For those wanting a new QB

[pantherclaw]

I would be willing to bet money, that given the schedule next year, Fox will be 9-7 at the very best, and if that happens, the Fox era is done.

And that is why you shouldn't be a gambler, cause you'd be broke.

People who say something like this, specially talking about the schedule, before the season even begins, seeing how teams will be NEXT year, always get me laughing.

Good stuff though...makes for entertaining reading on the huddle!

[panthers55]

I respect your opinions and we can agree to disagree.

As you, like many on this board are very knowledgeable and passionate about the team.

We just have different views.

A QB like Quinn, or Flacco, or Matt Ryan, do not come along every day, and when they do, and your a team sitting there, knowing you will have a need to fill, and you don't act, you wind-up with what the Panthers have now. Scrubs. Neither of which could probably start a full season for most teams. That's my opinion. Serviceable, yes they are. Long term, a franchise player, no, they aren't.

On retention of Fox, JR wants a Superbowl, has been very clear about it. Fox has had a substantial amount of time to get that done and has been given everything he has asked to have it happen. His contract expires in 2010.

I would be willing to bet money, that given the schedule next year, Fox will be 9-7 at the very best, and if that happens, the Fox era is done. Fox's past two NFC playoff games also, have been abysmal. Embarrassing in fact.

Comparing Shottenheimer did not have the length of service with the Chargers that Fox has had with the Panthers..

At the end of the day, only JR knows what will happen.

I appreciate that while you disagree you do so civilly and without personal attacks. That makes for a much better and mature discussion.

My concern like Fox's is that for every Ryan or Flacco you have guys like Vince Young, Jamarcus Russel, and Brady Quinn who have been in the league for a year or two and have done little to nothing but cost tens of millions of dollars. Frankly I agree with Fox that you are better of picking up a back-up in FA like we did with Jake then investing tons of money in a rookie who do nothing.

Other than Tomlin, how many coaches have won a Superbowl in their first head coaching job in the first couple of years. Fox is still a relatively new coach and almost won one in his second year. Cowher took a long time and Belicheck didn't do it until he went to New England.

The reference to Schottenheimer was not to his tenure but the fact that winning coaches don't lose their jobs. If Fox goes 9-7 and more importantly still wins the division or makes the playoffs, he will be given an extension. I'll bet on that!!

[top dawg]

I appreciate that while you disagree you do so civilly and without personal attacks. That makes for a much better and mature discussion.

Now don't that beat all?:sifone:

[manwithcake]

And that is why you shouldn't be a gambler, cause you'd be broke.

People who say something like this, specially talking about the schedule, before the season even begins, seeing how teams will be NEXT year, always get me laughing.

Good stuff though...makes for entertaining reading on the huddle!

Shhhhh...I'm trying to arrange a poker game with several Huddlers

[top dawg]

Where have I seen this logic before?

Ah yes, it was usually paired with the words "Start Weinke"

The options you've suggested here are not options a real NFL coach - whose job depends on the decisions he makes - is going to take seriously.

This isn't Madden. It's the real world, and in the real world you do not get rid of an established starter without an equal or better option available. And right now, none exists.

I can't even believe people are still holding out hope for this when it's been stated by a beat writer who's rarely wrong that it just isn't going to happen :nonod:

Scottie, I agree with you in general, on some level, but there are instances where there were extenuating circumstances where a team decides to part the ways with its established starter. The Ravens parted with Trent Dilfer, the Bears let Jim McMahon go, the Chargers parted with Drew Brees (arguably due to injury) and the 49ers decided that Jeff Garcia wasn't valuable enough to keep. Now you could argue the merits and results of each of these transactions, but teams do pull the trigger on occasion. And, the thing about it is that anytime you are not dealing with established Pro Bowl material, it's all a crap shoot any way you look at it. The Chargers didn't know that Rivers would turn out to be such a good pro, but they took a chance and it seems to have paid off (not that Rivers is better or even equal to Brees).

As to your last statement, you are being very cruel;). Would you rob a man of the only sliver of hope and consolation that he has? Can't I have just that infinitesimal, atom-like, dark matter-esque, echo of a slight sound wave of hope? I am purposefully reverting back to childhood where I would cover my ears, close my eyes and proclaim, "I can't hear you!":p:bigear:

[Mr. Scot]

Scottie, I agree with you in general, on some level, but there are instances where there were extenuating circumstances where a team decides to part the ways with its established starter. The Ravens parted with Trent Dilfer, the Bears let Jim McMahon go, the Chargers parted with Drew Brees (arguably due to injury) and the 49ers decided that Jeff Garcia wasn't valuable enough to keep. Now you could argue the merits and results of each of these transactions, but teams do pull the trigger on occasion. And, the thing about it is that anytime you are not dealing with established Pro Bowl material, it's all a crap shoot any way you look at it. The Chargers didn't know that Rivers would turn out to be such a good pro, but they took a chance and it seems to have paid off (not that Rivers is better or even equal to Brees).

As to your last statement, you are being very cruel;). Would you rob a man of the only sliver of hope and consolation that he has? Can't I have just that infinitesimal, atom-like, dark matter-esque, echo of a slight sound wave of hope? I am purposefully reverting back to childhood where I would cover my ears, close my eyes and proclaim, "I can't hear you!":p:bigear:

Kinda tough to suggest any of the situations you mentioned here mirror ours.

Regardless, what it ultimately comes down to is that the guys actually making the decision don't look at things the way the fans do. Not likely they ever will, nor should they. As the old saying goes "Listen to the fans and you'll likely wind up sitting with them."

It's John Fox's decision, and nothing John Fox has said or done gives any indication that he'll part with Delhomme. Could he? Sure. Technically, he could also release Chris Harris, but I wouldn't make any bets on it.

[frash.exe]

Kinda tough to suggest any of the situations you mentioned here mirror ours.

Regardless, what it ultimately comes down to is that the guys actually making the decision don't look at things the way the fans do. Not likely they ever will, nor should they. As the old saying goes "Listen to the fans and you'll likely wind up sitting with them."

It's John Fox's decision, and nothing John Fox has said or done gives any indication that he'll part with Delhomme. Could he? Sure. Technically, he could also release Chris Harris, but I wouldn't make any bets on it.

And here's a little problem with this. It seems that everybody's following the idea that we're suggesting anything like Fox is going to read the board and say, "HEY! That's a good idea."

It's common sense, when a QB plays that poorly in a playoff game, they'd probably get replaced.

I don't put out extensive writeups to convince a head coach that he needs to listen to me. I just call it the way I see it. That's just unacceptable, and it's not the first time we've seen him play poorly. He's had some very bad games this season, more than he's ever had. And also he did turn the ball over 3 times the last postseason game he had before that. It's not like this performance came out of the woodwork. It's not "just one game"

I don't know if there's any other reason to front that "HC isn't going to heed your advice" argument other than as a vessel to try and win a debate. It doesn't hold water.

But, then again, what do I know, I'm just a whiny, crybaby, backstabbing, ignorant fan who's just a Jake haterer. I didn't know if you were the smartest person in the world or just a moron lied solely on whether you critiqued Jake Delhomme.

(and that last paragraph wasn't directed at you Scot)

[raleigh-panther]

I don't know what league you've been watching, but I don't see that Brady Quinn is exactly Matt Ryan yet. And I really don't think you want to play the card right now that Quinn is worth the picks of both Jon Beason and Ryan Kalil because that's who we ended up getting when dealing the 14th pick in the 07' draft. Both of those guys are starters now, and will be for the next 10 years. The truth is, no one knows what Quinn can or can't do yet.

No offense in my response, so, please don't take any, no bone to pick with anyone who disagrees on my opinions on QB.

Never said that Quinn was Matt Ryan. My inference was that Quinn has potential to be great, the size, the arm, the leadership. ND sure hasn't bee poo since he left. Teams draft on potential and the combine and results from college. He was drafted on his potential, no different than drafting Julius Peppers years ago because he hat the potential or Dan Morgan.

Cleveland isn't exactly Atlanta either.

We'll see.

To be honest, if anyone on this board says they aren't nervous when Delhomme drops back to pass and expects more diaster than a completion, I won't believe them.

I'll stand by what I inferred. Delhomme will never lead this team to a SuperBowl, not going to happen. He's become much too easy for the oppposing defenses to read and react to and defense. He is poor at reading defenses and he has very little ability to move around in the pocket.

Just my opinion and again, I supported him in years past. He is past his potential. Regrettably, the Panthers have put no plan in place for this

situation.

[Fireball77]

It's common sense, when a QB plays that poorly in a playoff game, they'd probably get replaced.

I don't agree with that notion, eff up in a playoff game and you should be gone. In my opinion, you have to look at the big picture. Making a long term decision based on one playoff game isn't a big enough sample. There have been a lot of QBs who have had a bunch of horrendous playoff games who have never been nor ever will be benched. Should the NYG have replaced Eli for the 2006 season after his game vs the Panthers in the playoffs? Or the Colts or GB replaced Manning and Favre after their numerous bad playoff games? I say no (except for Favre after maybe 2004 when I think he probably should have retired and after many, many absolute killer plays).

And no, I am not comparing any of these QBs or their careers to Jake's, I am just debating the notion you proposed above of using one playoff ame to make a decision.

I don't put out extensive writeups to convince a head coach that he needs to listen to me. I just call it the way I see it. That's just unacceptable, and it's not the first time we've seen him play poorly. He's had some very bad games this season, more than he's ever had. And also he did turn the ball over 3 times the last postseason game he had before that. It's not like this performance came out of the woodwork. It's not "just one game"

This is probably the crux of a lot of the disagreements.....the notion he has many very bad games this past year. I just don't agree with that. The AZ playoff game is absolutely, definitely a game you can point him out as the major goat (and he would have been in the Raiders game as well had they lost it), but the Seahawks playoff game it was more understandable why he struggled. The defense was bad in that game, they had no run game and they had one WR. It caught up with them in that game.

[panthers55]

I don't agree with that notion, eff up in a playoff game and you should be gone. In my opinion, you have to look at the big picture. Making a long term decision based on one playoff game isn't a big enough sample. There have been a lot of QBs who have had a bunch of horrendous playoff games who have never been nor ever will be benched. Should the NYG have replaced Eli for the 2006 season after his game vs the Panthers in the playoffs? Or the Colts or GB replaced Manning and Favre after their numerous bad playoff games? I say no (except for Favre after maybe 2004 when I think he probably should have retired and after many, many absolute killer plays).

And no, I am not comparing any of these QBs or their careers to Jake's, I am just debating the notion you proposed above of using one playoff ame to make a decision.

This is probably the crux of a lot of the disagreements.....the notion he has many very bad games this past year. I just don't agree with that. The AZ playoff game is absolutely, definitely a game you can point him out as the major goat (and he would have been in the Raiders game as well had they lost it), but the Seahawks playoff game it was more understandable why he struggled. The defense was bad in that game, they had no run game and they had one WR. It caught up with them in that game.

Add to that the fact that he was coming off major reconstructive surgery, hadn't played in a year, was paired with Davidson for the first full season this year in this offense and it is understandable that he was inconsistent at times this year. The two poor performances in the playoffs were separated by three years, and two different coordinators calling 2 different offenses.

It isn't making excuses as much as pointing out that the two performances aren't related to each other or relevant.

[Fireball77]

Good points as usual, P55.

If you listened to Schlereth on Sportscenter the other day, he completely totally believes that the TJ affected Jake all year. His son is a pitcher in some baseball farm system and he has up close experience watching guys coming off TJ. I think a bunch of us had thought that as well. He was just SO OFF sometimes it was inexplicable. That is what happens to pitchers also, and is usually better year two. But Jake isn't an excuse maker like some other QBs so you will never ever hear him say anything about it.

[MadHatter]

Scottie, I agree with you in general, on some level, but there are instances where there were extenuating circumstances where a team decides to part the ways with its established starter. The Ravens parted with Trent Dilfer, the Bears let Jim McMahon go, the Chargers parted with Drew Brees (arguably due to injury) and the 49ers decided that Jeff Garcia wasn't valuable enough to keep. Now you could argue the merits and results of each of these transactions, but teams do pull the trigger on occasion. And, the thing about it is that anytime you are not dealing with established Pro Bowl material, it's all a crap shoot any way you look at it. The Chargers didn't know that Rivers would turn out to be such a good pro, but they took a chance and it seems to have paid off (not that Rivers is better or even equal to Brees).

As to your last statement, you are being very cruel;). Would you rob a man of the only sliver of hope and consolation that he has? Can't I have just that infinitesimal, atom-like, dark matter-esque, echo of a slight sound wave of hope? I am purposefully reverting back to childhood where I would cover my ears, close my eyes and proclaim, "I can't hear you!":p:bigear:

And all of those teams (save the Chargers) sucked ass after they made those moves.

[top dawg]

Perhaps in the short run, but it is arguable that the Chargers and Ravens have been better than us in the last few years. The Bears and 49ers haven't done a damn thing because they have been too cheap to pay for a decent QB (or too stupid to pull the trigger). The Ravens have finally figured out that a young, proven passer and winner at the collegiate level may not be a bad thing.

If you think about it, the Steelers finally figured out that they needed to get a good Qb that will make good decisions on a consistent basis if they wanted a real opportunity to win championships. Gone are the days of the Cliff Stoudts, Malones, and Flashes at the helm. Everyone knew that they would never get over the hump without a field general. Now they have one, and the rings speak for themselves.

To be honest, you are not going to luck up on a championship. You are probably only going to get so many chances, and that's why it is imperative to have a guy at QB that is not shaky when those times come. A shaky QB is not going to bring you home the brass.

[Fireball77]

Both the Bears and the niners have drafted a QB in the first round within the past 6 years. Neither of those guys are starting for their teams nor did they perform that well when they DID start so I don't want to call either team too cheap to draft/pay a 1st rounder when that blatantly isn't true. I thought LS made a mistake actually when he benched Orton for Grossman prior for week 17 of 2005. It made absolutely zero sense to me on any level.

Anyone who has watched the Ravens in the past few years knows that with even a DECENT QB they would have been a big time contender. Hell they made the playoffs with McNair who was really not all that for years even prior to his stint with the Ravens. I still wonder if AJ Smith would have had the balls to strongarm Marty into starting Rivers and letting Brees walk in FA had Brees not gotten hurt that last game of 2005. Brees was coming off a good year (drafted in the second round too... ) and certainly didn't warrant being kicked to the curb for another QB sans that injury.