The "Stop Bitching About David Carr" Thread

Is that true? I thought he was brought in as a backup.

 

for what it's worth the pop culture reference is relating to One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, where the main Jack Nicholson character referred to the gargantuan Native American as Chief, so then apparently it went from a cool thing to call someone to a sarcastic, mocking thing to call someone with a bit of disdain.

 

Nowhere have I seen a credible source state there was to be competition for the job.

 

You're right...that's what every team source and David Carr himself said. However, the media and many fans were predicting that he would either push Delhomme to be better, or that he would take over the job. I guess I was being a bit sarcastic because I got so tired reading that crap. The bottom line is that there was an obvious drop off in the performance of the offense when Carr came in, and I don't think the difference is the play calling like Collin suggests. Carr is the best chance we have to win right now, that is true, but I'm still not very confident that he will break those bad habits he developed in Houston. IMO, he needed a year on the bench to get his shit together, but we no longer have that luxury, and it sucks.

 

Will Sampson died the year Vinny was drafted coincidence I think not.

 

regarding the playcalling, you could say that we were being conservative because we ran so much on 1st and 2nd, which hasn't been our MO up to this point. Maybe that was a directive to keep Carr centered after last game. Maybe there's something they liked on tape.
But it's hard to say that we were being that conservative, given that we Carr went for 6 deep balls and Moore landed one. You could argue that Carr was looking deep more but couldn't find it; you could argue that the offense was being conservative for various reasons. We don't know, and I'm always leery of it being 100% anything when eleven men and several profesionals on the sideline collectively fuck up. It's not completely Carr at all. It's not just the offense.

The only specifically bad playcall you can point at is the screen, and then it's somewhat hard to criticize a call because the defense read the receiver and covered him. Carr did what he could on that, but he made it closer than it needed to be. I'd have preferred he take off at that point.

That, and the opening drive we're doing the same things that I hated with Henning, one of the things I wanted to stop. Badly. Run, run, pass deep, kick. That's awful. This isn't what we scripted against STL and that worked.

I do specifically remember a play or two that looked like Carr tried some reverse-pivot handoff deal with Foster to the left, where it didn't look planned and I hope we're not stupid enough to put something in for this week we can't pull off.


And before he went out with the injury, Carr was INC, short to Smith for 9, short to King which he took for 27, incomplete, then ran around on 3rd down; that was a FG drive; the next drive, short to Colbert for 5, then the spastic sack and the injury. 3-5 for 41, and the 3 being short completions. Then getting hurt.
He played better after that, but still on 3rd down all game: INC deep, scramble for too little yardage, spastic sack to help cause injury, incomplete short right, DW run for 10 yards on 3rd/19 after two penalties, Foster conversion on 3rd and one (starting our "good drive"), Carr converts short to Colbert for total of 19, then next 3rd down was Carr's TD short to Smith. That puts us at 2 QB runs that didn't help us, one very ill-advised; one heady run, and one safe run that never really intended on having a chance;
At the time of the injury, he was 0-1 on 3rd with a sack/injury and a useless run. He finished at 4-6 on 3rd down with a score, which is very good, with or without the spastic scrambling. That I can take.

He converted both 3rd downs passing on the final drive to set up the winning FG. Very redeeming, the last two drives. He was aces on the 3rd downs on plays that weren't designed deep in those two drives, but he hit a fair amount of slants and outs. His two plays that were officially over 10 yards were both very good moves by the receiver, though that's part of their job description; either way, that's not a concern. I stand behind the idea that I want him to make some plays, though. And if it's noteworthy that he had six deep passes, I want to see him make some more of those. He's not a rook, and we can't win football games saying that other people damaged him. He can do more than dump off, and he's gonna need to do it.

 

There have been some differences - we don't feature the TE as much with Carr, and we don't feature the middle of the field as much as a whole - not sure what that indicates, exactly. The offense wasn't clicking every drive, with or without Jake, and that has been concerning. The difference, to me, is that while Jake might only squeak out 200 yards, he'd have two scores with it.

 

To paraphrase Jack Nicholson, when I actually go to the trouble to educate you on something you are clearly clueless about, I would prefer that you just said thank you and went on your way.[/quote]

Apparently, Collin listens to a.m. radio in the morning! He must be the same dumbass that Gary Williams keeps dicking on every moring.

 

Honestly, we're all fairly irrelevant. Some here are fucking dingbats. Others are pretty damn smart. But we're all faceless posters in a football forum, right?