Emo Andy Dalton after a trip to Sephora on Groundhog Day (Carr thread)

[RaiderandBulldog]

https://mobile.twitter.com/Raiders/stat ... 3878636548

[Rainman56]

14-27 since jettisoning Carr. Saints are 1-15 without him in 2024 and 2025. Combined record of 15-42!


The fan base looks back at QBs like the Mad Bomber (one of my favorites), Snake (my dad's favorite), Plunkett, and Gannon, and only views the W-L record without realizing how stacked those rosters were. Snake could throw 4 INTs and still tie. Carr could fumble once, and it was game over. Hell, Al's teams were so stacked that Marc Wilson went 31-19.

Carr never played with a roster 60% as good as those teams. We haven't had a complete team since 2002, and the results show it. ONE ABOVE DEFENSE in points since 2002 (2023). We traded Mack (his best buddy). Dennis Allen shoved him into starting duty on a terrible team.

Strip away 2014 (hopeless year that no rookie QB was winning with and a season where he shouldn't have started until Week 13) and 2018 (burn it down year), and he has a winning record with this franchise.

For all the RF claims that his production was easily replaceable, a bunch of veteran QBs and winners (Jimmy G!) proved otherwise. But hey, the same group thought Carson Strong was worth a first round pick.

Different team,plenty of weapons,same numbers...He Sux ballz................He always been brutal in the redzone,doesn't like playing under center because he has to turn his back on the defense,has possible the worst playaction of all time and fumbles like it's a bodily function even possibly dropping it intentionally to avoid getting hit or to brace his fall

[Attyla]

Comparing eras of the NFL is a fallacy. While Stabler had a loaded team, he did not have the advantages of today's QBs. Everything from the amount of info at their disposal to the rules favor today's QBs. Stabler took 10 times the punishment that today's guys take and he did it in fewer games per season. There is maybe one QB playing today that would have survived back then. Stabler did not have the level of film today's guys have. Today's guys get fed everything to do the job. And, it is a QB driven league today. QBs have greater influence on the outcomes than at any time in league history.

But the great QBs in the 70s knew one thing. They knew that if you need 10 yards to tie a game, you do not throw 9 yards to a guy who is triple teamed. They just knew that.

But the argument that Carr did not have a loaded team does not quite wash. He had offenses that were loaded. For the vast majority of his time with the Raiders, he had a loaded line as well. It begs the question, why did he not kill it TD wise? And the argument that he had bad teams in NO does not wash either. He picked that team. If he were truly elite, why did he not go to a better team. If he were truly elite, better teams should have been lining up to outbid for him. After all, this is a QB driven league.

[FLORIDARAYDAH]

We know how stacked the rosters were.

We also know that none of those guys would have played with the lack of grit and determination that we saw for 9 years. And no, I do not look at just their records. I remember watching each of those guys play the game. Don't tell us older fans what we do or do not remember.

And records? You don't modify them to save a player the reality that goes with the player.

Also, who thought Carson Strong was a first rounder? You like to lump all of the Anti Carr fans into one group.

The guy was born in the 90s but his favorite was Lamonica. He never watched a Raider game until his hero came aboard. If you take away all his bad seasons he had a winning record?
What happened to his horrible injury that needed surgery? Pussy quit on 2 teams

[Willmark]

The amount of cope and projection in amusing.

1. Carr was middling. Not horrible, not great. Just slightly above average. He might not have fully been the problem but he sure wasn’t the answer either.

2. The continued banging of the drum of Strong is likewise amusing. It’s already been addressed. Keep churning the QB position of which Strong would have been one as opposed to staying with a nearly ten year failure that was and is Derek Carr? We saw the results with Carr, win just enough to keep us from drafting a QB which he said to a degree (paraphrasing about where we drafted).

So keep Carr and futility or keep drafting until we hit on a franchise QB? One strategy is better. The other results in a decade of Derek Carr. A QB who defied the odds but not in a good way. In a unheralded underwhelming career who’s closest parallel is Andy Dalton.

[Attyla]

No, Carr was not horrible for the most part, the bonehead plays were there for all to see, he did not throw TDs at a rate that would excite anyone and his fumbles were terrible but he was average I would say.

That said, we piled a ton of money into the offense and gave the guy high end skill position and offensive line players. And for all of that he had exactly 2 times where we were a top 10 scoring offense. That to me is unacceptable if he were "elite" but actually somewhat acceptable since he was an average QB.

As for having Lamonica as a favorite if you never actually saw him play? To each there own. LaMonica was the clean cut kid on a team that was far far from being clean cut. That is why Stabler fit so much better. Madden and Davis built a team with the maverick personality. Stabler was that all day long. It just fit. It makes sense that a guy who followed the clean cut Carr would gravitate to the clean cut LaMonica. And while LaMonica was a proven winner, Stabler just won, and it did not matter to him how, he just won. Go to the candy jar, grab a handful of amphetamines and find a way to win. In the immortal words of Weeb Eubanks, all I want is my fair advantage.

Saints hold his rights. If I am the Saints, I don't surrender the rights. If he wants to come back, he plays for the Saints or he does not play. Nobody is trading for damaged goods, so get the last little bit of football out of that guy.

[Willmark]

When you crunch the numbers and look at the state of the NFL teams? They have near zero patience with QBs - it’s unprecedented that Carr lasted as long as he did.

I’m hard pressed to think of a QB that lasted as long as he did with such middling performance. Usually a QB ascends to become “the guy” or flames out.

Carr existed in this weird middle ground of which there was no prior examples of, or very few. Joey Harrington of the Lions was the closest parallel, now it’s Andy Dalton.

Had he been on another team I highly doubt he would have lasted as long. So in a sense he should be glad the Raiders were bad. I can’t see him lasting on say the Steelers for that long for example.

[RickRyb]

I will never let go of the one fact that QBs "back in the day" called their own plays.

[Attyla]

I will never let go of the one fact that QBs "back in the day" called their own plays.

They also had about a third of what the guys have today.

[Rainman56]

[Xramfan]

Mouse getting field dressed in here

[Rainman56]

Mouse getting field dressed in here

No Brown Pill in here!

[RaiderandBulldog]

[Xramfan]

Did Manning ask how’s Carrs shoulder is recovering from surgery?

[The Real CK]

No, Carr was not horrible for the most part, the bonehead plays were there for all to see, he did not throw TDs at a rate that would excite anyone and his fumbles were terrible but he was average I would say.

That said, we piled a ton of money into the offense and gave the guy high end skill position and offensive line players. And for all of that he had exactly 2 times where we were a top 10 scoring offense. That to me is unacceptable if he were "elite" but actually somewhat acceptable since he was an average QB.

As for having Lamonica as a favorite if you never actually saw him play? To each there own. LaMonica was the clean cut kid on a team that was far far from being clean cut. That is why Stabler fit so much better. Madden and Davis built a team with the maverick personality. Stabler was that all day long. It just fit. It makes sense that a guy who followed the clean cut Carr would gravitate to the clean cut LaMonica. And while LaMonica was a proven winner, Stabler just won, and it did not matter to him how, he just won. Go to the candy jar, grab a handful of amphetamines and find a way to win. In the immortal words of Weeb Eubanks, all I want is my fair advantage.

Saints hold his rights. If I am the Saints, I don't surrender the rights. If he wants to come back, he plays for the Saints or he does not play. Nobody is trading for damaged goods, so get the last little bit of football out of that guy.

Again with that myth. A poster debunked that. Most of our best offensive players, except for Cooper, were reclamation projects, late round picks, or practice squad signings. The elite O-Line lasted two years (2016-17).

The Mad Bomber is the greatest nickname ever for a QB and only behind Night Train for football monikers. Snake was my dad's favorite along with Casper (ND fan) and Guy.

Stabler won 66% of his games. Bomber won 78% of his games. That bolded sentence should apply to the Mad Bomber. The numbers back it up.

Then why didn't Snake, the just win guy, win in New Orleans? 11-11 with the Saints and lost a win-and-in game for the playoffs (where he threw a pick six). Or only make the playoffs once in his last six starting seasons? (The 1979 Raiders were seventh in points but 17th in defensive points. Missed the playoffs. RS would have blamed Snake and not the defense. Like how in 2020 when the 10th ranked offense was blamed more than the 28th ranked defense)

Oh yeah, because the Saints weren't stacked with elite players and Hall of Famers, like the Raiders glory years.

I like Snake. When he was on, he was on - 1976 was one of the best passing season in history, but his career was uneven and he never cared to develop his craft or take care of himself. But he won with the Raiders because the team had tons of talent. Two HOF WRs and a HOF TE. Loads of HOF offensive linemen and HOF defenders. There is a reason why the HOF voters neglected to induct him for decades until public outcry after his death because he left Oakland and did not perform.

That whole won by any means shtick only works with stacked teams (and gullible fans), otherwise the turnovers and not turning it on until the fourth quarter fails. I researched the numbers once: 1970s NFL was not like the previous decades. Most of the great QBs had career positive TD-INT ratios. Namath and Stabler didn't. Tarkenton, Jorgensen, Bradshaw, Staubach, Fouts, Griese, Anderson, did. Even Lamonica, the reckless deep thrower, posted a 164-138 ratio in the wild and woolly 1960s AFL.

For a modern example: Jimmy G in 2023. The big talking point here was how he was a "winner!" 38-17 with SF and then 3-3 with us and so statistically horrible that he was benched. Heck, Kenny Pickett has a winning record (mentioned here repeatedly as why we should start him) yet the Steelers jettisoned him. They knew that elite defense created that mirage.

Hell, Houston dumped Snake after two seasons. Because when a team goes 11-5 with the quarterback throwing 13 TDs and 28 INTs, it isn't because he was a "winner." It was because Campbell rushed for 1934 yards (led the league) and the defense was second in points.

[The Real CK]

When you crunch the numbers and look at the state of the NFL teams? They have near zero patience with QBs - it’s unprecedented that Carr lasted as long as he did.

I’m hard pressed to think of a QB that lasted as long as he did with such middling performance. Usually a QB ascends to become “the guy” or flames out.

Carr existed in this weird middle ground of which there was no prior examples of, or very few. Joey Harrington of the Lions was the closest parallel, now it’s Andy Dalton.

Had he been on another team I highly doubt he would have lasted as long. So in a sense he should be glad the Raiders were bad. I can’t see him lasting on say the Steelers for that long for example.

Historically, Jim Hart and Archie Manning.

The 1975 Cardinals share some interesting parallels with the 2016 Raiders.