Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Are people really STILL defending the decision to stick with Jake going into '09?

Sam Mills Fan

By Sam Mills Fan,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

AceMan Proficient

AceMan

Posted
Posted

I think half of the people STILL have some type of hope that Jake plays decent enough that he doesn't tarnish his legacy with Carolina. Right now, we are the laughing stock of the league for keeping this guy in. Worst starter in the league.

Who the hell pays a back-up QB 20 mil with no future with the team.

I say let Delhomme finish tarnishing his career here. Then get rid of him and Fox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
X-Clown Mentor

X-Clown

Posted
Posted

Just to clarify, what SMF interprets as "supporting the decision to keep Jake" is actually just disagreeing that Michael Vick would be a better option.

Those two things don't actually equate :nonod:

ding ding ding!!! Or suggesting that we should have taken Quinn because of his one good game this week over beason/kalil. And even better he had to start a whole new thread to hope to get some attaboys with his distortion of the argument. Classic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CRA Grand Master

CRA

Posted
Posted

Fox is proving to you that Moore is not capable of performing by not playing him and by overreacting when McCown went down and putting him on IR.

Sadly, Delhomme is our best option RIGHT NOW. Not the future but for now.

No. That isn't proof.

Moore was the best QB in 07(after Jake went down).......and Fox was finally forced to play him. Fox thought Carr and Vinny were better options. Now I can't blame him for not starting Moore very early.....but there came a point in time in that season where Moore looked to be the best option and Fox didn't pull the trigger.....it took an injury to force him.

Jake Delhomme is no longer Jake Delhomme. Jake Delhomme is a better option than Moore. This "2009 Jake Delhomme" isn't better than any starting QB in the NFL.....and I would guess 75% of backups could play slightly better than he has this season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sandy Claws Newbie

Sandy Claws

Posted
Posted

Interesting how some point to Moore in '07 and his 85 passer rating as a starter (67 overall) as the reason to start him over Delhomme who had a 110+ rating with that same team. Delhomme is not what he was but, for some reason. everybody wants to assume that Moore has improved. Of course, the only ones that know for sure are the ones that have seen him play. You know the guys, the ones that see him everyday in practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CRA Grand Master

CRA

Posted
Posted

Interesting how some point to Moore in '07 and his 85 passer rating as a starter (67 overall) as the reason to start him over Delhomme who had a 110+ rating with that same team. Delhomme is not what he was but, for some reason. everybody wants to assume that Moore has improved. Of course, the only ones that know for sure are the ones that have seen him play. You know the guys, the ones that see him everyday in practice.

yeah, the same guys who thought there was no better option than Godfrey this year........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • tukafan21
      We joke about how the NFL has a script for the season. But maybe it's not a joke?

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      lol, that second part is quite literally one of the dumbest things ever. Having or not having guaranteed contracts has absolutely nothing to do with how much these billionaires have to pay.  Because there is a hard cap and a minimum cap spend requirement, and teams either use their cap or roll it over to use it all the next year, so the owners have to pay the same amount of money in the end no matter what. Having fully guaranteed contracts in the NFL would only hurt salary cap management, and thus would end up screwing over the team and its fan base when teams kiss on signings as they take up cap room that is needed to improve the roster. Look at the Browns with Watson, they gave him the fully guaranteed deal and all it’s doing is sucking up massive cap space now.  If they hadn’t done that, the owner would still be paying the same amount of money each year as that cap space would still be used elsewhere. If you want to argue for fully guaranteed contracts because the players deserve it, that’s an entirely different argument and a fair one to discuss.  But anyone against fully guaranteed deals isn’t doing it to argue for the billionaire owners.
    • rayzor
      Our guys working their azz's off to be the winners they know they are!!

      By rayzor · Posted

      Start posting in threads in the other forums instead of just creating threads. No one comes over here so you aren't starting conversations.  Get your ass up to 100 posts. It's not that hard. Don't create 100 posts. Contribute to conversations. 
    • Rocky Davis
      NHL Draft 2025

      By Rocky Davis · Posted

      Ryabkin could be the steal of the draft, he was a Top 10 pick heading into last season and had a rough year.  Lots of GMs passed on him because of that and his workouts. Pick has really high upside and Svech should be able to translate Rod tearing his arse a new one for making dumb plays since Svech has had several years of it.  🤣😂
×
×
  • Create New...