For those wanting a new QB

[Fox007]

Sorry guys, but this whole idea of letting Delhomme go even if you don't have a viable alternative is just insane.

Any coach who did that would likely be looking for a job the next year.

Who said to let him go THIS VERY SECOND?

The fact that we don't have a viable alternative IS a problem, not solely Jake.

Didn't realize that was so hard to interpret.

[frash.exe]

Sorry guys, but this whole idea of letting Delhomme go even if you don't have a viable alternative is just insane.

Any coach who did that would likely be looking for a job the next year.

I didn't suggest that. To draw a conclusion from me saying "they'd probably get replaced" to that, is taking it out of context.

What would be his cap hit besides that?

The point is it's getting to that point in time where Delhomme will not be improving from year to year very soon. So at least bring in some competition.

He turned the ball over 6 times against Arizona, alright, it doesn't mean we should cut our losses, but it doesn't mean he gets to walk in the unquestioned starter next year either.

[Mr. Scot]

Who said to let him go THIS VERY SECOND?

The fact that we don't have a viable alternative IS a problem, not solely Jake.

Didn't realize that was so hard to interpret.

There are plenty of posters that would drop him right now. You don't even have to look back that far in this thread.

I didn't suggest that. To draw a conclusion from me saying "they'd probably get replaced" to that, is taking it out of context.

What would be his cap hit besides that?

The point is it's getting to that point in time where Delhomme will not be improving from year to year very soon. So at least bring in some competition.

He turned the ball over 6 times against Arizona, alright, it doesn't mean we should cut our losses, but it doesn't mean he gets to walk in the unquestioned starter next year either.

It does if the only people doing the "questioning" are fans. And that's Gantt's whole point.

[panthers55]

Wow, you just completely ignored what I said. I don't know if you read these with your eyes closed or not, just save us the time and say you have a point because you're being an optimist and I actually admire that believe it or not and we'll be good. I was actually replying to something someone said about him coming off reconstructive elbow surgery like 414 pass attempts in a season was really what you'd call "airing it out" for a QB.

And yea, isn't it something that a balanced offense puts less pressure and focus on the QB than a pass heavy deal? Oh wait a minute, you're wrong, we didn't run a balanced offense. Last I checked 414=/=504 by my math. Oh and that 504 is how many times the Panthers ran the ball.

I didn't ignore what you said. And we did have a balanced offense. 414 to 504 is hardly an unbalanced offense. What do you exect exactly the same numbers? Give me a break.

You put up these stats that I already looked up and proved my point for me. Yes he was ineffective when the running game was stopped, what are you reading that would suggest otherwise? The Minnesota game he was ineffective, the TB game he was ineffective, and the Arizona game in the postseason he was ineffective. Oh, BTW, that last game, against NO, that was actually more like 225, not 125.

Then you obviously don't know how to read a stat line. What I put up was the numbers from NFL.com where did you get yours?

And what does it matter if we ran for 125 or 225 versus New Orlean in the last game, the bottom line is that Jake threw for another 250? You made the assertion that when we were stopped in running the ball, Jake had a poor day assuming he couldn't throw without a running attack and all the numbers show there isn't a straight line correlation of much of anything to correlate the two. Since we ran so well this year there were only 2 games where we didn't run for at least 100 yards so any connection you can draw would have too small of a sample size to be valid. And in the 2 games where he threw for the least yards, we ran the ball well and won the game.

IN the Minnesota game he threw for almost 200 yards, In Tampa amd Arizona he threw for over 200 yards. He wasn't ineffective in the regular season. I acknowledged he threw some picks the first game in Tampa but 2 of the passes were deflected and on the interception by Barber, Rosario didn't even attempt to come back for the ball. Still what is effective? 300 yards plus? Most of our losses were due to the defense not the offense.

You just like to throw out these baseless claims that I'm wrong but you can't back it up. Since when is passing yards the sole statistic of judging a player?

Passing yards aren't the only measure but it is better than a blanket statement saying he was ineffective. The Panthers were ineffective in those losses, Jake wasn't the primary problem.

Here's another example of where your research is faulty. Jake didn't throw 4 picks in Tampa he threw 3, then I loved the little cop out you put there. "well he threw a few interceptions but he really didn't." what the hell? Why the hell does Dante Rosario have to dive to catch a pass anyway? Because he was covered well by one of TBs linebackers, he wasn't open. Delhomme actually forced that one if you look at the tape, led him to far, to low, and he couldn't grab it. I mean since when do we expect Dante to be Lynn Swann?

3 interceptions or 4 is a red herring argument. It doesn't change the fact that 2 of the three were tipped and Rosario gave up on the third one not even attempting to knock it away or keep the defender from going right for it. And your argument here fails to give any friction to your argument. By trying to argue a small point it doesn't hide the fact that the Tampa defense played well and had a big early lead. With no running game at all and a big hole we were forced to throw the ball to get back in the game. Which quarterback does well in that situation. And lets grant you everything you say is true, it was one game. Why concentrate on Jake as the culprit without talking about the blocked punt, failure of the defense to stop Garcia and the big hole we were in?

I know, because your weak arguments would hold no water.

[panthers55]

Raging Bull part deux.

We won them both largely because of him? Let me tell you something, one of those games he threw for less than 100, he threw 4 damn picks, and that defense you like to use as a scapegoat so much was what actually played well. So did the running game, ....in both games actually. Hence when I said "he got a lot of help this year". What part of that don't you understand?

You missed the point as usual. He did have a poor game and the running game and defense did bail him out. Who said he didn't? Your supposed point was that when we didn't have a running game he wasn't good. I was pointing out that there wasn't a causal link like you suggest. In two of his worse games we had a very good running game and the defense showed up. The point is that his weak performances were not as much due to the lack of a running game but appeared to be almost random against Detroit or in the case of Oakland a very good man to man style with good corners. He had a poor game even when we ran the ball fairly well. It happens.

Unlike you I don't try and skew the facts to only fit my argument. I am willing to show both sides and present the facts evn if it hurts a point I am making. In the end for me it isn't winning the argument as exploring the facts. And I have readily admitted that Jake had some poor games. I haven't heard you admit he had some good games and in fact some great games. In fact all I hear is he sucks from you. I prefer balance and reality to one sided skewed arguments.

Here's a bottom-bottom line. When the Panthers win, it was Jake who won the game. But when the Panthers lose, it's never "Jake lost that game" to some people. So he can single-handedly win games and at the same time be completely devoid of responsibility when the Panthers lose, ....even if he turns the ball over multiple times? Oh and I don't know if your aware, but there's more to bad QB play than just throwing interceptions. How about not making good, quick decisions? How about not being able to complete a pass? Hey, here's an example. Jake went 11/19 against New York. In the second half + overtime, he went 4-6 for 50 yards and no touchdowns.

The fact don't support that Jake did lose any games for us this year with perhaps the exception of the first Tampa game and obviously the playoff game. We have all readily admitted that. Why don't you admit that he won more games with 4th quarter comebacks than he lost? All you want to say is that he was crappy in the first three quarters and dug a hole so it was no big deal when he won it late. What kind of crap is that??

Against Minnesota he didn't win it but surely didn't lose it.

Against New York we had a very large lead going into halftime. No he didn't win it in overtime but he surely didn't lose it either. He helped built a big halftime lead that was evaporated when Kemo didn't play and Lewis got hurt and we got steamrolled by the running game of the Giants. The defense lost that one.

And against Atlanta again Jake had a very good game but the defense was absolutely terrible. We dug a big hole and never got out of it.

Again show me how Jake lost that game or any other in the regular season. Now lets talk about how many come from behind victories he did win for us. Yeah, SD, Chicago, Arizona, Detroit, Green Bay, and NO off the top of my head.

I'm not the one fronting faulty evidence myself. You constantly claim "you have no proof" at the same time you don't explain why, and when you do, you just prove my point like you did.

Your right you rarely produce any evidence just accusations and criticisms. But yes when you do present evidence it is usally skewed and presents one one side.

You call Big Ben a game manager, that's how you describe his entire postseason. He threw 7 touchdowns in that postseason, he was a major

reason the Steelers got to the superbowl in the first place that year, and his regular season stats may look pedestrian for a starting QB (2400, 17tds-9ints) but that was because he missed 4 games.

The same way you would call Jake a game manager in 2003. He threw 6 TDs, 1 INT, 987 yards, and had a passer rating of 106.

Big Ben threw for 803 with 7Tds, 3Ints, and a passer rating of 101. What you fail to note is that in the Superbowl Ben went 9 for 23 for 123 yards and 2 interceptions. He played poorly and if had our running game and defense that year wouldn't have won the Super Bowl.

Obviously you know little about quality stats. Instead of looking at total yards and making excuses for why he threw for only 198 yards a game you should have concentrated on td to Int ratio or passer rating or yards per attempt were very high at 8.9. Seems I even have to help you formulate your own arguments!

Seriously though, how is Jake a game manager during the regular season like this year and yet he had almost the same number of yards this year as Ben on almost a hundred less throws? And he had half the sacks, a full yard more per passing attempt and a higher passer rating? Until the post season Jake was better than Ben. So if Jake is a game manager then so was Ben. And from a quality stat point of view, Ben had one of his worst years this year.

And yes Ben had a good post season deserved what he got and did a fine job. I was rooting for him the whole way.

As usual, I present the whole picture and you present only the facts which support your narrow view of things.

Please stop making idle accusations that you can't back up. It's not fooling me and it's not making you look any smarter. Just admit you're not in this debate to offer logic or concrete thought, you're just in here to defend Jake, and that's what it all comes down to.

I don't make accusations and I have facts for everything I say. You are the pot calling the kettle black. And you are right I am not concrete like you are. I have the ability for abstract thought and to see things from more than one perspective. It is called adult logic. Most teenagers acquire it between 12-14 years old. But don't worry even short bus folks get it eventually. There is hope for you yet.

And that is all I am going to say since I am sure it is boring to everyone to read these long winded posts.

[frash.exe]

There are plenty of posters that would drop him right now. You don't even have to look back that far in this thread.

It does if the only people doing the "questioning" are fans. And that's Gantt's whole point.

Nobody in the organization going to want to upset the applecart. They believe in him because they need to.

[frash.exe]

I didn't ignore what you said. And we did have a balanced offense. 414 to 504 is hardly an unbalanced offense. What do you exect exactly the same numbers? Give me a break.

Yea, the attempts are just the beginning. How about the fact that we scored twice as many rushing touchdowns as passing touchdowns? Still think it's balanced?

You missed the point as usual. He did have a poor game and the running game and defense did bail him out. Who said he didn't? Your supposed point was that when we didn't have a running game he wasn't good. I was pointing out that there wasn't a causal link like you suggest. In two of his worse games we had a very good running game and the defense showed up. The point is that his weak performances were not as much due to the lack of a running game but appeared to be almost random against Detroit or in the case of Oakland a very good man to man style with good corners. He had a poor game even when we ran the ball fairly well. It happens.

Unlike you I don't try and skew the facts to only fit my argument. I am willing to show both sides and present the facts evn if it hurts a point I am making. In the end for me it isn't winning the argument as exploring the facts. And I have readily admitted that Jake had some poor games. I haven't heard you admit he had some good games and in fact some great games. In fact all I hear is he sucks from you. I prefer balance and reality to one sided skewed arguments.

If it was so random how come he went out and just threw two more picks against the bucs again.....in a game we rushed for another 300 yards? That's my point. That's what I was trying to say when I described the Giants game that we still got a good chunk of yards out of. So yea, he did struggle a bit even in the games we were running the ball. And Oakland's pass D, they got burned their fair share over the season. They were good, but not dominating.

The fact don't support that Jake did lose any games for us this year with perhaps the exception of the first Tampa game and obviously the playoff game. We have all readily admitted that. Why don't you admit that he won more games with 4th quarter comebacks than he lost? All you want to say is that he was crappy in the first three quarters and dug a hole so it was no big deal when he won it late. What kind of crap is that??

Against Minnesota he didn't win it but surely didn't lose it.

Yea, I he has more 4th Q comebacks than Tom Brady, Big Ben, Eli, Peyton. ...remind me again how this guy doesn't have a ring? There is more to the NFL than winning at the last minute at the end of every game. Jake has a penchant for it, but his tendency to have a bad game cost us dearly in the end.

Against Minnesota a Delhomme turnover was converted into 7 points, a defensive touchdown.

Your right you rarely produce any evidence just accusations and criticisms. But yes when you do present evidence it is usally skewed and presents one one side.

And here it is again. Please explain how you got that from what I said. You tell me I'm right and then you state something completely opposite. I'm not getting into a back and forth argument like that. Little children do that kind of thing.

The same way you would call Jake a game manager in 2003. He threw 6 TDs, 1 INT, 987 yards, and had a passer rating of 106.

Big Ben threw for 803 with 7Tds, 3Ints, and a passer rating of 101. What you fail to note is that in the Superbowl Ben went 9 for 23 for 123 yards and 2 interceptions. He played poorly and if had our running game and defense that year wouldn't have won the Super Bowl.

And I can tell you if Ben went 17-34 for 1 td and 5 interceptions against Cincinnati that year, they wouldn't have won the superbowl either.

Obviously you know little about quality stats. Instead of looking at total yards and making excuses for why he threw for only 198 yards a game you should have concentrated on td to Int ratio or passer rating or yards per attempt were very high at 8.9. Seems I even have to help you formulate your own arguments!

Oh wow I got a study partner now. That's fun. I actually wasn't aware if you knew he missed that many games in 2005 or not, that's where I was going. See, I thought you were going to look at 2400 yards and all the rest as over 16 games.

Seriously though, how is Jake a game manager during the regular season like this year and yet he had almost the same number of yards this year as Ben on almost a hundred less throws? And he had half the sacks, a full yard more per passing attempt and a higher passer rating? Until the post season Jake was better than Ben. So if Jake is a game manager then so was Ben. And from a quality stat point of view, Ben had one of his worst years this year.

I don't know maybe he had more sacks because the Steeler's line was terrible. Jake has more time in the pocket to throw, maybe that helps him. You're making it sound like these guys have had the same exact support system on offense. Steelers defense was dominating while ours was largely a weakness down the stretch. But you probably didn't take into consideration that Pittsburgh's running game was 23rd this year. That Big Ben had more passing touchdowns than the entire Steelers team had rushing touchdowns. Point is, Pittsburgh didn't have a particularly dominating running game, so Ben couldn't have been a game manager at that point, he had to become a bigger part of the offense.

Until the postseason Jake was better than Ben. He was. Okay. But didn't a certain guy once say "its not how you start, it's how you finish"?

I don't make accusations and I have facts for everything I say. You are the pot calling the kettle black. And you are right I am not concrete like you are. I have the ability for abstract thought and to see things from more than one perspective. It is called adult logic. Most teenagers acquire it between 12-14 years old. But don't worry even short bus folks get it eventually. There is hope for you yet.

Adult logic. You're funny, you should open with this in standup.

Seriously, don't play the age card, I've met a shitload of moronic middle aged people and you wouldn't be the first one if you actually were one of them. That doesn't mean I'm calling you a moron. I'm just saying age=/=intellect 100% of the time. There's a limit.

[frash.exe]

a few more points...

Against New York we had a very large lead going into halftime. No he didn't win it in overtime but he surely didn't lose it either. He helped built a big halftime lead that was evaporated when Kemo didn't play and Lewis got hurt and we got steamrolled by the running game of the Giants. The defense lost that one.

And against Atlanta again Jake had a very good game but the defense was absolutely terrible. We dug a big hole and never got out of it.

Again show me how Jake lost that game or any other in the regular season. Now lets talk about how many come from behind victories he did win for us. Yeah, SD, Chicago, Arizona, Detroit, Green Bay, and NO off the top of my head.

You're wrong again. Detroit wasn't won in the fourth quarter. Jake threw for 100 yards, the running game amps up 264, and you say he won it. That's ridiculous. That was hardly a come from behind victory. Come from behind ones are usually games like Arizona you mentioned, but you jump the gun here with the Lions.

Just because you see a "come from behind" victory, you automatically grant it to Jake. He alone didn't win the game for us. Last I checked we had a running game which did it's fair share of damage, but you don't credit that. You don't credit that DeAngelo punches it in for the score against GB, his fourth of the day. You don't credit that Jonathan Stewart moved the chains in Chicago and scored both of our touchdowns. Jake had a good hand in winning those comebacks. @SD was a phenomenal, improbable win. Don't forget to give some credit to Smith who made some spectacular catches in GB and in NO, though.

A couple more points. It seems you underestimate just how much time of possession really means in this league. For instance, Atlanta game, here's a drive chart for your reference.

Panthers at Falcons

1st Q time of possession. Falcons about 12 minutes. Panthers about 3 minutes. That's pathetic, and you can blankly see that the offense wasn't doing any favors for the defense going 3 and out and putting them back on the field after only a minute and a half average of time elapsed. If the Jake can get them to move the chains, that's not an 18 point 1st quarter. Sometimes yes, you have to rely on your QB to get the ball rolling. The running game isn't always gonna be there every time. Please tell me how the fact that the Atlanta offense held the ball 4X the amount of time the Panthers' O did was all the defense's fault. It's not. They didn't help much, but they weren't the sole contributors.

21:01 vs 14:02 in the second half of the Giants game, plus overtime. That's a wide differential and they clearly won the TOP battle. Maybe 4 punts in the second half, and constantly giving the Giants the ball back helped wear the defense down. It's a simple chain of reaction. Car-11:54/NY-18:06 if you're wondering about the first half. I actually tried to see if we held the ball more than they did in the first half, you know to see if something worked in your favor. I don't know, maybe the fact that the Giants had the ball 14 more minutes than the Panthers did in that game, contributed a little to the defense getting worn out, maybe the fact that the offense wasn't able to sustain drives in the second half contributed to the meltdown.

Passing yards aren't the only measure but it is better than a blanket statement saying he was ineffective. The Panthers were ineffective in those losses, Jake wasn't the primary problem.

I don't feel like I have to re-elaborate my point constantly like you do. I made that "blanket" statement, because I assumed since you posted all those stats whatever Jake #s I could put up you would have already seen. Again you seem to have this tendency to say "the Panthers lost this game" and then, "Jake won these games". So who's skewing facts to benefit their own viewpoints here? Look, again, side by side.

Again show me how Jake lost that game or any other in the regular season. Now lets talk about how many come from behind victories he did win for us. Yeah, SD, Chicago, Arizona, Detroit, Green Bay, and NO off the top of my head.

Passing yards aren't the only measure but it is better than a blanket statement saying he was ineffective. The Panthers were ineffective in those losses, Jake wasn't the primary problem.

I don't care what you say, but you're absolutely, positively twisting the argument on your behalf here. I've got you red-handed. If you can't admit this one you have nothing to say to me.

I will say no one player wins or loses a game for his team. But QB has a lot of influence as far as that goes. He was a big reason we won some games and he was a big reason we lost some games. Yea, I'll admit that. But he can't catch his own throws and he doesn't run in between the tackles very often, at least not as much as Stewart or DeAngelo do. You wanna talk about blanket statements, well here you are making your own blanket statement, that "he won the game for us" like Jake made his own throw, ran down the sideline and caught his own pass in the endzone, lowered his pads and used his vision to run for big gains downfield, all the while blocking defensive linemen and blitzing LBers and DBs.

[mantal]

Every team asks themselves that question. Who's out there? Well there's no easy answer, but it doesn't mean just because it's hard to answer we shouldn't even try. While I'm at it, I might as well live a "don't try if it's too hard" lifestyle. Yea, that should get me a nice career at Denny's. Seriously, WTF kind of outlook is that? That's just a bait question at best, you're only waiting for me to suggest someone and then follow up with a cynical "YOU SHOULD BE GM THEN!" kind of reply.

And I don't know what the "trashing" constitutes. Last I checked even if I did trash him and I'm not going to scan my previous posts it's been hardly constant, and the video I posted last week, well, I was trying to get a video of Jake's poor performance without all the music and sped up lyrics and festive borders and all that other crap. You think what I did was trashing, come to New York and we'll show you how they trash players up here. Eli's face was on the paper with a condescending headline like every game the Giants lost in his career until he won superbowl 42. Jake hardly meets any criticism compared to a lot of other players in the league.

You are one paranoid MF'er. I had no agenda and wasn't baiting at all. I was just trying to see if you had any substantive suggestions behind your campaign. I'll just skip over your posts from now on since there doesn't seem to be much substance to them...

[panthers55]

You are one paranoid MF'er. I had no agenda and wasn't baiting at all. I was just trying to see if you had any substantive suggestions behind your campaign. I'll just skip over your posts from now on since there doesn't seem to be much substance to them...

I agree, I skipped over his latest diatribe he wrote in response to me. I am sure there isn't anything new or interesting. Seems his approach is to wear everyone down with his endless tirades and always get the last word in. I won't respond and hope he feels justified in getting in the last word.

Seems some folks like to complain and whine no matter what. I guess you can't do much with miserable people but try and avoid them when you can.

[Fireball77]

Eli has upside. He was young, he had a whole career to get better and the Giants knew it then. How old was he? (24?) Even Peyton, during his career, he had some very bad games, but that's a whole different offense. Peyton's always throwing the ball constantly, so you're risking more interceptions that way.

Eli is still young but he has played about 4 1/2 years in the NFL now and his last playoff game wasn't very good either nor has he improved his accuracy very much. He's FAR below 60% as a passer career wise, and this past year was the first one he hit even 60% completions. His career QB rating is 76.1. He's had a tremendous running game his entire career in NY. Do you give a guy like that a HUGE GINORMOUS contract like he's about to get simply because his defense won a SB for them while he played nice, efficient game manager style football in those playoffs? I must reiterate that I like Eli, but to pay a game manager type guy a huge contract because he was a lauded 1st rounder his team gave up a LOT to get seems to me to be a questionable decision.

I do understand. Again, I don't get specific enough sometimes. Given the same criteria, QB just like Jake and just as old as he is now puts out the same performance he did on any other team in a playoff game, do you still disagree?

Looking for another QB would be more about age and the future than one bad playoff game. I don't know if the FO is figuring McCown would be a bridge while Moore develops or what, but I do think there's some mismanagement of contracts since all three QBs' contracts expire after this upcoming year. IF Jake has lost the faith of his teammates and coaches that is the thing the team has to take into consideration because I believe that once a QB loses the LR, he is done. I don't think that has happened though.

Two of those guys you used as examples, Peyton, Favre, they've had to make do with a below average running game for most, if not their entire careers, and Eli only threw 3 picks in his first rodeo. He picked himself up by his bootstraps and improved. (and it's funny to mention Eli got more heat for that one game in the NY media than Jake got probably for these last two playoff games combined here). Nobody was calling Edgerrin James and Dominic Rhodes any nicknames in indy.

I have to quibble with this. It's true that Peyton had a suckass run game this past year, but other than this year he has never had to play a season without a 1,000 yard rusher I believe. I would have to check more with Favre but I would imagine it wasn't as bad as you think with him either.

Eli gets more heat in NY than another QB would get in a less media centric city? I would pretty much expect that. It's one of the reasons I respect Eli so much, the way he handles that media pressure and the fact that he pretty much ASKED for it with his engineering his way out of SD (where he also wouldn't face the same media scrutiny). He ASKED for pressure when he went to his daddy's alma mater too.

And if we're a team that puts a lot of focus on the running game, that we only need a "game manager", how many game managers have helped their team to a superbowl win in the last 15 years? Off the top of my head I can say Trent Dilfer. Brad Johnson doesn't count because he threw for 3800 yards and 26 TDs in his run with the Bucs in 03, and his #s have been wildly inconsistent year to year (one time throwing for 4000+ with Washington.

Game manager is exactly what Brady was his first year when they won a SB. As P55 pointed out, BR had a horrendous SB 40 and they still won it.

I know Jake had a far better running game than he ever has had. I know he had two WRs who had great/good years. I know he had some games where his accuracy was questionable. I just don't believe it was age or declining skills or that he suXX0rs OMGWFTBBQ, I believe it was TJ related. This year will show us more methinks.

[top dawg]

I don't remember seeing anyone saying drop Jake without a viable alternative. The whole thread has been about whether or not thare are viable alternatives, and whether or not we should put in the effort to bring them in. The whole question is centered around whether you believe John Doe QB is a viable alternative? Some do, but some don't. That is the central question, but there are plenty of questions circling this question.

[top dawg]

Basically, I am thinking that there are only one or two of us who believe in Keeping Jake at all costs, none saying to dump him at all costs, and the others are saying that they'd drop him too if there were some "viable" alternatives, but there aren't any, so why discuss it?

What I have been saying is that this is a forum, so why not discuss it? Even if it's futile, it's still therapeutic. It's not as serious as the undying Jake idolizers are trying to make it, and it certainly doesn't warrant hiding behind the "you don't know what you're talking about" argument, when everyone can plainly see that we are discussing opinions based on our own personal standards in reference to the results that we have seen on the field. The main problem is that some just don't want any discussion of the forced demotion or departure of Jake Delhomme based on their definition of his successful performance on the field, or lack thereof, because he's our best alternative in their eyes. Either they feel it blasphemous, or futile and unfruitful for whatever reasons, and will proclaim that others don't know anything about football, or are not fans, etc. because of it. Of course, the others (myself included) who obviously do have an opinion based on their knowledge of the game and observation of Jake's performance are not buying it, and I can't say that I blame them.

[top dawg]

Basically, I am thinking that there are only one or two of us who believe in Keeping Jake at all costs, none saying to dump him at all costs, and the others are saying that they'd drop him too if there were some "viable" alternatives, but there aren't any, so why discuss it?

What I have been saying is that this is a forum, so why not discuss it? Even if it's futile, it's still therapeutic. It's not as serious as the undying Jake slobber-knockers are trying to make it, and it certainly doesn't warrant hiding behind the "you don't know what you're talking about" philosophy, when everyone can plainly see that we are discussing opinions based on our own personal standards in reference to the redults that we have seen on the field. The main problem is that some just don't want any discussion of the forced demotion or departure of Jake Delhomme based on their definition of his successful performance on the field, or lack thereof, because he's our best alternative in their eyes. Either they feel it blasphemous, or futile and unfruitful for whatever reasons, and will proclaim others don't know anything about football, or are not fans, etc. because of it. Of course, the others who obviously do have an opinion based on their knowledge of the game and observation of Jake's performance are not buying it, and I can't say that I blame them.