Steve Smith takes Cam over Tebow anyday.

[AceMan]

:beatdeadhorse5:

http://snipsnip.it/ae4ciht0atv/

[CatMan72]

Like I have said. Cam does a lot of good things, he also does a lot of bad things that keeps us from winning and MUST be cleaned up. Picks and turnovers matter more than the points put up. 3 and out or a stalled drive is also a turnover.

You can overcome a single interception. Especially if its past midfield. It's hard to overcome 2 or 1 thrown in your own followed by a number of 3 and outs by your offense. It's hard for any defense not to allow a score when your offense does this for the entire second half.

Super Elite

Aaron Rodger's interception per pass efficiency: 1 per 73

Alex Smith: 1 per 72

Elite

Aaron Rodgers(career): 1 per 53

Tom Brady(career): 1 per 45

Great

Drew Brees: 1 per 49

Tom Brady: 1 per 45

Matt Moore: 1 per 45

Matt Ryan: 1 for 42

Average

Payton Manning(career): 1 per 36

Mathew Stafford: 1 per 36

Andy Dalton: 1 per 35

Blaine Gabbert: 1 per 35

Bad

Cam Newton: 1 for 29

Michael Vick: 1 per 28

Phillip Rivers: 1 per 28

Josh Freeman: 1 per 25

Michael Vick(career): 1 per 23

Christian Ponder: 1 per 21

"Perfect"

N/A

Godly

The Golden Calf of Bristol: 1 per 99

This is why defense's can't do poo about takeaways and also the reason your defense gets scored on. There's a huge difference between a defense facing Aaron Rodgers, Smith, The Golden Calf of Bristol and Cam Newton or a defense having to deal with one on his own team.

It's practically impossible to "pick off" The Golden Calf of Bristol. He will throw a pick if he wants to. That means this dude cannot possibly be as inaccurate as people say. Inaccurate quarterbacks get picked off. The Golden Calf of Bristol's not one of those. The Golden Calf of Bristol's got a bad completion % which means he's got crappy receivers and he does.

"But Cam has to be Perfect for us to win!" Like I have been saying it would be nice if he was just average.

If your #'s show Gabbert is better then Cam, then your numbers are meaningless.

[AceMan]

If your #'s show Gabbert is better then Cam, then your numbers are meaningless.

:lol: It also says Peyton Manning has been an "average" QB throughout his career

[teeray]

In the interest of fairness my last post's records are average points allowed versus points scored for the two team (2003 and 2011). Doesn't mean that would be there actual records.

However the 2003 defense was actually put in worse positions on average than the 2011 defense.

[Showtime]

:lol: It also says Peyton Manning has been an "average" QB throughout his career

Because that's what he's been in interceptions? Peyton's always been overrated and most fans who actually cared to really study QB's have known about this for some time. This is what's so hilarious about some of you. Things that are very important, that you never knew about, and you laugh like an idiot.

:rofl:

You didn't know this? Of course not....cause you look at one stat: yards!

A QB rating is made up of 4 parts.

compeltion %

interception %

TD%

avg yards.

But you and guys like Catman only look at yards. lmfao.

[BBQ&Beer]

:lol: It also says Peyton Manning has been an "average" QB throughout his career

& that The Golden Calf of Bristol is better than Rodgers...

[CatMan72]

Because that's what he's been in interceptions? Peyton's always been overrated and most fans who actually cared to really study QB's have known about this for some time. This is what's so hilarious about some of you. Things that are very important, that you never knew about, and you laugh like an idiot.

:rofl:

You didn't know this? Of course not....cause you look at one stat: yards!

A QB rating is made up of 4 parts.

compeltion %

interception %

TD%

avg yards.

But you and guys like Catman only look at yards. lmfao.

Okay, fine Manning is overrated... so The Golden Calf of Bristol is a better passer then Rodgers based on his attempts to INT ratio?

[CatMan72]

The goal every season is to win. That doesn't mean Fox isn't developing him. The Golden Calf of Bristol was terrible in the offense Kyle Orton was running. They switched to an offense he was more comfortable with. Week after week they ask him to do a little more than the last.

While he isn't being developed in the same manner as Newton, it doesn't mean that he isn't being developed at all. You don't just say to hell with the season and "sacrifice wins." That's not how you keep your job.

I would much rather take my lumps this season in the name of developing Cam as a passer, then take my lumps down the road when defenses adapt to defending the option and force The Golden Calf of Bristol to beat them with his arm.

The Golden Calf of Bristol attempted 40 passes against the Bears in week 14 and 39 passes against the Lions in week 8. Meanwhile, he attempted 12 rushes against the Bears and 10 against the Lions... so tell me again about how he's gradually being developed as a passer?

[King Taharqa]

He's got Moore listed as great and is romanticizing Delhomme as flawless. Moore fans are the most delusional.

[Showtime]

Okay, fine Manning is overrated... so The Golden Calf of Bristol is a better passer then Rodgers based on his attempts to INT ratio?

Only if you read stats like you and Teeray do. Why the fug would you use 1/4th of your passer rating to indicate what kind of passer you are instead of the complete passer rating?

That tracks your interceptions inefficiency. So no, you wouldn't use interception efficiency by itself to rate a passer. You use the QB PASSER RATING.

Interceptions however, have a larger meaning on your entire team and their chances of winning/losing. They don't just affect your QB's passer rating. So you look at this when comparing QB's to see who's incredibly efficient.

In other words two QB's who have identical passer ratings...but one has a 90 because he gets 4000 yards and throws 1 pick per 28 attempts, is probably fuging over his team versus one that throws 1500 yards and throws 1 per 99.

One's a better QB. The secret isn't yards, it's the least interceptions. Which is why you should look at Tom Brady's records in interceptions efficiency. He dominates the category. Especially in 2007.

What it means is when you don't throw interceptions you score more points. It's better to be efficient in these two categories than be inefficient and get a pooload of yards and decent completion % to have a high passer rating. Which is what Peyton Manning does.

[Swaiy]

I would much rather take my lumps this season in the name of developing Cam as a passer, then take my lumps down the road when defenses adapt to defending the option and force The Golden Calf of Bristol to beat them with his arm.

The Golden Calf of Bristol attempted 40 passes against the Bears in week 14 and 39 passes against the Lions in week 8. Meanwhile, he attempted 12 rushes against the Bears and 10 against the Lions... so tell me again about how he's gradually being developed as a passer?

I'm almost certain that you don't follow the Broncos as much as you let on. You speak as if you know what's going to happen in the future. NOBODY knows what offense the Broncos are going to run in the future. The "when defenses adapt to defending the option and force The Golden Calf of Bristol to beat them with his arm" get up is getting a little tiring. That's just regurgitating the same crap people have been spewing for weeks.

I mean how much tape could you possibly need? It's there for all to see. I'm not even saying it's a viable offense on a permanent basis but let's not pretend it can't be stopped. It HAS been stopped numerous times. The Vikings, the Bears, and the Jets have stopped it easily.

I hate to repeat myself but I will. Two different teams. Two different QBs. Two different systems. Two different coaching staffs. No QB is developed the exact same way as another. You're smart and I'm damn sure you know this. Stop acting.

I also shouldn't have to explain to you that some coaches don't have the luxury of taking their "lumps." These games aren't played in a vacuum. If you don't produce or show that you are making strides in the right direction, you get fired. Duh.

Nobody expected the Broncos to be anywhere near where they are right now. They were pretty much front-runners in the Suck for Luck race. There are plenty of "lumps" to be taken down the road regardless.

Also, you don't need to throw 45 friggin passes every game a la Panther's offense to develop a QB. That's just my opinion. Like I said earlier, 2 different philosophies.

[CatMan72]

Only if you read stats like you and Teeray do. Why the fug would you use 1/4th of your passer rating to indicate what kind of passer you are instead of the complete passer rating?

That tracks your interceptions inefficiency. So no, you wouldn't use interception efficiency by itself to rate a passer. You use the QB PASSER RATING.

Interceptions however, have a larger meaning on your entire team and their chances of winning/losing. They don't just affect your QB's passer rating. So you look at this when comparing QB's to see who's incredibly efficient.

In other words two QB's who have identical passer ratings...but one has a 90 because he gets 4000 yards and throws 1 pick per 28 attempts, is probably fuging over his team versus one that throws 1500 yards and throws 1 per 99.

One's a better QB. The secret isn't yards, it's the least interceptions. Which is why you should look at Tom Brady's records in interceptions efficiency. He dominates the category. Especially in 2007.

What it means is when you don't throw interceptions you score more points. It's better to be efficient in these two categories than be inefficient and get a pooload of yards and decent completion % to have a high passer rating. Which is what Peyton Manning does.

So how much more winning is Gabbert doing with a lower int/pass ratio then Cam and a top 10 defense?

[teeray]

Only if you read stats like you and Teeray do. Why the fug would you use 1/4th of your passer rating to indicate what kind of passer you are instead of the complete passer rating?

That tracks your interceptions inefficiency. So no, you wouldn't use interception efficiency by itself to rate a passer. You use the QB PASSER RATING.

Interceptions however, have a larger meaning on your entire team and their chances of winning/losing. They don't just affect your QB's passer rating. So you look at this when comparing QB's to see who's incredibly efficient.

In other words two QB's who have identical passer ratings...but one has a 90 because he gets 4000 yards and throws 1 pick per 28 attempts, is probably fuging over his team versus one that throws 1500 yards and throws 1 per 99.

One's a better QB. The secret isn't yards, it's the least interceptions. Which is why you should look at Tom Brady's records in interceptions efficiency. He dominates the category. Especially in 2007.

What it means is when you don't throw interceptions you score more points. It's better to be efficient in these two categories than be inefficient and get a pooload of yards and decent completion % to have a high passer rating. Which is what Peyton Manning does.

So since Cam is better than Moore and Jake in that category do you think he is better than both of them even as a rookie??

Wow. That is pretty good. You should be excited about that!!

[AceMan]

Because that's what he's been in interceptions? Peyton's always been overrated and most fans who actually cared to really study QB's have known about this for some time. This is what's so hilarious about some of you. Things that are very important, that you never knew about, and you laugh like an idiot.

:rofl:

You didn't know this? Of course not....cause you look at one stat: yards!

A QB rating is made up of 4 parts.

compeltion %

interception %

TD%

avg yards.

But you and guys like Catman only look at yards. lmfao.

See...this is why you're a joke. :frown2:

Even when you come up with some good points, you want to be SSOOOO RIGHT and you immerse yourself into certain stats (YPP, TD:INT ratio) SSSOOOOO MUCH that you lose sight of your own argument and jump into a zone of ridiculousness where the average person with any football knowledge at all MUST consider you a joke. In essense, you end up trolling yourself :troll:

You can say Peyton Manning is overrated and all, but he's still a great QB...and fugged up by trying to prove The Golden Calf of Bristol is such a great QB.

You stated this:

No Teeray. QB passer rating is THE BEST rating for how good a passer you are.

Peyton Manning is 6th all-time. Tom Brady, the guy you just got finished whacking off to is behind Tony Romo. That's right, according to YOUR LOGIC, Tony Romo is a better passer than Tom Brady and Peyton Manning. Oh yeah...in 2004, Peyton Manning has the highest passer rating in history at 121.4. So in 2004, Peyton Manning was the best passing QB in history.

The Golden Calf of Bristol's current QB rating is 83.9. Peyton Manning hasn't had a QB rating lower than that since his rookie year!!! Cam Newton, the guy that needs to improve so much, is right behind The Golden Calf of Bristol with 81.1.

Now go ahead and tell me the TD:INT ratio is NOW more important than QB passer rating! :lol:

I knew your ego was crazy for the simple fact that you're obviously still PMS-ing that you got bant and feel like you MUST educate us by repeatedly creating new alts and rehashing the same tired arguments.

Get over it! Also,