Emo Andy Dalton after a trip to Sephora on Groundhog Day (Carr thread)
-
RaiderandBulldog
- Posts: 16,338
- Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2015 3:18 pm
- Location: Fresno Ca
- Has given High Fives: 209 times
- Received High Fives: 447 times
-
billy piton
- Posts: 427
- Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 12:46 pm
[quote=Jeremyturner1976 post_id=1042055]Tampa Bay:
2nd most PPG
5th fewest PPG allowed
Las Vegas:
18th ppg
26th ppg allowed
So let me get this correct, you are saying this is the same situation? We are totally set to go all in on a mediocre QB? SuperBowl window time?
Again, for the second game with all of these I told you so's - the only thing they have in common is Carr would lose too - by a hell of a lot more.
Or is your piss poor argument truly that Carr is better than Brady and Rodgers?[/quote]my point is that people overrate qb's role in teams' wins and losses. having a competent qb is must have in the nhl, but not like it's elite qb or bust.
i cant wait to see mahomes once when he won't have hill and kelce.
2nd most PPG
5th fewest PPG allowed
Las Vegas:
18th ppg
26th ppg allowed
So let me get this correct, you are saying this is the same situation? We are totally set to go all in on a mediocre QB? SuperBowl window time?
Again, for the second game with all of these I told you so's - the only thing they have in common is Carr would lose too - by a hell of a lot more.
Or is your piss poor argument truly that Carr is better than Brady and Rodgers?[/quote]my point is that people overrate qb's role in teams' wins and losses. having a competent qb is must have in the nhl, but not like it's elite qb or bust.
i cant wait to see mahomes once when he won't have hill and kelce.
-
srv5490
- Posts: 3,471
- Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 10:14 pm
- Location: Returning Videotapes
- Has given High Fives: 46 times
- Received High Fives: 172 times
[quote=billy piton post_id=1042035]funny thing how brady looks bad without his usual weapons and banged up offensive line.[/quote]Maybe that's why he choose to play for less than half of what Carr did this season?
-
raiders1988xyz
-
GoodTimeCharlie
- Posts: 4,939
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2020 6:26 pm
- Location: Atop the commode
- Has given High Fives: 1528 times
- Received High Fives: 1566 times
I couldn’t come close to even attempting a comparison between Brady and Carr without feeling wholly ridiculous. I guess I’d have to try starting at the very very basics. Somewhere before “They both play in the NFL”. Or, “They both play the same position”. Somewhere in the neighborhood of, “They both breathe oxygen”, would be my starting point I think.
-
Jeremyturner1976
- Posts: 6,830
- Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2018 3:26 am
[quote=billy piton post_id=1042085]my point is that people overrate qb's role in teams' wins and losses. having a competent qb is must have in the nhl, but not like it's elite qb or bust.
i cant wait to see mahomes once when he won't have hill and kelce.[/quote]Right (Btw sorry about the piss poor part - that was not for you) just tired of seeing people saying X QB lost has anything to do with Carr losing. This is the playoffs and Carr is worse than those guys by miles.
So, if all you need is a game manager - why pay 35 million for that? Why not start rolling the dice on Rookies, build an actual team with the extra picks and 30 million, then find a guy worth trading for if the rookie fails out.
Like the Rams are doing with Stafford. Like the Titans did with Tannehill. Like the Bucs did with Brady. Like the Broncos did with Peyton.
Or by getting a rookie, like the Chiefs did with Mahommes or the Bengals did with Burrows. Like the Seahawks did with Wilson.
We are so far from 'needing a game manager' to win the big game. The point is, with that saved cap we can get far closer to a solid 'team' and we might even get lucky and get a real difference maker at QB.
Keeping Carr and 8-10 win seasons only delays that process and imo puts it out of reach. Especially paying him like a top 5 QB - even 30 is top 10.
The Chiefs played this exact same game for years with Alex Smith. Why go all in on a game manager?
The Bengals were 2-14 two years ago. Top of the lineup draft picks can change a teams future.
* KC will regret signing that contract 100%. 35 ain't that far from 50 though - why is that ok?
i cant wait to see mahomes once when he won't have hill and kelce.[/quote]Right (Btw sorry about the piss poor part - that was not for you) just tired of seeing people saying X QB lost has anything to do with Carr losing. This is the playoffs and Carr is worse than those guys by miles.
So, if all you need is a game manager - why pay 35 million for that? Why not start rolling the dice on Rookies, build an actual team with the extra picks and 30 million, then find a guy worth trading for if the rookie fails out.
Like the Rams are doing with Stafford. Like the Titans did with Tannehill. Like the Bucs did with Brady. Like the Broncos did with Peyton.
Or by getting a rookie, like the Chiefs did with Mahommes or the Bengals did with Burrows. Like the Seahawks did with Wilson.
We are so far from 'needing a game manager' to win the big game. The point is, with that saved cap we can get far closer to a solid 'team' and we might even get lucky and get a real difference maker at QB.
Keeping Carr and 8-10 win seasons only delays that process and imo puts it out of reach. Especially paying him like a top 5 QB - even 30 is top 10.
The Chiefs played this exact same game for years with Alex Smith. Why go all in on a game manager?
The Bengals were 2-14 two years ago. Top of the lineup draft picks can change a teams future.
* KC will regret signing that contract 100%. 35 ain't that far from 50 though - why is that ok?
-
billy piton
- Posts: 427
- Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 12:46 pm
[quote=GoodTimeCharlie post_id=1042089]I couldn’t come close to even attempting a comparison between Brady and Carr without feeling wholly ridiculous. I guess I’d have to try starting at the very very basics. Somewhere before “They both play in the NFL”. Or, “They both play the same position”. Somewhere in the neighborhood of, “They both breathe oxygen”, would be my starting point I think.[/quote]true on all accounts. and even the goat tom brady looks like shit when supporting cast is not up to par.
-
Jeremyturner1976
- Posts: 6,830
- Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2018 3:26 am
[quote=billy piton post_id=1042095]true on all accounts. and even the goat tom brady looks like shit when supporting cast is not up to par.[/quote]Love you man, but this might be too early to say that...
-
GoodTimeCharlie
- Posts: 4,939
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2020 6:26 pm
- Location: Atop the commode
- Has given High Fives: 1528 times
- Received High Fives: 1566 times
[quote=billy piton post_id=1042095]true on all accounts. and even the goat tom brady looks like shit when supporting cast is not up to par.[/quote]Still gotta admire the fact that in the face of a major deficit, against a top-notch defense, he still plays like he will win the game.
He just threw another TD as I was writing this.
He just threw another TD as I was writing this.
-
billy piton
- Posts: 427
- Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 12:46 pm
[quote=Jeremyturner1976 post_id=1042093]Right (Btw sorry about the piss poor part - that was not for you) just tired of seeing people saying X QB lost has anything to do with Carr losing. This is the playoffs and Carr is worse than those guys by miles.
So, if all you need is a game manager - why pay 35 million for that? Why not start rolling the dice on Rookies, build an actual team with the extra picks and 30 million, then find a guy worth trading for if the rookie fails out.
Like the Rams are doing with Stafford. Like the Titans did with Tannehill. Like the Bucs did with Brady.
Or by getting a rookie, like the Chiefs did with Mahommes or the Bengals did with Burrows.
We are so far from 'needing a game manager' to win the big game. The point is, with that saved cap we can get far closer to a solid 'team' and we might even get lucky and get a real difference maker at QB.
Keeping Carr and 8-10 win seasons only delays that process and imo puts it out of reach.
The Chiefs played this exact same game for years with Alex Smith. Why go all in on a game manager?
The Bengals were 2-14 two years ago. Top of the lineup draft picks can change a teams future.
* KC will regret signing that contract 100%. 35 ain't that far from 50 though - why is that ok?[/quote]carr is not a game manager. teddy bridgewater is a game manager, alex smith was game manager. carr is above average qb by all accounts. i woundnt start rolling the dice with rookie qbs exactly because the team has a ton of holes. pouring draft capital on a qb position which is one of few on your team that is above average (along with te and de position) is not sound strategy, imo. you might end up like the bengals, but there is a significanty greater chance to end up like the browns, jets, giants, jaguars and raiders (2003-2014). it is not easy to find an above average qb.
So, if all you need is a game manager - why pay 35 million for that? Why not start rolling the dice on Rookies, build an actual team with the extra picks and 30 million, then find a guy worth trading for if the rookie fails out.
Like the Rams are doing with Stafford. Like the Titans did with Tannehill. Like the Bucs did with Brady.
Or by getting a rookie, like the Chiefs did with Mahommes or the Bengals did with Burrows.
We are so far from 'needing a game manager' to win the big game. The point is, with that saved cap we can get far closer to a solid 'team' and we might even get lucky and get a real difference maker at QB.
Keeping Carr and 8-10 win seasons only delays that process and imo puts it out of reach.
The Chiefs played this exact same game for years with Alex Smith. Why go all in on a game manager?
The Bengals were 2-14 two years ago. Top of the lineup draft picks can change a teams future.
* KC will regret signing that contract 100%. 35 ain't that far from 50 though - why is that ok?[/quote]carr is not a game manager. teddy bridgewater is a game manager, alex smith was game manager. carr is above average qb by all accounts. i woundnt start rolling the dice with rookie qbs exactly because the team has a ton of holes. pouring draft capital on a qb position which is one of few on your team that is above average (along with te and de position) is not sound strategy, imo. you might end up like the bengals, but there is a significanty greater chance to end up like the browns, jets, giants, jaguars and raiders (2003-2014). it is not easy to find an above average qb.
-
Raiderfanrich
- Posts: 3,779
- Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2015 5:48 pm
The repeated insistence from a number of people on here that Carr is somehow nearing elite is comical
-
Sold My Soul
- Posts: 17,838
- Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 9:08 pm
- Location: Somewhere In Time
- Has given High Fives: 170 times
- Received High Fives: 412 times
-
Jeremyturner1976
- Posts: 6,830
- Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2018 3:26 am
[quote=billy piton post_id=1042113]carr is not a game manager. teddy bridgewater is a game manager, alex smith was game manager. carr is above average qb by all accounts. i woundnt start rolling the dice with rookie qbs exactly because the team has a ton of holes. pouring draft capital on a qb position which is one of few on your team that is above average (along with te and de position) is not sound strategy, imo. you might end up like the bengals, but there is a significanty greater chance to end up like the browns, jets, giants, jaguars and raiders (2003-2014). it is not easy to find an above average qb.[/quote]So if KC is doomed with Mahommes and 50 million - why is Carr and 35 million a good idea?
-
Jeremyturner1976
- Posts: 6,830
- Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2018 3:26 am
[quote=Sold My Soul post_id=1042115]Piss poor QB draft class this year.[/quote]For sure, but much like '18 - we should trade for future picks and go in on the '23 class. Hell even wait for '24. We are not within two years of our window.
Carr at 20 was a huge failure, Carr at 35 is not going to be better...
Better yet, build a team then trade for a guy like Stafford.
Carr at 20 was a huge failure, Carr at 35 is not going to be better...
Better yet, build a team then trade for a guy like Stafford.
-
Raiderfanrich
- Posts: 3,779
- Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2015 5:48 pm
[quote=Jeremyturner1976 post_id=1042126]For sure, but much like '18 - we should trade for future picks and go in on the '23 class. Hell even wait for '24. We are not within two years of our window.
Carr at 20 was a huge failure, Carr at 35 is not going to be better...
Better yet, build a team then trade for a guy like Stafford.[/quote]What if you could get Russell Wilson? Yay or nay?
Carr at 20 was a huge failure, Carr at 35 is not going to be better...
Better yet, build a team then trade for a guy like Stafford.[/quote]What if you could get Russell Wilson? Yay or nay?
-
billy piton
- Posts: 427
- Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 12:46 pm
[quote=Jeremyturner1976 post_id=1042126]For sure, but much like '18 - we should trade for future picks and go in on the '23 class. Hell even wait for '24. We are not within two years of our window.
Carr at 20 was a huge failure, Carr at 35 is not going to be better...
Better yet, build a team then trade for a guy like Stafford.[/quote]you cant convince me that you cant win with carr at 35m when you have win 10 games with almost 30m of actual dead money plus a lot of other dead weight (nassib, ferrell, littleton kwit etc). when we get into the situation that we cant extend above average players on other positions i'd gladly say cut carr and bring in a cheap rookie.
Carr at 20 was a huge failure, Carr at 35 is not going to be better...
Better yet, build a team then trade for a guy like Stafford.[/quote]you cant convince me that you cant win with carr at 35m when you have win 10 games with almost 30m of actual dead money plus a lot of other dead weight (nassib, ferrell, littleton kwit etc). when we get into the situation that we cant extend above average players on other positions i'd gladly say cut carr and bring in a cheap rookie.