Cam Newton report

Using that logic, one could determine that Matt Moore is better than Clausen (which i think he is ). Moore played far better than Clausen, even when Moore played horribly. So should we keep Moore?

If we're improving the environment, and the environment was to blame, then Moore should be fantastic. Moore actually threw TD's to wide recievers, even.

I know this is a Newton thread, but it's a Newton thread largely b/c our qb situation is so dire. I'm amazed at how people revised their opinion of Clausen after the new regime was hired.

Clausen is terrible. He may have been made slightly more terrible by the environment, but he was terrible.

 

speaking of Ponder, it's funny how negative a reputation I had about him.

TSN, who tends to do most of their work on season games and therefore is both shielded from and not likely to encounter hype from workouts, bowl games, and combine, has their rankings out. Don't always agree with their way of doing things but it's a good representation of what pundits would write if they weren't as ruled by consensus and hype.

TSN has Ponder at 54.
Which I thought, Christ, that's high.
I found him because they had Newton at 53, yikes.

Anyway, the profile was very complimentary of Ponder. They're not the same level of QB - that's Ponder at his highest, and Newton at his low - but it was interesting to see that comparison. Which, Ponder is the more athletic player, since that seems to be the draw. He's just not taller.

And while I don't think of Newton as all that elite - as I said in December I'm wary of a quarterback that suddenly shoots up to the top of the chart because the top team might need a QB - he's a good longterm prospect. I just don't know that last week's hype suddenly makes him the best player in the draft. I relented, eventually, on Luck after getting past whether or not the FO would draft an elite QB 'again' - but I just don't think Newton's the elite guy suddenly because Luck isn't there.

 

far better? No. Moore had more interceptions with half the reps. They had essentially the same QB rating, and Moore's done it before.

But, in comparison between the two? No, they're not in competition as the same player. Moore's a veteran. You keep or don't keep Moore based on whether or not he's good enough to start for you as a veteran. You're not developing him. He had his shot at that.

so, yes, believe it or not you would evaluate these players on their own merits, not just wanting Clausen to not be in the picture.

 

I still want a big, black, athletic QB, with the highly-developed thighs.

 

I would like to add that Moore was 6-2 coming into the season and had success as a starter twice before when everyone was healthy. Even this year, Moore captained the team when it was healthier than when Clausen took over, for the most part.
Remember Moore's weak fade pass in the endzone on more than one occasion? That was Scherer trying to get them to throw to a spot and not a person. He did the same thing with DelHomme. Just a little something that tells me Clausen was the product of his environment.

If there had been a huge dropoff, Yes, blame Clausen. But Moore was a .750 win percentage QB with about a 90 QB rating. I think Clausen can be that if coached well by coaches who care about the future, a healthy line, experienced receivers, etc.

Clausen was not ready to start--maybe ND had him ready, but his WRs were not open, ran wrong routes, etc. His line missed blocking assignments and he was sacked a lot. He was 3rd team for part of OTAs and camp. He was not expected to start this season. I can not think of one thing Clausen had to his advantage that other rookie QBs didn't have, but I can think of a half dozen variables that other rookies who struggled never had to deal with.

If all the negativity and JC bashing by Panther fans doesn't ruin him, he could be good. Not average--good.

 

Negativity by fans ruining him? He sucks on his own merit.

If I'm wrong I'll admit it - happily. But Clasuen sucks and he will continue to suck. He will never be good. If we stick with him, we'll have a new coach and GM in 2 years.

 

here's Football outsiders on him and the O and how awful every bit of it was.

I get the fun thing is to rage on him and be all pissy about how he was last year, I get that and want that too. But it's not logical. Guy's not going to get cut or traded. He'll sit behind a vet. Whatever happens after that is variable.

 

sitting behind a vet is fine. preferably #3.

 

Meat, I felt the same way, but when I looked at other rookie QBs in years past and analyzed their situations, I could not find one nearly as bad. Differences:

• The right side of his offensive line

a) featured players playing new positions, positions they never played before and did not play in camp.
b) were reserves playing behind an injured starter or for a departed veteran.

• The left side of his line

a) had Bernadeau in for Wharton a large amount of the time
b) were forced to provide more run-blocking
c) were schemed around by blitzing and stunting defensese

• The WRs

a) Steve Smith has probably slowed a step and was double-teamed. He dropped passes. He has always been too small for a #1 WR, but his speed sustained him.
b) Gettis and Lafell were rookies. They broke off routes, ran incorrect routes, and simply were going through the development that takes WRs on other teams a year or two to perfect.

• The RBs

a) The toll the OL's chaos had on the RBs is not minor. Injuries to Stewart and Williams kept the duo out of most games. Goodson stepped up carrying the ball, but his pass blocking sucks. He gave up 5 sacks that I can remember.
b) Vaughan and Sutton also had to play.

• The TEs

a) Probably have talent, but King was in for his blocking. Not having to worry about the seam routes or drags allows the D to send 7 or even 8 rushers, something they did often.

b) The TEs on our roster are probably the most underutilized players on our team.

• The offensive Coordinator

a) Did not adjust well. When I hear, "We need to simplify the offense" or see stupid formations and gimmicks, I know the OC is grasping.

b) Davidson and Fox designed the offense around a stud OL--it was not there. Stud RBs--not really there all the time. Finally, it was designed around a veteran QB who can read after the snap as well as before the snap. When a rookie with no first team reps stepped in at QB, the offense--already crippled by the OL injuries, WR development, and RB inconsistency (injuries)--then had a student driver. No chance for success.

• The Head Coach

a) Fox liked veterans, especially at QB. He was against playing Clausen. He was forced to and had no reason to care about his future. Development was not the issue.

Clausen may not be the answer, but under these conditions, there is no reason to throw him under the bus. And yes, 22 years of age is a kid in my book, and any human being who is constantly berated by his own fans for things that may have been beyond his control might be adversely impacted. Adults would crumble.
Not many rookie QBs ever had the cards stacked against them like this. If you can name one, please enlighten me.

 

I am with you. I just think you don't go after franchise QB # 2 with this crop of QBs. ($50+ million for red flags and potential?) I think JC needs his time and then a fair chance. If we trade down I would not be opposed to putting Pike on the PS, drafting Ponder in the second round, and signing a Volek or Hasselbeck. Let JC and Ponder fight it out for the #2 job. And, should we go 2-14 again, draft Luck.