Delhomme

One thousandth post. Kiss my dick.

 

Make your point clear then.

 

were those couple games all that Delhomme did in his career, or are you parsing? The entire point of my statement is that "any of 100" QBs won't come off the bench and put up numbers to stay a starter year after year.

And again, myself and most would most definitely take the known over a bunch of unknown. The end result is that QB failure rate is very high, and I don't know if there's anything to actually back this magical number of 100.

Those are undeniably opinions. They may or may not have some basis in fact, but these are obviously opinions that you're simply stating as fact.

 

Yes, they do. This happens every year, only most teams don't give those career backups a huge contract to stay their starter. I realize that your stubbornness prevents you from ever acknowledging that you're wrong about anything, but Cassel is a perfect example. The guy had not started since high school, but he came off the bench and posted a better season than Jake has ever had. Is it because Cassel is just a great quarterback who people underestimated? No. It's because decent quarterbacks are a dime a dozen, and they can post solid numbers when surrounded by great talent.

Stop talking like you're the majority. At one time you were, but now you clearly aren't. Now most people do not think that Delhomme is a good quarterback. He's decent, but most people have realized that he's having success largely because of Steve Smith.

Matt Cassel is not special. There are tons of guys like him who have solid skills but don't get a chance for a variety of reasons. Some are backups, some are #3 quarterbacks, and some aren't even in the league.

No, they are facts. It's a fact that Delhomme did go undrafted, and it wasn't by accident. It's a fact that by commonly accepted standards, Jake has bad mechanics for a professional quarterback. It's a fact that Jake has a below average completion percentage for an NFL quarterback. It's a fact that Delhomme has made a lot of dumb decisions with the ball when under pressure. You're not even disputing any of those points, you just want to hide behind semantics like you usually do whenever you know that you're wrong and don't want to admit it.

 

OK, without doing any research at all, there are 32 teams in the NFL. for the most part, they all have 3 QB's on their roster. That's 96 QB's, including Jake. Are they all better or equal to him, including 5 others who aren't even on a roster???

 

yes. also, 3 arena league qb's and 17 cfl qb's. and the 2nd string qb running the a-11 offense for piedmont high school.

 

No. There are quarterbacks on NFL rosters who definitely shouldn't be. For instance, Rex Grossman would clearly be worse than Jake. But there are plenty of guys who don't make an NFL roster who are as good as players who do have a job. Most NFL teams have proven that they have no idea what to look for in a quarterback, whereas I think my track record proves that I do.

Honestly, I don't know why people even challenge me on shit like this. I've shown that I know what I'm talking about when it comes to quarterbacks. This is just like the Redman thing when I took a lot of shit from posters who mocked me because I said Chris Redman was good enough to play in the NFL. Then what happened? He posted a 90.4 quarterback rating for a terrible Falcons team last season. As soon as anyone else proves that they know as much, then they might have a little authority when making fun of something I say.

 

ill grant you the bad mechanics and all but the thing is he wins games, be it dumb luck or whatever. he makes good decisions (or takes risks)at critical points in games, he does dumb shit in the pocket sometimes but being good athletically doesnt make you a winner, its an intanglble, kind of like you being an asshole, no one knows why really but youre a winner too-there are alot of prototypical qbs that cant do that

 

So since I asked about QBs that had sustained, multi-year success, give me a bunch of examples of guys like Redman that can sustain success without having much talent.

And was good enough to be the chief backup to the best QB of the decade, and was good enough to get recruited to USC, and could've started if not behind a Heisman trophy winner. If he had started, he'd probably have been a midrounds pick, but even without playing, he was drafted and teams knew he had talent. He didn't just show up one day and Belichick decided to make some random hobo an NFL quarterback, and you know that. But it's important for you to make a case, so you have to act like Cassell is just some random guy. He's not. He's talented. He's not elite, but he'll get paid, and potential QBs are far from the only position in pro sports to get paid on potential or projection.

the majority of people think that the number of 100 is silly. The majority of people have asked who would be out there that's better and there's not been an answer. I don't care what the majority is, or where it stands, but it's not just me asking this, and it's still you pushing the number of "100" without any backing.

QB failure rates are high. Not all talented players succeed, and it's safe to assume for every supposed "100 that would", there's at least 200+ that could. That are physically healthy, have the talent, and don't put it all together despite having all the tools. I really don't believe that such a specific skill set exists in so many players that don't include guys who are on NFL teams already, and yet none of them played for this football team in the last seven years, and so many of them are out there in a league obviously willing to find that talent and pay somewhat dearly for it.

And I do believe that more people believe that they'd rather have what we have (and many to most would like a better backing option) than just let it go for statements of 'would' that they're not convinced equal "could", much less "would".

Sure, that's a fact. The rest isn't. It's opinion, and you know that. It's not even necessarily something that I'm arguing is wrong, but you commonly decide to call your opinions fact and traditionally can't see things any other way. This entire subject is a statement of that. From current statements of 100 players to years ago's statement of Brad Johnson versus a remarkably incorrect cap figure.