Darin Gant on Bill Cowher.

[Udogg]

Urrymonster 2

SMF 0

Yeah but the problem is going to be SMF will never throw in the towel.

[pantherclaw]

Nothing is a done deal when I doubt there has even been any kind of communication between the Panthers and Cowher. So obviously it is all speculation. Gantt doesn't know anymore than Schefter does. In fact, he is the least reliable Panthers reporter there is.

I didn't say anything about Gantt. You fail.

[pantherclaw]

He sucks....most fans hate every word that comes out of his mouth

Less than 2 years ago, he was the most respected beat writer of the Panthers. Yet, now everyone hates him. oh the irony.

[X-Clown]

Yeah but the problem is going to be SMF will never throw in the towel.

He will in this thread - however, you are right that he will start a new thread, distort facts/arguments made in this one and be all like "Hey guys everybody agrees with me amiright??"

[rayzor]

this is pretty funny. panthers are tight lipped about everything. we have a beat reporter that, one way or another, has more knowledge of the organization than anyone, has more access than anyone anyway, and when he says what the organization is telling him or what he has found out from his knowledge people crap on him for telling them what the team is saying.

seems to me the hatred is misplaced. it isn't his fault the team screwed up on the jake deal. he told everyone what the thinking on the inside was and because no one likes the reasoning he gave because of inside knowledge of what they were thinking that makes him a tool?

agree with the panthers or don't. hating the messenger with such a passion is pretty petty.

[rainwater]

I didn't say anything about Gantt. You fail.

I never said you did.

[Jbro]

Sam, wow... I'd say you've provided incontrovertable proof Gantt is a total DA.

The scary part is SMF makes Gantt look like a rocket scientist.

[rayzor]

The scary part is SMF makes Gantt look like a rocket scientist.

i keep imagining sam mills rolling over in his grave every time SMF posts....each time whispering "please...change your user name"

[Sam Mills Fan]

Not entirely sure what you have issue with here. Multiple people felt it was still Jake's team. Why? The players came out and supported him as did the coaches. They all made comments how they play hard for Jake and that they view him as their leader. Sure you can look back now and say, 'I told you so ROLF!' but realistically, he was always going to go into the 2009 season as the starter. We had no first rounder, no viable free agents and unknown commodities behind him.

"No they should not be looking for a new quarterback this offseason. The reasons are numerous, and valid."

Idiocy, pure and simple.

So who is looking better? Sanchez? Stafford? Freeman? Or are they all look like lost rookies? They are all going to be better than Delhomme is right now, but they are no better right now than he is. We couldn't get those guys regardless, so I am not entirely sure what your point is on this. He got the depth chart right and confirmed there were no draft OR FA pick ups that we realistically could get. Remember Favre was still retired at this point.

"I don't think there's a passer available, in the draft or free agency or trade (unless a Manning or Rivers or Ryan or Brady's mysteriously available), who's better than Delhomme. I'm not even sure there's an upgrade to McCown out there on the open market, for what that's worth.

Calm down, take a breath, and realize that as bad as he was last weekend, he's still pretty good (.618 winning percentage), and as he's proven, all the quarterback they need to win, if the right parts are in place."

Three sentences, all three turned out to be incorrect. Cassel, Orton, Cutler, Sanchez, and Stafford were traded or drafted and all five are better than Jake. He didn't say that it would be dumb to get one of them because of what we would have had to give up (which would have been a valid point), he just flat out said that Jake was better than them. False.

Who exactly did you want us to pick up? At this point we had NO cap room, so rather than sign people who were going to be grossly over paid (look at the examples) he was merely stating that plenty of franchises are built on being patient in FA. He is bang on the money on this one. In fact, you thinking this blog is wrong suggests you are not a bright person and there is no need for me to continue. But I will...

We should have sent more players packing for cap help. I would have liked to have seen Chris Canty brought in here, I do remember that much. Gantt's example of a free agent bust was Visanthe Shiancoe who has been playing lights out this year for Minnesota.

Praise? Seriously? You genuinely think he is praising them?

He is JUSTIFYING the move. He is trying to look at it from the FOs perspective and determine the potential positives for the contract. At no point does he declare he is in agreement with the move, yet he points out the cap room and why Delhomme is still a viable starter.

You're straight up lying. What do you think he's doing when he brings up how much of a winner Jake is? It means that it's a great idea to keep a huge winner like him around.

For this one you pick out one small comment out of a long blog based on assessing the pre-season. He never claimed it wasn't a sign of things to come. He looked at Hayden, Favorite and Irvin and commented that even the team are not expecting them to lock down the interior of the line.

He also took the time to praise a player and criticise another who the FO decided to go in the opposite assessment...

How you think he is saying the pre-season wasn't a sign of things to come I just do not know...

This is another straight-up lie. What do you think "don't panic" means? It means not to worry because it's just preseason. Wrong AGAIN.

Starts off with a critical comment that we should not have let Jones go. Then moves onto the correct prediction of Irvin going on IR. Then moves on to say how with Beason and Davis back the defense should look much better in the regular season, which...it has! So another correct assessment. Takes a slight dig at Pep for coosing to play when he does, the comments that we have a top 5 WR and Hb a decent OL and a QB 'THEY' trust. He never gave his opinion on that...

"-- I'm not freaking out about the offense, especially if RB Jonathan Stewart can push through the pain and get back on the field.

They have a top-5 receiver and a top-5 runner, a solid line and a quarterback they trust, even if you don't."

More idiocy that turned out to be wrong. And why throw in the line about having a quarterback that they trust when he's trying to say why fans shouldn't freak out about the offense if that wasn't a reason he was using to not freak?

He then says Delhomme is better than Moore and Feeley, which essentially he is. He is washed up now, but he is essentially still a better quarterback than the other two. Starting Moore at this point would have been throwing the towel in on the season. It simply was NEVER going to happen, please understand that.

Bwahahahahaha!!!!

Listen kiddo. If there's one thing sadder than relentlessly hounding a reporter you've never met like I am (because I admit, what the hell am I doing spending my time typing this post up?), it's going to all this trouble to defend a reporter like you just did. You don't know him, do you? Then why does it bother you so much that I made him look like an f'ing idiot?

[Urrymonster]

"No they should not be looking for a new quarterback this offseason. The reasons are numerous, and valid."

Idiocy, pure and simple.

One comment, taken out of context, which is what you seem to do all the time. The point he was making was that Delhomme has a history of winnnig, the team believe in him, the players do, the coaches do and a big portion of the fan base does. Considering that, why would they look for a new quarterback? I can appreciate that they might draft one, but the way he typed it, he was suggesting there is no need for a new starting quarterback.

"I don't think there's a passer available, in the draft or free agency or trade (unless a Manning or Rivers or Ryan or Brady's mysteriously available), who's better than Delhomme. I'm not even sure there's an upgrade to McCown out there on the open market, for what that's worth.

Calm down, take a breath, and realize that as bad as he was last weekend, he's still pretty good (.618 winning percentage), and as he's proven, all the quarterback they need to win, if the right parts are in place."

Three sentences, all three turned out to be incorrect. Cassel, Orton, Cutler, Sanchez, and Stafford were traded or drafted and all five are better than Jake. He didn't say that it would be dumb to get one of them because of what we would have had to give up (which would have been a valid point), he just flat out said that Jake was better than them. False.

<sigh>

So because he did not list every quarterback who would upgrade us, but we had no chance of getting, then he is an idiot? For the record how is Cutler doing? Stafford? Sanchez? Freeman? Cassel? Orton is the only one who has panned out in quarterback aquisitions and not many would have considered him before seeing the results. Anyone can say trade for him now anyone else is the sort who throw around predictions like they throw their toys out the pram.

So which FA was better than Delhomme and McCown?

Which draftee has performed at a higher level?

Which tradee has performed at a higher level?

Now actually consider what we would have had to give up, essentially mortgaging our future even more than we have already and tell me that cost relates to performance improvement?

We should have sent more players packing for cap help. I would have liked to have seen Chris Canty brought in here, I do remember that much. Gantt's example of a free agent bust was Visanthe Shiancoe who has been playing lights out this year for Minnesota.

Sending more players packing results in more cap penalty. I believe Gantt actually went through the majority of the fringe players and identified which ones we could let go and not lose cap space. Ironically, we let most of them go. Of course this notion is foreign to you. Actions with consequences every heard of that?

Well done Shiancoe has turned out well. He cost a lot though for what he had acheived up till then. Stop living in hindsight and put yourself back to when these blogs were written. At the time it was a serious over payment.

You're straight up lying. What do you think he's doing when he brings up how much of a winner Jake is? It means that it's a great idea to keep a huge winner like him around.

I am a liar now? He brings up Jake's record, because he is justifying it from the FOs point of view. At no point does he say, "wowsers lads, this is possibly the greatest thing since SMF signed up to the huddle". No he does well to be completely objective in this blog, possibly because he might not completely agree with it. He understands why it was done and justifies it for those who do not uderstand the FO. You are just reading what you want to read now.

This is another straight-up lie. What do you think "don't panic" means? It means not to worry because it's just preseason. Wrong AGAIN.

More lying! Woooooooo. 'Don't panic' means...Don't panic! As in it's one game. Where half the defense was missing. Where we have seen a marked improvement since they have returned.

How is any of what I wrote I lie? I listed each of the paragraphs or sections he wrote about?! :s A trifle unfair wouldn't you say? Considering I was listing exactly what he wrote about. As in facts...

"-- I'm not freaking out about the offense, especially if RB Jonathan Stewart can push through the pain and get back on the field.

They have a top-5 receiver and a top-5 runner, a solid line and a quarterback they trust, even if you don't."

More idiocy that turned out to be wrong. And why throw in the line about having a quarterback that they trust when he's trying to say why fans shouldn't freak out about the offense if that wasn't a reason he was using to not freak?

Because he also mentioned the top 5 receiver and runner and a solid line. the mere fact that he mentioned the trust aspect, suggests that there were question marks about him. In addition the use of the term 'freaking out' means it is concerning him, yet he trusts those that make the decisions. Is that such a bad thing? Yes it turns out they and he were wrong, but put yourself back at this time, when it was written and put yourself in his shoes. He beleived in the FO, that's hardly a reason for hate no?

Bwahahahahaha!!!!

Listen kiddo. If there's one thing sadder than relentlessly hounding a reporter you've never met like I am (because I admit, what the hell am I doing spending my time typing this post up?), it's going to all this trouble to defend a reporter like you just did. You don't know him, do you? Then why does it bother you so much that I made him look like an f'ing idiot?

Ah the insult to age. I am a kiddo aye?

You want to know what's really sad? The amout of time you spend on here making your wild claims and posts. You genuinely need to stay away from this forum a bit more, as frankly it's getting a little tedious. What is even more sad, is that the vast majority treat you as more of a side show and take everything you say with a pinch of salt and just quietly wait in silence until you go away again. Sad, but truth hurts.

Want to know why I bothered with that previous post and now subsequently this post? Because you asked me to. You tried to call me out because you claimed I had not even read the juicy LOLZ stories you 'dug up' which made Gantt 'look like an f'ing tool'. Actually I had and thus I wanted to point out to you that you need to sometimes, just sometimes look at things objectively rather than masked in your own bias and clouded views. This post was written because again you have asked me questions

Want to know why I object tot he hatred that is thrown at him by some? I call it good parenting, being raised properly to others. Frankly I do not find it particularly nice when people just start vehemently attacking people for pretty much give facts and opinions. Problem is, is that you will NEVER see anyone else's point of view. You only hear what you want to hear and you only see what you want to see. I have no idea what your personal life is like, but if you translate this attitude into your real life, then you are going to have some dark days ahead of you. Hate always comes back to get you.

[Mr. Scot]

Three sentences, all three turned out to be incorrect. Cassel, Orton, Cutler, Sanchez, and Stafford were traded or drafted and all five are better than Jake.

:rofl:

Oh wait...You're serious :sosp:

Orton? Maybe, though he has limitations. Sanchez or Stafford? Maybe next year. Cassel was reported to be on the verge of being benched (huge bust) and Cutler took over the interception lead a few weeks back.

(sometimes I think "irrational" would be a compliment) :frown2:

Yes, Jake has been bad. But no, he's not the worst QB out there.

[Sam Mills Fan]

Matt Cassel stats: 13 TDs, 9 picks (2.6% INT rate/1.45 TD-INT ratio), 188 of 349 (53.9%), 1,982 yards, 72.3 rating

Jay Cutler stats: 17 TDs, 20 picks (4.8% INT rate/0.85 TD-INT ratio), 261 of 421 (62%), 2,814 yards, 75.3 rating

Mark Sanchez stats: 11 TDs, 17 picks (5.7% INT rate/0.65 TD-INT ratio), 158 of 297 (53.2%), 2,049 yards, 63.7 rating

Matt Stafford stats: 13 TDs, 20 picks (5.3% INT rate/0.65 TD-INT ratio), 201 of 377 (53.3%), 2,267 yards, 61.0 rating

Jake Delhomme stats: 8 TDs, 18 picks (5.6% INT rate/0.45 TD-INT ratio), 178 of 321 (55.5%), 2,015 yards, 59.4 rating

So let's see, Jake Delhomme has:

The fewest touchdowns

The second-highest interception rate

The worst touchdown-to-interception ratio

The worst QB rating

Second-fewest yards (despite having played a game more than Stafford)

The numbers don't lie. All five quarterbacks I listed are having better seasons.

[Sam Mills Fan]

Oh and LOL at Orton being a "maybe". Orton's stats:

14 TDs, 7 picks (1.9% INT rate/2.00 TD-INT ratio), 229 of 369 (62.1%), 2,627 yards, 88.2 rating

Yeah "maybe" he's better. "Maybe".

[MaineManPanther]

Matt Cassel stats: 13 TDs, 9 picks (2.6% INT rate/1.45 TD-INT ratio), 188 of 349 (53.9%), 1,982 yards, 72.3 rating

Jay Cutler stats: 17 TDs, 20 picks (4.8% INT rate/0.85 TD-INT ratio), 261 of 421 (62%), 2,814 yards, 75.3 rating

Mark Sanchez stats: 11 TDs, 17 picks (5.7% INT rate/0.65 TD-INT ratio), 158 of 297 (53.2%), 2,049 yards, 63.7 rating

Matt Stafford stats: 13 TDs, 20 picks (5.3% INT rate/0.65 TD-INT ratio), 201 of 377 (53.3%), 2,267 yards, 61.0 rating

Jake Delhomme stats: 8 TDs, 18 picks (5.6% INT rate/0.45 TD-INT ratio), 178 of 321 (55.5%), 2,015 yards, 59.4 rating

So let's see, Jake Delhomme has:

The fewest touchdowns

The second-highest interception rate

The worst touchdown-to-interception ratio

The worst QB rating

Second-fewest yards (despite having played a game more than Stafford)

The numbers don't lie. All five quarterbacks I listed are having better seasons.

But as Urry pointed out, would those stats be worth with what you would have to give up?

Two first round picks and more for cutler? Same with cassel. And obviously youd have to give up big to trade up to sanchez and stafford.