Packers notes

  • Thread starter Deleted member 6794
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
First of all, in listing the current first and second tier QBs that Newton might one day displace, Brandt did not mention P. Manning or Brees. Those guys are going into the HOF. If age were a factor in thinking these guys will roll into retirement opening an "elite" (or second tier spot if others "move up"), why did he mention Brady? The whole thing is was quite peculiar.

As for the question of whether Newton is worth this kind of money, it's pointless to compare his contract to those of QBs with superior credentials. The question to be asked is, "what are Carolina's options if Newton goes FA to another team?" Further, the teams muddling with the QB position are inclined to sign him for the same or more money for the same reason.

There is a problem for the NFL that simply does not get enough attention, one I've mentioned before...colleges are not producing NFL QBs. Name the current first or second tier QBs (or even high 3rd. tier) QBs who are under the age of 30.

There's Luck. Then there's Wilson (more about him in a bit). Then uh, uh, uh. And the further along we've gone in the last decade, the worse it's gotten, as the number of college teams running spread/option schemes have proliferated, traditional NFL QB skills are compromised in the process of valuing QB running ability.

That makes sense in the college game where the QBs play for a year or two and are gone. This spread/option stuff is easier to teach than reading defenses pre-snap and reading route progressions, not to mention NFL mechanics. The NFL is not keen on jumping on the college bandwagon; spending a high pick on a running QB with some arm strength (and then paying him a franchise-type second contract if he survives unscathed) is a risky proposition (see RGIII).

So, Carolina takes the risk anyway..for lack of options. I suspect others will be forced to follow...by either embracing the college scheme a la Seattle (with Wilson teeing up for a franchise contract) or just paying up for a QB like Newton who makes hay breaking the pocket even if his passing skills leave something to be desired.

Will Newton be a top 5 QB before this contract is up? Why not? Who else is there coming through the pipeline? The bar will be much lower when these current first and second tier QBs start rolling into retirement.

It's beginning to look like we're nearing the close of the golden age of QBs in the pass-first era. Rodgers will be the undisputed top dog as the three future HOFers retire. Second tier guys like Roethlisberger (who may get in the Hall himself), E. Manning, Rivers and Palmer are getting up in years.

Will Newton be contending with Wilson, Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco and Matt Stafford for "seasoned elite" status. Maybe Ryan Tannehill gets thrown into the mix. How about Kaepernick (forming the "option/running QB elite" with Wilson and Newton) as SF evidently intends to go back to a heavier dose of option snaps?

When the bar is lowered for what qualifies for elite quarterbacking, the door is certainly open for a guy like Newton.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SoonerPack

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 13, 2014
Messages
833
Reaction score
189
Location
Broken Arrow, OK (Milwaukee born)
The only things I want to say about Newton is that he hasn't impressed me so far and that the contract the Panthers signed him to is insane.

I'm surprised that a guy like Brandt, who worked as VP of player personnel in the NFL for more than two decades, doesn't show more respect for Rodgers' accomplishments.
Almost makes me wonder if there isn't something going on behind the scenes here. Brandt has to know deep down his statement is borderline insane and in no factual. The Packers passing offense is predicated on timing and accuracy. Yes, there are plenty of deep balls but the guts of the operation are based on slants, 20 yardish out routes, back shoulders etc. If Gil believes Cam could make the throws Rodgers is asked to in a similar fashion I have to question his eye for talent. There are only a handful of guys to ever play in the league that can make the throws 12 does and that statement is based in reality, not fandom. You often hear former players and great QB's talk about the ball 12 throws and many times they sound completely amazed while discussing said throws. The talk we usually hear about Cam is whether or not he has grown and is ready to take the "next step." Cam has the tools to be a very good pro QB. I honestly believe that. With that being said there isn't a chance in hell he could come into this system and keep it humming as if AR were never there. NO FRIGGIN WAY! The only thing I can come up with is either A) he got/felt shafted during a interview with 12 or B) deep down he thought Olivia Munn would be his. Either way homeboy is warped and if he truly meant what he wrote, an idiot to boot.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
As soon as someone can point me in the direction of another objective group that grades every player I'll happily use them as well.
That's not really the point. PFF is not so much an "objective" group as they are an "independent" group...two different things.

Objectivity is a tough get; it's impossible when it comes to some of the purported "objective" statistics that necessitate a heavy dollop of subjectivity.

Don't get me wrong...I like some of the stuff PFF and some other purveyors provide when they stick to what players have actually done (vs. what they woulda, shoulda, coulda have done) where you can deduce little wiggle room for subjectivity. When we wander into stats like "drops per catchable ball", where both the numerator and denominator are subjective, the results should be viewed with a dose of skepticism.

Simply put, no data is often better than suspect data. Or to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, it's better to know that you don't know than to think you know when you actually don't.
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,810
Reaction score
930
That's not really the point. PFF is not so much an "objective" group as they are an "independent" group...two different things.

Objectivity is a tough get; it's impossible when it comes to some of the purported "objective" statistics that necessitate a heavy dollop of subjectivity.

Don't get me wrong...I like some of the stuff PFF and some other purveyors provide when they stick to what players have actually done (vs. what they woulda, shoulda, coulda have done) where you can deduce little wiggle room for subjectivity. When we wander into stats like "drops per catchable ball", where both the numerator and denominator are subjective, the results should be viewed with a dose of skepticism.

Simply put, no data is often better than suspect data. Or to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, it's better to know that you don't know than to think you know when you actually don't.


Objective simply means that they're not influenced by fandom...something in short supply on any fan forum. Many fans will say a guy is a great or terrible players at his position yet they haven't watched all the other players at that position. That's like saying someone is a great runner without actually watching them run against anyone else. PFF just allows people, or at least me, to figure out how good a player is relative to others. I don't actually think a guy ranked 9th at his position is the 9th best, but I would tend to think that that player is better than the guy rated 25th and I would also tend to think the 9th ranked guy is a better-than-average linebacker.

As for no data being better; if PFF wasn't around, I would have no basis with which to evaluate the performance of the vast majority of the Packer's players. Sure, it's easy to say Rodgers, Nelson, Cobb and Lacy are REALLY good. But until PFF came around, how many people (outside of Packer's fans) really knew how terrific Sitton was? The entire basis of player evaluation by the media and fans has been bettered by being able to reference a site that tracks every player in a uniform fashion. While you may disagree with HOW players are measured, if all the players are measured the same way then at least you have a solid foundation for comparison.
 

Vrill

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 1, 2011
Messages
1,803
Reaction score
137
How are our rookies doing in camps? Any standouts?
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
While you may disagree with HOW players are measured, if all the players are measured the same way then at least you have a solid foundation for comparison.
I'll take the risk the mod is objecting to the Newton line of discourse, not this one.

Anyway, dwell on your statement for a moment. "Same" is necessary; without the demonstrably sound "how" it is not sufficient and can be distorting.

The more you scratch the surface with this stuff, the more evident it becomes there can be subjective distortions, and you can't be sure in which specific numbers they're rearing their heads.

Then there's the feedback loop issue. You can say the PFF rating backs up so-and-so expert analyst's eye test, a guy you respect, whereas he might not even have seen the guy play that much and is echoing what he read in a PFF report.

I think it wise to stick to what you see, the opinions of those you respect who render those opinions in a way so as not suggest they're echoing somebody else's, and the data that is objectively measurable, or at least the data where you can deduce the possibility for subjective static is limited.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top