Cam Newton gets 5 year $103M deal

[Chief Roundup]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300...n=facebook_atn

$67.6 M in the first 3 years is the most ever.

[Hootie]

and saying the only difference between Eli and Cutler is douchiness is insane. Just insane. Stats don't always paint the picture.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by Cochise

The first statement is more or less a fact, with Wilson perhaps being the only contrary example. Wilson who is in a perfect situation, with all the talent on his team that you'd find anywhere, and who isn't asked to go win games with his arm.

The second statement is just my opinion, which I'm mostly sure of. He's not someone who I think would have won a Super Bowl on many or any other teams.

He hasn't been asked to carry a team from the pocket with his arm, but that can't be mistaken for "he cant".

[O.city]

Beckham would make any qb look elite though as he can basically do it all. Eli is a scattershot, hot cold qb who throes a great deep ball.

He's basically Flacco with a different name.

However, they're teams are built around them being that, which is perfect.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

Not sure, man. Last year when he got a guy like Beckham he sure did look elite. I think the Giants are going to have a big year and Eli is going to put up some stats. I'm thinking 11-5 or 12-4 with that vaunted offense, now.

...but as for the Tyree catch

why do you think I always say championships aren't the be all, end all when it comes to how great a QB is? It takes several good bounces, fluky plays, a call or two, etc... to win playoff games. Deflated balls. You know what I mean.

ODB is interesting in that some of those spectacular catches were precisely because Manning flat mis-fired. Beckham doesn't need to make diving one-handed catches if Manning puts the ball on target.

His counting stats looked elite (yards, TDs) but he still threw a few too many picks and Beckham sure looked to have to save his ass a lot.

And here's the thing - his track record suggests that he's just as likely to go out there and throw 25 ints this season. He's just never shown any season to season consistency. Elite quarterbacks in this era don't put up a 69 passer rating - period. Especially not at 32 yrs old after about 150 NFL starts. He's just too inconsistent to be elite or even fringe.

[Hootie]

why don't you guys go watch the Hawks/Falcons playoff game from Russell's rookie year and then tell me he can't carry his team, from the pocket, with his arm

I swear.

He's had game after game of playoff brilliance ... including the Packers game that has had everyone conclude he's a "system QB" or "Russell Dilfer."

I had people telling me he played a shitty Super Bowl when he had a 92 QBR for the game (almost perfect) that was 10 points higher than Brady.

He was the only guy that kept his team in that game, and should have won that game, despite being outcoached and overmatched.

Watch the first half. New England should have blown them out but Russell kept them in the game with ridiculous throws. You talk about a guy with NOTHING around him. Seriously.

This board wants to tell me that Marshawn Lynch is more valuable to that offense than Wilson.

ChiefsPlanet: "elite QB's are the only way to win Super Bowls."

...unless you have Marshawn Lynch

it's hysterical

[Eleazar]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

The first statement has turned into a tautology.

We've started calling quarterbacks that win Super Bowls 'elite quarterbacks' and that's just not the case.

I agree, we get too caught up in labels about who is "elite" and who isn't. All that really matters is whether the guy is good enough to win the Super Bowl or not.

Is the QB good enough to win a super bowl on most teams, or does it require a really unique situation for him to win consistently in January?

Of course, some guys like Wilson or Flacco have managed to win postseason games by mostly staying out of the way of their defense. But would either be good enough to carry a team that didn't have one of the best defenses of modern times like these two did? I don't think I would say that they would be.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

and saying the only difference between Eli and Cutler is douchiness is insane. Just insane. Stats don't always paint the picture.

If stats were what I was going by, I'd say that Cutler was unquestionably the better quarterback. Better passer rating, better YPA, better completion%, etc...; statistically, Eli is flat out inferior to Cutler.

You're right, stats don't tell the whole story. That's why Manning is in a similar tier to Cutler, IMO. He does bring some stoicism and stability to the position that I find some value in (it's why I favor Smith over Newton). But in the end, he's still an erratic gunslinger and if his career would have been spent on the same teams that Cutler's has, he'd have precisely zero SBs to his name as well.

[O.city]

There are 2, maybe 3 guys that can legit carry a team with a shit defense thru the playoffs to a superbowl. And that's generous.

Frankly, I think k you've got Rodgers who can and has done it, and a few who have the ability to do it but probably cant.

[Hootie]

I look at QBR:

He had a terrible, miserable 2013. (with a terrible, miserable supporting cast)

Other than that, he's had these since 2008:

62
67
65
61
69
71

That's better than Roethlisberger and slightly worse than Brady. Those are ELITE QBR's.

It's right with Brees minus Brees' elite 2009 and 2011.

In comparison, Cutler has had 2 seasons over 60 QBR in his career and many under 50.

So it's a ridiculous notion to say Eli is like Cutler. He isn't.

QBR is great because it weights plays and interceptions and they aren't all created equal.

[Hootie]

Originally Posted by O.city

There are 2, maybe 3 guys that can legit carry a team with a shit defense thru the playoffs to a superbowl. And that's generous.

Frankly, I think k you've got Rodgers who can and has done it, and a few who have the ability to do it but probably cant.

Rodgers, like Flacco, has carried his team in exactly ONE postseason. One. That's it.

He has been underwhelming in every single other postseason he's ever played in.

Actually, in fact, Rodgers' best postseason game, ever, was a loss against the Cardinals in the Warner/Fitzy year. Much like Smith against the Colts, he lost 45-41 and couldn't have played a better game.

Let's remember, guys like OTWP talk about how Smith didn't do enough in that playoff loss

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

why don't you guys go watch the Hawks/Falcons playoff game from Russell's rookie year and then tell me he can't carry his team, from the pocket, with his arm

Was it demonstrably better than Smith's game against Indy? His game against New Orleans?

I didn't say he's not capable of great games. Hell, this gets all the way back to my position 3 years ago - there's no such things as quarterbacks that 'turn it on' in the playoffs. They're simply better quarterbacks and so their hot streaks are longer/more frequent. Over large enough numbers, every QB will have playoffs stats that are similar to their regular season ones.

Russell Wilson is slightly more likely than Alex Smith to have a great game in the playoffs and he's had a handful of them. The difference has been that when he wasn't great, the massive competitive advantage he provided his team by being dirt-cheap allowed the rest of the team to pick him up, get him to the next round and allow him another shot to prove his value.

That's how thin the margin of success in the league is. Like I said - we'll know when the latter element is removed. When the competitive advantage provided by his contract is no longer there, we'll see if he's a guy that's so good that he has those hot streaks long enough and frequent enough to carry him through an entire post-season/Super Bowl.

Right now I think he's probably just pretty good and cheap enough that the combination of the two things is what's made him a success.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

Rodgers, like Flacco, has carried his team in exactly ONE postseason. One. That's it.

He has been underwhelming in every single other postseason he's ever played in.

Actually, in fact, Rodgers' best postseason game, ever, was a loss against the Cardinals in the Warner/Fitzy year. Much like Smith against the Colts, he lost 45-41 and couldn't have played a better game.

Let's remember, guys like OTWP talk about how Smith didn't do enough in that playoff loss

Flacco never carried the Ravens like Rodgers has. Flacco got hot and got lucky.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

I look at QBR:

He had a terrible, miserable 2013. (with a terrible, miserable supporting cast)

Other than that, he's had these since 2008:

62
67
65
61
69
71

That's better than Roethlisberger and slightly worse than Brady. Those are ELITE QBR's.

It's right with Brees minus Brees' elite 2009 and 2011.

In comparison, Cutler has had 2 seasons over 60 QBR in his career and many under 50.

So it's a ridiculous notion to say Eli is like Cutler. He isn't.

QBR is great because it weights plays and interceptions and they aren't all created equal.

"Stats don't tell the story...but here's a stat I like and it proves me right"

QBR is the same as any statistic; it has its strengths and weaknesses. It's also in its infancy and backed by the most powerful name in sports who's vested in assuring us all that it's a superlative stat. I'm not sure I believe them.

[Hootie]

well when I watch a game and see a QB have 'shoddy numbers' but think 'he played better than his numbers suggest' ... it seems like when I check his QBR his QBR backs up that assertation...

that's why I use QBR more than any other QB stat

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

cannot wait until Russell is a perennial Pro Bowler ... and in another year or two, everyone is all like 'wow Russell is the best in the NFL'

at least I'm never late to the show

Pro Bowls mean nothing. It's a popularity contest that includes fan voting as one third of the total votes.

Throwing for 200 yards per game doesn't make someone "Elite".