For those wanting a new QB

[Skew]

Just remember people (and I'm not pointing fingers, yet) let's argue, but not insult.

We really don't want to step in.

[Fox007]

If we're going by salary, I don't think Jake is anywhere near the top. If we're going by cap room, then it's not a good comparison since the cap hit for any player depends on when they signed the contract and how backloaded it is.

The way I see it, a lot of money is on the O-line and considering the performance of the running game, I think it's a good investment.Oh, you're a lot of help.

There's a good reason I'm not posting like I used to. There's no point, if someone disagrees, they are going to stay in disagreement no matter what anyone says.

Now, I'll step aside and let everyone else continue...

:lurk5:

O-line is indeed a good investment, and a needed one. Actually having such a good line should further justify wanting to groom a young franchise QB under it and it's run game.

I don't imagine our O-line costs would hold us back from that.

[panthers55]

Here I'll even help ya.

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/

Delhomme's price is not that far off from several QBs that are way better than him.

Now I don't want one of the 20+mil QB's by any means, but there are QB's with comparable salaries to Jake that perform much better.

Most of the top level QB's get between 7-12 mil, the 'elite' level QB's will have those 20+mill salaries.

It really isn't that terrible if you don't spend the literal #1 pick on someone.

Lets look at that list.

Highest paid Peyton Manning. Sure his individual stats were better but Football is a team sport. Did the Colt do better than 12-4? Did he take them past the second round of the playoffs? Sure Peyton is better but they spend most of their money on offense and he gets a chunk of it. Still hasn't produced more than one Super Bowl appearance although they won theirs.

Lets look at number 2- Tom Brady. Sure he has been great in the past but he cost 14.6 million last year and didn't play at all. May not play again this year by some accounts.

Next- Carson Palmer. How many games did he play in 2008?

Eli Manning had no better stats than Jake and took them no further in 2008 than Jake did the Panthers. He had a terrible playoff game as well.

Brett Favre: Team didn't even make the playoffs and he had some very poor games down the stretch whereas Jake did much better in the last part of the season.

Fact is in 2007 when Jake got hurt, we got little value for his salary. This year we got a lot more value. Like those above they cost more but with the exception of Manning produced less than Jake did.

As for other quarterbacks, look down that list at the four names directly below Jake.

Matt Hasselback, Alex Smith, David Garrard and Marc Bulger. Anyone of them help their team to a winning record?

What floors me is that people like you are so narrow minded that you can't even remember 2007 when Jake went down and compare that to 2008 when we went 12-4. The biggest difference anyone on the team will readily point to is Jake coming back. Sure Williams and Peppers and Beason all made a difference as well. But I guarantee you that if Moore were the quarterback, or any of the four guys below Jake , we would have been worse off.

Sure you can look at Drew Brees or someone else down the list and say look at him but until we can read the future and predict what is going to happen most of this is a crap shoot at best. For example given Jake's history in the postseason we would have bet he would have played well against Arizona. But he didn't.

But to assume that we can find someone better in free agency for cheaper is unrealistic. And to assume that we can find anyone in the draft who can come in this fall or even next year and play better than Jake is very unlikely as well. For ever Matt Ryan, the league is full of Vince Youngs, Tavaris Jackson, Derek Andersons, and Alex Smiths.

But seriously you are not gone to win this argument and your ammo gets weaker all the time. Feel free to continue to fire away but the reality is you got little to nothing to back you up and your so called facts are weak also.

I doubt it will stop you since nothing else has. Continue to waste time trying to find shreds of information to back up your opinion. I will let someone take up the gauntlet since it really isn't that hard.

Until someone comes along better you are like Don Quixote swinging at windmills. Even if you were right and you aren't, it is irrelevant. Jake is here because he gives up the best chance to win. Until someone else replaces him, he will be the starter. Live with it.

[Punisher]

Jake hate. Logic not required.

[Fox007]

Highest paid Peyton Manning. Sure his individual stats were better but Football is a team sport. Did the Colt do better than 12-4? Did he take them past the second round of the playoffs? Sure Peyton is better but they spend most of their money on offense and he gets a chunk of it. Still hasn't produced more than one Super Bowl appearance although they won theirs.

Yea the Colts have had only one losing season in 10 years, and out of those 10 years they had 9 10+ win seasons. So yea lets not try to be like that. Really they spend most of their money on their offense, is what we spend the majority of our money on landing us that kind of success? So what is the point of you saying that?

Nothing we spend our money on brings us that, so obviously its worth it, but whatever if your happy with 7-9, 8-8, 12-4,7-9,7-9 then that's your standard I guess.

Lets look at number 2- Tom Brady. Sure he has been great in the past but he cost 14.6 million last year and didn't play at all. May not play again this year by some accounts.

What floors me is that people like you are so narrow minded that you can't even remember 2007 when Jake went down and compare that to 2008 when we went 12-4. The biggest difference anyone on the team will readily point to is Jake coming back. Sure Williams and Peppers and Beason all made a difference as well. But I guarantee you that if Moore were the quarterback, or any of the four guys below Jake , we would have been worse off.

Sure you can look at Drew Brees or someone else down the list and say look at him but until we can read the future and predict what is going to happen most of this is a crap shoot at best. For example given Jake's history in the postseason we would have bet he would have played well against Arizona. But he didn't.

Yup, screw Brady, who wants NFL MVP's and 3 time Super Bowl champs on their team.

We went 7-9 with Jake before, so that really means nothing, especially after you start 4 QB's.

How many games did Moore start compared to how long was he on the team?

You have nothing to back yourself up unless you see another QB play the whole year with the team. You can't say that Jake gives us the best chance to win when we had an equal record with 4 QB's as we have had with Jake.

If Moore or anyone had started the whole year, and not just some of it, then those saying that would have some meaning.

Until that happens that isn't fact, that's just YOUR assumption.

We know that Jake gives us a better chance at winning than having Carr or Vinny, but aside from those you are making assumptions.

Like it or not you're doing the same thing you accuse me of.

But to assume that we can find someone better in free agency for cheaper is unrealistic. And to assume that we can find anyone in the draft who can come in this fall or even next year and play better than Jake is very unlikely as well. For ever Matt Ryan, the league is full of Vince Youngs, Tavaris Jackson, Derek Andersons, and Alex Smiths.

That is exactly what you are doing, you are just assuming Jake will perform better than a draft pick, you don't know. How you gonna say what all I'm assuming when you are doing the same thing?

It's not even about playing better than him now, if they played equal to him it would still be a huge upgrade because they would be young and have time to develop even further.

Plus I have never said anything about grabbing a FA QB, my posts have pretty much been against that, but you jock sniffers just see what you want to see in a post.

I especially haven't said anything about grabbing a cheaper QB, if you could read you would see that I would be more than willing to spend more for a better QB.

"for every Matt Ryan *insert random bust here*"

Ok so how many Jakes have won the SB or have had a lot of success? 1?

You are wanting to go the route in which only one QB in recent memory has succeeded?

The draft is where you get your QB's, and it doesn't have to be a first rounder. The most successful franchises(and dynasties) draft and mold/groom their QB's.

But seriously you are not gone to win this argument and your ammo gets weaker all the time. Feel free to continue to fire away but the reality is you got little to nothing to back you up and your so called facts are weak also.

Really I'm not? I already have LOL.

I showed you even, go look at the SB winning QBs. Unless of course that is "just a coincidence"

"So called facts" is more than you have come up with, you bring no facts, just unbridled love for a mediocre QB.

Nothing to back me up? Yea I know I don't, I mean all those guys you just listed up top have won Super Bowls, and are the faces of their team.

Yup no back up there.

Funny how none of the Jake lovers say how to go about getting our future QB. In your minds I suppose Jake will always be the QB, poor delusional fools.

Or shall we just pick up the next 'Jake' and live forever in mediocrity, have a minor success but ultimately fail.

[panthers55]

Yea the Colts have had only one losing season in 10 years, and out of those 10 years they had 9 10+ win seasons. So yea lets not try to be like that. Really they spend most of their money on their offense, is what we spend the majority of our money on landing us that kind of success? So what is the point of you saying that?

Nothing we spend our money on brings us that, so obviously its worth it, but whatever if your happy with 7-9, 8-8, 12-4,7-9,7-9 then that's your standard I guess.

What i am saying is that teams that spend most of their money on offense expect good offense and willing to go after it. Teams like ours who have traditionally spend most of the money on defense have a good defense and decent offense. 2008 is the first year we have focused on the offense more so than the defense and the results showed it. Our offense was top 10 for the first time in our franchise history. For the first time we had a good supporting cast around Jake since 2003. Manning has had a better supporting cast on offense than we have had which is part of the reason Manning is more successful. Not totally the reason but surely a factor.

As for our record and relating that to Jake, what is your point. You would rather have their offense than ours?

Your logic if we can loosely call it that is random and convoluted.

Yup, screw Brady, who wants NFL MVP's and 3 time Super Bowl champs on their team.

We went 7-9 with Jake before, so that really means nothing, especially after you start 4 QB's.

How many games did Moore start compared to how long was he on the team?

You have nothing to back yourself up unless you see another QB play the whole year with the team. You can't say that Jake gives us the best chance to win when we had an equal record with 4 QB's as we have had with Jake.

If Moore or anyone had started the whole year, and not just some of it, then those saying that would have some meaning.

Until that happens that isn't fact, that's just YOUR assumption.

We know that Jake gives us a better chance at winning than having Carr or Vinny, but aside from those you are making assumptions.

Like it or not you're doing the same thing you accuse me of.

You missed the point as usual.

I don't see anything about all the other quarterbacks above or below Jake in cap costs other than Brady being mentioned. My point was that in 2008 there were a number of better compensated quarterbacks who didn't deliver near what Jake did. So to say he was overpaid or not worth it is incorrect. For example to say that Brady is worth 14 million in 2008 would be totally wrong. He didn't play. To say he will be worth that much in 2009 assumes he makes a full recovery and plays to his previous standard. At this point it is a guess nothing more.

But the reality is that Jake had better seasons than everyone except Manning comparing the top 10 on that list from a winning perspective.

Going back to Brady's wins in the past or our record is irrelevant to the discussion. We aren't talking about who was worth it in the past but who was worth it last year and more notably who will be worth it next year. Anything else is history and totally irrelevant to the present at which point decisions are being made.

That is exactly what you are doing, you are just assuming Jake will perform better than a draft pick.

Plus I have never said anything about grabbing a FA QB, my posts have pretty much been against that, but you jock sniffers just see what you want to see in a post.

I especially haven't said anything about grabbing a cheaper QB, if you could read you would see that I would be more than willing to spend more for a better QB.

"for every Matt Ryan *insert random bust here*"

Ok so how many Jakes have won the SB or have had a lot of success? 1?

You are wanting to go the route in which only one QB in recent memory has succeeded?

The draft is where you get your QB's, and it doesn't have to be a first rounder. The most successful franchises(and dynasties) draft and mold/groom their QB's.

And who said we shouldn't pick up a quarterback in the draft or free agency. I am simply saying that to expect them to come in and lead the team better than Jake in the next year or two is not likely to happen. Of course we need to prepare for the future without Jake and we may do that in this draft or perhaps the next depending on where things fall. But it won't change that Jake will be the starter until someone unseats him much like he took Peete's job.

Ryan started because Atlanta was building and no one expected them to do well. No pressure. Flacco started due to injury not anything else. No way a rookie starts here after going 12-4 last year and expectations very high. Anyone we get will sit the bench for some time and we have not shown we will hold on to them long enough to develop them.

Really I'm not? I already have LOL.

I showed you even, go look at the SB winning QBs. Unless of course that is "just a coincidence"

"So called facts" is more than you have come up with, you bring no facts, just unbridled love for a mediocre QB.

Nothing to back me up? Yea I know I don't, I mean all those guys you just listed up top have won Super Bowls, and are the faces of their team.

Yup no back up there.

Funny how none of the Jake lovers say how to go about getting our future QB. In your minds I suppose Jake will always be the QB, poor delusional fools.

Or shall we just pick up the next 'Jake' and live forever in mediocrity, have a minor success but ultimately fail.

Go back to your list. It is clear that as many Superbowls were won by guys who were not first rounders versus those who were. Plus you obviously overlook the fact that many times the better quarterback doesn't always win. For example Warner the undrafted guy outplayed Roethlesburger, the firsr rounder, by a lot this year but lost. In 2003 Jake outplayed Brady by a good amount although the Patriots won and neither were a first rounder.

As for draft pick quarterbacks winning more anything than undrafted ones, of course they do, as almost all quarterbacks starting or back-ups were drafted. Without NFL-Europe the number of undrafted guys making rosters may shrink to zero (Where Jake and Warner both came from). That doesn't prove anything. And for the record I am not a Jake Lover but I am a realist. If we could get Drew Brees tomorrow I would jump at it but it ain't going to happen.

How would I solve the dilemma of post Jake? I would draft a guy in the second day of the draft if someone drops that far who has starting potential. I would also pick up a free agent like we did Jake and replace McCown if we can upgrade without breaking the bank. You assume that many of us who support the team and Jake, don't want better quarterback play. And like usual you are wrong. But many of us are more realistic about what is out there and don't want to throw someone under the bus like you do until we can find someone better. If Jake doesn't earn the spot next year then replace him. Until then it is just whining and complaining from the few too juvenile to get over the loss.

[manwithcake]

You assume that many of us who support the team and Jake, don't want better quarterback play. And like usual you are wrong. But many of us are more realistic about what is out there and don't want to throw someone under the bus like you do until we can find someone better. If Jake doesn't earn the spot next year then replace him. Until then it is just whining and complaining from the few too juvenile to get over the loss.

:thumbsup:

[raleigh-panther]

It would surely be very nice to see that the Panthers have a 'plan' to upgrade the most important position on the field, and the position most in the League feel is the most important position on the field.

...oh wait, our Coach is John Fox.

As much as I like and have supported Jake Delhomme, he has hit his zenith.

What must it be like to be NE, and have Tom Brady, and have drafted a kid who had the skills and they had the coaching staff to get the best out of him.

Granted Cassel and Brady may both be system QBs, but, what a system.

[King Taharqa]

It was surely be very nice to see that the Panthers have a 'plan' to upgrade the most important position on the field, and the position most in the League feel is the most important position on the field.

...oh wait, our Coach is John Fox.

The rest of the league is wrong. We're right, and we've got the franchise win-loss record and trophy case to prove it. Long live Delhomme!

[raleigh-panther]

lol

I should have posted the Cosell article here.

some said it was too long, but, I thought was a good one that was not a free link, so, I posted the full version.

I have supported Jake, I try to support all of our players; but, it is time to call a spade a spade.

He had one glorious year; but, so did Kerry Collins in a Panthers uniform. If the Panthers had done their homework, they would have taken Steve McNair, who didn't have the drinking problem; but, that's all what might have been.

[outlaw4]

It would surely be very nice to see that the Panthers have a 'plan' to upgrade the most important position on the field, and the position most in the League feel is the most important position on the field.

...oh wait, our Coach is John Fox.

As much as I like and have supported Jake Delhomme, he has hit his zenith.

What must it be like to be NE, and have Tom Brady, and have drafted a kid who had the skills and they had the coaching staff to get the best out of him.

Granted Cassel and Brady may both be system QBs, but, what a system.

Cassel was drafted back in 2005 so it's not like he was a rookie. In fact, most "analysts" were criticizing New England after Brady's injury because they thought they had a crappy backup plan since Cassel wasn't a vet.

Just because there is a plan, doesn't mean it's going to work. Sometimes, the plan is an overall failure (Carr/Weinke), sometimes, the plan kinda sorta works but it's only short-term (Vinny). Some plans you don't know if they work or not (McCown/Moore) unless they are implemented either by choice or otherwise.

Now, does this mean there shouldn't be a plan? Of course not! I've been wanting some kind of contingency plan since last season and it's not just an issue about performance. In this day and age, you never know what's going to happen to your QB and 2007 was a good example for a lot of teams. It's horrible that an entire season could be jeopardized because you lose one player so this team doesn't have to be in that position again.

[panthers55]

lol

I should have posted the Cosell article here.

some said it was too long, but, I thought was a good one that was not a free link, so, I posted the full version.

I have supported Jake, I try to support all of our players; but, it is time to call a spade a spade.

He had one glorious year; but, so did Kerry Collins in a Panthers uniform. If the Panthers had done their homework, they would have taken Steve McNair, who didn't have the drinking problem; but, that's all what might have been.

Actually Jake has had 2 good years from a playoff point of view and this year he matched the best year in our franchise history.

Jake is not great but is far from the bum people make him out to be. The bottom line is that we all would love to have the next best greatest guy in the league. Who doesn't want the next Tom Brady. And if we find him we will all be estastic. Until then we will do the best we can with what we have. It isn't John Fox's fault. If anything it is the scouts who encouraged us to draft guys like LeFors or take David Carr. We have had two first rounders at quarterback. In both cases they weren't who we thought they were.

[Fox007]

The rest of the league is wrong. We're right, and we've got the franchise win-loss record and trophy case to prove it. Long live Delhomme!

Exactly, you don't draft QB's. You take a rib out of another good QB and create him from dirt like GOD would.

[Fireball77]

Not wanting to draft a QB in the first round unless the team is pretty good all around DOES NOT EQUAL not wanting to draft one at all, at least in my book. Is this a good year for QBs, especially 1st rounders? Not from what I have read/seen. Is this team good enough all around to trade into the first round to take a QB this year? Not with the defense like it is. Should they try to draft one in the 3-4 range this year? Perhaps..depending on how FA goes.