1. This Board Rocks has been moved to a new domain: CarolinaPanthersForum.com

    All member accounts remain the same.

    Most of the content is here, as well. Except that the Preps Forum has been split off to its own board at: http://www.prepsforum.com

    Welcome to the new Carolina Panthers Forum!

    Dismiss Notice

Panthers vs. Saints Running Commentary 10/07/07

Discussion in 'Carolina Panthers' started by Savio, Oct 7, 2007.

  1. stratocatter

    stratocatter Full Access Member

    Posts:
    11,383
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    I think it sucks that the game thread has turned into a QB argument. Somebody make a Carr sucks thread.
     
  2. Collin

    Collin soap and water

    Age:
    46
    Posts:
    31,223
    Likes Received:
    451
    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Good lord, dude. Jake is known for extraordinarily dumb INTs. If he didn't have that huge flaw, I probably wouldn't have any problem with paying him out the ass.


    No. As I stated before: "Carr has some bad habits that developed from playing in a dysfunctional offense behind an abysmal offensive line, which is why I hoped that he wouldn't play at all this season."
     
  3. Collin

    Collin soap and water

    Age:
    46
    Posts:
    31,223
    Likes Received:
    451
    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Oops. Wrong thread.
     
  4. magnus

    magnus Chump-proof

    Posts:
    53,697
    Likes Received:
    2
    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    anywhere I lay my head I'm gonna call my home
    he was better than last week. He didn't outright miss guys short, which is where he was last week.


    He's doing most of the things that critics of him had said he was doing. He's still doing them. It's just how he is.

    yes. Though it would've been hard not to top that, with or without the one gimme TD late.



    More than 119 yards? Sure, especially considering a lot of that was one drive. There aren't a ton of guys who are able to put up 119 and keep jobs.
     
  5. Collin

    Collin soap and water

    Age:
    46
    Posts:
    31,223
    Likes Received:
    451
    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Carr was awful, crap, and, and ineffective!
     
  6. magnus

    magnus Chump-proof

    Posts:
    53,697
    Likes Received:
    2
    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    anywhere I lay my head I'm gonna call my home
    Funny, but incorrect. Of course, no one in the league consistently does it, despite the supposed constant stream of QBs, so it could theoretically work, it's just that no one in the league is smart enough?

    I find that hard to believe. Instead, I think they try to make their decisions based on what they think is best rather than sticking to one hard line philosophy. You can let a QB walk after he does well for you, but teams know how valuable the QB position is, so when they find something that works, they don't just jettison it for being cheap. "OMG IF THE PACKERS JUMP OFF A BRIDGE WOULD YOU?????"

    No, I wouldn't jump off a bridge, but if 31 other teams keep QBs that help make them very successful, I'm going to keep that option instead of hoping that Chris Redman, Jon Kitna, or Aaron Brooks can keep the Jeff Georges off my team.



    If a QB is proven, and he has a bad season, that's unfortunate. Then you weigh the positives and negatives of his play. Coincidentally, the two years after signing, Jake got better. So I don't act like it's a guarantee, but I act like you were cutting him during the best season he's had so far, and you're not acknowledging that. He dropped in 06, and played safer, but he wasn't cuttable then either.


    But if you're willing to lose games on the principle of being wise with money, you're still losing games. You can say you can always pick up a Brees, or a Garcia. You can always say that. You don't play games in a vacuum, and you can excuse the Carr and Kitna mistakes all day



    It was 4 additional, but a total of 5, and the bonus was paid then. It was $7.6 million.



    Play-calling, chief. You don't want to blame Davidson because he's your precious baby, while you love to demonize Carr since he's a threat to your sweetheart Delhomme. Carr was accurate when actually asked to throw, which they didn't do much until the 4th quarter. He got the job done. There is no justification for you saying that he was "awful," "crap," or "ineffective."[/QUOTE]
     
  7. magnus

    magnus Chump-proof

    Posts:
    53,697
    Likes Received:
    2
    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    anywhere I lay my head I'm gonna call my home
    Mocking isn't an effective rebuttal, nor is this awful defense of the Veteran Quarterback Recycling Act.
     
  8. Collin

    Collin soap and water

    Age:
    46
    Posts:
    31,223
    Likes Received:
    451
    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Actually that's exactly what you're doing. When you say that something is a bad idea because no one else is doing it, that's childish reasoning, and at least suggests that you're unable to come up with an actual argument against it. Furthermore, it's just odd that you acknowledge that other teams don't sign their surprise QBs long-term but then don't want to acknowledge that what we did in paying Jake at a near-elite salary was unusual.
    The 31 other teams are not "very successful," though, and in part because they do such a bad job of picking QBs. Many invest in questionable draftees, while others bring in guys who have had success in better environments elsewhere without realizing that those QBs need a good line and solid receivers to be successful there.
    No, he didn't. He's been pretty much the same guy every season, with the same strengths and weaknesses. Minor variations in statistics are the result of the surrounding cast and the game situations.
    Back to lying again. Awesome. No one actually believes that I'm suggesting losing games to save money, chief, so arguing that I am just reinforces the idea that you lie whenever you feel like you're losing an argument. And it's a pretty preposterous lie at that.
    You can spin the numbers however you want, but the fact is that Delhomme was already signed for the 2004 season and would have played for $2 million. We added four more years for $38 million, which means $9.5 million more per each additional season.
    I'm mocking you because you're making a complete fool of yourself. The more you continue to pretend that Carr was "awful," "crap," and "ineffective" like you have claimed, the worse you look. But by all means, please continue.
     
  9. monstercat

    monstercat Full Access Member

    Posts:
    770
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2006
    Location:
    G-Town
    I'm thinking that the Texans O-line wasn't as bad as people think. They're using pretty much the same guys as last year and Schaub doesn't seem to be getting sacked as much. For that matter, neither did Sage Rosenfeld (sp?) when he came in for Carr last year. The point is that Jake never seemed to get a pass even though he was an undrafted FA with two career starts when he came here. You would think a guy who's physically gifted enough to be drafted #1 overall would be, at least, as good as Delhomme was when he first came here. I don't see it. 2 TD drives in 2 games ain't gonna cut it.
     
  10. magnus

    magnus Chump-proof

    Posts:
    53,697
    Likes Received:
    2
    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    anywhere I lay my head I'm gonna call my home
    Tell me why an NFL team should give up on a QB that's being successful for them, only to go with a complete unknown. Do you honestly think that money should be the primary concern with the most critical position on the field?



    But in your scheme, you only pick the ones you know are going to be successful, right? After all, the other teams are just going to let guys who are winning for them go into free agency.

    Or are you going to be so certain that your teams will be able to be good for the other 21 positions that QBs can't do anything but succeed?

    Again, how many games are being willed toward getting a new QB up to speed so they can be fiscally reasonable and productive? What particular vessel will you use to create the vacuum that this system will operate on?

    Like B&B said. You should at least have the one standard for both situations. Carr isn't acceptable because he's making a lot less, you either have good QB play or you fucking don't. Again, I don't think anyone's going to adjust for cap space and award us a couple points at the end of a game to give us a win.


    Sure, those situations don't work out either. You make the right choice at the right time for the right reasons. No one approach works, and if it did, everyone would do it. This is pretty fucking obvious.

    Why, yes, yes he did. If you can look at 2003 Jake during the season, and look at 2005 Jake during the season, you can see similarities, but the 2005 player was much better. Maybe that Pro Bowl didn't mean anything to you, though. You can say it's popularity, but don't say that out of the same side of your face that you said no one outside Carolina fans cares about him.

    You're right. Every game has been just like that first Tampa Bay upset in 2003. There's absolutely no difference in the way he played, it's just how much the rest of the team showed up around him. Do you really believe this bullshit? And you accuse me of lying. You'd say that no one who watches the games would believe that, if you were in this guy's corner.

    Of course not, because you think this will work every single time, right? I mean, you're willing to say that lesser QB play for lesser money is acceptable, and that you're making a move for fiscal reasons not competitive reasons. Which is why I say no one does that, because they want to be competitive, not fiscal.

    Your belief is you can be competitive regardless, and since this is not on record as ever having happened, I don't know what to tell you. I disagree that this is the only successful way of winning, and I strongly disagree with giving up a competitive player for fiscal reasons.


    so when everyone reported the $7.6 million number, and when that cap hit started in 2004, they were all wrong? $9.5 million a year at the time would've been a record. But somehow, everyone took it as a 5 year deal, because they knew the 2004 deal was ripped up. Maybe they were all wrong.

    This is what you do. Everyone who gets you pissed off is suddenly an idiot, a liar, or whatever other colorful words you're using to try to win.
     

Share This Page