Cam after 4 years

[CelibatePimp]

Take a look at Cams completion percentage vs Lucks. Cam has a better completion percentage but much lower passing average. Obviously if you feed luck and surround him with receiving talent he's going to have better passing numbers. BUT it's not a reflection of accuracy.

I know at least last season Luck's WR were I think top three in drops whereas Cam's were around 21. That may factor in.

[London Loves Luke]

I know at least last season Luck's WR were I think top three in drops whereas Cam's were around 21. That may factor in.

In terms of numbers that's completely believable Luck has unnaturally high attempts per game. Thing that stands out to me is how much of our offence goes through Cam compared to Wilson and Kaep. Higher in both passing and rushing.

[SurvivalSloth]

Fantastic work, good sir.

[CelibatePimp]

In terms of numbers that's completely believable Luck has unnaturally high attempts per game. Thing that stands out to me is how much of our offence goes through Cam compared to Wilson and Kaep. Higher in both passing and rushing.

Watching the preseason last year, I was thinking RW was going to take that step (hence the chatter of parting ways with Lynch). When it became obvious he was struggling last season, the team went back to the run game.

The only young QB better than Cam is Luck. The rest are just riding their teams.

[MadHatter]

If we run no huddle a poo load it will, but ya know.......Shula.

If you have to run a gimmick offebse like the no huddle all of the time to look good in the passing game, that is not a good thing or ringing endorsement.

[Car123]

I know at least last season Luck's WR were I think top three in drops whereas Cam's were around 21. That may factor in.

Luck has almost 200 more attempts than Cam.

[Davidson Deac II]

If we run no huddle a poo load it will, but ya know.......Shula.  

 

If we do, teams will adapt and after a little while, it won't work as well. 

[nctarheel0619]

I think that may be coincidence, because when he started running again was when the line started breaking down. The line was actually fine in the first couple weeks, but then it started breaking down with injuries and teams getting more film on our horrible players (Chandler). He played really well when the line played well, and was actually in the very early MVP conversation in some media. But when the line started breaking down he really had no choice but to run and had no time to be an effective pocket passer. He was great from the pocket again late in the year when our line was solidified with Turner, Norwell and Remmers inserted (or re-inserted, back from injury).

What's your definition of great?  Even with that revamped line he didn't get over 65 percent completion percentage once.  

[nctarheel0619]

If you have to run a gimmick offebse like the no huddle all of the time to look good in the passing game, that is not a good thing or ringing endorsement.

Some players you have to do that with.  Sadly, it seems Cam would excel in that.  

[ctrcat]

What's your definition of great? Even with that revamped line he didn't get over 65 percent completion percentage once.

Great is winning back-to-back division titles on the road by 62 points when you've got a bum ankle, ribs, broken back, an UDFA chit fest @OT, and your stud rookie #1 WR is dropping balls left and right.

[Nick_81]

Some players you have to do that with.  Sadly, it seems Cam would excel in that.  

Cam is one of the better "reactionary" players in the game.  When you put him in no huddle situations, he does just that.  It's not necessarily a bad thing, and it's not something he has to run to be good/successful.

[nctarheel0619]

Great is winning back-to-back division titles by 62 points when you've got a bum ankle, ribs, broken back, an UDFA chit fest @OT, and your stud rookie #1 WR is dropping balls left and right.

You are using excuses, but that's fine man.  

[nctarheel0619]

Cam is one of the better "reactionary" players in the game.  When you put him in no huddle situations, he does just that.  It's not necessarily a bad thing, and it's not something he has to run to be good/successful.

Yeah, I agree.  They do need to run it more often though.  But you know..............Shula.  

[t96]

What's your definition of great?  Even with that revamped line he didn't get over 65 percent completion percentage once.  

 

He played 5 games with the improved o-line.

 

 

WK Game Date Opp Result G GS Comp Att Pct Yds Avg TD Int Sck SckY Rate Att Yds Avg TD FUM Lost

 

 

14 12/07  @ NO W   41-10 1 1 21 33 63.6 226 6.8 3 0 0 0 114.0 12 83 6.9 1 1 0   15 12/14  TB W   19-17 0 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- --   16 12/21 CLE W   17-13 1 1 18 31 58.1 201 6.5 1 1 1 6 74.8 12 63 5.3 1 1 0   17 12/28  @ ATL W   34-3 1 1 10 16 62.5 114 7.1 1 0 1 2 104.7 6 51 8.5 1 -- --

 

 

18 01/03 ARI W   27-16 1 1 18 32 56.3 198 6.2 2 1 1 0 82.6 7 35 5.0 0 1 1   19 01/10 @ SEA L   17-31 1 1 23 36 63.9 246 6.8 2 2 2 16 79.2 11 37 3.4 0 2 1

 

Was 'great' @NO, solid against CLE, 'great' @ATL though not being asked to do much since we dominated, solid vs ARI -- an elite defense. And he was borderline elite @SEA. Played better vs. their elite secondary than Manning, Rodgers, and Brady all did (yes Brady put up better stats in the SB, but realize the Hawks' secondary was missing Lane, and Sherman and Thomas were both hurt significantly and had surgery after the game) and that's with a significantly worse supporting cast around him than all 3 of those QBs, and it was in Seattle (only Rodgers played against them there of the 3 I mentioned), a much tougher environment than the Super Bowls. No QB in the league could've done much better than that with Cotchery as a starter and Byron Bell as LT.