Cam Newton (1 Viewer)

[scrumptrulescent]

and even when people have tried to put a big hit on him it looks like they ran into a brick wall

The right guy hasn't hit him yet. Ray Lewis might break Cam in 2.

Haters gonna hate!

 

[GDogg]

Real coaches don't spend their time worrying about a guy getting injured. You can't coach that way and be successful.

I'd agree with this premise for every other position than QB. Coaches spend countless hours trying to devise the best ways to keep them from getting hit. Look how the value of offensive lineman has soared. While I'd agree that Newton probably is less likely to take a huge hit at the goal line, I'd say he's much more likely to get hit by 2 or 3 guys at, or near the same time.

Look, I'm sure that most of you that are disagreeing with my assertion are Newton owners and are loving the extra TDs. I'm sure Chud's plan is sound from a X's and O's standpoint as well. I just think that kind of thinking is going to leave the Panthers looking for a replacement at QB sooner than they'd like.

From Chud's perspective, he just wants to score as many points as possible and keep his job or get a promotion to a HC. If I were Jerry Richardson though, I'd want to make sure my franchise QB stays my franchise QB for a long, long time though. We've had 4 high quality running QB's in the last 15 years. McNair, Culpepper, McNabb and Vick. Only McNabb made it to 10 years. The high quality pocket passers seem to last about twice as many years.

Except that McNair made it to 13, and Vick was in jail wiping out 3 of his seasons.

Good grief. As I stated earlier in this thread, McNair played 13 years. The first two he basically didn't play. The last four he was the current equivalent of Donovan McNabb. He was a good football player for 7 years. Some of them were fantastic.

I thought by comparing Newton to McNair, Vick, McNabb and Culpepper, people would get the idea that I think Newton is an excellent player. Guess not. I also thought people would get the idea that taking more shots in this league leads to shorter careers. Guess not.

As for the Steve Young comparison, he never ran the ball more than 76 times, and most years he ran it 50-60 times. Tarkenton played in an entirely different era, (players were smaller and slower) and rant the ball on average 37.5 times a year. Newton has already ran it 40 times. Elway ran it over 60 times once in his career. (66). Brunell did it twice. (67, 80). Newton is on pace for 128 right now.

Interesting that Randall Cunningham was mentioned. He and Vick are the only one's that run the ball as much as Newton is on pace to do. (At least in the last 25 years.) Cunningham was given the role of starting QB in 1987, and ran the ball 76 times in 1987, 93 times in 1988, 104 times in 1989, and 118 times in 1990. He blew out his ACL in the first game of 1991, and wasn't ever a good QB for the Eagles again. He found one year of fantasy relevance in Minnesota in 1998, but got benched again in 1999.

Vick has played in 16 games once in his 8 full seasons. They also do not use him as their primary goal line back. As a matter of fact, they brought in Ronnie Brown to take that role.

There's plenty of coaches that use a goal line back instead of their main ball carrier. Many of them have stated they use the goal line back to cut down on the wear and tear of their lead back. So Newton is not only at risk to take hits in the pocket, and while scrambling in the open field, he's also taking shots while playing RB at the goal line.

One last thing. This is not a jealousy thing, nor am I concerned about Dwill or Stewart getting TDs. It just seems to me this is a terrible idea because it is adding unnecessary risk onto an already high risk position. Some teams have gone decades between getting a true franchise level QB. Newton has the look of one, and IMO the way they are using him will shorten his career considerably.

Except that you haven't shown that. You've shown you can cherry-pick a few rushing QBs and cherry-pick a few pocket passers and then change the definition of the length of a career (your "quality season"). I posted statistics backing up the fact that it's a faulty conclusion that rushing QBs = shorter NFL career. The average NFL QB's career is 4.4 years. McNair, whether he sucked or not, played almost 3 times that length (by the way, he retired after the 2007 season and was a pro bowler in 2005 and he was above average in every season he played at least 11 games except one, his first season as a starter). In 11 seasons as a starter, he was above average in 8 of them. In 2004 and 2007, he played in 8 and 6 games, respectively.

You've gone through some exhaustive gymnastics to prove a point that you aren't actually proving. McNair played 13 years. Cunningham played 16. McNabb is in his 13th season.

And, I'm not saying you are wrong that "[m]any [coaches] have stated they use the goal line back to cut down on the wear and tear of their lead back," but who has said this? I have read coaches and analysts state they use a goal line back when they have a back who is bigger and able to move the pile. This is because they are in tight spaces and often in situations where they are in a pile and only need a yard or two. I haven't read much other than on FF message boards (and some fantasy sites) that this is done to reduce wear and tear on the lead back. The purpose of a goal line/short yardage back is the ability to get a few tough yards in tight spaces that a smaller back might not be able to get.

Finally, you seem to be arguing two different things. For some of the QBs above, you seem to imply that they aren't great comparisons for longevity because they didn't, in a full season, run the ball as many times as Cam is on pace to do through his 5 game career. On the flip side, you seem to imply that guys like Vick, who do run as much, aren't great comparisons for longevity because they aren't handling goal line/short yardage duties.

Keep in mind that you are responding to someone who was responding to the poster that said Cam would be "gone" as fast as Steve McNair was. As stated repeatedly, McNair was "gone" fast if you think 13 seasons and 153 games started is fast.

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

Real coaches don't spend their time worrying about a guy getting injured. You can't coach that way and be successful.

I'd agree with this premise for every other position than QB. Coaches spend countless hours trying to devise the best ways to keep them from getting hit. Look how the value of offensive lineman has soared. While I'd agree that Newton probably is less likely to take a huge hit at the goal line, I'd say he's much more likely to get hit by 2 or 3 guys at, or near the same time.

Look, I'm sure that most of you that are disagreeing with my assertion are Newton owners and are loving the extra TDs. I'm sure Chud's plan is sound from a X's and O's standpoint as well. I just think that kind of thinking is going to leave the Panthers looking for a replacement at QB sooner than they'd like.

From Chud's perspective, he just wants to score as many points as possible and keep his job or get a promotion to a HC. If I were Jerry Richardson though, I'd want to make sure my franchise QB stays my franchise QB for a long, long time though. We've had 4 high quality running QB's in the last 15 years. McNair, Culpepper, McNabb and Vick. Only McNabb made it to 10 years. The high quality pocket passers seem to last about twice as many years.

Except that McNair made it to 13, and Vick was in jail wiping out 3 of his seasons.

Good grief. As I stated earlier in this thread, McNair played 13 years. The first two he basically didn't play. The last four he was the current equivalent of Donovan McNabb. He was a good football player for 7 years. Some of them were fantastic.

I thought by comparing Newton to McNair, Vick, McNabb and Culpepper, people would get the idea that I think Newton is an excellent player. Guess not. I also thought people would get the idea that taking more shots in this league leads to shorter careers. Guess not.

As for the Steve Young comparison, he never ran the ball more than 76 times, and most years he ran it 50-60 times. Tarkenton played in an entirely different era, (players were smaller and slower) and rant the ball on average 37.5 times a year. Newton has already ran it 40 times. Elway ran it over 60 times once in his career. (66). Brunell did it twice. (67, 80). Newton is on pace for 128 right now.

Interesting that Randall Cunningham was mentioned. He and Vick are the only one's that run the ball as much as Newton is on pace to do. (At least in the last 25 years.) Cunningham was given the role of starting QB in 1987, and ran the ball 76 times in 1987, 93 times in 1988, 104 times in 1989, and 118 times in 1990. He blew out his ACL in the first game of 1991, and wasn't ever a good QB for the Eagles again. He found one year of fantasy relevance in Minnesota in 1998, but got benched again in 1999.

Vick has played in 16 games once in his 8 full seasons. They also do not use him as their primary goal line back. As a matter of fact, they brought in Ronnie Brown to take that role.

There's plenty of coaches that use a goal line back instead of their main ball carrier. Many of them have stated they use the goal line back to cut down on the wear and tear of their lead back. So Newton is not only at risk to take hits in the pocket, and while scrambling in the open field, he's also taking shots while playing RB at the goal line.

One last thing. This is not a jealousy thing, nor am I concerned about Dwill or Stewart getting TDs. It just seems to me this is a terrible idea because it is adding unnecessary risk onto an already high risk position. Some teams have gone decades between getting a true franchise level QB. Newton has the look of one, and IMO the way they are using him will shorten his career considerably.

Except that you haven't shown that. You've shown you can cherry-pick a few rushing QBs and cherry-pick a few pocket passers and then change the definition of the length of a career (your "quality season"). I posted statistics backing up the fact that it's a faulty conclusion that rushing QBs = shorter NFL career. The average NFL QB's career is 4.4 years. McNair, whether he sucked or not, played almost 3 times that length (by the way, he retired after the 2007 season and was a pro bowler in 2005 and he was above average in every season he played at least 11 games except one, his first season as a starter). In 11 seasons as a starter, he was above average in 8 of them. In 2004 and 2007, he played in 8 and 6 games, respectively.

You've gone through some exhaustive gymnastics to prove a point that you aren't actually proving. McNair played 13 years. Cunningham played 16. McNabb is in his 13th season.

And, I'm not saying you are wrong that "[m]any [coaches] have stated they use the goal line back to cut down on the wear and tear of their lead back," but who has said this? I have read coaches and analysts state they use a goal line back when they have a back who is bigger and able to move the pile. This is because they are in tight spaces and often in situations where they are in a pile and only need a yard or two. I haven't read much other than on FF message boards (and some fantasy sites) that this is done to reduce wear and tear on the lead back. The purpose of a goal line/short yardage back is the ability to get a few tough yards in tight spaces that a smaller back might not be able to get.

Finally, you seem to be arguing two different things. For some of the QBs above, you seem to imply that they aren't great comparisons for longevity because they didn't, in a full season, run the ball as many times as Cam is on pace to do through his 5 game career. On the flip side, you seem to imply that guys like Vick, who do run as much, aren't great comparisons for longevity because they aren't handling goal line/short yardage duties.

Keep in mind that you are responding to someone who was responding to the poster that said Cam would be "gone" as fast as Steve McNair was. As stated repeatedly, McNair was "gone" fast if you think 13 seasons and 153 games started is fast.

Ok let's talk about McNair's career for a minute. His first two years, he was a bit player. Only started a total of 6 games. His last 4 years, he never threw for more than 16 TDs nor rushed for more than 1. You are correct in that he made the probowl in 2005. He scored 17 total touchdowns that year between rushing and passing. The only category in which he made the top 10 among QBs that year was passes attempted. So yeah, I'll stand by my assessment that he wasn't very good for his last 4 years. I think everyone knows ProBowls don't always go to the most deserving players. You seem to be searching for definitions here. I am comparing Newton to elite level QBs because I think he's very likely to become one.

So what is the average NFL career of the elite level QB? I guarantee its a lot longer than 4.4 years.

Here is the real question IMO.

How long do pocket passers maintain elite level production?

How long do QB's that feature rushing as a major part of their game maintain elite level production?

I think I've shown that the elite level rushing QBs of the last 25 years, (Cunningham, McNair, Culpepper, McNabb, Vick) all have had much shorter elite level production in their careers than their pocket passing counterparts.

Do you really need more analysis from me to prove what should be common sense? QBs that run the ball a lot take more punishment, therefore their careers are shorter. The whole reason I started this thread was to question why Carolina would subject their franchise QB to the punishment that is goal line running. Its just short sighted thinking on the part of Carolina.

Also, while I agree that Cam Newton is a special talent, I don't think he's impervious to the abuse that is being tackled in the NFL.

 

[GDogg]

Real coaches don't spend their time worrying about a guy getting injured. You can't coach that way and be successful.

I'd agree with this premise for every other position than QB. Coaches spend countless hours trying to devise the best ways to keep them from getting hit. Look how the value of offensive lineman has soared. While I'd agree that Newton probably is less likely to take a huge hit at the goal line, I'd say he's much more likely to get hit by 2 or 3 guys at, or near the same time.

Look, I'm sure that most of you that are disagreeing with my assertion are Newton owners and are loving the extra TDs. I'm sure Chud's plan is sound from a X's and O's standpoint as well. I just think that kind of thinking is going to leave the Panthers looking for a replacement at QB sooner than they'd like.

From Chud's perspective, he just wants to score as many points as possible and keep his job or get a promotion to a HC. If I were Jerry Richardson though, I'd want to make sure my franchise QB stays my franchise QB for a long, long time though. We've had 4 high quality running QB's in the last 15 years. McNair, Culpepper, McNabb and Vick. Only McNabb made it to 10 years. The high quality pocket passers seem to last about twice as many years.

Except that McNair made it to 13, and Vick was in jail wiping out 3 of his seasons.

Good grief. As I stated earlier in this thread, McNair played 13 years. The first two he basically didn't play. The last four he was the current equivalent of Donovan McNabb. He was a good football player for 7 years. Some of them were fantastic.

I thought by comparing Newton to McNair, Vick, McNabb and Culpepper, people would get the idea that I think Newton is an excellent player. Guess not. I also thought people would get the idea that taking more shots in this league leads to shorter careers. Guess not.

As for the Steve Young comparison, he never ran the ball more than 76 times, and most years he ran it 50-60 times. Tarkenton played in an entirely different era, (players were smaller and slower) and rant the ball on average 37.5 times a year. Newton has already ran it 40 times. Elway ran it over 60 times once in his career. (66). Brunell did it twice. (67, 80). Newton is on pace for 128 right now.

Interesting that Randall Cunningham was mentioned. He and Vick are the only one's that run the ball as much as Newton is on pace to do. (At least in the last 25 years.) Cunningham was given the role of starting QB in 1987, and ran the ball 76 times in 1987, 93 times in 1988, 104 times in 1989, and 118 times in 1990. He blew out his ACL in the first game of 1991, and wasn't ever a good QB for the Eagles again. He found one year of fantasy relevance in Minnesota in 1998, but got benched again in 1999.

Vick has played in 16 games once in his 8 full seasons. They also do not use him as their primary goal line back. As a matter of fact, they brought in Ronnie Brown to take that role.

There's plenty of coaches that use a goal line back instead of their main ball carrier. Many of them have stated they use the goal line back to cut down on the wear and tear of their lead back. So Newton is not only at risk to take hits in the pocket, and while scrambling in the open field, he's also taking shots while playing RB at the goal line.

One last thing. This is not a jealousy thing, nor am I concerned about Dwill or Stewart getting TDs. It just seems to me this is a terrible idea because it is adding unnecessary risk onto an already high risk position. Some teams have gone decades between getting a true franchise level QB. Newton has the look of one, and IMO the way they are using him will shorten his career considerably.

Except that you haven't shown that. You've shown you can cherry-pick a few rushing QBs and cherry-pick a few pocket passers and then change the definition of the length of a career (your "quality season"). I posted statistics backing up the fact that it's a faulty conclusion that rushing QBs = shorter NFL career. The average NFL QB's career is 4.4 years. McNair, whether he sucked or not, played almost 3 times that length (by the way, he retired after the 2007 season and was a pro bowler in 2005 and he was above average in every season he played at least 11 games except one, his first season as a starter). In 11 seasons as a starter, he was above average in 8 of them. In 2004 and 2007, he played in 8 and 6 games, respectively.

You've gone through some exhaustive gymnastics to prove a point that you aren't actually proving. McNair played 13 years. Cunningham played 16. McNabb is in his 13th season.

And, I'm not saying you are wrong that "[m]any [coaches] have stated they use the goal line back to cut down on the wear and tear of their lead back," but who has said this? I have read coaches and analysts state they use a goal line back when they have a back who is bigger and able to move the pile. This is because they are in tight spaces and often in situations where they are in a pile and only need a yard or two. I haven't read much other than on FF message boards (and some fantasy sites) that this is done to reduce wear and tear on the lead back. The purpose of a goal line/short yardage back is the ability to get a few tough yards in tight spaces that a smaller back might not be able to get.

Finally, you seem to be arguing two different things. For some of the QBs above, you seem to imply that they aren't great comparisons for longevity because they didn't, in a full season, run the ball as many times as Cam is on pace to do through his 5 game career. On the flip side, you seem to imply that guys like Vick, who do run as much, aren't great comparisons for longevity because they aren't handling goal line/short yardage duties.

Keep in mind that you are responding to someone who was responding to the poster that said Cam would be "gone" as fast as Steve McNair was. As stated repeatedly, McNair was "gone" fast if you think 13 seasons and 153 games started is fast.

Ok let's talk about McNair's career for a minute. His first two years, he was a bit player. Only started a total of 6 games. His last 4 years, he never threw for more than 16 TDs nor rushed for more than 1. You are correct in that he made the probowl in 2005. He scored 17 total touchdowns that year between rushing and passing. The only category in which he made the top 10 among QBs that year was passes attempted. So yeah, I'll stand by my assessment that he wasn't very good for his last 4 years. I think everyone knows ProBowls don't always go to the most deserving players. You seem to be searching for definitions here. I am comparing Newton to elite level QBs because I think he's very likely to become one.

So what is the average NFL career of the elite level QB? I guarantee its a lot longer than 4.4 years.

Here is the real question IMO.

How long do pocket passers maintain elite level production?

How long do QB's that feature rushing as a major part of their game maintain elite level production?

I think I've shown that the elite level rushing QBs of the last 25 years, (Cunningham, McNair, Culpepper, McNabb, Vick) all have had much shorter elite level production in their careers than their pocket passing counterparts.

Do you really need more analysis from me to prove what should be common sense? QBs that run the ball a lot take more punishment, therefore their careers are shorter. The whole reason I started this thread was to question why Carolina would subject their franchise QB to the punishment that is goal line running. Its just short sighted thinking on the part of Carolina.

Also, while I agree that Cam Newton is a special talent, I don't think he's impervious to the abuse that is being tackled in the NFL.

But, they aren't. Sure, QBs that run the ball take more punishment. But, that doesn't mean their careers are shorter. I'm not sure why you are missing that. You are arguing a point that only you brought up. You are the only one that brought up the elite level production argument and I'm not even sure it holds water. Another poster said that Newton would be "gone" as fast as McNair. That's it. You created your own definition for what a career is, which is not the way that most people define "career."

And, you haven't shown that the elite level rushing QBs of the last 25 years had shorter elite level production. The elite level runners of the past 25 years are also some of the elite level passers, including guys like Steve Young and John Elway. Culpepper's career fell off because he lost Randy Moss and blew out his ACL. That wasn't because of constant pounding. He took a direct hit on one play. Vick is still playing and his career was derailed because of jail. Cunningham, well, he was exciting, but he only had three seasons in the top 10 in passer rating. I love the guy, but the reality is he wasn't an elite passer. And, your legs are more likely to decline quickly as you age than your arm.

On top of that, in NFL history, quarterbacks aged 34 or older (McNabb's year of decline) have thrown for 3300 (206.5 yards/gm) yards or more only 57 times. Of those 57, 35 times they've thrown for 3600 (225 yards/gm). When quarterbacks, regardless of type of play, get older, their elite level production drops off.

As for Steve McNair, you didn't just say that he wasn't very good. You said he was the current equivalent of Donovan McNabb his last four years. Two of those, he was injured and played half or less than half of a season. McNabb's passer rating index this year is 94 (he was 92 last year in Washington). 100 is average. McNair in 2004 (8 games played) was 91. In 2005, he was 102, and the same in 2006. His index was 89 in the 6 games he played. In the two seasons he played a full season, McNair was above average. He wasn't very good and he definitely wasn't terrible. McNabb is terrible right now.

Here are the current all-time rushing leaders for QBs:

1. Mike Vick* - 8th year over 10 years

2. Randall Cunningham - 16 year career

3. Steve Young - 15 year NFL career, but played in the USFL prior to that

4. Fran Tarkenton - 18 year NFL career

5. Steve McNair - 13 year NFL career

6. Donovan McNabb* - 13th NFL year

7. John Elway - 16 year NFL career

8. Kordell Stewart - 11 year NFL career (went out of the league because he wasn't very good)

9. Jim Harbaugh - 15 year NFL career

10. Daunte Culpepper - 11 year NFL career (injury derailed career)

By comparison, here are the current all-time passing leaders:

1. Brett Favre - 20 year NFL career

2. Dan Marino - 17 year NFL career

3. Peyton Manning* - 13th NFL year, but career is in jeopardy due to injury

4. John Elway - 16 year NFL career

5. Warren Moon - 17 year NFL career, but played in Canada prior to that

6. Fran Tarkenton - 18 year NFL career

7. Vinny Testaverde - 21 year NFL career

8. Drew Bledsoe - 14 year NFL career

9. Dan Fouts - 15 year NFL career

10. Kerry Collins* - 16th NFL year

 

[strong]

Real coaches don't spend their time worrying about a guy getting injured. You can't coach that way and be successful.

I'd agree with this premise for every other position than QB. Coaches spend countless hours trying to devise the best ways to keep them from getting hit. Look how the value of offensive lineman has soared. While I'd agree that Newton probably is less likely to take a huge hit at the goal line, I'd say he's much more likely to get hit by 2 or 3 guys at, or near the same time.

Look, I'm sure that most of you that are disagreeing with my assertion are Newton owners and are loving the extra TDs. I'm sure Chud's plan is sound from a X's and O's standpoint as well. I just think that kind of thinking is going to leave the Panthers looking for a replacement at QB sooner than they'd like.

From Chud's perspective, he just wants to score as many points as possible and keep his job or get a promotion to a HC. If I were Jerry Richardson though, I'd want to make sure my franchise QB stays my franchise QB for a long, long time though. We've had 4 high quality running QB's in the last 15 years. McNair, Culpepper, McNabb and Vick. Only McNabb made it to 10 years. The high quality pocket passers seem to last about twice as many years.

Except that McNair made it to 13, and Vick was in jail wiping out 3 of his seasons.

Good grief. As I stated earlier in this thread, McNair played 13 years. The first two he basically didn't play. The last four he was the current equivalent of Donovan McNabb. He was a good football player for 7 years. Some of them were fantastic.

I thought by comparing Newton to McNair, Vick, McNabb and Culpepper, people would get the idea that I think Newton is an excellent player. Guess not. I also thought people would get the idea that taking more shots in this league leads to shorter careers. Guess not.

As for the Steve Young comparison, he never ran the ball more than 76 times, and most years he ran it 50-60 times. Tarkenton played in an entirely different era, (players were smaller and slower) and rant the ball on average 37.5 times a year. Newton has already ran it 40 times. Elway ran it over 60 times once in his career. (66). Brunell did it twice. (67, 80). Newton is on pace for 128 right now.

Interesting that Randall Cunningham was mentioned. He and Vick are the only one's that run the ball as much as Newton is on pace to do. (At least in the last 25 years.) Cunningham was given the role of starting QB in 1987, and ran the ball 76 times in 1987, 93 times in 1988, 104 times in 1989, and 118 times in 1990. He blew out his ACL in the first game of 1991, and wasn't ever a good QB for the Eagles again. He found one year of fantasy relevance in Minnesota in 1998, but got benched again in 1999.

Vick has played in 16 games once in his 8 full seasons. They also do not use him as their primary goal line back. As a matter of fact, they brought in Ronnie Brown to take that role.

There's plenty of coaches that use a goal line back instead of their main ball carrier. Many of them have stated they use the goal line back to cut down on the wear and tear of their lead back. So Newton is not only at risk to take hits in the pocket, and while scrambling in the open field, he's also taking shots while playing RB at the goal line.

One last thing. This is not a jealousy thing, nor am I concerned about Dwill or Stewart getting TDs. It just seems to me this is a terrible idea because it is adding unnecessary risk onto an already high risk position. Some teams have gone decades between getting a true franchise level QB. Newton has the look of one, and IMO the way they are using him will shorten his career considerably.

Except that you haven't shown that. You've shown you can cherry-pick a few rushing QBs and cherry-pick a few pocket passers and then change the definition of the length of a career (your "quality season"). I posted statistics backing up the fact that it's a faulty conclusion that rushing QBs = shorter NFL career. The average NFL QB's career is 4.4 years. McNair, whether he sucked or not, played almost 3 times that length (by the way, he retired after the 2007 season and was a pro bowler in 2005 and he was above average in every season he played at least 11 games except one, his first season as a starter). In 11 seasons as a starter, he was above average in 8 of them. In 2004 and 2007, he played in 8 and 6 games, respectively.

You've gone through some exhaustive gymnastics to prove a point that you aren't actually proving. McNair played 13 years. Cunningham played 16. McNabb is in his 13th season.

And, I'm not saying you are wrong that "[m]any [coaches] have stated they use the goal line back to cut down on the wear and tear of their lead back," but who has said this? I have read coaches and analysts state they use a goal line back when they have a back who is bigger and able to move the pile. This is because they are in tight spaces and often in situations where they are in a pile and only need a yard or two. I haven't read much other than on FF message boards (and some fantasy sites) that this is done to reduce wear and tear on the lead back. The purpose of a goal line/short yardage back is the ability to get a few tough yards in tight spaces that a smaller back might not be able to get.

Finally, you seem to be arguing two different things. For some of the QBs above, you seem to imply that they aren't great comparisons for longevity because they didn't, in a full season, run the ball as many times as Cam is on pace to do through his 5 game career. On the flip side, you seem to imply that guys like Vick, who do run as much, aren't great comparisons for longevity because they aren't handling goal line/short yardage duties.

Keep in mind that you are responding to someone who was responding to the poster that said Cam would be "gone" as fast as Steve McNair was. As stated repeatedly, McNair was "gone" fast if you think 13 seasons and 153 games started is fast.

Ok let's talk about McNair's career for a minute. His first two years, he was a bit player. Only started a total of 6 games. His last 4 years, he never threw for more than 16 TDs nor rushed for more than 1. You are correct in that he made the probowl in 2005. He scored 17 total touchdowns that year between rushing and passing. The only category in which he made the top 10 among QBs that year was passes attempted. So yeah, I'll stand by my assessment that he wasn't very good for his last 4 years. I think everyone knows ProBowls don't always go to the most deserving players. You seem to be searching for definitions here. I am comparing Newton to elite level QBs because I think he's very likely to become one.

So what is the average NFL career of the elite level QB? I guarantee its a lot longer than 4.4 years.

Here is the real question IMO.

How long do pocket passers maintain elite level production?

How long do QB's that feature rushing as a major part of their game maintain elite level production?

I think I've shown that the elite level rushing QBs of the last 25 years, (Cunningham, McNair, Culpepper, McNabb, Vick) all have had much shorter elite level production in their careers than their pocket passing counterparts.

Do you really need more analysis from me to prove what should be common sense? QBs that run the ball a lot take more punishment, therefore their careers are shorter. The whole reason I started this thread was to question why Carolina would subject their franchise QB to the punishment that is goal line running. Its just short sighted thinking on the part of Carolina.

Also, while I agree that Cam Newton is a special talent, I don't think he's impervious to the abuse that is being tackled in the NFL.

again. you're lumping all pocket passers together and all scramblers together, which i think is problematic. some pocket passers are great at avoiding hits. others aren't. i'd be curious to hear why you insist on lumping them all together, when clearly some guys have notoriously held the ball too long and been easy targets in the pocket, as evidenced by their "hits" and sacks numbers year in and year out.

and again, comparing cam to quarterbacks like vick that are frequent sitting ducks in the pocket isn't a useful comparison.