and Locker are not only both better playmakers but both have better arm strength.

I think what people like most about Luck is his command of Stanford's offense and his "pro-readiness".

But, his command on Stanford's offense is less about him as it is about Stanford's talented offensive line and Stanfords schematic advantages provided by an NFL quality coaching staff especially at the QB position.

Being more "pro-ready" only matters during the 1st training camp for example Clausen was considered the most pro-ready over Bradford, McCoy and Tebow yet Clausen had the worst season.

My point with the above statement is that being pro-ready isn't nearly as important as people believe.

Mind you I'm not saying that Luck is a bad prospect, I think he's one of the better prospects in the upcoming draft.

But, for me right now I would have Newton and Locker rated ahead of Luck.

[KDawg]

I think prospects like Cam and Locker are better prospects then Luck.

For the first time in a long time, I agreed with your entire post. Until you said this.

They are more athletic than Luck, yes. But a better prospect? No way. Luck is a student of the game. He's been playing in a pro style offense for his entire collegiate career. He's an extremely smart kid. He's tough. He makes good reads. He is extremely accurate. And he has good arm strength. Newton and Locker are both more athletic, and they may have better arm strength, but that's where their advantage stops.

Overall, though, that was a pretty good post. Agreed on much of it. Cam and Locker are going to be at the very least serviceable in my opinion. But I think they'll both be better than that.

[mistertim]

But, for me right now I would have Newton and Locker rated ahead of Luck.

So a hypothetical question. Lets say you have the top pick in a draft where you have Luck, Newton, and Locker. You're a team that is building correctly and has some good, young, pieces in place but you have no QB to speak of so you are definitely going to draft a QB with that pick. Which one would you take?

[darrelgreenie]

So a hypothetical question. Lets say you have the top pick in a draft where you have Luck, Newton, and Locker. You're a team that is building correctly and has some good, young, pieces in place but you have no QB to speak of so you are definitely going to draft a QB with that pick. Which one would you take?

It would be a toss up between Locker and Newton.

I guess I would go with Newton.

I think the areas where Luck excells are coachable/team dependent.

I place a premium on skills that cannot be coached and are not team dependent.

If you remember the QB evals from last year here's how I would rate the 3 right now:

QB Eval-----Acc------- Arm------Ath/Esc------Drop/Foot-----Exp----Play------- Prod/Eff-------Size----Throw----AVG

Locker..........3...........4.5...........4.................4.............3.......5...............3............4..........5......3.94 (1a)

Luck...........3.5..........3.5..........3.5...............5.............2........4..............5............5...........4......3.94 (2)

Newton........2.5............5............5................2.............2.........5.............5............5...........4......3.94 (1b)

[KDawg]

I'm confused how Newton and Luck got a 5 for play, and Luck got a 4.

Luck got a 2 in experience, the same as Newton? How? Newton played one year of collegiate football at the d1 level. Luck is going into his third year. I also think you short changed Locker in this category.

I think you shortchanged Luck in accuracy as well.

Furthermore, all three, in your evaluation, tied at 3.94. How is Locker/Newton 1a/1b and Luck is 2?

[darrelgreenie]

I'm confused how Newton and Luck got a 5 for play, and Luck got a 4.

No need to be confused, I think Luck is an above average playmaker but Locker/Newton are elite.

Luck got a 2 in experience, the same as Newton? How? Newton played one year of collegiate football at the d1 level. Luck is going into his third year. I also think you short changed Locker in this category.

Luck is going into his 3rd season meaning he's played 2 season of college football the same as Cam Newton.

And before you ask, Yes I give Cam credit for his JuCo season the kid won a national championship.

I gave Locker a 3 because he spent his 1st 2 seasons (out of no fault of his own) playing in Ty Willingham's option"offense".

I think you shortchanged Luck in accuracy as well.

Ok.

Furthermore, all three, in your evaluation, tied at 3.94. How is Locker/Newton 1a/1b and Luck is 2?

The categories don't carry the same weight/importance.

The size category isn't going to be as important for some people as the accuracy category.

The average at the for each player is a quick and dirty glimpse of how each prospect scored (we looked at over 10 Qbs).

The individual scores in the different categories are the important numbers.

The average of the scores in each category its not a meaningful number like a QB rating.

Hypothetically speaking a prospect could have a lower "average" in this scale but come out rated ahead of another prospect depending on how the rater ranks the importance of the different categories.

[KDawg]

No need to be confused, I think Luck is an above average playmaker but Locker/Newton are elite.

Ok, play stands for playmaker, not "play". Gotcha. Don't disagree there.

Luck is going into his 3rd season meaning he's played 2 season of college football the same as Cam Newton.

And before you ask, Yes I give Cam credit for his JuCo season the kid won a national championship.

It's an honor to win a national title at any level. However, you're giving Newton credit for playing in a lesser talented pool, while Luck competed in D1 football. I think that's a bit of an unfair weighting. But, to each their own.

The categories don't carry the same weight/importance.

The size category isn't going to be as important for some people as the accuracy category.

Of the three, Luck ranks 2nd in size and 1st in accuracy. Of the three, Newton ranks 1st in size and third in accuracy. Accuracy is arguably the most important quarterback skill.

I'm still not quite sure, despite explanation, how Luck is rated lower than the other two. It doesn't make sense.

[Hooper]

Newton is a ridiculous physical specimen. Can't wait to see what kind of QB he turns out to be in the NFL.

And then there's Tim Tebow, who is now in danger of losing the number two job to Brady Quinn. DG -- you are the QB guru on this board. How could some scouts and especially McDaniels get it so wrong? I know Tebow is like the greatest guy in the world and all, but his throwing motion will prevent him from ever being an accurate QB in the NFL. It was obvious to me -- how could it not be obvious to the experts? Really, a first round pick?

[Going Commando]

I think you're overvaluing physical attributes DG and devaluing finesse/skill based attributes because you see them as coachable and/or derived from team and scheme. Physical talent is important, but touch, feel, instincts, superior anticipation in the passing game on a large variety of throws, high proficiency running a extremely complex drop back/NFL style passing game, superior timing and placement on all throws, etc. these are the types of things that make QBs great. They are skill based and not physically based, but I don't think they are as teachable as you are taking for granted.

For instance, I don't think you can ever take a QB who is bad or below average at these sorts of things and make him great at them. They're part of a mental makeup that QBs seem to either have or don't have.

They are the things that make Andrew Luck a far superior NFL QB prospect to Locker and Newton because they are things that are pronounced strengths of his while being weaknesses of Locker and Newton.

College situation also matters for projections. Andrew Luck definitely benefits as an NFL QB coming from the Stanford program and receiving a high degree of preparation for the NFL. This is factored into his high projection, and rightfully so. His offensive system and surrounding caste shouldn't be taken out of the equation (or even held against him) even though it doesn't tell us about his individual talents strictly speaking. It is fair to hold a player's team background/scheme/lack of production due to poor supporting cast against the player provided you maintain the proper context of these sorts of flaws. That's because some situations are a lot better for producing NFL QBs than others and the goal is to identify the prospects who'e got the best chance at achieving success in the NFL.

---------- Post added August-9th-2011 at 02:01 PM ----------

Also Luck has elite physical tools. He's the best scrambling QB I've ever watched, better than Vick. His arm strength is very good and will probably be elite by his second or third NFL season IMO. You can tell by all that rotation he generates when he drives it. I've seen comparisons to Aaron Rodgers coming from Cal and I would say Rodgers now has elite arm strength among NFL QBs. Sam Bradford might be another interesting comparison for this (although Luck's release is much, much cleaner and better than Bradford's). Besides, Luck can already make all of the throws and he's a legit phenom with his release time. After a certain point, arm strength has huge diminishing returns and basically stops mattering.

Luck's arm is already as strong as you'll need (and will get much stronger even still) and he's got tremendous arm talent. He's a much bigger arm talent than either Locker or Newton and is much more mobile than they are (ability to operate NFL offense on move and move to operate NFL offense). I think he's a superior physical talent to both because the physical advantages he has over Locker and Newton are the ones most relevant to being an NFL QB.

Basically I think he's better in every aspect of quarterbacking except for maybe size (taller than Locker though). I liked him even more than I liked Gabbert when I broke them both down early last season, and I liked Gabbert a ton more than both Locker and Newton.

[darrelgreenie]

I'm still not quite sure, despite explanation, how Luck is rated lower than the other two. It doesn't make sense.

I wasn't explaining why I rated Luck behind Locker/Newton in the previous post I was talking about the scale in general and how a prospect can be rated higher yet have a lower average.

But, to anser your question directly some the areas where Luck excells that raise his average are coachable/team dependent:dropback/footwork, production efficiency.

I place a premium on skills that cannot be coached and are not team dependent.

I've stolen heavily from several famous coaches and simply put Locker/Newton get an edge for me because I place a premium value on the ability to make a play or as Bill Walsh called it 'spontaneous genius.'

[KDawg]

Furthermore, without putting any value in preparation/work ethic in your rankings, you have a playmaking section, but not a ball protection section. Playmaking ability can be attributed to team performance, so if we're going with subjective analysis, why not include their ability to protect the football as well?

Luck: 660 attempts at D1, 12 interceptions. That's an interception on every 1.8% of his attempts.

Locker: 1148 attempts at D1, 35 picks. 3% of his passes are picked.

Newton: 292 attempts, 7 picks. 2.3% of his passes are picked.

Wish I could find fumble statistics to really get a sense of their ball protection.

Furthermore, Newtons nearly 400 less attempts put him even with Luck in experience?

[darrelgreenie]

I think you're overvaluing physical attributes DG and devaluing finesse/skill based attributes because you see them as coachable and/or derived from team and scheme. Physical talent is important, but touch, feel, instincts, superior anticipation in the passing game on a large variety of throws, high proficiency running a extremely complex drop back/NFL style passing game, superior timing and placement on all throws, etc. these are the types of things that make QBs great. They are skill based and not physically based, but I don't think they are as teachable as you are taking for granted.

I think your saying to different things here but yes I value physical attributes much more then coachable/scheme derived production.

But, I certainly value the skills you mention like: touch, feel, instincts and I think they are encompassed by accuracy and are evident in production.

But I think traits like: superior anticipation in the passing game on a large variety of throws, high proficiency running a extremely complex drop back/NFL style passing game, superior timing and placement on all throws are imo both coachable and scheme dependent.

It one of the things that's attractive about Luck he's in full command of Stanford's offense.

He knows where to go with the ball but that isn't unlike most elite college QBs its not unlike Scott Tolzien or Greg McElroy.

I give Luck kudos for his command of the offense as refelected by his elite production/efficiency score but at the same time I recognize/struggle with how much of the production is based upon Stanford's OL, and NFL level coaching.

In fact Josh Johnson, Harbaugh's former pupil, was even more productive then Luck has been.

Many people place a high emphasis on being 'pro-ready' but I think its one of the most short lived advantages a prospect can have.

For me coachability would be more important then 'pro-ready' but again I would never consider coachability because there is no way I would know about that.

For instance, I don't think you can ever take a QB who is bad or below average at these sorts of things and make him great at them. They're part of a mental makeup that QBs seem to either have or don't have.

I agree.

They are the things that make Andrew Luck a far superior NFL QB prospect to Locker and Newton because they are things that are pronounced strengths of his while being weaknesses of Locker and Newton.

I'm not sure which traits you think Locker/Newton have as weaknesses that Luck has as strengths?

[The Tris]

DG, I think Robert Griffin is a better playmaker than Jake Locker.

Agree or Disagree?

[darrelgreenie]

He's the best scrambling QB I've ever watched, better than Vick

Woah, Vick? Lets back off and discuss other college prospects I think Locker/Newton are easily better scrambling QBs then Luck.

He's a much bigger arm talent than either Locker or Newton and is much more mobile than they are (ability to operate NFL offense on move and move to operate NFL offense). I think he's a superior physical talent to both because the physical advantages he has over Locker and Newton are the ones most relevant to being an NFL QB.

I just don't see it.

I think Mallett, Newton and Locker all have elite level arm talent and while Luck has a good arm himself I don't put him on that level, I would say that right now I would put Landry Jones and Tanneyhill ahead of him in that category.

And when you mention physical talent I don't see how Luck's would be any more NFL relevant then Locker/Newton.

I thought the physical talent difference would be the trait most would concede.

I liked him even more than I liked Gabbert when I broke them both down early last season, and I liked Gabbert a ton more than both Locker and Newton.

I didn't agree with you then about having Gabbert ahead of Locker or Newton.

But, I would easily have Luck ahead of Gabbert.

---------- Post added August-9th-2011 at 02:35 PM ----------

DG, I think Robert Griffin is a better playmaker than Jake Locker.

Agree or Disagree?

Haven't watched enough of Griffin to say, I've watched 1 Baylor cut-up and a few highlight reels.

[KDawg]

DG, I think Robert Griffin is a better playmaker than Jake Locker.

Agree or Disagree?

You didn't ask me, but I agree.

Baylor isn't a talent laden team. Yet, he's put up solid numbers each year. Griffin is a guy that's on my radar for the 'Skins if we aren't in the Luck sweepstakes. He seems to fit the Shanahan mold a bit. Athletic, tough, hard worker.

[darrelgreenie]

And then there's Tim Tebow, who is now in danger of losing the number two job to Brady Quinn. DG -- you are the QB guru on this board. How could some scouts and especially McDaniels get it so wrong? I know Tebow is like the greatest guy in the world and all, but his throwing motion will prevent him from ever being an accurate QB in the NFL. It was obvious to me -- how could it not be obvious to the experts? Really, a first round pick?

QB guru, not even close more like a guy that wastes more time then he should taking a critical look at QBs,but thanks.......I think.

I'm not sure if scouts have it/had it wrong with Tebow (most people were bashing him left and right), nor do I believe there's enough NFL snaps to make a judgement about Tebow one way or another.

I think Tebow played better then his perception and the stats bear that out.

I'm not a fan of Tebow's throwing motion either but the kid has everything else.

I guess time will tell.

---------- Post added August-9th-2011 at 02:42 PM ----------

You guys watched/read about the new Total QB Rating?

It has Colt McCoy ahead of Sam Bradford, its the second metric that has McCoy ahead of Bradford (football outsiders too).

1. 2008 Matt Ryan – 72.6
   
2. 2010 Colt McCoy – 46.6
   
3. 2008 Joe Flacco – 41.6
   
4. 2010 Sam Bradford – 41.0
   
5. 2009 Matthew Stafford – 32.9
   
6. 2009 Mark Sanchez – 30.9
   
7. 2009 Josh Freeman – 25.8
   
8. 2010 Jimmy Clausen – 11.7
   

.

[darrelgreenie]

Furthermore, without putting any value in preparation/work ethic in your rankings, you have a playmaking section, but not a ball protection section. Playmaking ability can be attributed to team performance, so if we're going with subjective analysis, why not include their ability to protect the football as well?

In your opinion playmaking is subjective not mine the aim of the scale was to make our assessment as objective as possible.

I'm not sure what you mean that playmaking can be attributed to team performance but if you mean that playmaking is team dependent I disagree completely.

An offensive system cannot make a QB a playmaker.

Also, to be very clear I think intangibles like preparation/work ethic are as much if not more important then physical traits.

But, at the same time at least for me I don't have anyway to judge those types of traits without relying on hersey therefore I don't factor those in to the scale, to avoid subjectivity.

BTW-The factors that made up the scale was from a collective effort: SteveMcQueen, MartinC, Tris, Mahons, and I think Holmester were some of the people involved so its not my scale alone.

Luck: 660 attempts at D1, 12 interceptions. That's an interception on every 1.8% of his attempts.

Locker: 1148 attempts at D1, 35 picks. 3% of his passes are picked.

Newton: 292 attempts, 7 picks. 2.3% of his passes are picked.

Furthermore, Newtons nearly 400 less attempts put him even with Luck in experience?

I thought I already answered this, yes.

I put Cam's experience even with Luck.

Again, your assessment doesn't have to match mine you can choose to omit Cam's national champion JuCo season.(336 attempts)

But, I include Cam's JuCo season which would bring his total attempts to 628.

Further I rate experience based on more then mere pass attempts.

Cam has experienced and handled many hurdles, some caused by his own poor judgement, but Cam managed to play at high level under the white hot eye of intense national media scrutiny.

[KDawg]

I'm aware that I don't have to follow your standards. And I don't.

But, were both entitled to opinion, so

[darrelgreenie]

I'm aware that I don't have to follow your standards. And I don't.

But, were both entitled to opinion,

Quite right.

I somehow missed your post and wanted to answer the specific questions you posed in your last response:

Playmaking ability can be attributed to team performance, so if we're going with subjective analysis, why not include their ability to protect the football as well?

Furthermore, Newtons nearly 400 less attempts put him even with Luck in experience?

---------- Post added August-14th-2011 at 12:09 PM ----------

Can this thread be moved?

[Dro89]

i disagree with bringing in cams Juco Stats and using them in this.. completely different level of play.. shouldnt equal what Luck has done..

[darrelgreenie]

i disagree with bringing in cams Juco Stats and using them in this.. completely different level of play.. shouldnt equal what Luck has done..

Ok, but I'm not asking anyone to agree I was asked about my position and answered the questions asked.

For me the experiecne gained from winning 2 national championship is at least equal to the experience gained from 2 non-national championship even if 1 national championship was on the JuCo level.

Also, I think the experience of playing and winning a national championship under the insane level of scrutiny focused on Cam is not to be overlooked.

I think to rate Luck's experience as greater then Cam's requires some devalue of Cam's accomplishments.

[s0crates]

Cam Newton plays for the Panthers, and not the Redskins, right?

Just kidding. I got a chance to watch the Panthers game, and the kid looked better than his stat line yesterday. That being said, he completed less than 50% of his passes, which is bad any way you slice it.

In my opinion, the most impressive young quarterback this weekend was Colt McCoy.