Mr. Scot

If it were an AceBoogie thread, the content would be trollish and uninteresting. Face it. You were wrong. I seriously doubt you have the stones to admit it, but you're fooling yourself if you think everybody doesn't already know how dumb you look right now.

There was a period of time last season when Newton looked neither healthy nor confident. A whole lot of us were worried that he was getting his confidence beaten out of him by all the hits and pressures that our unfortunately put together offensive line was allowing him. But then the late season changes to the OL came. and all of a sudden it looked like the light was turning on again. If he can go into this season with that same kind of feeling, I will be an extremely happy camper.

Let's just say I wouldn't qualify for a Gettleman team.

On a Dave Gettleman team it is. I actually like Newton, but there are times when it's painfully obvious that he's a NASCAR reporter covering football.

Way too easy to get caught up in 'highlight reel' catches. Consistency...

​Nah. Too many people would make the old "Examine your zipper" joke.

​Someone should break that down.

​In Voth's video, Ginn and Byrd both looked smoother. Take that for what it's worth, of course.

​I suspect you realize you're about to take a lot of s--t.

​Carr had, among other things, the best completion percentage in the league. Everybody here loved citing that stat when we signed him. And WCO quarterbacks usually do have great percentages. It's one of the reasons they tend to be overrated. And it's honestly pretty funny to have someone who's holding hard to the stat line when I'm saying to follow your eyes instead tell me I'm "not the independent thinker". Ummmm, yeah... Face it, dude. You lost this one. But the old "i could refute you, but i don't care" out is at least a good choice for an exit strategy. Kudos for that.

​Carr had great stats, but he was a lousy QB. That's kinda the point. But if you wanna stick with the "stats are context" line, then I'll need answers to the following questions... - How many of the QB hits tallied came behind the line of scrimmage versus ahead of it? - How many of the plays on which Cam was hit were designed runs? - How many potential QB hits was Cam able to escape with his mobility? - On how many plays was a back or a tight end kept in as an extra blocker? - How many hits on either QB were a result of "coverage sacks"? - How many hits came because either QB held the ball for too long? - How many times did the respective teams employ 3, 5, 7 step drops or rollouts? And to be clear, all of these questions will need to be answered by an exact number from a verifiable source. Otherwise the "statistics are context" argument falls apart. See, these are the kinds of things us "non-stat guys" pay attention to when we're watching an actual game. It's also the kind of thing scouts, GMs and personnel people use to evaluate quarterbacks and linemen rather than just "checking the stats". These, and more. Honestly, I could have added additional questions but I figured this was enough to make the point. But hey, if you can provide a verifiable answer to these questions, then I'll certainly take your argument seriously. As an alternative, I might suggest going with the "I didn't mean it; I was just trolling" tactic to get out of the argument and save face. That might be your best option here.

​Stats arent "objective" if you have no context. They're largely worthless. You sound like someone who only watches Panther games. I watch every game I can. But even if you only see our own games, you have the chance to check out at least 13 other teams. Watch more, and learn more. Like i said before, if you really believe you can get the full story from stats, it tells me your knowledge of the game needs work.

​I'll take actually watching a game, a player and a team over a stat sheet ten times out of ten. You can't judge OL simply by QB hits without factoring in how mobile the QB is. The whole notion is ridiculous. And there's no stat that effectively quantifies mobility (no, QB rushing doesn't work for that). Stats were what told us that David carr was a great QB because he had a great completion percentage, but when you looked closer you realized all he threw were short, high percentage passes. Anytime someone comes to me telling me they can judge football teams and players by stats alone, I proceed from there with the assumption that the person in question doesn't know much about football.

​Two words... Second read.

Same reason anybody has an MVP season, honestly. Because he played well.

​There's a hell of a lot of debate for Romo and Roethlisberger.

And by the way. who is this twit?

Names on that list that I would most definitely debate: Roethlisberger, Flacco, Romo, Ryan, Wilson and pretty much everybody after "also". (Kaepernick, Stafford, Cutler...seriously?)

There's ALWAYS debate, especially with some of those names. Worth noting that ut depends a lot on the criteria you use for determining the 'better quarterback' too.

​You're a pessimist? Maybe a contrarian?

​Thanks dude. Always sad to lose friends.

​I remember old Darth. The 'most evil bastard on the board' he once said. I've forgotten Bastet's real first name, sadly. I am praying for her, though. Did they have any children?

Alv, do you know how Bastet is doing?

Mark and I were mods together on the original Panthers boards. I had heard he was sick, but held out hope he'd make it. Terrible news. Rest in peace, brother.

What if you can't read? I mean we do have Saint fans on here. What about them?