Williams defends Jake

[Fireball77]

Jake doesn't take blame? He makes excuses? Now I know you're stretching it.

The team knew, we didn't.

Or do you think that they gave him cortisone shots as far back as 2005 for the helluvit?

[monstercat]

LOL, who was gonna come in and do better than a hurt Jake Delhomme in 06? Weinke? Yeah, he was so good that the only game he won when they finally did put him in, was the Atlanta game, where he threw a whopping 7 passes.

[carolinarolls]

Well last year we showed the problems on offense were much more due to offensive line issues in the past more than anything. Jeff Davidson helped as well but he needs to get better.

Injuries have decimated our performance in the past, especially along the offensive line where our talent was already thin. Last year those injuries didn't hurt us as badly and while most of our defense was banged up they still did fairly well in spite of Trgovac's refusal to gameplan for opponents.

Despite whether or not one feels QB to be an issue, Jake has been the only real option (other than trading an entire draft for a good QB...) since 03. This is a good team and will do well next year, and any questions on Jake should be answered after a few games back.

A better Oline or an emergence of what will likely be the best or first runner up as far as RB tandems go. It's hard to say. I think the O-line is better but I know the Running game has more sure-footed talent.

And there are more problems out there than jsut the three I mentioned. To me those are the big three though. I think our roster is one of the best out there last year and this year upcoming. Extending Jake did not make sense and looked to be the byproduct of other errors but that is another story. Also I do not think that the only way to get an upgrade at that position over the last several seasons is to have blown an entire draft on one rookie. I also do not think it's entirely true to say he has alway been the best option. There have been guys out there. I refuse to believe that with all the QB trades since 2004 that it was impossible for us to take a flier on a few. It's not a matter of availability it's a matter of prioroty for the staff and over the years that priority is going to change. I cannot think of one position on the team that needs more work and has not gotten the staff's attention than QB. At the same time I cannot think of a more important position on the field. Weird.

[Brandon]

A better Oline or an emergence of what will likely be the best or first runner up as far as RB tandems go. It's hard to say. I think the O-line is better but I know the Running game has more sure-footed talent.

I'm judging it solely on seeing the OL being able to get push on each and every team, where a up till last year we struggled to even maintain the line of scrimmage. DeAngelo and Jonathan make our line look better but we also gave up quite a bit less sacks as well.

As far as getting a different QB goes, there are already very few good ones, and there aren't many that end up being passed over by every team in the league. I'm fine with having an average/above average quarterback for a year or two while we work towards getting a better one. While there were some QB trades that went on, the only quarterback we really had access to that would fit in our system was Kurt Warner and hell that option wouldn't be pretty since he's looking to retire soon.

[carolinarolls]

I'm judging it solely on seeing the OL being able to get push on each and every team, where a up till last year we struggled to even maintain the line of scrimmage. DeAngelo and Jonathan make our line look better but we also gave up quite a bit less sacks as well.

As far as getting a different QB goes, there are already very few good ones, and there aren't many that end up being passed over by every team in the league. I'm fine with having an average/above average quarterback for a year or two while we work towards getting a better one. While there were some QB trades that went on, the only quarterback we really had access to that would fit in our system was Kurt Warner and hell that option wouldn't be pretty since he's looking to retire soon.

I am inclined to agree, and since we got push last year, this off season is what I saw to be a prime opportunity to make an upgrade at the next most obvious position in need of improvement. Maybe they would have had the Peppers situation not surfaced or the Lucas trade worked out (?)

I agree with the year or two average guy while everything has been built around him. For all of Jake's shortcomings he has allowed us to focus on other areas and to me that is his legacy if his career ended today. I think the building time is over though and while a need for a change may not be glaring to many or most, to me its the most obvious part of the team that could use a face lift. Not knocking Jake here (really) but he may have served his purpose in Carolina. This time of change may have come sooner if not for unfortunate needs created by unforeseen situations with Jenkins, Carstens, Fields, and Morgan that forced our attention to the defense again. To me we have regrouped from what I feel to be key losses there and can now focus on a new franchise QB. I am anxious to see Jake's retalliation to that line of thinking on the field though.

[Lords0fPain]

LOL! Does any remember the game (cause I was there) where the fans boo'ed Rodney Peete off the field at half-time? The Jags game, when Delhomme took the reins and and led the team to 24-23 victory (17 points in the 4th qtr) over the Jags? How many people, that are defending Jake Delhomme today that called for Peete to be replaced back then? According to Dwill's logic that would make you "non fans", if you felt the team would, could, and did do better with Jake at the helm. Not to mention any other replacements that may have been called for, Seafart, Capers, Henning, Trov, Moose (when his best seasons seemed to come at contract years), B-line, Timmy B, Foster, and the list goes on.

Now Jake had only one bad playoff game? Lets go back 3 years to 2005 (last time we were actually in the playoffs, aside from this year) and the 14-34 Settle Seahawk game where jake had 1 TD, 3 INTs, 2 sacks, and a 34.9 rating. Giving credit where credit is due , he was a monster in the other 2 playoff games with a 100.6 and and 128.6 rating. Too bad he choked in the game just before the Superbowl. Seems, after the 2003 Superbowl year, there seems to be a pattern of choking in big and important games, or maybe it's just me. Of course it's not all Jake's fault, the awful playoff loss could have come from the fact the coaching staff decided to use EXACT same game plan that we nearly lost to the Cards in the regular season. But that is a whole other discussion by itself, lol.

Now stats are stats, and any stats teacher will tell ya' stats can be made to say whatever you want. You can always look deeper and without actually watching the games, it a whole different picture. Example, how many sacks did a QB take? was it his fault (holding on to the ball to long), the o-line's fault (missing assignments), or could even the coaching (by not making adjustments, match ups, etc) fault? Or how bout them INTs, same question, QB or WRs fault, of course it counts against the QB. Without watching the game it would be hard to tell, cause numbers don't tell the whole story.

Bottom line is I watched the games and see the WRs (mainly Smitty) have to do some sort of, distortion of the body/acrobatic move to catch a lot Delhomme's passes, other times you have to scratch your head wonder why the hell he forced his passes, and then there are the times you see the old Jake that took the team to a Superbowl. The Jake that many a fan (or "non fan" according to Dwill's logic) that called for Peete to replaced by Jake Delhomme. I for one would prefer more consistency, but again that's me.

No one is a "non fan" for wanting their team to do better. Everyone at one time or another (either now, in the past, or even the future) will see a player or coach they feel should be replaced (so the team will do better) and call for it, and if and when it happens, remember Dwill's logic....you are the non fan and should stfu. lol :eek:

[mantal]

LOL! Does any remember the game (cause I was there) where the fans boo'ed Rodney Peete off the field at half-time? The Jags game, when Delhomme took the reins and and led the team to 24-23 victory (17 points in the 4th qtr) over the Jags? How many people, that are defending Jake Delhomme today that called for Peete to be replaced back then? According to Dwill's logic that would make you "non fans", if you felt the team would, could, and did do better with Jake at the helm. Not to mention any other replacements that may have been called for, Seafart, Capers, Henning, Trov, Moose (when his best seasons seemed to come at contract years), B-line, Timmy B, Foster, and the list goes on.

Now Jake had only one bad playoff game? Lets go back 3 years to 2005 (last time we were actually in the playoffs, aside from this year) and the 14-34 Settle Seahawk game where jake had 1 TD, 3 INTs, 2 sacks, and a 34.9 rating. Giving credit where credit is due , he was a monster in the other 2 playoff games with a 100.6 and and 128.6 rating. Too bad he choked in the game just before the Superbowl. Seems, after the 2003 Superbowl year, there seems to be a pattern of choking in big and important games, or maybe it's just me. Of course it's not all Jake's fault, the awful playoff loss could have come from the fact the coaching staff decided to use EXACT same game plan that we nearly lost to the Cards in the regular season. But that is a whole other discussion by itself, lol.

Now stats are stats, and any stats teacher will tell ya' stats can be made to say whatever you want. You can always look deeper and without actually watching the games, it a whole different picture. Example, how many sacks did a QB take? was it his fault (holding on to the ball to long), the o-line's fault (missing assignments), or could even the coaching (by not making adjustments, match ups, etc) fault? Or how bout them INTs, same question, QB or WRs fault, of course it counts against the QB. Without watching the game it would be hard to tell, cause numbers don't tell the whole story.

Bottom line is I watched the games and see the WRs (mainly Smitty) have to do some sort of, distortion of the body/acrobatic move to catch a lot Delhomme's passes, other times you have to scratch your head wonder why the hell he forced his passes, and then there are the times you see the old Jake that took the team to a Superbowl. The Jake that many a fan (or "non fan" according to Dwill's logic) that called for Peete to replaced by Jake Delhomme.

No one is a "no fan" for wanting their team to do better. Everyone at one time or another (either now, in the past, or even the future) will see a player or coach they feel should be replaced (so the team will do better) and call for it, and if and when it happens, remember Dwill's logic....you are the non fan and should stfu. lol :eek:

You know - I read that - twice. Didn't understand your point either time...

[bleys]

You know - I read that - twice. Didn't understand your point either time...

lol..

I believe he is saying "I'm going to force my opinion down your throat by using certain examples and downplaying others..."...

I think that's been the issue the last few weeks... (me included) CRolls has been great to read in this thread and I appreciate the way he is presenting his views...

[The Answer]

Posters have somehow gotten less intelligent since 2007.

Impossible is nothing.

[top dawg]

You know - I read that - twice. Didn't understand your point either time...

To take a stab at it, I believe he is saying that stats don't tell the whole picture and that to call someone a "non-fan" just because they call for the QB's head in order to ultimately win is about as crazy as believing forced-fed stats---where the stats, nor the presumptive namecalling give total clarity to the reality that is gained from looking at the big picture, which includes actually viewing games.

[mantal]

To take a stab at it, I believe he is saying that stats don't tell the whole picture and that to call someone a "non-fan" just because they call for the QB's head in order to ultimately win is about as crazy as believing forced-fed stats---where the stats, nor the presumptive name calling give total clarity to the reality that is gained from looking at the big picture, which includes actually viewing games.

I don't pay much attention to stats. I pay much more attention to his fellow players that are on the field with him and the coaches standing on the sidelines every minute he is on the field or watching game film and I don't want to hear all the "blind loyalty to vets" crap. I put a lot more stock into what the team has to say than in a few fans who watch from the stands on Sunday or sitting at home watching TV...

[rayzor]

I don't pay much attention to stats. I pay much more attention to his fellow players that are on the field with him and the coaches standing on the sidelines every minute he is on the field or watching game film and I don't want to hear all the "blind loyalty to vets" crap. I put a lot more stock into what the team has to say than in a few fans who watch from the stands on Sunday or sitting at home watching TV...

fans know jack but the players know jake