8-8 Forever? Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 I will be the 1st to sign up but only if improves at the combine and shows he can play under center. GET ER DONE Poor Bills fans always looking for the silver bullet that will make the team relevant again. Doesn't work that way. Trade down and get 6 good players in rounds 1-4
DrDawkinstein Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 Poor Bills fans always looking for the silver bullet that will make the team relevant again. Doesn't work that way. Trade down and get 6 good players in rounds 1-4 Or stay put, get your Franchise QB and a total of 5 good players in rounds 1-4. Whats that extra 3rd round pick going to do that Newton cant?
ReturnoftheBuffaloBeast23 Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 Or stay put, get your Franchise QB and a total of 5 good players in rounds 1-4. Whats that extra 3rd round pick going to do that Newton cant? AGREED! CAM NEWTON!..... NUFF SAID....
CosmicBills Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) I quoted you. Which statement are you now running away from--that "all the hype" of the SB was about "redemption" or the claim that BR had two rape charges against him? Or the part where you said thet the media "forgave him for sexual assualt (twice)"? You should really pull all three. (Take two) Actually, you didn't quote me. Or come close comprehending what was actually being discussed. Or really do much critical thinking at all. Those of us who have suffered through your recent posts are surely familiar with this reoccurring theme in your rantings. See, I tried to be nice, tried to let it slide, but now I have to drop a DC Tom style slap down on you. (Said with the greatest reverence to DC of course). Stick with me here. Keep your dictionary handy, try to sound out the big words. Focus. If you get lost, don't be afraid to raise your hand. It'll help. I promise. Let's start with the original post ... Big Ben is an interesting comparison since this past season the media fawned all over Ben and forgave him for sexual assault (twice) ... yet people here think stealing (or buying a stolen) laptop is a far graver offense. I'm guessing some (not all) of the people on this board hitting Newton for character issues would have no problems with the Bills acquiring Big Ben. Just an interesting sociological observation. First thing you'll notice, no where in this post (or any other) did I use the word rape. Not once. Yet you quote me as using it a few times. Just to be clear, quoting someone means repeating what they said previously. So now we know that you don't really understand the language. It also clearly shows you're not really paying attention to the post but instead trying to slap your own agenda on the conversation. What that agenda is, other than a crusade against me, I have no idea. Reading is about context. The context of the original post in this case was in reference to Cam Newton and his many vocal detractors -- both on this board and in the media. Those fans claiming he cannot become an elite QB because he has the most dreaded of curses: character issues. Posters have been adamant in reminding folks about Newton's transgressions: the purchase -- or outright theft -- of a stolen laptop and allegedly being involved in a pay for play scandal. To them, it shows that he's simply not worth the risk because a guy who commits those sorts of acts clearly is not a leader of men nor has the ability to become an elite QB at the next level. Now, the NCAA investigated and cleared Newton of the charges. Yet, the accusations linger. They hang over Cam and people's assessment of his abilities like a rain cloud. These posters accuse him without knowing the full story and refuse to believe he might be innocent because "he must be guilty!". This despite the fact the NCAA cleared him and pronounced him eligible. See where this is going? Ben was brought up because he too has been accused of committing crimes. Twice he's been accused of sexual assault. Those accusations, real or otherwise, hung over his head. They painted a grim picture of the man. Yet, there he was just a few short weeks ago, leading his team to its third Super Bowl birth during his tenure. Some would argue that sexual assault is a far more nefarious act than arranging a pay for play scandal or stealing a laptop. And if stealing a laptop or arranging a pay for play deal are insurmountable hurdles for a person to overcome on their way to being an elite QB as the Cam Newton detractors claim, then logic dictates that Ben couldn't possibly overcome his own baggage to become an elite QB himself. Right? But Ben is widely considered to be one of the league's elite QBs. So how much do off the field issues really affect one's ability to play the game between the white lines? You could argue that it matters a lot. And you wouldn't be wrong. But Big Ben's most recent dilemma shows that maybe, just maybe, talent trumps everything. Big Ben and Cam Newton have been compared physically countless times in the past few months. From their size to their arm strength to their scrambling abilities. Now it seems they both have off the field baggage in common as well -- real or not. So why then is it so outrageous to draw another comparison? Mind you, I passed no judgment on either. I merely pointed out that it's interesting to me that some of the same people who are denouncing Cam for his off the field issues would happily welcome Big Ben on the Bills. It was an observation. One designed to promote discussion about Cam Newton. Which, after all, is the purpose of this thread. And, in the bigger picture, the purpose of TSW. All the hype leading up to the Super Bowl was about him being redeemed if they won. It was everywhere. There were certainly counterpoints. But even in the pre-game introductions Sam Elliot brought it up ... And yes, he has been accused twice. Once by the chick in Georgia. Another in 2008 which was later was a civil case which was withdrawn. "All the hype leading up to the SB" was about BR's possible "redemption"? You're making this up, clearly. That was one angle of many--and stories in "the media", like SF Examiner, Washington Post, ESPN, USA Today, NFL Fanhouse, etc. were critical or openly mocked any talk of redemption. Once again, you're not reading what was written. Or failing to understand. I clearly stated that there were certainly counterpoints to the media blitz. So how is what I wrote any different than this first paragraph here? Besides being better written, more honest and thoughtful of course. I'll spare you the suspense. It isn't. But you're not interested in what was written. You're interested in what you think it means. You're not interested in having a discussion. You're looking to push your agenda. An agenda that has nothing to do with me. The "civil case" was "withdrawn" because there was no "rape"--even the woman who cooked up that totally bogus story knows it never happened. So why do you include it as a "charge" against BR?? You are the only person in the country who still believes that happened. You should really use the internet to do a bit of research before you jump onto thin ice with both feet. Wait! Stop the presses! This is an amazing announcement WEO is making. Apparently -- you're never going to believe this -- apparently, the woman involved in the first allegation of sexual assault leveled against Big Ben ... get this ... KNOWS WHAT HAPPENED! :o Holy cow!!!! What a staggering feat of intelligence! Who would have ever imagined that one of the only two people to witness the alleged event knows what really happened?! I'm floored by that revelation. What other marvelous feats of logic do you care to share with the group? Surely an intellect capable of arriving at such a profound conclusion is wasted on us mere mortals. And there's that word again: Rape. Yippee!!! This time it's in quotes. So it looks really official! I'm still not sure who you're quoting though, maybe it's the voices of the two monkeys fighting inside that melon on top of your shoulders. Either way, it didn't come from my posts. I refer you once again to this ... More to the point, you again fail to comprehend what's actually being said. I brought up the charges against Ben because Ben was in fact charged with sexual assault. Twice. And, as I said, one was withdrawn. A point I made abundantly clear to those people who actually comprehend the written word. Thems the facts, my dear. Ben's history was brought up specifically in reference to the charges against Cam Newton which -- like the charges against Ben -- were dropped. See how that works? I know that requires some digging into the subtext of the writing. It takes some effort. But I assure you, taking a moment to really understand someone's points, whether you agree with them or not, is worthwhile. Even if it's just to prove the other person is a jerk. It's also worth noting that at no point in time did I pronounce judgment on either Ben or Cam. I simply pointed out a correlation between the two QBs and how they're perceived by some fans on this board. There's no agenda here other than to cut through the bull and focus on what matters most when it comes to evaluating Cam Newton's prospects in the NFL: his talent. But you got all that, right? Because you were reading closely and being open minded. Right? Of course you didn't. Because that's not your style. It's not what you do. You're simply a blowhard who is more interested in being "right" than having a frank and open minded discussion. Instead, you jumped to numerous erroneous conclusions about a post -- which you clearly didn't take the time to read -- in order to force your own personal agenda onto the conversation. You misquoted, misunderstood and misinterpreted the entire post because YOU wanted to make it into something it's not. So much so that you followed this rant into a secondary thread which had virtually nothing to do with this one other than the inclusion of Big Ben. You wanted to be proven right more than you wanted to continue the discourse. That's what's called being intellectually dishonest. So, again. Yeah. You need to read closer. Edited February 24, 2011 by tgreg99
John from Riverside Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 Tgreg.....when in the hell did you find time to write this....
CosmicBills Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 Tgreg.....when in the hell did you find time to write this.... This is how I procrastinate I'm under deadline too. Eeek!
NewEra Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 Poor Bills fans always looking for the silver bullet that will make the team relevant again. Doesn't work that way. Trade down and get 6 good players in rounds 1-4 It's easier said than done
Mr. WEO Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 (Take two) Actually, you didn't quote me. Or come close comprehending what was actually being discussed. Or really do much critical thinking at all. Those of us who have suffered through your recent posts are surely familiar with this reoccurring theme in your rantings. See, I tried to be nice, tried to let it slide, but now I have to drop a DC Tom style slap down on you. (Said with the greatest reverence to DC of course). Stick with me here. Keep your dictionary handy, try to sound out the big words. Focus. If you get lost, don't be afraid to raise your hand. It'll help. I promise. Let's start with the original post ... First thing you'll notice, no where in this post (or any other) did I use the word rape. Not once. Yet you quote me as using it a few times. Just to be clear, quoting someone means repeating what they said previously. So now we know that you don't really understand the language. It also clearly shows you're not really paying attention to the post but instead trying to slap your own agenda on the conversation. What that agenda is, other than a crusade against me, I have no idea. Reading is about context. The context of the original post in this case was in reference to Cam Newton and his many vocal detractors -- both on this board and in the media. Those fans claiming he cannot become an elite QB because he has the most dreaded of curses: character issues. Posters have been adamant in reminding folks about Newton's transgressions: the purchase -- or outright theft -- of a stolen laptop and allegedly being involved in a pay for play scandal. To them, it shows that he's simply not worth the risk because a guy who commits those sorts of acts clearly is not a leader of men nor has the ability to become an elite QB at the next level. Now, the NCAA investigated and cleared Newton of the charges. Yet, the accusations linger. They hang over Cam and people's assessment of his abilities like a rain cloud. These posters accuse him without knowing the full story and refuse to believe he might be innocent because "he must be guilty!". This despite the fact the NCAA cleared him and pronounced him eligible. See where this is going? Ben was brought up because he too has been accused of committing crimes. Twice he's been accused of sexual assault. Those accusations, real or otherwise, hung over his head. They painted a grim picture of the man. Yet, there he was just a few short weeks ago, leading his team to its third Super Bowl birth during his tenure. Some would argue that sexual assault is a far more nefarious act than arranging a pay for play scandal or stealing a laptop. And if stealing a laptop or arranging a pay for play deal are insurmountable hurdles for a person to overcome on their way to being an elite QB as the Cam Newton detractors claim, then logic dictates that Ben couldn't possibly overcome his own baggage to become an elite QB himself. Right? But Ben is widely considered to be one of the league's elite QBs. So how much do off the field issues really affect one's ability to play the game between the white lines? You could argue that it matters a lot. And you wouldn't be wrong. But Big Ben's most recent dilemma shows that maybe, just maybe, talent trumps everything. Big Ben and Cam Newton have been compared physically countless times in the past few months. From their size to their arm strength to their scrambling abilities. Now it seems they both have off the field baggage in common as well -- real or not. So why then is it so outrageous to draw another comparison? Mind you, I passed no judgment on either. I merely pointed out that it's interesting to me that some of the same people who are denouncing Cam for his off the field issues would happily welcome Big Ben on the Bills. It was an observation. One designed to promote discussion about Cam Newton. Which, after all, is the purpose of this thread. And, in the bigger picture, the purpose of TSW. Once again, you're not reading what was written. Or failing to understand. I clearly stated that there were certainly counterpoints to the media blitz. So how is what I wrote any different than this first paragraph here? Besides being better written, more honest and thoughtful of course. I'll spare you the suspense. It isn't. But you're not interested in what was written. You're interested in what you think it means. You're not interested in having a discussion. You're looking to push your agenda. An agenda that has nothing to do with me. Wait! Stop the presses! This is an amazing announcement WEO is making. Apparently -- you're never going to believe this -- apparently, the woman involved in the first allegation of sexual assault leveled against Big Ben ... get this ... KNOWS WHAT HAPPENED! :o Holy cow!!!! What a staggering feat of intelligence! Who would have ever imagined that one of the only two people to witness the alleged event knows what really happened?! I'm floored by that revelation. What other marvelous feats of logic do you care to share with the group? Surely an intellect capable of arriving at such a profound conclusion is wasted on us mere mortals. And there's that word again: Rape. Yippee!!! This time it's in quotes. So it looks really official! I'm still not sure who you're quoting though, maybe it's the voices of the two monkeys fighting inside that melon on top of your shoulders. Either way, it didn't come from my posts. I refer you once again to this ... More to the point, you again fail to comprehend what's actually being said. I brought up the charges against Ben because Ben was in fact charged with sexual assault. Twice. And, as I said, one was withdrawn. A point I made abundantly clear to those people who actually comprehend the written word. Thems the facts, my dear. Ben's history was brought up specifically in reference to the charges against Cam Newton which -- like the charges against Ben -- were dropped. See how that works? I know that requires some digging into the subtext of the writing. It takes some effort. But I assure you, taking a moment to really understand someone's points, whether you agree with them or not, is worthwhile. Even if it's just to prove the other person is a jerk. It's also worth noting that at no point in time did I pronounce judgment on either Ben or Cam. I simply pointed out a correlation between the two QBs and how they're perceived by some fans on this board. There's no agenda here other than to cut through the bull and focus on what matters most when it comes to evaluating Cam Newton's prospects in the NFL: his talent. But you got all that, right? Because you were reading closely and being open minded. Right? Of course you didn't. Because that's not your style. It's not what you do. You're simply a blowhard who is more interested in being "right" than having a frank and open minded discussion. Instead, you jumped to numerous erroneous conclusions about a post -- which you clearly didn't take the time to read -- in order to force your own personal agenda onto the conversation. You misquoted, misunderstood and misinterpreted the entire post because YOU wanted to make it into something it's not. So much so that you followed this rant into a secondary thread which had virtually nothing to do with this one other than the inclusion of Big Ben. You wanted to be proven right more than you wanted to continue the discourse. That's what's called being intellectually dishonest. So, again. Yeah. You need to read closer. "Take two"? You have deleted and entire thread and rewritten it! I really can't blame you. Well, I did read the one you erased--in it you stated that you have not have not passed judgement, nor have you stated an opinion on the guilt of BR regarding the "sexual assualt" charges. This is clearly false because you ranted that the media ("even Sam Elliot") "fawned all over Ben and forgave him for sexual assault (twice)". This is your opinion, that they forgave him for two crimes. Anyone who read that quote would clearly understand your position on the guilt of BR---it clearly follows from your statement. Also, unless you believe BR is a only serial fondler of woman, I used the term "rape" because you were not "intellectually honest" enough to say what you meant. Your agenda was clear--you were the one who took your sociologic question regarding Newton and BR and turned it into a screed against the press letting BR off the hook. This agenda was more quite clear when, minutes later, you decided to start a thread comparing BR's alleged crimes to those of not Newton, but Vick, for some strange reason (oh, wait--an "office poll" suddenly centered on the same topic). Your discussion of "intellectual honesty" is ironic and hilarious given the statements you have now gone to great lengths to run away from. Perhaps we will witness another disappearance of an entire post (or two) as you struggle to maintain your balance.
Beerball Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 "Take two"? You have deleted and entire thread and rewritten it! I really can't blame you. I deleted one post from each of you...take this to PM...or drop it (both of you).
Mr. WEO Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 I deleted one post from each of you...take this to PM...or drop it (both of you). I'm done.
CosmicBills Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) ... I used the term "rape" because you were not "intellectually honest" enough to say what you meant. Your agenda was clear--you were the one who took your sociologic question regarding Newton and BR and turned it into a screed against the press letting BR off the hook. This agenda was more quite clear when, minutes later, you decided to start a thread comparing BR's alleged crimes to those of not Newton, but Vick, for some strange reason (oh, wait--an "office poll" suddenly centered on the same topic). Umm ... except for the fact that this thread and my post was about Cam Newton (the spin you're suggesting, as made painstakingly clear -- twice -- was the slant you put on it by misquoting and misunderstanding me). The other thread was about a completely different topic. I know the subtleties of common discourse escape you, but repeating something over and over again doesn't make it true. Though you seem to enjoy putting random words in quotes like "office poll". So that's neat. Also, there's a difference between sexual assault and rape. I didn't use the word rape because he wasn't accused of that crime. Had I wanted to slant it, I would used the term. I didn't. Because the post isn't about Ben -- it's about Newton. Again, we're into the finer points of a language you clearly struggle with, but knowing what words and terms actually mean helps when trying to pick apart someone's intentions within a post. Moving on ... (for real sphere o' beer) Back on topic, the questions the front office should be concerned about with Newton aren't the off the field issues. They're something to consider, but they are not the end all be all when it comes to determining a player's ability to succeed in the NFL. There have been countless stories in the NFL of players coming from checkered backgrounds, run ins with the law that far outweigh allegedly stealing a laptop or receiving improper benefits and becoming great players. Look at Leonard Little. That scumbag killed people and still made the all-pro team. It's not about the past, it's about talent and the desire to get better. Does Newton have the talent? Clearly. Does he have the desire to keep getting better? No clue. It's just silly to me to be harping on a guy for allegations that have little to no impact on determining a player's prospects at the next level. I don't even know where I have Newton ranked on my board, but he's certainly in the mix. If he shows enough in his interviews to warrant the front office feeling comfortable with his football IQ, then they probably should take him. If not, oh well. That's the beauty of picking third in this particular draft. There are five solid, solid players that should turn into pretty darn good pros. There are another three or four guys who could easily become star players. Newton has the biggest potential to bust simply due to the position he plays, but he also has the chance to become the biggest impact player in the entire draft because of the position he plays as well. Edited February 24, 2011 by tgreg99
LabattBlue Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 http://blogs.nfl.com/2011/02/23/kelly-thinks-bills-should-pass-on-newton/?module=HP_spotlight If he's not good enough for Jimbo hes not good enough for me Am I the only one who could not care less what Kelly thinks? I really hope that if the day comes when his "ownership group" buys the Bills, that he will not be in a position within football operations.
CosmicBills Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 Am I the only one who could not care less what Kelly thinks? I really hope that if the day comes when his "ownership group" buys the Bills, that he will not be in a position within football operations. You're not alone. I love Jimbo, but I don't look to him as a resource when it comes to evaluating personnel. The ones who are great players themselves are usually poor judges and coaches because their talent is innate, which makes it hard to teach to others or even identify in others. Kelly has endorsed plenty of players (including QBs) in the past and they haven't worked out too well. Didn't he give Trent a big endorsement a few seasons ago? Then he threw all California QBs under the bus. Now he's backing Fitz. He's a great ambassador for the Bills, but he's not a scout.
Beerball Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 Am I the only one who could not care less what Kelly thinks? I really hope that if the day comes when his "ownership group" buys the Bills, that he will not be in a position within football operations. If we think Ralph is meddlesome we aint seen nothing yet!
coseybedaman Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 I would not be upset with Newton at #3, especially if he looks good at the combine/workouts. If we are going to pick a QB this draft (and I dont think we need to), that is the only pick I'd want. Simply because he's the only one with any potential to be better than Fitz. Anyone else is going to be just as good as Fitz, and that's not so shabby, but we already have that. For example, picking Dalton in the 3rd or 4th. He'll be a project (just like Newton), and after 3 years of grooming he'll be just as good as Fitz is now. Great. I honestly have no problem with the FO planning on sticking with Fitz for the next 3-4 years. But if they are looking for a franchise QB, get the one with Hall of Fame potential. Anything else (later) is just a wasted pick. Dr Dank, What on Earth makes you think that Locker, Gabbert, Mallett, or even Ponder for that matter will be "just as good as Fitz". Please get off the guy's jock. He is a journeyman backup QB, and would not start on ONE team in the NFL besides our embarrassing Buffalo Bills. There is a reason that Fitz was a 7th round pick, and these guys are projected 1st rounders. That is because their potential isnt even in the same ballpark. Just because the offense scored some touchdowns this year lets not pretend this wasnt our worst record in 10 years. Newton says he's an 'entertainer and an icon'. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2011/02/cam-newton-views-himself-as-an-entertainer-and-icon/1 Red flag flying here. Sounds like the guy is full of himself and is going to be trouble. Do not waste the #3 pick in the draft on this potential head case.... The guy is a confident QB. I will take it all day over wasting 3 years on checkdown Trent, who never had the balls to throw 15 yards down field regardless of the down and distance.
DrDawkinstein Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) Dr Dank, What on Earth makes you think that Locker, Gabbert, Mallett, or even Ponder for that matter will be "just as good as Fitz". Please get off the guy's jock. He is a journeyman backup QB, and would not start on ONE team in the NFL besides our embarrassing Buffalo Bills. There is a reason that Fitz was a 7th round pick, and these guys are projected 1st rounders. That is because their potential isnt even in the same ballpark. Just because the offense scored some touchdowns this year lets not pretend this wasnt our worst record in 10 years. I agree that Fitz is not a Top Tier QB and simply just above a "serviceable veteran". I also believe that most of the other QB prospects mentioned in this draft class will not be any better. My point wasnt that Fitz is so good. It's that guys like Locker, Dalton, Kaepernick, Devlin, Ponder, etc. wont end up being any better than Fitz. So picking them in the 3rd or 4th is just a waste of a pick that should go to Def Front 7. We'll dump 3 years into developing one of these guys, and after all that work, they'll just be where Fitz is now. Not worth it. The Fitz situation puts us in a position where, the only way to improve the QB position is if we think there is a Franchise QB available, and if that was the case, we'd pick him at #3. Gailey JUST said the same exact thing on Sirius. Check out jboyst62's thread. Side note: Locker, Ponder and Mallett are not 1st round projections. Gabbart BARELY is. It's basically going to come down to 2 things: 1. How Newton does in the interview which Gailey spoke about on Sirius, and 2. If Newton is still available when we pick at #3. Edited February 24, 2011 by DrDankenstein
Donald Duck Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) RotoWorld/Panthers will host Cam Newton http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/6491/cam-newton Chan tightens the QB vest BuffaloNews.com http://www.lockerpulse.com/News/Chan-tightens-QB-vest-S848383/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffalo-Bills What does he think of Auburn's Newton? "I’m anxious to see him continue to work out. I’m anxious to see what he’s going to do here this week. But he obviously had a great year. I watched him several times on TV. I’ve not studied him to this point yet. I’ve looked at a little bit of tape but not studied him. He’s a big athlete that is in that wildcat mode but obviously has the ability maybe to go to the dropback passer mode." Gailey said Newton's throwing motion is excellent. "His mechanics are fine. He has no mechanical flaws. He has all the physical attributes." Edited February 24, 2011 by Fig Newton
The Senator Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 RotoWorld/Panthers will host Cam Newton http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/6491/cam-newton Could be my overactive paranoia, but this seems like a bit of 'gamesmanship' to me - I'm thinking Carolina may be wanting to trade down, and is trying to bait a partner. (Personally, I don't think Newton will go in the top 5 - but that's JMO.)
Donald Duck Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 Could be my overactive paranoia, but this seems like a bit of 'gamesmanship' to me - I'm thinking Carolina may be wanting to trade down, and is trying to bait a partner. (Personally, I don't think Newton will go in the top 5 - but that's JMO.) I've considered the possibility, but Rivera needs a QB so it seems more likely to me they will draft the Auburn Tiger signal caller.
Recommended Posts