Newton nearly the same as Rodgers when passing in 2014 (minus 2nd downs where he falters).

[The Huddler]

Newton is top notch. That simple

On the ground and in the air, a beast. Exactly what you want in a QB in today's NFL

Ain't no twig either. Guy could truck

[DatsMyQuarterback]

Cam's running abilities automatically put him in the top 10 IMO. Now he's learned how to be a better game manager which (some talking heads tried to use that as a negative like he wasn't a "playmaker" anymore or stg) SMH.

[hepcat]

Wait, didn't I post this like 3 days ago?

[top dawg]

Wait, didn't I post this like 3 days ago?

 

Not sure if that's a rhetorical question.

 

Your thread addressed 2nd downs, not the similarity to A-Rod, which is the focus of the writer.  

[Growl]

If i had to guess I'd say Shula's massively predictable first down run calls and the ineffectiveness of our run game has a pretty significant effect on Cam's performance on 2nd down.

[top dawg]

Not to mention that the way we use the shotgun is just as predictable.

[Delhommey]

Cover 32 is reporting that Cam Newton is strikingly similar to Aaron Rodgers passing the ball per Pro Football Focus with that one big exception: second downs. They noted that PFF uses its own metrics that try and leave out stats/plays that skew the numbers  (like screen passes for big yardage), but the writer believes that Panthers fans should be encouraged (notwithstanding how PFF rates Luke Kuechly).

 

 

 

The article also notes that Cam is at his best on third and long (as opposed to short or medium).  **remember this is about passing***

 

It also notes that Cam is "significantly better under center than in Shotgun."

 

To me this is just more evidence that Cam has grown significantly, and this despite having suspect protection and weapons.

 

To me this is evidence of this

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insensitivity_to_sample_size

[top dawg]

To me this is evidence of this

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insensitivity_to_sample_size

 

Perhaps, but being that the sample size of NFL QBs is small anyway, especially when you encapsulate it on a year to year basis, this makes it more difficult to judge the value of a QB even more. especially if you are cherry picking stats and formulating your own metric anyway. But that's the nature of the beast when the sample size is so small.

 

At the end of the day, I guess the eye test and win-loss record is as good as any.  The elite (good or sucky) QB is in the eye of the beholder.