[Chron] Bob McNair: Carr's future remains in limbo

I don't recall Ric saying he never made the playoffs. In the quote you posted, it says he had one good year. I'm guessing he was referring to this year.

 

edit -- i misread the post i was responding to.

 

In his first 5 seasons:

Jake Plummer played 68 games. He threw 72 TD's (ran for 8 more) and threw 94 INT's.

David Carr played in 76 games. He threw 59 TD's (ran for 8 more) and threw 65 INT's

 

Well, it could prove that some QBs are only as good as the players around them.

 

So, about even, IMO. Of course, I'm sure Carr has a lot more fumbles.

Wow, 29 more INTs in 8 less games.

 

Neither can one blame the Texans' bad seasons all on David Carr, but I don't think that is what is at issue here.

One simple question: will Jake Plummer turn in a better performance than David Carr for the Houston Texans in 2007?

 

Wow.

If David wants to make the playoffs, perhaps he should go play in Denver!

 

Plummer had 40 fumbles and lost 18 of them.

Carr had 66 fumbles and lost 21 of them. He has 33 fumbles in the last 2 seasons, alone.

in the last 5 years, Plummer has only had 27 fumbles and lost 12 of them.

 

no; in fact, THAT'S my point. everyone assumes plummer got better when he landed in denver. he did, sure; but the team got appreciably better, too. so given that the texans are more arizona than denver, which jake plummer is likely to rear his ugly head here?

understand, i'm not by any means arguing carr has a pro bowl upside. just that an older plummer wouldn't represent an upgrade over a younger carr.

msn, here: http://www.footballdb.com/players/plummja01 and here: http://www.footballdb.com/players/carrda01
carr's best year [2004] was comparable to plummer's best year in arizona [2001]; if not slightly better. otherwise, i think carr's been, if not better, certainly not nearly as bad. i mean, plummer actually had a two-year stretch in which his td/int ratio was 1:2; that's just flat-out awful.

 

IMO, this lends credence to the fact that the team around the QB has a big effect on how they play. I'm not saying we should keep Carr by any means as I feel he'll never have success in Houston, but I think he could make a fine QB given the right circumstance.

 

Gotcha.

 

while a cardinal?!?!?!? or is that for his career? because if just during his arizona days, that comes to 112 TOs in 68 games. absolutely stunning.

hell, even as a bronco, he's turned the ball over a lot - 59 TOs (47 picks + 12 fumbles) in 59 games. now imagine he doesn't have a 1,200-yard back behind him, his OL is garbage, his receiving corps substandard and his defense is, at best, average...

i just... i don;t see how jake plummer suddenyl became an "upgrade."

 

Ric, thanks for the stats!

The points you make are compelling, and you've convinced me that Jake doens't represent a significant upgrade.

In evaluating David versus Jake, however, I think beyond Plummer's high turnovers compared to Carr (holy crap!) there may be something to the yards per attempt which is higher, and the crazy amount of sacks and lost yardage. I was one arguing vehemently that the line bore most of the responsibility there, and while I think the line *is* the biggest factor, I wonder how much another QB would have been sacked. Perhaps he still leaders the league, but perhaps not by so much and not for so much yardage?

 

yes..during his first 5 years of play. unless i read it wrong.

 

i can't imagine houston having a better system than denver, considering we're trying (and thus far, failing - it's early) to emulate them. there is no consistently better team in football than the denver broncos since 1995 (shanahan's first year), save for the patriots (who i egregiously forgot earlier when i named denver THE best team over that stretch. yikes.)

 

He made the Pro-bowl last year, but withdrew due to injury.

I'd be fine with Sage, frankly, because he's cheap. I'm not saying Plummer is option #1, but if it comes down to Plummer or Carr, it's an easy choice to me. Carr's been in the league 5 years and meandered in circles. He's done *nothing* to suggest he's getting better. He improves in some areas and regresses in others. With Plummer, you know he's shown something more than Carr. At the very worse, you're getting the same guy. At best, you're getting something more.

Except it's a lateral move at the very worst. At best, it could be a positive move. It's not like we're having to spend $5MM in cap-space to get him. At most, you'd be talking maybe $1 or $2MM, most likely.

 

yep; sorry - it wasn't listed on his pro football reference page. he did make the pro bowl last year... and denver promptly traded up to draft jay cutler.

i just see no benefit to jake plummer. none. he's certainly not a long-term answer, obviously, and while it's very conceivable he could putt along at a pace anywhere from average to good for several more years, it's far more likely his best years are behind him.

i think carr and plummer have a lot in common - namely, they both seem to be products of the team around them. if the team is bad; they're bad. if the team is good; they're good. i think where they differ is carr is less destructive. we may never win because of david carr, but we won't lose because of him (assuming a better team). i keep looking at the first 8 games of the 2004 season... he was so remarkably good; i mean, really, really, really good. i'd rather gamble/invest on that guy re-emrging than jake plummer.

THAT david carr is better than any version of jake plummer.