Originally Posted by staylor26:
How exactly are Renfrow, Williams, and a top 5ish TE in Waller “zero weapons”?
Everything is relative.
How many teams in the NFL would rather have the Raiders top 3 pass-catchers than who they have? 5? Can't be more than 10, can it?
Dude has well below average weapons to work with - but frankly it just doesn't matter.
Again, using the "Derek Carr is Alex Smith" theory - Alex Smith's weapons simply never mattered, at least not until he had a truly top 5 unit. Alex Smith was exactly as productive when he had the 25th ranked set of weapons in the league as he was when he had the 10th ranked set of weapons in the league.
Dude was simply a metronome. He was 'Even Steven'. Regardless of what he had, he played roughly the same. And that was actually a good thing when his weapons were dog-ass (just as may be the case with the Raiders in previous seasons) but when they actually had weapons they could win something meaningful with, he was out of his element.
Give Derek Carr anything other than one of the absolutely premier set of weapons on the NFL, and he'll just be average as hell. Good, bad, whatever - he's gonna be average. Give him a truly exceptional set of weapons and he might manage to be 2018 Alex Smith.
And then we all know how that works in the playoffs.
Fuck if I care about Derek Carr. He's just completely irrelevant. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Everything is relative.
How many teams in the NFL would rather have the Raiders top 3 pass-catchers than who they have? 5? Can't be more than 10, can it?
Dude has well below average weapons to work with - but frankly it just doesn't matter.
Again, using the "Derek Carr is Alex Smith" theory - Alex Smith's weapons simply never mattered, at least not until he had a truly top 5 unit. Alex Smith was exactly as productive when he had the 25th ranked set of weapons in the league as he was when he had the 10th ranked set of weapons in the league.
Dude was simply a metronome. He was 'Even Steven'. Regardless of what he had, he played roughly the same. And that was actually a good thing when his weapons were dog-ass (just as may be the case with the Raiders in previous seasons) but when they actually had weapons they could win something meaningful with, he was out of his element.
Give Derek Carr anything other than one of the absolutely premier set of weapons on the NFL, and he'll just be average as hell. Good, bad, whatever - he's gonna be average. Give him a truly exceptional set of weapons and he might manage to be 2018 Alex Smith.
And then we all know how that works in the playoffs.
**** if I care about Derek Carr. He's just completely irrelevant.
Concur on all of this.
The only thing that could make the Raiders a potential contender w/ Carr is if Gruden finds a top-5 defense to go with a top-5 set of weapons. Then Carr becomes a kind of Garapolo clone. Or rather the Raiders become a 49ers clone. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
Concur on all of this.
The only thing that could make the Raiders a potential contender w/ Carr is if Gruden finds a top-5 defense to go with a top-5 set of weapons. Then Carr becomes a kind of Garapolo clone. Or rather the Raiders become a 49ers clone.
Exactly.
And had the Chiefs had Hill and a seasoned Kelce in 2014 when they had Charles to with 'em and a defense with Houston, Hali and Poe still in prime form, not to mention Sean Smith and a fairly deep secondary, that team would've been VERY similar to the 49ers last year.
The problem for KC is that the defense got old/injured just as the weapons came online. A force multiplier under center can make up for some of that and bring you within a stupid offsides penalty of the Super Bowl. But Alex Smith can't.
Nor can Derek Carr. He needs EVERYTHING to be perfect and it's just not gonna happen for him. Gruden's not that good and Mayock's not that lucky. They'll be mired in 6-10 win mediocrity for as long as Carr is there. [Reply]
It's funny that a coach like Gruden could be a part of that Green Bay staff and work with guys like Andy Reid for so many years and barely pick up any of their ability to coach or work with QBs.
Gruden is the Carl Peterson of coaches. He won't fucking draft QBs. I can't think of any better way to light a fire under Carr's ass than to draft a young QB. Instead all Gruden did was make an empty threat by bringing in a less durable version of Tyrod Taylor. And that's what he's always done. He chose to roll with the veteran rather than reap any of the benefits that could come from hitting on a franchise QB in the draft.
Like, did he not have enough draft picks this year or the previous year? Should he have traded away whatever few remaining decent players the Raiders had so he would have pulled the trigger on his guy? Oh... no, because that would require trusting your knowledge and coaching abilities, and Gruden is at the very least smart enough to realize he's an overrated choad in that department. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RunKC:
Carr’s first 3 seasons were very good for a young QB. He was a broken leg away from possibly going back-to-back 30 TD seasons.
Unfortunately I think that injury changed him bc he’s never been the same since. It reminds me of what happened with Alex Smith.
Carr's the same guy he was before the injury. Hell, he's probably better.
Carr was mediocre as hell before the broken leg. The only thing he did well was volume. He got pumped off around here because we were pissed off that we didn't draft our "QBOTF" so people kept holding him up as the one that got away.
Again - the dude threw nearly 600 passes/season in his first 3 seasons for a whopping 6.5 yards per attempt. A 60% completion percentage is pretty much the thresshold for average in the league and he was at 60.9 despite throwing underneath all the time. Was he developing? Sure - and the develpment stalled in '17 when he was trying to fight his way back. Then in '18 and '19 he just stayed on a virtually identical development curve to what he was showing in 14-16.
He was ALWAYS going to be this guy. The injury didn't do anything other than stall his development over the '17 season. So what? You're great or you ain't and what we're seeing in a 28 year old Derek Carr with 6 full seasons as a starter is what we were always going to see.
This guy was never going to be a star. He was always going to be...there. Not good, not bad. He has Andy Dalton's ceiling...maybe. And that's all he's ever had.
Originally Posted by RunKC:
Carr’s first 3 seasons were very good for a young QB. He was a broken leg away from possibly going back-to-back 30 TD seasons.
Unfortunately I think that injury changed him bc he’s never been the same since. It reminds me of what happened with Alex Smith.
Here - from 2016, before his injury:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Why is Derek Carr a fucking franchise QB again?
Because the media has anointed him one?
Alex Smith was a demonstrably better quarterback than Derek Carr across the board last year. The ONLY thing Carr did better was throw more often. His QBR was lower, his AV was lower, his AYA was lower. His fucking yards per COMPLETION was even lower. He threw the ball 100 more times than Smith and with that managed 500 more passing yards....whoopity doo!
This year Carr appears to have taken a step forward....and been outplayed in head to head matchups by Alex Smith both times they've met. And frankly, it's been a walk both times. Smith played much MUCH better football than Carr in those two games.
Fuck that - Carr's done nothing to earn any mantle yet. Oh sure, he might. And he's probably more likely to do so than Smith. But this fucking season-long coronation of Carr is garbage.
Derek Carr has always been a game manager. He'll always be a game manager.
Disrespect that pud all you want. He's completely irrelevant. [Reply]
Here's the thing: it's possible for an average/game manager type QB to win it all. It's happened more times than I'd rather count. And an average QB can not only get to the SB, but win against a 'better' QB in the Super Bowl. See "Foles vs. Brady," or "Eli vs. Brady"(x2), or "Brady vs. Warner," or "Doug Williams vs. Elway," or Phil Simms vs. John Elway," just off the top of my head.
But in all those cases the game manager QB has to have great weapons and a great D to have a chance. Or he has to have an unspeakable run or great play and luck, a la Nick Foles. But even Foles had some pretty good weapons and as very good defense. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
Here's the thing: it's possible for an average/game manager type QB to win it all. It's happened more times than I'd rather count. And an average QB can not only get to the SB, but win against a 'better' QB in the Super Bowl. See "Foles vs. Brady," or "Eli vs. Brady"(x2), or "Brady vs. Warner," or "Doug Williams vs. Elway," or Phil Simms vs. John Elway," just off the top of my head.
But in all those cases the game manager QB has to have great weapons and a great D to have a chance. Or he has to have an unspeakable run or great play and luck, a la Nick Foles. But even Foles had some pretty good weapons and as very good defense.
Disagree on Foles. Foles is a gun-slinger who is always a coin-flip from away from 3 INT's. He chucks it deep and keeps his eyes constantly downfield. There was a considerable push from Chiefsplanet and the KC media that Foles should replace Alex in 2016 (Lezak and Alex's wife even got into it about that over twitter). Tiger said I was the "forum's biggest dumb***" for saying Foles could win a SB over Alex.
The thing with Foles is that when he does catch fire, he can compete with anyone. Game managers don't have a ceiling like that. They have to solely rely on their defense and running game to give them a lead to manage through the game. See the Broncos in 97 and 15, or the Ravens in 00' or the Bucs in 02'. Speaking of the Bucs, it was probably a bad thing for Gruden to win it all with Brad Johnson. Gruden does see potential in QB's, his praise of Mahomes is evidence enough of that, but seems to think they're not necessary after winning his lone SB with Tony Dungy's team. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Chiefspants:
Disagree on Foles. Foles is a gun-slinger who is always a coin-flip from away from 3 INT's. He chucks it deep and keeps his eyes constantly downfield. There was a considerable push from Chiefsplanet and the KC media that Foles should replace Alex in 2016 (Lezak and Alex's wife even got into it about that over twitter). Tiger said I was the "forum's biggest dumb***" for saying Foles could win a SB over Alex.
The thing with Foles is that when he does catch fire, he can compete with anyone. Game managers don't have a ceiling like that. They have to solely rely on their defense and running game to give them a lead to manage through the game. See the Broncos in 97 and 15, or the Ravens in 00' or the Bucs in 02'. Speaking of the Bucs, it was probably a bad thing for Gruden to win it all with Brad Johnson. Gruden does see potential in QB's, his praise of Mahomes is evidence enough of that, but seems to think they're not necessary after winning his lone SB with Tony Dungy's team.
Eh, even if I agree with you about Foles, how do you explain Eli? Average QB statistically, and most would call him a game manager type QB. 2 SB rings, 2 SB MVP awards. (let's leave Spags and his defenses out of this discussion). [Reply]
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
Eh, even if I agree with you about Foles, how do you explain Eli? Average QB statistically, and most would call him a game manager type QB. 2 SB rings, 2 SB MVP awards. (let's leave Spags and his defenses out of this discussion).
Eli's the opposite of a game manager.
He's a mad bomber, and an extremely mediocre one at that. Eli never saw an interception he wouldn't try to throw.
Being an average or even below average quarterback doesn't make you a game manager. It's a style - not a performance rating.
There's little about Eli Manning that suggests game manager. He threw bombs whenever he thought he saw something available (even when it wasn't). He made risky, often stupid passes into coverage because he thought he was better than he is.
Eli Manning was a better version of Rex Grossman and a worse version of Kurt Warner. They were all the same type of player - none of them were game managers. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Chiefspants:
Speaking of the Bucs, it was probably a bad thing for Gruden to win it all with Brad Johnson. Gruden does see potential in QB's, his praise of Mahomes is evidence enough of that, but seems to think they're not necessary after winning his lone SB with Tony Dungy's team.
Nah. Gruden is just scared, that's all. Here are all the QBs drafted for Gruden-coached teams:
Bucs (2002-2008)
2003: Chris Simms (3rd round)
2006: Bruce Gradkowski (6th round)
2008: Josh Johnson (5th round)
Raiders again (2018-present)
None
He probably only drafted Tui and Simms as high as he did because he was rolling with elderly dudes very close to retirement and his hand was getting forced. Drafting QBs wasn't a unique or novel concept to him, either. He came straight out of the Ron Wolf/Mike Holmgren school of constantly drafting QBs even if you have an entrenched starter. He cut his coaching teeth in a system that valued the position and produced SEVERAL starter-quality QBs from numerous Brett Favre backups.
I think Gruden is just a pussy and can't muster up the courage to pull the trigger on high draft pick QBs. Either that or he's lazy and doesn't want to deal with the hassle of not only scouting and selecting the right guy but also developing and coaching and being patient with him. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Here - from 2016, before his injury:
Derek Carr has always been a game manager. He'll always be a game manager.
Disrespect that pud all you want. He's completely irrelevant.
The guy was not a game manager in college. Look at him push the ball down the field consistently. That’s what made me like him in the draft, and maybe why there were rumors of us liking him too.