This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
If you're going to point out how simplistic my argument is, at least state it better. The risk on Newton and guarantee on Rodgers is what causes the difference in value. Rodgers' floor is what he did 2008-2010 for 8 to 10 years. Newton's floor is not known. That is all.'Concept Coop said:
I have very clearly explained why I think Cam's rushing numbers will continue, and Rodgers' passing TDs will come down to earth. Very clearly. You actually quoted it in your post.
I agree that the risk is more with Newton - I have to equate for that and project what that floor is. I have done that. The difference in my value of the two is the potential of Newton. I think the potential is such that he is more valuable than Rodgers, even though he is riskier.
You were not right about Tebow- you dismissed any chance that he wouldn't be the starter this year.Sure, if newton continues to improve as an NFL player, and he stays on the field, he will have a very good chance at being the top QB. I'm not saying I expect Newton to take a step back, is a fluke, a bust, etc. All I'm saying there is tons of risk in projecting him to be the #1 FF QB based on 8 games, just like there was a ton of risk in projecting Tebow to be a stud based on 3 games.
I don't want to get into a right vs. wrong this with Tebow. Tebow has been a fantasy stud every time he has been on the field. That is what running QBs do. Look at the thread and those that said he couldn't keep up his 20 pt/game average - he has. Who I thought would start has no place in this conversation - it is irrelevant. Newton is very different than Tebow, in that he projects to be one of the better NFL QBs too - no question about who is starting in Carolina in the near future. As I have stated, there is risk. You value the risk/reward as you feel fit. That is all fine and dandy and why we play the game.
Rodgers has ascended to the ranks of "all time great QB." It makes a Culpepper comparison moot. If you had told me trade Brees for Rodgers in 2008, you would have been right. But it would have still been bad strategy, and I didn't lose much by not following your advice.
Culpepper got injured and never started more than 7 games a season after than. Can we please end the comparision? I'm done respoding to it, anyway.Rodgers vs. Newton is different than Rodgers vs. Brees. If you read the first post, it is spelled out very clearly there.EDIT: Your statement re:advice is a personal matter. How you weight risk vs. reward is your business and isn't right or wrong. Same for mine. I am simply stating that I think Cam Newton is more valuable than Aaron Rodgers, risk taken into account.
I respect your desire to wait a year and see. But Newton is nothing like Vick, Young, or Freeman. If Freeman added 5-8 points a game on the ground, even if his passing numbers were down, he would be elite.
I am not suggesting that Rodgers will continue to average 50 touchdowns per year. However, here are his stats for each of the 4 years he has been a starter (including this year with prorated numbers):2008- 4,038 passing yards, 207 rushing yards, 28 passing touchdowns, 4 rushing touchdowns2009- 4,434 passing yards, 316 rushing yards, 30 passing touchdowns, 5 rushing touchdowns2010- 3,922 passing yards, 356 rushing yards, 28 passing touchdowns, 4 rushing touchdowns2011- 5,238 passing yards, 254 rushing yards, 48 passing touchdowns, 4 rushing touchdownsIn a league that awards 6 points for passing touchdowns, that breaks down to the following fantasy numbers (assuming 1 point per 25 passing yards and 1 point per 10 rushing yards):2008- 3732009- 4182010- 3832011- 546That leaves us with a 4 year average of 430 fantasy points. I absolutely refute the idea that you can't count his pace this season as part of the meaningful sample set because perhaps more than any quarterback in the history of the NFL, Rodgers has the potential to repeat this season at some point in his career (while I don't expect him to average 5,500 total yards and 50+ touchdowns, I would not be shocked if he had a similar season to this one at some point in his career).Cam Newton, meanwhile, is currently on pace for the following stats:2011- 4,786 passing yards, 638 rushing yards, 22 passing touchdowns, 14 rushing touchdownsThat breaks down to the following fantasy numbers:2011- 470When looking at Rodgers 4 year averages compared to Cam's 1 year sample set, the one that stands out to me as far less likely to sustain itself is Cam's performance. I do believe the 638 rushing yards are sustainable as the norm for his career and believe the passing touchdowns will increase, but expect that to be offset by a regression in the passing yards and rushing touchdowns. Outside of his first 2 games as a pro, when I firmly believe the Panthers caught defenses wildly unprepared by coming out in shotgun based aerial attack, Cam has not been on near a 4,786 passing pace (plugging in even 300 yard games for those 2 performances leaves him on a 4,282 yard pace). Additionally, rushing touchdowns are far too fickle and unpredictable for even running backs, let alone quarterbacks. While I will agree that Cam is a different animal, I believe that different animal makes him a lock for 5-8 touchdowns on a regular basis (with the possibility of an outlier 10-15 touchdown season sprinkled in during his career). This still puts him on pace to be the greatest rushing quarterback of all time. Taking averages of 4,282 passing yards (which I think is extremely generous and assumes he will average more passing yards per year than Drew Brees or Peyton Manning for his career, which I believe is an extremely risky proposition in itself, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt), 600 rushing yards, 28 passing touchdowns, and 7 rushing touchdowns, this leaves us with 441 fantasy points in an ideal year...or only slightly better than what Rodgers did in 2009 and significantly behind what Rodgers is on pace to do this year.In order to achieve that 441 fantasy point level, we have to take GIANT and some might say ridiculous leaps to assume that Cam Newton will average more passing yards and touchdowns per season than either Drew Brees or Peyton Manning, while still sustaining 600 rushing yards and 7 rushing touchdowns per season (just ask Michael Vick, who is an even better athlete in my opinion, how easy that is to do). In other words, just as I said in an earlier post, you have to take on a significant amount of risk and uncertainty. Why in the world would you want to bet on Cam Newton outperforming 2 of the all time great quarterbacks passing rates while at the same time still maintaining the best rushing rate in the history of the NFL when Aaron Rodgers has shown over 4 seasons that he CAN sustain all time great levels of play and still outperforms what Cam Newton can do in best case scenarios? You are really going to bet on Cam exceeding the career averages I inserted for him, which already put him at historic levels, after only 8 games and ignore the fact that Rodgers now has 4 seasons (really 3.5 seasons, I suppose) of data to make it much more certain he maintains his levels? I can say very confidently that Rodgers will maintain his 4 year average for many years. The only thing I feel confident saying about Cam is that it is probably unlikely he maintains even the averages I put in for him (because even if he comes close to those numbers, without reaching them, he will still go down as one of the best quarterbacks to ever play), which means he likely won't average 441 fantasy points, likely averages less than the 430 points Rodgers has averaged thus far in his career, and makes it an even better idea to choose Rodgers over him.Like I said earlier, if you assume 4 points for passing touchdowns instead of 6, that definitely changes the argument some, as I expect Cam to have an edge in rushing touchdowns over Rodgers on a yearly basis. However, a lot of leagues penalize for turnovers, which once again significantly tilts the field in Rodgers favor, as Cam turns it over a fair amount (in fairness, he is a rookie so it is difficult to judge him on that aspect yet). However, the real point is that Rodgers has proven he rarely turns it over and has one of the best touchdown to interception ratios in the history of the league (it might even be the best, I am too lazy to check at the moment). Some of this answer does depend on league setup, but I still argue that in the vast majority of leagues, Rodgers is the answer.I am certain you will point to the fact that Cam is a rookie and will improve as one of the most significant factors in your argument, and while I acknowledge improvement will happen, I don't see it coming in a statistical form. He is already performing at his peak, or very near his peak, from a statistical standpoint, in my opinion. I expect his improvements to happen in the realm of leadership and winning as he transitions from merely a great QB that can put up stats to a superstar QB that can put up stats and lead his team to wins.'Concept Coop said:
Long posts and pointless rhetoric and arguments from everyone aside, this is the real answer.Either way, I don't think you can go wrong with Cam or Rodgers. Some might prefer Rodgers, some might prefer Cam, but it is likely that if you have either one, you likely will have a big advantage at your quarterback position for many, meany years to come.
It absolutely is relevant- it shows that you underestimate or completely ignore many of the possible negatives for players you are high on. You did it with Tebow and you are doing it again with Newton.
Haha I love it. "Before you take the logical road, don't" Rodgers sits for 3 years, inherits a team that went 13-3 and puts up 370 pts. Newton starts immediately (after the lockout no less), inherits the worst team in the league and is on pace for 470. Rodgers has become the player he is today, but Cam isn't capable of making that progress????? You all want to lump Cam in with the "running QB's", but this dude breaks the rookie PASSING record in his first game and then goes on the break his own record the next week? ON THE PANTHERS....HEELLLOOOO....I'm just playing devil's advocate here, cause I'd rather have Rodgers, but none of you are making the greatest arguments. TBH I don't think there are any great ones besides "Godgers"
Lets keep the personal stuff of the board. If me thinking the Broncos (while my projections of his production were accurate)would start Tebow means I am wrong about Cam in your opinion, that is fine. Please keep it to yourself.
This.I decided Newton was my dynasty #1 THIS WEEK. Obviously it is close and how an idividual weighs risk and reward is a personal opinion. But the idea that it is out of the question, or blasphemy, when stats suggest otherwise is wacky to me.
No one is saying that, including the post you quoted.
Vick and Culpepper are not running QBs.
Whatever they are, they are not Cam.
you are just trolling
Not sure why you're getting all miffed. It isn't the fact that you were wrong about Tebow not starting, it's the fact that you refused to even factor it in as a possibility at the time. I only bring it up because you appear to be doing the same thing with Newton- obviously it's possible that he only gets better from here and he keeps up his rushing numbers, but it's also possible that he doesn't. You seem to be ignoring that completely.
What you perceive as me "refusing to factor risk" is on you. I never once said there was no risk in either guy. If you read the thread, I use the word risk a lot. You're clearly trying to make it a personal issue and I wan't nothing to do with it. Anyone know how to "ignore"? I click on user page and don't see an ignore button.
My thought is to enjoy this year with Newton.You are riding him in a perfect storm. The Panthers put Newton's development ahead of winning.
I've re-read my posts to try and see where you're getting this "personal" stuff, and I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm just giving you my honest opinion here- by ranking Newton #1 ahead of guys like Rodgers, and saying you would be disappointed if he "only" was as good as Rodgers' average year, I don't see how you can be factoring in much risk at all (which is your prerogative, I just factor it in more, especially for guys with a very limited track record).If you'd like to put me on ignore for that, that's also your prerogative- click the dropdown near your user name, manage ignored users, add my username.
Thanks
I realize you are playing devil's advocate and may or may not care much either way, but I'll bite:- Your logic states that Cam is a rookie and despite putting up historic type numbers, his production will increase by X and/or remain fairly static because of the fact that he is a rookie and you expect a natural increase in production (as tends to happen with rookies once they mature)- My logic states that while I acknowledge that Cam Newton has room to grow as a player, considering he is already putting up historic stats, I don't see much room for those stats to improve further and instead expect his growth as a player to manifest itself in better clutch ability, less turnovers, better leadership, etc... I don't exactly expect his numbers to fall off a shelf, but I also find it illogical to assume that someone who is putting up historic numbers is suddenly going to make a jump and put up even more historic numbers and/or continue to put up historic numbers. I am basing this logic on 90+ years of pro football evidence showing me quarterbacks simply aren't going to A.)produce better than Cam is on a regular basis and B.) will produce less than Cam is on a regular basisThe rest of my post that you quoted states pretty sufficiently the general level that I expect Cam to perform to for his career. Note that I expect him to go down as a historic quarterback and on numbers alone, am anticipating him being one of the best ever. However, I also believe the same of Rodgers, simply to a higher degree.I wanted to include the portion about him improving his level of play since he is only a rookie because I know that is one of the arguments that has been used in this thread and I simply struggle to find room for his improved level of play to manifest itself in improved stats. His improved play may very well allow him to maintain a high level of performance, but players improving does not necessarily equal stats improving. There is an important distinction between the 2 (as a matter of fact, a lot of times players stats will regress slightly as they become better overall players) and I wanted to make sure someone didn't simply throw out the canned "but he's putting up x stats as a rookie, so naturally he will do y as a second year player, z as a veteran, etc..."
I have no idea if there is prior history here, but I can't see where the "personal attack" stuff is coming from? As an outsider looking in, I have seen instances where Coop has ignored the possible flaws in his argument in order to further tout the player he is backing in this thread (something that I think is common with most anyone trying to make a point, myself included, by the way). While you have acknowledged that you accept some level of risk in ranking Cam ahead of Rodgers, one of your founding arguments was that Cam is a beast of a different kind, the likes of which we have never seen before, therefor it is not unrealistic to believe he can rush for 10+ touchdowns a year and pass for 25+ touchdowns a year. While I acknowledge that, the part you have seemed unwilling to consider (or at least acknowledge) is that Rodgers is very much a beast of a different kind as well (even more than Cam, in my opinion). We haven't seen a quarterback look as impressive throwing the football and just playing the position in general as Rodgers has. Whether it's winning, not throwing interceptions, throwing touchdowns, rushing when necessary, etc... Rodgers has done it all and done it with precision never before seen. Why, if it's within the realm of possibility for cam to hit double digit rushing touchdowns on a yearly basis, is it unrealistic to except Rodgers to throw for 35-40 touchdowns every year during his his prime years?
I see where you are coming from. I do. Perhaps his rushing numbers are all that one can logically expect and not hope for increased numbers. Personally, I don't. But surely his 11TD/9INT will improve.As for the concept that Cam's rushing numbers are historic, thus, they must come back down to earth:If Newton also kicked his teams FG, and he kicked and made one per game, I believe that would be historic for a QB. Does that then mean that expecting 16 FG/season is the same as expecting 50 TDs a year from Rodgers?I am trying to point out that Cam is getting Goal line carries at a historic clip for QBs and is better equipped than any QB in history, that is why he is putting up historic numbers. That doesn't mean he can't keep it up. If he keeps getting goal line touches, he will keep producing at a level that only he can or has.
Fair enough and I can't fault anyone for thinking that way. I don't believe there will be enough goal line opportunities or that the Panthers will consistently let Cam Newton have enough of the goal line opportunities that they do get to support the rushing touchdown production that would be necessary to outproduce Rodgers on a yearly basis. However, i absolutely accept that it is within the realm of possibility and don't think it is a ludicrous ranking or position to take (if I said so in any of my earlier posts, it's only because I tend to over emphasize and use hyperbole when I get in a good argument).
If you haven't seen Vick play in the past 2 years, you can borrow Coop's NFL REWIND account. Which one is Cam and which one is Vick?174 comp 287 att 60.6% 87.1 QB Rating 11 TD 9 INT165 comp 266 att 62.0% 85.8 QB Rating 11 TD 9 INT
