If we cut Jake

And I've not said either, actually. I've said I'd be willing to look at other options and started bringing up guys like Plummer and Leftwich before anyone else.

I'm not lying about anything. You pull tricks like that in every argument.
For one, I don't think anyone gives a good goddamn what I said in 2001 or what you're trying to pin on me now. If your arguments are so good, they wouldn't need to resort to telling people they're not able to understand, they're unqualified to understand, that they're biased against something, or that they're just arguing something because of you.

No.

He's been blocking a lot. We usually find the TE in the passing game once we're down by 17 and we're going underneath haplessly because it's a completion, or on third down when we need 8 and decide we're going to get 4.

No. Jake's pass to Muhammad in 2004 was a cross. The only notable slant we've run before now was the playoff win in STL, Smith's slug. Trust me, after watching Muhammad run slant routes every other play for six years, I noticed it being missing from 2002 on.

And you're directly equating that to mean it's the only other variable besides Jake, therefore it's all Jake. False. Of course, people can't say that it was other than Jake without being labeled an apologist.

 

Could you show me where anyone's ever said that? You constantly accuse people of thinking Jake's perfect. Who has said that?

 

UNCDub,

stop jerking Collin's pecker. It's disgusting.

 

ditto on all counts

 

Against Cincinnati the defense only gave up 17 (which is pretty darn good considering their offensive talent) despite the fact that Cincinnati dominated time of possession 34:32 to 25:28. Then Jake played solidly in the first half against Dallas, although he wasn't a factor in either of the two touchdowns scored (first was a questionable PI call setting up Foster and the second was a Gamble INT setting up Smith's end around). The problem was that Hoover fumbled on the kickoff near the start of the fourth quarter, followed by a touchdown, and then Jake threw up a wounded duck interception that then led to another touchdown, then to make matters worse Jake fumbled next which also led directly to a Dallas TD two plays later. Game over.

No, they can't be "twisted any way you want them to." People who dismiss statistics are usually the people who either don't like what they say or can't understand them in the first place. Statistics are mathematical facts. Interpretation can be misleading, but most times it isn't. If you think it is, you should be able to demonstrate how, otherwise you shouldn't dispute it.

 

Facts can be used to prove anything that's even remotely true.

 

Jake shouldn't have to carry the team. If the running game is dead, then the Panther's are dead.

Running game = clock control, less turnovers, open WRs and rested defense.

No running game= no clock control, more turnovers, covered WRS/thus sacks and worn out defense.

Colon you are a

 

Until you can come up with some actual facts or statistics, like I have, your opinion really doesn't count for anything at all. Saying that Jake Delhomme hasn't sucked as badly as Chris Weinke is not a reason to keep him around, chief.


B&B:
UNC_whatever hates me, we just happen to agree on the subject. In fact, one of the reasons I ended up posting again is because magnus was being so ridiculous towards him.

Actually you weren't the first to bring up Leftwich, and you only brought Plummer up to shoot him down. Sure you said you'd look at other options, but you have also said that you do not believe there is a need to change quarterbacks. Dance around the words all you want, but that's what you said. So you believe Jake is fine, and I don't. I'm not suggesting that you've said he's flawless, because you've admitted that he hasn't played well. Ultimately, though, you think he's fine as our starter and I disagree.

First you lied when you said that UNCdubya claimed that Jake was the "only problem" when he never said anything of the sort, and then you lied about saying that.

I've explained the situation with facts and statistics as best I can. Absolutely no one, and I do mean no one, has come up with facts and statistics that actually support Jake Delhomme going forward. My proof is what makes me correct. Other people not understanding it or refusing to accept it is simply why the argument continues despite me proving my point.

No, he really hasn't. I know this because I've actually watched the games to see how the offensive line has been doing. I've evaluated each player, and Bridges is usually on his own versus the LDE. He rarely receives help from Mangum on passing plays.

It was not a cross, it was a slant. I have the game burned to DVD, it was a slant. Muhammad does not come up the field and then across, he comes diagonally from the snap and Mathis cut him off.

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/recap/NFL_20050925_CAR@MIA
Delhomme threw for 285 yards and one interception -- on his final pass, which came with the Dolphins in man-to-man coverage and blitzing. When the tight end stayed in to block, Schulters left him and cut in front of Colbert running a slant.

"I didn't see him," Delhomme said.

"All I had to do was catch the ball and run with it," Schulters said.

I honestly don't even know what game you're trying to play with this nonsense. Anyone who has watched our games knows that we've used the slant throughout Henning's tenure, so I have no idea what you think you're doing.

Not necessarily all. Some of our third down problems are a result of poor run blocking in short yardage situations. But Jake being the worst QB in the entire league on 3rd downs is pretty overwhelmingly his own fault. Drops played into it some, but the vast majority of the blame is his alone.

 

Are you dizzy? You should be after this post.

 

Okay.

I meant that somewhat in jest, but he has seemed a bit "clingy" lately.