The QB Thread: Everything Carr, Stidham and beyond...

[dante9876]

2 minutes ago, Jeremy408 said:

 

^ if you're not talking about garbage points what are you talking about here?

That's actually about right. Good offense bad defense. 7-9 similar boat. Here's the difference the Raiders were 7th lowest in giving the ball away. The vikings were 19th in INTs. The Raiders had 3 more fumbles than them.  That amounts to about one more win for the raiders.

The point is the offenses aren't the reason why those teams have the records that they do. 

Again nobody said the offenses were. But you avoiding my point like the plague, so imma see my way out of this conversation. 

[Jeremy408]

Just now, dante9876 said:

Again nobody said the offenses were. But you avoiding my point like the plague, so imma see my way out of this conversation. 

What exactly am I avoiding? Im honestly trying to understand what your point is. 

Edited September 4, 2021 by Jeremy408

[NYRaider]

On a completely different topic, with the 17th game what type of numbers are y'all expecting Carr to have this season?

[Jerry]

19 minutes ago, NYRaider said:

On a completely different topic, with the 17th game what type of numbers are y'all expecting Carr to have this season?

About 4400 yards, 34 TDs, 12 INTs, 200 rushing yards, 2 RTDs.

[NYRaider]

3 minutes ago, Jerry said:

About 4400 yards, 34 TDs, 12 INTs, 200 rushing yards, 2 RTDs.

That seems fair, one thing working in his favor this year as well is that 12/17 games will be played in domes. The only 3 cold weather games we'll play are against the Chiefs, Giants, and Browns. 

[NCOUGHMAN]

9 hours ago, NYRaider said:

On a completely different topic, with the 17th game what type of numbers are y'all expecting Carr to have this season?

33 pass tds ( gotta get over 30 finally)

4 rush tds

5 fumbles or less

10 ints or less

dont care about yards too much or completion %

[NCOUGHMAN]

17 hours ago, Jeremy408 said:

What exactly am I avoiding? Im honestly trying to understand what your point is. 

#’s can be deceiving sometimes 

We were 14th in passing tds

7th in rush tds

14th in total tds scored right above the likes of sf, sd, det, hou. 

18th redzone passing tds

23rd in the nfl in redzone passing td %

4th in fgs (ultra conservative or carr melting in the redzone like always) 

leading the nfl in 20-29yrd fgs (comparison gb had (1) 20-29 yrd fg)

does that sound like a top 10 offense?

 

Edited September 5, 2021 by NCOUGHMAN

[drfrey13]

1 hour ago, NCOUGHMAN said:

4th in fgs (ultra conservative or carr melting in the redzone like always) 

leading the nfl in 20-29yrd fgs (comparison gb had (1) 20-29 yrd fg)

 

This is the most important thing to me on offense.  I do not care how we score TDs.  Carlson needs more XPAs and less FGs.  I want or kicker to be irrelevant in fantasy football unless he is kicking 40-50 yard FGs.

[MrOaktown_56]

16 hours ago, Jerry said:

About 4400 yards, 34 TDs, 12 INTs, 200 rushing yards, 2 RTDs.

I would like to see less ints than that, but it looks pretty spot on. I think he goes for a pretty similar season to last year. I don't think we throw enough for him to hit 30 tbh. I think Gruden wants us to be the Browns on offense.

[Jerry]

1 hour ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

I would like to see less ints than that, but it looks pretty spot on. I think he goes for a pretty similar season to last year. I don't think we throw enough for him to hit 30 tbh. I think Gruden wants us to be the Browns on offense.

If he plays the same as last year it will be closer to 30.  I think he steps up again in the system and our red zone offense improves just enough to convert 4 FGs into TDs.  I think the biggest factor to his success will be healthy WRs of course.  

[Darbsk]

On 9/4/2021 at 10:32 PM, dante9876 said:

Any chance that we was top 10 in scoring cause we had to score late in games cause our defense was so bad. And that with a better defense we won't score as much cause we don't have to. Or do you think with a top 20 or so defense the offense still gets to top 10. @Geezy thinks gruden will be more aggressive with a better defense he trust. I think the exact opposite. I think he is still conservative or gets even more conservative. 

Wouldn't logic dictate that if our Defence was better then the offence could actually score more because they would have better field position and be the beneficiaries of turnovers more often? Also, it stands to reason that if our D was better at stopping the opposition offence their D would be on the field longer and more likely to fatigue maybe........

[dante9876]

23 minutes ago, Darbsk said:

Wouldn't logic dictate that if our Defence was better then the offence could actually score more because they would have better field position and be the beneficiaries of turnovers more often? Also, it stands to reason that if our D was better at stopping the opposition offence their D would be on the field longer and more likely to fatigue maybe........

No not necessarily. It depends on how your team is coached. Why would field position mean as much if you kicking field goals. We was a good offense not an aggressive one.  Gruden hasn't shown that he would be. Rams and skins defenses didn't vault their offenses. Only 4 teams was top 10 in both. Saints ravens colts and bucs. I feel like all 4 of those coaches are more aggressive than gruden. A better defense should lead to more wins, I don't think it means it leads to more scoring. 

[drfrey13]

2 hours ago, dante9876 said:

No not necessarily. It depends on how your team is coached. Why would field position mean as much if you kicking field goals. We was a good offense not an aggressive one.  Gruden hasn't shown that he would be. Rams and skins defenses didn't vault their offenses. Only 4 teams was top 10 in both. Saints ravens colts and bucs. I feel like all 4 of those coaches are more aggressive than gruden. A better defense should lead to more wins, I don't think it means it leads to more scoring. 

Also if you have a better defense your offense is less likely to get garbage time stats.  Not that this is a bad thing but teams are not going to give you anything for free when it is still a competitive game.  I tried pointing out that the offense could take a step back statistically if the defense improves.

[Jerry]

3 hours ago, dante9876 said:

No not necessarily. It depends on how your team is coached. Why would field position mean as much if you kicking field goals. We was a good offense not an aggressive one.  Gruden hasn't shown that he would be. Rams and skins defenses didn't vault their offenses. Only 4 teams was top 10 in both. Saints ravens colts and bucs. I feel like all 4 of those coaches are more aggressive than gruden. A better defense should lead to more wins, I don't think it means it leads to more scoring. 

Gruden hasn't shown that he would be what?  Aggressive?  He did some pretty aggressive stuff at times IMO.

Rams offense has been sputtering.  It's why they got rid of Goff, and WTF's offense had no real QB last season.  

I just disagree with you.  I think turnovers from INTs, fumble recoveries, and stopping them on third down before they get into FG range will translate to more points.

[dante9876]

1 hour ago, drfrey13 said:

Also if you have a better defense your offense is less likely to get garbage time stats.  Not that this is a bad thing but teams are not going to give you anything for free when it is still a competitive game.  I tried pointing out that the offense could take a step back statistically if the defense improves.

Yeah it's kinda a simple concept. With 9 minutes left in the 4th. If we up 21 to 17 vs if we down 27 to 17. Gruden isn't gonna play the offense the same. Up 4 we getting hb dive, hb counter or dive, pass play on 3rd and 7. We may execute or we may not. But we will be much more aggressive if we are down 10.