Interesting points about our history

[lightsout]

We should have had a consistent winning team with Fox's roster. But he was an overrated coach. Matt Moore was a more then capable starter. Hell look at GB and what they did without Rodgers. 09-10 Was all on Jon Fox. He was also delusional and believed that Delhomme was always going to get away with his style of play and it did nothing but get us 12,000 INTs in the playoffs against ARZ and ruin us for 2-3 years.

 

What Fox/Hurney should have done was take the 1st round pick from Otah and taken a WR and a DT. Look at how much Star has improved this team. That's how close the 08-09 defenses were. Should have left Moore at QB and pair Smith with a WR that was worthy of playing with him.

 

 

But that said we have Cam and we are 12-4  with the best core group of players in the NFL. This is the brightest future this team has had in a long long time if not ever.

Exactly. This is by no means a "look at how inconsistent we've been historically" post. It's a "look at where we've come from and where we are now". This team reminds me a LOT of 96. 

[footballisasport]

I think you need to turn off the tape-recorder in your head and turn a new page. There is now way you'll ever turn the corner if you keep looking at this team from the past. This team deserves better.

[lightsout]

I think you need to turn off the tape-recorder in your head and turn a new page. There is now way you'll ever turn the corner if you keep looking at this team from the past. This team deserves better.

Quite the opposite. We are SO much better than those previous teams (especially under Fox). I think it's a good thing to look back and see where we were and see the strides we made to get where we are. I appreciate our history, because it gives us the nastiness that we have now. We're tired of the history. Our team now is giving us a product to truly take pride in.

[xclr82xtc]

Dude, you've got to be kidding me. He was nowhere near Brady or Manning. Also, when the hell was Stephen Davis the best RB in football.

 

are you crazy?? delhome was pretty much the entire reason for coining the term "cardiac cats"  i would have taken him OVER brady in those years.

[TN05]

We should have had a consistent winning team with Fox's roster. But he was an overrated coach. Matt Moore was a more then capable starter. Hell look at GB and what they did without Rodgers. 09-10 Was all on Jon Fox. He was also delusional and believed that Delhomme was always going to get away with his style of play and it did nothing but get us 12,000 INTs in the playoffs against ARZ and ruin us for 2-3 years.

What Fox/Hurney should have done was take the 1st round pick from Otah and taken a WR and a DT. Look at how much Star has improved this team. That's how close the 08-09 defenses were. Should have left Moore at QB and pair Smith with a WR that was worthy of playing with him.

But that said we have Cam and we are 12-4 with the best core group of players in the NFL. This is the brightest future this team has had in a long long time if not ever.

People here are still insisting Matt Moore was a good player? Please take a look at his 2010 and Miami numbers. He had the starting job in the bag and blew it by throwing really bad interceptions on a consistemt basis. He looked great with no pressure, but when he had the chance to do something meaningful he wilted.

[TN05]

And yes, from 2003-05 Delhomme was a top-tier QB. Look at the numbers and it becomes pretty clear.

[Chimera]

Too much Delhomme hate for anyone to be objective.

Also, OP should look up definition of inconsistent. That word doesn't mean what you think it means. From 2002-2009, we were a model of consistency.

7-9

11-5

7-9

11-5

7-9

8-8

12-4

8-8

[lightsout]

Too much Delhomme hate for anyone to be objective.

Also, OP should look up definition of inconsistent. That word doesn't mean what you think it means. From 2002-2009, we were a model of consistency.

7-9

11-5

7-9

11-5

7-9

8-8

12-4

8-8

I was alluding more to being a playoff contender, then a down year, then a playoff contender, etc. under Fox and before that, ripping off wins and losses a few at a time. Though, I can appreciate that we were consistent, even if that consistency was being right around .500

[Mage]

Even if Delhomme was on the same level of Brady from 2003-2005, that does not matter.  Peyton Manning was clearly better than both.  McNabb and Brees were clearly better than Delhomme too.

 

But watching the two play, Brady was clearly better than Delhomme.  I don't care about stats.  Brady was flat out better.  It isn't hating Delhomme.  I loved Jake.  But he wasn't as good as Tom. Not a lot of QBs were as good as Tom.

[Mage]

And of QBs with at least 1,000 attempts from 2003 to 2005, Delhomme was 11th in QB Rating.  So it isn't "clear" he was a top tier QB.  And I would not take him over any of the QBs that finished with a higher QB Rating in that list sans Bulger and Plummer.

[Chimera]

Even if Delhomme was on the same level of Brady from 2003-2005, that does not matter. Peyton Manning was clearly better than both. McNabb and Brees were clearly better than Delhomme too.

But watching the two play, Brady was clearly better than Delhomme. I don't care about stats. Brady was flat out better. It isn't hating Delhomme. I loved Jake. But he wasn't as good as Tom. Not a lot of QBs were as good as Tom.

Had Smitty not broken his leg in 2004 and Moose not skipped town in 2005, you would have a different point of view.

Jake had one year with those two (looking at 03-05). And that year, we ran, ran, ran, and when they weren't expecting it, we ran. Then we ran. Throw in some runs, followed by a few rushes, and then just maybe, we'd run. Maybe then we'd consider a play action pass.

Brady had a much better supporting cast and coach.

I think McNabb was only better when he had TO.

Brees was probably on par with Jake at best (stats wise, he was behind, but I can't remember his San Diego days TBH)

Hell back then, *the* elite QBs were Manning and Favre. Second tier back then were guys like Brady, Gannon and McNair. Brady became "elite" during this period.

[Mage]

Had Smitty not broken his leg in 2004 and Moose not skipped town in 2005, you would have a different point of view.

Brady's receivers were Deion Branch and 32 year old Troy Brown.  The next season Branch, who played 9 games, David Patten, and David Givens.  

Nobody that watched the two play ever considered Delhomme on the same level as Brady.

 

Brees was probably on par with Jake at best 

 

'03 Brees, yes. The improved Brees in 2004 and 2005 clearly proved to be better than Delhomme.  Wasn't really close either.  

[Mage]

And sorry for the double post but...

 

And that year, we ran, ran, ran, and when they weren't expecting it, we ran. Then we ran. Throw in some runs, followed by a few rushes, and then just maybe, we'd run. Maybe then we'd consider a play action pass.

 

What year are you talking about?  Delhomme was 5th in pass attempts in 2004.  In 2005, he was middle of the pack at 15, not that far behind from Peyton.  So I have my doubts our gameplan was as unbalanced as you are making it out to be; just because we ran more than we passed doesn't mean we were putting Delhomme at some kind of disadvantage.  And if there ever was a time we completely avoided passing, it was probably because Delhomme finished the season 5th in the league in interceptions in 2005 with the 5th highest (or worst, depending on how you look at it) INT%.

 

I really, really do like Delhomme.  I really do.  But come on.  He was not a top level QB.  He was an average QB who was really damn clutch, that is it.  In general, that time period was weak as far as QBs go and had been since the drop off it saw around the mid to late 90s with Young, Elway and Aikman on their way out and Favre becoming the extremely inconsistent QB everyone knew him as.

[KendrickPanther]

http://www.amazon.com/Things-Panthers-Fans-Should-Before/dp/1600788246/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1388991427&sr=8-1&keywords=scott+fowler

 

I've been reading through this Scott Fowler book. It goes over the history of our franchise. Most of it is stuff I already know but It would be good for a young fan or someone that doesn't remember the 90s. If you are intimidated by books have no fear, it's like reading the Huddle only way better.