progress

Its really amusing to see how the Brooks vs. Delhomme debate has evolved. No matter what statistics are posted, several members continue to say that Brooks is the better quaterback. However, who is the better quaterback was never the real question. The real question is and always will be, should Haslett have started Delhomme over Brooks when Brooks was obviously injured? Jake has proven this year that the answer to that question is YES!!! There is no doubt in my mind that we would have made the playoffs had Haslett benched an obviously ailing Brooks. Anyone that tries to debate that Aaron Brooks with a tendon detached from bone (I still don't know how they could claim it didnt affect his throwing motion) is a better quaterback than a healthy Jake Delhomme is a fool. Jim Haslett did not put his team in the best position to win. You can throw up all the statistics in the world, or question the athletic ability of both quaterbacks, but it does matter. Jake just wins. He doesn't lose the game for his team, and he finds ways to make plays when he needs to. We would have won one of the last three games last year, and when you get to the playoffs anything can happen.

As far as better quaterback goes, the only way we would have known would to have let Jake play two years ago. But that ship has sailed.

The Patriots are going to do everything they can to stop the run and force Jake Delhomme to beat them. I wonder what I'll read on this board if he pulls it off.



[Edited on 20/1/2004 by progress]