Mike and Mike In The Morning: Quarterbacks being a leader...

[KillerKat]

Good article, but it stops the stats at 2000 because it's just looking at Marino and Elway.

Take a look at this website: http://hosted.stats.com/fb/index.asp

It lists stats for quarterbacks in a wide variety of situations, and that's the source of my "Delhomme has been mediocre through three, strong in the fourth" assertion. It lets you see his ratings by quarter. NFL.com has similar splits.

As for comments on mechanics and such, you're not an expert on that and the ones who are haven't exactly been out there talking about what needs to be fixed over the past six years. This year the quarterbacks coach changed the exercises, not to fix anything but because he had a different style than the guy before him. Jake fixed his mechanics in NFL Europe, not in Carolina.

And last year he was certainly statistically better than 2003 and 2006, and he posted his best regular season record ever. I'm not sure why you think it was his worst year. You say he started slow, have you gone back and looked at early ratings he had in previous years? And there are so many variables at play, it's silly to make judgements like that over the first two games. He had a very good first few games in 2007, but he was playing two home games and a road team that he always does well against.

The bottom line is, he's beem more or less consistent over the course of a season in his performance over the years. It's not great, it's not terrible. And when he's bad he's bad the entire game. But when he's not his game improves greatly in the fourth quarter, and he does lead the team to a lot of comeback victories. Last year he did it in San Diego, against Chicago, in Green Bay, and against New Orleans. It's no wonder the team believes in him.

Take a look at the link again. It's two parts. The link to the 2nd part is at the top.

And It doesn't take an expert to see many of the things wrong with his mechanics. And he has certaintly not fixed a damn thing with his mechanics. Not sure how you come up with that pile of crap that he fixed them in NFL Europe. When I was talking about starting off slow or not, I was talking in terms of mechanics.

Im also not sure why you don't think last year was his worst when he had the highest number of bad games ever with 6, finished the whole year with more INTs than TDs, and f**ked up big time in the playoffs.

[Cyberjag]

and i don't give a f**k if they do not care, they probably only care about the opinions of those who just agree with them.

I doubt that, I think they just care about winning games, and know better than you who will give them the best chance at that.

just know that no other franchise in the entire league would tolerate Jake and not bench him after playing this badly this often. the fact that you perpetuate this apologetic movement for delhomme tells me you're just another one of "them". Those people who continue to live in the past to accept the present and put their 2003 NFC Champions shirt on once every week like it's still relevant.

Seriously, who would you start? You like to criticize and point fingers, but never offer anything constructive. I'm one of "them" all right, the "them" who roll their eyes when you start ranting.

and I'd like to go on a limb out there and let you know that here and now today, whatever "4th Quarter Comebacks" or other erroneous stats you have at your disposal, some of which were accumulated >4 years ago are pretty much worthless in today's NFL, and pretty much give an inaccurate depiction of how good Delhomme really is here and now when he can't handle the blitz and heaves the ball hopelessly into coverage.

the beauty of stats is that they cut right through your fevered imagination and present a dispassionate look at performance. Go to http://hosted.stats.com/fb/leaders.asp?year=2008&range=NFL&rank=039&type=Passing and look at Jake's numbers early in the game versus late in the game. He has a vast improvement in nearly every category. Whether you think he's good or not, he's clearly better late in games.

His teammates believe in him--they've said so time and again. Rather than helplessly steam about that, why not try and figure out why instead? Maybe the fact that he's so much better late in the game by nearly every measure will give you a clue.

I suggest you read Killerkat's article, which you probably haven't, because you're almost totally wrong on that. There is no official criterion which renders it useless.

I read the entire thing, and the footballoutsiders one as well. All they say is that sometimes the comebacks are overstated, and they don't count missed opportunities. He still gets better late, and there's still good reason for his teammates to believe in him. The bottom line is, once you get past your blind hatred of the man, you have nothing to back up your point.

Take a look at the link again. It's two parts. The link to the 2nd part is at the top.

And It doesn't take an expert to see many of the things wrong with his mechanics. And he has certaintly not fixed a damn thing with his mechanics. Not sure how you come up with that pile of crap that he fixed them in NFL Europe. When I was talking about starting off slow or not, I was talking in terms of mechanics.

Im also not sure why you don't think last year was his worst when he had the highest number of bad games ever with 6, finished the whole year with more INTs than TDs, and f**ked up big time in the playoffs.

The only "experts" who see anything wrong with his mechanics are the ones who anonymously post on message boards. Go find a real one, I don't trust the stuff you convince yourself that you see. And you're right about NFL Europe being crap, I know less about that than you do about sarcasm.

Look at my response to the hate-with-a-passion guy above. You have the site I used for my research. It shows the splits in a very easy to view way. When you go through Jake's stats, you see that he's not a great QB at all, but he's not terrible either--he defines mediocrity through the first three quarters. But when you look at his fourth quarter stats he shows a huge improvement. And he's done that for years. And if you go back through his numbers over the years, they're pretty close to each other year in and year out. About the only difference is when we have a poor running game, he has to throw more, which inflates totals but not averages.

Now take the stance of Mr. Anger above and assume that Jake is the worst QB this franchise has ever had. Even then, he's the starter, so the guys around him are at least used to how he plays. Now imagine them playing late into a game, and wondering if the team will have it in them to take the lead. Well, if they're used to Jake, then they know that at the very least he'll be better than he was in the first half, right?

He gets better late, and no one has ever suggested he didn't. Even the haters just say he sucks all the time. Given that he gets better late, it should be no surprise that his teammates trust him more late.

I should know better than to try and explain why I think the team still believes in him to a lynch mob. You made a statement that we had it backwards because people praise Jake's locker room leadership and multiple people have pointed out that it's actually his on the field leadership, which is what your original post says it should be. Your response to that hasn't been "No, they don't", it's been "Well, they shouldn't", presumably because you're an expert. Well, they do trust him anyway, but instead of trying to understand why you either call them names (Fox sucks!) or just add volume to the "They shouldn't!" argument. Really, what's your point here other than to criticize?

My original question in this thread was a simple one.

Is there anything out there from a Panther or a coach that suggests they don't feel like Jake can get it done when the game is on the line? We all know about the Steve Smith comment, and he explained that. But even with that one instance, has there been any other player who's come forward with anything but praise for Jake's leadership on the field since 2003?

I see no response to that other than, to paraphrase, "Well, they SHOULDN'T, because JAKE SUCKS!!1!OMG!!" I typed that in caps to try and capture the sheer passion of the argument, because that's about all anyone has so far. If you want you can add a little froth at the sides of the mouth and some flying spittle to get to the excitement level exhibited by some of the more enthusiastic haters.

Jake's a good on-the-field leader and the players respect him and believe in him. Several have gone on record saying so. Find one that says otherwise. You'll still be vastly outnumbered but at least you'll have a single voice that's been in a position to know to back you up. Until then, suck it up--the facts don't like you this time.

[Saint J]

If the success of your defense is pursuant on the play of a safety who turns 34 in November, then good luck.

You mean the safety who's leading the NFL in INTS and has scored a touchdown? HIm??????

[frash.exe]

I doubt that, I think they just care about winning games, and know better than you who will give them the best chance at that.

6 turnovers through two games. I think the evidence speaks for itself. I said it was a bad deal when they extended him, and so far my prediction is coming true, so I win, you lose.

Seriously, who would you start? You like to criticize and point fingers, but never offer anything constructive. I'm one of "them" all right, the "them" who roll their eyes when you start ranting.

Great example of using disinformation buddy, you do know demanding complete answers from me doesn't give you a one up in this? They had 6 years to work on life after Delhomme, and I said years ago we were going to run into a wall if we didn't try to build for the future, and now here we are.

the beauty of stats is that they cut right through your fevered imagination and present a dispassionate look at performance. Go to http://hosted.stats.com/fb/leaders.a...9&type=Passing and look at Jake's numbers early in the game versus late in the game. He has a vast improvement in nearly every category. Whether you think he's good or not, he's clearly better late in games.

Honestly where the fug do you think this is relevant to the conversation or helps your case where he's average or worse in just about every single category?

His teammates believe in him--they've said so time and again. Rather than helplessly steam about that, why not try and figure out why instead? Maybe the fact that he's so much better late in the game by nearly every measure will give you a clue.

And I don't care. I just don't care how much they say they believe in him if he is playing excessively poor to the point the offense cannot move. So please, stop making half-assed excuses to justify why he is still the starter beyond the point that he has a fat contract and Fox doesn't want to be made a fool of this early in the season.

I read the entire thing, and the footballoutsiders one as well. All they say is that sometimes the comebacks are overstated, and they don't count missed opportunities. He still gets better late, and there's still good reason for his teammates to believe in him. The bottom line is, once you get past your blind hatred of the man, you have nothing to back up your point.

this is all just emotionally compelled drivel. Maybe I should get the head of the head of the New York School for the Hard of Hearing to hammer the truth into your head and tell you it doesn't matter if his teammates believe in him if he is playing that poorly. The bottom line is there is a standard of QB play in the league required in order to compete among the better teams, and Delhomme is not providing it. There is no excuses, no exceptions, and no reminiscing to remedy the current situation. So your main point is moot, and the discussion is over, because there was pretty much no discussion in the first place, and no amount of posting to drive that point home that "well his teammates still believe in him" justifies what he's bringing on the field, which is plain bad performance.

[weyco2000]

Picking off a rookie QB that plays for the lions is nothing to "crow" about. The "aints" have not had a winning record in 34 of 44 years, that is pitiful! They have 2, count'em, playoff wins in 44 years. They have 1 person in the Hall of Fame, not a player, a GM ( Jim Finks) again thats pitiful. To top it all off they finished last (1995 season) in the NFC west behind expansion team Carolina Panthers. So you see your history is full of losing, so when you win a play-off game or better yet, make the play-offs, then you can talk. Otherwise know your role, "loser" and next time do your own research on your pitful-ass franchise before talking s***.