Barnwell on Derek Carr

[beach tribe]

Originally Posted by BossChief

Derek Carr had 10 more scores than Alex Smith.

True, he did.

But he also had 19 combined interceptions (13) and fumbles (6)...when Alex had 10 less by only throwing 7 picks and fumbling twice...and Derek Carr had a much better OL and WRs to throw to.

So Derek Carr had 10 more scores and about 100 more yards (with 50 more attempts)...but also had 10 more turnovers. Almost double the turnovers Alex had.

Alex was better in YPA, rating, QBR, comp %, wins, rushing yards, rushing scores...and did it with lesser WRs and OL.

TOs are pretty much on par with TDs.

[ThaVirus]

Originally Posted by beach tribe

TOs are pretty much on par with TDs.

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

[staylor26]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

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?

[ThaVirus]

Originally Posted by staylor26

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

I am aware.

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

[NWTF]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

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

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.

[beach tribe]

Originally Posted by NWTF

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.

This is basically what I meant but it was worded incorrectly so....

[Pasta Little Brioni]

Originally Posted by BossChief

Derek Carr had 10 more scores than Alex Smith.

True, he did.

But he also had 19 combined interceptions (13) and fumbles (6)...when Alex had 10 less by only throwing 7 picks and fumbling twice...and Derek Carr had a much better OL and WRs to throw to.

So Derek Carr had 10 more scores and about 100 more yards (with 50 more attempts)...but also had 10 more turnovers. Almost double the turnovers Alex had.

Alex was better in YPA, rating, QBR, comp %, wins, rushing yards, rushing scores...and did it with lesser WRs and OL.

The released Clayken hath been slayed

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by BossChief

Derek Carr had 10 more scores than Alex Smith.

True, he did.

But he also had 19 combined interceptions (13) and fumbles (6)...when Alex had 10 less by only throwing 7 picks and fumbling twice...and Derek Carr had a much better OL and WRs to throw to.

So Derek Carr had 10 more scores and about 100 more yards (with 50 more attempts)...but also had 10 more turnovers. Almost double the turnovers Alex had.

Alex was better in YPA, rating, QBR, comp %, wins, rushing yards, rushing scores...and did it with lesser WRs and OL.

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

[staylor26]

Originally Posted by vailpass

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.

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by staylor26

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 a 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'll be ****ed when the Raiders have to pay him Mack and Cooper and can't just go get the top FA OL every other year.

3rd year pro QB whose QBR has trended up in his first two years and is widely held to be a future franchise QB.
32 TDs on 13 INTs last year.
Imagine he was a Chief with his first two years that look like this and tell me what you would say:

Year YDS TD INT Rating
2015 3,987 32 13 91.1
2014 3,270 21 12 76.6

[RunKC]

Originally Posted by staylor26

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 can't defend the run or beat starting OT's with multiple moves don't change much. What happens when an OLB who struggles with stopping the run or using a 2nd move no longer have production? If Ford is a terrible run defender and can't get pressure on good OT's now, he could be ****ed when the Chiefs have to cut him and the Chiefs can't just go get the top pass rusher in FA to replace him bc they are never available.

You should read this edited version.

You always say Ford will get better with no evidence but Carr won't?

[staylor26]

Originally Posted by RunKC

You should read this edited version.

You always say Ford will get better with no evidence but Carr won't?

I've never said anything definitively about Ford. I'm sorry that I'm not an impatient whiny bitch about him like you and want to give him more than a half a season worth of starts before I give up on him.

As for Carr, I'm not saying that there's no hope, or that he can't get better. I'm saying we don't know whether the turnovers will decrease, just like I'm not aware if Ford will improve.

We literally just went through this shit less that a year ago with Fisher and look at where we are at now.

Also, everything you just said in that edit could be applied to a young Hali.

[Hammock Parties]

yeah you got me boy

the Raiders should trade Carr and 2 1sts for Alex right NOW

[saphojunkie]

Originally Posted by Smellway

yeah you got me boy

the Raiders should trade Carr and 2 1sts for Alex right NOW

You are so terrible at debate. So very terrible.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by saphojunkie

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.

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