Panthers vs. Saints Running Commentary 10/07/07

The ideal of blaming the OL for every bit of Carr's issue was invalid, yes. Carr has his own issues, and it's not that he got hit so much that he's suddenly a worse QB. That fails to make any sense. He has problems making decisions at times, he makes some dumb throws, he does have some problems reading.

He can be good enough for us. To me, this game wasn't it. 119 yards against a really, really shitty defense isn't enough. You can give other reasons for why we had to go to the wire, and most of them would be correct as well, but from a standpoint of QB play, there's a dropoff. And this isn't the level of dropoff I'm willing to take to be fiscally low-key.

 

FUCK! I left at 6:00, came back and you two or still going at it. Let it the fucking go. Who really cares!

 

In a salary capped league, money is a primary concern at every position on the field. Or more specifically, the cost to production ratio is of primary concern. I do not dispute the fact that QB is a critical position, and I'd be fine with paying a truly elite guy elite money. But you're not even questioning the fact that numerous guys have emerged from "nowhere" to have success as QBs because there is no questioning that. It's simply a fact. There are few elite quarterbacks, but a lot of guys who can get the job done when surrounded by an adequate supporting cast.

I think you're forgetting that you're talking to someone who has correctly predicted the career arc of every major QB prospect to enter the draft for the last six years. I have no doubt that I will eventually make a mistake, but the problem isn't that QBs are unpredictable, the problem is that teams are stupid and focus on the wrong qualities. And it's not just draftees. I also said that the Chargers were stupid to draft Rivers because Brees was a perfectly adequate QB back before the '04 season when conventional wisdom said that he was a bust.

Guys like Daunte Culpepper, Byron Leftwich, and even Drew Brees this season are obviously talented enough and capable enough to be successful QBs at the NFL level. So why do they have seasons when they suck monkey balls? It's pretty obvious that the teams around a non-elite QB strongly affect their level of play. Put a better team around a solid guy and he's looks like a world-beater. Take the same guy and put him on a shitty team and he looks like crap on a stick.

None. I have explained to you time and time and time again that I strongly favor experience at the QB position. With the Chris Redman example you keep bringing up, or even Carr this year, I want guys who need work to develop as backups in the system a year or two before they're supposed to challenge for a starting job. The guys I want to compete for starting jobs immediately are ones who have played elsewhere. They don't necessarily have to be successful in other places, just demonstrate the qualities I look for: ability to quickly read coverages and deliver the ball accurately, don't panic in the face of a pass rush, and display good touch. Brees showed those qualities down the stretch in '03 even though his overall numbers were fairly poor, which is why I said in print that the Chargers were making a mistake in giving up on him right as he was about to blossom.

I have the same standard for all players in all situations. You're the one who plays favorites and has a doghouse. I'm equally critical of players I like and players I don't. You're the one who is trashing Carr for a throw Jake has made regularly.

No, he wasn't. Look, magnus, even though I do acknowledge that you know a lot about football, it's clear that you're clueless when it comes to evaluating quarterbacks. That's why you constantly make mistakes with QB prospects like Boller. Jake didn't suddenly get worse last season. He's been the same QB all along, but his surrounding cast and the situations may make his production look somewhat different. He's had the same strengths and weaknesses all along, but maybe what is obvious to me is something you can't really see.

It didn't. The Pro Bowl is a fairly ridiculous measure of QB quality given that Michael Vick made three of them.

Hasn't it? Jake played like his pants were on fire in that game, not only making some ballsy throws but also some absolutely stupid interceptions that kept the game in jeopardy. He's been that guy all along. It's not like he's somehow changed into a game manager who now avoids risk and doesn't turn the ball over. He's the same quarterback he's always been.

Nothing works every single time, but there are smart systems and dumb systems. Doing something because most other teams do it doesn't get you ahead, and it isn't valid reasoning.

It's funny how you continue to pretend that I'm saying it's ok to lose more games to save money when that's not at all what I'm suggesting and everyone else knows that. While you keep insisting that I'm lying about you being a liar, you're giving plenty of proof that you do exactly what I've claimed. And furthermore, you have supported what I'm saying at every position other than QB, so don't pretend like it's some crazy notion. That's another example of you being a liar. You pretend like it's sacrificing competitiveness when you've already admitted that you favor that approach at positions other than quarterback.

It might help if you could come up with one legitimate reason why it wouldn't be successful, or even tried for that matter. Instead you keep saying "but, but, no one else is doing it!" I expect more than infantile reasoning out of you, but maybe marriage has addled your brains.

Lying again. I never, ever suggested that my proposal was "the only successful way of winning." I never even insinuated anything close to that, but because you're losing the argument so badly, you're resorting to even more lies about the things I've said. It's honestly amusing that you have no other strategies to rely on than pretending I've said things that I haven't. You've really become quite pathetic in your arguing skills. Either brush up or just retire already.

Be honest. You've said that you support giving up players for fiscal reasons at every position other than QB.

Technically? No, they weren't. As a matter of record it was a $7.whatever deal because, as you said, that 2004 year was voided. But it's really semantics to make yourself feel better about the cost, because already had Jake for 2004 at $2 million. We added four more years for an additional $38 million. You can't even pretend to dispute those facts.

I generally don't get pissed off unless someone is being an idiot, liar, or whatever other words I come up with. You like to pretend that I get pissed every time I disagree with someone, but that's not remotely true. You also pretend that I get pissed off on every occasion with you, when the truth is that we agree on a lot of things.

 

i think the above post might be a record.

 

You're making a complete fool of yourself by sticking to your "awful," "crap," and "ineffective" comments instead of just acknowledging that you were too extreme. Notice that everyone else is admitting that Carr was at least adequate, while some are agreeing that he was pretty good aside from the one dumb throw that reminded me and others of Jake. By sticking to what is an obviously discredited position and relying on statistics like 119 while not acknowledging that Carr only had 17 pass attempts in the game, you're only serving to prove the things I've said about you.


LarryD:
Not even close. There are several times when a response went beyond the word limit and had to be broken down.

 

did you or did you not just suggest that turnover was part of the reason so many teams are awful now?
Sure, the cap is a concern. You don't specifically sign a bunch of $2 mil a year QBs over and over just to save cap space.

To me, the production is the primary concern. If a guy's not producing, you make arrangements. If a guy's producing, you generally don't let that guy go.

And that's fine. We disagree there. I think the issue is that there's a top 5, and then there's the rest of the field, and you set the bar a lot higher for what's a keeper than almost anyone.

Sure. Numerous. And the success ratio of any philosophy is small. SO it's a critical position, where success is somewhat fleeting and certainly not guaranteed, but you're willing to let a guy walk because he's not top 5?

There have also been numerous second day or undrafted guys in the last decade to be serviceable, good, and a couple great guys.

Every?

Sure, the periphery, the coaching, the players affect QB play, but again, we're acting in a vacuum. Guys who weren't good enough to keep a job get the benefit of the doubt where everything else is at fault instead of them? I just don't buy that. That's a line to sell the strategy, that's not something I feel you can believe.

And of course, if it were just a matter of building 21 other players to be great, and to have good depth, coaching, and of course luck, well, I think teams would want to do that anyway. I don't think it's any easier to put up a 2000 Ravens defense and a 2000 yard rusher, now is it? I mean, in a vacuum anyone can make any throw, and can be as good as anything they desire.

I do too. I just don't believe it's the end all, be all situation, and if you're going to have everything else be perfect, you could just as easily make the argument of using a young QB. Look at what you're expecting of the rest of the team, and look at what was around Ben Roethlisberger. That doesn't mean every team should take that approach either.

I'm trashing Carr for performance, and you're being false if you don't acknowledge that the criticism didn't come before this throw or before the TD drive.
The difference being, Jake doesn't consistently throw out 119 yard games. I'm not happy when Jake does it, I'm not happy when Carr does it. I'm just looking for the reason that Carr gets a bunch of excuses and Jake is held to this standard. That's disingenuous, and others have called you out on that. It's amazing how a $2 million quarterback can make mistakes and it's OK, but a $7 mil QB's INTs are costly. They both make the same result on the field, and neither are OK.

So, of course, he was good enough to make three Pro Bowls? Or you honestly believe that the same guy who in parts of 2003 wasn't good enough to do anything more than "not fuck up", was the same guy who lit it up in 2004's second half of the year or took us to the 2005 playoffs? Jake wasn't a motivating factor in 2003 until the last few games of the year.

You're taking a situation where a successful QB is jettisoned for an unknown because the unknown costs less and/or the successful QB costs more to keep/re-sign. At the most critical position. That's sacrificing competitiveness, unless you actually do believe that a QB has little to do with the outcome of the game and is merely a function of everything around him.

Really, huh? So when I argued that we wouldn't get rid of Wahle for simply monetary reasons, and that he'd have to earn it with poor play or specifically costly injury issues, that's different than saying that Jake would have to lose his job to get cut - how again?

Why it couldn't be? Anything's possible. It's a viable situation, in the right situation. You can't guarantee the right situation. So if you're leaving a good situation for an unnecessarily bad situation, you're causing intentional harm unwittingly.
*you can put a good team around a bad QB and he's still a bad QB. You can say "I'll only get the good QBs", and I'm sure that every team thinks it's always getting the good QBs.
*You can set out to make a good team around a crappy QB, and not succeed. In a vacuum, everything is successful.
*you can do anything with good intentions, and put a good QB around a good system and it still not be a good fit

*oh, and teams don't get rid of productive QBs that are winning games for them just because they're also making a lot of money and they can get OK production for less money.

*funny, you whined when I made a basic "your mom" joke that one time, but you've brought my family into this a handful of times now. I'm not going to get pissy the way you do, but you're probably better than that. I'd say you are, but it's clear that you're taking this disagreement personally, for no reason I'll add.

Sorry. More concerned with the ideals than who can out-berate who. Maybe you think this "OMG IF I CALL PEOPLE A LIAR AND IDIOT THEY"LL THINK IT"S TRUE" tactic is the way to win, but it just makes you look like you're losing control and can't otherwise win. If I pulled out every retard trick every time, I'd sound like a broken record, and no one would believe that anyone who ever said something I didn't like was a liar and an idiot.

Then it's a five year deal and pretending it was 4 to bring up the totals is disingenuous, now isn't it?

And you just happen to be the judge of who's doing that, coincidentally. That's not at all self-serving. Just as it's not at all to blame all of the problems of Garcia, Brees, and so on, on other players, but Jake's culpable for everything.

 

119 yards isn't good enough against the 29th ranked defense, no. 17 pass attempts? Doesn't hurt to convert a 3rd down in the first three quarters. Remember how that was all on the QB last year?

 

Guys like Garcia, Kitna, Culpepper, Leftwich, etc become available every year. It's not always an old guy with few years left in his arm. Culpepper and Leftwich are both arguably more talented than Jake, while also younger and less expensive. Please not that I'm not just dumping on Jake. I'm saying that this would be a smart strategy for any team that doesn't have an elite QB already in-house.

That's because you don't see the big picture. In any situation where there is a cap on how much money you can spend, how you spend that money becomes vitally important.

Really? Because someone bearing a striking resemblance to me pointed out that I have correctly predicted the abilities of every major QB to enter the draft for the last six years. I'd say that my success ratio is a lot higher than "small." Given that you concede there are numerous examples of guys coming out of "nowhere" to be successful starters, that only adds to the idea that your chances are pretty good if you know what you're looking for.

Yes, every. I can make that claim because my analyses have been specific and in print.

They were good enough. More than good enough, in fact, but teams are dumb and don't know how to evaluate QBs. Neither, apparently, do you.

No, I don't dispute that at all. You were crapping on Carr from the very beginning, even when he was obviously doing reasonably well. But I just pointed out that you used a bonehead throw that Jake has made regularly as evidence that Carr is "awful," "crap," and "ineffective."

Again, Carr only had 17 pass attempts. You are not fooling anyone by focusing solely on 119.

No, they haven't. You're attempting to twist B&B's words because you realize that no one is supporting you right now when B&B has repeatedly made fun of people who have said derogatory things about Carr. Moreover, note that I did not say anywhere that Carr played great. I am not holding him to any different a standard than I do Jake.

I never even insinuated that Carr's interception was "ok." Meanwhile you're the one hammering him for that when you don't call similar performances by Jake "crap," "awful," or "ineffective."

When you pretend to be stupid, it's just not very convincing. It comes across as you trying to be stupid to keep from acknowledging something obvious that you don't want to admit. Jake's performance in that one half of play against Jacksonville was a microcosm of his entire career to this point. He takes three steps forward and two steps back.

Jeff Garcia is not an unknown. Brad Johnson was not an unknown. Jon Kitna, Daunte Culpepper, Charlie Batch, and Byron Leftwich are not unknowns. At some point it would be pleasing if you would argue against anything I've actually said instead of having an argument against an imaginary person whose statements bear only the slightest passing resemblance to my own.

Sure, because it's not like I already said in the previous post that "I do not dispute the fact that QB is a critical position." God damn, magnus. You can't even stop yourself from lying about what I said one post ago. Jesus.

Yes, really. The very last time we had this argument you said that you are fine with factoring in cost at other positions, but not quarterback.

Most NFL QBs are solid, and it's fairly easy to tell which ones truly suck. You seem to have some trouble with it given how often you champion a college QB who goes on to suck at the NFL level, but I don't think it's that hard to identify which ones are going to be a liability.

I don't know anything about your family or your family life. What I do know is that you used to be a lot more knowledgeable and a lot better at arguing your opinions than you are now. Marriage seems like a likely culprit for that change given that you wouldn't care as much about being knowledgeable given your other priorities.

Dude, you insult people too, you're just not remotely as good at it as I am. But for the record, calling someone a liar when they're verifiably lying about the things that you've said is not a trick, it's a statement of fact. I've shown where you have lied about the things I've said and yet you continue to do so. You do it because that's a standard tactic for you whenever you feel like you're being beaten badly in an argument. Moreover, drop the tired line that I'd be more believable if I was nicer. I've always been an asshole and no one thinks my opinions are invalidated because of that. People just complain about it because the insults sting.

How many years were added to the original contract? How many dollars were added to the original contract? Stop playing semantics and just admit that you've been verbally bitch-slapped yet again.

I never suggested that Jake was a horrible quarterback, just an overpaid one. As I've repeatedly said, Delhomme at around $2 million a year was a deal. Jake at $10 mil or $7.5 or whatever you want to call it is overpaid.

I do not recall Carr sailing the ball over any receiver's head today. One of those third downs was a ridiculous screen call and one was a good throw that was broken up by an even better play. Again, I'm not and never have suggested that Carr was great today. I'm just pointing out how utterly ridiculous and biased you look when you say he was "awful," "crap," and "ineffective."

 

It's not as if this was the Philly postseason game of the 03/04 playoffs and we ran the clock out most of the game. This was a close game where we couldn't make 3rd downs and were not doing anything with the ball.

But there's unlimited money to stock the rest of the team with the support staff to make any solid QB a winner? No, there's not. And, of course, you have to draft nearly perfectly. This is in a vacuum. We don't exist in a vacuum, BTW. A vacuum where the right player just happens to always come to you once every year or two, always plays for the minimal amount you're paying, and wins.

Tons of people tried to Dilfer a championship. It was the style, for a year or two.

And many are dropped for good reasons.

I agree, though I don't think starting over simply because you don't have Manning or Palmer is prudent, which is a big part of my point. There's a difference between these guys and the next level, but not so large that there are 20 QBs you could simply throw a blanket over and it doesn't matter. I don't believe you make this move without it being for the competitive reasons first.

You consistently argue against parses of what I say instead of what I say. Which is why it took four mentions of you wanting to cut Jake in a Pro Bowl year and the only support you had was from GoldenHammer, before you'd acknowledge it.

And each have blown at times in the past. You can excuse them because of their teams or situations, but if they'd have been good enough, they would've kept their initial jobs, or they'd have been good replacement QBs. It's striking more than lightning, but not enough to just excuse individual play because of the team. That's self-serving. It suggests that, because you like a quarterback, his production is good because he's good, and it's bad because his team brought him down.

It's not good when Jake does it either. Jake is more productive than this, and better than this.

when have you defended Jake for throwing up 119 yards in a close game we should've easily won? What do you think he meant by judging both Carr and Jake the same?

four years, and the 2004 year was voided for a new year. The cap hit was across five years, it's a five year deal. It was reported as a five year deal, you admitted the original deal was voided, but you hang onto the idea that it's somehow a $9.6 million deal so you can justify the $10 mil straw man that no one bought. Nice trick, though.

is a trick, and one you use all the time. No one else really does this consistently, and it just makes you look bad.

And given how you've acted in the past, to the point of outright deleting things you've regretted saying, and to the point where you threw a fit about me doing it on the small level of a "your momma" joke, I'd think you'd know better than to do it. It's not that it's a bother, but you can hold yourself to that standard. There really isn't any change to my life that makes me anything that you're describing, you just describe things to sound like you have some idea of change so you can call me an idiot.

Because you feel it helps you. And it doesn't.

 

how is it that QBs are who they are, they're not going to improve because they're veterans, but Carr's not responsible for his own problems as a pro and seems to be fixable? He's making the same mistakes in a completely different offense with a completely different line that was deemed to be good enough that a QB shouldn't be able to excuse mistakes on pressure.