Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Cut Delhomme


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#1 HSCBandit07

HSCBandit07

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,118 posts

Posted 18 February 2010 - 11:48 AM

So I hear that the Panthers are considering cutting Delhomme to save money (no links). Is it possible to cut him and resign him for far less? I would feel more comfortable with a veteran somewhere in the depth chart that knows our system. Even if he needs to clear wavers or something, I'm sure that won't be a problem (excluding maybe the browns?). Sorry to start a new thread about this, just curious.

#2 RockyTopVol

RockyTopVol

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,661 posts

Posted 18 February 2010 - 11:49 AM

didn't John Clayton JUST say on ESPN that he still thinks (based on what he's heard) that Delhomme will be the starter in week one next year?

#3 Baschski

Baschski

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,837 posts

Posted 18 February 2010 - 11:54 AM

John Clayton is talking out of his ass.

#4 The Link

The Link

    Satire Enthusiast

  • ALL-PRO
  • 2,998 posts

Posted 18 February 2010 - 11:55 AM

didn't John Clayton JUST say on ESPN that he still thinks (based on what he's heard) that Delhomme will be the starter in week one next year?


John Clayton is an idiot. So is the person who told the OP that.

On a different note, John Clayton looks like Gollum.

Posted Image

Posted Image

#5 KillerKat

KillerKat

    Top Banana

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,027 posts

Posted 18 February 2010 - 11:57 AM

knowing the system should not be the reason to keep Delhomme. That's just idiocy. Using that logic, we should've kept Weinke. He knew the system.

#6 rayzor

rayzor

    shula is who i thought he was.

  • Moderators
  • -29,449 posts

Posted 18 February 2010 - 12:07 PM

cutting jake wouldn't save money.

#7 CatMan72

CatMan72

    KEEP POUNDING

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,159 posts

Posted 18 February 2010 - 12:12 PM

Would all depend on whether or not there is a cap... if there is a cap then cutting him would cause some pretty serious cap implications for us (most specifically a ton of dead money counting against our cap). If there is no cap, then we could cut him with much less of a financial penalty. Teams in general are expected to do quite a bit of "salary dumping" if there is no cap this year, it's a chance to clean the books without the cap implications.

#8 Zcustom

Zcustom

    The Irish Hammer

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,698 posts

Posted 18 February 2010 - 12:13 PM

but what if we cut him and someone else signed him away from us????

#9 KillerKat

KillerKat

    Top Banana

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,027 posts

Posted 18 February 2010 - 12:13 PM

but what if we cut him and someone else signed him away from us????


:party:

#10 Khyber53

Khyber53

    I'm a believer

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,721 posts

Posted 18 February 2010 - 12:40 PM

Look, Delhomme renegotiated last year to help us stay under the Cap. He took a hit to his pay before the year started, but it also came with the caveat that we would pay him millions this year, no matter what.

So, he has a disastrous year in 2009, and we're still on the hook for his millions this year. Do you cut him? No. His impact against the cap (should there be one) is the same either way. His real dollar cost will be the same, either way. So, you keep him on the team at second string QB.

Why? Well, it wouldn't make any financial sense to cut Delhomme and then try to pick up an experienced back-up for Moore... in effect paying double. What's more, Delhomme could come in as a back up at a moment's notice, since he knows the system and the players. In addition, he can mentor Moore in the system and the players, improving Moore's chances, something no one else will be able to do from the #2 QB position.

And lastly, if he comes into a game off of the bench, he could show that he has his game back and we'd be in good shape.

Cut him and well, might as well just set a few million dollars on fire. A few disgruntled fans could dance around the flames and feel vindicated. Yeah, that'd be a good idea.

#11 KillerKat

KillerKat

    Top Banana

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,027 posts

Posted 18 February 2010 - 12:50 PM

Look, Delhomme renegotiated last year to help us stay under the Cap. He took a hit to his pay before the year started, but it also came with the caveat that we would pay him millions this year, no matter what.

So, he has a disastrous year in 2009, and we're still on the hook for his millions this year. Do you cut him? No. His impact against the cap (should there be one) is the same either way. His real dollar cost will be the same, either way. So, you keep him on the team at second string QB.

Why? Well, it wouldn't make any financial sense to cut Delhomme and then try to pick up an experienced back-up for Moore... in effect paying double. What's more, Delhomme could come in as a back up at a moment's notice, since he knows the system and the players. In addition, he can mentor Moore in the system and the players, improving Moore's chances, something no one else will be able to do from the #2 QB position.

And lastly, if he comes into a game off of the bench, he could show that he has his game back and we'd be in good shape.

Cut him and well, might as well just set a few million dollars on fire. A few disgruntled fans could dance around the flames and feel vindicated. Yeah, that'd be a good idea.


You're already setting money on fire by keeping him. He's useless. Knowing the sytem sure did us good last season :rolleyes:

You cut him because...

#1 He'll be interfering with competant QBs fighting for the starting job

#2 You don't want him teaching anyone anything

#3 He brings absolutely nothing to the table and if anything will hurt the team more if he sees the field again

#4 Other QBs on the roster will realize they have a legit shot at the starting gig without looking over thier shoulder

#5 He's taking up a roster spot that can be used for someone that can actually play QB

So in the end if it means we have to pay a lil more to get rid of a worthless QB and sign another thats worth a poo, so be it. Hurney and Fox got themselves in this mess and they'll have to bite the bullet.

#12 DeAngelo's #1 Fan(CRA)

DeAngelo's #1 Fan(CRA)

    Senior Member

  • Moderators
  • 25,294 posts

Posted 18 February 2010 - 01:01 PM

didn't John Clayton JUST say on ESPN that he still thinks (based on what he's heard) that Delhomme will be the starter in week one next year?


well, knowing Fox......I think most Panther fans should be prepared for that. I mean, Jake was never benched and Fox stated Jake would have still been playing last year if not for injury. Jake is a Fox guy and Moore isn't.......the only way Moore wins a camp battle in Fox's eyes is if the big guy tells Fox who he has to start.....otherwise, Jake will start week 1. I am almost certain that in Fox's eyes.....the turnaround was mostly credited to the team and not QB play.

#13 Darth Biscuit

Darth Biscuit

    Dark Lord

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,310 posts
  • LocationWilmington, NC

Posted 18 February 2010 - 01:03 PM

On a different note, John Clayton looks like Gollum.
]


Correction... John Clayton IS Gollum.

#14 grateflday

grateflday

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,413 posts

Posted 18 February 2010 - 01:17 PM

well, knowing Fox......I think most Panther fans should be prepared for that. I mean, Jake was never benched and Fox stated Jake would have still been playing last year if not for injury. Jake is a Fox guy and Moore isn't.......the only way Moore wins a camp battle in Fox's eyes is if the big guy tells Fox who he has to start.....otherwise, Jake will start week 1. I am almost certain that in Fox's eyes.....the turnaround was mostly credited to the team and not QB play.


It will definately be intersting to see how the QB position plays out. I for starters would like to see the organization make a move to try and bring in either J.Campbell or T.Jackson to compete for the starting position but we all know that isnt going to happen and has been debated in many threads on this board. So that being said, I can definately see Jake starting in week one no matter what happens in TC and the pre-season unless he completely implodes or Moore is outstanding above belief. The only difference next season is Jake will be on a short leash and get pulled right away if he sucks so bad again.

#15 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,719 posts
  • LocationAt the lake

Posted 18 February 2010 - 01:57 PM

You're already setting money on fire by keeping him. He's useless. Knowing the sytem sure did us good last season :rolleyes:

You cut him because...

#1 He'll be interfering with competant QBs fighting for the starting job

#2 You don't want him teaching anyone anything

#3 He brings absolutely nothing to the table and if anything will hurt the team more if he sees the field again

#4 Other QBs on the roster will realize they have a legit shot at the starting gig without looking over thier shoulder

#5 He's taking up a roster spot that can be used for someone that can actually play QB

So in the end if it means we have to pay a lil more to get rid of a worthless QB and sign another thats worth a poo, so be it. Hurney and Fox got themselves in this mess and they'll have to bite the bullet.


All of that is baseless speculation. There is absolutely no reason to cut him before final cuts at the end of the preseason. We carry 80 roster spots into camp so he isn't taking a spot away from anyone.

He may or may not have anything left. That will be decided in camp and the preseason. It is not unusual at all for athletes to struggle for a year or two after major surgery. Accuracy takes the longest to return and he was never known as that accurate to begin with.

Moore has already said that Jake helped him a lot this year with reads and in film work. Delhomme has conceded he would be fine as the backup and Moore has said they work well together.

Moore has the inside track to start this year. If for whatever reason Jake would somehow start, he would be on a shorter leash than Rodney Peete was on in 2003.

Jake had a horrible year last year no doubt but it remains to be seen whether he is washed up yet. Having 2 guys with starting experience is a huge benefit for us. If for some reason Moore gets injured I would rather have Jake than a no name draft pick or Feeley or McCown as my backup.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com