Big Blue Huddle

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

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. 

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.

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.  

Cameron Newton highlights 2010 *Preview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DElYMENB2c4&feature=youtube_gdata_player#ws)

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

Great post Mike.

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

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.

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. 

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

Quote from: Hooper74 on April 18, 2011, 04:08:25 PM
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.

There was this guy named Joe Montana who played ball at the little school called Notre Dame which ran the Triple Option through his tenure at QB.  At the time, it was considered a gimmick offense and is probably why he dropped.

Then in 2004, this kid named Aaron Rodgers fell like a stone.  At first he was the consensus no. 1 pick.  He was not a run-option QB, but he ran a spread style, single back attack under Jeff Tedford at Cal.  Tedford remember is the guy who gave the NFL gimmick QBs like Akili Smith and Joey Harrington, so I understand the reluctance to embrace Rodgers.  

Both Rodgers and Montana did okay.  One is one of the best today, the other is one of the best of all time.  Gimmick's eventually become part of the norm.  

Orton at Purdue ran the spread option and the read option.  I don't know if he ever took a direct snap under center in college.  While not in Montana or Rodger's class, he has had a decent career.  

Drew Brees and Philip Rivers were in shotgun/spread offenses for most of their passes in college.  Rivers was a classic spread QB. All the traditional questions abotu arm strength and his quick side arm style release proved inaccurate as he has done fairly well in the NFL.  Brees was also at Purdue was an option read QB who took all his snaps from the shotgun and worked a spread style attack like Orton.  

There are more that a few.  I suspect as the pistol and option read grow, which they are doing based on spring practice reports, you will get another one of these guys in the NFL.  Dixon on the Steelers looked good before his injury in replacing Big Ben at the start of last season.  He was a total option read/pistol QB.  

It's all about what's in between his ears.  If that works at an NFL level, the rest will follow.

Plenty of talent, don't know the wonderic score, don't know how hard he will work or I'd he'll be a student of the game. Is he worthy of a top three pick?

Quote from: vette on April 18, 2011, 11:41:07 PM
Plenty of talent, don't know the wonderic score, don't know how hard he will work or I'd he'll be a student of the game. Is he worthy of a top three pick?

I think Phil and you have hit it.  I'm not sure if he has the head.  I do think he has the physical tools to carry the offense, but I have no idea if he can withstand the pressure, put in the work needed to stay on top of the fast paced defenses and make the mental checks as quickly as needed.  I still think he is too great a talent not to perform though, but I suspect it will be a Slash type of play, using his running more than his arm. 

Mike - it seems like the NFL talent evaluators have done a good job of finding out the physical talents of players, but the two areas in which they seem to fail miserably, especially for QB talent is in determining a) how smart they are with respect to understanding the complexities of the game and b) whether or not handing over $25 - $50 million in guaranteed money will change the player and make him stop working hard and constantly to improve himself.

It always seems like they fall in love with the physicals, then the QB fails in the NFL and they say, "oh, he had a terrible work ethic" or "he wasn't very smart."  When are they going to realize that this is what makes a QB, not the arm.  Chad Pennington has the arm of a 5 year old, yet he has succeeded in the NFL because he's smart and works hard.  If he had 50% of the physicals of Cam Newton, he'd likely have been a top 10 QB.

Good point Phil. Just because the player looks great in shorts and has a rocket for an arm and can make all the throws, doesn't anoint the player the next Star QB to come. It's great to have the tools, but then there is a complete education that has to take place and the work has to be put in. Then the player has to be able to get it.

Here are what some NFL people have to say:

"They're talented, no one questions their ability. (But) the learning curve coming into our league can't be downplayed," said Mike Holmgren, the former quarterback coaching guru of Brett Favre who now heads the Cleveland Browns' front office.

"They have to learn how to play from under center," Broncos coach John Fox said at the NFL scouting combine. "It doesn't sound like a big deal, but it's a big deal."
"Suddenly," Holmgren said, pantomiming the distance between a snap from center and the interviewer, "I'm this far away from somebody trying to kill me. Now try running backwards from there while someone is coming after you, trying to kill you."

"It affects all the mechanics," Fox said. "There's mechanics in getting away from under center, the footwork, the timing, the depth. In the shotgun, all that stuff is done."


"When you're watching," Elway said, "and all the sudden you see 11 guys look at the sidelines because they're calling the audibles from the sidelines? Anytime you see that, you know it's going to be an adjustment going to the NFL because the coach is not going to be able to call the audibles from the sidelines."

Read more: Spread-offense QBs: great in college, not so much in NFL - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_17506785#ixzz1JyR3Am2V (http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_17506785#ixzz1JyR3Am2V)
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse (http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse)

Personally, I don't think he even has the physical talents.  I see an athletic runner.  I don't see a gifted passer.  He's very much like Vince Young, who I've never been impressed with either.

Quote from: vette on April 18, 2011, 11:41:07 PM
Plenty of talent, don't know the wonderic score, don't know how hard he will work or I'd he'll be a student of the game. Is he worthy of a top three pick?

I heard a wonderlic score of either 20 or 21 which is higher than the average player but below average for a QB.

Quote from: PSUBeirut on April 19, 2011, 09:14:50 AM
Personally, I don't think he even has the physical talents.  I see an athletic runner.  I don't see a gifted passer.  He's very much like Vince Young, who I've never been impressed with either.

From what I've read, he has a very strong arm and can easily make all the throws. He can take the snap from center and sells the play action well, but he tends to role out of the pocket to easily. It's his mechanics that he needs to work on in short throws. He's a big player at 6'6" and 250. He has no trouble seeing the field. This guy has all the physical ability.

I think every front office person has their own opinions on what makes a good QB. But most are wrong far more often than they are right.  The so called reduced "learning curve" for pocket passers taking snaps under center at college did not help Todd Blackledge, JP Losman, Alex Smith, Rick Mirer, Dave Klinger, Todd Marinovich, Heath Shuler or Jim Druckenmiller.  Hell they have had just as bad success with the guys with the big learning curve like Cade McNown, Andrew Ware, Joey Harrington, Akili Smith, Matt Lienart and Tim Couch.  I think its unfair to target any college system with the failures of Ryan Leaf and Jamarcus Russell, but I think those two are the real rule to consider.  Its the individual and not the system.  Ryan Leaf and Jamarcus Russell both ran incredibly successful modified pro-style offenses, yet both were head cases.  One was nuts and mean, the other nuts and lazy. Its really the person that matters. 

Most of the guys that get to the NFL draft combine have the skill set to toss it in the NFL and see the field, but not all have the brainpan to do it. 

As for anyone saying that its hard to learn how to play under center, I'd say to look at Brees, Rodgers and Rivers.  Its not that hard, if the player has the ability, the head and the work ethic.  Guys who have it, have it, guys that don't, don't.  Sure, consider if he can learn the mechanics, but if he can't learn the mechanics, I suspect there are far more problems, like his arm strength, his size and his ability to run any offense.   

I have lots of fears about Cam Newton, but a fear that he will not be able to take a snap under center and drop back a few steps is not one of them. 

I just don't see it with this guy.  I don't see him progressing through reads, I don't see him throwing with touch.  I see a big guy who can throw the ball a mile but maybe not 5 yards over a DL's hands, with timing and accuracy.  I don't see a guy that can throw a slant pass with timing. 

I have been very wrong before and I definitely could be again with Cam, but if I were a GM I'd be very very nervous to take him near the top of the draft.  If Carolina goes for it, that would be one interesting situation where you'd have Clausen and Newton, pretty much polar opposites skillset wise.  I live in NC, so I'd kind've like to see how it plays out up close if it happens!

Quote from: PSUBeirut on April 19, 2011, 11:20:16 AM

I have been very wrong before and I definitely could be again with Cam, but if I were a GM I'd be very very nervous to take him near the top of the draft.  If Carolina goes for it, that would be one interesting situation where you'd have Clausen and Newton, pretty much polar opposites skillset wise.  I live in NC, so I'd kind've like to see how it plays out up close if it happens!

The moment Newton claimed "I see myself not only as a football player, but an entertainer and icon.'' I would have crossed him off my list.  The way he speaks in the third person and flatters himself tells me he's the perfect replacement for Ochocinco in Cincy.

Now NYSPORTS, imagine him saying that a while back and now having say $50 million in guaranteed money sitting in his account.  After that, he may think he needs a show on the E Channel.  You've got to find the guys who don't lose themselves when they either find money or success.  Not sure how you analyze for that, but it is key.

Caught Gruden's show "They Fire Football Coaches Ass". He had on Jake Locker & Andy Dalton. I luv Gruden & would consider him a strong candidate to replace TC. Dalton & Locker r both sharp Prospects. Luv that jargin they throw around with such ease.
Really got a lesson on how to brake down QB tape. The reads, do's & don'ts, the execution that goes into a Play. Both QB's were terrific students for Chuckie to work with.
He worked them out a bit with a simple drill that showed what a QB has to do with ease. Huge emphasis on dropping back from being under Center. A bit of a lost art in College today that has to be flawless @ the next level.

I think a good analogy Mike would be taking a student into a top notch difficult college.  Cam Newton and his no huddle one read and run offense would be like taking a gifted grade schooler.   The college players in more complex offenses would be like taking a high schooler.  The gifted grade schooler may succeed but it will take more time as they have to take some remedial classes.  In addition high school is a lot closer to college than grade school so a gifted high schooler would have better odds of success than the gifted grade schooler (who is also handicapped by the additional learning).

Cam Newton has done everything that was asked of him and studied and worked hard in learning his system. He has a passion to win and to succeed.

He may have more to learn about the NFL system than a Mallet or a Locker, but I really don't see this player as a potential bust. I think he becomes an exceptional football player under the right circumstances. There have been QB's that have stalled or failed because of a poor offensive line, rotating coaches and systems and all around bad situations. That comes into play also.

Ed,

From the video, I saw only one pass that approached a deep throw. That was about thirty yards downfield against Alabama. The pass hung up and, if the rotating safety had looked up instead of playing the receiver, it would have been an easy pick. I also saw several outs that a quality corner could have easily picked off. Newton is a terrific running quarterback who would have fit in quite well with Earl "Greasie" Neale's Eagles but, relying on the video, I did not see a conventional NFL starting quarterback.

The comparison to Dononvan McNabb is poor. McNabb is a conventional strong-armed  "North-South" quarterback with the addition of good feet and (at least when younger) a real threat to run down field. I have always thought that he excelled in spite of, as opposed to being helped by, Andy Reid's West Coast Offense. And please do not fault him for the circus that Shanahan created this year in Washinton. The latest "Mr. Genius" hired by the god-owner of the Redskins laid another Washington egg in 2010. I had more than one occasion to talk with Donovan when he played at Syracuse. He is a very intelligent and articulate man. Putting him into the same discussion with Demarcus Russell is a bad fit. Both are big, strong, and black. Otherwise, no comparison exists. Although many Giant fans might disagree, McNabb's career to date may already qualify him for Canton. He certainly will merit consideration.

Big Hitter  

 thank you , Big Hitter.  I've long thought that Donovan was under-appreciated.

Quote from: MightyGiants on April 19, 2011, 06:13:32 PM
I think a good analogy Mike would be taking a student into a top notch difficult college.  Cam Newton and his no huddle one read and run offense would be like taking a gifted grade schooler.   The college players in more complex offenses would be like taking a high schooler.  The gifted grade schooler may succeed but it will take more time as they have to take some remedial classes.  In addition high school is a lot closer to college than grade school so a gifted high schooler would have better odds of success than the gifted grade schooler (who is also handicapped by the additional learning).

With all due respect, I think that is absolutely wrong.  Cam Newton is not the standard for the spread/option/read offense.  Maybe its like taking a kid with 3.8 GPA compared to a 3.5 GPA, but the notion that one is a child and the other is not is simply not accurate. These are the very top athletes at their position in the country that we are talking about.  I'm happy to say one has less to learn, but the notion that one is head and shoulders above the other is just flat out wrong.  The number of successful QBs (ones who do well in the NFL) who do not take snaps under center at college is pretty good compared to those that did over the past 10 years.  As the college offense evolves so that more QBs are playing in shotgun or pistol style offenses, it stands to reason that an equal percentage of the better QBs will be in those system as well.

Quote from: bighitterdalama on April 20, 2011, 01:08:45 AM
Ed,

From the video, I saw only one pass that approached a deep throw. That was about thirty yards downfield against Alabama. The pass hung up and, if the rotating safety had looked up instead of playing the receiver, it would have been an easy pick. I also saw several outs that a quality corner could have easily picked off. Newton is a terrific running quarterback who would have fit in quite well with Earl "Greasie" Neale's Eagles but, relying on the video, I did not see a conventional NFL starting quarterback.

The comparison to Dononvan McNabb is poor. McNabb is a conventional strong-armed  "North-South" quarterback with the addition of good feet and (at least when younger) a real threat to run down field. I have always thought that he excelled in spite of, as opposed to being helped by, Andy Reid's West Coast Offense. And please do not fault him for the circus that Shanahan created this year in Washinton. The latest "Mr. Genius" hired by the god-owner of the Redskins laid another Washington egg in 2010. I had more than one occasion to talk with Donovan when he played at Syracuse. He is a very intelligent and articulate man. Putting him into the same discussion with Demarcus Russell is a bad fit. Both are big, strong, and black. Otherwise, no comparison exists. Although many Giant fans might disagree, McNabb's career to date may already qualify him for Canton. He certainly will merit consideration.

Big Hitter  

Very well said.  I also agree on McNabb with respect to the HOF.  Its already a close call, we will see what the next season or two holds for him. 

http://smartfootball.com/quarterbacking/did-cam-newton-play-in-a-one-read-passing-offense-at-auburn (http://smartfootball.com/quarterbacking/did-cam-newton-play-in-a-one-read-passing-offense-at-auburn)

This is a very good analysis of the progression of college QBing in general and in particular Cam Newton.  I watched both clips at the bottom of Cam. I think in it he makes all the throws, makes several good reads, but shows he makes mistakes when he relies too much on his athleticism. the same comments were made about Big Ben coming out of college.  Will Cam perform as well as Ben, I have no idea.  I don;t really like Cam as a QB, but I think its clear that every college QB has issues and a learning curve. Not all make it to the final level of progression, in fact few do.  My point remains that whether you come from a traditional pro-style offense or a more modern offense has nothing whatsoever to do with whether you can make that last step.  Sure it might take a few more months for one who needs to spend time learning to take snaps under center as well as adjust to the nfl speed, but by the second season, its all on the individual.  Some make it and some don;t.  If you are drafting a QB for one season, you are making a mistake anyway.  I think the folks in Indy were happy to trade Peyton's first season or so for the rest of his career. 

That was a weak article, in my opinion Mike.   The article was weak on fact and example and long on contrary opinion.   It did get me to look at Auburn's offensive coach's book and get this gem:

Even though we technically have 33 pass plays total, we only use eight base combination routes that can run to either side of the field on a regular basis

From a QB's point of view this offense is about as complicated as a high school offense.  

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1585186546?ie=UTF8&tag=chrisbrownsfo-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1585186546 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1585186546?ie=UTF8&tag=chrisbrownsfo-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1585186546)

Brian, catch Gruden's QB training sessions and the 3 QB's segment on ESPN. Then tell me what you think about his arm strength and passing velocity. I think you'll enjoy it and it might alter your perspective. Or not. Either way you'll enjoy it.

As for the comparisons to McNabb, I never did.

As for Newton, the more I study him, the more I like him. I have an open mind about his potential. That's all.

Quote from: MightyGiants on April 20, 2011, 09:10:05 AM
That was a weak article, in my opinion Mike.   The article was weak on fact and example and long on contrary opinion.   It did get me to look at Auburn's offensive coach's book and get this gem:

Even though we technically have 33 pass plays total, we only use eight base combination routes that can run to either side of the field on a regular basis

From a QB's point of view this offense is about as complicated as a high school offense.  

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1585186546?ie=UTF8&tag=chrisbrownsfo-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1585186546 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1585186546?ie=UTF8&tag=chrisbrownsfo-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1585186546)

Well we obviously differ on that opinion Rich, at least with respect to the article.  I think its quite interesting, especially the concept of how a QB develops.  

As for Auburn's offense, I think from a QB's point of view, its far more complicated that the average high school offense and far less complicated than the average nfl offense.  But its clear you have a certain mind set on this and I have another mind set.  I have come to the conclusion that I will not be able to change your mind, and I've equally concluded that you are not going to change mine.  I respect your right to your view, even though I disagree with you. I hope you feel the same.  There are a lot of other posters on this board who I'm sure are as interested in the topic of how to evaluate QBs from college systems that mainly employ a shotgun or pistol snap, so I plan to continue to talk to others about this, and I hope that you do too.

I think a simple review of nfl rosters and the list of starting QBs makes it clear that the odds of a QB starting in the nfl has very little to do with whether they come from a shotgun snap or snap under center system.   There are plenty of starting quarterbacks who came from both types of systems.

If I ever have free time, I think I'll look at the starters and their systems.  Since until the last 5 years I think its fair to to say the vast majority of teams employed mostly nfl style offenses, proportionately, its possible more QBs have come from what I call modern systems than traditional systems, but I have no idea.  If I have time this weekend, I'll try to do that analysis.  

Mike,

You could also say from the QB's point of view Auburn's offense is also less complicated than the average college offense.  I also wouldn't say that the offense is "far more" complicated than the average high school offense.  

I also think you are taking a flawed approach by looking at the current roster, as that doesn't take into account the numbers of QBs coming from the various college systems.  If you want to convince me of your point, a good statistical study of the number of drafted QBs from simplified offenses like Auburns vs more complicated college offenses would be far more telling.

I will continue to voice my opinions and counter opinions and statements that I feel are wrong or I don't agree with.  

In the end college drafting is about three aspects:

1)  Physical ability
2) Mental makeup
3) On the field production


Now the thing with Cam Newton is that his on the field production is clearly not a good an indicator than what you see with your average college QB.   In fact while I haven't mentioned it, one of the after the fact reasons given for bust QBs is that their college coaches will often dummy down their offenses to take advantage of their QB's natural talents and ability.   Even in the pro style offenses, there have been many successful QBs who never had to look at more than one side of the field on a given play.   In the end the college game is different with much lower levels of competition and simpler defenses.  At the college level a player can out talent and ability his competition.  At the NFL level that simply doesn't happen.

In the end we have Cam Newton

1)  Great Physical ability
2) Questionable mental makeup
3) incomplete or unknown on the productivity indicator owing to the extreme simplicity of the offense he ran.  Compounding that problem was his single year at Auburn.

So you have a great number one and 2 question marks for the other 2.  That doesn't mean he will be a bust at the next level, but he is a huge gamble owing to the unknowns.  

In many ways Cam is like our own JPP in that he is long on ability short on experience and proven track record.  The difference is that JPP didn't have the character questions that Cam has.

Quote from: MightyGiants on April 20, 2011, 10:21:38 AM
Mike,

You could also say from the QB's point of view Auburn's offense is also less complicated than the average college offense.  I also wouldn't say that the offense is "far more" complicated than the average high school offense.  

I also think you are taking a flawed approach by looking at the current roster, as that doesn't take into account the numbers of QBs coming from the various college systems.  If you want to convince me of your point, a good statistical study of the number of drafted QBs from simplified offenses like Auburns vs more complicated college offenses would be far more telling.

I will continue to voice my opinions and counter opinions and statements that I feel are wrong or I don't agree with.  

In the end college drafting is about three aspects:

1)  Physical ability
2) Mental makeup
3) On the field production


Now the thing with Cam Newton is that his on the field production is clearly not a good an indicator than what you see with your average college QB.   In fact while I haven't mentioned it, one of the after the fact reasons given for bust QBs is that their college coaches will often dummy down their offenses to take advantage of their QB's natural talents and ability.   Even in the pro style offenses, there have been many successful QBs who never had to look at more than one side of the field on a given play.   In the end the college game is different with much lower levels of competition and simpler defenses.  At the college level a player can out talent and ability his competition.  At the NFL level that simply doesn't happen.

In the end we have Cam Newton

1)  Great Physical ability
2) Questionable mental makeup
3) incomplete or unknown on the productivity indicator owing to the extreme simplicity of the offense he ran.  Compounding that problem was his single year at Auburn.

So you have a great number one and 2 question marks for the other 2.  That doesn't mean he will be a bust at the next level, but he is a huge gamble owing to the unknowns.  

In many ways Cam is like our own JPP in that he is long on ability short on experience and proven track record.  The difference is that JPP didn't have the character questions that Cam has.

I have absolutely no doubt that both Oregon's and Auburn's offenses are executed in a FAR less complicated way than most college offenses.  I think that is the very reason these teams were in the championship game last season and both will contend for their conference crowns again this season.  I think simple execution is better, not worse.  I also think "simple" in the execution has nothing whatsoever to do with pro-potential.  Simple is a relative term though.  If you watch the Oregon and Auburn offenses, they are not simple at all, but how they are executed allows them to be run at incredible speeds. The execution is what is simple, not the offenses themselves.  They are just run differently.  The offense run very simply, but yet is still incredibly complicated.   

As a former HS player and a current fan (though Lakeland, my local team, is not very good right now) I feel very comfortable saying the college game and the high school game are on different playing fields. Even at the amazing NYS high school teams, like Iona Prep or Bronxville, the offenses are so different than a decent FCS school, it barely bears talking about.  High school teams do not have athletic enough offensive lines to run plays like those at the college level.  Its a question of time to learn and be taught.  High school players have hours instead of days to learn and the economics makes a big difference. 

Anyway, that you want me to give you statistics from offenses like Auburns is impossible since Newton is the second qb from such an offense to be drafted. I think Dennis Dixon looked good when he played, but he was injured and did not get a chance to really see what he can do.  The offense has only existed on a handful of teams for the past few years, so no other athletes have been at the level newton ro dixon are at. So there is nothing to look at. 

But so I understand, now its not spread/pistol/shotgun QBs you think have a lower transition successrate, its really just the 2010 auburn offense that you think can not make the transition to the nfl QB level  If thats the case, I agree, but again it has nothing to do with the offense, but the man you are talking about. I don't think Cam Newton would be a good pro QB prospect no matter where he came from.  I don't like his head or his heart, not where he went to school.  He will be good in the nfl as a runner, but not as a startign QB imo. 

There's also another factor.  The folks debating Cam are at the top of the board so that gamble has probably a $50+ million risk associated with it whereas JPP was less.  Also, risk on QB is that it is much, much more about mental decisionmaking which is much harder to assess.  For a DE, it is generally about motor and physical skills, much easier to figure out and predict.

Quote from: Philosophers on April 20, 2011, 11:40:05 AM
There's also another factor.  The folks debating Cam are at the top of the board so that gamble has probably a $50+ million risk associated with it whereas JPP was less.  Also, risk on QB is that it is much, much more about mental decisionmaking which is much harder to assess.  For a DE, it is generally about motor and physical skills, much easier to figure out and predict.

Absolutely. I think the money risk will be lower with the new CBA (assuming we get one) but still its a great point. The risk at No 1 overall is HUGE.  I would never take Cam Newton with the No. 1 overall pick for that reason alone. I think the No. 1 overall pick should be a lock for NFL success.  I thught going into this that the Vikings would take Newton outside the top ten. I'm shocked teams are grading him above that level.  He is just too big a risk.  But if a team interviewed him enough, got his test scores and felt he could do it, its there money.  I hope he proves me wrong and rocks in the NFL. 

But there is no lock.  The players drafted number 1 overall is someone a team can justify paying that kind of money to.

If the best player in the entire draft is a safety, he will not be drafted 1st overall because there is some kind of lame stigma attached with paying that position that kind of money.  He has to be QB, LTackle or DE.  

What's ironic is that there is no stigma against making a Safety the highest paid defender in the league after a few yrs of proving his worth.  Yet they'll give it all up to a QB based on potential alone.

Auburn's offensive plays were called from the sideline via large numbers written on poster boards.  After Cam pockets whatever millions in his bank account, where is the motivation to thoroughly memorize a 250+ play book?  Can anyone see him being the first in the office and the last to leave every day? 

So I agree with most of you.  This guy is going to be a classic boom-or-bust type. But I am inclined to lean to the latter.  Given his background and character, I just can't imagine Cam spending every night mastering the playbook and ultimately having total command of the offense. 

I am with you Mr. Todge on this issue. Cam has bust written all over him. Being athletic in a simple offense is not what the NFL is all about. Plus, his passing accuracy is also very much in play as an issue.The memory of Jemarcus Russell is too vivid in my mind.
What would I do if I was Carolina? Trade the pick? No. I would take the LSU cornerback Peterson and open the second with either Ryan Mallett or whatever top QB drops and is available.

Dale, Andy Reid just gave him some pretty high praise.

Isnt it a bit harsh to judge some young kid as Having bust written all over him?

I actually agree with Reid.

For starters, Newton has been arrested for possession of a stolen laptop (charges were dropped after he participated in pretrial community service), was suspended for two weeks before the start of his freshman year at Florida for academic cheating and was the central figure in an NCAA investigation that determined his father asked Mississippi State boosters for $180,000 to sign his son. Newton denied any knowledge. Where there's smoke, there is fire.
He has played one tremendous season at Auburn in an offense that maximized his running abilities. He is reportedly not a very accurate passer.
And Jon Gruden exposed his lack of knowledge at a minimum, being considerate of not making him look foolish at the chalkboard.
The team that drafts him will undoubtably start him quickly since they need a QB. He will not get the benefit of sitting and watching for a period of time.
I see him as another Jamarcus Russell or Vince Young or Akili Smith.
Maybe bust is a harsh word, but I think he will struggle mightily to ever being a dependable NFL QB.

Dale, I think he will struggle too for a couple of years. He certainly will have to deal with that past as it will come up again and again. You may recall the issues that Amhad Bradshaw had in college. He was accused and had to serve time eventually for something similar. He dropped down in the draft because of those issues. Now, it's all behind him unless something else comes up and then that will be brought back again. Stupid thing act by a kid or tip of the iceberg to a bad character flaw? Time will tell but it's a lesson learned, no doubt.

I saw the entire Gruden segment. He was tough on every kid he critiqued. He also gave some praise to each kid. It wasn't an interview where he was out to expose the kid. Did you watch these shows on ESPN? He was playing the part of a coaching mentor to prepare these young Quarterbacks for what to expect in the NFL. Life in a glass bowl, in constant scrutiny of the media and bloggers who will take every opportunity to take their shots. What to expect in the Pro game from a professional level.

What I think he has on his side is the ability in which he successfully ran that high speed, quick moving rhythm based offense. Just because it's simple in verbage it doesn't mean it's easy or it didn't require much effort in preparation. Quite the contrary. The execution, which is a word most players and teams in the NFL struggle with was flawless at times. He has a strong arm and can make all the throws. He has good field read and reaction. He has football smarts and instinct.

I'm not enamored with this kid, I'm just saying give him an opportunity to be drafted and to at least step on the field before we all label him a bust. Wouldn't we all want the same consideration?

I have to admit that I dismissed him in the same fashion until I took the time to look into him a bit deeper. I may not have said it, but it was my initial reaction based on all the BS with his past and the non fit comments about his lack of NFL preparation. Mike with his incredibly vast knowledge of the College level game made an excellent point about it being about the player not the program that will eventually determine the success or failure of the player. I also believe it's the situation and the support he gets from the team and the coaching staff too.

Tell you what, if he drops to 19 and he won't, but if he would, the NY Giants would make that pick and never look back.

Ed,
I understand your thoughts and also agree that Mike has made a very compelling argument concerning the pistol/spread QB's. But, it is based on repition and execution. I think the pro game at QB requires dedication and hours upon hours of playbook learning and film study.
Where I disagree is your Bradshaw comparison. It is infinitely easier to be an NFL RB than a QB. The QB has to know everything about everybody and then read the defense and make calls all in a few seconds. I don't think  a RB has to be particularly smart. A QB does.
Regarding Gruden- I love the guy and did watch and rewatch his segments. Do you think he could light a fire under somebody? Maybe a laid back Mississippi boy? He deserves another gig, whenever that season might be.

Quote from: dasher on April 21, 2011, 09:21:21 AM
Ed,
I understand your thoughts and also agree that Mike has made a very compelling argument concerning the pistol/spread QB's. But, it is based on repition and execution. I think the pro game at QB requires dedication and hours upon hours of playbook learning and film study.
Where I disagree is your Bradshaw comparison. It is infinitely easier to be an NFL RB than a QB. The QB has to know everything about everybody and then read the defense and make calls all in a few seconds. I don't think  a RB has to be particularly smart. A QB does.
Regarding Gruden- I love the guy and did watch and rewatch his segments. Do you think he could light a fire under somebody? Maybe a laid back Mississippi boy? He deserves another gig, whenever that season might be.

Dale,
I think I've done a terrible job of explaining what the Oregon offense does to prep.  while I can;t speak for Nevada or Auburn, which are the only other teams operating the speed offense that the Ducks run right now, I can tell you a lot about the Oregon offense.  The reason the offense is executed so simply is that Chip Kelly, head coach, estimates his offense spends 2-3 times more prep time in the "classroom" than other teams. the offense is incredibly complicated to run and in order to make it simple enough that four pictures can tell 11 people what they have to do, the amount of work everyone does inside looking at tapes and preparing for contingencies is massive compared to other schools.  Its not just the QB that has to do this, its all of them. Oregon runs extensive lineman classed, back classes, receiver classes and so one.  They coach that offense so well that it becomes second nature.  The way its run means an audible is almost never needed because the ball is snapped within 3 seconds of the ref putting it on the ground, but that does not mean the team does not spend the time inside. 

Granted, the pro game requires far more study than any college could ever do.  Its really night and day, similar to the argument I made about the best high school teams in NY and college teams.  Even the 10 teams in the BCS games last season, not a one of them is anything like a pro offense.  The pro game, especially at QB, requires far more dedication and exactly the hours upon hours of film, study and playbook work that you mentioned.  But its true for any QB, not just the guys from Stanford.  Jake Locker is known far and wide as a classroom guy. He works his ass off to be as good as he is.  Lets see how fast his transition is.  He has the physical tools and he is a very smart man, but even for him, its just a hard move to the pro-level. 

Next year the top QBs will probably be guys like Andrew Luck from Stanford and Matt Barkley out of USC because they are in pro-style offenses.  Though I think the best pro-style QB in the country is Kirk Cousins at Michigan State and I am interested to see what Charlie Weis can do with John Brantley, who is 6'4" and has a cannon, but is not accurate.  If Weis can do something with him, we will be talking about him next year in round 1. 

But I also think that next year we will be having the same conversation about guys like Oklahoma's Landry Jones, Oregon's Darron Thomas and Ohio State's Terrell Pryor.  Jones by the way is my early Heisman pick and IMO, the best overall QB in the nation, but he plays out of the option spread. He never takes snaps from under center and runs well, but also has a great arm, is huge and will contend for a title this year and should easily with the Big 12 (if thats what its called now).  Wait until next year and we will all be having this same conversation about one of these three guys, or someone similar. 

It happens every year, and some of them like Rivers and Brees make it, and some like Akili Smith don't.  But Akili Smith's failure at the pro-level had nothing to do with the spread offense he ran, the guy was lazy and could not throw the ball down the field accurately.  Its all about the guy. 

Mike,

I think it's also important to mention that all college programs are constrained by the 20 hour a week rule.   Any college football program can only spend 20 hours a week practicing and preparing.

Brian Billick sums it up nicely:

QuoteIn all fairness to Cam Newton, he has better throwing action than both Young and Tim Tebow and he is much more NFL ready than both prospects were in their respective draft years.  As I mentioned when analyzing Blaine Gabbert, the college spread offense makes it very difficult to estimate how ones games with translate into the NFL, and with Newton it is even more difficult.  He has only 292 passing attempts on his resume, and as one quarterback coach recently told me, only about 10% of throws in a spread offense are comparable to NFL style routes.  That means that we are asking a club to play this young man almost 50 million dollars based off game analysis of just 30 throws.

Finally, as has been discussed over and over, Newton

Quote from: MightyGiants on April 21, 2011, 09:49:00 AM
Mike,

I think it's also important to mention that all college programs are constrained by the 20 hour a week rule.   Any college football program can only spend 20 hours a week practicing and preparing.

Thats funny Rich.  the 20 hour rule, ha.  

The so called 20 hour rule was adopted in 1991 after a horrific survey revealed basketball players were spending over 30 hours a week on basketball instead of classes.  But the rule is about as easy to get around as a Eli Manning block.  

The only things that count are mandatory meetings and not even all of them count.  Most teams have a captain, who is trained individually by coaches.  Then the coaches meet with teh team and that captain for video prep work, that counts.  then after the coaches leave, the homework session with just the captain and the team does nto count. So the 2-3 hours of captains practices per day don't count toward the 20 hour rule.  then the session with teh coaches ot make sure everyone gets it, that counts.  So a players can have 25 hours of tape review and only have 3-5 hours count toward the rule.

Also, game day, no matter how much work is done on game day, counts only as 3 hours.  

Also, time in the training room spent on "rehab" is not coaching.  So every player reports minor injuries each week that require several hours in the weight room that do not count.  

Finally, the weekly team compliance meetings don;t count, even though they last a couple of hours and is often the only time the entire team and head coach are in the same meeting room.  Also voluntary team activity, as long as there is no coach present, does not count.  

Anyway Rich, that 20 hours rule is laughable.  Its simply not an obstruction. A season or three ago the NCAA had another survey and the average player reported 45 hours a week on football.  And that was average, school like michigan and oregon were reportedly much higher than 50 hours per week.  

Quote from: MightyGiants on April 21, 2011, 10:08:07 AM
Brian Billick sums it up nicely:

QuoteIn all fairness to Cam Newton, he has better throwing action than both Young and Tim Tebow and he is much more NFL ready than both prospects were in their respective draft years.  As I mentioned when analyzing Blaine Gabbert, the college spread offense makes it very difficult to estimate how ones games with translate into the NFL, and with Newton it is even more difficult.  He has only 292 passing attempts on his resume, and as one quarterback coach recently told me, only about 10% of throws in a spread offense are comparable to NFL style routes.  That means that we are asking a club to play this young man almost 50 million dollars based off game analysis of just 30 throws.

Finally, as has been discussed over and over, Newton

Dasher, Gruden has said live on a broadcast that he would "love to coach a Manning".

I have been following the discussion on Newton and have nothing to add about these pros and cons. But let me throw out a possibly whacky thought. A team drafts him as QB and lets him sit as the third qb for several years, or if he is a complete flop at this position, use him as a RB. Let him be a third down back while he learns QB. He looks like a great runner as opposed to D. Russell.

Quote from: finnref on April 21, 2011, 10:48:19 AM
I have been following the discussion on Newton and have nothing to add about these pros and cons. But let me throw out a possibly whacky thought. A team drafts him as QB and lets him sit as the third qb for several years, or if he is a complete flop at this position, use him as a RB. Let him be a third down back while he learns QB. He looks like a great runner as opposed to D. Russell.

Its tough to pay a guy 22+ million for the first year to sit on the bench with the cap where it was.  If the rookie cap is lowered, maybe that can work. But to sit the guy, you need to have another starter.  If you have another starter earning a starter's money, its tough to tie up all that money at the QB spot.  I think it depends on how far down he goes. If Carolina takes him, they have to start him because they will not be able to afford another decent QB. If its a team like the Vikes at 12, then I think your plan would work great.   

Gruden analyzes the five QB's tonite. Should be interesting!
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft2011/news/story?id=6395844 (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft2011/news/story?id=6395844)

You gotta love Gruden. When Coach Coughlin decides to step off the sidelines, I would love to see a NY Giants cap on JG.

http://www.bigblueview.com/2011/4/21/2125433/jerry-reese-pre-draft-press-conference-transcript (http://www.bigblueview.com/2011/4/21/2125433/jerry-reese-pre-draft-press-conference-transcript)

Q:  Less decision-making in the spread?



A:  All offenses are different.  Sometimes .....as far as protections - sometimes the offensive line just calls the protection.  Sometimes the quarterback calls the protection.  Sometimes they just have pre-determined protections.  So everything is different.  In this league the quarterback has to be able to throw the ball; he has to get the ball out quickly.  He has to make quick decisions under duress all of the time.  He has to take care of the football; those kinds of things.  But you are going to see some of these quarterbacks - the Cam Newtons of the world - you are going to see more of these type quarterbacks coming into the League, and I think they are going to be successful as they come into the League.

Quote from: vette on April 22, 2011, 09:49:56 AM
http://www.bigblueview.com/2011/4/21/2125433/jerry-reese-pre-draft-press-conference-transcript (http://www.bigblueview.com/2011/4/21/2125433/jerry-reese-pre-draft-press-conference-transcript)

Q:  Less decision-making in the spread?



A:  All offenses are different.  Sometimes .....as far as protections - sometimes the offensive line just calls the protection.  Sometimes the quarterback calls the protection.  Sometimes they just have pre-determined protections.  So everything is different.  In this league the quarterback has to be able to throw the ball; he has to get the ball out quickly.  He has to make quick decisions under duress all of the time.  He has to take care of the football; those kinds of things.  But you are going to see some of these quarterbacks - the Cam Newtons of the world - you are going to see more of these type quarterbacks coming into the League, and I think they are going to be successful as they come into the League.

The question before it was interesting too:

Q: RE: College quarterbacks and spread offense.

A: I think that is a hard position to evaluate more and more because most colleges now run the spread offense. Really it is a different animal than what we do in the NFL. I do think our league will start to evolve a little bit with some of that spread offense with some of these type players. So it is a hard position to evaluate in that respect. But you just have to see what the skill set is and what their mindset is. With quarterbacks - some guys can have a great skill set at quarterback, but they don't have the mindset that you would like for that position. The guy has to have the right mindset. He has to be the first guy to come in; he has to be the last guy to leave. But sometimes you can get a guy with a gigantic arm that can run and do those things but he doesn't have the mentality that you want your quarterback to have and the mindset you want - the mental makeup, I should say, instead of mind - the mental makeup that you would like for your quarterback to have. So each position - the puzzle you put together on them and things you like about them. Sometimes you can get a guy that you think is really kind of perfect - fits the puzzle perfectly - and then some guys can have part of the puzzle. But most of the time you don't get all of the pieces in the puzzle. And sometimes you get all of the pieces in the puzzle and he is still not what you really want.



I think what Reese is saying is similar to the point I was trying to make, but was far less articulate that Reese.  At the end of the day, I also agree with him that we will see more and more shotgun/pistol/spread/option quarterbacks coming into the nfl. I think they will be just as likely to be successful, and just as likely to fail, as those from a more traditional offense.  Its about seeing if the person has all the right pieces.  I still am not sold on Newton though.  With him, its the mindset I have a problem with.  I'm not sure he will be a good leader either. 

Mike,

I think what Reese is saying supports what I have been saying.  The Spread offense is very different than NFL football and it makes it very difficult to evaluate people.  He also discussed the mental aspect of the game and that was the main point raised in this thread.

You're both right. Are you happy now! Lol

No BP and the beat goes on........

Seriously though, you both make good points and did it well. Together somewhere lies the reality of the situation.

Quote from: vette on April 21, 2011, 09:17:50 PM
You gotta love Gruden. When Coach Coughlin decides to step off the sidelines, I would love to see a NY Giants cap on JG.

I've heard this sentiment on the board alot and I couldn't disagree more.  Jon Gruden took Tony Dungy's team to a Superbowl and won, great.  What else did he do?  His team plummeted to 4-12 the following year and showed tremendous inconsistency during his tenure.  His total Tampa Bay record was 57-55, 2 games above .500.  He won 3 division championships in his 7 years, but one team was a 9-7 joke that won a bad division.

Additionally, as a personnel man he ran the Bucs into the ground.  He was never able to successfully develop a quarterback and he wasted money on over the hill (Tim Brown) or high priced free agents, while letting the core of his team like Warren Sapp and John Lynch leave. 

I think he is an average motivator/coach who fell into the right position at the right time and a terrible personnel man.

I enjoy Gruden in the booth yet don't want a celebrity coach running the Giants.  I get entertained by a team, not a coaches personality.  

Quote from: MightyGiants on April 22, 2011, 10:20:03 AM
Mike,

I think what Reese is saying supports what I have been saying.  The Spread offense is very different than NFL football and it makes it very difficult to evaluate people.  He also discussed the mental aspect of the game and that was the main point raised in this thread.

Whatever Rich.  If you want to claim victory because you think Reese agreed with you, feel free. 

Our discussion here started with my comment that I do not think the system a QB comes from, or the vocabulary he takes from that system, has any impact on whether he will succeed in the NFL or not.  That is all I have been saying.  Good NFL QBs can come from any system. 

I have always embraced the idea that  its harder to evaluate a spread/option QB.  But IMO its not all that much harder and I think most people make far more of it than it really is. But regardles of how hard it is to evaluate a guy, I frankly do not understand what the fact that it is harder to evaluate has on the point I raised.  Guys from either system can and will fail/succeed.  Thats its harder to evaluate a guy who has not dropped back from center just means the nfl guys have to do more work.  Once you do the evaluation, its all back to the guy though.  

I think what Reese said is that an individual might have certain skills and might not, but the individual's skills are all that matter, not where he came from.  If its harder on him and his scout team, so be it, but nothing I said differs from Reese.  I've always said that Cam Newton does not have the "mental aspect" to make it in the nfl, but that has nothing to do with where he went to school or his vocabulary of offensive terms.  Guys like Rodgers come from very simple offenses at Cal and translate well because they do have the "mental aspect" and guys like Newton do not because they lack it.  The school's system has nothing to do with eventual success.  

Since some continue to point out his flaws (real or perceived), I think I'll add that some are missing Newton's biggest asset - his confidence, perhaps even arrogance.

He and Nick Fairley changed what was essentially the same team that went 8-5 the year before to a team the won the National Championship. Newton was criticized when he arrived at Auburn for calling the team a bunch of losers. To be fair, he never actually said that. What he said was that they didn't have the "swagger they needed to win in the SEC." They didn't approach the game like it was theirs to lose. He changed that locker room by single handedly taking over a game against Clemson, and following it up with a similar performance against South Carolina the next week. He continued to do that throughout the season in games against LSU, Alabama, and finally Oregon. They basically had the same season as the year before, only this time with Cam Newton. He was the difference between being 8-5  and 14-0. It wasn't just his play. His leadership was (is) a big deal.

Quote from: bamagiantfan on April 22, 2011, 12:40:59 PM
Since some continue to point out his flaws (real or perceived), I think I'll add that some are missing Newton's biggest asset - his confidence, perhaps even arrogance.

He and Nick Fairley changed what was essentially the same team that went 8-5 the year before to a team the won the National Championship. Newton was criticized when he arrived at Auburn for calling the team a bunch of losers. To be fair, he never actually said that. What he said was that they didn't have the "swagger they needed to win in the SEC." They didn't approach the game like it was theirs to lose. He changed that locker room by single handedly taking over a game against Clemson, and following it up with a similar performance against South Carolina the next week. He continued to do that throughout the season in games against LSU, Alabama, and finally Oregon. They basically had the same season as the year before, only this time with Cam Newton. He was the difference between being 8-5  and 14-0. It wasn't just his play. His leadership was (is) a big deal.

That is an excellent point.  Cam Newton is a simply amazing player.  He talked the talk and walked the walk.  He is arrogant, and deservedly so. 

That said, I think a biiger difference between Auburn in 2009 and 2010 is the same difference as that between Oregon in 2009 and 2010, the head coach.  In 2009, both Chip Kelly and Gene Chizik (along with OC Gus Malzahn) were first hear head coaches.  It took a little bit for their offensive systems to fall into place. Both are unlike anything else in college football and both took a very long time to teach to the coaches, let alone the players. 

I can not in any way limit the impact Cam Newton had on all of college ball last season. He was as dominating a force as I have ever seen.  But Chizik and Malzahn deserve a fair amount of the credit. Without Cam, they would not have beaten LSU or bama (or the Ducks for that matter) but without Chizik and Malzahn, Newton would not have had all those holes and winded defenses chasing him down.   

I'm making this number up, but if there are 10 things a college QB needs to transition to a successful NFL QB, it seems to me that if they already have as many as possible, their chances of success go way up.  If playing in the spread or playing with himself is something that becomes another thing for an NFL team to have to coach out of the player and correct, then it just seems like one more thing that can go wrong and thus make it harder to succeed.

To me, the guy who can just go back and sling the ball without having to think about proper footwork, where he's holding the football, his arm angle, whether he's made his progressions correctly, what the WILL is going to do, is going to be the one who succeeds.  The more clutter in their brain, the more they will not play fast and loose.  JMHO.

Well said philosophers. Do you remember that guy about 10 years ago who couldn't throw a tight spiral, lost the starting job at Michigan, had just an average arm, and had awful mobility and footwork?  ;)

I'm guessing that there will be a lot of teams that will be reaching for second and third round draft players in the first round this year and some trading up to do it. Then there is Young and Kolb out there that are going to get some nice dollars too.

Here is an interesting follow up from former NFL defensive tackle Chris Hovan, who played for the Bucs during Gruden

More on Newton:

Quotehttp://www.cbssports.com/#!/nfl/story/14991408/panthers-passing-on-newton-or-just-blowing-smoke

If so, it's understandable: Newton had one season of success at the Division 1-A level. Granted, it was an extraordinary season, with undefeated Auburn winning the national championship, but let the record show that he threw 280 passes at the major-college level (two years at Florida; one at Auburn), compared to Blaine Gabbert's 933, Tim Tebow's 995 and Sam Bradford's 893.

Let the record also show that he ran 285 times -- or more than he threw. In Newton's Heisman Trophy-winning season he averaged 20 passes a game and 18.9 rushes per contest, and that won't ... can't ... continue in the pros, where he will face bigger, stronger and faster defensive linemen.

"I'll tell you what scares me and what should scare Carolina," said one coach Sunday evening, "and that's that (Newton) never really developed past the 'JC' (junior college) level in terms of football knowledge. At Auburn, they let him do what he wanted to do. And that's because, athletically, the guy is a Hall of Famer. But in terms of what he knows about the game and how he plays it he's still at a junior-college level."

I really don't think he will go first.  Its just too big a risk.  I started this draft season thinking the Vikings would take him.  Its amazing how he climbed. 

Thanks Mike, this is exactly what the point of this thread was:

"I'll tell you what scares me and what should scare Carolina," said one coach Sunday evening, "and that's that (Newton) never really developed past the 'JC' (junior college) level in terms of football knowledge. At Auburn, they let him do what he wanted to do. And that's because, athletically, the guy is a Hall of Famer. But in terms of what he knows about the game and how he plays it he's still at a junior-college level."


I appreciate that you posted it.  It took character to do that. :ok:

Quote from: MightyGiants on April 25, 2011, 05:13:25 PM
Thanks Mike, this is exactly what the point of this thread was:

"I'll tell you what scares me and what should scare Carolina," said one coach Sunday evening, "and that's that (Newton) never really developed past the 'JC' (junior college) level in terms of football knowledge. At Auburn, they let him do what he wanted to do. And that's because, athletically, the guy is a Hall of Famer. But in terms of what he knows about the game and how he plays it he's still at a junior-college level."


I appreciate that you posted it.  It took character to do that. :ok:

Really, you still want to do this?  Its amazing to me that you just want to keep picking this up. 

Okay, here we go again.  Nothing I said in that post you referenced is at all different that what I have said in this entire thread Rich. 

for the last time (I hope) It is my learned opinion that CAM NEWTON is a risk.  He is not bright and in my opinion is not a good risk to take with the first pick.  It has NOTHING to do with where he went to school.  As it says, Auburn let him do what he wanted to do because, athletically, the guy is a Hall of Famer.  Auburn's decision on how to use him was guided by him just as much as an nfl team's decision to draft is guided by him. 

In terms of what Cam Newton knows about the game and how he plays, its the junior-college level.  None of this has anything whatsoever to with the school that he went to. It all has everything to do with the man who he is.  So I agree, its exactly the point of this thread.  School means nothing, the person means everything.  So I can only assume that last post means that you are finally agreeing with me.  Thanks for agreeing with me finally. Thanks.  I appreciate it. 

So to be clear,
1) Cam Newton = Bad Risk.
2) Auburn, Oregon, Nevada and now it appears Miss State and Oregon State DO NOT EQUAL Bad Risk. 

Maybe now that its clear that we agree, we can move on. 

Or maybe its clear that we disagree, and we should just agree to disagree and likewise just move on. 

Mike,
Look at the title of the thread.  I am pretty sure Grudem didn't discover what school he went through.  Rather he exposed the fact that Cam knows next to nothing about football

Quote from: MightyGiants on April 25, 2011, 05:36:44 PM
Mike,
Look at the title of the thread.  I am pretty sure Grudem didn't discover what school he went through.  Rather he exposed the fact that Cam knows next to nothing about football

Oh I'm sorry, you only look at the few words in a title to see what a thread is about.  We are different in this respect.  I read a whole thread post and the entire link referenced therein to see what it is about.  and if after reading I find a point other than the thread title, I feel free to inject that into the discussion.  I think thats what makes this board great, good discussions with knowledgeable people.  You posted a quote and a link, which I read entirely and looked at entirely.  In both your quote, and more at the article, Gruden talked about the Auburn offense.  I noted that part where he asked Cam Newton to tell him what an Auburn play call sounds like. 

I then thought I would inject into the conversation what I hoped was an intelligent and well thought out point that just because schools like Auburn and Oregon run an offense that does not use traditional play calls but instead use literally giants boards with either numbers or pictures of strange things on them, does not mean that a QB for one of these schools can not be great in the NFL.  I do think Gruden feels this way, as it appears hat you do, and I respectfully disagree. 

I also think that since these types of offenses are growing in the college level, its a very good discussion to have as to whether one of these offenses can post a good QB.  Considering both of the schools I mentioned were in the national title game, both had Heisman finalists and the Oregon QB is a Heisman favorite going into the season, whether a QB from either of these schools can make it in teh nfl seems a very valid point and a natural response to your post.  Even more so because this style of offense is growing at the Pac-10 and SEC, which are pretty well known to be two of the best conference in the college game, its probable that the better HS QBs will get recruited to schools running this style of offense.

I felt it was tremendous shorting for Gruden to suggest the Auburn offense was simple and could not project a good NFL qb.  I put in my very first post that Cam Newton's real weakness may any number of things, but I think that Gruden's comments can be read as an indictment of an offense that is being mirrored "en masse" at the college ranks.  I think my point is indeed valid, and also does nothing whatsoever to contradict your opinion that Cam Newton will not make a good NFL QB.  Its exactly what your thread started with and was a fair point for me to comment on. 

Its clear that you think school matters a great deal. I do not.  I think I made a valid point, and now that I review it, hell I was even a little more articulate than I often am.  My point was a logical response to the one you made, and I dare say some people here actually enjoyed reading it and discussing it.  Having gone to Oregon, having watched every one of their games the past 15 years, being that I am flying there this coming weekend for the Spring Game to watch the offense and see how it develops without out best WR and the loss our Center, I thought I might be able to contribute something unique to the conversation, or at least from a perspective that is not common on this board.  I hope others feel that I did and my contribution was both valid, thought provoking and entertaining to discuss.   

On Cam, I will say again what I said in my very first post in this thread, 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.

Mike,

Regardless of WHY Auburn decided to create a simplistic system for him, it doesn't change the FACT that he was in a simplistic system.  You read far too much into the post to try and make a contrary point. 

Well, that you think its simplistic is yet another area of disagreement. The SEC and particularly Alabama, with one of the best defenses, did notr think it was simple. They just watched it score and run up more points against great defenses in a great conferences than I thought possible.

Auburn runs an offense that is easy to run. If u think it means auburn or oregon or nevada or any other team running this offense can not produce a successful nfl qb, well I'd say you are as wrong as a human being can ever be. As for my reading too much into posts, I just read em Rich. Its only when someone disagrees with you that's its a problem. I'd bet any amount that no one but you thought my point was not appropriate. I bet every other person here, whether they agree with me or not, understands my point to be a fair point to raise. You made a post and I responded. If you don't like it when people respond to your posts, don't make posts. I for one enjoy it when someone responds to me, even when they disagree. Its seriously not cool for you to suggest my point was not a reasonable response to your thread. I thought we were about the free sharing of ideas about football.

I think this thing has been beat to death. You disagree with each other. We all enjoyed the discussion the subject evolved into. Thank you both.