Who Is The Best Team In The NFC??

[Buckybird]

Pimping Cam Newton as anything more than a good QB is a risky proposition. Here's why:

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[GatorAZ]

Pimping Cam Newton as anything more than a good QB is a risky proposition. Here's why:

You must be registered for see images attach

I'm not a huge fan of Cam but that really says more about how useless basic dashboard stats can be.

 

[TJ]

I'm not a huge fan of Cam but that really says more about how useless basic dashboard stats can be.

If the "dashboard" stats are underwhelming, it actually says a lot about him as a QB.

Cam is completing 54% of his passes. That's Derek Anderson/Drew Stanton territory .

 

[GatorAZ]

If the "dashboard" stats are underwhelming, it actually says a lot about him as a QB.

Cam is completing 54% of his passes. That's Derek Anderson/Drew Stanton territory .

Sure, if you want to compare their career completion % with that of 7 games from Newton.

 

[TJ]

Sure, if you want to compare their career completion % with that of 7 games from Newton.

He's a career 59% passer, which is well below average for QBs in this league.

Here's Cam in a nutshell: he's the best of the QBs who are considered a dual-threat because he's the best runner of them all; however, he still struggles to throw an accurate pass and his footwork and pocket presence leave much to be desired.

 

[kerouac9]

He's a career 59% passer, which is well below average for QBs in this league.

Here's Cam in a nutshell: he's the best of the QBs who are considered a dual-threat because he's the best runner of them all; however, he still struggles to throw an accurate pass and his footwork and pocket presence leave much to be desired.

According to FO, the Panthers are 16th in the NFL in adjusted sack rate (5.7%) and have allowed just 11 sacks (NFL Average is 15).

Cam's #1 wideout right now is Ted Ginn, Jr. He couldn't crack our four-deep.

 

[MaoTosiFanClub]

Legit title contenders don't lose to Landry Jones. It's only halfway through the season, but the Cards are still in a different class of team than the NFL's elite — which doesn't currently include Seattle (their OL is a dumpster fire).

And Seattle lost to Austin Davis last year.

I don't think we're the best team in the league or even the conference but we're for sure top 10 in the league which means in NFL playoff format we have chance.

 

[ajcardfan]

And Seattle lost to Austin Davis last year.

I don't think we're the best team in the league or even the conference but we're for sure top 10 in the league which means in NFL playoff format we have chance.

And Max Hall won a game against the defending Super Bowl champions. A team that went 11-5 that year and made the playoffs again.

Yes, we have a chance.

 

[TJ]

Kordell Stewart beat the 2000 Ravens, which was the best defense I've ever seen in my lifetime.

It happens and happens more frequently than some wish to admit.

 

[Cheesebeef]

And Max Hall won a game against the defending Super Bowl champions. A team that went 11-5 that year and made the playoffs again.

and lost in the first round to a 7-9 team. Don't think that really bolsters you're argument too much.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Tony Banks beat the 2000 Ravens, which was the best defense I've ever seen in my lifetime.

It happens and happens more frequently than some wish to admit.

Are you referring to the Super Bowl Champion 2000 Ravens (I assume so since the discussion is whether or not Super Bowl teams lose the type of games we lost to a 3rd string QB)? If so, you're remembering wrong as it's impossible that Tony Banks beat that Ravens team considering he was their starting QB for the first half of the season and on the bench the second half of it.

reality it is... Super Bowl winners almost never lose to teams who have to rely on their 3rd string QB and it happens much more rarely than some wish to admit.

 

[Buckybird]

reality it is... Super Bowl winners almost never lose to teams who have to rely on their 3rd string QB and it happens much more rarely than some wish to admit.

How many grocery stockers have gone on to lead a team to hoisting a Lombardi?

The reality is we've got a chance! Right now, I could care less about losing a game we should've won, who's offense dominated a good Steslers team but shot themselves in the foot & had calls go against them. It happened & we can't dwell on it, moving on!!!

Get on the Palmer express Cheese, be happy I like this dynamic offense & our chances.

 

[Cheesebeef]

How many grocery stockers have gone on to lead a team to hoisting a Lombardi?

The reality is we've got a chance! Right now, I could care less about losing a game we should've won, who's offense dominated a good Steslers team but shot themselves in the foot & had calls go against them. It happened & we can't dwell on it, moving on!!!

Get on the Palmer express Cheese, be happy I like this dynamic offense & our chances.

I'm happy we're 6-2 and my cup was overflowing with Kool-Aid before the Rams/Steelers games, but I gotta see us beat SOMEONE with a pulse before I go Kool-Aid crazy again.

 

[Buckybird]

I'm happy we're 6-2 and my cup was overflowing with Kool-Aid before the Rams/Steelers games, but I gotta see us beat SOMEONE with a pulse before I go Kool-Aid crazy again.

We'll be ok. I've got a good feeling about this.

But we do have to beat the Hawks at least once lol

 

[TJ]

Are you referring to the Super Bowl Champion 2000 Ravens (I assume so since the discussion is whether or not Super Bowl teams lose the type of games we lost to a 3rd string QB)? If so, you're remembering wrong as it's impossible that Tony Banks beat that Ravens team considering he was their starting QB for the first half of the season and on the bench the second half of it.



reality it is... Super Bowl winners almost never lose to teams who have to rely on their 3rd string QB and it happens much more rarely than some wish to admit.

I meant Kordell Stewart.

If you truly believe what you posted, then there isn't much more to tell you than that you're simply wrong and posting based on raw emotion and not knowledge with everything that's been mentioned.

 

[Cheesebeef]

I meant Kordell Stewart.

If you truly believe what you posted, then there isn't much more to tell you than that you're simply wrong and posting based on raw emotion and not knowledge with everything that's been mentioned.

Lol... you're really gonna go with you're knowledge is somehow superior to mine when first you make up the claim that Tony Banks beat Baltimore.... and then when proven wrong, you bring up Kordell Stewart as proof 3rd string QBs beat Super Bowl teams... even though Kordell was 7-4 as a starter that year, accounting for 20 total TDs and only 8 turnovers and then went on to be an MVP candidate the next year. And THAT somehow compares to Landry Jones?

As far as "everything else" that's been mentioned... like what? Someone brought up Max Hall beating a Saints team... that lost in the first round to a 7-9 team. How does that show that I'm simply wrong? In another thread, Schutd brought up a bunch of examples... all of which were proven wrong.

Sure, you'll have your complete outliers like Austin Davis once every blue moon, but the idea that a Super Bowl team loses to complete trash 3RD STRING QBs in any way shape or form happens more then people realize is a complete and utter fallacy, based only on raw emotion of homerism and not knowledge of what's actually happened.

 

[TJ]

.



Sure, you'll have your complete outliers like Austin Davis once every blue moon, but the idea that a Super Bowl team loses to complete trash 3RD STRING QBs in any way shape or form happens more then people realize is a complete and utter fallacy, based only on raw emotion of homerism and not knowledge of what's actually happened.

You're presenting as fact that it never happens. It does. You can choose to accept the reality or continue to act like the overreactive pessimistic poster we all know you to be. I can't help you out otherwise.

 

[MaoTosiFanClub]

You're presenting as fact that it never happens. It does. You can choose to accept the reality or continue to act like the overreactive pessimistic poster we all know you to be. I can't help you out otherwise.

I've seen enough horrendous Cardinals QB's randomly pull off the occasional win against top teams to know that weird things happen in the NFL.

Green Bay lost to Kyle Orton last year. One of those Harbaugh 49ers teams lost to John Skelton. I saw Kolb beat Brady IN New England 3 years ago just off top of my head.

 

[Cheesebeef]

I've seen enough horrendous Cardinals QB's randomly pull off the occasional win against top teams to know that weird things happen in the NFL.

Green Bay lost to Kyle Orton last year. One of those Harbaugh 49ers teams lost to John Skelton. I saw Kolb beat Brady IN New England 3 years ago just off top of my head.

none of those guys were 3rd string QBs, coming in for the first game EVER. That's a pretty important distinction, IMO, because in that scenario, the 3rd string QB is ALWAYS dog-crap. All these examples given are either guys who had game experience, were backups. Max Hall was probably the closest version to a Landry-like comparison, but even there, he beat a team that wasn't a title contender AND played like crap doing so, as opposed to Landry who lit us up.

 

[Bert]

The Pitt game doesn't bother me as much. Its horrible that we lost and I was super stressed at the time, but I mean cmon, it's one game. I wont even say that we "got beat" I think the Cardinals absolutely should have won that game.

If we had just looked out classed and dominated, that would be troublesome. I think this team just lacks some maturity at times but I think it can be overcome.

I dont understand why losing one game, regardless of the circumstances, means we're not a Super Bowl team. Just like one win by 40, regardless of the opponent, doesn't mean we are super bowl team either!

Did any of us think the 08 team was Superbowl bound after they got BLOWN OUT what, like 3-4 times that season?

I just dont know why the drama over the Pitt loss is still brewing so strong.

 

[Jetstream Green]

The Pitt game doesn't bother me as much. Its horrible that we lost and I was super stressed at the time, but I mean cmon, it's one game. I wont even say that we "got beat" I think the Cardinals absolutely should have won that game.

If we had just looked out classed and dominated, that would be troublesome. I think this team just lacks some maturity at times but I think it can be overcome.

I dont understand why losing one game, regardless of the circumstances, means we're not a Super Bowl team. Just like one win by 40, regardless of the opponent, doesn't mean we are super bowl team either!

Did any of us think the 08 team was Superbowl bound after they got BLOWN OUT what, like 3-4 times that season?

I just dont know why the drama over the Pitt loss is still brewing so strong.

There might be questions about Palmer not leading us to victory in the two loses but we had a chance against the Steelers and the Rams to win at the end of the contest. No team we have faced have had a easy time and for the most part thought they could still lose the game against this team. We for the most part have beat below average teams but usually have completely dismantled the teams. It is not that we beat them, it is how we have beat inferior teams. The Cleveland game is actually a great example of this, down at half but then come back and dominate... this is a good team, just curious if we are a great team and it will show with the good teams we will play now

 

[daves]

as opposed to Landry who lit us up.

OK, i keep reading about how Landry "lit us up."

That game sucked, and was frustrating as hell to watch.

But aside from Bryant's ridiculous second TD, where he ran alongside the entire Cardinals secondary for 80 yards, Landry was 7/11 for 80 yards (and another TD to Bryant who made another exceptional play). Bryant lit up the Cardinals' secondary. And he's the only player all year to have done so. Jones had a very impressive and efficient game for a first-time starter. But Jones didn't do anything spectacular.

I acknowledge that the Cardinals haven't beaten a winning team, and that they shot themselves in the foot repeatedly against the Rams and Stealers. But to act as though a terrible flaw was exposed brutally by either of those teams, is to overreact.

Even the one long Gurley rush, when the entire Cards D was stacked to stop a first down, was the exception, rather than the rule. Even including that rush, the Cardinals have one of the top-ranked rushing defenses in the league.

In reality, the Cardinals have exhibited only ONE flaw all season: a weak pass rush. And despite that, they have one of the best pass defenses in the league.

I agree with everyone that the next few games will reveal just how good they are. But let's not blow Landry Jones' performance out of proportion and draw too big of a conclusion from it.

...dbs

 

[chickenhead]

Lots of fair criticism in this thread, but honestly, the best team in the NFC will be decided on January 24. Other teams might have better players, better stats, a better record, or a tougher schedule--but one team will be going to the Super Bowl.

My final word on losing to Landry Jones is this: it was discouraging, but even the elite teams generally lose 2-4 games a year, and if the Cards can stay in that range, better they lose to a non-conference opponent. The Rams loss hurts more, and the Cards most likely won't see Pittsburgh again. I'm done with the Pittsburgh loss.

 

[ajcardfan]

and lost in the first round to a 7-9 team. Don't think that really bolsters you're argument too much.

Landry Jones is better than Max Hall. So, there's that.

Once we get in the playoffs, what Landry Jones did to us in Pittsburgh will mean jack-freaking squat, win or lose.

 

[ajcardfan]

he beat a team that wasn't a title contender [/b]AND played like crap doing so, as opposed to Landry who lit us up.

Hogwash. What a ridiculously high standard you have to make a team a contender. You just have to ignore the success a lot of lower seeded NFL teams have had in the recent decades.

The Saints were nine months from a Super Bowl title and wound up with the #10 offense and #7 defense. They also had some impressive wins during the season over playoff teams.

See, anything can happen in one game. That playoff game made Marshawn Lynch a superstar. Get in, get in, get in.... screw handwringing over losing a game against a scrub QB. It means one loss, that's it. It means next to NOTHING in forecasting how the rest of the season goes. And, I believe that even if we lose out the rest of the way.