Jim Harbaugh on Cam Newton

[teeray]

That "article" was more opinion based that most of the posts on this huddle. It just so happens that they manipulated the statistics and took such a small sample size that of course they felt was accurate because it articulated their point and now you use it as truth.

Someone mentioned the little credibility left on this site? It will be gone until after the draft when only the real fans are left.

Pretty bad retort. Even for you.

But.. but... those guys are not fair they use facts!!! It was fixed I tell you. They manipulated it.

Just get over it. You overly generalized uninformed rhetoric about Cam is poo. Just say, he isn't as accurate a passer as I would like, and I think he is too risky to take #1 overall. That is reasonable.

But don't just say stuff and then complain when facts don't back you up.

That is what stupid people do and you are smart :)

[teeray]

I'm a Cam fan but there is absolutely no comparison between him and Aaron Rodgers ffs. He's a mix of Big Ben and Michael Vick if you want to use an NFL comparison.

I think people are mistaking what I said with I think their games are similar. That wasn't my point and I agree their games are not similar.

My point was and only was that Cam didn't bail on the pocket or scramble any more than Rodgers did. Therefore is Rodgers is considered a "pocket passer" than so should Cam.

His runs were high by design. Not because he broke down in the pocket and bailed on passing plays. THAT was my main point

[TheRealDeal]

I isn't stats in the sense of passing yards and rushing yards.

It was disproving myths with statistical fact. That is a difference. you can't massage how many times a guy scrambled, or ran on a passing play, or threw screen passes. Those are facts. you can massage YPA completion percentage, etc. These are facts. Big difference.

If anything I misspoke to call it analysis.

Define screen pass? Do those swings or hitches count as screens in their "analysis"? What constitutes "under pressure" in terms of college and the NFL? How come they didn't include times he scrambled but was tackled for a loss? How about the times he rushed for no gain? How about the times he made one read and scrambled then threw it away?

Why didn't they do a breakdown of passes between -0, 0-5, 5-10, 10-15, 15-20, 20+ if they wanted to compare him to Rodgers? Why don't they mention how many of his yards are YAC yards? They don't mention anything about coverage schemes, offensive schemes, anything.

They found 2 tiny fuging stats and based their whole argument around it, saying that Cam is a mix of Rodgers and Brady and you keep citing it like it's award winning analysis.

It's a joke man

[Peppers90 NC]

Actual statistical analysis backs me up. Thanx tho.

You can read any stats and twist them any way you want, but football knowledge and watching the two guys play... well if you can't distinguish that yourself without the help of stat nerds, thatn you youre never gonna get it.

[TheRealDeal]

My point was and only was that Cam didn't bail on the pocket or scramble any more than Rodgers did. Therefore is Rodgers is considered a "pocket passer" than so should Cam.

And the point you are missing is that you can't make that determination based off of one hand selected stat, you need to consider everything and the answer is no, Cam shouldn't but Rodgers is.

[teeray]

Define screen pass? Do those swings or hitches count as screens in their "analysis"? What constitutes "under pressure" in terms of college and the NFL? How come they didn't include times he scrambled but was tackled for a loss? How about the times he rushed for no gain? How about the times he made one read and scrambled then threw it away?

Why didn't they do a breakdown of passes between -0, 0-5, 5-10, 10-15, 15-20, 20+ if they wanted to compare him to Rodgers? Why don't they mention how many of his yards are YAC yards? They don't mention anything about coverage schemes, offensive schemes, anything.

They found 2 tiny fuging stats and based their whole argument around it, saying that Cam is a mix of Rodgers and Brady and you keep citing it like it's award winning analysis.

It's a joke man

Because it wasn't an analysis to compare Cam Newton to Rodgers numb nuts.

It was about the myths of Cam Newton that people like you spout of in big generalizations with no basis in fact.

It was about him staying in the pocket. How he reacted under pressure. And if you actually read the analysis you would have seen that it addressed the type of passes Cam Newton threw.

Keep trying though you will get there LOL.

Just stick to things the simple minds can control. Unquantifiable things like, "he a bust. period" And things like that.

When you guys step out and try to talk about facts you just look petty and foolish.

[TheRealDeal]

Do you not think that those stats were hand picked and very selective to fit into their overall opinion that Cam is and will be fine in the NFL?

They didn't go just looking to do "analysis" but rather they only wanted a small window of stats that they had to add some opinion too and cut down so it fit their original point.

That is a terrible way to present fact.

It starts out like:

All fat bitches give good head

Then when they dive into the research they find out that only fat bitches who were born on a Tuesday between the hours of 6am and 2pm who live by themselves now but were originally only raised by their mother and who drive cars built before 1992 and who work in an environment that doesn't require them to wear heels give good head

Then they find one hot blonde with big tits and who somewhat fits the above criteria as well and say see, fat bitches are the same as pretty hot blonde women with big tits.

[teeray]

You can read any stats and twist them any way you want, but football knowledge and watching the two guys play... well if you can't distinguish that yourself without the help of stat nerds, thatn you youre never gonna get it.

They aren't stats that can be twisted. The only reason TRD doesn't think they mean anything is because it accounts for their last 6 games. Of course anyone worth their salt in statistical analysis is going to use the most recent data and there is a reason they chose the last 6 games. It was bc it provided the best representation of the subject being studied.

BTW you guys are worried about 6 games how come you don't care that the guys on TV that are "experts" usually use no more than 4-5 games for their analysis.

Those are the guys you always refer me to when they poo on Cam Newton.

[TheRealDeal]

When you guys step out and try to talk about facts you just look petty and foolish.

You are missing the point that the article you are trying to pass off as fact is no more rooted in fact than any poster on here. They have to make a subjective call on pressure, on the type of throw, etc. I've watched enough of Cam to draw my own conclusions, which have later come out to be the same conclusions the professionals and experts came to so I think I trust my analysis more than some shitty article.

Also, if it wasn't about Rodgers or Brady and a comparison, why did they bring their names up? It's because they are trying to convince the readers that he is in fact set up to be an elite NFL QB like the names mentioned when the reality paints a different picture.

[teeray]

Do you not think that those stats were hand picked and very selective to fit into their overall opinion that Cam is and will be fine in the NFL?

They didn't go just looking to do "analysis" but rather they only wanted a small window of stats that they had to add some opinion too and cut down so it fit their original point.

That is a terrible way to present fact.

It starts out like:

All fat bitches give good head

Then when they dive into the research they find out that only fat bitches who were born on a Tuesday between the hours of 6am and 2pm who live by themselves now but were originally only raised by their mother and who drive cars built before 1992 and who work in an environment that doesn't require them to wear heels give good head

Then they find one hot blonde with big tits and who somewhat fits the above criteria as well and say see, fat bitches are the same as pretty hot blonde women with big tits.

That is bullpoo stupid because it wasn't hand picked games it was 6 successive games at the end of the season. If they had just picked 6 games at random then you may actually have a point (for once) but it wasn't.

If they truly wanted to skew the data they would have chosen the best representations of different games in no particular order to fit their opinion.

Instead they took a sample size that is larger than what the guys on the NFL network have used for their analysis and studied it.

[Peppers90 NC]

Reality, there should be no comparison from Newton to Rogers, they aren't even close to the same playing field... at this point

[TheRealDeal]

That is bullpoo stupid because it wasn't hand picked games it was 6 successive games at the end of the season. If they had just picked 6 games at random then you may actually have a point (for once) but it wasn't.

If they truly wanted to skew the data they would have chosen the best representations of different games in no particular order to fit their opinion.

Instead they took a sample size that is larger than what the guys on the NFL network have used for their analysis and studied it.

#1 where are you getting that information about # of games watched by "guys on the NFL network" :lol: And stop listening to "guys on the NFL network"

#2 how do you know that the last 6 games isn't the best representations to skew the data? You even said earlier that the beginning of the season wasn't accurate because of blah blah blah so it just so happens they are in succession when really it's only because they wanted to prove their point.

If they had any credibility, they should have done an analysis of his whole season and compared it then if they wanted to use 6 games, do that as well but offer analysis on why the change, whether good or bad.

I'm sorry it's just sad that you hung on to one tiny stat and are basing your whole argument around it when that one stat is rooted in opinion and subjectivity.

[ncmonzta]

Like Cam Newton??

http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/sports/columnists/hyde/blog/2011/02/draft_winds_a_thorough_breakdo_1.html

Its funny how someone can give another person video evidence and they refuse to admit they're wrong. Those videos are proof he can throw ball. The only thing people can say is he might have character issues, who knows. What we do know is that Cam Newton is a good pocket passer and good throwing under pressure. We don't even have to bring in his ability running when a defense breaks down. He's done everything a QB can do in college division one and two each his first year starting. He hasn't lost a game starting ever. What is it that people don't get?:nonod:

[teeray]

You are missing the point that the article you are trying to pass off as fact is no more rooted in fact than any poster on here. They have to make a subjective call on pressure, on the type of throw, etc. I've watched enough of Cam to draw my own conclusions, which have later come out to be the same conclusions the professionals and experts came to so I think I trust my analysis more than some pooty article.

Also, if it wasn't about Rodgers or Brady and a comparison, why did they bring their names up? It's because they are trying to convince the readers that he is in fact set up to be an elite NFL QB like the names mentioned when the reality paints a different picture.

It doesn't matter if it is subjective if the two samples are held to the same standard.

Bringing up Rodgers and Brady is to give someone perspective not to compare dummy.

It is interesting you say the professional and experts agree with you since you said there was no way he would be a top ten pick but you were flat fugging wrong.

Meanwhile I was the first one on this board to say watch out for Buffalo at number 3 which is now likely if we don't pick him.

But hey, again, keep trying. You'll get there someday :D