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!

     

Fox Says Jake Will Most Likely Start in 2009


Cass4Carolina

Recommended Posts

Just read this article so I thought I'd share it with you guys.

"...Still, the Panthers expressed faith in Delhomme afterward. "Jake is a hell of a quarterback who had a rough night," Panthers coach John Fox said. And while Fox said he can't predict the future, he also said, "That's kind of what my thinking is," when asked if Delhomme would be his starting quarterback in 2009.

Added Smith, who didn't make his first catch until late in the third quarter: "That's my quarterback. That's the guy I stand behind."

We saw Saturday night why Kurt Warner started in front of Delhomme for the Amsterdam Admirals in NFL Europe back in 1998. Warner is a classic drop-back quarterback. Delhomme is a gunslinger. A risk taker. Often, those risks work.

Saturday, I can't remember a single one that did - not when it mattered, anyway. Delhomme fell on the sword afterward, taking the blame for everything that happened. In a matter-of-fact voice, he said he felt worse about his performance in this game than any other game he had ever played at any level.

"Not even close," he said. And: "I didn't give us a chance tonight." And: "It wasn't our night. It wasn't mine - that's for sure."

Delhomme remains the quarterback that took Carolina to the Super Bowl in 2003, the NFC Championship Game in 2005 and to a 12-4 regular-season record this season.

We all saw what the Panthers looked like without him in 2007. But we also all know that there is a Good Jake and a Bad Jake - who appeared in the playoffs once before, when Delhomme threw three interceptions at Seattle in the 2005 NFC Championship Game.

Although Bad Jake hasn't climbed out of his dungeon very often this season, he reappeared Saturday."

Here's the full article if you're interested: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/sports/articles/2009/01/10/20090110spt-pantherscolumn.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Over and over, Arizona picked Delhomme off. Give the Cardinals defenders credit - they caught everything. If that had been the Panthers' defensive backfield, at least three of those would have been dropped."

Wow, did one of us write that article?

No, it was on an Arizona newspaper website, so they may be slightly biased (or truthful...whichever).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Yep, like I said, I don't mind guaranteeing them money, but make the contracts smaller amounts in order to minimize cap implications. I don't know about "half," the actual amounts, whether more or less than half, would have to be determined by the NFL and NFLPA (which will probably be highly contentious, if not "impossible").  I'm just for whatever leads to the best product on the field while also unaffecting my wallet. As an aside, the NFL owners are greedy bastards in my estimation. They're trying to keep a larger portion of the pie, but players' agents are greedy as well, and they've sewn seeds of greed among the players. It's not all their fault; we all know what our society has evolved into, but the NFL wants a bigger piece of our smaller pocketbooks and refuses to "negotiate" with us (that's why we don't have cheaper and more reasonable à la carte options to view games that they're gradually trying to migrate to paid TV), so fu<k 'em. And then on top of that we have guys trying to water down the product even more by feeding greed. Change the way things are done so that we can at least see players prove themselves on the field without throwing wrenches into the engine that pays guys that have proven they can play on a pro level.
    • So if one of the parents wants to buy the theatre group or the band lunch they should get banned?
    • OK, I didn't realize this was about high school, but...if I'm spending my personal money trying to help some kids out, then no one is going to tell me how to spend my money. I get enough of the government spending my money--allocating my tax dollars--to children who don't really need anything, and now they're trying to tell me how to spend my personal money? Sure, there are many other issues to consider and rabbit holes that we could go down due to ethical concerns because it concerns kids, and the need for transparency is extremely important, but maybe as opposed to trying to stop kids from benefitting in darkness, we need to open up the blinds (and blinders) a little bit so that they can benefit in the light. I get where you're coming from, but this is a loaded and layered issue, and I'm just trying to give you some food for thought. 
×
×
  • Create New...