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

[SimonGruber]

17 hours ago, SBXISBXVSBXVIII said:

Is this a sentence from his bio at Fresno State?

I posted his Draft profile recently in a thread it’s for verbatim still the same knocks on his game 

[SimonGruber]

8 hours ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

Also Jacobs is really nice out of the backfield on routes and we've never as a coaching staff featured him in that way. That one Carr missed just showed it.

This staff can't use their players. Edwards is being misused rn as well. No plays in space. He is a load to tackle and we never get him the ball anymore. We did it more with gru.

Jacobs has good hands but when he turns up field or stops and starts  maybe I’m too harsh but he’s towing a piano.

[oakdb36]

Who's our bridge QB if we move Carr?

[true2form]

37 minutes ago, oakdb36 said:

Who's our bridge QB if we move Carr?

Not sure to be honest.  However, if we miss the playoffs I'm expecting everything to be blown up and it really won't matter.

[oakdb36]

1 minute ago, true2form said:

Not sure to be honest.  However, if we miss the playoffs I'm expecting everything to be blown up and it really won't matter.

Yeah, no one can be sure but who would you want?

[SBXISBXVSBXVIII]

5 minutes ago, true2form said:

Not sure to be honest.  However, if we miss the playoffs I'm expecting everything to be blown up and it really won't matter.

Not if. It's when.

[ronjon1990]

27 minutes ago, oakdb36 said:

Who's our bridge QB if we move Carr?

Very good question that I don't think some people consider. 

I'd roll the dice on Peterman and be done with it if that's what we decide to do. 

The problem is, so many people are sick of the 7, 8 win purgatory. 

If we landed a Rodgers or Wilson, I sincerely doubt we'd be in a much better situation without dramatically upgrading our skill position guys. But then we're paying a premium for a short term QB that may or may not get us much further, but also keeps us out of the top few draft picks. 

Outside of that, I suppose one could ABC (Anyone But Carr) the thing and shoot to tank. There just aren't very many QBs available that would be an upgrade (aka: like 2 total). But at that point, we're going into outright bad territory, and rookie QBs without pretty solid mentors/decent teams around them wind up flopping more often than not, and we're looking at a pretty gross couple of QB classes (especially 2022). 

I'd elect to go the cheaper, in-house route and roll with Peterman and enjoy the final bits of flames from this dumpster. 

If the goal is to improve quickly....I think you keep Carr on a deal that will be far friendlier than what one of the 2 likely improvements would want, and actually focus on getting the right players at the right positions and then try to maneuver in the draft via Carr trade. 

That said, I think our HC/GM choice is more important. The Rams tanked hard for Goff, for example, and turned things around quickly because they had a plan and brought in a lot of really solid talent that had Goff looking like a surefire top 10 QB for a spell. Or we could go the route the Rams went when they got Bradford and expect a super rookie to magically improve the trash around him by sheer virtue of the narrative being Bradford was bound for greatness, and continue to ignore that we are playing backups and reserves all the time. 

There's no short term fix that makes this team significantly better, so if you do move Carr, you commit to tanking all the way and eventually trying to fire sale your way into a rebuild the way the Dolphins did a couple of years back. 

[agarcia34]

I do think these last few games in December will be Carrs last games as a Raider. New Coach and GM will want to start fresh. His contract has one more year left after this season and will make him a a guy who will have a lot of trade value for other teams. 

[jpaulthe1st]

5 hours ago, oakdb36 said:

Who's our bridge QB if we move Carr?

Here’s my list of QB’s that either will or should be available and my order of preference: 

1. Marcus Mariota

2. Mitch Trubisky

3. Cam Newton

4. Tyrod Taylor 

To give context - I’m expecting next year to be a transitional year so I would want a dual threat QB that can create off-script opportunities because our OL won’t be strong and our receivers struggle to get separation.
 

I’m also aware that, aside from Trubisky, every QB above comes with a substantial  injury risk. If that happens then next year will be a tank year anyways which would help us achieve our end goal of landing our QBOTF in the 2023 draft. 

 

Edited December 9, 2021 by jpaulthe1st

[ronjon1990]

32 minutes ago, jpaulthe1st said:

Here’s my list of QB’s that either will or should be available and my order of preference: 

1. Marcus Mariota

2. Mitch Trubisky

3. Cam Newton

4. Tyrod Taylor 

To give context - I’m expecting next year to be a transitional year so I would want a dual threat QB that can create off-script opportunities because our OL won’t be strong and our receivers struggle to get separation.
 

I’m also aware that, aside from Trubisky, every QB above comes with a substantial  injury risk. If that happens then next year will be a tank year anyways which would help us achieve our end goal of landing our QBOTF in the 2023 draft. 

 

Why risk someone semi-capable winning 7-9 games at all? 

If the end goal is to tank, why not just trot out a cast of Nathan Peterman and some random no-name QB and save the money, draft capital, and waiver wire priority position? 

I really don't understand anyone wanting to ditch Carr just to sign anyone who might screw up and win too many games. Commit to being atrocious at QB or don't, imo.

[MrOaktown_56]

17 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said:

Why risk someone semi-capable winning 7-9 games at all? 

If the end goal is to tank, why not just trot out a cast of Nathan Peterman and some random no-name QB and save the money, draft capital, and waiver wire priority position? 

I really don't understand anyone wanting to ditch Carr just to sign anyone who might screw up and win too many games. Commit to being atrocious at QB or don't, imo.

1000% agree

[jpaulthe1st]

16 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said:

Why risk someone semi-capable winning 7-9 games at all? 

If the end goal is to tank, why not just trot out a cast of Nathan Peterman and some random no-name QB and save the money, draft capital, and waiver wire priority position? 

I really don't understand anyone wanting to ditch Carr just to sign anyone who might screw up and win too many games. Commit to being atrocious at QB or don't, imo.

Because Carr’s trade value will be at its peak this off-season. If the plan is to move on it’s better to make that declaration and maximize your asset return.
 

No use having a lame-duck QB that is a remnant of the former regime. 

[ronjon1990]

3 hours ago, jpaulthe1st said:

Because Carr’s trade value will be at its peak this off-season. If the plan is to move on it’s better to make that declaration and maximize your asset return.
 

No use having a lame-duck QB that is a remnant of the former regime. 

That wasn't my question. 

My question was why would we bring in a Teubisky, Newton, or even risk starting Mariota and be stuck in the same 7-9 win spot, if the ultimate goal is getting a top tier draft pick at QB ASAP? 

Because every quarterback listed is someone who could very well win 7-9 games for us with improved weapons. 

Unless you're saying we shouldn't improve our weapons, at which point a rookie QB is gonna be screwed in the future. 

And if the commitment is indeed to improve the weapons, why would resigning a 31 year old QB to play with better weapons necessitate a lame duck status? 

If Carr is indeed worth moving on from, you don't then bring in someone who could very well win games anyway and be a roadblock to a high pick himself. 

Like I said, if you're going to commit to a high pick for 2023's QB crop, you don't half *** it, you commit 100% to being awful and you stick someone with no business playing NFL QB back there and you go for it. 

IF you're not committed to that, you recognize that you have a to-be 31 year old QB who has shown top-10 play with trash weapons and you upgrade the weapons. 

Bringing in anyone who isn't a JUCO quality QB would be nonsensical because it ultimately runs the risk of being in the same W/L spot and having to use the assets gained from trading Carr to move up in the draft. 

Trade him for a couple of firsts and then tank like hell for 1.1 in 2023. Don't bring someone in that might have us picking 1.10 and having to use those extra assets to move up when they could be used elsewhere. At that point you're not gaining anything for letting him go in the first place. 

[jpaulthe1st]

1 hour ago, ronjon1990 said:

That wasn't my question. 

My question was why would we bring in a Teubisky, Newton, or even risk starting Mariota and be stuck in the same 7-9 win spot, if the ultimate goal is getting a top tier draft pick at QB ASAP? 

Because every quarterback listed is someone who could very well win 7-9 games for us with improved weapons. 

Unless you're saying we shouldn't improve our weapons, at which point a rookie QB is gonna be screwed in the future. 

And if the commitment is indeed to improve the weapons, why would resigning a 31 year old QB to play with better weapons necessitate a lame duck status? 

If Carr is indeed worth moving on from, you don't then bring in someone who could very well win games anyway and be a roadblock to a high pick himself. 

Like I said, if you're going to commit to a high pick for 2023's QB crop, you don't half *** it, you commit 100% to being awful and you stick someone with no business playing NFL QB back there and you go for it. 

IF you're not committed to that, you recognize that you have a to-be 31 year old QB who has shown top-10 play with trash weapons and you upgrade the weapons. 

Bringing in anyone who isn't a JUCO quality QB would be nonsensical because it ultimately runs the risk of being in the same W/L spot and having to use the assets gained from trading Carr to move up in the draft. 

Trade him for a couple of firsts and then tank like hell for 1.1 in 2023. Don't bring someone in that might have us picking 1.10 and having to use those extra assets to move up when they could be used elsewhere. At that point you're not gaining anything for letting him go in the first place. 

I see your point. My thought is that the two additional 1sts that we would get in a Carr trade would make it to where we don’t have to purposefully tank the season. Say we go 6-11 and end up picking 10th. We would be in a great position to package that pick along with the two 1sts to get into the top 2-3. 
 

What you’re proposing would limit the FA’s we are able to attract, set the new coach up for failure, and alienate the key pieces on the existing roster. 
 

How’s the intentional tanking working out for Houston? What were thought to be key cornerstones of the franchise are basically forcing their way out (Cunningham, Cooks is soon to follow). 

I realize you are super pro-Carr and are being dramatic for effect but it’s just not a realistic strategy for a large market team with a demanding fan base. 

Edited December 10, 2021 by jpaulthe1st

[RaiderX]

Anybody think the offense would be significantly better of they had a guy like Cousins throwing it up? I know playcalling is suspect and their OLine is better, but Cousins has had a great year.