Football Barnwell on Derek Carr - Page 12

**the Talking Can** · 08-18-2016, 07:52 AM

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/page...orget-help-nfl

Quote:

Carr's offensive line allowed him to do things that were relative luxuries for Bortles and Bridgewater, like breathe in the pocket without fearing for his life. Carr was pressured on only 21.6 percent of his dropbacks, the fifth-lowest rate among starting quarterbacks. A quarterback who gets the ball out quickly can distort that number (see: Tom Brady), but other metrics suggest that wasn't the case with Carr. He took 2.44 seconds before his typical pass, 15th in the league. Carr's average throw traveled 7.67 yards in the air, which was slightly below league average and one full yard deeper than the typical Bridgewater pass (6.66)...

It's another Oakland credo to go after enormous receivers. Carr's average pass went to a receiver who was 74.3 inches tall (a little over 6 feet 2), giving him the fourth-largest receiving corps in football. (Jacksonville's grouping was third.) Sadly, they weren't always his friends. Oakland's pass-catchers, which will return virtually unchanged in 2016, dropped 5.1 percent of Carr's throws last year. That was the fifth-worst rate in the league. It's hard to see these receivers combining to drop as many passes in 2016, particularly Cooper, who should be healthier after struggling through plantar fasciitis a year ago. While analyses suggesting Cooper dropped 18 passes seem off the mark, ESPN Stats & Information has Cooper down for 10 drops on 126 targets, the second-highest total in the league behind Tampa's Mike Evans.

The one perhaps concerning quirk surrounding Carr's 2015 season is what happened as it went along: Namely, Carr got worse. A lot worse. His QBR during Weeks 1-9, covering Oakland's first eight games, was 11th in the league at 66.6. During Oakland's final eight games, Carr's QBR dropped to just 35.1, leaving him 28th out of 29 passers. Only Bortles, coincidentally, was worse. Carr's decline came under duress. He had the league's lowest pressure rate during the first half of the year, at 17.6 percent. Over the final eight weeks, that pressure rate leaped up to 25.0 percent. That was only eighth in the league, but it was enough to help throw Carr off track....

There is something that will have to improve, though, fluke or otherwise: Late in games, for whatever reason, Carr was a mess. He posted a 19.9 QBR in the fourth quarter and overtime, which was the second-worst mark in the league ahead of Nick Foles. Bortles, one spot ahead of Carr, finished at 31.2. Seven of Carr's 13 picks came in the fourth quarter and OT, despite the fact that he threw only 31 percent of his passes during that time frame. Only Matthew Stafford had a higher interception rate in the fourth quarter/OT (6.8 percent) than Carr (5.3 percent).

saphojunkie · 08-19-2016, 10:58 AM

Quote:

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 · 08-19-2016, 11:02 AM

Quote:

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.

ThaVirus · 08-19-2016, 11:02 AM

Quote:

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 · 08-19-2016, 11:11 AM

Quote:

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?

**Rausch** · 08-19-2016, 11:13 AM

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

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

stumppy · 08-19-2016, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimNasium

Most of us don't like him. He's a douche.

QFT

Hammock Parties · 08-19-2016, 11:14 AM

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.

**Rausch** · 08-19-2016, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smellway

It an apples and oranges argument, anyway.

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

No, he'd be Alex.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smellway

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

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...

ThaVirus · 08-19-2016, 11:27 AM

Quote:

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.

ScareCrowe · 08-19-2016, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smellway

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.

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.

ScareCrowe · 08-19-2016, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

I am aware.

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

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.

NWTF · 08-19-2016, 11:33 AM

Quote:

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.

staylor26 · 08-19-2016, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScareCrowe

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.

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.

vailpass · 08-19-2016, 12:00 PM

Quote:

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 · 08-19-2016, 12:09 PM

Quote:

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.

08-19-2016, 11:14 AM	#172
Hammock Parties I'll be back. Join Date: Nov 2002 Casino cash: $780478	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.
Posts: 297,477