Best damn Essay on Jake Delhomme this Offseason!

[pepaw]

so what are you saying, you agree with me then?

sounds like it, and there is plenty of criticism to go around, what is there to get over with? You obviously don't understand where I'm coming from... if you did, you would understand what you just said sounds foolish...

This goes for everyone thinking I am 180 degrees different in opinion... you obviously aren't reading what I'm saying.

And that's okay... can't say I expect anything less after the last few days....

Ummm you would make a great lawyer. I feel Jake is average but blows up too often not to be a liability. Its kind of fascinating how you try to belittle/twist someone or their arguments if it doesn't go along with your point of view. If it helps you sleep at night then I really don't mind.

[bleys]

Ummm you would make a great lawyer. I feel Jake is average but blows up too often not to be a liability. Its kind of fascinating how you try to belittle/twist someone or their arguments if it doesn't go along with your point of view. If it helps you sleep at night then I really don't mind.

Dude... 1st, I'ma take that as a compliment.. 2nd, you told me I think Jake is a franchise QB, which no where have I ever said that.. I asked you to point out ONE post where I have said, or implied such a thing. Then you told me I think he's average, which I agree.. Now you're telling me I twist people's arguments if they don't go along..

I have to assume here for a second, that reading comprehension isn't your strong point... To which brings up your comment about me belittling people... Which I'll respond, I apologize I am sarcastic at times, but as you see (I hope), it is only at times like these where people just aren't paying attention and then continue to make claims that have nothing to do with anything...

How am I supposed to respond? lol

Pardon me for having frustration at times like these...... But I am not the one twisting arguments when they don't go along with what I've said... I'm the one trying to keep you on track without going out into left field and then leaving me out there alone and confused.. TO which you have done a most excellent job...

[pepaw]

Dude... 1st, I'ma take that as a compliment.. 2nd, you told me I think Jake is a franchise QB, which no where have I ever said that.. I asked you to point out ONE post where I have said, or implied such a thing. Then you told me I think he's average, which I agree.. Now you're telling me I twist people's arguments if they don't go along..

I have to assume here for a second, that reading comprehension isn't your strong point... To which brings up your comment about me belittling people... Which I'll respond, I apologize I am sarcastic at times, but as you see (I hope), it is only at times like these where people just aren't paying attention and then continue to make claims that have nothing to do with anything...

How am I supposed to respond? lol

Pardon me for having frustration at times like these...... But I am not the one twisting arguments when they don't go along with what I've said... I'm the one trying to keep you on track without going out into left field and then leaving me out there alone and confused.. TO which you have done a most excellent job...

You just did it again. It's late but I cannot find where I said in this thread you think Jake is a franchise QB. Correct me if I'm wrong you do think he's not soley the problem? I do.

Then you apologize for sarcasm despite the fact your entire posts was oozing with it.

[panthers55]

Jake does have a history of fumbling though...granted he has improved.

03- 15 fumbles

04- 12 fumbles

05- 12 fumbles

in 06 and 08 there was noticeable improvement.

It doesn't matter how many times you fumble, it matter how many you lose.

In 2003 he fumbled quite a bit but lost only 6 of them in only 23 sacks or one per every four sacks. In 2004 he lost 5 of them in 33 sacks which still equates to one fumble per every 7 sacks. In 2005 he was sacked 28 times and lost 6 again or one fumble per every 5 sack.

Not much different from any other quarterback. Your point???

[CRA]

It doesn't matter how many times you fumble, it matter how many you lose.

In 2003 he fumbled quite a bit but lost only 6 of them in only 23 sacks or one per every four sacks. In 2004 he lost 5 of them in 33 sacks which still equates to one fumble per every 7 sacks. In 2005 he was sacked 28 times and lost 6 again or one fumble per every 5 sack.

Not much different from any other quarterback. Your point???

sorry, but that makes zero sense. that is like saying it doesn't matter if your QB was wildly inaccurate b/c most of the potenital picks were dropped and didn't result in a pick.........the point is the QB is putting your team at a huge risk and is a great liability to the team. Jake appears to have gotten things under control based on his last two real seaosns....but your logic in that he was hovering around averaging almost a fumble per game didn't matter since a large amount didn't result in turnovers.....is whack.

[panthers55]

sorry, but that makes zero sense. that is like saying it doesn't matter if your QB was wildly inaccurate b/c most of the potenital picks were dropped and didn't result in a pick.........the point is the QB is putting your team at a huge risk and is a great liability to the team. Jake appears to have gotten things under control based on his last two real seaosns....but your logic in that he was hovering around averaging almost a fumble per game didn't matter since a large amount didn't result in turnovers.....is whack.

It is real common for quarterbacks to lose the ball when they are sacked since a batted ball that doesn't go forward is considered a fumble. But the quarterback frequently jumps back on it so there is no harm and no foul. They were going to get sacked anyway. The ones that matter are when they lose the fumble and turn over the ball.

So no what I said is pretty accurate to anyone who has every played or coached football.

Leaves you out apparently.

[Nu Guns]

Circles...regardless if we forced to or choose to stop running the ball in a must win game can we pass our way out of trouble with Jake at the helm. That is the concern.

[CRA]

It is real common for quarterbacks to lose the ball when they are sacked since a batted ball that doesn't go forward is considered a fumble. But the quarterback frequently jumps back on it so there is no harm and no foul. They were going to get sacked anyway. The ones that matter are when they lose the fumble and turn over the ball.

So no what I said is pretty accurate to anyone who has every played or coached football.

Leaves you out apparently.

No it isn't. It isn't real common for a QB to hit a 3 year stretch where they fumble that w/ frequency. Your scenario of batted balls is not what was occuring w/ Jake. He was dropping the rock and that IS a big deal when a player is fumbling with such a high frequency.

Regardless, if they are lost or recovered you become a liability. Anyone who plays football and has had a fumbling problem (regardless of if they are turnovers) has likely seen the bench b/c of it if there is another option. The point is, he was an added liability during that stretch b/c he couldn't hang onto the ball and had poor protection of it in the pocket.

His lost fumble in the AZ was a common thing(that scenario) a few years ago.

[panthers55]

No it isn't. It isn't real common for a QB to hit a 3 year stretch where they fumble that w/ frequency. Your scenario of batted balls is not what was occuring w/ Jake. He was dropping the rock and that IS a big deal when a player is fumbling with such a high frequency.

Regardless, if they are lost or recovered you become a liability. Anyone who plays football and has had a fumbling problem (regardless of if they are turnovers) has likely seen the bench b/c of it if there is another option. The point is, he was an added liability during that stretch b/c he couldn't hang onto the ball and had poor protection of it in the pocket.

His lost fumble in the AZ was a common thing(that scenario) a few years ago.

You know this how? You watched film and saw what happened or do you rely on your memory from 6 years ago for your facts? And quarterbacks are different than other positions in case you didn't know. Think that Brett Favre was benched in 2001 when he fumbled 16 times or do you think that they were looking at his 32 TDs and 15 Ints and a passer rating of 94 and a completion rate of 61%.

Seriously dude, quit while you are way behind.

[CRA]

You know this how? You watched film and saw what happened or do you rely on your memory from 6 years ago for your facts? And quarterbacks are different than other positions in case you didn't know. Think that Brett Favre was benched in 2001 when he fumbled 16 times or do you think that they were looking at his 32 TDs and 15 Ints and a passer rating of 94 and a completion rate of 61%.

Seriously dude, quit while you are way behind.

Dude, the Panthers are my team and I watch them. That AZ fumble was like a nasty flashback to what we saw a few years ago. Favre wasn't benched b/c he was the best option to win depsite the fumbles......the point is Favre/Jake/whoever becomes a bigger liability to the team when they aren't protecting the ball.

again, your argument was fumbles don't matter if they aren't lost. that just doesn't make sense....the potential is there for turnovers....

Culpepper/Warner/etc. are all examples of QBs that became big liabilities at points in their carrers b/c of failure to protect the ball.

[Brandon]

Circles...regardless if we forced to or choose to stop running the ball in a must win game can we pass our way out of trouble with Jake at the helm. That is the concern.

Go back and watch the GB, Chargers, Saints (2nd), and Falcons (1st) games. Jake was a MAJOR reason we won those games no matter how you look at it. It's easy to blame him for losses but I don't see many people giving him any credit when he does well.

[panthers55]

Go back and watch the GB, Chargers, Saints (2nd), and Falcons (1st) games. Jake was a MAJOR reason we won those games no matter how you look at it. It's easy to blame him for losses but I don't see many people giving him any credit when he does well.

In the Denver game they loaded the box with an 8 man front and we came out throwing. He went 17 for 26 for 253 yards and 1 TD, 1 Int. Most of our rushing yards were in the second half after we had established our passing attack.

[panthers55]

Dude, the Panthers are my team and I watch them. That AZ fumble was like a nasty flashback to what we saw a few years ago. Favre wasn't benched b/c he was the best option to win depsite the fumbles......the point is Favre/Jake/whoever becomes a bigger liability to the team when they aren't protecting the ball.

again, your argument was fumbles don't matter if they aren't lost. that just doesn't make sense....the potential is there for turnovers....

Culpepper/Warner/etc. are all examples of QBs that became big liabilities at points in their carrers b/c of failure to protect the ball.

You still don't get it. Fumbles by a quarterback are similar to a sack. As long as you don't lose the ball you lose the down and the yardage. Lost fumbles are similar to an interception. A lot more problematic and a bigger concern.

Quarterbacks aren't benched because they have the potential to throw a TD just as much as throw a pick or fumble the ball. Plus they aren't exactly like a running back who is concentrating on protecting the ball as he goes. Quarterbacks are looking down the field concentrating on the action 20 yards away. They often get blindsided and frankly have no chance to avoid it.

Warner fumbled 11 times last year. Anyone think he was a liability? Again your logic is too simplistic. Fumbles by Favre in 2001 weren't an issue because his positives far outweighted his negatives. Warner for example fumbles more because their offensive scheme often puts him on an island with no protection and a corner or safety having a free run on him while he sits in the pocket and takes the hit. Same thing happened in St Louis. You are looking at one stat or one issue without putting it in context.

[Nu Guns]

In the Denver game they loaded the box with an 8 man front and we came out throwing. He went 17 for 16 for 253 yards and 1 TD, 1 Int. Most of our rushing yards were in the second half after we had established our passing attack.

Very true..I just hope he can do it in the playoffs if needed