Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Johnathan Jones of the Charlotte Observer: Impressions after Day 3


  • Please log in to reply
86 replies to this topic

#61 mbarbour21

mbarbour21

    HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,089 posts

Posted 24 May 2013 - 01:26 PM

Jake would start over Sanchez. Haha!

Jake wasn't a bad QB, he just wasn't great. You can't argue that Smitty wouldn't have better numbers if Drew Brees or Rodgers had been his QB for his entire career. But the thing I liked about Jake was he truly trusted his team/receivers. You remember the year he was spun around in the backfield but somehow chunked it deep to Moose in the endzone? That was crazy!!! He threw it up and gave his receiver a chance to make a play.

Smartest way to play? Maybe not, but I can think of worse.

#62 GolfRasta

GolfRasta

    Junior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 418 posts
  • LocationPinehurst

Posted 24 May 2013 - 01:44 PM

 You can't argue that Smitty wouldn't have better numbers if Drew Brees had been his QB for his entire career.

 

Blasphemy!  Fug Brees!



#63 DeAngelo's #1 Fan(CRA)

DeAngelo's #1 Fan(CRA)

    Senior Member

  • Moderators
  • 26,270 posts

Posted 24 May 2013 - 01:45 PM

I said gunslingers typically have higher yardage games because of the nature of their game, i didnt say that was the sole definition, quit straw-manning.  yes favre is the top of the list. no brady isnt a gunslinger. Jake delhomme was a game managing QB who simply failed to be a consistent thrower. he didnt try to force a lot that wasnt there like favre did, he just simply made bad decisions because thats who he was.

 

But if it makes you feel better by saying he was a gunslinger than so be it, ill stop arguing.

LOL....okay, let get this straight.

 

1.  Jake wasn't a gambling gunslinger but a game manager

2.  He didn't force a lot of throws that weren't there.

 

Okay, good job.  You got us.  Good job.  Nice trolling.  No sane person would say that.



#64 mbarbour21

mbarbour21

    HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,089 posts

Posted 24 May 2013 - 01:54 PM

Blasphemy! Fug Brees!


Okay, so maybe I could have picked a diff QB for the example. Haha! But brees threw a lot of TDs last year, and threw for a buttload of yards.....this probably isn't helping......is it? Lol!

#65 Panther4lyfe

Panther4lyfe

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 178 posts

Posted 24 May 2013 - 02:04 PM

Come on, man. I don't think Frizzy was trashing Delhomme by calling him a "limited" QB. That's exactly what he was. I learned to respect Jake over time, but Delhomme was never a great QB---never Hall material. Ever. Now I will give him this, he was aggressive, had a great attitude, and was perhaps the greatest game manager that you'll ever see. On many teams today---and even back then---Delhomme of 8 years ago is a back-up, straight up!  His play did not rise to the level of Matthew Stafford's, Daunte Culpepper's, and arguably Jon Kitna's. Even Dan Orlovsky, Drew Stanton and Shaun Hill could best Delhomme's play on any given Sunday, That's just how I see it.  That being said, Delhomme was a blue-collar QB from Cajun country that many Carolina fans fell in love with.  I get it.

 

But, don't let your love for Jake blind you to the fact that Smitty made Jake in a sense. It wasn't the other way around. Smitty was making the acrobatic catches and earning YAC in historic proportions.  Smitty is a legitimate prospect for a bust in Canton, notwithstanding having to fight his way (no pun intended) off the bench into the starting rotation. Megatron never had to do this. Don't get me wrong, Megatron is perhaps the greatest we'll ever see when it's all said and done, but neither he nor Jerry Rice would refer to Steve Smith and poo, or any derivative thereof, within the same sentence. Give 25-year-old Smitty or any-age Smitty a QB that consistently slings the rock around 4000 to 5000 yards a season, and particularly one that's accurate, and Smith is a lock HOFER.

 

Ya I agree Delhomme wasn't that good. To tell you the truth I never really liked Delhomme, but hey he got us to a Superbowl, but it forsure wasn't because of him. LinvilleGorge I'm sorry but Smitty at 25 could just about challenge anybody that plays in the NFL right now.

 

Nobody has the toughness (besides maybe Hines Wards and he's not playing right now) plus the ability to make plays at their sizes like Smitty did and still can. Megatron is what 6'4 or 6'5 (I know not his fault he was born with such a amazing physical size), but if he was Smitty's size he wouldn't be able to do half the things he's able to do now.

 

Just to prove that, did you remember the game where Smitty caught the ball, while barely staying in bounds, running on his tippy toes, and still scoring. I don't know anybody in this league that could do that when they were rookies all the way till a 10 year vet.

 

Megatron is great and maybe better than Smitty now, but at 25 I'll take Smitty over Megatron, just because of his personality and athletic ability.



#66 DeAngelo's #1 Fan(CRA)

DeAngelo's #1 Fan(CRA)

    Senior Member

  • Moderators
  • 26,270 posts

Posted 24 May 2013 - 02:10 PM

Ya I agree Delhomme wasn't that good. To tell you the truth I never really liked Delhomme, but hey he got us to a Superbowl, but it forsure wasn't because of him. LinvilleGorge I'm sorry but Smitty at 25 could just about challenge anybody that plays in the NFL right now.

 

Nobody has the toughness (besides maybe Hines Wards and he's not playing right now) plus the ability to make plays at their sizes like Smitty did and still can. Megatron is what 6'4 or 6'5 (I know not his fault he was born with such a amazing physical size), but if he was Smitty's size he wouldn't be able to do half the things he's able to do now.

 

Just to prove that, did you remember the game where Smitty caught the ball, while barely staying in bounds, running on his tippy toes, and still scoring. I don't know anybody in this league that could do that when they were rookies all the way till a 10 year vet.

 

Megatron is great and maybe better than Smitty now, but at 25 I'll take Smitty over Megatron, just because of his personality and athletic ability.

Actually....we did get to the Superbowl in large part of Delhomme, Kasay, our D and RBs.

 

You might want to go back and check exactly how clutch was in 2003. Jake was BIG in BIG moments often.  Can't dismiss that....he was a big part of that Superbowl run.



#67 mbarbour21

mbarbour21

    HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,089 posts

Posted 24 May 2013 - 02:18 PM

Ya I agree Delhomme wasn't that good. To tell you the truth I never really liked Delhomme, but hey he got us to a Superbowl, but it forsure wasn't because of him. LinvilleGorge I'm sorry but Smitty at 25 could just about challenge anybody that plays in the NFL right now.

Nobody has the toughness (besides maybe Hines Wards and he's not playing right now) plus the ability to make plays at their sizes like Smitty did and still can. Megatron is what 6'4 or 6'5 (I know not his fault he was born with such a amazing physical size), but if he was Smitty's size he wouldn't be able to do half the things he's able to do now.

Just to prove that, did you remember the game where Smitty caught the ball, while barely staying in bounds, running on his tippy toes, and still scoring. I don't know anybody in this league that could do that when they were rookies all the way till a 10 year vet.

Megatron is great and maybe better than Smitty now, but at 25 I'll take Smitty over Megatron, just because of his personality and athletic ability.


Imma have to disagree that we didn't get there because of him, but my reasoning is because we wouldnt have got there without him.

Remember first game against Jags that year, down 17-0 going into half-time. They put Jake in and the rest is history. Jake slips it in to ricky proehl in corner of endzone last second to win the game. Don't think we would have been in super bowl that year without him.

#68 Frizzy350

Frizzy350

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,348 posts

Posted 24 May 2013 - 02:19 PM

You mean the most accomplished NFL QB we've ever had in a run first offense?  Yeah...

 

No need to trash Delhomme to praise Smitty.  It's okay to love 'em both.

 

And in all fairness, CJ shits on a 25 year old Smitty.  I love Smitty to death.  He's probably the best offensive player in Panthers' history, but CJ very well may go down as the greatest WR of all time.  He has a legitimate shot at eclipsing Jerry Rice.  He really does.  He's just that damn talented and that damn good.  You can't teach elite WR speed with elite TE size.

 

There is a reason I picked the word "limited" to describe jake.  Jake (in his prime) was a very good quarterback.  He elevated the play of all those around him and ran the run and gun offense as well as anyone in the league (except Peyton of course).  As a passer however, Jake was VERY limited.  He flat out was not all that accurate and often made exceptionally risky decisions.  Sometimes it worked out, and us fans and other players often believed in him - making it all the more magical when it did work out.  Jakes play leading up to and in the superbowl in 2003 single handedly made average household fans know who the Panthers are - but more importantly he gave our team an identity that resonates with many average fans even today.  Think about how with the dts we drafted and our already stellar DEs the immediate connection anyone you talk to makes is, is to that front 4 we had in 2003 (oh and the white MLB who makes 40 tackles a game).

 

A little sidetracked but back to the smith/johnson debate.  It really depends on what you consider makes a great professional receiver.  Statistically, Johnson WILL own every receiving record in the books by the end of his career.  Do you not think Smith would already own those records with a QB on Staffords level or higher (and honestly I see many similarities between stafford and Delhomme, but stafford and many of these young qbs coming out now just has the arm strength and accuracy jake simply could never match)?  What if smith didn't lose 2 years being designated a return specialist and 1 year from a broken leg?

 

Even so, thats all numbers.  Jerry Rice isn't the greatest receiver in the NFL history because of his numbers, his numbers back up his game.  From a physical standpoint, both smith and johnson were of the fastest players in the league and the best leapers, the big obvious difference is the 9 inches in height calvin has.  Obviously this makes it a bit easier to obtain touchdown catches, but I'd be willing to argue smith generated a bigger impact in games than calvin.  How often do we see Megatron leveling defensive linemen blocking?  What about making plays like in Cam's 72 yard td run vs Atlanta?  Smith in his prime easily got more actual separation than Calvin, so often I see DBs playing Calvin as perfect as you can cover someone, but if the ball is thrown high enough... well Calvin is going to get it.  It also needs to be kept in mind that Smith has always been an all purpose weapon.  Covering smith was an absolute chore, but you also had to account for him getting the ball behind the LOS, in space or on a kick/punt return.  Smith was a threat to take it for 6 every time he touched the ball - regardless of the situation.  Calvin abuses cornerbacks - absolutely, but smith made them look like absolute fools.

 

Even today we see so much out of Smith that just screams consummate all pro.  When a shaky pass is thrown near his feet and his hands just absorb the ball and he moves without a hitch.  When he runs a short 3 yard hook and the defender steps in front of smith, he immediately floats to the hole in the zone (I think this was also game 2 vs Atlanta).  When he grabs a ball that is out of bounds and drags those toes in... you just don't see Calvin doing this sort of stuff as often and as seamlessly smith does.

 

Really it comes down to what an individual values in a football player.  If you think the biggest and fastest guy on the field is the best player, then Calvin is your man.  In terms of football IQ, making a huge impact on every play and for everyone around you, winning (especially in the playoffs), drive, intensity and raw skill... if you value all that you'd probably love Steve Smith and Jerry Rice :)



#69 Frizzy350

Frizzy350

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,348 posts

Posted 24 May 2013 - 02:34 PM

wait to a second, I have never seen a QB in the superbowl that flat out sucks. A QB's role is way too important to not give credit to the him first and foremost for any team in the SB. When I think of comparisons to sucking I think of Namath, but he didnt flat out suck. He just wasnt great. Jake was a better QB than Namath to say the very least.

 

Can you really sit there and say, welp I know you got to a superbowl but yeah too bad your QB sucked. . can you reeeeally say that with a straight face and try to sound like you know what youre talking about? haha no, just point and laugh at the fools and move on.

 

Trent Dilfer.

 

Rex Grossman/Caleb Hanney/Kyle Orton (I dont remember who actually played QB in that game... but the chicago qbs were all pretty god awful that year)



#70 rayzor

rayzor

    shula is who i thought he was.

  • Moderators
  • -29,199 posts

Posted 24 May 2013 - 02:35 PM

LOL....okay, let get this straight.

 

1.  Jake wasn't a gambling gunslinger but a game manager

2.  He didn't force a lot of throws that weren't there.

 

Okay, good job.  You got us.  Good job.  Nice trolling.  No sane person would say that.

 

or no person that actually watched the games.

 

i'm trying hard to not point out that this would be a good time to sit back and listen to the adults and learn a thing or two, but i won't because i don't want to come across as demeaning.
 



#71 DeAngelo's #1 Fan(CRA)

DeAngelo's #1 Fan(CRA)

    Senior Member

  • Moderators
  • 26,270 posts

Posted 24 May 2013 - 02:56 PM

or no person that actually watched the games.

 

i'm trying hard to not point out that this would be a good time to sit back and listen to the adults and learn a thing or two, but i won't because i don't want to come across as demeaning.
 

I mean, seriously....or go to you tube and watch a Steve Smith highlight film that shows his career.  His splash reel is so good b/c it doesn't consist of him running a route, beating a man, and simply catching an open pass to run into the endzone.  He made plays on balls that would be incompletions for your standard WR routinely.

 

I mean how Saints games especially can you recall Smitty literally catching balls that had no business being completed.  Jake would throw balls that literally some how went inbetween oceans of defenders and somehow into Smitty's hands.



#72 Navy_football

Navy_football

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 854 posts
  • LocationArlington, VA

Posted 24 May 2013 - 03:15 PM

Jake was mediocre at best. I honestly didn't realize this until the Seattle debacle in 2005 I think. The Seahawks swallowed their pride and double/triple covered Smitty and Jake couldn't complete a pass to anyone else. Add that with the fact that we were down to the 5th string RB and the route was on.

 

I've always described Smitty as a better football player than Moss/Fitz/Calvin, but they're better WRs because of their ability to go up and get the ball. Smitty had/has the ability to bring the ball down in a crowd, just not as well as Calvin/Moss/Moss. But none of those players have the ability to take a smoke screen to the house like Smitty can.



#73 rayzor

rayzor

    shula is who i thought he was.

  • Moderators
  • -29,199 posts

Posted 24 May 2013 - 03:26 PM

Jake was mediocre at best. I honestly didn't realize this until the Seattle debacle in 2005 I think. The Seahawks swallowed their pride and double/triple covered Smitty and Jake couldn't complete a pass to anyone else. Add that with the fact that we were down to the 5th string RB and the route was on.

 

I've always described Smitty as a better football player than Moss/Fitz/Calvin, but they're better WRs because of their ability to go up and get the ball. Smitty had/has the ability to bring the ball down in a crowd, just not as well as Calvin/Moss/Moss. But none of those players have the ability to take a smoke screen to the house like Smitty can.

 

the seattle debacle happened because our RBs had all fallen apart and we had no other receiving option worth a crap aside from smitty because that's the way fox wanted to play football. their perception was we didn't need any WRs other than smith. the rest of the guys were just guys they threw out there. TEs were used to block and our number 2 WR was keary frikkin colbert. who else was jake going to throw to? the game plan for years had been "feed the stud" and that was smith. keep on running and throwing the ball to smith downfield. once the RBs broke all there was was smitty. it was a gameplan bound to fail and it did.



#74 I Mean He Was Found Guilty

I Mean He Was Found Guilty

    We dominated time of possession though!

  • ALL-PRO
  • 10,968 posts
  • LocationChapel Hill

Posted 24 May 2013 - 04:08 PM

the seattle debacle happened because our RBs had all fallen apart and we had no other receiving option worth a crap aside from smitty because that's the way fox wanted to play football. their perception was we didn't need any WRs other than smith. the rest of the guys were just guys they threw out there. TEs were used to block and our number 2 WR was keary frikkin colbert. who else was jake going to throw to? the game plan for years had been "feed the stud" and that was smith. keep on running and throwing the ball to smith downfield. once the RBs broke all there was was smitty. it was a gameplan bound to fail and it did.

 

i'm still dumbfounded by the gameplan we used in that game.  seattle knew that the entire offense ran through so smith so they just threw the kitchen sink at him and it worked.

 

seriously if we would have sent some TEs out on pass patterns it probably would have blown ray rhodes' mind.  i get the feeling that most other teams in the league would have anticipated seattle trying to take away their top offensive weapon and would at least install a new package or two or throw some different formations at them.  but no, we lined up two tights all night like it was 2003 and we were just going to run over them.



#75 Frizzy350

Frizzy350

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,348 posts

Posted 24 May 2013 - 04:20 PM

the seattle debacle happened because our RBs had all fallen apart and we had no other receiving option worth a crap aside from smitty because that's the way fox wanted to play football. their perception was we didn't need any WRs other than smith. the rest of the guys were just guys they threw out there. TEs were used to block and our number 2 WR was keary frikkin colbert. who else was jake going to throw to? the game plan for years had been "feed the stud" and that was smith. keep on running and throwing the ball to smith downfield. once the RBs broke all there was was smitty. it was a gameplan bound to fail and it did.

 

Going to have to disagree with that.  Fox and Hurney always saw our lack of depth at receiver as a huge weakness and did alot to attempt to fix that problem.  Colbert was a second round pick, so was Dwayne Jarret.  We brought in guys like Keyshawn Johnson and DJ Hackett - brought Moose back at the end of his career.  We swung at this problem for years, we just happened to strike out every time.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com