Kiper & McShay on Cam Newton

November 12th, 2010 | Written by Rob Staton

7 Responses to “Kiper & McShay on Cam Newton”

  1. Matt says:


    Let’s say the Seahawks are picking 17th and Luck and Locker are off the board. We are not looking at any Dez Bryants (ridiculous talent that drops further than expected), do you pull the trigger on Cam Newton? I know this is not realistic because a talent is bound to slip, but assuming there’s no obvious player available. What do you do?

    Personally, I’d be very temtped to do so. I see a more talented Vince Young (better arm, mechanics, more phsyically gifted). Just curious as to what you think?

    • Rob says:

      It’s hard to say at this point. There’s no history of Green Bay drafting that style of QB when JS was part of the front office. Likewise, PC stayed away from that ‘athlete’ type QB in favour of more orthodox pocket passers at USC. Newton has the arm and the mobility to fit the scheme as I would see it, but he’s not specifically a fit based on the history of JS and PC. I’m loathe to rule it out at the same time. He would be an option. I need to keep working on Newton. I’ve got his game on my schedule against Georgia this weekend.

      • Matt says:

        I was leaning more towards the idea of toolsy and rough around the edges. One could argue that both Aaron Rodgers and Brett Favre (yes, JS not involved, but influenced by the Packer way nonetheless)) were both toolsy but rough guys (public perception). In the sense that they like a nice tool box and building material over an Ikea set that you snap together and put into place (useful, albeit unspectacular).

        That doesn’t fit what Carroll had at USC, but I guess we are not sure if that’s based on the fact that many athletic QBs didn’t want to go there, because of his system. Not necessarily that he didn’t recruit them. If that makes sense. We do know that PC heavily recruited Locker and Tebow, so saying that he didn’t want mobile guys might not be the fairest of statements. It might be more for the idea that kids new that there job as a QB at USC (during their run) was to get the ball to playmakers, not necessarily be reliant on making the plays themselves.

        To me, it just seems like the art of QB is dying in college, so the pickings are slim. Not that I’d say they would be dead set on a Cam Newton, but realistically outside of a few QB prospects, there are not many options (which is why I posed this question in the first place).

    • jianfu says:

      I think in the scenario you presented Newton might be worth the gamble. At that point not only are Luck and Locker gone, but also most of the elite prospects overall. At that point–while deciding whether to pick the 4th best cornerback, or the 3rd best defensive tackle, or the first offensive lineman in an awful OL class, or whatever–at some point you just have to roll the dice. After all, you’re never going to get a perfect QB prospect to fall in your lap.

      I’m starting to wonder if my Vikings might be interested in him. If Brad Childress survives the season, he’s always had a sweettooth for athletic QBs, going back to his Eagles days with McNabb. And given their most promising trait is their young cache of offensive skill players, you’d imagine they don’t exactly need a combo of Peyton Manning and Johnny Unitas at QB to move the ball.

      I like Newton. I might like him better than Locker. I do have a very tough time, though, with his experience. We’re talking about a guy with about 200 pass attempts in his career. That’s a miniscule body of work, not only for scouts to analyze, but opposing defenses, as well. Newton’s passing efficiency numbers are off the charts great. But you always have to worry in these instances that, if given more time, a guy’s weaknesses will get exposed and then exploited mercilessly.

      • Rob says:

        I think you make a great point there Jianfu and Minnesota has to be considered a legitimate possible destination for Newton. His lack of experience might be less of a factor on a veteran team and the Vikings do like athletic QB’s as you say. Definitely food for thought there – it’s a good match.

  2. Matt Quarre says:

    Is there any chance that Blaine Gabbert will declare? I would love for the hawks to pick him up in the 4th round (or even 2nd if needed), I think Luck and Locker & Cam Newton will be gone by when we pick, and i dont like Mallett or Ponder, so they kinda cant choose a QB of the future if gabbert doesnt declare, if no QB in round one, what postiton do you think they will go after (I think CB, or OL)

    • Rob says:

      Hi Matt,

      I think it’s unlikely Gabbert will declare. He’s struggled the last two weeks and he’s still quite young. If the team can’t or doesn’t want to draft a QB, I think they’ll take the BPA at any position, simply because this is a comprehensive rebuild. The substantial depth on the defensive line and at cornerback would sway me towards those two positions but it’s still early.