Delhomme

i apologise for my hasty PM.

 

#1) I am vastly smarter than most people, which means that it's not unusual for me to see the significance of things long before others.

#2) I wasn't the only one who had a problem with the size or timing of Delhomme's massive extension. Far, far from it.


And I haven't made any exceptions regarding what I said. I'm right that Delhomme is just a guy and easily replaceable. You even know that I'm right, but you don't care because you worry more about defending your own statements, which is why you'll argue something to the death even after you're proven wrong (note that you have not been proven wrong in this case, I'm talking about lots of other examples). You mocked me repeatedly for saying that Chris Redman could be a successful quarterback in the NFL, and then when Redman got his chance with the Falcons, he was successful. I know what I'm talking about regarding quarterbacks much more than you or anyone else here. It doesn't mean that I'm always going to be correct (thought Leftwich and Leinart would be better, etc), but it certainly means that I'm very likely to be correct and that my opinion on the subject carries more weight than yours or any other poster's.

There definitely are 100 guys who have as much arm strength as Delhomme, as much (in)accuracy as Delhomme, and as much ability to read defenses. Those 99 others don't get to throw to Steve Smith, though. And yeah, in my opinion if someone is making $7 million or more a year, then they should have some sort of special talent.

 

you were the most vocal, and I've heard plenty of people expecting a Disney-style comeback if we simply changed QBs, but you were the only one that specifically held the contract against Delhomme when his numbers still increased those next two years. People that complain about Delhomme don't make the Brad Johnson argument, they say they want someone different at QB.

"it's 100% Smith except for Moose, except Moose doesn't count because he's good, except this, except that, except everything else you're bringing up does't count."
"Any of a hundred QBs would, not could, do exactly what Jake is doing, except the four veterans and one rookie we had in the last couple years don't count". I like how any of a hundred could do it but you can't be shell-shocked, scared, and have to be completely ready, most times with no experience, and that none of those hundred "would" react that way since they'd all perform exactly as Delhomme or better.

Sure, for a couple of games. He was good enough to play himself out of the NFL, too. But take any QB and start him for three or four games, and that's fine, but get into year 2 and a lot of guys get figured out and become a lot less successful as they're unable to adapt.


I know what I'm talking about regarding quarterbacks much more than you or anyone else here. It doesn't mean that I'm always going to be correct (thought Leftwich and Leinart would be better, etc), but it certainly means that I'm very likely to be correct and that my opinion on the subject carries more weight than yours or any other poster's.

I agree with this. I sincerely disagree that QB is only these three things, and past the other necessary skills, repeatability is bigtime. We saw last year that you can have talent and fail miserably. Not that many of your hundred are able to actually start in the NFL long term.

Of course, you can run the option in the NFL. You can bring in a two-QB system in the NFL. It's silly, but you can do it. You could build an offense around that asshole running QB from Nebraska from a few years ago that didn't want to play defense. I have a hard time that 32 teams in the NFL fail to do the above, or the things you suggest about just pooling tons of vets every year and never paying any, or having any consistency at the position, because they just don't know better to do it.




And, once again, it's something you're probably just going to have to deal with, because I doubt they cut a guy who they feel, to your disappointment, is still part of the heart and soul of this team. Just like you're going to have to suffer through a couple more years of John Fox despite your concerns of getting rid of him.

 

I thought Martz wanted him to play receiver.

 

maybe with them, but the Packers wanted him at DB.

 

Eric Crouch

 

Well at least you're not still pretending that I was "the only one that really had a problem with it," but yes, I was the most vocal about it. If you haven't noticed, I'm usually the most vocal about any topic I choose to stick my nose in. I'm kind of high-strung.

Seven pages ago we established the fact that "being better than carr, testaverde, and Moore doesn't make (Delhomme) special." Chipshot made that statement and you responded by insisting that no one was making that argument, and here you are seven pages later making precisely that argument. You have come back to this nonsense because you have nothing legitimate to argue from. Carr was a deer in headlights and Testaverde was too old to be playing. No, neither one of those players would be among the 100 who could replace Jake. There's nothing "convenient" about that, it's simply obvious. Most backups in the NFL aren't terrified of a pass rush like Carr or ancient like Testaverde.

That's a fair point. Some teams just pick bad quarterbacks. They fall in love with arm strength or cockiness and don't pay attention to the fact that a guy has no accuracy or no idea how to read a defense. But it is my opinion that a lot of teams have quarterbacks who are good enough to win, they just don't surround them with the proper talent. Not everyone can have Steve Smith, but teams need to put more emphasis on technically sound pass blockers instead of those hulking Mike Williams-type monstrosities. They need to put more emphasis on skilled route runners with good hands rather than Troy Williamsons who run really fast but suck out loud as receivers. They need to put more emphasis on coordinators like Mike Mularkey who play to their quarterback's strengths instead of buffoons like Chris Palmer. There are only a handful of truly elite quarterbacks, and most teams won't have one. The rest can still be successful if they handle the situation correctly and have the right pieces in place, because there really are 100 or more guys who are good enough to be respectable.

I've dealt with it, just like I'll deal with Gross getting a massive contract if that happens. It doesn't mean I have to be happy about it or support the decision, though.

 

there's always someone complaining about new money deals. My point was, you heard about it in 2004, and I don't think I've heard anyone else complaining about Delhomme's money. His play, his commercials, his accent, his arm waving, his haircut, his passion, about anything but his money really.

The argument isn't whether Delhomme is special. It's whether any of a hundred quarterbacks would do as good or better, consistently. So apparently either these five players were all exceptions or there are a number of players who could in theory do as well in a vacuum and don't do as well. The actual statement was "would do as well", but I don't think that's realistic.

agreed. Some are ill fits, some aren't taught right. I don't think it's really right to take away from a guy for having the good talent around him to make use of his own talent and then say most players don't have enough talent around them.

and agreed that there are only a few elite guys. I think there's a level between "elite" and "barely in the league but could play well short term", personally, but we've rehashed that over and over. I don't think there's a huge difference between franchise costs for a QB and the average cost for a QB, but I didn't look. Midrange QBs cost a lot, too. Midrange QBs get the job done, too. And I've made statements toward the ideal of continuity and good fit being worth a portion of that cost.