You are so terrible at debate. So very terrible.

Arguing that a QB in his 11th year had fewer turnovers than a QB in his 2nd year isn't a legitimate argument that the former is better than the latter.

Especially when his ASTRONOMICAL turnover amount was less than 20. ROFL

But this fan base has been conditioned to value low turnovers > EVERYTHING ELSE at the QB position. Sad.

Not really. A TD is a guaranteed 6 while a turnover isn't necessarily guaranteed to result in points for the other team.

You did realize that whoever wins the turnover battle wins around 70% of the time though right?

Carr is a "slinger" while not being a game manager.

Smith is a game manager while not being a "slinger."

QFT

It an apples and oranges argument, anyway.

Put Alex in Oakland and he would surely have more turnovers.

Unless you think it would be business as usual for him with the worst running game and a terrible defense. LMAO

No, he'd be Alex.

I completely understand Alex being him some Alex under a short leash in SF.

Here in KC He's the guy. He's in stone. He has nothing to worry about.

THROW THE ****ING FOOTBALL...

I am aware.

Just saying I disagreed with his assessment and cited my reasoning as to why.

Actually it is. How long a player has been in the league has no bearing on how good they are right now. Now you can certainly make the point that that Carr may be better going forward as he gets experience. But if we're talking how good they are currently it's definitely a valid point.

I wonder what the winning percentage is of teams that score more TD's than their opponent. Would be interesting to see, we always hear that turnover stat, but I've never seen a TD version.

I think he means the rate. I could be wrong.

IE if a QB passes for 35TDs you could/should expect him to have more picks than a QB that passed for 17TDs. Obviously the elite of the elite are the exception.

Generally to get high TDs you have to gamble and take risks to get some of those, and with those risks come more INTs. A lot of the offensive approach has to do with the strengths and weaknesses of the overall team.

Like Andrew Luck. He gets a lot of flack for his INTs but his D sucks so he has to make more drives count then say an Alex Smith or whoever the Broncos QB is this year, who can take a more cautious approach and pick and choose their battles knowing they have the lead, let the D do their thing, and maybe the next possession will be more favorable.

Andy Reid doesnt need Smith taking unnecessary risks when hes got a strong running game and defense thats the safer way to dictate the pace of the game more often than not. The colts dont have that luxury most of the time so turning Luck into a game manager isnt going to produce better results in the W L column. Still, QBs on teams that ask more of them still have to perform up to the level that is expected, so when they dont they still deserve a lot of the blame. Either their cut out to be a gunslinger or not. Failed gunslingers sometimes find success as game managers on well balanced teams later in their careers.

You can still score without turning the ball over, hence why our ball control offense was still top 10 in ppg, while the Raiders were 17th.

Yep.
Thing is though, turnovers go down with experience.
Carr's TO's will decrease.
Will Smith's TDs increase?

What a stupid thing to say. There's no way of knowing that whatsoever. In fact, I'd imagine it's quite the opposite. Guys who are turnover machines usually don't change much. What happens when a QB who struggles with pressure no longer has a great OL? If Carr is a turnover machine now, he could be ****ed when the Raiders have to pay him/Mack/Cooper, and can't just go get the top FA OL every other year.