16. Jake Delhomme, Panthers, XXXVIII (2003) 16-33, 323 yards, 3 TD, 0 interceptions in 32-29 loss to Patriots. Delhomme's numbers were excellent, but unfortunately for him, Tom Brady was on the other side of the field. Delhomme connected on a Super Bowl-record 85-yard TD pass with Muhsin Muhammad, but an early fumble by the QB led to a Patriots touchdown.
Delhomme #16 all time Superbowl QB
#1
Posted 19 January 2009 - 05:22 PM
#2
Posted 19 January 2009 - 05:24 PM
#3
Posted 19 January 2009 - 07:31 PM
#4
Posted 19 January 2009 - 07:53 PM
#5
Posted 19 January 2009 - 10:41 PM
#6
Posted 19 January 2009 - 10:51 PM
#7
Posted 19 January 2009 - 11:17 PM
#8
Posted 19 January 2009 - 11:34 PM
:iagree: if we won, he would have easily been the MVP of that game too!Jake should be higher
#9
Posted 20 January 2009 - 08:39 AM
Whatever happened to playoff Jake?
Well Jake has not been doing well his last 2 playoff games. Back in 05 when we lost to Seattle, he only completed 15/35 for 195yds, 1TD 3INT...
In the loss to Arizona he completed 17/34 for 205yds, 1TD 5INT...
His completion percentage was actually better in the Arizona loss. In both losses the deficit ended up being 20 points. This is only his worse game because of the 2 more turnovers. Arizona, in my opinion is a better team than Seattle was back in 05, so it doesn't sting quite as bad as it did back in 05 for me.
#10
Posted 20 January 2009 - 09:16 AM
Whatever happened to playoff Jake?
seriously? one game. every team and quarterback has bed playoffs games. yes his was EXTREMELY bad, but we are spoiled by how well we have always done. the fact of the matter is that somehow the Cardinals are a SB team, and we should lay off jake a bit.
#11
Posted 20 January 2009 - 09:26 AM
seriously? one game. every team and quarterback has bed playoffs games. yes his was EXTREMELY bad, but we are spoiled by how well we have always done. the fact of the matter is that somehow the Cardinals are a SB team, and we should lay off jake a bit.
Did you miss the Seattle NFC championship game?
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users





