Delhomme

Three guys. Meanwhile, you're counting a couple guys that had one or two game success, and saying that most guys who would be better can't make the top 3 of teams.

Also remember how avid you were that Brad Johnson would do it.

Yes, same for Brady, right? He would've been taken higher if people thought he could've helped them. Awesome analysis!
I think you already beat to death the idea that draft rating has nothing to do with success. You don't go to USC on full scholarship at quarterback just for shits and giggles. Most guys would've transferred out and ended up at Northern Arizona, for whatever reason he didn't. The idea that Cassel is just some random guy is really pretty remarkably untrue. He's not special, but he's not some random out-of-work scrub that you can say no one knew about and wasn't worth developing.

Do they? You're really the only one prompting any discussion of whether anyone else's opinions are as valid as yours based on your word (and only that).

Really? Croyle. Who else?

People just don't buy that any guy off the street would be as good. Most everyone knows that a number of guys could, but besides seeing other talented players fail over the years, also know that quarterback isn't a plug-and-play situation and that football isn't played in a vacuum.

Oh, so more excuses. If only (guy you liked) had the most ideal of circumstances, he'd be just as good, but (myriad of excuses) is why he's not. Same argument as months, and years, ago.

When you have to infer, it's not a fact. You should really know this. And things like "Jake Delhomme has good/bad mechanics" is an opinion. You really do know this, but you get so wrapped up in pretending you're annihilating anyone who crosses you that you have to pretend there's no question what you're saying is past question. It's not.

I agree Jake sometimes has bad mechanics. I agree he doesn't always play at an extremely high level. I think that you're being unrealistic about how easy it would be to replace him given how cavalier you've been about everyone else that's come through here and how high an opinion you have of some of the has-beens and never-will-bes that you're (not actually giving names of, anyway) saying would be better with 100% certainty.

 

None of what Collin is saying is true.

 

See, winning percentage = statistic, and we were told that stats are facts a number of times. But winning percentage is suddenly baseless lies. That's not logical.

yeah. If it were just a matter of hanging a football up there, well, we've seen guys go down in flames because it stopped working. The Chris Redmons of the world, the Tyler Thigpens of the world, they can get it done for a few games and that's all well and good. Next year no one will give a fuck about them, and at most they'll be keeping it warm for someone else. If 2003 was all Delhomme had to offer, we wouldn't have had success in 2004. We had a shitty defense and our 4th runner. Someone probably would've fucking gotten around to stopping him if he were this bad over, oh, the last five years.

Yep. If it were a throw-the-farthest contest, he probably wouldn't win, and if it were a throw-the-hardest contest he wouldn't win. He does OK at both, and for the most part, most things he just does OK. We know he's not someone you just replace for shits and giggles.

and we've seen that talent with a fuckton of baggage, problems with poise, problems with adversity, problems with fit, problems with anything you can name doesn't mean you win in the NFL.

 

http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/qb

13th best QB in the league. By their statement, only 12 players in the league are better than Delhomme in how much better he'd be than an average replacement.

Kinda interesting Rivers is 4th. Boy, I was fucking wrong about him, he kinda made a stab at being elite this year. There's no arguing he's a good player.

Only 4 of those players in the top 16 weren't drafted high. That's the thing - that's probably as likely a way as we could've realistically taken on a better player - over time, with the right fit, the right coaching (we fired the first guy we hired to do that), and a lot of luck.

And Fox doesn't do that. It'll actually be interesting to see what happens when Delhomme isn't our guy anymore. Seems to point toward McCown, I guess.

 

Collin, i know you wont respond to this because when someone who has a valid point contrary to your superfluous bullshit and is not impressed by your self proclaimed analytical skills, tripe attempts at superiority or just doesnt give a shit that youve been posting here too long to realise that you are the only one who cares what you think, you have nothing to say or just repeat what you have posted over and over again

Your skill when it comes to evaluating qbs ranks right up there with Matt Millen, the Bengals of the 90s, Al Davis and Brian Billick

Pretty boy stat queen qbs get coaches fired

 

yeah, not 100% certain how I feel about that either.

 

How have I missed this thread? It's awesome.

 

I seriously doubt he believes it.

 

Ironically, all of those guys got big money to stay the starter.