Emo Andy Dalton after a trip to Sephora on Groundhog Day (Carr thread)
-
RaiderandBulldog
- Posts: 16,317
- Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2015 3:18 pm
- Location: Fresno Ca
- Has given High Fives: 209 times
- Received High Fives: 436 times
-
Raidernation1979
- Posts: 8,305
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 4:39 am
- Has given High Fives: 298 times
- Received High Fives: 825 times
I know one constant is that no other qb in the nfl could have done as much as Carr with what he has had to work with. Not hearing it claimed yet this year but it’ll come out at some point.
-
Attyla
- Posts: 52,595
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:31 pm
- Has given High Fives: 1246 times
- Received High Fives: 2983 times
[quote=Willmark post_id=1080982]By percentage, not much.
With a 17 game regular season, each game is a little less than 6% (close to 5.89%) of the total games played. So maybe the above stat moves to 11-16% on raw numbers?
Of course more variable go into this.[/quote]yea, that stat says first two games. It sets the stage. But let's be honest, on average you can lose 6 games and still be in most all the time in a 16 game season. In a 17 game season, with the current format, 7 games is probably a definite and 8 is the edge. You now have more of a cushion than you would in a 16 game season. Now, factoring in the original stat that says 90% will not get in, but your margin and your duration are shorter. Now the margin and the duration gives you more recovery time. I am not suggesting it is significant but I can see that stat drop by as much as 10-15% given more games to recover and more options to lose and still get in. The math gets dicey as I am sure they just looked at averages and we are now talking about projections.
With a 17 game regular season, each game is a little less than 6% (close to 5.89%) of the total games played. So maybe the above stat moves to 11-16% on raw numbers?
Of course more variable go into this.[/quote]yea, that stat says first two games. It sets the stage. But let's be honest, on average you can lose 6 games and still be in most all the time in a 16 game season. In a 17 game season, with the current format, 7 games is probably a definite and 8 is the edge. You now have more of a cushion than you would in a 16 game season. Now, factoring in the original stat that says 90% will not get in, but your margin and your duration are shorter. Now the margin and the duration gives you more recovery time. I am not suggesting it is significant but I can see that stat drop by as much as 10-15% given more games to recover and more options to lose and still get in. The math gets dicey as I am sure they just looked at averages and we are now talking about projections.
-
Raiders Baby
- Posts: 3,120
- Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 8:54 am
- Has given High Fives: 303 times
- Received High Fives: 89 times
[quote=Attyla post_id=1080994]yea, that stat says first two games. It sets the stage. But let's be honest, on average you can lose 6 games and still be in most all the time in a 16 game season. In a 17 game season, with the current format, 7 games is probably a definite and 8 is the edge. You now have more of a cushion than you would in a 16 game season. Now, factoring in the original stat that says 90% will not get in, but your margin and your duration are shorter. Now the margin and the duration gives you more recovery time. I am not suggesting it is significant but I can see that stat drop by as much as 10-15% given more games to recover and more options to lose and still get in. The math gets dicey as I am sure they just looked at averages and we are now talking about projections.[/quote]Another adjustment is that there are now 7 playoff teams instead of 6. That might even have a more profound impact than the regular season games, and taken together I would guess that the 90% figure will come down notably.
0-2 is still a dreadful start, but with 1 extra game and 1 extra playoff slot there should be more cushion; I think your hypothesis will be supported by the data
0-2 is still a dreadful start, but with 1 extra game and 1 extra playoff slot there should be more cushion; I think your hypothesis will be supported by the data
-
Opoponax50
- Posts: 5,685
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:16 am
- Has given High Fives: 1105 times
- Received High Fives: 573 times
[quote=signal post_id=1080990]He could have been a Raider. We had the draft capital to trade up and get the NY pick and f[raiders_icon]ck the Chargers by picking up a QB. But no, we have had people in charge of the Raiders for some time now, that refuse to see what many of us have seen for years. Raiders NEED to go after a QB in the draft and get rid of this pretender.
P.S. If my memory serves me well, NY WAS looking to trade down but could not find any takers.
IF it is Mark who will not allow this move, than well, the Raiders are f[raiders_icon]cked.[/quote]That's my angle on it too. The Giants needed multiple picks and we had a ton of draft capital to make it happen. I don't know that I'd blame Mark Davis so much as I'd blame Gruden, given the recent info regarding the Tom Brady deal.
I generally don't make draft predictions because I just don't follow college all that closely, but I did watch Herbert that year because for some reason there were a lot of Oregon games on TV. It was so obvious he was a winner. The guy had a big arm, was mobile, and and could throw on the run. He was enthusiastic as hell and he loved to play the game and win. IOW, I wanted us to grab him because to me, he was a sure thing.
Two first round draft picks and maybe another pick would've gotten us that 4th spot and we could've drafted Herbert. Given our draft history since then, three first rounders would've been more than worth it.
But we had Derek. And Gruden loved Derek. Mark loves Derek. Derek loves Derek. And here we are now.
P.S. If my memory serves me well, NY WAS looking to trade down but could not find any takers.
IF it is Mark who will not allow this move, than well, the Raiders are f[raiders_icon]cked.[/quote]That's my angle on it too. The Giants needed multiple picks and we had a ton of draft capital to make it happen. I don't know that I'd blame Mark Davis so much as I'd blame Gruden, given the recent info regarding the Tom Brady deal.
I generally don't make draft predictions because I just don't follow college all that closely, but I did watch Herbert that year because for some reason there were a lot of Oregon games on TV. It was so obvious he was a winner. The guy had a big arm, was mobile, and and could throw on the run. He was enthusiastic as hell and he loved to play the game and win. IOW, I wanted us to grab him because to me, he was a sure thing.
Two first round draft picks and maybe another pick would've gotten us that 4th spot and we could've drafted Herbert. Given our draft history since then, three first rounders would've been more than worth it.
But we had Derek. And Gruden loved Derek. Mark loves Derek. Derek loves Derek. And here we are now.
-
Fade2SilverAndBlack
- Posts: 14,401
- Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 2:00 pm
- Location: 2112 The Temples Of Syrinx.....
- Has given High Fives: 15 times
- Received High Fives: 7 times
[quote=Hellbound post_id=1080988]Herbert's overrated though[/quote]And Mahomes is just lucky....
-
Jeremyturner1976
- Posts: 6,830
- Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2018 3:26 am
-
Raiderfanrich
- Posts: 3,779
- Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2015 5:48 pm
[quote=Jeremyturner1976 post_id=1081002]https://twitter.com/JoshDubowAP/status/ ... 7900621824[/quote]Like I said a couple of days ago, his deep ball is appalling.
Just get him out of here already
Just get him out of here already
-
raiders93
- Posts: 5,058
- Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 9:34 pm
- Has given High Fives: 8 times
- Received High Fives: 260 times
Clearly something is not right with our offence. It looks like we currently don’t really know how to use all of our weapons in tandem. We basically force fed Adams week 1 and they may as well have given him week 2 to rest. Renfrow for the most part has looked like kind of n afterthought. Waller seems to have been relegated to something of a short passing option only. Really none of our guys have gotten involved much on intermediate-deep plays.
In terms of explanations: I’ve got a few theories.
One is that McDaniels became terrified of Carr after week 1 and put training wheels on the offence in week 2.
Another is that he’s terrified of our o-line and basically decided we’re not testing longer developing plays unless absolutely necessary.
The third is that our personnel is secretly really far behind in terms of the playbook and schemes and we’re effectively still running a preseason offence.
Finally - maybe it’s just bad situational awareness in a small sample size.
In week 1 we trailed big early and were mostly forced into longer developing plays and obvious passing situations. Unfortunately that also happened to be against the best d-line in the league who kind of feasted and highlighted how bad Carr can get if you ask him to hold onto the ball in the face of pressure.
In week 2 we had a big lead and maybe thought we could avoid any possibility of week 1 happening again. At least to me that’s what it looked like. McDaniels at half time had some flashbacks of week 1 and thought if we test our line and it goes badly we may lose this lead quickly off some turnovers.
In terms of explanations: I’ve got a few theories.
One is that McDaniels became terrified of Carr after week 1 and put training wheels on the offence in week 2.
Another is that he’s terrified of our o-line and basically decided we’re not testing longer developing plays unless absolutely necessary.
The third is that our personnel is secretly really far behind in terms of the playbook and schemes and we’re effectively still running a preseason offence.
Finally - maybe it’s just bad situational awareness in a small sample size.
In week 1 we trailed big early and were mostly forced into longer developing plays and obvious passing situations. Unfortunately that also happened to be against the best d-line in the league who kind of feasted and highlighted how bad Carr can get if you ask him to hold onto the ball in the face of pressure.
In week 2 we had a big lead and maybe thought we could avoid any possibility of week 1 happening again. At least to me that’s what it looked like. McDaniels at half time had some flashbacks of week 1 and thought if we test our line and it goes badly we may lose this lead quickly off some turnovers.
-
Raidernation1979
- Posts: 8,305
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 4:39 am
- Has given High Fives: 298 times
- Received High Fives: 825 times
[quote=raiders93 post_id=1081006]Clearly something is not right with our offence. It looks like we currently don’t really know how to use all of our weapons in tandem. We basically force fed Adams week 1 and they may as well have given him week 2 to rest. Renfrow for the most part has looked like kind of n afterthought. Waller seems to have been relegated to something of a short passing option only. Really none of our guys have gotten involved much on intermediate-deep plays.
In terms of explanations: I’ve got a few theories.
One is that McDaniels became terrified of Carr after week 1 and put training wheels on the offence in week 2.
Another is that he’s terrified of our o-line and basically decided we’re not testing longer developing plays unless absolutely necessary.
The third is that our personnel is secretly really far behind in terms of the playbook and schemes and we’re effectively still running a preseason offence.
Finally - maybe it’s just bad situational awareness in a small sample size.
In week 1 we trailed big early and were mostly forced into longer developing plays and obvious passing situations. Unfortunately that also happened to be against the best d-line in the league who kind of feasted and highlighted how bad Carr can get if you ask him to hold onto the ball in the face of pressure.
In week 2 we had a big lead and maybe thought we could avoid any possibility of week 1 happening again. At least to me that’s what it looked like. McDaniels at half time had some flashbacks of week 1 and thought if we test our line and it goes badly we may lose this lead quickly off some turnovers.[/quote]How does any of that explain Carr being 6-14 for 40 yards. With an egregious miss to adams in ot?
In terms of explanations: I’ve got a few theories.
One is that McDaniels became terrified of Carr after week 1 and put training wheels on the offence in week 2.
Another is that he’s terrified of our o-line and basically decided we’re not testing longer developing plays unless absolutely necessary.
The third is that our personnel is secretly really far behind in terms of the playbook and schemes and we’re effectively still running a preseason offence.
Finally - maybe it’s just bad situational awareness in a small sample size.
In week 1 we trailed big early and were mostly forced into longer developing plays and obvious passing situations. Unfortunately that also happened to be against the best d-line in the league who kind of feasted and highlighted how bad Carr can get if you ask him to hold onto the ball in the face of pressure.
In week 2 we had a big lead and maybe thought we could avoid any possibility of week 1 happening again. At least to me that’s what it looked like. McDaniels at half time had some flashbacks of week 1 and thought if we test our line and it goes badly we may lose this lead quickly off some turnovers.[/quote]How does any of that explain Carr being 6-14 for 40 yards. With an egregious miss to adams in ot?
-
raiders93
- Posts: 5,058
- Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 9:34 pm
- Has given High Fives: 8 times
- Received High Fives: 260 times
[quote=Raidernation1979 post_id=1081009]How does any of that explain Carr being 6-14 for 40 yards. With an egregious miss to adams in ot?[/quote]I think I covered it:
McDaniels did not feel comfortable leaving anything to Carr behind our o-line with a lead -called designed quick passes against a defence selling out to stop it. How do you explain him being 19/25 for 200 yards and 2 TDs in the first half?
As for the Adams one… I have no idea what happened there. Was it just horribly off target? Was it a miscommunication on an option route where Adams had the choice of either sitting it down or continuing to run and They weren’t on the same page? If so - who was right?
I’ve got no problem putting game 1 all on Carr… I just think this game didn’t seem that way at all and usually there’s some coaching issues behind a total collapse
McDaniels did not feel comfortable leaving anything to Carr behind our o-line with a lead -called designed quick passes against a defence selling out to stop it. How do you explain him being 19/25 for 200 yards and 2 TDs in the first half?
As for the Adams one… I have no idea what happened there. Was it just horribly off target? Was it a miscommunication on an option route where Adams had the choice of either sitting it down or continuing to run and They weren’t on the same page? If so - who was right?
I’ve got no problem putting game 1 all on Carr… I just think this game didn’t seem that way at all and usually there’s some coaching issues behind a total collapse
-
Attyla
- Posts: 52,595
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:31 pm
- Has given High Fives: 1246 times
- Received High Fives: 2983 times
[quote=Twoutrally post_id=1017542]Once again Carr is on a team with a bottom of the barrel Defense. It’s been that way his whole career. Marino never won the Super Bowl because he played with a shit D also. Raiders will never win with a shit Defense I don’t care who the QB is. Even Brady , Manning and Montana played on teams with a decent D. Carr has never had that luxury. Our 3 Super Bowl rings were with good Defenses![/quote]small sample size but we have the 15th ranked defense....
just saying
just saying
-
GoodTimeCharlie
- Posts: 4,917
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2020 6:26 pm
- Location: Atop the commode
- Has given High Fives: 1517 times
- Received High Fives: 1556 times
[quote=Twoutrally post_id=1081012]Carr amazingly holds the record of playing for the most head coaches and offensive coordinators on a single team in the history of the NFL. He has to learn a new system almost every year![/quote] [quote=Attyla post_id=1081021] Carr had the same guys for 3 years and did what?
Last time you threw out a similar stat, you got slayed with examples of Favre and Manning. Now it is on the same team. The same team means shit.[/quote]Plus this McDaniel’s offense is supes hard. The last guy to make the playoffs with it was all the way back in 2021 by a rookie quarterback named Mac Jones.
https://media1.giphy.com/media/8bgaGxet ... y.gif&ct=g
Last time you threw out a similar stat, you got slayed with examples of Favre and Manning. Now it is on the same team. The same team means shit.[/quote]Plus this McDaniel’s offense is supes hard. The last guy to make the playoffs with it was all the way back in 2021 by a rookie quarterback named Mac Jones.
https://media1.giphy.com/media/8bgaGxet ... y.gif&ct=g
-
NoThanksSir
- Posts: 8,420
- Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2013 6:59 am
- Location: New Jersey
- Has given High Fives: 445 times
- Received High Fives: 528 times
-
Xramfan
- Posts: 18,355
- Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2013 12:01 pm
- Has given High Fives: 842 times
- Received High Fives: 1670 times
[quote=NoThanksSir post_id=1081029]
[/quote]Ive been waiting for one of these to pop up lol
[/quote]Ive been waiting for one of these to pop up lol-
BluegrassRaider
- Posts: 2,074
- Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2018 4:42 pm
[quote=RenoRaiders75 post_id=1080949]You will all be praising him next week, just watch! He will be 30 for 37 378 yards and 3 tds no picks[/quote]Nobody cares about a sunlight hitting a dog's ass/fool's gold turn up.
Be par for the course though.
Be par for the course though.