Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

If we get Luck, Bring Jake back..


  • Please log in to reply
97 replies to this topic

#76 Baschski

Baschski

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,837 posts

Posted 22 December 2010 - 05:59 PM

This poll shows us how sad our franchise is


Why? Because every team should have an All-Pro 3rd string QB?

#77 AceMan

AceMan

    Huddle Vet

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,645 posts

Posted 22 December 2010 - 06:18 PM

Why? Because every team should have an All-Pro 3rd string QB?


Our team has many holes...we don't even have a starting QB yet we're worried about a 3rd string "veteran" QB because deep down...people can't get over their Delhomme lovefest.

#78 Baschski

Baschski

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,837 posts

Posted 22 December 2010 - 06:21 PM

Our team has many holes...we don't even have a starting QB yet we're worried about a 3rd string "veteran" QB because deep down...people can't get over their Delhomme lovefest.


Luckily none of this meaningless conversation we have here on the Huddle actually has anything to do with what the Front Office does.

It has nothing to do with a "lovefest." We need a veteran QB. Delhomme is a veteran QB, a high character guy and can be signed for cheap. It makes good business sense. Everyone freaking out about the idea of bringing him back and saying that we need to "get over him" and "move on" are really being more emotional about this than those of us who understand that it would be a smart move for the franchise to bring Delhomme back.

#79 Frash Brastard

Frash Brastard

    The Frashmaker

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,590 posts

Posted 22 December 2010 - 06:24 PM

can someone come up with a better argument than

"well what do you expect, joe montana at 3rd QB?!! HADUUURRRR!!!! HADURRRRR!!!!11!!!!"

#80 Baschski

Baschski

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,837 posts

Posted 22 December 2010 - 06:27 PM

can someone come up with a better argument than

"well what do you expect, joe montana at 3rd QB?!! HADUUURRRR!!!! HADURRRRR!!!!11!!!!"


Come someone come up with a better argument than

"get over it. he used to played for us so he obviously should never be on the team again."

Or...perhaps someone could propose a better veteran QB option?! Nah, that'd be asking too much.

#81 Raskle

Raskle

    Huddle Rogue

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,467 posts

Posted 22 December 2010 - 06:41 PM

Come someone come up with a better argument than

"get over it. he used to played for us so he obviously should never be on the team again."

Or...perhaps someone could propose a better veteran QB option?! Nah, that'd be asking too much.


I wouldn't mind having Brodie Croyle as our backup. He's been in the league a couple of years, shouldn't cost much if KC doesn't decide to tender him, and wouldn't be too much of an obstacle to (hopefully) starting Andrew Luck. Keep Pickles at 3rd string to develop into a capable backup, or see what you can get in trade and re-sign Moore to that spot if possible.

This works even if you let all three or four battle it out in Training Camp, and allows the best to shine for the #1 QB spot with the new coach - best man win and all that. Honestly feel it will be the first time in years that the competition for roster spots and positions on the depth chart will truly be "open" and not just rote talk.

#82 Frash Brastard

Frash Brastard

    The Frashmaker

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,590 posts

Posted 22 December 2010 - 06:41 PM

Come someone come up with a better argument than

"get over it. he used to played for us so he obviously should never be on the team again."

Or...perhaps someone could propose a better veteran QB option?! Nah, that'd be asking too much.


Ok i will

I believe Jake offers nothing substantial as a QB, in any way shape or form

He went 2-2? First off all that fuging annoying QB wins/losses stat is emphasized way more than it should be, and if Kasay doesn't miss a game winning field goal he's 1-3 with his awful performance this year

second of all, I'd rather have 2 QBs, (one rookie top draft prospect and one veteran, such as Seneca Wallace who can actually play well and doesn't turn the ball over like he's sandbagging to cash in on a bet), and then commit that extra roster spot to defensive line depth or something else than actually give a roster spot to delhomme

and don't say it doesn't have anything to do with it being Delhomme and missing him because if it doesn't you would be making a similar case for every other poo backup in the league. Yes it does have something to do with him being delhomme, and don't deny it when you said just earlier in this thread "BRING THE RAGIN CAJUN HOMEEE!!!"

#83 KillerKat

KillerKat

    Top Banana

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,284 posts

Posted 22 December 2010 - 06:55 PM

Good luck finding any 3rd string QB's in the league that are actually good enough to play and win.


My arguement had nothing to do with 3rd string, reread.

It's no surprise you support Jake. You still think Godfrey is actually good.

#84 Baschski

Baschski

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,837 posts

Posted 22 December 2010 - 06:55 PM

Ok i will

I believe Jake offers nothing substantial as a QB, in any way shape or form

He went 2-2? First off all that f**king annoying QB wins/losses stat is emphasized way more than it should be, and if Kasay doesn't miss a game winning field goal he's 1-3 with his awful performance this year

second of all, I'd rather have 2 QBs, (one rookie top draft prospect and one veteran, such as Seneca Wallace who can actually play well and doesn't turn the ball over like he's sandbagging to cash in on a bet), and then commit that extra roster spot to defensive line depth or something else than actually give a roster spot to delhomme

and don't say it doesn't have anything to do with it being Delhomme and missing him because if it doesn't you would be making a similar case for every other poo backup in the league. Yes it does have something to do with him being delhomme, and don't deny it when you said just earlier in this thread "BRING THE RAGIN CAJUN HOMEEE!!!"


Thanks for finally giving a rational argument instead of just attacking those who disagree. I think your 2 QB proposal makes a lot of sense, but probably won't happen because we won't cut Jimmy.

Also, me saying "Bring the Ragin Cajun home" has nothing to do, logically, with the reasons that I gave for signing him. Notice that I put that phrase AFTER I gave a reasonable argument, not before. It's irrelavent that he's the Ragin Cajun. What is relavent is that he's a veteran who has been to the Super Bowl, is a high character guy, and won't demand a big contract.

The point is that we are, in all likelihood, going to sign a veteran QB to be our #3. Maybe Jake doesn't offer anything substantial other than mentorship, but 3rd string QB's are 3rd string QB's for that very reason. You can't have a 3rd string QB and have someone capable of starting and producing--they're mutually exclusive. If they were good enough to produce they wouldn't be a 3rd string guy.

#85 Baschski

Baschski

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,837 posts

Posted 22 December 2010 - 06:57 PM

It's no surprise you support Jake. You still think Godfrey is actually good.


Can't come up with a reasonable response to my argument so you bring up a completely irrelavent and unrelated point to try to discredit me. Desperation moves ftw.

#86 KillerKat

KillerKat

    Top Banana

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,284 posts

Posted 22 December 2010 - 07:00 PM

Can't come up with a reasonable response to my argument so you bring up a completely irrelavent and unrelated point to try to discredit me. Desperation moves ftw.


Because I already did but you choose to ignore it. The only thing different from my proposal and RB's is that I mentioned Pike/Clausen/Moore as the #3. Here it is right in front of your face for you since you pick and choose what to read.

A good vet that can be the #2 and can pitch in when the #1 goes down is much more beneficial to the team while Pike/Clausen/maybe even Moore is the #3. Then when the vet is gone, the #3 QB can become the #2 and will, if everything goes to plan, become a younger version of the vet that just left and can also pitch in when the #1 goes down. Having a piece of sh** vet in the mix that can't play worth a damn, while taking up a roster spot, does us no good.


besides one of the biggest reasons we let go of Delhomme anyway is because if we kept him, there would be a divided locker room and would be no way this franchise could move forward with someone else under center taking charge. It would just be a huge setback to bring him back. Get over it.



#87 Baschski

Baschski

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,837 posts

Posted 22 December 2010 - 07:00 PM

My arguement had nothing to do with 3rd string, reread.


Sorry, forgot to respond to this part. I understand what you're saying about bringing in a good #2, but the question is whether or not we should bring Jake in as the #3. Sure, you're probably right that "Jake can't play" but my point is that there really aren't any 3rd string QB's who CAN play.

#88 Baschski

Baschski

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,837 posts

Posted 22 December 2010 - 07:03 PM

Because I already did but you choose to ignore it. The only thing different from my proposal and RB's is that I mentioned Pike/Clausen/Moore as the #3. Here it is right in front of your face for you since you pick and choose what to read.


Ok, I did respond to the second part about the possible QB controversy. And you're right, I didn't previously address your first point, but now I just did. What you're saying makes sense and I wouldn't be opposed to bringing in a good vet as #2 (not sure who that would be though). The point I'm making is that if we're looking for a vet to be our #3, with Luck and Clausen as the #1 and the #2, then Jake isn't a bad option.

#89 KillerKat

KillerKat

    Top Banana

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,284 posts

Posted 22 December 2010 - 07:03 PM

My proposal benefits the team more because it starts a cycle. Vet at QB 2 comes while QB 3 sits and learns. Vet leaves, then the #3 because the vet QB 2 while we have another young QB 3 sitting and learning.

#90 Baschski

Baschski

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,837 posts

Posted 22 December 2010 - 07:05 PM

My proposal benefits the team more because it starts a cycle. Vet at QB 2 comes while QB 3 sits and learns. Vet leaves, then the #3 because the vet QB 2 while we have another young QB 3 sitting and learning.


Makes sense to me. I'm not sure the new coaching staff sends Jimmy to 3rd string though. Who are you thinking would fit this veteran #2 role?


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.