Delhomme

No - just ones that would've been better than Delhomme.

I think they tried to create competition with Carr. Oops.

They obviously weren't thrilled with depth - canning Basanez, then trading for McCown - who was slated to start in Miami before the Favre drama.

They've done stuff. I think the trouble - and the discussion here - is whether Delhomme is that easily replaceable. My opinion is that he isn't. If he is, I'm just curious who would've been a better choice over the past few years.

Maybe Pennington this year? Favre this year would've been an upgrade, but not like us to make a move like that.

Who else?

 

Leadership.

 

no one's really called him a special or elite player. Your last argument was that i was doing that, too, and I'm not. That's a lot different than saying "any of a hundred players could do that" or "he wouldn't be starting if not for Smith". He's an average starter, and he's a starting NFL player, there's no doubt about that. If the argument is "we should go get an elite player", then I don't disagree. if we can actually do a fair bit better, then we should. And those options come around rarely - at best, it's "wow, Aaron Rodgers fell to us and we don't have many other needs."

And again, it takes a lot more than the three criteria you gave to be an average starter in the NFL for years at a time. A ton more. If it were just those three, that would be all NFL teams look for, and there's a lot more than just that. And past those other attributes, I have a hard time believing you're completely discounting intangibles in a quarterback.

 

In Collin's mind that is negligable.

 

Of course there is doubt about that. You were sure that George Seifert was a great coach and not just a product of Bill Walsh building the team for him, but how did that work out? Similarly, there is understandable debate about whether or not Jake is a product of Smith & Muhammad given that he's done anything substantial with any other receiver. Jake has below average accuracy and arguably below average decision making. I don't see how being below average in his skills somehow makes him an "average starter."

So name them. Teenagers are the ones who use excuses like "I could explain why you're wrong, I just don't want to." If you can make an argument, then make it. If you can't, then why are you still babbling at all? Put up or shut up.

Jake's "leadership" didn't stop Smith from sucker-punching Lucas. Jake's "leadership" hasn't stopped this team's maddening inconsistency. Jake's "leadership" hasn't caused the team to always show the PASSION! certain fans keep screaming about. It seems like the team likes Delhomme and they seem to believe that he'll come through when it counts, but a lot of teams like and believe in their quarterbacks. The fact that he isn't Rex Grossman or Kerry Collins circa '98 doesn't make Delhomme special either.

 

unfortunately, for us to have a decent argument here, we'd have to throw some more decent wide receivers in the mix. keary colbert is absolutely terrible. as well as drew carter. dyson was a bust here. the one exception would be proehl. you can keep saying it's the receivers but ricky proehl isn't some high flying steve smith.

 

It's kinda funny that you're holding it against Delhomme that he didn't make more out of really shitty receivers like Carter and Colbert, but I guess it falls in line with discounting any positive performance because of a supporting cast.

I have all over this thread. You're the one that's stating there are only three. Carr had those three, failed. So certainly there are more. I've stated some I felt were both necessary and critical to the equation a few posts up, and you've passed them by.

And once again, no one's arguing that Delhomme's an elite QB. You seem to be the only one actually arguing whether he's a special quarterback. If your statement is that we should go get an elite quarterback, suggest how.

 

Muhammad didn't do shit without Jake or Siefert

 

This is such a pussy move, and one you use all the time. Just answer the god damned question and stop pretending like you've "answered it already." If I asked, then I clearly didn't see anything of the sort, so it would be a lot easier to just reiterate whatever you think I missed instead of using a bitch excuse about how you supposedly already said it. That's just a way for you to pretend like you've said something without ever having to say it.

For the record, I didn't say that those three traits are the only things relevant to playing quarterback. Those are just the three major ones. Stuff like mobility, leadership, etc are relevant but less important since you can play the position without them. You cannot play the position well if you don't have some degree of accuracy, arm strength, and an ability to read defenses.

It's always funny when you say something stupid and then later pretend that you didn't say it:

Abusive:
Actually Moose posted similar numbers in his first two years with Chicago as what he usually did here, the Bears were just stupid to expect 2004 all over again.

 

see, your bias is getting the better of you. It's not "a bitch excuse about how you supposedly already said it". It's something I stated, and you never answered.

So let's try this again. Re-read this post and decide whether I posted four right there. Those aren't all it takes, but "just those three" are the reasons guys like Carr fail at your test but have the three criteria.

I don't believe him special. I believe him to be competent, able, and good enough. If you want better, that's fine, I'd take an elite player if one were availalble and they aren't. The "wouldn't be starting" and "any of a hundred" are fallacies. As I said earlier, even Jim Haslett regrets not starting Delhomme, and we certainly weren't the only team pursuing him when he was available.