WhoDat

Yeah, it's a dead horse issue, but I have one question for some people on this board. I AM NOT IMPLYING ANYTHING. I just have one question.

Throughout the season many people on this board have claimed that AB is a better option than Delhomme at QB. From my understanding there have been a couple reasons. Obviously, Brooks is a much better athlete. No question. Many people have said that they prefer to have a guy with the physical attributes and hope that he develops in other areas. It's hard to argue with Brooks' stats in some categories this year. He had a good completion percentage and the best efficiency numbers of his career. His 3500 yards, 20+ TDs, and only 8 INTs are impressive, no doubt.

Still, some people on this board, myself included as one of the loudest, have argued that Brooks lacks some intangibles. He doesn't seem like a smart QB, he is inconsistent, and is not a good leader. He is also expensive and not delivering at his pay rate. Many people here argued that despite that, with Brooks you have a guy that can make plays by himself and give you a chance to win when it matters. Delhomme may be smarter, more consistent, even a better leader, but his "it" factor doesn't translate into play-making. His running game and defense carried him. He is a game manager that you rely on not to lose the game rather than win it.

Is this a fairly accurate portrait of the argument? I am trying my best not to skew anything, so if you feel I misrepresented something, please correct it.

Now, all that being the case, I can't see how that holds water. I will not argue for a second that Jake's defense and running game did not help him a lot this season, especially in the early going. However, if AB's physical gifts are supposed to translate into playmaking and wins... well, it just doesn't add up.

Jake engineered 8 game winning drives this year (that obviously excludes his two come-from behind drives in the Super Bowl and possibly others in the regular season that they lost). That's 8 games decided on Delhomme's arm. The Saints only won 8 total!!! Brooks only has 10 or 11 comebacks to his credit in his CAREER. So what I don't get is how you figure Brooks gives you more of a chance to win. The Panthers were 3-1 in OT this year and won something like 7 or 8 games decided by 3 points or less.

Now, during the season I thought Jake had the ability to make plays if he had to, or as he developed, that would come out. After watching what he did in the Super Bowl against the league's best defense, there's no doubt the kid can make plays and carry a team on his arm if need be. At a cost, even assuming the Panthers increase his salary 5-fold this offseason, of about HALF of AB, how is this kid not the better option????

I know he's gone. This is all hypothetical, and I'm just looking for some civil discussion. I honestly don't understand how at this point, today, you can say AB is the better option. In the beginning of the season, fine. But today, when we see a QB in Delhomme whose game has improved as much in a season as AB's has in 3, who has shown in one season he has the comeback ability that AB has taken 3 years to show, and who has the X factor that Brooks lacks, how can you favor AB? Is it sheer stubbornness at this point? Have you not stopped to think about it? Do you really feel that AB can or is that much better than Delhomme? Honestly, I just don't get it.

[Edited on 4/2/2004 by WhoDat]