Delhomme

Considering that I've said repeatedly that they were obviously not among the 100, I don't know why you have trouble grasping that. Carr was the only one of the five who we even thought could give Delhomme a run for his money, and unfortunately he was too damaged from his Houston days to do well here. Aside from him, we've never brought in someone who you could legitimately expect to be a top 100 quarterback.

Jake's contract looks less onerous now because of how the salary cap has exploded in the last two years, pushing salaries ridiculously high. But at the time he was getting paid in the top 10 among quarterbacks and I did not believe that he was a top 10 quarterback or even close to it.

In any case, it's not that I dislike Jake or wish him gone. I get frustrated with his mistakes and his inaccuracy, but most quarterbacks will frustrate someone like me. I did and do have a problem with his salary, but less than I do with Kemoeatu. I just believe that Delhomme is easily replaceable, and I wish the team would be willing to push him instead of giving him a lot of money and hoping that we see "good Jake" more than "bad Jake."

 

I'd say all of them have accuracy, arm strength, and can read a defense. Most of them had experience. Sure, you can say Testaverde was way too old, but I really don't want to hear excuses for the rest. Talent is talent, right? Either that or there's obviously a lot more to being a consistent starter in the NFL than three criteria isolated. I certainly believe that poise, toughness, awareness, decisionmaking, ability in the pocket are all part of "talent", which is why Carr fails the test and which is why I agree there are tons of players who have most of the abilities and fail the test.

I certainly think Weinke had enough talent. I think Moore has those three characteristics you're looking for. Either they're within the top 100, any of them really, or this staff passed over at least 20 candidates to get these specific players. By NFL standards, they have or had jobs so you could consider that part of the top 100 QBs in the league. They've all had success.

And sure, to add to the continuity and good-fit ideals, having new QBs in all the time means hoping they do fit the offense, mesh with the components, and so on.

this is generally something I say with long term deals. Granted, a Freeney contract still looks ominous two years later regardless of contribution, but a deal like Lucas' that once was state of the art is now very minor compared to the new contracts. QBs get a lot more than they did in 2004.

 

It's not that hard collin. Especially for you being the quarterback expert extraordanaire in the whole of the football world.

But seeing as you are having a hard time with it I'll start you off. Feel free to scratch my names off the list and add your own. And don't start naming QBs that are locked up in contracts with other teams. They should be QBs that are readily available to the Panthers via the draft or free agency.



1. Chris Leak
2. Chris Redman (you brought him up)
3. you know the rest
4. I mean really
5. you do
6. being an expert
7. and all

 

Everyone want's to ask who you would get at this moment. That's not the issue. It's who has been available in the past 3-4 years.

 

So, who is that?

Obviously Brees.

Who else?

 

Do want a list of every qb that's been available in FA, via trade or draft the past 4 years?

 

there was one mentioned, so I'd guess there are more. Players who are realistically better.

Also, keep in mind Delhomme had a very good 2004 and was in the Pro Bowl in 05, so realistically it would be pretty tough IMO to really bitch at someone for not supplanting/replacing him that early.

 

Jake Delhomme's performance has not really fluctuated until this season, as he now seems hesitant to take chances. From 2003 to 2006 he was the same guy with the same strengths and the same flaws, his numbers just fluctuated depending upon the team around him and the opponents against him. He wasn't special in 2004 or 2005 either.

I don't know why this is hard to understand. Does Jake Delhomme have well above average arm strength? No. Does Jake Delhomme have even average accuracy? No. Is Jake Delhomme better than average at reading defenses? No. So what exactly is he better than average at? Hello? Anyone? Bueller? Those who want to blindly defend Jake have steadfastly refused to say what it is that he does which makes him better than just some other quarterback in the NFL, except for that nonsensical insistence that he has magical powers to make good things happen at the end of games. If you can't come up with anything better than that, then why argue at all?


And for idiot wossa's sake, let me give an example of what I mean when I say that Jake is easily replaceable. Brodie Croyle is not a good quarterback. He has a fairly strong arm, but he isn't accurate and he isn't great at reading defenses. Gee, that sounds an awful lot like someone else we know. In my opinion, Jake Delhomme would suck ass in Kansas City and Croyle would post similar numbers to what Delhomme has if he played here. Croyle isn't clueless like a Rex Grossman type, he's just limited in terms of what he can do, but his strengths would mesh well with having a sound offensive line and receivers like Smith. His skills and play type are similar to Jake's, but he's struggling with the Chiefs (when not injured) and Delhomme is making huge money with the Panthers. The difference is one of circumstance, not talent.

 

Passion.

 

http://football.about.com/od/nationalfootballleague/a/freeagentQB.htm