For anyone who says Carr is just a stat padder and don’t win: (3 Viewers)

[St. Geezy]

And only 2 of those 5 QBs made the playoffs.
Just wondering how we can make this more clear for the people that don't understand football.

It’s almost as if football is a team sport and a QB can only do so much on his own…wild.

 

[DaveXA]

None of that has anything to do with Carr being a mediocre QB at best.

He's a lot of things, but mediocre is absolutely not one of them.

The need for scapegoating is real I guess.

 

[Mr.Blonde]

He's a lot of things, but mediocre is absolutely not one of them.

The need for scapegoating is real I guess.

Yes. His record is clearly below mediocre.

 

[DaveXA]

Yes. His record is clearly below mediocre.

And by that logic, Burrow was mediocre this season.

You do realize there are 53 players on a team, no?

 

[Mr.Blonde]

And by that logic, Burrow was mediocre this season.

You do realize there are 53 players on a team, no?

So, do wins get credited to individual players, since losses don't go against individual players according to your logic? In essence wins and losses are irrelevant to you. This the second time you mentioned Burrow. Do you think he and Carr are on the same level? Burrow is 38-30. He has playoff wins, super bowl appearance. That is above average. Bengals were 9-8. That is above average. Joe Burrow threw over 40tds. That's above average. Carr is below average. He needs to work to get to mediocre.

 

[El Caliente]

I never said that Derek Carr was a stat padder, I only said that Derek Carr didn’t appreciate Madonna’s mid to late 80s catalog.

 

[DaveXA]

So, do wins get credited to individual players, since losses don't go against individual players according to your logic?

Both wins and losses get credited to the team, not a player. Obvioisly the QB has the most important role as a player and leader, but they can't win/lose on their own. Its a team, not individual game.

In essence wins and losses are irrelevant to you.

Dumb statement is dumb.

This the second time you mentioned Burrow.

Yes, because you keep beating that drum.

Do you think he and Carr are on the same level?

No, and didn't say or imply they are.

Burrow is 38-30. He has playoff wins, super bowl appearance.

Yes, but thats not the point.

That is above average. Bengals were 9-8. That is above average. Joe Burrow threw over 40tds. That's above average. Carr is below average.

He's above average in just about every other metric besides wins and losses. So, maybe the team needs to play better? The irrational hatred is, well, irrational.

He needs to work to get to mediocre.

Keep enjoying that fantasy. I'll stick with things that are real.

 

[SWJJ]

It's HILARIOUS to think that the Raiders are better off having moved on from Carr.

In the DECADE before they had Carr they went 49 - 111 and had ZERO winning Seasons

With Carr as a Starter they went 63 - 83 had a 10 win season, a 12 win season, and should have beaten the Bengals in the playoffs.

Since they cut Carr they are 12-22 and have not had a winning Season.



Implying Carr was the problem in Oakland shows you dont know what you are talking about. Derek Carr gave them their best two season in TWENTY YEARS!

 

[sfidc3]

Doesn’t surprise me. I swear I don’t understand what games some people are watching. Carr has always looked solid to me here. It’s like people have their minds made up about him going in and magnify every single thing he does wrong to unreasonable levels, as if other QBs of his ilk aren’t making the same errors every week.

Carr is efficient and you can win with him. But like most QBs like him, he needs help.

Pretty much how I feel about Carr, I thought it was a good move to get him and (at the time) thought he was the best available QB, I don't think much differently now....

It's HILARIOUS to think that the Raiders are better off having moved on from Carr.

In the DECADE before they had Carr they went 49 - 111 and had ZERO winning Seasons

With Carr as a Starter they went 63 - 83 had a 10 win season, a 12 win season, and should have beaten the Bengals in the playoffs.

Since they cut Carr they are 12-22 and have not had a winning Season.



Implying Carr was the problem in Oakland shows you dont know what you are talking about. Derek Carr gave them their best two season in TWENTY YEARS!

Agree with all of this, the notion that Carr was the problem with the Raiders while he is there is just foolish....the evidence says otherwise....

 

[Mr.Blonde]

Both wins and losses get credited to the team, not a player. Obvioisly the QB has the most important role as a player and leader, but they can't win/lose on their own. Its a team, not individual game.

Dumb statement is dumb.

Yes, because you keep beating that drum.

No, and didn't say or imply they are.

Yes, but thats not the point.

He's above average in just about every other metric besides wins and losses. So, maybe the team needs to play better? The irrational hatred is, well, irrational.

Keep enjoying that fantasy. I'll stick with things that are real.

They also go on to the players individual record as well. Carr sits at 77-92. That is below average. Dumb statement agreed but you are the one that thinks wins and losses don't matter. I just pointed it out to you. You are the one bringing Burrow up, not me. Thats the second poor comparison you brought up. So you are implying Carr and Burrow are on the same level since you keep using him as a basis of comparison. Derek Carr you say is above average except for the whole winning thing. Got it. Your irrational bias is well irrational. You mention fantasy and yet ignore win/loss record which is in fact real.

 

[DaveXA]

They also go on to the players individual record as well. Carr sits at 77-92. That is below average. Dumb statement agreed but you are the one that thinks wins and losses don't matter. I just pointed it out to you. You are the one bringing Burrow up, not me. Thats the second poor comparison you brought up. Derek Carr you say is above average except for the whole winning thing. Got it. Your irrational bias is well irrational. You mention fantasy and yet ignore win/loss record which is in fact real.

I rest my case. Lmao.

 

[Mr.Blonde]

I rest my case. Lmao.

You never had a case. Only excuses. Lmao

 

[sfidc3]

They also go on to the players individual record as well. Carr sits at 77-92. That is below average. Dumb statement agreed but you are the one that thinks wins and losses don't matter. I just pointed it out to you. You are the one bringing Burrow up, not me. Thats the second poor comparison you brought up. So you are implying Carr and Burrow are on the same level since you keep using him as a basis of comparison. Derek Carr you say is above average except for the whole winning thing. Got it. Your irrational bias is well irrational. You mention fantasy and yet ignore win/loss record which is in fact real.

Dumb statement is still dumb, but apparently isn't a show stopper?

 

[Mr.Blonde]

Dumb statement is still dumb, but apparently isn't a show stopper?

The Derek Carr argument will always continue. Especially since he will probably be our Quarterback again.