I think they're probably a little more talented than Carr, but not far and away. It's not like this guy was some special ed student at Fresno State that the Texans' took as a deal with the Make a Wish people. There's a reason why he was the #1 pick and at the time, there wasn't a lot of talk that he didn't deserve to be. And last I checked, Carr hasn't thrown up in the middle of a game before.
Yes, I addressed this in the very next sentence: <I>Of course you need OTHER players too, but you put Quincy Carter on the Colts, and they will suck. </I> What is your point? If you exchange any ONE player on that team, the Colts would still be damn good, unless it was the QB. Not coincidentally, that's the case on most good teams (though not all). One great QB can have the same effect as multiple other great players because he's not "just another player", the QB has more impact on the game than anyone else - by far. So why settle for mediocrity at QB? Why not try to upgrade that AND upgrade elsewhere?
So was Tim Couch and and any number of other #1 pick busts. He also played for a terrible team. Does he get the same benefit of the doubt? If Carr was on any other team, would you feel that he was this ultra-talented guy, apparently near the level of MVP-caliber players like McNabb and Brees? What exactly would it take for you to believe the Carr wasn't good? Can you name other QBs that sucked ass for 5 years but had a ton of talent and was suddenly really good? The only one I can think of is Jake Plummer. Out of hundreds and hundreds of QB's in the NFL over the past dozen years.
Hmmm ... really? Yes, schemes and plans as well as good even great, superstar players help to compliment a QB. Yes, but to assert that Manning does not make a difference, or Brady or even Joe Montana is ridiculous. I guess when defensive coordinators are having sleepless nights trying to figure out how to stop them that is all just smoke and mirrors, right? Yes agree, that no player is greater than the sum of its parts in this case the team, BUT a player with great talent, great heart and high intellect can and DOES make a difference time after time, over and over again. They have an unquenchable desire to compete and to win. It's about everyone doing their job to help accomplish the mission, but you need that special QB or RB that when it's crunch time his eyes light up and is able to inspire his team to elevate the whole teams play and get the victory. That's why certain teams win and certain teams don't. Obviously, the more talented your team is, the more consistently you can duplicate this formula. Do you dispute this, Ric? Example, Brady had not one superstar, or even arguably highly talented WR at his disposal yet, he consistently found a way to get the ball in the hands of 5, 6 or even at least 7 different receivers. Yes, Brady has a better line to work with than does DC but why is it over and over and over again that DC rarely ever got more than 3 receivers involved in the game? It's not ALL the O-Lines fault. Reasons why DC is NOT a good QB: DC does not recognize and adjust to pass coverages well, or he does not make the decisions quick enough to take advantage of potential mismatches or he does not hit the receivers in stride consistently maximizing their YAC potential. Lastly, when DC starts having bad plays or turnovers, he largely cannot right the ship and rally the troops and pull victory from the jaws of defeat. He goes into a shell and panics under pressure. Like the old saying goes ... some people thrive under pressure and some wilt under it. Care to guess which category DC is in? Bottom line, there have been many multi-talented players that excelled in college and then, fell on their collective faces in the NFL for whatever reason. That's why largely the draft is a 'crapshoot' you think you know how someone is going to turn out but sometimes it just doesn't work out. You just hope you are better than 50% good on your draft picks. For the first 4 years, the Texans were maybe 5% good (AJ, Dunta, DW). That's why this team is largely sh*t! We have starters that should either be on special teams or even out of the league and we have backups and special teamers that should be stocking shelves at Kroger's.
I can only think of one QB who's played behind the worst line in history as well as on an expansion team that's typically ****ty all the way around to begin with. The fact that a 6 win season is used as evidence that he was finally behind a good team should say enough. It's certainly not enough to convince me that he would've never been a successful QB regardless of the talent level around him. And yes, I believe had Tim Couch started on a more talented team and not an expansion team, there's a good chance his career would've gone a lot differently.
first of all, moulds isn't saying naything here that kubiak didn't say all year. but notice how lopez frames the quote with his own opinion to make it appear moulds is pointing a finger at carr. if they'd just won two more games... and now here's a rather benign, no **** quote from eric moulds... btw, john - the texans lost twice on the game's final play with carr, moulds and every other offensive player on the sidelines... there're your two wins right there. but yeah, it's carr's fault - moulds says as much! first of all, as stated above, i think moulds' quote was fairly benign. kubiak said that often last year. re: dunta, he made similiar comments after the patriot game and then went back on them a week later after the colt game. he seems to be a bit of a loose cannon who pops off whenever the wind changes. if, however, he reflects a growing, or even established sector of the locker room, then yeah, it definitely raises the stakes in the carr situation. no doubt.
yes; i know - it's more useless hyperbole. pick arguably the worst starting quarterback of this decade... but what if the colts had... jake delhomme? or jake plummer? or some other average passer? do they still win 11-12 games every year with the teams they've had? no, that's your point. mine is that the colts are a terrific football team, top to bottom (certainly on offense) and that no one player is responsible for that. and yet, every year, we see average to mediocre QBs win big, like... oh, i don't know - rex grossman. ben rothlisberger. brad johnson. rich gannon. trent dilfer. if i thought a significant upgrade was available, i'd be all over it. my evaluation of carr, almost literally from day one, has been he'll play up to the level of the team around him. if the team is good; he'll be good. over the last 3 years, that has been almost universally true. they've won 15 games and been competitive in several more, and carr has played well in the majority of those games.
and what, besides being the first pick of an expansion franchise did couch and carr share? chris palmer. but probably just a coincidence...
That's a bit simplistic. IIRC, the Jets loaded the box because there was no threat that Carr was going to throw down field. A little more than half of his passing yards (162 of 321) were on the last 2 drives. There wasn't a completion over 14 yards until the td drive late in the 4th. I'm not saying the running game wasn't terrible, but the Jets knew there was no threat of going long so they could easily keep 8 in the box.
i'm not arguing they're not great QBs; they are. but is that standard we're using for david carr? peyton manning and tom brady? 99.9% of the QBs in this league are going to fall short of those guys.
what does 8 in the box also allow defenses to do? especially when there's little to no threat of your RB breaking through your 8-man front?
Re: two pages ago, you guys got me on the RB front. I admit the RB situation deteriorated this year. But to say the TE and WR were not markedly better is so much BS spin. The defense was also better. The coaching was better. The scheme was better. The offensive line--even after the injuries--was better. Ric listed the personnel well a couple pages ago, but he didn't mention the performance of said personnel (due largely to scheme and coaching). If anyone thinks the o-line last season performed better than this season, he either wasn't watching or is into blind David Carr apologetics. I agree--completely agree--with Ric that it's insane to pin this all on David Carr. I also think the Lopez (or whoever it was) article that names Carr "the face of failure" is over-the-top and generally stupid (in line with most Chronicle writing). However, it doesn't have to be "all David's fault" for us to know he's not the right man for the job. Hyperbole, though effective at illustrating a point at times, can be so disingenuous at other times. If I had to blame someone for the Texans' corporate history of tragedy and mockery, it'd be Capers and Casserly, not David Carr. But the fact that "it wasn't David's fault" doesn't mean he is competent to do the job. I do not believe he is. I genuinely hope I'm wrong, especially if he is the quarterback for the Houston Texans in 2007.
believe me, kubiak said far worse prior to, during and after the season. only lopez's finger-pointing context gives moulds' quote any bite. last year's team was the worst in football; they had the worst starting TE in football; the worst OL in football; and one of the worst receiving corps in football, hampered further by AJ being nicked for portions of the season. so, yes, they "improved;" from awful to just bad. the biggest addition was kubiak and the new staff, but even they struggled. some personnel decisions were highly questionable; the team was routinely beaten, and beaten soundly, in the 3rd quarter, and he failed to find a way to put johnson in space and maximize his skills, in addition to failing to consistently develop even a decent running game. this is still a bad football team. i mean, we could probably shut this place down discussing which of the 5-6 needs for this team is most important this offseason. so let's not live in a vaccum and assume "improved" means good. if you look at their 15 wins these past 3 years, as well as the handful of games in which they were genuinely competitive (such as buffalo and tennessee this year), you'll see, far more often than not, more than competent numbers from carr in those games. sure, he absolutely has an oakland every now and then (in relation to the team winning or performing well), but so does every other qb. again, carr's not going to get in the way of winning. and he's not the reason they're losing. so unless you can definitively upgrade the position significantly, why waste $$ and/or draft picks on marginal, if that, upgrades? because he's the "face of failure"? blah.
Your post in general is very reasonable. Oakland says, "Hi." ...all improved from the "worst in football" in 2005. BTW, Oakland's offensive line sends its greetings; they were far worse than Houston's. ...and David didn't improve at all. That's all I'm saying. I didn't mean to suggest that the whole team became pro-bowlers, and I admit my tone probably overplayed the improvements in these areas. But, regardless of the degree there was improvement. Agreed. I never said that--so let's bring the conversation back away from this strawman. The context of my argument was Carr's lack of improvement amidst improvement in the positions surrounding him. Let us see what the Texans organization can come up with.
ok, since 2004, they've been in 27 competitive games, competitive being either a win or a loss by 7 or fewer points. and while i know QB rating is not by any means definitive, i didn't really want to delve too deeply into this, or spend too much time on it, so...: carr posted an 82.6, or better, QB rating in 17 of those 27 games. (82.6 was the average of the top 32 QBs last year). in just the wins (15), he posted an 82.6 or better 9 times. [two quick notes - first, in one of the games, he posted an 80.9 rating; a win against the chiefs in '04. i included it among the "below average," but it was by no means a below average game (13/25, 233 yards, 1/1). second, i threw out the SF game that (mercilessly) ended the '05 season because he got hurt.] overall, in the 27 competitive games, he threw 23 TDs and 15 INTs. in the 15 wins, 18 TDs and 8 INTs. FYI, in the other 14 games that weren't competitive, he was 18/22. not by any means the be-all, end-all - i spent, like, 10 minutes looking this up. but it does show he more often than not (63-66% of the time) plays better when the team plays better.
but "improvement" is a relative term, msn. you may lose 100 pounds, but if you're still tipping the scales at 350, then you're still overweight and a health risk, know what i mean? besides, i would argue more stringently, and you have agreed with me, that the running game was not among the units that improved. now i ask you - what is the single most important element driving the success of this denver system...........?
But Carr hasn't improved at all. He looks almost exactly the same as the qb who played in 2002. Like you've said a few times...it's only March 1. Who's to say what will come available in the coming days or months. With baseball and basketball, you know years in advance who will be available for a given offseason. With the NFL, you don't know who might get released 5 minutes from now. I think if they can improve at the position, they should, period.
