News:

Moderation Team: Vette, babywhales, Bob In PA, gregf, bighitterdalama, beaugestus, T200

Owner: MightyGiants

Link To Live Chat

Mastodon

Main Menu

Jon Gruden exposes Cam Newton's real weakness

Started by MightyGiants, April 18, 2011, 08:43:19 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

MightyGiants

It's amazing the facts one can learn when you talk to a person rather than listen to people talk about a person.  In this case Gruden shows how Newton was in a very simplistic college system:

Quote
SMART, TOUGH, DEPENDABLE

zephirus

I really think this guy has Jamarcus Russell v.2 written all over him.  I'm still upset by the way the NCAA handled their investigation of his father and the demanding money for play.  If Newton wasn't the Heisman Trophy winner about to play for a National Championship they would have thrown the book at him.  I think there are some obvious maturity issues with Newton to go along with his questionable transition into the NFL.  We've seen the "new breed" of quarterback time and time again with the same results.  The only successful QB at the NFL level that meets that criteria is McNabb, and I think it's fair to question what he would have been had he not played under Andy Reid.  If last year's performance is any indicator, it wouldn't have been good.  Michael Vick, with the exception of last year was a very pedestrian passer and never truly developed into the threat everyone thought he would become.  Daunte Culpepper had several good seasons but blew out his knee doing what?  Running.  Jamarcus Russell and Vince Young are newer examples of quarterbacks who everyone thought "can run for a few first downs" while they learned the pro passing game.  It just doesn't work like that. 

vette5573

You would have to believe that this nugget Gruden uncovered wasn't any great secret to NFL Scouts. He's a project in this year's draft as a QB. In 3 years, he could prove to be a starter. It's not just the verbage, it sound like he never had to read a defensive field and make any judgment calls.

Sect122Mike

Just because schools like Auburn and Oregon run a modern offense does not mean the players there can not run a more traditional offense.  Guys like Chip Kelly firmly believe that the trend of complicated offenses and long snap counts to read and react to a defense is a huge problem.  The solution is to set up so that the defense is unable to read what you will do and execute it so quickly that the defense can not even sub out the right personnel to match up against you.  Its not the "spread" offense as much as its a speed attack.  

Auburn and Oregon only run about 15-20 different plays per game, each with 2-3 vareints within them, so its closer to 40-50 is they run each in multiple ways.  But they line up for those plays 6 different ways with 4 different groups of players, so at any given time, the line-up looks like nothing seen before that game.  Each play can look the same but entail 2 designed passes, 2 designed runs and 2 designed options.  Now there is usually only 10-12 seconds from down to snap, so even if the other side can recognize which of the 6 possible plays its is, its still almost impossible to get in a defense to stop it.  And if you do, its 12 seconds until a different play is run.  

Now just because this entire system can be called form the sideline with, in Auburn's case a blackboard with the number "24" written on it, or in Oregon;s case a board with a picture of Darth Vader, a picture of Marv Albert, a greek letter and the cow jumping over the moon, does not mean the actual play is not incredibly complex. Its just that the play is designed to be incredibly easy to call, to be read very quickly and incredibly fast to set up.  

The offense is very complicated, but all the work is done in practice and the locker room.  On the field, its very simple and it move so quickly that no one has time to react.  And they change the key (which numbers or pictures mean what) several time throughout the game, so no one understands what the hell is going on.    

Cam Newton;s real weakness may be that he is not able to run a pro-offense, that he lacks the arm strength or that he is a jerk that will never lead a team, but I don;t think Gruden exposed anything except that the Auburn offense, which tore up the best defenses in college, has nothing whatsoever to do with traditional play calling.  There are about 10 coaches in the world that run this offense right now, all are highly sought after because its been proven to be successful.  Will it work at the pro-level, I doubt it, but its not going anywhere in college right now.  

Instead, lets flip the tables and ask Jon Gruden to call a play by flipping a board with four pictures on it for 2 seconds.  Then ask him where the guards will be pulling, if the center is going to screen for the option to stand up.  Which tackle is going to slip a block, will the back coem up behind you or run past to pick up a blitzer and where the receivers are going, all from board with a picture of Hanna Montana, George Washington, the empire state building and a battleship.  I think Gruden would say, "Uh, ... I don;t get it."  Of course he doesn't.  Its a different language.  Is that exposing Gruden for anything ... no, only that he does not speak "chip kelly."  

Cam Newton is one of the best overall athletes to come out of college in the past 50 years.  Is he going to be a pro-bowl QB, I have no idea. I think no one does because he has never worked the offense that he will be called to work in the pros.  Give him the ball and he can put it almost anywhere on the field and he can out run most running backs and take a hit better too.  But will he be able to master a defense that is trying to read him and prevent him from reading them, who knows.  Its not what he was taught at Auburn, but thats not to say he can;t do it.  Maybe his athleticism buys him time that others don;t get, so he can do it.  Maybe he just gets hit hard and folds.  I think he will be fun to watch no matter what.  

But this is all pretty well known.  He is a huge risk, with an upside somewhere higher than heaven and a downside south of hell.  I would never pick him with the first pick, but someone might.  

vette5573

Cameron Newton highlights 2010 *Preview

Pretty impressive. Doubt he'll be running up the gut against an NFL defense though.

vette5573

Great post Mike.

If he fell to the Giants by some strange reason at 19, you wouldn't take him?

MightyGiants

#6
Mike,

Simplified is not the same as modern.  Even the more pro style college offenses do not match up the the complication of the NFL offense.  You talk about an offense that is all of 40 or 50 plays.  In the NFL you are talking offenses that are all of 400 or 500 plays.   While the NFL style play calling may seem overly complex, the reality is that the NFL simply have too many plays to memorize.  So what seems like gibberish to the casual fan is actually a full description of the play so the players know what's going to be run.  
Based on what I have just said, I have to disagree with your assertion that running Auburn's simple but effective (at the college level) offense has prepared Cam for what he will face in the NFL.   At the NFL level being the QB is incredibly difficult.  First of all the QB not only has to know his role in the 400-500 plays he has to understand what the other 10 players around him are doing.  He has to understand the offensive line scheme called.   Based on that offensive line scheme he has to understand what potential blitzer his RB will pick up and which one the line will pick up.   He has to understand that his WRs are going to run different routes based on the what the defense does.   An NFL QB is going to have to recognize blitzes and understand what his hot routes are.   The more advanced QBs will have to look over the defense (which the defense is going to disguise) and he not only needs to understand how the offense will run based on that defense, he may be given 1 or more (Peyton has nearly the entire play book at his disposal) of plays to check off to, if he doesn't like the defense that was called for the offense.     That sort of complex offense is light years ahead what Cam saw at Auburn.    As Ed said this lack of experience dealing with the complexity of the NFL offense has not been lost on the NFL scouts.   I have noticed that it has been lost on many of the so called draft experts though.
SMART, TOUGH, DEPENDABLE

Sect122Mike

Quote from: MightyGiants on April 18, 2011, 10:17:00 AM
Mike,

Simplified is not the same as modern.  Even the more pro style college offenses do not match up the the complication of the NFL offense.  You talk about an offense that is all of 40 or 50 plays.  In the NFL you are talking offenses that are all of 400 or 500 plays.   While the NFL style play calling may seem overly complex, the reality is that the NFL simply have too many plays to memorize.  So what seems like gibberish to the casual fan is actually a full description of the play so the players know what's going to be run.  
Based on what I have just said, I have to disagree with your assertion that running Auburn's simple but effective (at the college level) offense has prepared Cam for what he will face in the NFL.   At the NFL level being the QB is incredibly difficult.  First of all the QB not only has to know his role in the 400-500 plays he has to understand what the other 10 players around him are doing.  He has to understand the offensive line scheme called.   Based on that offensive line scheme he has to understand what potential blitzer his RB will pick up and which one the line will pick up.   He has to understand that his WRs are going to run different routes based on the what the defense does.   An NFL QB is going to have to recognize blitzes and understand what his hot routes are.   The more advanced QBs will have to look over the defense (which the defense is going to disguise) and he not only needs to understand how the offense will run based on that defense, he may be given 1 or more (Peyton has nearly the entire play book at his disposal) of plays to check off to, if he doesn't like the defense that was called for the offense.     That sort of complex offense is light years ahead what Cam saw at Auburn.    As Ed said this lack of experience dealing with the complexity of the NFL offense has not been lost on the NFL scouts.   I have noticed that it has been lost on many of the so called draft experts though.

Well, while simplified does not necessarily mean modern, in the application of the term we are discussing, its the most modern approach to offense.  Its essentially evolved in the past 3 seasons, with Nevada and Oregon leading the way, but its history is the last 10-15 years of spread offenses growing at colleges.  So in that since, its as modern as modern can be, since it is still being created today and tomorrow too.  All the talk at spring practices this year are teams running quick sets like the Ducks and Tigers did in the BCS title game last year.  This is the very definition of modern. 

Anyway, I never suggested that any college offense can be as complex as an nfl offense. In fact, that is exactly my point.  No college offense can be as complex as an nfl offense.  Since that is obviously true, no college player can ever jump into an nfl offense an run it.  But by the very success of others before him, it means that college players can indeed learn to run it.  The fact that a given college does not employ the same style of coaching and the terms of a particular offense dopes not mean that it can not be done.   

I think its about the player himself, and not the offense run at colelge, that dictates success.  It took P. Manning a season to catch up from the pitch and catch offense the Volunteers have run for the past century, yet it was his skills, despite being from a pretty basic offense, that has proven through. 

Also Rich, I never suggested that running Auburn's simple but effective offense has prepared Cam for what he will face in the NFL.   what I am suggesting is that it makes no difference at all where a player plays in college.  Certainly you need to see him produce against decent defense before wasting a draft pick on a total unknown, so in that respect certainly it matters.  But assumign you go to a school where your skill set can be displayed and evaluated, whether or not you can adjust to the nfl offense has nothing to do with the school and the offense that they run. 

Everything you have said about the QB (not only knowing his role, but the other 10 player roles; understanding the offensive line scheme; blitz coverage; WR routes and his own checks on those routes), all have nothing to do with where the QB went to school.  A QB from Oregon or a QB from Auburn is just as likely as a QB from Vanderbilt or Florida, to be able to do this once coached at the nfl level.  Its all about the individual.  If Gruden's point is that Cam Newton is either not intelligent enough to do this or not skilled enough to do this, than his highlighting his lack of use of the terms at Auburn has nothing to do with his point.  I think Gruden was looking for a sound-bite rather than make an actual point.  I'm not saying Newton is smart enough to run an NFL offense or even that he has the ability to do so. I think he will make a far better RB with an arm for the occasional wildcat than a QB, but thats just me. 

My only point is that Gruden's referenced quote mean nothing.  That an offense the Panthers, Giants, 49ers or anyone at the nfl runs may be ahead of the offense at Auburn is meaningless since it is equally light years ahead of the offenses that Peyton ran at Tennesee, Brees ran at Purdue (which was maybe the simplest offense in college in 2001) and the spread offense that Rodgers ran at Cal, which was a predecessor of the speed offense we are talking about at Auburn.  It is Brees, Peyton and Rodgers that made those players able to adapt to the changes at the nfl level, not where they went to school. 

I really don;t know anything about Cam Newton, but I reject any concept that evaluates a player based on the offense he ran in college.  If Gruden is saying Newton is dumb, he should just say it.  Aaron Rodgers, probably had a similar understanding of nfl offensive football terminology having come from Jeff Tedford's Oregon/Cal system (which is and was very simple).  All I am saying is that it is all about the guy, and not what terms he used at college for what they did.  Gruden thinks Newton is stupid, okay.  Then say he won;t make it because he lacks the brainpan, not because he could not play your word game.  Aaron Rodgers would not have been able to do it either, but Rodgers was an academic all american (or at least all pac-10).  I expect a team to evaluate whether he can learn the complexity of the NFL offense, but if he shows the capacity to learn it, this lack of experience dealing with the NFL offense means nothing. 

MightyGiants

#8
Mike,

I have heard multiple scouts, coaches and GMs complain about how the spread offense (what you refer to as the modern offense) has made it much more difficult to scout NFL QBs (and once drafted develop them).   The spread offense is so different from what is done at the NFL level, as compared to the more traditional college level pro style offense) that the QBs coming out lack experience as something as basic as taking the snap under center or calling a play in the huddle or at the line of scrimmage.  Most of the spread QBs haven't even worked a full route tree.   When it comes to spread offense QBs the best NFL scouts can do is scout athletic ability.   That makes the difficult job of scouting college QBs much more difficult.
SMART, TOUGH, DEPENDABLE

Sect122Mike

Quote from: MightyGiants on April 18, 2011, 12:38:48 PM
Mike,

I have heard multiple scouts, coaches and GMs complain about how the spread offense (what you refer to as the modern offense) has made it much more difficult to scout NFL QBs (and once drafted develop them).   The spread offense is so different from what is done at the NFL level, as compared to the more traditional college level pro style offense) that the QBs coming out lack experience as something as basic as taking the snap under center or calling a play in the huddle or at the line of scrimmage.  Most of the spread QBs haven't even worked a full route tree.   When it comes to spread offense QBs the best NFL scouts can do is scout athletic ability.   That makes the difficult job of scouting college QBs much more difficult.

Rich, what I referred to as modern was the Auburn and Oregon offense, which takes pieces of the spread, the spread option, the option read, the pistol and the no huddle and blends them all together to form a speed based offense.  Its FAR different than calling it a spread offense.  Auburn ran more plays from a "non-spread" last year than the spread. 

Now, I'm sure that every nfl scout would like to see the players they are scouting run the same plays their team runs, but thats just not going to happen.  I also don;t understand what difficulty scouting has to do with this conversation.  The game changes and drafting evaluations change too.  But it is the game.  That it makes a player harder to scout makes no difference.  Scouts have to deal with it, teams have to deal with it.  My whole point was that Peyton Manning and Aaron Rodgers would have been successful no matter what style they played in college.  Its the player, not the system he played in at the college level, that will make him successful or not. 

Whether or not its harder to evaluate the player matters not.  If its harder to scout Cam Newton, its harder to scout him.  But the fact that its harder to scout him does not have any impact on whether or not he will make it in the nfl.  He either will or he won't.  If you are saying a weakness is that he played in a spread offense, I disagree. If you are syaing its harder to scout him for an NFL offense because he played in a spread, well I also disagree with that and its just scouts trying to cover their own butts, but thats another issue.  But the two have little to do with each other. 

Jaime

Suspect Newton is gonna get his clock cleaned @ the next level, mentally & physically. Heard plenty of buzz re; his character as a "Me" guy.
Curious as to how he reacts after a LB buries his helmet in his chest while attempting to run up the gut?
zeph, agree with u, JR II.

MightyGiants

#11
Here is the interview.  I am even less impressed when I got to see Cam.  I just didn't get the impression he was fully involved in the discussion or appreciated what was said.

SMART, TOUGH, DEPENDABLE

bamagiantfan

Newton is simply an extremely gifted athlete who you put at QB in College so he can touch the ball every snap. I don't see anyone in the NFL using him that way and I can't imagine him as a drop back QB.
I know you believe you understand what you think I wrote, but I'm not sure you realize that what you read is not what I meant - Robert McCloskey (if he were on this Forum)

Sect122Mike

Quote from: bamagiantfan on April 18, 2011, 02:55:33 PM
Newton is simply an extremely gifted athlete who you put at QB in College so he can touch the ball every snap. I don't see anyone in the NFL using him that way and I can't imagine him as a drop back QB.

I agree with that 100%.  Cam Newton's skills don't translate into the traditional NFL qb.  but I think a team can build plays around his skills and improve their chance of success.  He is an incredible athlete.  He will be fine, as long as he is willing to work at it. 

Hooper74

When I see one of these QB coming from a gimmick offense really transition from that to the pro game successfully I think it'll be my first one.