Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Johnathan Jones of the Charlotte Observer: Impressions after Day 3


top dawg

Recommended Posts

Statements on Stewart are concerning....understanding that camp is 8 weeks away and the seson 12-14 weeks...at some point, the man has to be healthy or it's chronic.

 

Of course, he had an issue before being drafted  in the first round with his foot and was 'cleared' by Panthers doctors.

 

I really like Jonathan; but at some point, chronic becomes a problem even if he manages to get in the game.

 

 

What I'm thinking is that, unlike the "GIVE ME SIXTH ROUND WAHD RECEEBERS!!!!" crowd, maybe Gettlemen knew what he was doing selecting Barner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In regards to the literal numbers, which rightly or wrongly are many a person's litmus test to determining hall of fame material, you're more than likely correct, CRA, Smitty does not get in---not immediately. Not ever. But then when you take intangibles into account, and more importantly Steve Smith's impact upon his games and the game of football, perhaps he will get in one day (based only upon his play up to today). Will people's perceptions and thoughts on what justifies a spot in Canton hopefully evolve over the years which would help Smith and others get into the Hall? Maybe. Is it likely? Perhaps not.  My thing is that for what Smith brings to the game, especially when he was in his prime, so-to-speak, poo and Smitty don't belong in the same sentence, ever. Call my thinking on this clouded, "homerish, emo (which I am really not trying to convey)" or whatever, but that's my whole point.

well....if am still pulling for him.  Again, I think he has a shot if he can find a ring w/ 2 more deep postseason runs.  His career playoff numbers would help a lot.  I mean after 2005....he had set himself up for something crazy.  He just couldn't get back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bwahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa.........

 

jake a game manager? lol you must not have really paid attention. the dude was nothing but a risk taker as a passer, always airing it out way down field in some really reckless situations just trusting that smitty or whoever would be able to grab it.

 

game manager = safe and controlled ≠ jake delhomme

 

Just because jake sucks as a QB doesnt make him a "gunslinger" he was a game managning QB who sucked and threw Ints... why dont you read up of the two terms and look at history. They are types of players, not adjectives after-the-fact.

 

Edit: gunslingers throw big yardage games.. game managers dont... I dont recall jake having too many big yardage games. a lot of INTs thrown, yes, but never aired it out. he was in a system to be a game manager, and just failed to be a quality QB, except for maybe two/three ok years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because jake sucks as a QB doesnt make him a "gunslinger" he was a game managning QB who sucked and threw Ints... why dont you read up of the two terms and look at history. They are types of players, not adjectives after-the-fact.

 

Edit: gunslingers throw big yardage games.. game managers dont... I dont recall jake having too many big yardage games. a lot of INTs thrown, yes, but never aired it out. he was in a system to be a game manager, and just failed to be a quality QB, except for maybe two/three ok years.

 

lol ok.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being a Gunslinger is a Mindset. Jake had that mindset. And I refuse to change that description just because Top Dawg isn't happy with it. 20 years ago, or even in todays NFL, the Gunslinger walks a lonely path. His brethren are thin in numbers. Few men dare lead such a life.

Jake gave us 5 good years. It is like kids nowadays believe anything U2 and gaggle tell them. I was there, I saw what he did. I saw it with my own two eyes. Good Jake was a pleasure to watch. As long as you took your heart medicine that is. Ha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because jake sucks as a QB doesnt make him a "gunslinger" he was a game managning QB who sucked and threw Ints... why dont you read up of the two terms and look at history. They are types of players, not adjectives after-the-fact.

 

Edit: gunslingers throw big yardage games.. game managers dont... I dont recall jake having too many big yardage games. a lot of INTs thrown, yes, but never aired it out. he was in a system to be a game manager, and just failed to be a quality QB, except for maybe two/three ok years.

 

he was a gambling/gunslinger who QB'd a running offense.  When his number was called....he was what he was.  He was a gamblin man.  

 

your definition means Tom Brady is a gunslinger

 

Gunslingers by nature are flawed.  Favre represents the top of that totem pole.   Not the Brady's and Mannings per your definition simply b/c they throw for yards.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'm still laughing at this....

 

it's not big yardage games...it's big yardage passes thrown into double and triple coverage with very little chance of success. they take huge risks and rarely take the safe high percentage throws that a game manager would.

 

i swear you didn't really watch or pay attention to jake.

 

the guy was a risk taking, gambling, gunslinger. the yardage wasn't there like some others but that's mainly because we ran more than others and threw less. but the system didn't call for a game manager. we spent time going back in both the air coryell with henning...and his offense was a feed the stud offense which usually meant smitty, regardless of who he had on him. when davidson was here we ran an erdhart perkins offense. both of which make more use of deep/not safe passes set up by the run game.

 

game managers throw predominantly short safe passes to safe targets. that just wasn't jake. that wasn't our offense.

 

believe differently if you want, but jake was a massive risk taking, deep ball throwing into double coverage, gunslinger. he was no game manager.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he was a gambling/gunslinger who QB'd a running offense.  When his number was called....he was what he was.  He was a gamblin man.  

 

your definition means Tom Brady is a gunslinger

 

Gunslingers by nature are flawed.  Favre represents the top of that totem pole.   Not the Brady's and Mannings per your definition simply b/c they throw for yards.

exactly.

 

it's not the yards in a game that makes a gunslinger. it's the mindset and where they throw the ball and the situations they throw the ball into and it quite often resulted in failure with pretty much any of them.

 

it's a swing for the fences mentality. when you do nothing but swing for the fences, you will likely strike out a lot. favre had the yardage because he threw more passes than anyone. jake didn't throw nearly as many passes, but that was because the system called for a lot of running.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

btw, calling jake a gunslinger isn't putting him on a pedestal at all. it's not praise anymore than calling someone a game manager is.

 

gunslingers just take a lot of risks throwing the ball to their targets while game managers opt for the safer route.

 

that mindset jake had was infuriating many times because there was a lot of "wtf" throws but there was also a lot of great throws and great passes, i mean you look at smith's highlight reels from when jake was QB and it won't take long at all to see the situations that he was throwing into...and it was risky...and he did it quite often. every highight reel of smith's during that time could also be considered a highlight reel for jake...of course they leave off all the really ugly stuff.

 

much of the reason they were called the cardiac cats was because of jake's QBing. the guy could stop even the toughest of hearts every time he launched that ball, esp. late in games. sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

btw, calling jake a gunslinger isn't putting him on a pedestal at all. it's not praise anymore than calling someone a game manager is.

 

much of the reason they were called the cardiac cats was because of jake's QBing. the guy could stop even the toughest of hearts every time he launched that ball, esp. late in games. sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn't.

For some reason I can't bold. So I'll edit for context.

Jake was a joy to watch. As long as you took your heart medication.

Good Jake, which lasted 5 years, was a top gun gunslinger. He could get lucky with the best of them. He just had that mentality that he could get it done. And dammed if he didn't get it done quite often.

There were actually very few Gunslingers. Farvrea and Jake are the two that come to mind because there are so few of them. They tend not to last just because of the nature of their games. High risk plays drive coaches crazy.

Kids today just don't see the difference in the game from then til now. Very few QBs were throwing it all over the yard. We didn't either. But when Jake saw an opportunity, he took it. Whether that opportunity was actually there, no one but Jake saw it.

Game Manager, at times you could call Jake that. But Gunslinger, yeah, you can call Jake that one with ease.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember the glory days...

 

I am sitting on my couch watching Jake in his prime...he drops back, pats the ball, tongue inches out, and as soon as he winds up and launches it I immediately up off my couch and yell "NOOOOOOOO".  Then it would turn into, "Oh, good job Jake"....as somehow the consistantly dangerous throw got reeled in.   That was generally how I reacted through quarters 1-3.  4th quarters?  I often wondered if Jake made a deal with the devil b/c he seemed own those moments like very few consistantly do (much better overall QBs than him).

 

I wish he just retired after 2007.  Tommy John will always tarnish what a good story he was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wait to a second, I have never seen a QB in the superbowl that flat out sucks. A QB's role is way too important to not give credit to the him first and foremost for any team in the SB. When I think of comparisons to sucking I think of Namath, but he didnt flat out suck. He just wasnt great. Jake was a better QB than Namath to say the very least.

 

Can you really sit there and say, welp I know you got to a superbowl but yeah too bad your QB sucked. . can you reeeeally say that with a straight face and try to sound like you know what youre talking about? haha no, just point and laugh at the fools and move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...