Oddly enough, that one player is the one that plays the position that is universally considered to have the most impact of any player on a football field. And of course, the rest of the team (including coaches and general managers) has been changed in an effort to improve - and according to your other posts, those changes have improved the team. The one we're discussing is the one that hasn't been changed anytime recently.
true; you're right. but, imo, too many people assume the former (a different QB = better results) to be absolute.
That may be true, but the games in question, while he may not have done anything to lead them to victory, he certainly didn't do anything to lead them to lose the game either (aside from the first Tennessee game). We can discuss all day whether or not the game would've been different with a different QB and of course, they would have been one way or another, but to try and put the blame for those three losses on David Carr's shoulders when there were obviously other plays that directly led to us not scoring or the other team scoring. In each of those games, instead of the majority of posters being upset at the defense or the guy who fumbled the ball twice, most focused on the QB. I just hope that the coaches are looking at more than one problem on this team. Also, while I believe that a good part of the team has improved and I'm in the camp that Carr must go, I don't necessarily believe that he is the main problem on our team. We still don't have a good pass blocking line and our rushing offense was pretty terrible until the last month of the season. I know Carr's the only one who hasn't been challenged or replaced, but that doesn't make the excuses for his bad play any less valid.
i think its more that a different QB = DIFFERENT results....and since its been 5 or 6 yrs with this one and it cant get a whole lot worse....
But I see these as one and the same. A QB's job is to make plays. A great QB is supposed to make a lot plays, an average QB needs to make less, but it never just to not screw up. If Carr is not contributing to winning, then he's contributing to losing by default. No other player has the ball in his hands on every offensive play. No other player CAN contribute to winning like a QB simply due to the sheer number of opportunities. Against Tennessee (the 2nd one), he had a whopping 140 yards passing against one of the worst defenses in the game. To me, that contributes to losing. And in a close game, if your QB did nothing to really help the team win, it's not a stretch to say having a better QB (which is not difficult if you believe Carr sucks) would have potentially led to a win. Certainly there are other areas that need to be improved. But if you believe Carr sucks, a change at QB can have have a far bigger impact than changing out a defensive player or one O-Lineman or a fullback or whatnot. So when talking about all the changes that need to be made, it's not surprising people would start with QB. I'd also argue that this whole discussion started with people starting to imply that Plummer's not an upgrade or worth changing - might as well stick with Carr since we're paying him anyway. Anytime you see that, people who believe Carr sucks will come back and start arguing the point. Plummer may be an average QB, but that could still be a HUGE upgrade and he's the type that might make plays to actually help win a few games here and there (and lose some, but Carr does that too).
no; nor does it validate change, though. unfortunately, there is NO quick fix, but no one wants to hear that. so the focus becomes carr, any and all other discussion be damned. it becomes it's own self-sustaining monster and, imo, it renders any and all texan discussion misguided and boring.
This thread is the reason Carr needs to go. One rumor about Jake Plummer to the Texans and this thread exploded a 4 page David Carr debate. Carr is a gas can and he needs to get out of Houston. Most Texan fans are sick of him, as am I.
says the guy who posted this earlier this week: so which is it? is it up to the QB to make plays, or the team to make plays? man, you really seem intent on using yards as a measuring stick for evaluating QBs. carr completed 3/4 passes for all but 2 of the yards on the game-tying drive and didn't turn the ball over all day in that 2nd tennessee game. but because he only threw for 140 yards, he was contributing to the loss? really? VY threw for, iirc, 87 yards in the first titan win over houston - was he not contributing?
knew this thread couldn't go long without a vy reference. I actually agree that you might as well keep carr. plummer is what he is. the guy isn't young. just let carr actually compete with sage and draft a guy like kolb or Stanton who I've always liked for the future.
?? Grossman is the model of the average QB. Peyton is the model of a star QB. Peyton's supposed to make lots of plays. Grossman is supposed to do much less. On the Bears, he can get away with making even fewer plays. If Grossman were on the Texans, he'd be asked to make more plays than he does on the Bears. Stunning, given that helping the team move the ball is one of the QB's primary goals. Woohoo! He moved the ball on one drive! He did nothing the rest of the game, but that's OK, because he helped move the ball on a drive. He contributed to the loss by his inability to move the ball and help the Texans score. You know, the goal of the game and all. In the first Titan win? It wasn't one of his better games by any stretch. Overall, they won that game by default because David Carr sucked so bad so they didn't NEED him to do very much (shown by his 15 passing attempts). The Texans NEEDED Carr to do more. The Texans punted 6 times - 4 of those were 3-and-out. The other two were 5 play drives. The Texans were 2-11 on 3rd downs. That is a perfect example of what I'm talking about where a different QB potentially changes the game by making more plays here and there throughout the game. You've said in the past that you think Carr had a bad season. Yet you argue he didn't contribute to losses? How does that work? The QB of a team had a bad season yet had no impact on the team not doing well? That's really the argument you're trying to make?
Clayton said that the drafting Peterson thing was to win fans back and to make them forget about the whole Bush/Young screw up. AP is a franchise back I hope he is still around at #8.
Then it won't happen. Texans aren't going to make a pick just to win back fans. They're gonna make the pick that they feel helps them win the most games. Cuz winning more games will help them win more fans than drafting AP and still losing games will.
I won't forget. But I hope we do draft Peterson, I don't think he'll be there at 8 though. This is what they should do if they want to get slightly better. Draft AP Get and start Plummer Draft Kolb Get rid of Carr Keep Sage What will probaly happen, we'll get Plummer and keep Carr, keep Sage and Peterson won't be at 8. And we won't draft Kolb.
so you're holding carr to some mythical playmaking standard while defending QBs who don't make any plays because the team around them is better? i don't know, but isn't that kind of, sort of what a lot of us have been saying all along? that he needs a good team around him to succeed? and that there's absolutely no shame in that? it got troy aikman to the hall of fame. stunning, you seem to think it's the only way a team can move the football. hey, btw, completely unrelated: ben roethlisberger averaged 187 yards passing in 2004; man, i bet that steeler team MASSIVELY sucked that year... not A drive, major - the game-tying drive. there's a difference, especially if you're arguing his yardage total directly impacts the outcome of a game. it doesn't. it means nothing. like when he threw for 321 yards against the jets - yeah, they probably killed new york that day, huh?... "he" - apparently, moving the football in the NFL is now the sole responsibility of the QB? he played well enough that day (and in the two other games cited) for the team to win - why is holding rex grossman's teammates responsible OK, but not carr's? whoah - what is it you and MM always accuse me of doing with arguments, major? where did i argue that he didn't contribute to losses or had no impact on the team doing well? we were discussing three games dumped in carr's lap in which you could argue carr played good enough for the team to win and/or had the team in position to win, and watched others make inopportune mistakes that derailed that possibility. but he had plenty of lousy games and, overall, a lousy season.
So then if Grossman is an example of an average QB on a team that still wins, they why shouldn't the Texans model that example and keep Carr and continue building the defense?
We should keep DC foreveeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. We shouldn't look to upgrade the position because other teams have won with sucky QB's, so they've proven you can do it. The argument that, "we shouldn't upgrade that position because someone won without a superstar at that position" can be made for every position on the field.
I get the feeling we are. When the franchise was awarded who would have thought we would be here arguing over a crappy qb after 5 years.
