Cam Newton vs Andrew Luck - Now who would you choose?

[edromeo]

The problem with evaluating Newton without talking with him or interviewing everyone who coached him is that it was hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. One side saying he was the real deal and hard working while the other side said he was insincere, a crook, and couldn't read a defense.

You know the best way for a media draftnik to get publicity? To say something negative about a top prospect.

Why? Because they know that at the end of the day after their moment in the spotlight their opinion is gonna get lost in the wash.

Also, they realize that were talking about the NFL where roughly 50% of the top prospects fail and the overall career span is short.

Betting against any prospect is always a safe bet.

Not to mention that in a team sport like football a lot of the individual success is linked to the surounding talent level.

Also you never know what agendas drive draftnik/media opinions.

GMs/Agents etc are always at the ready with misinformation and occasional out right falsehoods.

At the end of the day I say trust what you see more then what you hear.

His physical skills aren't the best things he possesses.

Again, I would argue that because without his physical skillset he wouldn't be able to do what he does.

If all it took were the elite mental traits that Cam possesses then there plenty of worthy #1 overall picks.

Being able to throw the ball 60 yards in the air off your back foot to hit Steve Smith in stride and being able to take a snap at the 2 yard line a jump into the endzone certainly elite skills not present in most prospects.

Guys like Russell and Young had similar physical skills to Newton but both have struggled because of other issues.

I disagree here.

Russell had elite arm strength to be sure but he was a limited athlete.

Young was an elite athlete but didn't have elite arm strength nor a clean throwing motion.

I would also argue that there was no way for a fan, heck the NFL executives failed to spot their mental flaws which only further supports how unknowable those traits are from our vantage point.

Look at Vince Young, I think it takes certain level of dishonesty to think that "they" could have predicted 3-4 years down the road despite having his best statistical season of his career that Vince and his HC would have issue that would lead to Vince's mental health to being questioned.

I can't really agree that talent or physical skills are the most important elements in a quarterback. Plenty of guys have average physical skills but were great quarterbacks. Montana comes to mind off the bat.

Then you don't really disagree with me.

I didn't say that being a great QB requires elite physical talent.

And I think you sell Joe short in the physical aspect because he had elite playmaking ability and great feet almost like a ballerina.

Joe had what Bill Walsh called spontaneous genius.

Anyway to be clear, the bolded above is not what I said:

....Relying on anything other then the observables is a joke when it comes to evaluation.

I think the intangibles are very important, but from my vantage point they're unknowable.

We don't get to meet the prospects or talk to them in person; we can only rely on hersey, which I'm not a big fan of.

If a prospect has a better physical skillset then for me they're the better prospect.

Physical skills are important and if all other things are equal, they can be the deciding factor. But unless a potential quarterback has the intangibles, leadership skills, and drive to be the best, all the physical skills in the world make little difference.

I think its important to define the deciding factor in what? In this case were talking specifically about evaluation.

For evaluation purposes skillset must be the deciding factor because the intangibles are unknowable for ever prospect, unless you take comfort in hersey.

Therefore all things are equal and it comes down to skillset.

Which again, is just restating my statement above.

BTW-The converse of your last statement is also true: given all the intangibles, leadership skills, and drive to be the best if a potential QB does not have the basic physical skillset to make all the NFL throws they cannot be an NFL QB.

[rayzor]

You could have stopped after: 'physically? really not much'.

I think there are a lot of things Luck does well from a physical standpoint, but I'm the one asking you.

Imo when someone doesn't know or have a reason for liking a prospect based on physical traits I have a hard time understanding what they base their opinion on.

No offense but to me the rest of your post is fluff that may or may not translate into the NFL.

Sure he could read defenses in college but how do we know that without the benefit of superior coaching and preparation he'll have that same advantage in the pros? Afterall Ricky Stanzi, Scott Tolzien and Greg McElroy showed similar intangibles traits and executed their 'pro-style' offenses at a high level.

Anyway, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

hmmm....i htnk that is half, if not most of the stuff that makes a guy translate into a good pro QB.

what kind of physical stuff are you looking at that makes him a good prospect or not?

[The NFL Shield At Midfield]

Cam sets rookie records=cam sucks because team is 1-3

: Cam Newton will be a bust because he didn't play in a pro style offense. Carolina blew the pick.

*six months later*

: Annihilating rookie records? Wins are the only metric that matters.

[The NFL Shield At Midfield]

Cam sets rookie records=cam sucks because team is 1-3

: Cam Newton sucks. He's never played in a pro offense, he's dumb as a brick, and he's an awful leader. Carolina blew the pick. You'll see once the season starts and he's completing 40% of his passes. The best thing we could have done was draft Marcel Dareus, tank the season with Clausen, and draft a real quarterback in Andrew Luck.

*five months later*

: So he's destroying rookie records every week? Sorry but the only metric that matters is wins.

[edromeo]

The problem with downplaying or omitting the mental aspect of things is that it leaves you to ignore red flags on players like Vince Young and Ryan Leaf.

Do you think the teams and front offices ignore the mental aspects? I don't.

And short of relying on hersey how can layman like ourselves assess the mental aspects or trust the veracity of what we hear?

What red flag are you talking about in regard to Vince?

I don't consider a 'red flag' that popped up 3 years down the road to be a red flag that could have been discovered earlier.

[edromeo]

hmmm....i htnk that is half, if not most of the stuff that makes a guy translate into a good pro QB.

what kind of physical stuff are you looking at that makes him a good prospect or not?

I'm not sure what stuff you're refering to.

Nor which him you are refering too.

But, in short:

Someone in my other forum asked me a similar question.

Keep in mind this was before Newton played 1 game as a pro:

I'm DG in the other forum:

---------- Post added August-9th-2011 at 10:09 AM ----------

I'll try be as concise as a I can.

For me Luck is a good prospect mainly because of his playmaking ability but Newton and Locker are not only both better playmakers but both have better arm strength.

I think what people like most about Luck is his command of Stanford's offense and his "pro-readiness".

But, his command on Stanford's offense is less about him as it is about Stanford's talented offensive line and Stanfords schematic advantages provided by an NFL quality coaching staff especially at the QB position.

Being more "pro-ready" only matters during the 1st training camp for example Clausen was considered the most pro-ready over Bradford, McCoy and The Golden Calf of Bristol yet Clausen had the worst season.

My point with the above statement is that being pro-ready isn't nearly as important as people believe.

Mind you I'm not saying that Luck is a bad prospect, I think he's one of the better prospects in the upcoming draft.

But, for me right now I would have Newton and Locker rated ahead of Luck.

[teeray]

I love the arrogance of calling Luck a bust when he is thought to be the best prospect since Manning.

Jeff George was supposed to be the greatest QB peospect in 10 years also when he came out.

I haven't called Luck a bust and I think he is a great pro prospect but I don't think he is the best prospect in 25 years (or even 10 years for that matter)

[rayzor]

ok...this is going around in circles.

i've lost interest.

it's been .gif bomb approved so....

(something tells me this might be appropriate for this weeks game. not sure why...)

[rayzor]

[TheGreatestOfAllTimeCam]

A year from right now dig up this thread--you are going to be so glad we have Newton over Lucky if you're truly a panthers fan. He will have a better career, more wins, and more title chances

[rayzor]

[rayzor]

[rayzor]

[rayzor]