Best damn Essay on Jake Delhomme this Offseason!

[bleys]

Bleys, it is true, maybe I wasn't done with the discussion and I admit I shouldn't have included it in there. I'm outspoken by nature. Just because I criticize him doesn't mean I don't like the guy or want him to fail. If I had ever posted this offseason "I hope he fails" maybe you'd have more of a case against me but the line between hoping a player fails and critiquing his flaws is a blurred one to many on this board who can't recognize what I'm really trying to say is to learn from these mistakes instead of dismissing them. No excuse or explanation takes a loss away, the loss is still there, and while he has some damn good qualities, does he have enough to put the Panthers over the top? Is he good enough to help the Panthers get made or is he bad enough to self limit the team? I hope so, but I think not.

You're exactly right... But with that, goes his benefits.. Funny how people come back with these kind of statements when mostly it's all bashing that goes on. Where are they if we are staying balanced? And we won't know if he has enough to put the Panthers over the top, he has shown he has in the past.. He's also shown this one time he didn't... I just wish people would take the good as well, instead of always bashing.. Neither are right, there is middle ground...

Bleys, if Fox had rested Delhomme during the bye before Oakland, which could've had something to do with his performance, if it backfired on him miserably against the Raiders, why would he try that same strategy the second bye? It's not some kind of hypothetical, it happened once and Fox just decided to do it again. It's not hindsight, keeping Jake from throwing the first time didn't work and he tried it again the second time, and if that was part of the reason it didn't work, he made the same mistake twice, within a span of 2 months.

You started the hypothetical game, come out and say it instead of talking in circles.. You can't say Fox made a bad decision, because this was 2 different times in history with a lot of time in between. You can't say you would expect the same situation if this were your decision to make. Sure, it's easy to look back and judge a person after you know the results, but you have no idea what could have happened AT THE TIME. This is really not even worth arguing on your behalf.

Whether or not you see through a balanced pair of glasses you yourself were willingly able to accept that he was hurt this last season with no substantial evidence, and just because hundreds of injuries exist that were never reported, does not mean this one did.

Looking at things unbiased falls into this statement.. You know players go on the field injured all the time, you know it wasn't a serious injury so he would play, and you know there are reports of stiffness. Whether you want to put all the blame on it or not, I don't care.. I'm not saying you should, I don't think anyone should.. but to completely leave this out is not fair either. You have evidence. To ignore it is just as irresponsible on your behalf (since you post on a board and expect people to respect it and read it) as it is using this as a complete excuse and the only reason Delhomme bombed that game.

As far as the Foster case goes, KT wasn't the only one who defended him, there were plenty of guys willing to go to bat. He played behind as good an Oline as most running backs would want in '03, in relief of Stephen Davis, who pounded the defensive line, yet his numbers were pedestrian. Still if you want to stick to a mediocre Oline as your defense I don't see how a running back with more career fumbles than touchdowns can be considered a good one.

He did well in '03.. you're point is missed by bringing that up. We are talking the years our OLine was horrendous.. By '06, no one (or very few) were sticking up for Foster. That's 2 years in between, which I do not think you can crucify anyone for having patience for a guy who had some great highlight reels in '03.

You talked about nobody after 07 making excuses for Colbert, which, I mean, I didn't even mention that point. I mentioned the years before it, so...

Talking in circles again? You said people were giving him excuses for sucking in '05.. What is your point by this? In '04 he had a remarkable year. In '05, sophmore slump? It is well known this occurs. In '06, no one wanted him. In '07, people were sick of him. You're point is missed once again. I'm finding it really hard to figure out your points because they aren't realistic at all.

Dan Morgan was notorious for his proneness to injury. I'm not sure why his lack of success down the stretch and his injuries mounting even more year after year is a surprise to anybody.

It wasn't, at all. You keep saying it was, but it wasn't. In '03, Dan Morgan was on the rise to be an elite LBer.. From '04 - '06, was 2 years of people catching on that Morgan played too rough for his own good. By '06, no one ANYWHERE expected Morgan to play a full season, but sure, there is always hope. We hope all our players and coaches play/coach to their fullest potential. But NO ONE anywhere expected him to play more than 6 games in '06.. In '07, he had a new contract that payed as he played. No one is going to hate on that...

The only kind of mental pattern I'm guilty of here is that every Carolina Panther has a job to do, and to do well. Should they be chosen as a front runner (starter) it is their responsibility to play well enough and learn from their mistakes when they get knocked down. I don't care if they've got blood coming out their ass and brain matter flowing out their nose, if they are on the field, they had better make plays or not be on the field at all. May sound drill sergeant like to you but frankly I don't give a poo. I don't give a poo if people like to go off topic on a personal level and make responses fabricated upon shoal conclusions on my posting psyche and if you start crusading and diagnosing personality disorders via the world wide web I'm gonna call you out on how stupid you sound.

Now do you not agree with sentences 1-3 in that last paragraph?

I agree completely... I would expect nothing less.. However, if you want to ignore the fact that players will always tell coaches they can play, then that's your prerogative.. It is widely known that coaches are the ones put in position to call bullpoo. The instinct of a player to compete is to go out no matter what. If they didn't, they would be labeled as "not tough" and then you all will bash them for another reason. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. And that's my point, because this seems to be a common occurance in debate. Put yourself in the situation, this isn't "unknown" or "hidden" that players and coaches are put in this situation constantly. So then, should Fox have sat Jake? Well, he was able to throw the ball and he's a competitor.. A little stiffness could throw you off your game, but you don't know that or expect that until you play. To act like Fox or Jake should have done this or that is ridiculous. After INT number 3, pull him. That was a mistake. But in the moment, where balance of momentum is the key to success or going home, you don't rock the boat any more than you have to.. You are either ignoring that fact or not aware of it. Either way, doesn't matter, point is it's not being considered.

And I don't care of people talk circles, because I'm going to call them out on it. Tell me you disagree with what I've said. =)

[frash.exe]

Bleys you twisted everything I said into your own illusion, riddled with "talking in circles" accusations. I don't know how you absolve a guy making the wrong decision twice.

You keep blowing up this Pat Kirwan story as a world wide report and any other report that covered it was probably based on the Pat Kirwan story. All you guys have is ONE report, not "reports" that some nameless trainer who worked with him commented his arm "tightened up" to the degree of which nobody has any clue, but is ready and willing to gladly accept to dismiss as a stupid injury that won't bother him anymore. My verdict, the case is null and void due to insufficient evidence. You can't prove to an unbiased observer that he was really hurt. We can all spend the entire day imagining post-game MRI's that show evidence of tightness in his elbow but it doesn't matter, because reality hasn't pumped out anymore than just some dinky little report. Beason spent most of the year tackling 200+ lb running backs with a bad shoulder, and so did Harris. That's an example of what I'm talking about.

As for Fox, you are willing to give him a mulligan just for trying to make the right decision. Well, ...in the real world, they don't give you an A just for trying. Coaching failures are built upon poor judgment, poor decision-making, and just because Fox felt it was right at the time does not justify. I'm not quite sure if you are saying there was no "right decision" here and that it didn't matter what he could've done that it was "fate" for him to lose, but it's a pretty cheap way to try and remit the decision he made. So do you mean if they did make him throw he would've tossed 8 picks? 10? This was pretty much the worst case scenario, and it's not like Fox didn't have any forethought since he had the Oakland game to consider.

You're kind of splitting hairs as far as the whole Morgan, Foster, Colbert saga. I don't even remember your username going back that far, IIRC. Morgan was constantly hurt, for one reason or another, when he was on the field he was great, but only when he was on the field, which wasn't often enough. He never even played 16 games in any season on the roster. His concussion woes were a problem he had dealt with since his college days. You look at any elite linebacker, and one critical factor is that they are all durable, with exception to a few injuries that sprout up every few years. From Brian Urlacher, to Ray Lewis, to Mike Singletary. ...By the end of '03, Dan Morgan had missed 18 out of a possible 48 regular season games, way too many. It's not even close trying to argue whether or not his injury problems were enough to hinder his career, as well as hinder the Panthers if they put too much expectations into him, when it's crystal clear the guy simply couldn't stay on the field.

As far as Foster is concerned, are you seriously pushing most of your analysis on the guy from a few "highlight reel" plays? 2 years in the past may have not seemed a whole lot of time to you now, however it was an extended honeymoon. Foster hadn't sufficiently proven himself before a beefy contract extension. And then you ignore the truth that is his tendency to fumble way too much. How do you give a guy the keys to essentially be your "ace in the hole", your power back you could rely on to move the chains and get the tough short yardage when Foster had never proven he could do it, besides a few token highlight plays? I mean this is only the entire offensive philosophy we're talking about.

As your too busy trying to breakdown Colbert's years as a Panther, the coaching staff let him play out his entire contract and he returned them one solid season followed by bust play for the rest of his contract. Still he can't find a fit on another team, couldn't even break through to even a slot position in Denver which had one of the best emerging QBs, and by extension, plenty of opportunity for him to produce. He didn't even last whole month into the season in Denver before they traded him. ...which pretty much validates what me and others had been saying for a while that we were wasting our time with the guy. Still I don't know why you choose to reject this concept, post mortem even.

[bleys]

Bleys you twisted everything I said into your own illusion, riddled with "talking in circles" accusations. I don't know how you absolve a guy making the wrong decision twice.

lol.. carry on my friend.. but you're the one twisting everything. Have fun with that.... Nothing you have said is worth responding to as I have already. And since these concepts are too complex for you to understand, then I must move on. As if giving a player a year or 2 is wayyy too much in order to know what they're real talent is. Apparently, Fox and Co should have released Foster and Morgan after '03 and Colbert after '04. That is your case in point... And is wrong in your perception that people wanted them around 2 years after they were given their opportunity.

And I've been reading this forum since 2004.. You're one hell of a spin doctor... Nothing you have said responds to my points, and when you get caught in saying something ridiculous you change the subject as if we were talking about a totally different issue.

No one wanted those players and yet you keep acting like people, me even, were on here raving about all the potential they had. You're wrong, that wasn't the case. Plain and simple.

[CRA]

DeShaun Foster just sucked. 03 gave him way too much extra time......DeAngelo didn't have always claim DeAngelo had it easy b/c defenses were tired after chasing down all Foster's fumbles. I think this year proved the DeAngelo was just flat out good and didn't get enough reps prior. I'm not going to get into your debate but come on...Foster blows. Last time I even saw him he was getting his arse chewed out by Mike Singletary for dropping the rock.....again.......

[bleys]

DeShaun Foster just sucked. 03 gave him way too much extra time......DeAngelo didn't have always claim DeAngelo had it easy b/c defenses were tired after chasing down all Foster's fumbles. I think this year proved the DeAngelo was just flat out good and didn't get enough reps prior. I'm not going to get into your debate but come on...Foster blows. Last time I even saw him he was getting his arse chewed out by Mike Singletary for dropping the rock.....again.......

Dude, I've tried to be extremely patient in talking things out with you, but if this is your response to what I've typed, the comprehension must be lacking and explains much..

No where did I say Foster deserved to start years after his '03 season. But after the '03 season, you don't just release a player for having a down year or 2.. after the 2nd year, go for it. Raging bull seems to think hindsight is something that Coaches have at their disposal. It isn't, and you don't just let someone go after 1 bad year. Which is the case with Colbert, incredibly I'm shocked that he would make this statement. You don't fire a guy after 1 bad year, is this tough to comprehend?

This was the ORIGINAL TOPIC... That fans wanted these players well into '07. Well, that's an outright lie. And I explained how it really went down. Now RB has went out into left field as if anyone was disagreeing that they suck and need gone. (Morgan, different, if he could stay on field, he would have been great) The coaching staff did leave them on the team too long, but that wasn't the topic.

THis goes for Colbert, Morgan, whoever... No one wanted these players 2 years after their one successful year. Although Morgan was a different case, yet still people knew they couldn't expect much from him throughout a whole season.

If you can't understand what I'm saying, then I maybe I should quit wasting my breath.

[CRA]

Dude, I've tried to be extremely patient in talking things out with you, but if this is your response to what I've typed, the comprehension must be lacking and explains much..

No where did I say Foster deserved to start years after his '03 season. But after the '03 season, you don't just release a player for having a down year or 2.. after the 2nd year, go for it. Raging bull seems to think hindsight is something that Coaches have at their disposal. It isn't, and you don't just let someone go after 1 bad year. Which is the case with Colbert, incredibly I'm shocked that he would make this statement. You don't fire a guy after 1 bad year, is this tough to comprehend?

THis goes for Colbert, Morgan, whoever... No one wanted these players 2 years after their one successful year. Although Morgan was a different case, yet still people knew they couldn't expect much from him throughout a whole season.

If you can't understand what I'm saying, then I maybe I should quit wasting my breath.

Dude, I just saw a group of people were talking Foster in some discussion. I didn't both reading pages of bickering and just felt the need to randomly declare how bad Foster sucked.

You certainly can and should release certain players for a down year or two depending on situations.

Colbert didn't just have one bad year.

[bleys]

Dude, I just saw a group of people were talking Foster in some discussion. I didn't both reading pages of bickering and just felt the need to randomly declare how bad Foster sucked.

You certainly can and should release certain players for a down year or two depending on situations.

Colbert didn't just have one bad year.

I didn't say he had just one bad year.. Every year but '04, he was bad. THe point RB was making is that after '05 he should have been cut. That's one year, and is ludicrous to assume he can't bounce back. Now that we have hindsight we see after '04, he was horrible. But how is that even a plausible statement?

And perhaps you should read the topics, so you understand the topic at hand.

Yes Foster sucked, but the way you phrased it wasn't relevant to my post that was just posted on the same page. Even then, you would know that I wasn't saying Foster was great at all after '03..

[Brandon]

This thread has made painfully clear that many posters have entirely unrealistic expectations.

[bleys]

This thread has made painfully clear that many posters have entirely unrealistic expectations.

yep..

[frash.exe]

Bleys, you are just completely out of touch. Blind accusations and misguided interpretations of what you think I'm trying to say are not going to give you a leg up on this one.

If you'd been reading this site for years, you'd realize there were plenty of people to advocate these guys, so you're either lying or just have a cloudy memory.`I'll take your word though and assume it's the latter.

There's one thing we can agree on though: Disagreeing.

The End.

[bleys]

Bleys, you are just completely out of touch. Blind accusations and misguided interpretations of what you think I'm trying to say are not going to give you a leg up on this one.

If you'd been reading this site for years, you'd realize there were plenty of people to advocate these guys, so you're either lying or just have a cloudy memory.`I'll take your word though and assume it's the latter.

There's one thing we can agree on though: Disagreeing.

The End.

Anyone reading the last few pages realize your 1st paragraph is way off base.. But you're right, the end.

[pepaw]

The Jake followers right now are like the Japanese fanatics who hid in the jungle and threw doody at GIs after the official surrender. They refused to accept reality while the rest of us made realiable cars and video games.

[bleys]

The Jake followers right now are like the Japanese fanatics who hid in the jungle and threw doody at GIs after the official surrender. They refused to accept reality while the rest of us made realiable cars and video games.

I would love to see actual posts to which this statement is referring to....

[User Name]

Lot's of nice dissertations in this thread, it'd be nice to see a live debate one could follow, long posts are tiring.... just saying.