Jon Gruden exposes Cam Newton's real weakness

[MightyGiants]

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).

[vette5573]

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.

[bighitterdalama]

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  

[vstaj(grizz)]

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

[Sect122Mike]

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.

[Sect122Mike]

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. 

[Sect122Mike]

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. 

[MightyGiants]

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

[vette5573]

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.

[Sect122Mike]

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

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.  

[MightyGiants]

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.

[Sect122Mike]

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. 

[Philosophers]

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.

[Sect122Mike]

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. 

[jimmyz]

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.