PhataLerror 370 Posted July 1, 2017 Author Share Posted July 1, 2017 Its a team effort in a team sport? Riveting insight. The Raiders with Carr and without Carr last season should clearly show you what he's worth to that Franchise. I fundamentally disagree with the implication of your statement. Matt McGloin is a player who was QB2 principally on tenure, and is a fringe talent hoping to catch on with the Eagles as an alternative to falling completely out of the NFL. Connor Cook has some potential, and was forced to start a playoff game with minimal practice. There's so much more to the Raiders than Derek Carr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiefsfan1963 1,101 Posted July 1, 2017 Share Posted July 1, 2017 Which stud defender on the Patriots? Team team team The Giants? None stand out The Seahawks? They were all good, not just Sherman- hes got the loudest mouth and believes his own bullshit The Steelers? Team again Broncos? nah Pretty much all of Baltimores D vs Flacco during SB years.Von Miller vs Peyton Manning the year they won th SB. Any defender on the Bucs vs any of their QBs during their SB year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiefsfan1963 1,101 Posted July 1, 2017 Share Posted July 1, 2017 Its a team effort in a team sport? Riveting insight. The Raiders with Carr and without Carr last season should clearly show you what he's worth to that Franchise. The Chiefs with Smith and witout Smith shows you what he's worth to the franchise. With Smith the Chiefs havw gone to the playoffs three years out four. Without Smith no other QB has made the playoffs in three different years since Dawson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liquidfriend 1,151 Posted July 1, 2017 Share Posted July 1, 2017 The Chiefs with Smith and witout Smith shows you what he's worth to the franchise. With Smith the Chiefs havw gone to the playoffs three years out four. Without Smith no other QB has made the playoffs in three different years since Dawson. The Chiefs are 3-1 without Alex on the field, and the only L was a very narrow one. Not a good look here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhataLerror 370 Posted July 1, 2017 Author Share Posted July 1, 2017 The Chiefs are 3-1 without Alex on the field, and the only L was a very narrow one. Not a good look here. For a different view: Since Alex Smith arrived in Kansas City, in games where Alex Smith didn't start the Chiefs have never won a game against a team that made the post-season that year. Your spins are irrelevant, unless you think narrow wins against 3-13 teams make Smith's backup relevant. Which reminds me, where is Nick Foles right now? Oh, yeah: He's a backup for the Eagles. Yeah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azchief21 5,278 Posted July 1, 2017 Share Posted July 1, 2017 The Chiefs with Smith and witout Smith shows you what he's worth to the franchise. With Smith the Chiefs havw gone to the playoffs three years out four. Without Smith no other QB has made the playoffs in three different years since Dawson. If you give Smith the credit for that, give him the blame for the 1-3 playoff record. Time to move beyond AAverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiefsfan1963 1,101 Posted July 2, 2017 Share Posted July 2, 2017 If you give Smith the credit for that, give him the blame for the 1-3 playoff record. Time to move beyond AAverage.I give him the same credit most of you give other QBs. I've never heard anyone in here blame Brady for their SB loses or any other so called great QBs for playoff losses so why should I blame Smith? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhataLerror 370 Posted July 2, 2017 Author Share Posted July 2, 2017 I give him the same credit most of you give other QBs. I've never heard anyone in here blame Brady for their SB loses or any other so called great QBs for playoff losses so why should I blame Smith? I've never understood the basis for the double-standard here. No one here or anywhere else has ever seen me say that any Alex Smith team won a game only because of Alex Smith. Teams can win games in spite of quarterbacking. Quarterbacks can win games in spite of their team to an extent. More often than not, Smith's teams have let him down, and not the other way around, but the need for some fans to be utterly binary about this shows a great want of reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liquidfriend 1,151 Posted July 2, 2017 Share Posted July 2, 2017 For a different view: Since Alex Smith arrived in Kansas City, in games where Alex Smith didn't start the Chiefs have never won a game against a team that made the post-season that year. Your spins are irrelevant, unless you think narrow wins against 3-13 teams make Smith's backup relevant. Which reminds me, where is Nick Foles right now? Oh, yeah: He's a backup for the Eagles. Yeah. None of that disproves (esp your false, stupid factoid) that the value is in the systeam and the whole roster and not who's taking the snaps currently. But either way, this thread shouldn't be about your tiny handed lover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhataLerror 370 Posted July 3, 2017 Author Share Posted July 3, 2017 None of that disproves (esp your false, stupid factoid) that the value is in the systeam and the whole roster and not who's taking the snaps currently. But either way, this thread shouldn't be about your tiny handed lover. Sure thing, man. Eli Manning has two Super Bowl rings because he outplayed Tom Brady. Got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhitter 1,424 Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 It doesn't matter whether I think...or you think, that Derek Carr was overpaid. The Raiders organization felt he was worth the money. And now all I've been reading about is how friendly a deal it is and how this will still allow the Raiders flexibility to sign their other stars. Either one of two possibilities exists here. Either the Raiders overpaid and have fooled the entire sports world...or they have found a way to get deals done and structure them in a way that doesn't handcuff them with other future deals. If the first scenaio is true then we should all celebrate because the Raiders will be in cap hell in a couple of years. If the 2nd scenario is true...can anyone really blame Hunt for firing Dorsey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiefsfan1963 1,101 Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 It doesn't matter whether I think...or you think, that Derek Carr was overpaid. The Raiders organization felt he was worth the money. And now all I've been reading about is how friendly a deal it is and how this will still allow the Raiders flexibility to sign their other stars. Either one of two possibilities exists here. Either the Raiders overpaid and have fooled the entire sports world...or they have found a way to get deals done and structure them in a way that doesn't handcuff them with other future deals. If the first scenaio is true then we should all celebrate because the Raiders will be in cap hell in a couple of years. If the 2nd scenario is true...can anyone really blame Hunt for firing Dorsey? Not sure if I believe a team believes that a player is worth it or not vs what the team HAS to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhitter 1,424 Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 Not sure if I believe a team believes that a player is worth it or not vs what the team HAS to do. From one source I read the Raiders were offering even more to Carr...but he took less. So that tells me Oakland wanted to pay him as opposed to just believing they " had to" pay him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHard 2,061 Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 They over paid, but they did the smart thing. Balt overpaid for Flacco and we over paid for Smith. Sometimes you have no choice. You either have a QB or you don't. Niners, Bears, Broncos, etc. have worse problems than overpaying a decent QB. They have to play with nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhataLerror 370 Posted July 5, 2017 Author Share Posted July 5, 2017 It doesn't matter whether I think...or you think, that Derek Carr was overpaid. The Raiders organization felt he was worth the money. And now all I've been reading about is how friendly a deal it is and how this will still allow the Raiders flexibility to sign their other stars. Either one of two possibilities exists here. I finally got to look at the unofficial contract numbers, and I have to say that the extension was not favorable to Carr, but it wasn't "team-friendly" either. How can that happen? The five-year extension tacks onto the year remaining on Carr's rookie contract, so you can think of it more like a six-year contract. Carr will be paid an average of $21 million a year during the first three years of his contract, which is not top-of-the-league money. Further, the Raiders could move on from Carr as soon as 2019, and owe only $7.5 million in dead money for the move. Then why is the contract not "team-friendly"? The contract takes out $40 million in its first two years. It looks to me as if Carr and the Raiders couldn't come to an agreement on what sort of guarantees Carr is worth. Carr is locked up until 2022, and will be paid well for each year he is a Raider. But he didn't give the Raiders a "discount". It looks more like the Raiders wanted the option to evaluate Carr in two years, and then possibly renegotiate his contract. Very responsible on the part of the Raiders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liquidfriend 1,151 Posted July 6, 2017 Share Posted July 6, 2017 Sure thing, man. Eli Manning has two Super Bowl rings because he outplayed Tom Brady. Got it. K. Tap out acknowledged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhataLerror 370 Posted July 6, 2017 Author Share Posted July 6, 2017 K. Tap out acknowledged. Nah. You were DQ'd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DefensiveMan 758 Posted July 6, 2017 Share Posted July 6, 2017 Nah. You were DQ'd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liquidfriend 1,151 Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 Nah. You were DQ'd.You would have to have something tangible in the first place, which didn't happen. Moving on. Carr got a slight bump from what Luck received from the Colts, which is expected because the bump in cap. His pay is in line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handswarmer 645 Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 They over paid, but they did the smart thing. Balt overpaid for Flacco and we over paid for Smith. Sometimes you have no choice. You either have a QB or you don't. Niners, Bears, Broncos, etc. have worse problems than overpaying a decent QB. They have to play with nothing Flacco gambled on himself and got the going rate. Carr hasn't won a playoff game yet Ryan is a choker as well as a puss Smith has a noodle arm and chokes Stafford throws for a million fantasy points but doesn't win shit... Rodgers hasn't won a SB since he got paid- guess he's overpaid too? Breese? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHard 2,061 Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 You are a little harder on Smith than Flacco. To be honest over last 2 years... Smith 25 TDs and 15 INTs Flacco 34 TDs and 27 INTs Both leave a lot to be desired, just in different ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.