The God's Honest Truth About Jake

[MurkN]

Winning here this season is all that matters. Nobody gives dick about what you did 3 years ago or even last year. The NFL is a what have you done for me lately league. What has Jake done lately??..........Throw picks, fumble, and most importantly.......Lose.

[MadHatter]

I didn't say it is already but it is certainly moving towards that way. You can't point to many sucessful 'game managers' in recent years.

So how has that great QB that you have worked for you. You are a .500 team ever since he has arrived.

You say you need a great QB to win consistently. ....whereas the Saints are a fine example that you need a defense and running game to win consistently.

I can find examples to prove either side of the debate.

[Saint J]

We're over .500, fwiw. In fact, our record under Payton and Brees is the exact same as Fox/Delhomme in that smae period. And we all know that won't last very long in your case.

[neverlosethefeeling]

We're over .500, fwiw. In fact, our record under Payton and Brees is the exact same as Fox/Delhomme in that smae period. And we all know that won't last very long in your case.

But we have an average (at best) quarterback and you have a great one. Explain yourself.

[Saint J]

How does that have anything to do with my point that you need more than average QB to win CONSISTENTLY? Of course you need a running game and defense, but you also need a good QB. The Panthers have not won consisently this decade nor have the Saints as they've had a crappy defense most of this decade.

[neverlosethefeeling]

You made it seem like having a quarterback that is above average is the indubitable criteria for winning consistently.

That's not the case.

The Panthers have done alright for themselves the last few years with our sub-par quarterback. So that just goes to show that a sub-par quarterback with a good running game and a good defense can win just as consistently with a record-breaking quarterback and a terrible running game and defense.

Similarly, you can say that a sub-par quarterback with a sub-par defense and an abysmal special teams is gonna find it hard to win at all...amiright?

It's a team game, you see.

[Saint J]

You made it seem like having a quarterback that is above average is the indubitable criteria for winning consistently.

That's not the case.

I did not, I said you need all three components to win consistenly.

The Panthers have done alright for themselves the last few years with our sub-par quarterback.

Have they won consistently with Jake? No. And that's with a good running game and usually a solid defense.

Similarly, you can say that a sub-par quarterback with a sub-par defense and an abysmal special teams is gonna find it hard to win at all...amiright?

Yes. The Saints will have sucess this year because Payton is committed to running the ball and our defense is improved.

[cgarsmoker]

You made it seem like having a quarterback that is above average is the indubitable criteria for winning consistently.

That's not the case.

The Panthers have done alright for themselves the last few years with our sub-par quarterback. So that just goes to show that a sub-par quarterback with a good running game and a good defense can win just as consistently with a record-breaking quarterback and a terrible running game and defense.

Similarly, you can say that a sub-par quarterback with a sub-par defense and an abysmal special teams is gonna find it hard to win at all...amiright?

It's a team game, you see.

I agree with all that you are saying but if our QB is "sub par" as you said, Doesn't it make sense to try and upgrade that position at some point over the last 4 years? Baltimore won the Superbowl with Dilfer and Tampa won it with Brad Johnson but both of those coaches knew they needed a better passer if they wanted to keep on winning. I'd be happy with a little QB competition brought in once in a while. Fox ordained Jake the starter as if his name was Manning, Rivers, Brees, or Brady. I simply do not understand that.

[neverlosethefeeling]

I agree with all that you are saying but if our QB is "sub par" as you said, Doesn't it make sense to try and upgrade that position at some point over the last 4 years? Baltimore won the Superbowl with Dilfer and Tampa won it with Brad Johnson but both of those coaches knew they needed a better passer if they wanted to keep on winning. I'd be happy with a little QB competition brought in once in a while. Fox ordained Jake the starter as if his name was Manning, Rivers, Brees, or Brady. I simply do not understand that.

To be perfectly honest with you, I don't think Jake has been only sub-par over the last few years. I think he's been above average. Honestly.

[Cat'sGrowl]

Every year since Jake has been the QB of this team we have had a winning team.

No doubt, we have had some losing seasons, but not one time has December rolled around and the Carolina Panthers haven't been in the hunt for the playoffs.

Not one time.

To say you need an All-Star QB to win is absurd.

[Saint J]

Every year since Jake has been the QB of this team we have had a winning team.

No doubt, we have had some losing seasons, but not one time has December rolled around and the Carolina Panthers haven't been in the hunt for the playoffs.

Not one time.

To say you need an All-Star QB to win is absurd.

Jake's been at the helm of a 7-9 team and an 8-8 team, and it looks fairly certain that he will be leading a losing team in 2009 as well.

[Cpt slay a ho]

the bottom line is some teams are going to shutdown our run but not our pass(soley smith in jakes case) good teams are going to shutdown our run and have smith covered like glaze on a crispy creme doughnut.Jake has GOT to find other play makers on the team,it's hard to judge jarret and moose when they rarely get thrown the ball,rosario needs the ball more also king.d will in certain situations not SMITH<SMITH<SMITH jake can not do that there has been only two games where he has delivered without using smith(two games last year) ANY OTHER TIME IT HAS RESULT IN DISASTER.So pleases spare me the bullshit on jake you cannot honestly tell me you truly believe we could win a Superbowl with jake......

[neverlosethefeeling]

So pleases spare me the bullshit on jake you cannot honestly tell me you truly believe we could win a Superbowl with jake......

Yes I do.

[TrueBlackandBlue]

The reality is the league is full of parity and it is difficult for any style of team to win consistently. It's talked about all the time. However, the years the patriots won the super bowl their defense was the star on the team and same story with the steelers. Even the year the colts won their defense was the story. As a panther fan this is depressing because our defense is talented, but lacks in execution. I believe he can lead our offense to score 20+ points a game (we averaged 25.9 last year) but our defense will have to show up.

This is the Super Bowl winners this century and their rank in points scored per game vs yards allowed per game...

'08 Pittsburgh 20th vs 1st

'07 Giants 14th vs 7th

'06 Colts 2nd vs 21st

'05 Steelers 9th vs 4th

'04 Patriots 4th vs 9th

'03 Patriots 12th vs 7th

'02 Bucs 18th vs 1st

'01 Patriots 6th vs 24th

'00 Ravens 14th vs 1st

Interesting things I noticed...

-3 out of the 9 winners had a offenses ranked higher than defenses.

-Of these three exceptions the Colts beat the 2nd highest scoring team (they were tied with the Bears), the Patriots beat the 8th highest in 2004 and the top scoring team in 01.

-3 top ranked defenses have won the SB but no top ranked offense.

-Only two winners have had a top 5 scoring team

It should be noted that by choosing to rank offenses by points scored it includes any points the defense scored.

And Saint J, I know your argument is for consistent qbs not high scoring qbs... im showing that looking at defenses explains why certain teams have consistent success in the nfl not the qb