All Time Panther Team

[Pox 08]

I don't agree with diminishing what Delhomme did in his time here, but they played on different teams and were asked to play different roles in the offense. Are you including Cam's rushing yards and touchdowns in that? Cam was the leading rusher in 6 games last year...

 

Delhomme through his first three seasons (with Carolina):

 

10,667 total yards, 75 total touchdowns, 47 interceptions

 

Newton through his first three seasons:

 

13,331 total yards, 92 total touchdowns, 42 interceptions

 

 

Not sure why any Panther fan would "leave out" Cam's rushing stats,  when trying to compare him to one of our past qbs.

 

 

Cam has had to be our running game and our passing game.    I don't think any qb in Panther history has had more thrown on his shoulders than Cam has had these last three years. 

 

 

 

Delhomme was what we needed back then.     Delhomme had Moose and SS89 together for a few years.....  and Delhomme was there for the peak of Double Trouble..        Cam had a very slowed down version of the 89 that Delhomme had,  and a injury riddled version of the double trouble that Delhomme had. 

[Mr. Scot]

They have the same rushing stats too?

I brought up Brees because it sounds like that just because Beuerlein was in a WCO means what he did is less. Brees is in a pass heavy offense. So I would think you would think less of him too.

I also brought up interception percentage and QB rating too. Not just completion percentage.

Also you didn't answer why you put Delhomme ahead of Beuerlein even though the stats say otherwise.

WCO being 'pass heavy' isn't the issue. A Coryell offense can be pass heavy (Chudzinski's version sure was). It's the approach to the passing game that makes the difference. That's how you end up with a guy like Kevin Kolb or A J Feeley looking good enough that some team pegs them as a starter.

The fact that Beuerlein's stats weren't significantly better than Delhomme's despite his WCO years is actually an argument against him being the better QB, not for it.

[iamhubby1]

There are a couple posters in this conversation that put outside factors into this and me telling them that those belong on another list. Yea, me saying I'm talking about something different really means I'm right. Nice reading comprehension there.

 

 

And my best of list would include what is supposed to be on an All-Time list. The best players. It's only common sense.

If you want your Best Of list, which is nothing like what most everyone else is doing, maybe you should start your own thread so you can set the rules.

In this thread, the list is made up of players folks FEEL are the best. YOU are basically the only one harping about stats. Why is it so difficult for you to just play along? You seem to enjoy playing the "This is how I feel it should be" card. How does that work for you in real life. I would be willing to bet, not very well. Cuz folks will just tune you out.

"Common Sense"? LOL

[KillerKat]

WCO being 'pass heavy' isn't the issue. A Coryell offense can be pass heavy (Chudzinski's version sure was). It's the approach to the passing game that makes the difference. That's how you end up with a guy like Kevin Kolb or A J Feeley looking good enough that some team pegs them as a starter.

The fact that Beuerlein's stats weren't significantly better than Delhomme's despite his WCO years is actually an argument against him being the better QB, not for it.

Why do you name the bad WCO QBs? There are many great QBs that came from the WCO. Also, you'd think if a QB passed more, he would throw more INTs. However Steve interception percentage isn't as high as Jakes.

Anyway. In summary there are people that make 2 different types of lists. Those that make a list solely on what happened on the field and those that make a list that factor in things like leadership and fire or whatever other debatable subject. Hopefully in the future we will continue having more success at the QB position so that the conversation of these 2 QBs from our short history on any best of or all-time list will become obsolete.

[KillerKat]

If you want your Best Of list, which is nothing like what most everyone else is doing, maybe you should start your own thread so you can set the rules.

In this thread, the list is made up of players folks FEEL are the best. YOU are basically the only one harping about stats. Why is it so difficult for you to just play along? You seem to enjoy playing the "This is how I feel it should be" card. How does that work for you in real life. I would be willing to bet, not very well. Cuz folks will just tune you out.

"Common Sense"? LOL

I've only been talking to like 2 people who were discussing my list. Really 1 now. How dumb are you?

[KillerKat]

I like to carry on a conversation with someone or a couple of people to further explain my thinking. Yea I guess that means I'm always right. Nice moronic conclusion.

[Mr. Scot]

Why do you name the bad WCO QBs? There are many great QBs that came from the WCO. Also, you'd think if a QB passed more, he would throw more INTs. However Steve interception percentage isn't as high as Jakes.

Anyway. In summary there are people that make 2 different types of lists. Those that make a list solely on what happened on the field and those that make a list that factor in things like leadership and fire or whatever other debatable subject. Hopefully in the future we will continue having more success at the QB position so that the conversation of these 2 QBs from our short history on any best of or all-time list will become obsolete.

I name WCO QBs because they're examples of why the system can make quarterbacks look better than they are. If you listen to Dave Gettleman's comments about how he evaluates receivers, you'll hear similar sentiments.

Here's a simple question on your methodology. Are the quarterbacks who win the big games always the ones with the best stats?

For example, Tony Romo always has great regular season stats. But you've seen him play in big games. Would you want him at the helm of your team in a playoff game, or would you take Jake in his prime?

[iamhubby1]

WCO being 'pass heavy' isn't the issue. A Coryell offense can be pass heavy (Chudzinski's version sure was). It's the approach to the passing game that makes the difference. That's how you end up with a guy like Kevin Kolb or A J Feeley looking good enough that some team pegs them as a starter.

The fact that Beuerlein's stats weren't significantly better than Delhomme's despite his WCO years is actually an argument against him being the better QB, not for it.

To me that is just common sense. But I guess not everyone views stats the same way. Who knew.

[iamhubby1]

I've only been talking to like 2 people who were discussing my list. Really 1 now. How dumb are you?

So now I'm dumb? Cool. Is that how you win all your discussions? Well when you only talk to a few folks, it keeps the ones you don't happen to agree with at bay.

Name calling, the wit of the unenlightened.

I'll take Jake, you take Steve. I win more important games. Hellz, Steve had a hard time winning games at all. But stats.

[KillerKat]

I name WCO QBs because they're examples of why the system can make quarterbacks look better than they are. If you listen to Dave Gettleman's comments about how he evaluates receivers, you'll hear similar sentiments.

Here's a simple question on your methodology. Are the quarterbacks who win the big games always the ones with the best stats?

For example, Tony Romo always has great regular season stats. But you've seen him play in big games. Would you want him at the helm of your team in a playoff game, or would you take Jake in his prime?

You don't just name WCO QBs. You name the bad ones. You think Beuerlein was a system QB. Well Delhomme was a system QB then too. You think he would've succeeded in a pass heavy WCO?

Nothing is always. There is only more or less. I don't know if there are more QBs that win big games with good regular season stats or if there are less of them. I do know most of the time the teams with the most complete team wins the most big games.

For every Romo you name, there is a Brees, Brady, Manning, Rodgers, Eli Manning (before last year), Wilson. That's just current QBs.

[KillerKat]

So now I'm dumb? Cool. Is that how you win all your discussions? Well when you only talk to a few folks, it keeps the ones you don't happen to agree with at bay.

Name calling, the wit of the unenlightened.

I'll take Jake, you take Steve. I win more important games. Hellz, Steve had a hard time winning games at all. But stats.

I only talk like that with you because you're making idiotic conclusions and posts.

Even this post doesn't make any sense. Me and Mr.Scott aren't agreeing. I'm not keeping him at bay.

[Mr. Scot]

You don't just name WCO QBs. You name the bad ones. You think Beuerlein was a system QB. Well Delhomme was a system QB then too. You think he would've succeeded in a pass heavy WCO?

Nothing is always. There is only more or less. I don't know if there are more QBs that win big games with good regular season stats or if there are less of them. I do know most of the time the teams with the most complete team wins the most big games.

For every Romo you name, there is a Brees, Brady, Manning, Rodgers, Eli Manning (before last year), Wilson. That's just current QBs.

Nowhere am I saying all WCO QBs are bad, or that Beuerlein is bad. My point is that the system inflates stats, whether good or bad. That's why you can't go by stats alone when you're comparing guys from other systems.

As to your answer, if you can't say for certain that the guys with the best stats win the most big games, then why defend a 'stats only' approach to choosing who's best?

[KillerKat]

Nowhere am I saying all WCO QBs are bad, or that Beuerlein is bad. My point is that the system inflates stats, whether good or bad. That's why you can't go by stats alone when you're comparing guys from other systems.

As to your answer, if you can't say for certain that the guys with the best stats win the most big games, then why defend a 'stats only' approach to choosing who's best?

Cause that's all we have that doesn't include outside debatable factors. We don't know if either QB is a system QB only and never will. We don't know how each would do on each others team. Our debate will keep going on and on when we include those factors or others similar. Which is what I like to avoid in All Time lists. I just stick to what has been done on the field period.

[iamhubby1]

I only talk like that with you because you're making idiotic conclusions and posts.

Even this post doesn't make any sense. Me and Mr.Scott aren't agreeing. I'm not keeping him at bay.

Now I'm an idiot. Is that better or worse than being dumb?

You derailed this thread by deriding folks for not using stats to pick their "Best of the Best". You were upset nobody wanted to play by your rules. Now I ain't no super brain. But, that sounds a little self-serving to me. But then again, I'm just an idiot, what do I know.