"He's the most athletic Quarterback... Ever"

[Navy_football]

Not so sure either of those guys are as athletic as Cam. Sure they are smaller and faster/quicker but I think Cam is more of an all around athlete speed, strength, agility he demonstrates all 3 of those in my sig below. And to my knowledge NO Qb in the NFL has made a similar play than what Cam did in my sig.

 

Cam pulled away from two ATLANTA linebackers in that play! Not many QBs can pull away from one LB (with both hands on them), let alone two in one play. I think that's the "athleticism" the video is referring to. Size specifically, and the strength and durability that come with it.

 

[MichaelNewtonII]

That guy might be the biggest idiot on sports television.

he defends cam a lot, like a lot of us, so does that make us idiots as well?

[Mr. Scot]

Vick and RG3 are faster, but Cam is an all-around better athlete.

Semantics. We define athleticism differently.

[Mage]

Guys, Robert Griffin really isn't that athletic relative to the rest of the NFL.  He's just straight-line fast.  Poor change of direction.  Not strong. 

 

Newton has more athleticism than RG3.  Michael Vick is the only QB historically I would say was more athletic than Newton.  Kaepernick isn't too far behind but he still lacks the COD and power of Cam (Vick lacked power but he was by far the most agile).  Maybe Cunningham.  He was fantastic.

[Mr Mojo Risin]

I equate pure athleticism with track and field type skills, not football specific ones.

So you can only be a pure athlete if you compete in track and field? Doesn't really make sense to me.

[mcdougal]

God that was just awful. I have no idea where he was going with the Romo line. Was he trying to compare the two? He states that the Panthers have a Probowl TE, a 1,000 yard (rookie) WR, and a 1,000 yard RB. So? Is he trying to infer that the Panther's have given Newton enough talent?

 

But he also mentions the Gross retirement, Smith being gone, and the off season/in-season set backs for Cam...Is he trying to infer that Newton should just overcome this? He mentions that Anderson has 2 wins...And? 

 

Seems like overall he is trying the ole Hilary trick vs Barack in 2008. Basically move the goal post and then declare anything short of absolute domination should be considered a failure.   

[FootballMaestro]

So you can only be a pure athlete if you compete in track and field? Doesn't really make sense to me.

 

I didn't really want to get into this too  much, cause I understand both sides.

 

I don't think he's saying you have to be a track and field star (though a large percentage of NFL players do happen to run track). He's talking bout the traits normally associated with them, such as speed and explosion (various sprints, high jump, Long Jump,  Pole vault, etc.). Funny thing is; they're other events that require strength, endurance and coordination, but no one ever really thinks about these things. They're not the popular sports. Lol

 

The funny things is; a person can have more pure athleticism than someone else, while not being a better pure athlete.

 

How so? You can be fast. But if you're normal sized (with no strength or agility, such as RG3) so what? Now, if you take another guy (Cam for example), who's fast (especially for his size), big, strong, agile; then he may be the better overall pure athlete. I guess this is what some here meant when they said "football traits", cause if RG3 and Cam had a race outside, RG3 would win. However, on the football field, you may have to use your speed, strength, size, reach and dexterity in order to be successful. But it's still your athleticism.

 

Just because Lebron (as an example) is not the biggest, tallest, fastest, most explosive, or agile player in the NBA, doesn't mean he's not a phenomenal pure athlete himself because of all those various things he combines. That's Cam Newton for example, generally speaking.

 

So yes, being athletic, and being a "great athlete" can vary in two peoples eyes.

[CharlottePanther]

I actually think Vick and RG3 are both probably more athletic, but 'athletic' doesn't equal 'good quarterback'.

Newton is a better quarterback than those guys, and it's not even close.

Better than Vick yes, better than RGIII when healthy?! Debatable

[Mr Mojo Risin]

I didn't really want to get into this too much, cause I understand both sides.

I don't think he's saying you have to be a track and field star (though a large percentage of NFL players do happen to run track). He's talking bout the traits normally associated with them, such as speed and explosion (various sprints, high jump, Long Jump, Pole vault, etc.). Funny thing is; they're other events that require strength, endurance and coordination, but no one ever really thinks about these things. They're not the popular sports. Lol

The funny things is; a person can have more pure athleticism than someone else, while not being a better pure athlete.

How so? You can be fast. But if you're normal sized (with no strength or agility, such as RG3) so what? Now, if you take another guy (Cam for example), who's fast (especially for his size), big, strong, agile; then he may be the better overall pure athlete. I guess this is what some here meant when they said "football traits", cause if RG3 and Cam had a race outside, RG3 would win. However, on the football field, you may have to use your speed, strength, size, reach and dexterity in order to be successful. But it's still your athleticism.

Just because Lebron (as an example) is not the biggest, tallest, fastest, most explosive, or agile player in the NBA, doesn't mean he's not a phenomenal pure athlete himself because of all those various things he combines. That's Cam Newton for example, generally speaking.

So yes, being athletic, and being a "great athlete" can vary in two peoples eyes.

Good explanation Maestro

[FootballMaestro]

PS: This is why guys like Lawrence Taylor, Bo Jackson, Barry Sanders (phenomenal Athlete, though not huge), Cam, JJ WAtt, Megatron, Adrian Peterson, etc., are considered freak athletes at their respective positions, cause they combine size, speed, strength, explosion, endurance and agility in one package.

 

This is also the reason, why we don't see 5'8" inch players dominating the NFL, NBA and MLB.

 

They're a lot of 5'8" guys who may be super fast and agile. You know, "athletic" by some of our definition. Some may even be strong as well? Nonetheless, the guy that's almost as fast (or fast enough), who's bigger and stronger (providing he can play the position of course) will almost always get consideration, or the spot over them. That's professional sports in a nutshell right there.

 

You can't teach size. No one cares about a 5"10" TE who's fast, but can't play the position. Now if he was highly "athletic" and productive, he may have a spot on a team. Yes! However, as soon as there was a 6'5" guy who had similar traits who came on the team, that guy would be jettisoned for the bigger player on a pure athletic basis. Of course, this is provided they could both play the position for the Smart Alec's in waiting.

[Kuhndog94]

The idiot forgot to mention Cam has been playing behind the worst offensive line in the league until recently.

This guy makes Cam look bad.

[Frizzy350]

I didn't really want to get into this too  much, cause I understand both sides.

 

I don't think he's saying you have to be a track and field star (though a large percentage of NFL players do happen to run track). He's talking bout the traits normally associated with them, such as speed and explosion (various sprints, high jump, Long Jump,  Pole vault, etc.). Funny thing is; they're other events that require strength, endurance and coordination, but no one ever really thinks about these things. They're not the popular sports. Lol

 

The funny things is; a person can have more pure athleticism than someone else, while not being a better pure athlete.

 

How so? You can be fast. But if you're normal sized (with no strength or agility, such as RG3) so what? Now, if you take another guy (Cam for example), who's fast (especially for his size), big, strong, agile; then he may be the better overall pure athlete. I guess this is what some here meant when they said "football traits", cause if RG3 and Cam had a race outside, RG3 would win. However, on the football field, you may have to use your speed, strength, size, reach and dexterity in order to be successful. But it's still your athleticism.

 

Just because Lebron (as an example) is not the biggest, tallest, fastest, most explosive, or agile player in the NBA, doesn't mean he's not a phenomenal pure athlete himself because of all those various things he combines. That's Cam Newton for example, generally speaking.

 

So yes, being athletic, and being a "great athlete" can vary in two peoples eyes.

 

I think this all ties into the age old argument of who is a better athlete: a sprinter or a decathlete?  Decathlons are certainly not very prestigious these days, nor are they aired often.  I'd argue a decathlete is a better athlete, because it requires speed, stamina, strength and explosiveness.  Sure a pure sprinter will beat the decathlete in every sprint, but the decathlete is going to crush a sprinter in every other event.

However I'm also one of those guys who considers Big Ben to be a good athlete.

[FootballMaestro]

Good explanation Maestro

 

Thanks

 

One of the best singular examples of this (out of many) would be The Great Charles Barkley in Basketball.

 

Barkley, was 6'4 1/2", 300lbs when he came into the NBA (yes he was 300lbs, and didn't slim down to 260lbs several years later). 

 

Sir Charles, had the explosion to Cram It On The Neck Of 7 footers down low (Mel Turpin and Sam Bowie, is that you) on a routine basis, only taking one step back or gathering himself. Such was his size and explosion (size in Girth obviously)

 

Now, no one cared that there were a bunch of 6'2" 180lb guys who could run faster and jumper higher/faster than Barkley.

 

Oh no! NBA executives, and us as fans, drooled over watching a 300lb bowling ball go coast to coast, around his back, go down the lane, then Cram it on the neck off some poor, unfortunate future poster fodder on the other end.

 

Barkley, was quicker than the big guys. He was stronger than the little guys (and many of the big guys to). And had a better handle (aka dexterity) than the big guys guarding him as well. A true mismatch.

 

He had the makings of a Hell of a NFL Tight or Defensive End, if he would have chosen that sport  instead IMHO.

[xav8tor]

What the heck was that vid supposed to be?  That has got to be one of the worst written and produced pieces of media content I have ever watched.  I've got half a wall full of degrees and certificates and I don't have the slightest clue what the fug that guy was trying to say.  I doubt he does either.  Horrible...just horrible.