Is Cam Newton on a HOF pace?

[Synopsis]

1 hour ago, Ryan_W said:

not for a HOF consideration

not for a QB

if it's close to a tie; your running TDs can break it

Are you a hof voter? How do you know this?

We haven't seen a qb like Cam Newton before. All it takes is one Super Bowl win and the narrative will change.

Edited September 10, 2018 by Synopsis

[Bobikus]

2 hours ago, Synopsis said:

Are you a hof voter? How do you know this?

We haven't seen a qb like Cam Newton before. All it takes is one Super Bowl win and the narrative will change.

Yeah, we've had QBs with high rushing yards per game, but Cam's rushing TDs are a pretty huge outlier.  If he has strong years into his 30s and gets a ring or a second MVP, then no doubt his ridiculous rushing TD numbers are going to be part of any HoF arguments.

Really I think if the Panthers can hit on a good WR pick or two it will help Cam's argument a lot.  Hasn't had a real good #1 target since Steve Smith back when he was still raw.

[Hockey5djh]

6 hours ago, Toomers said:

Then how/who do you define as on pace? Who are Cams peers? The guys now, or the QBs the next ten years? Let’s go back 5 years. How many QBs drafted after 2006 are ahead of Cam when considering HOF pace?

Why are you so focused on when he was drafted? Cam's peers are anyone playing QB in the NFL during his career. Yes, he has to be compared to the Peytons, Bradys, Rodgers, and Brees'. He also needs to stay ahead of the Wentz', Watsons and even the Mayfields, Allens, Darnolds, and Rosens of the world. In the past decade of the Hall of Fame there's only been a handful of QBs who have made the cut, to get into the Hall Newton needs to be in the top few QBs while he's playing (and I'm only saying few because we're in a golden age of QB play right now). Considering Peyton and Brady are locks and Brees and Rodgers are a pretty good bet He's going to have to seriously pick up his numbers compared to his peers and/or start to make some playoff noise to have any chance.

[Zithers2]

11 hours ago, DLF54927 said:

Why you got be so mean?

And it's "teams that finish with winning records", FYI.

Sorry. But also, Matt Stafford is winless against teams with winning records this season.

[Zithers2]

7 hours ago, Danger said:

I would undoubtedly take Stafford over Cam.

You and maybe a handful of Lions/SEC fans. No idea why people like Stafford. Puts up pretty numbers but can't win.

[Toomers]

6 hours ago, Hockey5djh said:

Why are you so focused on when he was drafted? Cam's peers are anyone playing QB in the NFL during his career. Yes, he has to be compared to the Peytons, Bradys, Rodgers, and Brees'. He also needs to stay ahead of the Wentz', Watsons and even the Mayfields, Allens, Darnolds, and Rosens of the world. In the past decade of the Hall of Fame there's only been a handful of QBs who have made the cut, to get into the Hall Newton needs to be in the top few QBs while he's playing (and I'm only saying few because we're in a golden age of QB play right now). Considering Peyton and Brady are locks and Brees and Rodgers are a pretty good bet He's going to have to seriously pick up his numbers compared to his peers and/or start to make some playoff noise to have any chance.

Why would he be judged just by players drafted 13, 11, 10 and 6 years before him and QBs drafted 6-7 years after. Why not Ryan, Wilson, Luck, Stafford. All QBs who will play almost their entire careers with him. 

[Toomers]

15 hours ago, Danger said:

I would undoubtedly take Stafford over Cam.

  Good call. 

[Mox]

Not even close. If he keeps play as he has for the majority of his career he'd got almost no shot.

[lancerman]

21 hours ago, iknowcool said:

The context was you said Cam's never broken 40 TDs.  Someone responded saying that he had.  You in response did not say "I'm only talking about passing stats".  Instead, you told the guy to go away because Cam is a QB, not a RB.  You clearly were implying that his rushing statistics don't hold the same value.  As a matter of fact, you literally said "no its not the same" rather than saying "true, but I'm only talking about passing stats".  And then you proceeded to shame everyone for pointing out this fact.  

Instead of telling someone to go away for pointing out a fact (Cam has indeed cracked 40 TDs) and making it seem like rushing TDs don't equal 6 points like passing TDs do, you should have just said you were talking about passing TDs (even if that doesn't make sense in a discussion involving a rushing threat like Cam). 

And how would bringing up Faulk's receiving numbers in a discussion about who the better RB is be preposterous?  What?  Any argument about who the better RB is involving Faulk that limits it to rushing yards, rushing TDs, etc. isn't really much of an argument so I wouldn't take it seriously.  You can't ignore a facet of someones game.  

Okay good go try to win an argument of Cam Newton over Dan Marino and Marshall Faulk over Sanders/Brown

[Hunter2_1]

On 04/09/2018 at 5:39 PM, RandyMossIsBoss said:

Not even close to a HOF pace. He's only had 1 standout year, the rest has been fringe hall of very good efforts. Of course with QBs, all it takes is a SB to change that HOF trajectory drastically. At his current pace, I'd say he'd end up fairly neck and neck with McNabb in the eyes of voters.

 

 

Cannot blindly compare the raw stats of a modern day passer with one from the 1980s. Cam's rookie year saw 4 passers who would have broken the single season yardage mark in Dan's rookie year. Marino was rewriting the record books and putting up numbers nobody else was coming close to.

Here's passer rating through the lenses of PFR's advanced passing stats which adjust for era and assign a value to each stat, with 100 translating to league average at the time.

• Passer Rating Index
  • Cam: 97
  • Dan: ~119

2011-17 league average pass YPG: 234.7

1983-89 league average pass YPG: 205.1

• Cam and Dan's pass YPG compared to league average through their first 7 seasons
  • Cam: -4.7 YPG
  • Dan: +65.3 YPG

 

Of course we cannot ignore Cam's running ability, the part of his game that even makes a conversation like this exist, but that cannot really be compared in any way with passing stats. We could look at their team's total offensive output, but a lot more different factors play into that then what just goes into passing stats. Easier to just ask yourself: does Cam's running ability close the large gap in their passing ability? I'd say no, not by a long shot. 

Also worth nothing, Marino was a 4x all-pro (3x 1st) and 5x pro bowler in his first 7 seasons, while Cam has only been named all-pro once (1st), and to 3 pro bowls (1x alternate).

 

You're such a football nerd, it's great 

[Toomers]

1 hour ago, lancerman said:

Okay good go try to win an argument of Cam Newton over Dan Marino and Marshall Faulk over Sanders/Brown

If there was a debate between Faulk and any RB, you better believe that his receiving stats would count. Nice fallback when you realize that you don’t get to cherry pick abilities when supporting an agenda . 

[Bobikus]

Olsen's hurt which is gonna make it more likely that this year isn't going to help his pace much.

[Soko]

On 9/8/2018 at 12:01 AM, Zithers2 said:

Cam should universally be regarded as a future Hall of Famer.

Unfortunately he got stuck with Mike Shula and a bunch of nobodies outside of Olsen helping him out. He's led the team in rushing twice and hasn't had an above average OL since 2013. Hasn't had a true #1 wideout since 2013 (arguably 2012 since Smitty looked mortal that season). We aren't counting Kelvin Benjamin because it turns out we are way better without his lard slowing us down (something like 18-22-1 when he plays and 23-5 when he plays and 23-5 when he isn’t).

So you’re saying Cam should be regarded as a future HOFer, and bring up his poor supporting cast...

Quote

Also, imagine thinking Matt Stafford is better than Cam. Dude can't even beat teams with winning records. Or even Matt Ryan, who looks extremely human without Kyle Shanahan. And lost 38-3 in Atlanta against the Panthers in a win-and-in situation.

But then criticize Stafford for not winning despite his constant-awful HCs, lack of running game, and less than stellar defenses? 

Edited September 11, 2018 by Yin-Yang

[Zithers2]

8 hours ago, Yin-Yang said:

So you’re saying Cam should be regarded as a future HOFer, and bring up his poor supporting cast...

But then criticize Stafford for not winning despite his constant-awful HCs, lack of running game, and less than stellar defenses? 

So... Cam wins in spite of a poor supporting cast while Stafford loses with one? Sounds like you're making my argument for me.

Also, Cam doesn't open the season at home and immediately throw four interceptions.

[Soko]

21 minutes ago, Zithers2 said:

So... Cam wins in spite of a poor supporting cast while Stafford loses with one? Sounds like you're making my argument for me.

Also, Cam doesn't open the season at home and immediately throw four interceptions.

Did you read the post?

You bring up Cam’s supporting cast to defend him, and then just throw wins and stats against Stafford without taking his supporting cast into consideration at all. You can’t cut a guy slack for a poor environment and then not do the same for the other.

Or I guess you can, you’ll just sound biased at best and ignorant at worst.