Houston fans and media would have never let Derek Carr grow here. Too much pressure from day one and wouldn't have worked. Mack would have been just as great though.
It's not about development or coaching. The circumstances and distractions he would have had to deal with here are totally different from what he has with the Raiders where there are no expectations and no pressure. Circumstances do matter. I'm not saying he wouldn't have succeeded with the Texans but him playing well with the Raiders does not mean he would have played well everywhere else.
This may be true but ... David Carr got completely hammered with sacks. I am not sure he would ever been an average NFL QB. I am sure that we never found out.
On most non-expansion teams, he wouldn't have been relied upon to be the every down starter from day one. He'd also likely have had some sort of veteran guidance/leadership on how to be a pro... that was never offered here. Still, its likely what he was who he was... and his brother has definitely reaped the rewards of learning what "not to do" in regards to his development.
Uhh no, not worried about him having to deal with different distractions or expectations playing for the Texans. He is an NFL quarterback playing for a traditionally highly dysfunctional organization and is doing well. As far as pressure to win? He wouldn't have any higher expectations in Houston.... the Texans have been bad to mediocre for a majority of it's existence and the fans still show up and support the team.
Agree on point one....... but I don't think it would matter. He just didn't have a great mind set and didn't really view football as anything but a job. He was famous for leaving as soon as practice was over and never putting in any extra time.
Maybe they interviewed him and found that he will not be able to deal with living in his brother's shadow. Every time he got sacked, his brother's name would be brought up. Every mediocre game would have turned into boos. Reporters and fans alike would have made sure it was a family ordeal both in Houston and away. Bob McNair publicly said the 2-14 team was much better than the record and they needed to prove it. The Texans went 9-7, the Raiders went 3-13 (including losing their first 10 games). The Raiders are no longer dysfunctional like it used to be. Al Davis is gone (RIP). Fans showing up to games is not always support of the QB. See fans cheering at Schaub's injury.
That's where you rely on veteran/coaching leadership... both of which were extremely lacking on the expansion Texans. Again, he goes to an established team... or a team with a coaching mastermind that gets the most out of his players at all time... things likely turn out different (in regards to work ethic... not necessarily results on the field).
Franchises that make decisions based largely on their fans perceptions... are not going to be successful.
Wouldn't Derek Carr have lower expectations because of his brother... and less pressure? If he struggled at any point, the fanbase would have expected it, and the blame would fall on the front office, not the coaches or him... (Except from Clements alum that is who saw him excel in Friday night light situations).
Nah, I'd think he'd have more pressure to outperform what his brother did here... but its ridiculous if they even considered it as a reason for not taking him. How often are brothers the exact same person, with the exact same results?
He's getting sacked less and throwing less interceptions this year than last year. That progress from year 1 to year 2 is key but not a guarantee. See Blake Bortles.
I don't know... it's certainly a fascinating topic. So many things can make/break a QB; I think an environment in Houston, that would have been wholly unique to Derek Carr, should have at least been a consideration. Look at it like this: if Tom Brady retires, shouldn't the Patriots been attuned (as much as they can be) to his replacement's ability to live - and ultimately thrive - in Brady's shadow? If they have two available QBs, and one replaced a legend in college... that should be a consideration, right? 99.99999999% of rookie QBs enter a situation with not only a clean slate, but with a grace period. Carr (likely) would not have enjoyed either here. His first sack - yes, sack, which is what David will forever be associated with - would have raised heat, let alone interception, mediocre game... At the end of the day, you want a QB good enough (mentally and physically) to overcome the obstacles. But I think you're being irresponsible if you're not kicking every tire and turning over every rock to make sure you're providing the best opportunity for your QB to succeed. It should not have been the ONLY factor in drafting Carr - but I think it's certainly understandable if it had been A factor.
Carr's inexplicable cliff dive in 2005 remains one of mankind's greatest unsolved mysteries... Given the circumstances, his trajectory was on course and promising; he improved every single year those first three, culminating with this line in 2004: 61.2%; 3,531 yards; 16/14 TD/INT; 7.6 YPA; 83.5 QB rating. Now keep in mind, those were terrible teams with a specifically awful offensive line and questionable coaches. And he missed five games in 2003 from repeatedly being slammed into the turf so often, his shoulder broke. In 2005, he was a night-and-day different (bad) QB. His YPA plummeted by nearly 2 yards and he was back to being sacked 4 times a game. I don't know if the overall implosion of that year engulfed him, or... but there was zero reason to think the David Carr of 2004 was going to essentially be done one year later.
Exactly how I feel as well. The kid was given no running game, no offensive line and was sacked mercilessly yet it was his fault that he failed here. I've only seen one QB survive something like this and somehow manage to succeed and that was Dan Pastorini. I never saw a QB who was hit so much in a game that even the opposing linemen who were doing the hits felt sorry for him. His first years with the Oilers were absolutely brutal to watch.
But mostly all of that comes from message board/sports-talk radio fodder... nothing that should truly impact the direction a team takes. Much like the Astros have shown, you should probably not take into account message board or sports-talk radio sentiments when making decisions on the best way to build your franchise. As it remains, Derek Carr is an entirely different individual than David.... his ability to improve more than his brother did doesn't surprise me all that much.
That entire team was a house of cards... part of why Kubiak took longer to build a winner was him having to start with basically nothing (and no extra expansion picks).
They don't mercilessly boo on message boards. And fan perception/reaction IS relevant. Teams can't be oblivious to it; at the end of the day, it's entertainment and you have to have some accountability to your customers. The expectation and reaction to Carr, here, would have been wholly unique and something the team should have absolutely considered. They would have been fools to walk into that with no acknowledgment or plan. To me, that would have been a far greater offense. That doesn't mean you run from it; but outright dismissing it is pure hubris. Apathy is not the same thing. An actively hostile, impatient fan base is not an ideal environment for a young, developing QB. There's already a tremendous amount of pressure on these guys - teams are putting franchises on their shoulders. To do so with a fan base that is dubious from the get-go makes it potentially harder. Again, teams have to create an optimum situation in which these guys can succeed.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">For <a href="https://twitter.com/FallonSmithCSN">@FallonSmithCSN</a>: Most TD passes in 1st 24 team games after being drafted: Marino 44, Manning 41, Carr 40</p>— Josh Dubow (@JoshDubowAP) <a href="https://twitter.com/JoshDubowAP/status/664480703179018240">November 11, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
