PDA

View Full Version : Andrew Luck or Cam Newton Who would you rather have?


Complex
10-23-2011, 11:03 PM
Its seems like a lot of people think that Andrew Luck is a football god. Who will step into the NFL and dominate the minute he steps onto the football field and Cam Newton has been playing great so far. So the question is who would you rather have leading your team for the next 10 to 15 year Andrew Luck or Cam Newton?

http://i.usatoday.net/communitymanager/_photos/campus-rivalry/2011/10/02/luckx-large.jpg

or

http://www1.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Cam+Newton+Gene+Chizik+SEC+Championship+Auburn+svW LaHgzxw4l.jpg

tjsunstein
10-23-2011, 11:05 PM
http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/tumblr_ljh0puClWT1qfkt17.gif

This one should be good.

Basileus777
10-23-2011, 11:07 PM
At this point Luck would be the riskier choice. I've seen enough of Newton in these 7 games to believe that he will be a legitimate NFL QB, while Luck has never played a down in the NFL.

keylime_5
10-23-2011, 11:07 PM
If you could take Newton with what you've seen of him so far or Andrew Luck after not having played a single NFL game, which would you take? Roll of the dice right there. That's basically what this poll is asking. Tricky tricky.

descendency
10-23-2011, 11:09 PM
I'm taking Newton because I think he has a higher upside and has actually shown a potential to reach it.

CashmoneyDrew
10-23-2011, 11:10 PM
I'm a gambler by nature, so I'm rolling with Luck.

Brent
10-23-2011, 11:16 PM
And Cam Newton – that’s plutonium-grade raw material, you know? I haven’t seen upside like with this guy in probably the last 10 years.
Says dude who coached Andrew Luck

/thread

Ness
10-23-2011, 11:21 PM
Kind of an unfair question don't you think? Right now it should be obvious that it's Cam Newton. He's played in the pros and is playing very well for a rookie.

DanZilla
10-23-2011, 11:25 PM
As of now, Cam Newton because 1) is already in the league and 2) has shown he can compete in the pro league.

Breed
10-24-2011, 12:00 AM
I expect this to be a 5 page thread when i wake up.

badgerbacker
10-24-2011, 12:07 AM
I don't know which will be more successful, but I would rather have Andrew Luck. I like his upside a lot, but the main reason I would rather have him on my team is because he is a person I want to root for. I can't explain why, but I just don't like Newton.

Victory X
10-24-2011, 12:10 AM
You know who Cam Newton reminds me of?

http://i.imgur.com/DdNLM.jpg

yo123
10-24-2011, 12:11 AM
You're right they are both african american.

Basileus777
10-24-2011, 12:11 AM
Newton isn't really anything like Vince Young other than being a tall black QB who can run. Cam's a power thrower who actually looks downfield in the pocket and is hard to take down, someone like Big Ben is a better comparison.

Ness
10-24-2011, 12:18 AM
You know who Cam Newton reminds me of?

http://i.imgur.com/DdNLM.jpg

Newton can actually pass the football from the pocket though.

kalbears13
10-24-2011, 12:19 AM
I think we can all agree that we would rather have Andrew Luck over Tim Tebow.

Cam Newton winning percentage as a starter in 2011= .286

Tim Tebow winning percentage as a starter in 2011= 1.000

Therefore Andrew Luck > Cam Newton. QED, *****.

niel89
10-24-2011, 12:25 AM
I take Luck because I think he is gonna be a better player. I think with Luck you are going to be able have a more complex offense and he will be able to do more for your team. Even if Cam had been at a major college for 4 years he still wouldn't be able to process the amount that Luck does. Newton is playing well, but there is still plenty of time for him to flame out. I had legit concerns about Newtons attitude and character, and 7 weeks doesn't completely erase those doubts.

Good question.

kalbears13
10-24-2011, 12:28 AM
I take Luck because I think he is gonna be a better player. I think with Luck you are going to be able have a more complex offense and he will be able to do more for your team. Even if Cam had been at a major college for 4 years he still wouldn't be able to process the amount that Luck does. Newton is playing well, but there is still plenty of time for him to flame out. I had legit concerns about Newtons attitude and character, and 7 weeks doesn't completely erase those doubts.

Good question.

I completely agree. In all honesty though the best quarterbacks in the league right now are the ones that can make those pre and post snap reads and also make an accurate throw. If you think in this capacity then Andrew Luck does have more "potential". I honestly don't see Cam Newton getting to that elite status.

Ness
10-24-2011, 12:29 AM
Well there is also plenty of room for Newton to get better. We may have not seen Newton's best football yet and what he is capable of doing. Especially since the Panthers still have a lot of personnel from that team a season ago.

49erNation85
10-24-2011, 12:30 AM
http://www.secsportsfan.com/images/tim-tebow-practise.jpg

I would rather take this guy.

RaiderNation
10-24-2011, 12:30 AM
Really hard decision here, went with Newton just because he has shown he has the raw talent to be a star in the NFL. If I were to say who will have more rings at the end of their career, I would go with Luck since the athletic QB's like Newton have never won it all.

Ness
10-24-2011, 12:31 AM
Man I am so sick of hearing about Tim Tebow. That's nothing against Tim himself, it's just the media needs to get the hell off of his jock. The Broncos aren't that interesting at this point in time. And neither is Tebow. If he was lighting it up, sure, but he's not.

yo123
10-24-2011, 12:31 AM
This poll is really close as it should be. Newton has obviously proven more as of now but this is a pocket passing league, and I think Luck is more advanced in that part of the game. It took me a while to choose but I think Luck can be the next Peyton Manning so it's hard to vote against that.

kalbears13
10-24-2011, 12:32 AM
Man I am so sick of hearing about Tim Tebow. That's nothing against Tim himself, it's just the media needs to get the hell off of his jock. The Broncos aren't that interesting at this point in time. And neither is Tebow. If he was lighting it up, sure, but he's not.

http://deekapsports.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/tebow-sad.jpg

49erNation85
10-24-2011, 12:33 AM
HA sorry Ness.It is the way the ball rolls man.I think he will get to be a good passer.That lock out just really held him back this year. And yes I agree that the media is all over his balls to much lately.

Real men cry kalBears.It is all from his heart man.You may mock but you would never cry on live TV

Ness
10-24-2011, 12:33 AM
I bet if I go to NFL.com right now, the first picture on the site is one of Tebow.

EDIT: Yup.

Basileus777
10-24-2011, 12:33 AM
There's no guarantee that Newton is incapable of becoming a good pre-snap QB. He's already drastically improved his game in terms of mechanics, pocket awareness, ability to run a pro-offense in a few short months. Looking at him now compared to where he was last year is pretty shocking.

Ness
10-24-2011, 12:34 AM
Let's try ESPN's NFL page.

EDIT: Yup.

yo123
10-24-2011, 12:35 AM
I'm pretty sure Tebow's career is going to go the exact direction VY's has, minus the disappearing and depression parts.

That being said I'm going to enjoy the ride. I'm actually genuinely interested to see how his career plays out.

bucfan12
10-24-2011, 12:37 AM
I'm going with Luck. He comes with the full package. Not only does he have good arm strength and very accurate, he's a great leader and is very intellegent. He probably might come in his rookie year and really be able to be good right from the start and might not take as many lumps.

Nothing against Cam Newton, he's got all the physical tools, but I still question his mentallity. Right now, he's making a ton of plays with his legs and athleticism, and he's progressed as a passer quicker than I thought.

But, I just don't see many, or if any flaws in Luck's game/.

DanZilla
10-24-2011, 12:37 AM
Sure doesn't help that they traded their best receiver. I really hope Tebow becomes a successful QB in the league. Like really.

Ness
10-24-2011, 12:39 AM
I do feel sorry for the guy a little bit. Especially during the preseason/summer. A television annoucnner went as far as saying something along the lines of never seeing more terrible throwing accuracy than that of Tim Tebow when the entire hoopla of Brady Quinn passing him on the depth chart was in full effect. And then to have guys like Mel Kiper tell Tebow to his face that he'll make a good H-back or tight end, but not a good quarterback in the NFL...I mean really, who needs all that negativity. Especially from Mel Kiper.

Basileus777
10-24-2011, 12:42 AM
It works both ways though. That same media attention made Tebow a first round pick and made him famous. It's not like he hasn't benefited from it.

49erNation85
10-24-2011, 12:44 AM
Mel Kiper is just a dick on draft.

niel89
10-24-2011, 12:44 AM
How is this now a Tebow thread?

yo123
10-24-2011, 12:45 AM
How is this now a Tebow thread?

Every thread is a Tebow thread.

49erNation85
10-24-2011, 12:46 AM
How is this now a Tebow thread?

He hurted Ness feelings

vidae
10-24-2011, 12:46 AM
I went with Luck but it was a lot closer than I thought it'd be. Cam is really impressive.

Complex
10-24-2011, 12:47 AM
It works both ways though. That same media attention made Tebow a first round pick and made him famous. It's not like he hasn't benefited from it.

Most of the media was saying he was going to be a bust and or was going to move to another position. I don't know how they made him a 1st round pick but he was benefited from the media money wise without them he wouldn't be getting all these sponsors.

Brodeur
10-24-2011, 01:23 AM
I think Cam Newton can eventually be a rich man's Donovan McNabb, but since I think Luck can be Peyton...

Flyboy
10-24-2011, 01:32 AM
I think Cam Newton can eventually be a rich man's Donovan McNabb, but since I think Luck can be Peyton...

Cam has shown that his accuracy will be better than the struggles McNabb had with it through his career... don't know if that's a fair comparison.

Raiderz4Life
10-24-2011, 01:33 AM
Cam has shown that his accuracy will be better than the struggles McNabb had with it through his career... don't know if that's a fair comparison.

He did say rich man's...so he's gonna be better than McNabb but I agree. They play pretty similar.

Ness
10-24-2011, 01:49 AM
It works both ways though. That same media attention made Tebow a first round pick and made him famous. It's not like he hasn't benefited from it.

I don't think Tebow ever asked to be famous though.

jayceheathman
10-24-2011, 01:52 AM
I would go with Newton only because he has proven it thus far in the NFL. If this poll was straight out of college for both of them then I would definitely go Luck.

jayceheathman
10-24-2011, 01:53 AM
I don't think Tebow ever asked to be famous though.

Favre is gone and there is no NBA, so they can't suck on Kobe's jock. ESPN/media has to have an orgy with someone.

dolphinfan2k5
10-24-2011, 01:54 AM
Really hard decision here, went with Newton just because he has shown he has the raw talent to be a star in the NFL. If I were to say who will have more rings at the end of their career, I would go with Luck since the athletic QB's like Newton have never won it all.

So you want the guy who you think is going to win less Super Bowls. That makes sense.

MetSox17
10-24-2011, 02:38 AM
When you consider the fact that Luck's draft situation will have a huge part of whether he succeeds or not, i have to go with Newton here. He is in the NFL right now. He is sitting in the pocket, making reads and throwing the ball accurately and with good zip. Give him a few years and he will have a bigger grasp on pre-snap reads and adjustments. Luck's throwing abilities are far more advanced in the collegiate level than Newton's were last year, but i'm not sure how much better Luck can be as a rookie (throwing the ball) than what Newton is doing right now. Then you take into consideration the fact that as a running threat, Cam is damn near unstoppable in the red zone, and it makes it an easier decision.

Once Carolina gets a little better on the offensive line and gives him a #2 WR, that offense is gonna be scary good. Their running game as it is is damn good. I just see a lot of success coming for Cam, and since Luck is still not in the league, i have to go with him.

If you asked me again a year from now, my answer could very well be different.

Ness
10-24-2011, 02:41 AM
Really hard decision here, went with Newton just because he has shown he has the raw talent to be a star in the NFL. If I were to say who will have more rings at the end of their career, I would go with Luck since the athletic QB's like Newton have never won it all.
You're forgetting Steve Young.

Caulibflower
10-24-2011, 03:20 AM
You're forgetting Steve Young.

And Roethlisberger. And Elway. And Aaron Rodgers. Improvisors all.

MetSox17
10-24-2011, 03:46 AM
And Roethlisberger. And Elway. And Aaron Rodgers. Improvisors all.

I don't remember much of Elway's youth, but in their greatest, and i mean the peak of their athletic ability, neither Roethlisraper or Rodgers could even hold a candle to Young's (or in this case Newton's) running abilities.

prock
10-24-2011, 04:51 AM
My input on this thread:

I have a boner for Cam, so that's my choice. He's already in the league and has completely out of this world potential. Love love love him.

Luck will be awesome, but I want to see him in the NFL before I take him over someone who is already in the league and doing well at a young age.\

Tim Tebow is not good and never will be.

prock
10-24-2011, 04:53 AM
HA sorry Ness.It is the way the ball rolls man.I think he will get to be a good passer.That lock out just really held him back this year. And yes I agree that the media is all over his balls to much lately.

Real men cry kalBears.It is all from his heart man.You may mock but you would never cry on live TV

That's because I'm not a *****. I wouldn't cry on national TV. And he has a long way to go to become a good passer still. His throwing motion still sucks and he throws more ducks than spirals.

jrdrylie
10-24-2011, 08:52 AM
I went with Luck for a few reasons. First, Luck is a better prospect. even though Newton has surprised me a bit, I still think Luck will be better. Like it has already been stated, athletic QBs don't win championships. Elway did it at an older age. He wasn't much of a runner by that time. Steve Young was more of a runner, but the years he won the Super Bowl, he never ran for more than 300 yards. Roethlisberger and Rodgers aren't running QBs. They are pocket passers who have the ability to use their legs. Huge difference. Third, running QBs tend to get injured or wear down. Lastly, I think Newton is going to come back to Earth. There was so little tape on him so teams didn't know what to expect. Teams will figure him out. Look at the last three games. There has been a serious drop off in numbers,

Sloopy
10-24-2011, 09:10 AM
Went Newton here. Both may prove to be outstanding. I like the multidimensional aspects of his game and he has proven to be an accurate passer, especially his touch on his deep throws (something a lot of young QB's struggle with) and has a cannon arm to support it. While JR points out that there isn't a lot of tape on him yet and he may be exposed, this could be said about every QB coming out, including Luck. There is a reason that most QB's have sophomore slumps.

Having said this I understand that Luck will most likely also be a great QB. However, he has lost some serious points with me in the fact that he has yet to come out and deny any of the allegations that he plans to steer where he gets picked in the draft. The last thing I want on my team is a diva at probably the most important position in football. Furthermore, every time we go into contract negotiations I don't want to be reminded that he could go get his architect on and be just as happy. While this may not even become a factor, at this point in time, while this poll is going on, it concerns me.

Add into this the fact that Cam HAS already proven he can play on a pro level etc. that everyone else has already mentioned.

FUNBUNCHER
10-24-2011, 09:17 AM
If both came out in 2011, I would have taken Luck because he seemed more polished. It's hard to examine Luck as strictly a pro prospect and see any bust potential.

As a Newton fan I understood the arguments that he might never live up to expectations.

RIght now?? I wouldn't trade Newton for any young QB in the league.
Newton is bigger and mobile than Luck, who's a big and mobile QB in his own right.
Also I don't think Luck has anywhere close to Newton's arm.
I think you can win with Newton long term and I also believe the same thing about Luck.
But right now the hype for Luck is through the roof and I wonder what people's expectations are for him in the NFL.

Is he expected to be the best QB in the league in a few years?? Top 5? 10?
As a rookie I don't think there's any way Luck can come close to his hype.

But I'd still bet that if Carolina in 2011 had a choice between Luck and Newton, they'd pick Luck 10 times out of 10.

FUNBUNCHER
10-24-2011, 09:24 AM
He did say rich man's...so he's gonna be better than McNabb but I agree. They play pretty similar.


Yeah, a rich man's McNabb would have won a couple SBs in Philly.
That's no diss at all.

FUNBUNCHER
10-24-2011, 09:32 AM
And Roethlisberger. And Elway. And Aaron Rodgers. Improvisors all.

And Montana and Staubach. Favre too I would consider a mobile QB. It's fine to be a mobile QB in the NFL and of course mobile QBs have won SBs, but running can't be your first option. If it's a bailout move or an attempt to buy time to find open WRs downfield, that's great.

Newton doesn't run like early Vick/VY.

Even after six games, people talk about Newton like he's a run first QB.

prock
10-24-2011, 11:14 AM
I hate the argument "athletic quarterbacks don't win championships". I don't understand where being a quarterback who is a fantastic runner correlates with not winning. Just because it happened before doesn't mean it won't. Just because McNabb or Vick haven't doesn't mean Cam Newton can't. Being a very good running quarterback doesn't hurt your chances of becoming a Super Bowl winner, it's really quite the fallacy.

keylime_5
10-24-2011, 12:04 PM
Steve Young won a super bowl. He was a great runner. Elway was very athletic as well. Cam Newton, like Steve Young, is a great runner who looks like he is gonna be a fantastic thrower as well. Newton certainly reminds a lot of people of Big Ben coming into the league, though Big Ben didn't put the entire team on his shoulders to win games like Newton has been doing. Big Ben rode a great running game and elite defense to wins early in his career. Newton is carrying his whole team so far. Once Carolina gets their defense back they'll be a contender. No doubt you can win super bowls with Newton as your QB if he continues to develop into what it looks like he can be.

Canadian_draft_fan
10-24-2011, 12:06 PM
I take Luck because I think he is gonna be a better player. I think with Luck you are going to be able have a more complex offense and he will be able to do more for your team. Even if Cam had been at a major college for 4 years he still wouldn't be able to process the amount that Luck does. Newton is playing well, but there is still plenty of time for him to flame out. I had legit concerns about Newtons attitude and character, and 7 weeks doesn't completely erase those doubts.

Good question.
This. When all is said and done I think people will be talking about Luck in the same breath as Marino, Montana, Brady, Peyton etc. Not so sure about Newton, although it looks promising so far.

EvilNixon
10-24-2011, 12:15 PM
Newton is more physically talented with elite intangibles. I have little doubt, he'll be the best QB in the league by his 3rd season.

FUNBUNCHER
10-24-2011, 12:23 PM
This. When all is said and done I think people will be talking about Luck in the same breath as Marino, Montana, Brady, Peyton etc. Not so sure about Newton, although it looks promising so far.

This is what I'm talking about. Luck isn't expected to be good or great or even win a SB.

People are anticipating him to become a HOFer and one of greatest to ever play the game.

That's a huge burden to put on Luck before he's ever played an NFL game.
Just saying it might be more fair to the guy to leave it at you think he's one of the top QB prospects of the last decade and hope for the best.

Luck isn't really threading the ball through tight windows or splitting multiple coverages at Stanford. Is his skillset really that much different than the QBs currently in the NFL??

What I like most about Luck is that he was coached by Jim Harbaugh, his intelligence and leadership intangibles. No major holes in his game.

But it's still college, which is why this comparison doesn't work well because we've seen Cam play on the pro level, but for Luck it's still an unknown.

Ness
10-24-2011, 12:59 PM
I went with Luck for a few reasons. First, Luck is a better prospect. even though Newton has surprised me a bit, I still think Luck will be better. Like it has already been stated, athletic QBs don't win championships. Elway did it at an older age. He wasn't much of a runner by that time. Steve Young was more of a runner, but the years he won the Super Bowl, he never ran for more than 300 yards. Roethlisberger and Rodgers aren't running QBs. They are pocket passers who have the ability to use their legs. Huge difference. Third, running QBs tend to get injured or wear down. Lastly, I think Newton is going to come back to Earth. There was so little tape on him so teams didn't know what to expect. Teams will figure him out. Look at the last three games. There has been a serious drop off in numbers,

Well you aren't going to run when you have Jerry Rice, John Taylor, and Brent Jones to throw the ball to. Or rather, Steve didn't have to run as much. He threw the ball first as his passing game matured. Steve Young was an athletic quarterback that won a Super Bowl. You can't just go by the stat line and say he didn't run for so and so yards. If you watched him play, it was pretty ridiculous how he would escape defenders and sometimes run the distance. And he only won the Super Bowl once as a starter. Even so during that year he had seven rushing touchdowns.

HG_OCaKeiU8

As for Newton, he may wear down as time goes on, but he's already showing he he can pass the football. So as long as he can do that, he can still be a productive quarterback in his later years just like Steve Young or Steve McNair was.

Ness
10-24-2011, 01:00 PM
If both came out in 2011, I would have taken Luck because he seemed more polished. It's hard to examine Luck as strictly a pro prospect and see any bust potential.

As a Newton fan I understood the arguments that he might never live up to expectations.

RIght now?? I wouldn't trade Newton for any young QB in the league.
Newton is bigger and mobile than Luck, who's a big and mobile QB in his own right.
Also I don't think Luck has anywhere close to Newton's arm.
I think you can win with Newton long term and I also believe the same thing about Luck.
But right now the hype for Luck is through the roof and I wonder what people's expectations are for him in the NFL.

Is he expected to be the best QB in the league in a few years?? Top 5? 10?
As a rookie I don't think there's any way Luck can come close to his hype.

But I'd still bet that if Carolina in 2011 had a choice between Luck and Newton, they'd pick Luck 10 times out of 10.
Well Newton has already raised the bar for rookie quarterbacks yet again. But with Luck he may struggle like most rookies do in the NFL. And it's going to depend what team he goes to as well. People are going to have to be patient. At least for his first three years.

jrdrylie
10-24-2011, 01:49 PM
Newton is more physically talented with elite intangibles. I have little doubt, he'll be the best QB in the league by his 3rd season.

I'm pretty sure these two guys will have a word or two to say about that.

http://www.celebopedia.net/aaron-rodgers/images/aaron-rodgers.jpg http://www.footballnewsnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/drew_brees_sm1.jpg

niel89
10-24-2011, 01:54 PM
Having said this I understand that Luck will most likely also be a great QB. However, he has lost some serious points with me in the fact that he has yet to come out and deny any of the allegations that he plans to steer where he gets picked in the draft. The last thing I want on my team is a diva at probably the most important position in football. Furthermore, every time we go into contract negotiations I don't want to be reminded that he could go get his architect on and be just as happy. While this may not even become a factor, at this point in time, while this poll is going on, it concerns me.



Luck is honestly the farthest thing from a diva. The guy is incredibly humble and isn't the type of guy to be negative influence on a locker room. He never takes credit for doing so well and constantly praises his team and coaching staff. He hasn't said anything about steering the draft because he is busy trying to compete in college football and lead his team to a top ranking. I'm sure after the season he will address the questions. The guy his kind of a goober but he loves football and is gonna work hard to be successful. I have zero concerns about his character.

Canadian_draft_fan
10-24-2011, 02:16 PM
Luck is honestly the farthest thing from a diva. The guy is incredibly humble and isn't the type of guy to be negative influence on a locker room. He never takes credit for doing so well and constantly praises his team and coaching staff. He hasn't said anything about steering the draft because he is busy trying to compete in college football and lead his team to a top ranking. I'm sure after the season he will address the questions. The guy his kind of a goober but he loves football and is gonna work hard to be successful. I have zero concerns about his character.
Exactly. People need to read the SI article written on him from July. Anything but a diva. He puts football & education in the proper perspective, IMO. My only concern with him is that football may eventually become boring and he may opt to pursue his architecture background.

Babylon
10-24-2011, 02:23 PM
The whole argument about Newton already proving it in the league doesnt do it for me. At a similar stage Luck would have gone first, we all know that. The other thing we cant project is what kind of success Luck would be having at this time with the Panthers. Hell they might be 5-2 as opposed to 2-5.

ShutDwn
10-24-2011, 02:25 PM
We can't call Cam Newton a superstar, but, from what I can tell, a lot of people are willing to call Luck a superstar the moment he enters the league.

I admit that I would have wanted Luck prior to this past draft if he came but his hype train is out of control. It's like Newton has to prove to everyone that he can be a top QB and Luck somehow doesn't.


The whole argument about Newton already proving it in the league doesnt do it for me. At a similar stage Luck would have gone first, we all know that. The other thing we cant project is what kind of success Luck would be having at this time with the Panthers. Hell they might be 5-2 as opposed to 2-5.


Not sure if serious...

Canadian_draft_fan
10-24-2011, 02:28 PM
The whole argument about Newton already proving it in the league doesnt do it for me. At a similar stage Luck would have gone first, we all know that. The other thing we cant project is what kind of success Luck would be having at this time with the Panthers. Hell they might be 5-2 as opposed to 2-5.
Agreed. 7 games into a season is hardly proving anything. He shows considerable promise, I'll grant that, but nothing more. It wouldn't be the first time rookie QB has regressed in subsequent seasons.

jrdrylie
10-24-2011, 02:31 PM
Agreed. 7 games into a season is hardly proving anything. He shows considerable promise, I'll grant that, but nothing more. It wouldn't be the first time rookie QB has regressed in subsequent seasons.

Exactly. We have two examples of that this year. Sam Bradford and Josh Freeman (he's in his third year but second as full time starter).

Basileus777
10-24-2011, 02:37 PM
7 games isn't a great sample size, but you're comparing Newton to a player who has played 0 NFL games, so I don't really see the problem. Neither of these players is proven, but Newton has at least shown a lot of promise through 7 games, which makes him a far different prospect than he was coming into the draft. The biggest problem with Newton as a prospect was the high risk involved with him, he simply didn't have the opportunity in Auburn's offense to demonstrate a lot of the things you want to see from a top QB prospect. But these 7 NFL games have changed that completely and it definitely is a significant factor in this comparison.

Newton's shown he has the ability to run an offense from under center, be a pocket passer, and make accurate downfield throws under pressure. Small sample size or no, these are not things we knew Newton could do months ago and it can't simple be dismissed.

CC.SD
10-24-2011, 02:39 PM
That depends, do we know for sure that Andrew Luck won't be getting any tattoos?

DraftSavant
10-24-2011, 02:42 PM
I went with Luck for a few reasons. First, Luck is a better prospect. even though Newton has surprised me a bit, I still think Luck will be better. Like it has already been stated, athletic QBs don't win championships. Elway did it at an older age. He wasn't much of a runner by that time. Steve Young was more of a runner, but the years he won the Super Bowl, he never ran for more than 300 yards. Roethlisberger and Rodgers aren't running QBs. They are pocket passers who have the ability to use their legs. Huge difference. Third, running QBs tend to get injured or wear down. Lastly, I think Newton is going to come back to Earth. There was so little tape on him so teams didn't know what to expect. Teams will figure him out. Look at the last three games. There has been a serious drop off in numbers,

The fallacy here is thinking of Newton as a running quarterback. He's a pass first player and most of his big plays have come from making big time throws from the pocket.

jrdrylie
10-24-2011, 02:45 PM
The fallacy here is thinking of Newton as a running quarterback. He's a pass first player and most of his big plays have come from making big time throws from the pocket.

He averages 8 carries per game. Vick averages 9. Chad Henne is next with an average of about 2. I'd say Newton is a running QB.

DraftSavant
10-24-2011, 02:50 PM
He averages 8 carries per game. Vick averages 9. Chad Henne is next with an average of about 2. I'd say Newton is a running QB.

The Panthers are also running 3-5 designed runs per game with him, which skews that number. I know that makes it seem like he's even more of a running quarterback, but I think they do a lot of it out of necessity to supplement a pretty poor running game. They're really struggling to run the ball out of their base offensive sets.

When it comes to the dropback passing game, he's not a runner. He doesn't make one read and take off like Vince Young, or feel perceived pressure and scramble into it and get sacked like Gabbert. He's not really reliant on his running skills in the dropback passing game at all.

Basileus777
10-24-2011, 02:50 PM
He averages 8 carries per game. Vick averages 9. Chad Henne is next with an average of about 2. I'd say Newton is a running QB.

It depends on what you mean by running QB. If you are using it as a negative qualifier, well, Newton is already standing in the pocket looking down the field to pass most of the time, and he's a rookie. Cam certainly isn't looking to scramble at every opportunity or staring down the pass rush waiting for a chance to run. The Panthers actually run a bunch of designed run plays for Newton, especially in short yardage and the goal-line. But really, Cam's running ability has been nothing but an asset so far.

jrdrylie
10-24-2011, 02:52 PM
The Panthers are also running 3-5 designed runs per game with him, which skews that number. I know that makes it seem like he's even more of a running quarterback, but I think they do a lot of it out of necessity to supplement a pretty poor running game. They're really struggling to run the ball out of their base offensive sets.

When it comes to the dropback passing game, he's not a runner. He doesn't make one read and take off like Vince Young, or feel perceived pressure and scramble into it and get sacked like Gabbert. He's not really reliant on his running skills in the dropback passing game at all.

The fact that the Panthers call designed runs proves my point even more. You don't call designed QB runs for Tom Brady. You call designed runs for running quarterbacks.

Basileus777
10-24-2011, 02:55 PM
The fact that the Panthers call designed runs proves my point even more. You don't call designed QB runs for Tom Brady. You call designed runs for running quarterbacks.

It sounds like you are just reading boxscores, that's not really going to tell you much about the types of throws Newton is making, or how he's looking in the pocket or how he's prioritized the run versus the pass.

Saints-Tigers
10-24-2011, 03:00 PM
Being able to run isn't a negative.

Caulibflower
10-24-2011, 03:22 PM
The Panthers are also running 3-5 designed runs per game with him, which skews that number. I know that makes it seem like he's even more of a running quarterback, but I think they do a lot of it out of necessity to supplement a pretty poor running game. They're really struggling to run the ball out of their base offensive sets.


Not lately. First few games, yeah, but they're doing alright now. Between Newton, Stewart and Williams I think Carolina's on pace to go over 2000 rushing yards as a team, which isn't bad.

Iamcanadian
10-24-2011, 04:54 PM
Cam has already proved that he will be a top 5 QB within a year or 2. Nobody knows for sure what you will get with Luck, sure he's a high rated prospect with a high ceiling but he hasn't even proved he can play in the NFL as of yet never mind be a top 5 NFL QB.

niel89
10-24-2011, 05:13 PM
Cam has already proved that he will be a top 5 QB within a year or 2. Nobody knows for sure what you will get with Luck, sure he's a high rated prospect with a high ceiling but he hasn't even proved he can play in the NFL as of yet never mind be a top 5 NFL QB.

I'm sorry but being a top 5 QB is a little much. I wouldn't even say Stafford is top 5 yet. Newton is awesome so far but that projection is too much for me.

Brodeur
10-24-2011, 05:15 PM
I'm sorry but being a top 5 QB is a little much. I wouldn't even say Stafford is top 5 yet. Newton is awesome so far but that projection is too much for me.

Stafford isn't even better than Cutler, let alone top 5.

Breed
10-24-2011, 06:24 PM
I expect this to be a 5 page thread when i wake up.

i was close...

Babylon
10-24-2011, 06:27 PM
I'm sorry but being a top 5 QB is a little much. I wouldn't even say Stafford is top 5 yet. Newton is awesome so far but that projection is too much for me.

I'm with you on holding off on that talk for awhile here. They had Daunte Culpepper already heading for Canton after his first year on the field.

CC.SD
10-24-2011, 06:49 PM
i was close...

lol mannnnn I like the eagles posters on this board but Breed is making me root for Philly to get skullfucked every week. I love it!

Sloopy
10-24-2011, 08:17 PM
Luck is honestly the farthest thing from a diva. The guy is incredibly humble and isn't the type of guy to be negative influence on a locker room. He never takes credit for doing so well and constantly praises his team and coaching staff. He hasn't said anything about steering the draft because he is busy trying to compete in college football and lead his team to a top ranking. I'm sure after the season he will address the questions. The guy his kind of a goober but he loves football and is gonna work hard to be successful. I have zero concerns about his character.

I'm not questioning his character, but if he's going to steer where he goes in the draft what's to say after his rookie contract is up he doesn't decide to again go somewhere else? I guess "diva wasn't the best word to use, but this along with the fact that he indeed may leave to become an architect is a knock for me. I don't want any doubt about whether or not my franchise QB is going to be with my team in a few years.

As I stated: This my never come to fruition and he may as you say come out after the season and quell the rumors, but at this point in time it is to uncertain for me.

(just to get a jump on the most likely rebuttal) Yes, Cam may prove to decline after teams get tape on him, however I'm looking at this from a standpoint of what I know right now and right now Cam is looking great and all of the questions about Luck listed above are very real until he comes out and says otherwise (or for that matter until he is drafted on draft day without a hitch).

Complex
10-25-2011, 12:35 AM
Agreed. 7 games into a season is hardly proving anything. He shows considerable promise, I'll grant that, but nothing more. It wouldn't be the first time rookie QB has regressed in subsequent seasons.

1 Game against the Browns and Matt Stafford was the best young QB. 2 games into this season and he was considered by some a top 5 QB. Funny how that works eh.

djp
11-01-2011, 10:31 PM
Sorry to bump an old thread, but does anyone here think Cam Newton's success is hurting Andrew Luck's stock at all? Newton has looked so good that I really think it is... whether that's fair or not..

RCAChainGang
11-01-2011, 10:32 PM
http://cdn.instanttrap.com/trap.jpg

MetSox17
11-01-2011, 10:35 PM
Sorry to bump an old thread, but does anyone here think Cam Newton's success is hurting Andrew Luck's stock at all? Newton has looked so good that I really think it is... whether that's fair or not..

http://i920.photobucket.com/albums/ad47/melonmaster/not-sure-if-serious-.png

Caulibflower
11-02-2011, 01:52 AM
Definitely. The Dolphins would rather draft Cam than Andrew Luck.

yo123
11-02-2011, 01:53 AM
After seeing my first full game from Cam in the NFL I'm switching my vote to him.

MetSox17
11-02-2011, 01:55 AM
As prospects coming out, i'd take Luck 100/100 times. Knowing what i know now regarding Cam and still having the uncertainty of Luck succeeding or not, i go Cam.

Dagagad
11-02-2011, 07:22 AM
I don't post often but I'm amazed by this thread. Cam has played at a very high level so far and has done it in the NFL. With your job on the line and free to choose either right now, the choice has to be Cam.

Complex
11-02-2011, 12:47 PM
He did say rich man's...so he's gonna be better than McNabb but I agree. They play pretty similar.

How so? McNabb throws a lot of screens to westbrook and Newton does not besides both being a able to run, I don't see it.


I take Luck because I think he is gonna be a better player. I think with Luck you are going to be able have a more complex offense and he will be able to do more for your team. Even if Cam had been at a major college for 4 years he still wouldn't be able to process the amount that Luck does. Newton is playing well, but there is still plenty of time for him to flame out. I had legit concerns about Newtons attitude and character, and 7 weeks doesn't completely erase those doubts.

Good question.

So Newton is a "idiot" they censored ****** ? and is making 1 read then running the ball?


I think Cam Newton can eventually be a rich man's Donovan McNabb, but since I think Luck can be Peyton...

So Newton has already pretty much peaked?


We can't call Cam Newton a superstar, but, from what I can tell, a lot of people are willing to call Luck a superstar the moment he enters the league.



yep

PoopSandwich
11-02-2011, 12:51 PM
Newton only because so far he's proving he can do it at the next level.

jrdrylie
11-02-2011, 12:57 PM
Sorry to bump an old thread, but does anyone here think Cam Newton's success is hurting Andrew Luck's stock at all? Newton has looked so good that I really think it is... whether that's fair or not..

How in the world would Cam Newton having success hurt Luck's stock. I can see how Sam Bradford's recent struggles or Matt Leinart busting could hurt Jones and Barkley's stock. But how does a QB from a different school, different system, and different style of play being successful have any bearing on Luck's stock?

Complex
11-02-2011, 01:02 PM
I hate the argument "athletic quarterbacks don't win championships". I don't understand where being a quarterback who is a fantastic runner correlates with not winning. Just because it happened before doesn't mean it won't. Just because McNabb or Vick haven't doesn't mean Cam Newton can't. Being a very good running quarterback doesn't hurt your chances of becoming a Super Bowl winner, it's really quite the fallacy.

I know I hate it too. How many athletic QBs have there been compared to pocket not being to run QBs? John Elway and Steve Young won superbowls and were athletic QBs but people like to say they won because they became pocket quarterbacks.Which is false imo they won because they had a better team around them especially in Elways case. Once Cam wins a SB people/media will be like Cam becoming more of a pocket QB was the reason they won.

Raiderz4Life
11-02-2011, 02:23 PM
lol mannnnn I like the eagles posters on this board but Breed is making me root for Philly to get skullfucked every week. I love it!

I'm in that exact same boat....Philly was like my no. 2 team lol

Basileus777
11-02-2011, 02:28 PM
I know I hate it too. How many athletic QBs have there been compared to pocket not being to run QBs? John Elway and Steve Young won superbowls and were athletic QBs but people like to say they won because they became pocket quarterbacks.Which is false imo they won because they had a better team around them especially in Elways case. Once Cam wins a SB people/media will be like Cam becoming more of a pocket QB was the reason they won.

The thing is, Cam Newton is already a pocket QB. Most of his runs are designed plays, he stays in the pocket and looks to pass. Cam isn't starring at the pass rush or looking at an excuse to leave the pocket or run. He's already better in the pocket than Mike Vick has ever been.

Caulibflower
11-02-2011, 03:38 PM
The thing is, Cam Newton is already a pocket QB. Most of his runs are designed plays, he stays in the pocket and looks to pass. Cam isn't starring at the pass rush or looking at an excuse to leave the pocket or run. He's already better in the pocket than Mike Vick has ever been.

There was a play this last week towards the end of the game where he didn't like what he saw downfield, and you could see him about to run - he was moving around in the pocket, and then takes kind of a quick step like he's about to turn it on, but then sees Jonathan Stewart open in the flat, stops, straightens up and tosses it to his running back; he's running backs' going to do exactly the same thing he'd be doing, except he's starting in space. So yeah, good things.

J-Mike88
11-02-2011, 09:26 PM
Phil Simms claims he's not that impressed with Luck, and Mike Wilbon is on board with the opinion that Luck doesn't make a lot of great "NFL-type" throws.

We shall see!

A lot of guys clearly get way overrated and way hyped, and leading up til April people are led to believe that they are great, and worthy of the #1 pick and all the hype.

Seeing what Cam has done, I'd take him over Luck now. Cam is good enough to win big with if the team around is solid enough. Luck could be better.
But he could become Joe Harrington, Trent Dilfer, Kyle Boller (Boller's arm was stronger), Tim Couch, Ryan Leaf (minus the drama), Jamarcus Russell (minus the extra 75 pounds and supposed sleep issue), etc.

MetSox17
11-02-2011, 09:56 PM
Seeing what Cam has done, I'd take him over Luck now. Cam is good enough to win big with if the team around is solid enough. Luck could be better.
But he could become Joe Harrington, Trent Dilfer, Kyle Boller (Boller's arm was stronger), Tim Couch, Ryan Leaf (minus the drama), Jamarcus Russell (minus the extra 75 pounds and supposed sleep issue), etc.

Are you just throwing out random names out? Because as a prospect, Luck is nothing like any of those guys.

Rosebud
11-03-2011, 10:50 AM
no, he's like, totallly like joey harrington. i mean, everyone called joey harrington an incredible qb prospect, too. *rolleyes*

his pocket presence? just like kyle boller.

accuracy? totally jamarcus russell.

He's like a right handed Matt Leinart!

djp
11-03-2011, 11:45 AM
How in the world would Cam Newton having success hurt Luck's stock. I can see how Sam Bradford's recent struggles or Matt Leinart busting could hurt Jones and Barkley's stock. But how does a QB from a different school, different system, and different style of play being successful have any bearing on Luck's stock?

because Newton is stealing some of Luck's thunder. I realize they are nothing alike, and I know both hype trains are in full swing, but if Newton was bad, that would make people value Luck more (even though I wouldn't agree with it) because he is considered more pro ready than Newton was. Newton being able to step in and have the success that he's had, on top of being more physically gifted than Luck, could alter some views.

I should have been more descriptive in my post. A simple analogy. Newton=Beyonce, Luck=Scarlett. If Newton looked like Star Jones, Luck would look even better. I hope that makes sense.

edit: Did you really neg rep me for that? Good lord.

nepg
11-03-2011, 11:48 AM
no, he's like, totallly like joey harrington. i mean, everyone called joey harrington an incredible qb prospect, too. *rolleyes*

his pocket presence? just like kyle boller.

accuracy? totally jamarcus russell.
LOL. I remember the Lions not even wanting to draft Joey, but there was literally no one else in that draft worth the #3 pick. I remember Buffalo drafting that ****** RT because that draft class was just so horrible after Julius Peppers.

MetSox17
11-03-2011, 12:01 PM
We got Roy Williams that draft. For a few years, he was amazing.

bored of education
11-03-2011, 12:03 PM
Andrew Luck has more long term stability even though he ha yet to through one NFL pass.

BuddyCHRIST
11-03-2011, 01:36 PM
I'm almost ashamed to say but I think I'd take Cam Newton. He's already shown way more ability than I thought he had, particularly his skills as a passer. He misses some throws but has NFL type accuracy (pinpoint) sometimes which should only be more consistent. He looks remarkably good standing in the pocket and firing the ball and his no fear approach to me is rare when most rookie QB's dink and dunk their way to decent stats. He has completely changed the culture in Carolina with his attitude, its amazing how much better other guys are playing now.

While I definitely buy Luck as a franchise QB, it seems odd to criticize a guy for playing in an offense that is almost too old school pro-style. Almost every pro team spreads the field out more than Stanford does where 3 WR's is crazy. He hasn't had a ton of experience just slinging the ball around. I don't buy arm strength as a concern, but sometimes you do like to see guys just go out and let the ball rip. My only real concern is he becomes a bit of a safe type QB rather than a true elite guy. But alot of that will have to do with the system and talent he goes to.

descendency
11-03-2011, 01:41 PM
Are you just throwing out random names out? Because as a prospect, Luck is nothing like any of those guys.

You're right. He's Jimmy Clausen.

lol. you thought I was serious.

Brodeur
11-03-2011, 02:02 PM
LOL. I remember the Lions not even wanting to draft Joey, but there was literally no one else in that draft worth the #3 pick. I remember Buffalo drafting that ****** RT because that draft class was just so horrible after Julius Peppers.

WCF really really wanted Joey, but Millen wanted to trade down and take Quentin Jammer. Alas, Millen liked Joey too (Marty spell his last name please didn't want him at all), so they stuck with Joseph.

The Alex
11-03-2011, 11:06 PM
Andrew Luck is the best draft prospect, at any position, since John Elway. His passing mechanics are flawless, he has tremendous arm strength, his accuracy is top notch and he can even scramble a little when necessary. Best of all, he's already mastered the pro-style offense and is calling the majority of the plays right now at Stanford. I can't find a negative in Andrew Luck as a prospect. He has absolutely everything you could ever want in an NFL quarterback.

I'm still not sold on Newton as a long term solution, even with his outstanding rookie year. Once teams have a chance to gameplan and scout him after this season, things could take a change for the worst.

ShutDwn
11-04-2011, 01:44 AM
Andrew Luck is the best draft prospect, at any position, since John Elway. His passing mechanics are flawless, he has tremendous arm strength, his accuracy is top notch and he can even scramble a little when necessary. Best of all, he's already mastered the pro-style offense and is calling the majority of the plays right now at Stanford. I can't find a negative in Andrew Luck as a prospect. He has absolutely everything you could ever want in an NFL quarterback.

I'm still not sold on Newton as a long term solution, even with his outstanding rookie year. Once teams have a chance to gameplan and scout him after this season, things could take a change for the worst.


I really disagree. I think Cam is a way harder worker than people realize. The guy really wants to be a top QB.

Vikes99ej
11-04-2011, 01:56 AM
Luck, all day err' day

RaiderNation
11-04-2011, 02:23 AM
I'm taking Newton at this point, even though Luck will be an elite QB. Newton has he better physical skill set and is putting it to use this season. If the Panthers don't mess things up and draft well, Newton could be a top 5 QB in the league. He has a solid oline to work with, 2 solid RBs, 2 versatile TEs and a big play WR. If they are able to draft a guy like Blackmon or Floyd, Newton could explode next year. They still need to improve on defense though if they want to be real contenders though.

Caulibflower
11-04-2011, 02:58 AM
You're right. He's Jimmy Clausen.

Jimmy Clausen with the ability to run!

BigBanger
11-04-2011, 05:48 AM
Andrew Luck is the best draft prospect, at any position, since John Elway.
Why do people have to say such stupid stuff?

descendency
11-04-2011, 08:19 AM
Why do people have to say such stupid stuff?

Andrew Luck: The greatest prospect at any position in any sport in the history of the world.

If he doesn't win 7 Super Bowls, 10 NFL MVPs, and shatter every passing record by double their current value - he will have been a bust.

WCH
11-04-2011, 01:04 PM
Andrew Luck: The greatest prospect at any position in any sport in the history of the world.

If he doesn't win 7 Super Bowls, 10 NFL MVPs, and shatter every passing record by double their current value - he will have been a bust.

Best Quarterback prospect since Otto Graham!!!!!

And yeah, I agree guys. Breed is not only making me hate the Eagles, he's also making me hate Tupac. :(

robert pancake gallery
11-04-2011, 04:50 PM
luck hasn't passed for 400 yards against the defending super bowl champions yet, but i hear he will bring with him a better defense to whatever team drafts him, which is my biggest issue with cam newton

The Alex
11-04-2011, 10:29 PM
Why do people have to say such stupid stuff?

I'm not saying he'll be better than John Elway, I'm saying he has absurd potential on par with Elway as a prospect.

FUNBUNCHER
11-04-2011, 11:34 PM
http://media.bonnint.net/seattle/6/646/64614.jpg


Andrew Luck cures AIDS.

descendency
11-05-2011, 12:23 AM
I'm not saying he'll be better than John Elway, I'm saying he has absurd potential on par with Elway as a prospect.

Peyton Manning was an elite NFL prospect who would have been the #1 overall pick had he come out his sophomore year. Or his junior. or his senior. Lots of Jets fans hate him for not coming out, but have since forgiven him for beating the Patriots as of recent.

Manning was a better prospect than Luck.

Brodeur
11-05-2011, 12:28 AM
Peyton Manning was an elite NFL prospect who would have been the #1 overall pick had he come out his sophomore year. Or his junior. or his senior. Lots of Jets fans hate him for not coming out, but have since forgiven him for beating the Patriots as of recent.

Manning was a better prospect than Luck.

There was some debate about whether Leaf was a better prospect at the time than Manning.

49erNation85
11-05-2011, 12:39 AM
There was some debate about whether Leaf was a better prospect at the time than Manning.

Who these guys since when ?

http://samgurl775.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/nfl_a_manning-leaf_580.jpg

Saints-Tigers
11-05-2011, 12:44 AM
There was some debate about whether Leaf was a better prospect at the time than Manning.

And? Leaf was an outstanding prospect. Like Jamarcus Russell without the lazy problems.

Leaf has somehow been diminished as a prospect because a better prospect was in the same draft, and for some reason, people seem to forget how highly thought of Peyton was, even at the time.

descendency
11-05-2011, 12:51 AM
There was some debate about whether Leaf was a better prospect at the time than Manning.

I wouldn't even say Leaf was a bad prospect. He was just totally ****** up in the head.

Brodeur
11-05-2011, 02:09 AM
And? Leaf was an outstanding prospect. Like Jamarcus Russell without the lazy problems.

Leaf has somehow been diminished as a prospect because a better prospect was in the same draft, and for some reason, people seem to forget how highly thought of Peyton was, even at the time.

Without the lazy problems? Dude ballooned 20 pounds before the combine, and had a seriously bad attitude even before getting picked. And they were both very good to great prospects, but I think Luck has more hype than either of them did.

asdf1223
11-05-2011, 02:49 AM
I didn't follow the draft at all in 1998 but didn't Ryan Leaf's completion percentage in a very simplified spread like offense raise red flags? His best year he passed 55% and averaged only 54%.

There's a nice breakdown of the offense here
http://smartfootball.blogspot.com/2009/05/fond-memories-of-ryan-leaf-and.html

WCH
11-05-2011, 09:06 AM
I don't think serious NFL people debated Manning v. Leaf. That was media hype because people were desperate to offer contrary opinions after we had been hearing about how amazing Manning was ever since his sophomore year. Literally. Mel Kiper talked Manning during the 1996 NFL Draft. I think he spent more time on Manning than he did on any of the guys who were actually drafted in 1996. The only "flaw" that I can remember people talking about with Peyton was that he had "happy feet" in the pocket. By the end of his senior season, people would dwell on that, and act like that was going to doom him to failure; then they'd pull up tape of Leaf "standing strong in the pocket, and showing poise, and blah, blah, blah."

Frankly, I'm shocked that "Peyton Manning was a better prospect than Andrew Luck" even needs to be said.

BigBanger
11-06-2011, 12:03 AM
I'm not saying he'll be better than John Elway, I'm saying he has absurd potential on par with Elway as a prospect.
Well, this is where you're wrong. He doesn't have Elways arm, not even close, or footwork within in the pocket, especially when the pocket is collapsing and he has to move up for throwing lanes. Andrew Luck is a great prospect, but his physical tools are not elite. Not even close. He's not even a better prospect than Matthew Stafford. He doesn't have the potential that even Cam Newton had (who I would have never of guessed it, but it actually looks like he may reach that potential). I just get sick of hearing people bring up Peyton Manning or John Elway or Steve Young every ******* year that has a QB with a chance of going in round 1. He's not a once in a decade type prospect, let alone a once in a generation type prospect. He has flaws. Flaws that I would consider fairly disconcerting for a franchise QB.

jsagan77
11-06-2011, 12:54 AM
Well, this is where you're wrong. He doesn't have Elways arm, not even close, or footwork within in the pocket, especially when the pocket is collapsing and he has to move up for throwing lanes. Andrew Luck is a great prospect, but his physical tools are not elite. Not even close. He's not even a better prospect than Matthew Stafford. He doesn't have the potential that even Cam Newton had (who I would have never of guessed it, but it actually looks like he may reach that potential). I just get sick of hearing people bring up Peyton Manning or John Elway or Steve Young every ******* year that has a QB with a chance of going in round 1. He's not a once in a decade type prospect, let alone a once in a generation type prospect. He has flaws. Flaws that I would consider fairly disconcerting for a franchise QB.

People act like John Elway was a world beater in the NFL but he wasn't. He was a winner but he didn't have eye popping stats or anything. His best season was 27 TD's and I think he had ONE 4k yard season... As a prospect Luck is about as sure of a thing as you can get. He has protypical size, great speed, is superbly accurate, has top notch intangibles, golden brain, and has the arm to make all the throws. You don't have to have a cannon to be one of the best prospects at the position EVER.

For the Redskins sake I hope to god the "Analysts" pick apart Lucks game so much that his stock drops.

And Matt Stafford was NOT a better prospect than Luck. Not even close. Stafford was good but Luck would have gone first overall any year in the past decade.

WCH
11-06-2011, 01:14 AM
People act like John Elway was a world beater in the NFL but he wasn't. He was a winner but he didn't have eye popping stats or anything. His best season was 27 TD's and I think he had ONE 4k yard season...
A lot of that had to do with Elway spending his prime years handcuffed by Dan Reeves conservative offense. Once they would fall far enough behind, Reeves would let Elway play his style of football, and Elway would frequently make one of his signature comebacks. He also threw more interceptions during the early years, because he was playing from behind so often. To put it into perspective, Elway played under Reeves until he was 33 years old. Tom Brady is 34 and Peyton Manning is 35. Imagine if those guys been forced to play in a "run-run-pass-punt" offense for the first 10 years of their careers.

If you look at Elway's stats and break them into two periods (Reeves, and post-Reeves) then it's pretty obvious that Reeves was being, for the lack of a better word, stupid.

And Matt Stafford was NOT a better prospect than Luck. Not even close. Stafford was good but Luck would have gone first overall any year in the past decade.

Agreed. Luck has much better accuracy than Stafford, in part because he makes better reads. Eli might have gone before Luck (due simply to the "OMG, HE'S A MANNING!!!!!!!1" hype-train), but I'm not sure that anybody else in the past 10 years would have.

BigBanger
11-06-2011, 01:32 AM
People act like John Elway was a world beater in the NFL but he wasn't. He was a winner but he didn't have eye popping stats or anything. His best season was 27 TD's and I think he had ONE 4k yard season...
Are you serious? I mean, did you just throw up stats ... and act like ... that means anything? I'd also venture to guess that he didn't have a QB rating over 90 all that often, if ever. Not only was the game vastly different where passing numbers weren't inflated (they allowed receivers to get hit and pushed around), but Elway was perennially surrounded by garbage. He never had a running game (and remember, this was during a time when having a running game actually was the difference between winning and losing ... see Dan Marino.) until Terrell Davis (and guess what he did when he had a running game, he won a Super Bowl ... and then did it again.).

If I were to compare Elway's situation throughout the majority of his career to any current QB -- since you obviously have never seen him play a down of football -- I'd say it would be comparable to what Jay Cutler has had around him since landing in Chicago ... minus Matt Forte. That's pretty much what Elway had during his entire career. Bad offensive lines, no wide receivers and no running game. Yet he took the Broncos to three Super Bowls pretty much by himself. He also had a head coach that makes Lovie Smith look competent.

Just watch him. This is a single drive, very early in his career. I can't do him justice by just talking about him, but there is one QB in the NFL right now as talented as he was ... and that's the QB for the Green Bay Packers. Elway was ridiculous. It's a shame he had no talent on offense or defense for the majority of his career.

pR_CYdodPwY&feature=related

The Broncos went to the Super Bowl after they won that game. Just to put that team into perspective ... they lost the Super Bowl 39-20. The Giants destroyed their defense in the second half and scored at will (This is the game where Phil Simms had 3 incomplete passes (2 drops) while throwing 3 TDs). Elway threw for 304 yard with a TD in the game and also led the Broncos in rushing ... WITH A WHOPPING 27 YARDS ... where he also scored another TD (he probably wouldn't have scored on the drive if it wasn't for penalties by the Giants ... like Lawrence Taylor picking up penalty flags and throwing them back at the refs). Those Bronco teams making the Super Bowls were an embarrassment they were so bad. They made it because of one player. And it wasn't Sammy Winder.

As a prospect Luck is about as sure of a thing as you can get. He has protypical size, great speed, is superbly accurate, has top notch intangibles, golden brain, and has the arm to make all the throws. You don't have to have a cannon to be one of the best prospects at the position EVER.
He does not have an arm to make all the throws. You are exaggerating.

And Matt Stafford was NOT a better prospect than Luck. Not even close.
I think he was. And I don't think it's close. Care to provide any explanation with your opinions other than throwing around blanket statements like "golden brain?"

Stafford was good but Luck would have gone first overall any year in the past decade.
No, he would not have. Prove me wrong.

jsagan77
11-06-2011, 02:56 AM
Oh come on, Elway went to the Superbowl multiple times and it wasn't because of his miraculous ability to put up numbers. And stats DO mean something. Marino was a better QB than Elway and the only reason he doesn't get the notoriety is because he wasn't part of a team good enough to win the big one. Don't get me wrong Elway is a legend for his ability to come back time and time again but would he be held in the same regard if he hadn't won those two Super Bowls at the end or would he be in a whole different echelon?

I agree with the Poster above that he was held back a bit by Reeves, however that basically disproves your theory... I mean if your main argument is that John Elway was held back because he didn't have a HOF running game to help him win the big one then that's just a ridiculous sentiment to prove that someone was so stellar. Throwing for 19 TD's during SB season tells me that the team got there together, not because one player was totally dominant like Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Arod, Favre, Warner, etc were during their SB runs. Looking at Elways stats you can pretty much assume they didn't get there by having a crappy run game and crappy D (both were probably above average). Something had to make up for lack of offensive scoring from the QB position.

As far as the Giants SB win over them, I'm not trying to take away anything from Elway, he deserves everything he has and that Giants SB Defense was stellar that game. They shut down the run and made the Bronco's one dimensional but Elway couldn't carry the team to victory that game. To me the reason they got to as many SB's as they did was because of a combination of Reeves and Elway, not so much Elway.

As far as Luck is concerned, he does have the arm to make all the throws. How he doesn't is beyond anyone except for you. I guess everyone has to have a Stafford arm to make all the throws?

Also, if you knew anything about Luck (which obviously know very little) you'd understand the term Golden Brain. Since you can't figure it out I'll spoon feed it to you. Luck goes to Stanford... (Gotta be pretty smart for that). He has COMPLETE knowledge of the playbook and is given the green light to call any play he feels necessary depending on his read of the game situation. It's very rare that someone has such an intricate knowledge of a playbook like that at the collegiate level (very Peytonesque)...

And the fact that EVERYONE is calling Luck the best QB in the past decade or possibly a once in a generation player, he'd definitely go number 1. Who else would have went above him? Prove me wrong...




Are you serious? I mean, did you just throw up stats ... and act like ... that means anything? I'd also venture to guess that he didn't have a QB rating over 90 all that often, if ever. Not only was the game vastly different where passing numbers weren't inflated (they allowed receivers to get hit and pushed around), but Elway was perennially surrounded by garbage. He never had a running game (and remember, this was during a time when having a running game actually was the difference between winning and losing ... see Dan Marino.) until Terrell Davis (and guess what he did when he had a running game, he won a Super Bowl ... and then did it again.).

If I were to compare Elway's situation throughout the majority of his career to any current QB -- since you obviously have never seen him play a down of football -- I'd say it would be comparable to what Jay Cutler has had around him since landing in Chicago ... minus Matt Forte. That's pretty much what Elway had during his entire career. Bad offensive lines, no wide receivers and no running game. Yet he took the Broncos to three Super Bowls pretty much by himself. He also had a head coach that makes Lovie Smith look competent.

Just watch him. This is a single drive, very early in his career. I can't do him justice by just talking about him, but there is one QB in the NFL right now as talented as he was ... and that's the QB for the Green Bay Packers. Elway was ridiculous. It's a shame he had no talent on offense or defense for the majority of his career.

pR_CYdodPwY&feature=related

The Broncos went to the Super Bowl after they won that game. Just to put that team into perspective ... they lost the Super Bowl 39-20. The Giants destroyed their defense in the second half and scored at will (This is the game where Phil Simms had 3 incomplete passes (2 drops) while throwing 3 TDs). Elway threw for 304 yard with a TD in the game and also led the Broncos in rushing ... WITH A WHOPPING 27 YARDS ... where he also scored another TD (he probably wouldn't have scored on the drive if it wasn't for penalties by the Giants ... like Lawrence Taylor picking up penalty flags and throwing them back at the refs). Those Bronco teams making the Super Bowls were an embarrassment they were so bad. They made it because of one player. And it wasn't Sammy Winder.


He does not have an arm to make all the throws. You are exaggerating.


I think he was. And I don't think it's close. Care to provide any explanation with your opinions other than throwing around blanket statements like "golden brain?"


No, he would not have. Prove me wrong.

Job Reborn
11-06-2011, 06:56 AM
Without the lazy problems? Dude ballooned 20 pounds before the combine, and had a seriously bad attitude even before getting picked. And they were both very good to great prospects, but I think Luck has more hype than either of them did.

Tebow had more hype than Luck. What's your point?

Ngatachance92
11-06-2011, 07:21 AM
I say we just give Luck 3 Superbowl rings on draft day seeing as how he's never played a down in the NFL yet but hes already the greatest QB ever.

SimonRath
11-06-2011, 08:22 AM
Im pretty sure the raiders still woulda picked russell even if luck were in the same draft class..

Ngatachance92
11-06-2011, 09:50 AM
I'll admit I'm here mostly for NFL talk, I just wandered in here to say that. That is about the peak of my ability as it pertains to value on this topic.

the new jesus
11-06-2011, 01:56 PM
is it really that hard to add something that actually has *some* value to the conversation? or is this really the best you can do?

You're mean. :(

Halsey
11-06-2011, 03:11 PM
I'd take Luck over Newton. It's fairly close, but Newton still worries me a bit with signs of immaturity. I think both of them have the talent to lead a team to a Super Bowl, with the proper supporting cast, coaching staff, etc.

And I think Luck is a better prospect than Manning was. Luck is more athletic and doesn't have questions about his ability to handle big games. Manning did, and still does, have a tendency to let the pressure of big games get to him at times.

MetSox17
11-06-2011, 03:13 PM
I'm so sad that those cocksucking Colts are gonna most likely end up with the #1 pick. They're gonna Tim Couch him.

Saints-Tigers
11-06-2011, 03:47 PM
I'm so sad that those cocksucking Colts are gonna most likely end up with the #1 pick. They're gonna Tim Couch him.

I don't buy that. Unless Luck sustains an injury that hurts his athleticism or throwing velocity, he'll be fine. And if he's not fine, he wouldn't have been.

I believe QBs have the mental makeup to be great, or they don't, and David Carr/Tim Couch types just didn't.

kalbears13
11-06-2011, 11:55 PM
This thread has it all: Tim Couch AND The Drive. Thanks everybody!

BigBanger
11-08-2011, 05:44 PM
Oh come on, Elway went to the Superbowl multiple times and it wasn't because of his miraculous ability to put up numbers. And stats DO mean something. Marino was a better QB than Elway and the only reason he doesn't get the notoriety is because he wasn't part of a team good enough to win the big one. Don't get me wrong Elway is a legend for his ability to come back time and time again but would he be held in the same regard if he hadn't won those two Super Bowls at the end or would he be in a whole different echelon?

I agree with the Poster above that he was held back a bit by Reeves, however that basically disproves your theory... I mean if your main argument is that John Elway was held back because he didn't have a HOF running game to help him win the big one then that's just a ridiculous sentiment to prove that someone was so stellar. Throwing for 19 TD's during SB season tells me that the team got there together, not because one player was totally dominant like Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Arod, Favre, Warner, etc were during their SB runs. Looking at Elways stats you can pretty much assume they didn't get there by having a crappy run game and crappy D (both were probably above average). Something had to make up for lack of offensive scoring from the QB position.

As far as the Giants SB win over them, I'm not trying to take away anything from Elway, he deserves everything he has and that Giants SB Defense was stellar that game. They shut down the run and made the Bronco's one dimensional but Elway couldn't carry the team to victory that game. To me the reason they got to as many SB's as they did was because of a combination of Reeves and Elway, not so much Elway.
I'm not going debate the greatness of John Elway. Look at his stats and have fun assuming things. I think, not completely sure and not worried about looking it up, that the opposing team was favored by double digits in every Super Bowl Elway played in with the exception of the last one against Atlanta. Again not, sure, but just throwing that out there. He took bad teams to the Super Bowl.


As far as Luck is concerned, he does have the arm to make all the throws. How he doesn't is beyond anyone except for you. I guess everyone has to have a Stafford arm to make all the throws?

Also, if you knew anything about Luck (which obviously know very little) you'd understand the term Golden Brain. Since you can't figure it out I'll spoon feed it to you. Luck goes to Stanford... (Gotta be pretty smart for that). He has COMPLETE knowledge of the playbook and is given the green light to call any play he feels necessary depending on his read of the game situation. It's very rare that someone has such an intricate knowledge of a playbook like that at the collegiate level (very Peytonesque)...

And the fact that EVERYONE is calling Luck the best QB in the past decade or possibly a once in a generation player, he'd definitely go number 1. Who else would have went above him? Prove me wrong...

I now understand the term golden brain. Thank you. It probably would have behooved me to know that you have to be smart to get into Stanford before engaging in this discussion. Is this common knowledge or did you go there? Because it is impressive if you too have a golden brain. Mine is a little gray. My friends used to call me gray brain, but I digress.

His "COMPLETE knowledge" (complete being fully capitalized really hammers home your point) makes him special or "Peytonesque?" Did you say this about Andy Dalton last year? Do you know who Andy Dalton is? Because he actually ran a more complex system than what Luck is running. Andy Dalton had much more control over the offense than Luck does. His sight adjustments and communication with WRs was ten times better and more complex than Stanford's offense, which is predicated on play action.

It kinda stuns me that you would bash Elway for not being successful when he didn't have a running game or offensive line until late in his career, and then defend Luck when he can just turn and hand the ball off 8 times in a row before hitting a wide open TE on a play action fake.

Have you ever seen Stafford break down tape while he was entering the draft? How about Matt Ryan? I assume you've heard the golden brain write on a grease board and break down route combinations, line protections, hot routes and that other junk like that to think he's the best prospect in about 30 years.

Complex
11-09-2011, 12:18 AM
I just watched 30 for 30 it was about the Bama/Auburn rivalry anyways I wish Cam Newton was Titan cause this guy is going to win multiple championships.

ShutDwn
11-09-2011, 11:53 AM
I just watched 30 for 30 it was about the Bama/Auburn rivalry anyways I wish Cam Newton was Titan cause this guy is going to win multiple championships.

Why? I was meaning to watch that but I forgot it was last night. I didn't think Cam was in it that much, the guy was only part of the rivalry for 12 months, but I guess he did win a national championship.