Delhomme #40 NFL QB All-time?

[top dawg]

That was just a pretty generic thread and certainly not meant at you. But you know, even I could hand off the ball 40- to 50 times a game...

I kind of figured that, Mint. Even if it had been, we're still cool. The response wasn't so directed towards you as it was our lady Huddler.

I am looking forward to the season. I am trying to contain my expectations, but I do believe the first six games will either send me sailing above the clouds or exile me to the Bermuda Triangle without any wind in my sails.

[Fireball77]

Fireball77, you must be having a bad day. I challenge you to peruse my posts and charge me as being more negative than critical. I also take exception to the fact that I'd be gloating if someone has a bad year. I have never done that, and never will. The only players that I have ever been critical of (and I did say critical) since I have graced the Huddle is Keary Colbert, Drew Carter (who I learned to respect), David Carr, Ken Lucas (after his second year) and Jake Delhomme. But, you probably don't recall that I even wrote a post one time (before the site was corrupted) that praised Delhomme for having all the qualities that makes him such a good person and basically a good QB. Now, of course I will on occasion call out a fellow Huddler who I deem is attacking me unfairly, but for the most part I try to stick to football, unlike some of our members and occasional trolls. You're off base, dear.

I was talking about SMF, not you. I guess you missed that beginning part of my post where I specifically directed that comment towards SMF?

[panthers roar]

Look at all the ones who looked like can't miss prospects...

Tim Couch

Ryan Leaf

David Carr

Randy Fasani

and Akili Smith.

All QB's have bad games, Delhommes just came at the wrong time - wouldn't have mattered as much during the regular season.

I remember Payton Manning throw 6 INTS in a game against the Chargers.....

[top dawg]

I was talking about SMF, not you. I guess you missed that beginning part of my post where I specifically directed that comment towards SMF?

OK, I get it. Sorry. Do you know what I thought SMF meant...? It's funny as hell, actually. The first word is "some", and the second word rhymes with brother...I'll tell ya. That's funny.

I thought that would have been a little out of character. Pardon me.

[Falcons1stPanthers2nd]

That list is bogus. Vickie ahead of Bart Starr, Bernie Kosar, and Steve Bartkowski.

[Fireball77]

OK, I get it. Sorry. Do you know what I thought SMF meant...? It's funny as hell, actually. The first word is "Some". I thought that would have been a little out of character. The first word is "some", and the second word rhymes with brother...I'll tell ya. That's funny.

TD (no that doesn't stand for TOTAL DUMBAZZ... ),

Holy crap! Guess my laziness with spelling out a username had unintended consequences.

I apologize for the misunderstanding. I figured that's what happened when you responded the way you did. I was thinking, HUH? I am glad you said something though so I could clear it up because I wouldn't want you to think I felt that way.

[top dawg]

TD (no that doesn't stand for TOTAL DUMBAZZ... ),

Holy crap! Guess my laziness with spelling out a username had unintended consequences.

I apologize for the misunderstanding. I figured that's what happened when you responded the way you did. I was thinking, HUH? I am glad you said something though so I could clear it up because I wouldn't want you to think I felt that way.

You're literally bringing tears to my eyes:rofl:

[Sam Mills Fan]

How the eff does SMF have all that rep when his main source of fun is being negative (not CRITICAL...NEGATIVE, there's a difference) and looking forward to gloating if a player has a bad year? EXTREMELY LAME.

Yes topdawg, I am not the only one who thinks Elway is a tad bit overrated. Not overrated the way Favre is, but overrated a bit, and definitely overrated as a pure passer. Not saying he wasn't very good, I just have a hard time with guys who are called elite (whether Peyton, Kelly, Elway, etc) and aren't better players more consistently in the playoffs.

u mad??

[Sam Mills Fan]

I'm bookmarking this thread for easy access once the season starts and Jake has his worst season as a Panther.

Hmmmm...

[top dawg]

My, oh my. The sentimentality and nostalgia of mediocrity.:nopity:

[King Taharqa]

LOL@this thread. "undying love"

[jpniner]

hilarious - time for Jake lovers to go into hibernation

[guyinchesapeake]

These things are always a waste of time, because the criteria is always subjective. How many times do teams give up points because they turned the ball over? How many times are those turnovers the QB's fault? Or not? You can drive yourself crazy with all that.

But based on what IS provided and is offered for evaluation here, the top of that list is pretty sound, because we have the overall career achievements to compare (although I contend Johnny U. and other past era QBs (like Starr, Tarkenton) deserve to be much higher, because they played in an era where defenses were not handicapped like they are now via the rules, the field was different (different shaped goal posts, goal posts at the front of the end zone, etc.), penalties were different, and there are now other things that favor offenses which weren't around then (being able to spike the ball to kill the clock for example, and missed field goals being spotted at the line of scrimmage instead of being an automatic touchback resulting in the ball being spotted on the 20). It's a totally different game nowdays. Stabler and some others listed (like Bradshaw) transcended some of that period when the rules and field changed so much, but they had a lot more in the way of favorable changes that helped the offense than JU and many of the others did. It's like comparing QB ratings, they just can't be believed, because the old guys don't get a fair shake from the criteria.

I say the BEST QB standard to compare is the won-loss record (which this list DOES utlize), that's what it's all about, winning or losing. Playoff appearances and the won-loss records in them are valid as well. That way QBs from the same eras can be judged on the same merits. All the other stuff is fluff...

All-pro considerations should be factored in as well. And are they in the HOF? 'Nough said!!

[Gman was right]

It was a misprint. They meant 400th best qb of all time