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!

     

Delhomme #40 NFL QB All-time?


dbeat

Recommended Posts

According to this website http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=1808 Jake Delhomme has been doing pretty well with what he's been given with. Sorry if this has already been posted but I found this pretty interesting. By combining statistics based on how well the defense is for each qb's team and their win-loss percentage, #17 is #7 in current qbs and #40 of alltime qbs. Slowly I'm starting to forget and forgive Arizona.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe its the anticipation of the new season, or maybe I'm realizing he's pulled out more wins than has lost us games, but he's a much better qb then most Panther fans give him credit for. I haven't seen a game like Arizona ever from Jake. I think he just needs a strong #2, with the current game plan the only reliable receiver is #89.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been researching statistics like crazy, watching games on all sorts of teams, and I'll be honest, Jake is much better than we gave him credit for. He's not ever going to be an elite QB, but to suggest he's the problem just doesn't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 years after Delhomme retires he will be a legend in Carolina.

It will be; "back when Delhomme was the QB", blah, blah, blah.....

Folks just dont realize how hard it is to find QB's.

Look throughout history any you can only name a handful of elite QB's. They just dont fall off tree's.

One day we will get our "Tom Brady", but I will stand behind our Jake Delhomme until he cant win games. And thats something he has always done!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been researching statistics like crazy, watching games on all sorts of teams, and I'll be honest, Jake is much better than we gave him credit for. He's not ever going to be an elite QB, but to suggest he's the problem just doesn't work.

I think that's part of it right there.

I think a lot of people love "pretty" type QBs like Bledsoe who had near perfect mechanics threw a nice ball etc. However, I watched Bledsoe long enough to know he was like a Ferrari with a Yugo engine. Sure he would rack up some pretty yardage stats, but he wasn't coachable, he would never work on his game to get better and many, many times when he needed to make plays, all that would happen was INTs. Even very late in his career when he was in Dallas, Parcells had to manage him and have him read only one side of the field. Parcells knew his limitations and could work with them.

There's nothing really "pretty" about the way Jake plays. Can the guy get the job done most of the time, does his team believe in him and does he help his team win and help them all be better? That's all that matters...those type of results/attributes. And those can't be quantified by how pretty it looks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...