Jump to content

Welcome to our forums!

Sign In or Register to gain full access to our forums. By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

Photo
- - - - -

The Raiders Have Officially Overpaid Derek Carr

Team Sport Salary Cap Supporting Cast Overrated

  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#21 Chiefsfan1963

Chiefsfan1963

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,342 posts

Posted 30 June 2017 - 08:20 PM

That would be a terrible argument.

If you put more value on a QB then a stud defender then I could see your point. However, there are several QBs walking around with SB rings due to their stud defender's and not their QB skills.

#22 Handswarmer

Handswarmer

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 201 posts

Posted 30 June 2017 - 08:52 PM

If you put more value on a QB then a stud defender then I could see your point. However, there are several QBs walking around with SB rings due to their stud defender's and not their QB skills.

 

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



#23 liquidfriend

liquidfriend

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,363 posts

Posted 30 June 2017 - 11:35 PM

If you put more value on a QB then a stud defender then I could see your point. However, there are several QBs walking around with SB rings due to their stud defender's and not their QB skills.

Having a top tier QB has a value that just really can't be quantified. They are extremely hard to find and develop, hwnce why teams are now burning multiple 1's for underclass guys (see: us).

Mack has a lot of value also, but QB is the most pivotal position in all of sports.

Sure the Chiefs have his number, but outside of that he was on pace to be a MVP contender before the snap.

#24 PhataLerror

PhataLerror

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,835 posts

Posted 01 July 2017 - 12:21 AM

Khalil Mack is closer in skill and talent to league the league's top defensive end than Derek Carr is in skill and talent to the league's top quarterback.

 

At the same time, it's more important to have a capable quarterback than it is to have a capable defensive end.

 

These are not mutually exclusive, anyway. The Raiders finished their season as they did because they had Derek Carr and Khalil Mack, not to mention numerous other players doing their jobs at a level higher than what their counterparts on the Chiefs accomplished. Offensive lines are underappreciated.



#25 liquidfriend

liquidfriend

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,363 posts

Posted 01 July 2017 - 01:04 AM

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.

#26 PhataLerror

PhataLerror

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,835 posts

Posted 01 July 2017 - 02:07 AM

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.



#27 Chiefsfan1963

Chiefsfan1963

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,342 posts

Posted 01 July 2017 - 03:02 AM

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.

#28 Chiefsfan1963

Chiefsfan1963

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,342 posts

Posted 01 July 2017 - 03:21 AM

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.

#29 liquidfriend

liquidfriend

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,363 posts

Posted 01 July 2017 - 06:54 AM

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.



#30 PhataLerror

PhataLerror

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,835 posts

Posted 01 July 2017 - 02:18 PM

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.



#31 azchief21

azchief21

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,017 posts

Posted 01 July 2017 - 04:38 PM

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.



#32 Chiefsfan1963

Chiefsfan1963

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,342 posts

Posted 02 July 2017 - 04:30 AM

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?
  • PhataLerror likes this

#33 PhataLerror

PhataLerror

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,835 posts

Posted 02 July 2017 - 02:36 PM

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.



#34 liquidfriend

liquidfriend

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,363 posts

Posted 02 July 2017 - 05:51 PM

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.

#35 PhataLerror

PhataLerror

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,835 posts

Posted 03 July 2017 - 01:47 PM

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.



#36 dhitter

dhitter

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 673 posts
  • LocationMiddle Tennessee

Posted 05 July 2017 - 03:55 AM

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?



#37 Chiefsfan1963

Chiefsfan1963

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,342 posts

Posted 05 July 2017 - 11:34 AM

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.

#38 dhitter

dhitter

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 673 posts
  • LocationMiddle Tennessee

Posted 05 July 2017 - 12:13 PM

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.

#39 DieHard

DieHard

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,805 posts

Posted 05 July 2017 - 12:48 PM

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.

#40 PhataLerror

PhataLerror

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,835 posts

Posted 05 July 2017 - 01:32 PM

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.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users