Terrelle Pryor Suspended...Is He Going Pro Now?

Originally posted by spizzy:
Pryor> Newton

Locker> Newton

Newton blows

Originally posted by spizzy:
Pryor> Newton

Locker> Newton

Newton blows

No. Cam Newton is a freaking stud.

He's an absolute physical marvel. 6-6 250 pounds with the running skills of someone much smaller than that. He has a bit time arm. He's performed in the hardest conference in college football while brushing aside a huge off-the-field distraction to lead the team to an undefeated season. That to me shows a great ability to perform under a great amount of pressure and not be fazed, which is something that is going to be an asset at the NFL level.

I have some reservations about his attitude and maturity and the interviews will be very telling but one thing's for sure: he's the most physically gifted QB to come into the draft in years. Combining the fact that he's almost the size of many of the pass-rushing DE's and OLB's he's going to face in the NFL plus his athleticism and running skills, Newton is going to be a task-and-a-half to bring down, ala Roethlesberger. Newton doesn't "blow," you're just being biased.

All I hear about Locker is a bunch of excuses: injury, WR's, o-line, blah blah blah. I concede that these issues contributed to his struggles, but these excuses only go so far. Locker hasn't been able to significantly elevate the play of his receivers, has not shown that much improvement in reading defenses and is not terribly accurate. Talk about his poor supporting cast all you want but these above issues are on him. I'm sorry but going 4/20 passing in a game and failing to have a 60% completion rate in any of your 4 years of college is pathetic, I don't care how bad your supporting cast is. Locker's greatest asset is athleticism, but even that pales in comparison to Newton's size and athleticism.

In summary: Newton has performed at a much higher level in a harder conference than Locker, significantly elevated the performance of his team faced intense media scrutiny daily and is a better athlete than Locker.

Originally posted by AllTimeGreat:

Originally posted by spizzy:
Pryor> Newton

Locker> Newton

Newton blows

No. Cam Newton is a freaking stud.

He's an absolute physical marvel. 6-6 250 pounds with the running skills of someone much smaller than that. He has a bit time arm. He's performed in the hardest conference in college football while brushing aside a huge off-the-field distraction to lead the team to an undefeated season. That to me shows a great ability to perform under a great amount of pressure and not be fazed, which is something that is going to be an asset at the NFL level.

I have some reservations about his attitude and maturity and the interviews will be very telling but one thing's for sure: he's the most physically gifted QB to come into the draft in years. Combining the fact that he's almost the size of many of the pass-rushing DE's and OLB's he's going to face in the NFL plus his athleticism and running skills, Newton is going to be a task-and-a-half to bring down, ala Roethlesberger. Newton doesn't "blow," you're just being biased.

All I hear about Locker is a bunch of excuses: injury, WR's, o-line, blah blah blah. I concede that these issues contributed to his struggles, but these excuses only go so far. Locker hasn't been able to significantly elevate the play of his receivers, has not shown that much improvement in reading defenses and is not terribly accurate. Talk about his poor supporting cast all you want but these above issues are on him. I'm sorry but going 4/20 passing in a game and failing to have a 60% completion rate in any of your 4 years of college is pathetic, I don't care how bad your supporting cast is. Locker's greatest asset is athleticism, but even that pales in comparison to Newton's size and athleticism.

In summary: Newton has performed at a much higher level in a harder conference than Locker, significantly elevated the performance of his team faced intense media scrutiny daily and is a better athlete than Locker.

All that really has to be said is Newton is a super athletic QB and Locker is a good athlete trying to play QB.

Originally posted by Jcool:

Originally posted by AllTimeGreat:

Originally posted by spizzy:
Pryor> Newton

Locker> Newton

Newton blows

No. Cam Newton is a freaking stud.

He's an absolute physical marvel. 6-6 250 pounds with the running skills of someone much smaller than that. He has a bit time arm. He's performed in the hardest conference in college football while brushing aside a huge off-the-field distraction to lead the team to an undefeated season. That to me shows a great ability to perform under a great amount of pressure and not be fazed, which is something that is going to be an asset at the NFL level.

I have some reservations about his attitude and maturity and the interviews will be very telling but one thing's for sure: he's the most physically gifted QB to come into the draft in years. Combining the fact that he's almost the size of many of the pass-rushing DE's and OLB's he's going to face in the NFL plus his athleticism and running skills, Newton is going to be a task-and-a-half to bring down, ala Roethlesberger. Newton doesn't "blow," you're just being biased.

All I hear about Locker is a bunch of excuses: injury, WR's, o-line, blah blah blah. I concede that these issues contributed to his struggles, but these excuses only go so far. Locker hasn't been able to significantly elevate the play of his receivers, has not shown that much improvement in reading defenses and is not terribly accurate. Talk about his poor supporting cast all you want but these above issues are on him. I'm sorry but going 4/20 passing in a game and failing to have a 60% completion rate in any of your 4 years of college is pathetic, I don't care how bad your supporting cast is. Locker's greatest asset is athleticism, but even that pales in comparison to Newton's size and athleticism.

In summary: Newton has performed at a much higher level in a harder conference than Locker, significantly elevated the performance of his team faced intense media scrutiny daily and is a better athlete than Locker.

All that really has to be said is Newton is a super athletic QB and Locker is a good athlete trying to play QB.

If they traded places, Locker would have as much success as Newton did

Originally posted by spizzy:

Originally posted by Jcool:

Originally posted by AllTimeGreat:

Originally posted by spizzy:
Pryor> Newton

Locker> Newton

Newton blows

No. Cam Newton is a freaking stud.

He's an absolute physical marvel. 6-6 250 pounds with the running skills of someone much smaller than that. He has a bit time arm. He's performed in the hardest conference in college football while brushing aside a huge off-the-field distraction to lead the team to an undefeated season. That to me shows a great ability to perform under a great amount of pressure and not be fazed, which is something that is going to be an asset at the NFL level.

I have some reservations about his attitude and maturity and the interviews will be very telling but one thing's for sure: he's the most physically gifted QB to come into the draft in years. Combining the fact that he's almost the size of many of the pass-rushing DE's and OLB's he's going to face in the NFL plus his athleticism and running skills, Newton is going to be a task-and-a-half to bring down, ala Roethlesberger. Newton doesn't "blow," you're just being biased.

All I hear about Locker is a bunch of excuses: injury, WR's, o-line, blah blah blah. I concede that these issues contributed to his struggles, but these excuses only go so far. Locker hasn't been able to significantly elevate the play of his receivers, has not shown that much improvement in reading defenses and is not terribly accurate. Talk about his poor supporting cast all you want but these above issues are on him. I'm sorry but going 4/20 passing in a game and failing to have a 60% completion rate in any of your 4 years of college is pathetic, I don't care how bad your supporting cast is. Locker's greatest asset is athleticism, but even that pales in comparison to Newton's size and athleticism.

In summary: Newton has performed at a much higher level in a harder conference than Locker, significantly elevated the performance of his team faced intense media scrutiny daily and is a better athlete than Locker.

All that really has to be said is Newton is a super athletic QB and Locker is a good athlete trying to play QB.

If they traded places, Locker would have as much success as Newton did

no because Locker isn't accurate so he would struggle even worse because he would be playing a much harder schedule

Locker in SEC = Jevan Snead

[ Edited by Jcool on Dec 24, 2010 at 15:43:55 ]

Mel Kiper: Could be an early round pick with a position change to WR or TE.... Later round pick if he sticks with being a QB

Originally posted by spizzy:

Originally posted by Jcool:

Originally posted by AllTimeGreat:

Originally posted by spizzy:
Pryor> Newton

Locker> Newton

Newton blows

No. Cam Newton is a freaking stud.

He's an absolute physical marvel. 6-6 250 pounds with the running skills of someone much smaller than that. He has a bit time arm. He's performed in the hardest conference in college football while brushing aside a huge off-the-field distraction to lead the team to an undefeated season. That to me shows a great ability to perform under a great amount of pressure and not be fazed, which is something that is going to be an asset at the NFL level.

I have some reservations about his attitude and maturity and the interviews will be very telling but one thing's for sure: he's the most physically gifted QB to come into the draft in years. Combining the fact that he's almost the size of many of the pass-rushing DE's and OLB's he's going to face in the NFL plus his athleticism and running skills, Newton is going to be a task-and-a-half to bring down, ala Roethlesberger. Newton doesn't "blow," you're just being biased.

All I hear about Locker is a bunch of excuses: injury, WR's, o-line, blah blah blah. I concede that these issues contributed to his struggles, but these excuses only go so far. Locker hasn't been able to significantly elevate the play of his receivers, has not shown that much improvement in reading defenses and is not terribly accurate. Talk about his poor supporting cast all you want but these above issues are on him. I'm sorry but going 4/20 passing in a game and failing to have a 60% completion rate in any of your 4 years of college is pathetic, I don't care how bad your supporting cast is. Locker's greatest asset is athleticism, but even that pales in comparison to Newton's size and athleticism.

In summary: Newton has performed at a much higher level in a harder conference than Locker, significantly elevated the performance of his team faced intense media scrutiny daily and is a better athlete than Locker.

All that really has to be said is Newton is a super athletic QB and Locker is a good athlete trying to play QB.

If they traded places, Locker would have as much success as Newton did

Relying on conjecture does not help your argument any. I've heard this argument so many times and I think it's complete BS.

You act as if Auburn is loaded to the brim with talent and destined to be one of the best teams in college football regardless of Newton. That's simply not true! Newton took a team which went 7-5 the previous year and led them to a 13-0 record in his first year as a starter. In multiple games, Newton has put the team on his back and carried them to a win.

As of yet there is no way to accurately predict what will happen in alternate universes so instead I rely on qualitative and quantitative evidence. His stats and measurables have been discussed many times in this and other threads but you seem ready to dismiss these as environmental consequences and not reflective of his abilities so I guess I'll move onto qualitative research and analysis.

Locker has trouble going through progressions and reading defenses. While I admit that Newton hasn't been required to do that, what I do know is that Locker has had 2 years to learn under a pro-style offense and he has yet to show significant growth in this area. This is very troubling to me. Also, although his receivers are not the best which can't be blamed on him, he often-times is inaccurate and doesn't give his receivers the best chance to catch the ball. That's completely on him.

Meanwhile every game I've seen of Newton's he makes NFL caliber throws: from throwing into small windows and tight coverages, leading his receivers on deep throws and evading the rush, and doing all of this against the best conference in college football. I've seen Newton make the types of throws with the consistency I have yet to see Locker posses. Is his situation better than Locker's? Yes, but it's not as if Auburn was an SEC powerhouse before he came on board.

But all this is pointless anyways, you've somehow deluded yourself into believing that Locker is a much better QB than Newton and that Newton is trash and I'm not likely to be able to change this. And also, this is a thread about Pryor not Newton so I should stop before this gets completely hijacked.

[ Edited by AllTimeGreat on Dec 24, 2010 at 16:09:57 ]

Originally posted by Jcool:
Mel Kiper: Could be an early round pick with a position change to WR or TE.... Later round pick if he sticks with being a QB

When you look at David Carr and Joey Harrington 3 or 4 years down the road, you are not going to call any of of these two players a bust or a disappointment. ~Mel Kiper, 2002

Originally posted by AllTimeGreat:

Originally posted by spizzy:

Originally posted by Jcool:

Originally posted by AllTimeGreat:

Originally posted by spizzy:
Pryor> Newton

Locker> Newton

Newton blows

No. Cam Newton is a freaking stud.

He's an absolute physical marvel. 6-6 250 pounds with the running skills of someone much smaller than that. He has a bit time arm. He's performed in the hardest conference in college football while brushing aside a huge off-the-field distraction to lead the team to an undefeated season. That to me shows a great ability to perform under a great amount of pressure and not be fazed, which is something that is going to be an asset at the NFL level.

I have some reservations about his attitude and maturity and the interviews will be very telling but one thing's for sure: he's the most physically gifted QB to come into the draft in years. Combining the fact that he's almost the size of many of the pass-rushing DE's and OLB's he's going to face in the NFL plus his athleticism and running skills, Newton is going to be a task-and-a-half to bring down, ala Roethlesberger. Newton doesn't "blow," you're just being biased.

All I hear about Locker is a bunch of excuses: injury, WR's, o-line, blah blah blah. I concede that these issues contributed to his struggles, but these excuses only go so far. Locker hasn't been able to significantly elevate the play of his receivers, has not shown that much improvement in reading defenses and is not terribly accurate. Talk about his poor supporting cast all you want but these above issues are on him. I'm sorry but going 4/20 passing in a game and failing to have a 60% completion rate in any of your 4 years of college is pathetic, I don't care how bad your supporting cast is. Locker's greatest asset is athleticism, but even that pales in comparison to Newton's size and athleticism.

In summary: Newton has performed at a much higher level in a harder conference than Locker, significantly elevated the performance of his team faced intense media scrutiny daily and is a better athlete than Locker.

All that really has to be said is Newton is a super athletic QB and Locker is a good athlete trying to play QB.

If they traded places, Locker would have as much success as Newton did

Relying on conjecture does not help your argument any. I've heard this argument so many times and I think it's complete BS.

You act as if Auburn is loaded to the brim with talent and destined to be one of the best teams in college football regardless of Newton. That's simply not true! Newton took a team which went 7-5 the previous year and led them to a 13-0 record in his first year as a starter. In multiple games, Newton has put the team on his back and carried them to a win.

As of yet there is no way to accurately predict what will happen in alternate universes so instead I rely on qualitative and quantitative evidence. His stats and measurables have been discussed many times in this and other threads but you seem ready to dismiss these as environmental consequences and not reflective of his abilities so I guess I'll move onto qualitative research and analysis.

Locker has trouble going through progressions and reading defenses. While I admit that Newton hasn't been required to do that, what I do know is that Locker has had 2 years to learn under a pro-style offense and he has yet to show significant growth in this area. This is very troubling to me. Also, although his receivers are not the best which can't be blamed on him, he often-times is inaccurate and doesn't give his receivers the best chance to catch the ball. That's completely on him.

Meanwhile every game I've seen of Newton's he makes NFL caliber throws: from throwing into small windows and tight coverages, leading his receivers on deep throws and evading the rush, and doing all of this against the best conference in college football. I've seen Newton make the types of throws with the consistency I have yet to see Locker posses. Is his situation better than Locker's? Yes, but it's not as if Auburn was an SEC powerhouse before he came on board.

But all this is pointless anyways, you've somehow deluded yourself into believing that Locker is a much better QB than Newton and that Newton is trash and I'm not likely to be able to change this. And also, this is a thread about Pryor not Newton so I should stop before this gets completely hijacked.

i didnt read your article after the first sentence. Pryor is better than newton as well

get off newtons jock, Mel

[ Edited by spizzy on Dec 24, 2010 at 22:16:25 ]

pro style offense: Locker
arm: Locker
mobility: I'd say Newton cause its part of his offense, but Locker aint no slouch and probably has more straight line speed
footwork/mechanics: Locker
Leadership: I'd say Locker puts the team on his back (UW is ride or die with/without him). Newton's ascension of Auburn is because he is perfect for their scheme, they wouldnt be winless without him like UW was in 08.
learning curve for NFL: locker will have a shorter one
clutch factor: Could go either way I guess. Im sure newton has some examples but see Locker's performances vs USC last year and this year, and cal, wazzu, osu.

Yes, newton is a more dominant college player but he is being asked to do a lot less. He's got a one-read then bolt offense where he is the focal point. Locker is running an NFL scheme, and while yes he is struggling at times he is distributing the ball to his playmakers (polk, kearse). He is not being asked to run a one man show that utilizes his athletic ability. He's being molded for a pro-scheme, and I admit its not going as well as you would hope but at least hes being exposed to the same type of offense he will see in the NFL. Newton has run NOTHING but a gimmicky offense. All those "high caliber throws" that he makes are because his receivers are always open or in one on one coverage because the defense must respect his ability to run. This will not happen in the NFL, the front sevens will be just too athletic.

Pryor is a poor mans Cam Newton.

Originally posted by bigmike55:
Pryor is a poor mans Cam Newton.

hes got way more experience (and its more pro style than auburn), and hes every bit the athlete that newton is and more

Originally posted by spizzy:
pro style offense: Locker
arm: Locker
mobility: I'd say Newton cause its part of his offense, but Locker aint no slouch and probably has more straight line speed
footwork/mechanics: Locker
Leadership: I'd say Locker puts the team on his back (UW is ride or die with/without him). Newton's ascension of Auburn is because he is perfect for their scheme, they wouldnt be winless without him like UW was in 08.
learning curve for NFL: locker will have a shorter one
clutch factor: Could go either way I guess. Im sure newton has some examples but see Locker's performances vs USC last year and this year, and cal, wazzu, osu.

Yes, newton is a more dominant college player but he is being asked to do a lot less. He's got a one-read then bolt offense where he is the focal point. Locker is running an NFL scheme, and while yes he is struggling at times he is distributing the ball to his playmakers (polk, kearse). He is not being asked to run a one man show that utilizes his athletic ability. He's being molded for a pro-scheme, and I admit its not going as well as you would hope but at least hes being exposed to the same type of offense he will see in the NFL. Newton has run NOTHING but a gimmicky offense. All those "high caliber throws" that he makes are because his receivers are always open or in one on one coverage because the defense must respect his ability to run. This will not happen in the NFL, the front sevens will be just too athletic.

I appreciate you coming back and taking the time to give me a more detailed breakdown of why you feel Locker is better.

I really think people put too much stock in whether something is a "pro-style offense" or not. The NFL is becoming more and more a passing league each season as the rules continue to change to benefit receivers over defenders. Shotgun, wide open offenses incorporating some spread ideas are becoming more predominant. Even more traditional base systems such as the WCO and the digit offenses, while still using traditional drop-back passing are becoming more wide open (Philly is a good example of this imo). Besides, no college QB comes into the NFL with perfect mechanics and footwork, every rookie QB has to be broken down and rebuilt. Some are more ready than others and Locker's pro-style offense experience is an advantage, but I don't think it's significant enough to make much of a difference in terms of future NFL success.

You can't really say Locker has a better arm, they both have great arms so I think it's a toss up.

Locker is one heck of an athlete but I think he's one notch below Newton imo. They'll probably put up comporable 40 times, but the thing that I think makes Newton's athleticism so special is his feet and his acceleration. The guy just has amazing elusiveness. He's not just fast but more importantly he's explosive, give the guy a little crease to run and the guy is at top speed in a ridiculously short amount of time. I just don't know if Locker has that explosiveness that Newton has. Again, Locker is a phenomenal athlete so I'm not trying to bring him down here, just explaining why I think Newton is a little better.

Newton has performed admirably under tremendous amounts of pressure, dealing with intense media scrutiny over his money issues and also the attention that comes along with being the leader of an undefeated squad. For almost the entire season Newton has been a marked man, and he's been able to shrug it off and just go out and perform on the football field. Consistently too. He didn't play poorly in a single game this season. The guy has ice in his veins.

The one thing that most separates Newton from Locker though is accuracy. Locker's accuracy is still very much a work in progress. And although Newton is not the most accurate passer, I think he's much more accurate than Newton is. Of course guys aren't going to be quite so open at the NFL level, but like I said in my previous post, he's shown the ability a few times in each game that he can make NFL caliber throws. He's able to whip the ball into very small windows, throw the ball in places only his receiver can catch it in when he has had to throw it to players who are well covered on the play. He's able to arch his deep ball and hit a receiver who has a step on the defender (but isn't wide open) perfectly in stride so the receiver doesn't even have to do a jump ball with the defender. I can provide specific examples of all of these if you ask me to.

You make so much of a big deal about how much of a gimick offense Auburn runs. In reality though it's mostly just a souped up version of a play action pass. And I have seen him on an occasion look around the field before throwing it to his checkdown receiver. It is mostly 1 option-run though I agree. What troubles me about Locker is that he has not shown veyr much improvement in reading NFL defenses in two years under the same system. While we don't know if Newton can do it, what we do know is that Locker is going to need a lot of work in that area, quite possibly just as much as Newton.

I'm not doing this to trash on Locker at all. I think he's a very talented quarterback. However he's just as far away as Newton is imo, they're both projects who are going to need a lot of work. I just think Newton has slightly better athleticism, and better pure QB skills at the moment in time.

In summary: Newton's ceiling is only slightly higher than Locker's, but I think Newton is more likely to reach his ceiling than Locker is.

I do like Pryor quite a bit. Compared to Newton and Locker, his athleticism isn't quite as good but he's also more experienced and further along in his development. He has shown a lot of growth this year. I haven't watched much of Pryor this year, but he's got some nice skills.

I'd rate their grades as follows:
Newton- mid 1st round (10-25)
Pryor- late 1st- early 2nd
Locker- mid to late 2nd

^^ you have valid points, well said. You are dead wrong when you say Pryor isn't as athletic as Newton or Locker. He is a FREAK athlete who will run 4.4 or sub 4.4. He was a legitimate D-1 basketball prospect in high school. He just doesn't have the highlight reel runs because his offense doesn't put him in position to make those plays.

Athletically:
1) Pryor
2) Newton
3) Locker

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:

Originally posted by Jcool:
Mel Kiper: Could be an early round pick with a position change to WR or TE.... Later round pick if he sticks with being a QB

When you look at David Carr and Joey Harrington 3 or 4 years down the road, you are not going to call any of of these two players a bust or a disappointment. ~Mel Kiper, 2002

yup... Kiper is wrong as often as he is right... it must be nice being just an analyst