cgsuddeath
Rookie
And so will Brady.Ask the NY Giants.Or even Seattle when it comes to Peyton Manning
First Take: Seattle Michael Robinson Talks Rams
- Thread starter Robocop
- Start date
-
To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
IDK 3 plays from the same game doesn't convince me. You can find 3 plays from any QB doing what he's supposed to. Look, I've watched both play enough to know who I would go with. Newton was third last in attempts yet had more picks. 13 out of 473 attempts vs 9 out of 570 for luck. The only way I'd change my mind is if Luck regressed in 2014 and Cam built on last year's progress.
It's pressure that's the problem. He made teams pay for blitzing last year. He had a 105.9 QB Rating when blitzed in 2013.
Last edited:
Well, you claimed he couldn't get past his second progression without running away. I did show you he can.
You're entitled to your opinion. But I believe your criticisms of Newton are outdated. I live in Panther territory and saw a lot of their games last year. The guy you're criticizing wasn't the guy playing QB for the Panthers in 2013.
Yep, Newton threw more picks. Newton also put the ball in the end-zone more often and fumbled it less often.
True, he did it 3 times. Ah, just kidding a little bit.
Newton also took far less pressure and played on a much better team. So 6 in on hand, half dozen in the other so to speak. Onward to 2014, people's opinions are set in stone at this point.
A much better team? Yes. A much better offense? No. Newton also played in a much better division. As far as pressure is concerned, according to PFF's Pressure%, Newton was the 11th most pressured QB in the NFL and Andrew Luck was the 10th most pressured QB in the NFL. The difference between the two was 0.6%.
So no, Newton did not take "far" less pressure. The difference in pressure faced between the two was negligible. What was not negligible was Newton's 66.4% accuracy% while under pressure compared to Andrew Luck's 56.0%. That's a difference of over 10%.
Just saying.
A much better team? Yes. A much better offense? No. also played in a much better division. As far as pressure is cod, according to PFF's Pressure%, Newton was the 11th most pressured QB in the NFL and Andrew Luck was the 10th most pressured QB in the NFL. The difference between the two was 0.6%.
So no, Newton did not take "far" less pressure. The difference in pressure faced between the two was negligible. What was not negligible was Newton's 66.4% accuracy% while under pressure compared to Andrew Luck's 56.0%. That's a difference of over 10%.
Just saying.
Well if PFF said it there's no variables then. I give him credit for that high %. I mean, i knew he was more accurate to the other team but........
Anyway.
Well, it just seems to me more and more that we have vastly different opinions about SJ. If that makes you want to label him as overrated because someone disagrees with you, that's technically correct (bearing in mind it's based on your opinion only) but don't be surprised if it's an opinion that doesn't sit well with other Rams fans.
I commend SJ for giving total effort to this franchise and to his teammates. He could have whined and cried, asked for trades, threw his teammates under a bus but he didn't. He just kept hitting the non-existent hole again and again for a team that was barely a professional franchise.
I will always hold both him and Marc Bulger in high regard as unselfish players who could have been so much more if not for those awful teams.
I will always hold both him and Marc Bulger in high regard as unselfish players who could have been so much more if not for those awful teams.
classicpony
Starter
I agreed with everything until he called Sam Bradford soft, and implied he's turnover prone. Both are untrue.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #173
up until AP came into the league Jackson was the most talented running back in the NFL. you dont put up those kind of numbers go to pro bowls and be that consistent for that many years on a horrendous team without being a beast. Once Holt left teams just stacked the box on him EVERY game. the offensive line was a joke most years every thing was stacked against him. if he had been on just a mediocre team all his career he wouldve been posting +2,000 all purpose yards on a regular basis. Jackson was more talented than you realize IMO i think your overrating his TEAM all those years he was here. over 40 players Fisher cut when he got here arent even playing in the NFL anymore. how bad was it before...
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #174
some fans seem to have a short term memory. can you remember a year that Jackson didnt face an 8 man box and have a pathetic O line? his talent and skill set was severely underrated. just look at highlights when he did get a decent matchup he was insane. Men that big aren't suppose to catch balls out of the backfield like that or spin more beautifully than a ballerina. and yards after contact?
Nope. That was LaDainian Tomlinson.
He wasn't more talented than I realize. I watched him for years. He was a very good HB. But he wasn't a HOF caliber player. He was a consistently good HB but never truly elite.
Could he have put up better numbers on a better team? Absolutely. Wouldn't have changed my opinion of him because it isn't based on the numbers.
If you think he was a HOFer and on the level of Faulk and Dickerson, yep, we have a vastly different opinion.
Well, to be fair - those are two separate points. A player can be a HOFer and NOT be as good as Faulk and Dickerson. Most HOFers are NOT as good as Faulk and Dickerson.
SJ is a step - maybe two behind. There are legit arguments that he is a HOFer, even if he wasn't quite at the level of those two. In baseball discussions, it's the difference between "inner circle" HOFers and regular HOFers. Same thing for the NFL. Unless the NFL decides they want a very small HOF, there are going to be players not as good as Faulk and Dickerson in it. And in fact, MOST RBs in the HOF are not at that level.
Watch us play Luck last year, and Brees the year before, then go back and watch when Kevin Greene had good games against Montana. Brady almost never has pressure, but he loses when he does. Just wait, once our line gels, and our receivers know what to do. We will look like a different team.
I'm sorry man but I just don't see it. Don't see a HOFer. Nor a player that was nearly as good as those two. Just my opinion.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #179
if its not based on numbers than how is LT better?? Jackson was bigger, stronger yet still quick, put up receiving numbers like a wide receiver many years, broke more tackles than I can count and if its a matter of personality and off the field... so idk can you define for me what makes him or anyone else at that time better?
Well, again - he doesn't have to be as good as Faulk or Dickerson to be a Hall of Famer. How were Franco Harris, Thurman Thomas or John Riggins better than Jackson - except in so far as they had far superior teams surrounding them for most of their careers? Those three are all legitimate Hall of Famers - and Jackson is clearly in the discussion to be better than them. Maybe they are better than him - but it is NOT clear, unlike for Faulk and Dickerson.
If the standard to be in the Hall of Fame is to be as good as Faulk and Dickerson - well, most of the NFL Hall of Fame needs to be removed.