A Statistical Analysis of Signing Carr vs. Trading for L. Jackson

[LinvilleGorge]

22 minutes ago, Ricky Spanish said:

Carr is the new Stafford. His efficiency stats are scarily similar to those of Stafford in Detroit. I really think he'll do great in a new situation. But I think you aren't giving Jimmy enough credit.

Yes, the SF situation is better than Oakland. However, if it were as amazing as everyone seems to think it is, then ANY QB could thrive in that system, however only Jimmy G and Brock Purdy seem to be able to do it. SF Records of QBs not named Jimmy or Brock (And not trey lance due to him only playing like 3 games):

Hoyer 0-6

Beathard 2-10

Mullens 5-11

And their individual stats SUCK.

Look, I'm not saying Jimmy doesn't have his warts, I'm just saying you and this collective fanbase are propping up the 49ers with some extreme recency bias and neglecting the fact that until Purdy came along, any QB that wasn't Jimmy played like crap in that "FAR better Situation". 

I'm not saying we should 100% sign him, I'm just saying he's probably more of an option than people realize, he'd be cheaper, and his play is on par with Carr's.

Who is "everyone else" though? Nick Mullens? CJ Beathard? Yeah, those dudes suck. Jimmy G is considerably better than those guys. And yeah, so far Trey Lance honestly looks like a bust. Jimmy G is one of those good backup/marginal starter type guys who can look serviceable in a good system with good surrounding talent. Put him in the Raiders and watch what happens though. Hell, with Josh McDaniels there we might actually see that. I hope we do because it'll be hilarious.

[top dawg]

16 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Two good rules of thumb in football:

1) Pay attention to what smart teams do and learn from their ideas.

2) Pay attention to what dumb teams do and learn from their mistakes

The Ravens are a smart team. If they don't want to pay Jackson the kind of money he's asking for, I'd want to know why.

The Browns and Broncos are dumb teams. They both traded away high draft picks and huge money for someone else's "franchise quarterback" and now are regretting it.

I don't want us to be a dumb team.

The Browns have not even seen their QB for a half season of football. If they get the same results next season, then they may regret it. Until then, hold your horses before making that statement.

I can't really see a valid comparison between Wilson and Jackson either. One hasn't even hit his prime, while one appears past it. 

For all the talk you do of the Ravens being a smart franchise, If they were so smart, they'd have given Lamar some legitimate weapons on offense while he was still on his rookie contract. They haven't won a chip in a while, and they aren't the only "smart" team in the NFL. We seem to have some smart guys now, and I'll bet on their judgment until they start effing it up (which I'm trusting that they won't do). 

 

Edited February 16, 2023 by top dawg

[Mr. Scot]

2 minutes ago, top dawg said:

The Browns have not even seen their QB for a half season of football. If they get the same results next season, then they may regret it. Until then, hold your horses before making that statement.

I can't really see a valid comparison between Wilson and Jackson either. One hasn't even hit his prime, while one appears past it. 

For all the talk you do of the Ravens being a smart franchise, If they were so smart, they'd have given Lamar some legitimate weapons on offense while he was still on his rookie contract. They haven't won a chip in a while, and they aren't the only "smart" team in the NFL. We seem to have some smart guys now, and I'll bet on their judgment until they start effing it up (which I'm trusting that they won't do). 

If they give him the kind of contract he's asking for, do you think that's going to make them more able to surround him with weapons?

[top dawg]

Just now, Mr. Scot said:

If they give him the kind of contract he's asking for, do you think that's going to make them more able to surround him with weapons?

You can't poor-mouth your way to a championship. With the ever-increasing cap, you pay today so you can play tomorrow. KC wasn't and isn't crying because they had to pay Mahomes. And somehow they signed some weapons. Burrow will get paid. Herbert will get paid. The devil is always in the details. Jackson will get paid; how much he gets paid is anyone's guess right now. 

[CamWhoaaCam]

27 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Okay, do the deal. Then you're going to be in here screaming about how we have failed to build a team around Lamar. Well, no poo. We don't have any assets left to build with.

Why do you guys keep mentioning Lamar?

There are 2 QB's in the draft who have potential to be franchise guys.

 

Why can't we trade for them?

 

Aaron Rodgers is more likely than Lamar. Ravens haven't actually put him on the trade block as of yet.

[top dawg]

Either you want a franchise QB or you don't. If you get one, the day of reckoning will come at some point.

[CamWhoaaCam]

26 minutes ago, top dawg said:

Lamar and Aaron Rodgers will end up as the hottest QBs on the market; Derek and Jimmy ain't even in the conversation. The only teams that will even consider them are the desperate ones that can't do any better. 

I agree.

 

I have been saying Aaron Rodgers is actually more realistic than Lamar if we talking trade. We can trade a lot less for Rodgers given his age.

 

I think we could win the NFC with Rodgers at QB. 

[Mr. Scot]

7 minutes ago, top dawg said:

You can't poor-mouth your way to a championship. With the ever-increasing cap, you pay today so you can play tomorrow. KC wasn't and isn't crying because they had to pay Mahomes. And somehow they signed some weapons. Burrow will get paid. Herbert will get paid. The devil is always in the details. Jackson will get paid; how much he gets paid is anyone's guess right now. 

You can't just throw money at it either.

It's more important to be smart than bold.

[LinvilleGorge]

12 minutes ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

Why do you guys keep mentioning Lamar?

There are 2 QB's in the draft who have potential to be franchise guys.

 

Why can't we trade for them?

 

Aaron Rodgers is more likely than Lamar. Ravens haven't actually put him on the trade block as of yet.

I'm not opposed to trading up for a QB, I'm just not completely sold on it for Young or Stroud. If our staff is then go for it. It's their jobs on the line not mine.

[CamWhoaaCam]

25 minutes ago, Ghostface Chilla said:

Saw Carolina was a odds on favorite for Carr. Ugh, that would suck. I don't know if many of you watched Raiders games this past season, but he was terrible. Missing wide open receivers, over throwing, under throwing, he absolutely sucked. He looked more washed than Brady. He got benched for Jarret Stidhem FFS! Yeah yeah, that was done to save money, but if the Raiders were any closer to making the playoffs, they would have kept him in. He had weapons all over the field, and great RB, and good defense, and Carr still sucked. He had his best friend on the field, and couldn't get it done. I hope he doesn't come here. 

He's also 32

 

Not sure why the Carr train is running on this board, but I fail to see how he fits with this team.

Carr imo needs to go to the 49ers. He needs a loaded roster to actually achieve success. We just don't have enough to make any noise in the NFC with Carr leading the show.

[Mr. Scot]

5 minutes ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

I have been saying Aaron Rodgers is actually more realistic than Lamar if we talking trade. We can trade a lot less for Rodgers given his age.

I think we could win the NFC with Rodgers at QB. 

The Packers have stated they won't trade him to an NFC team.

Rodgers isn't an option.

[top dawg]

2 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

You can't just throw money at it either.

It's more important to be smart than bold.

We have smart guys on the staff. I'll trust their judgment (for now).

[Mr. Scot]

Just now, top dawg said:

We have smart guys on the staff. I'll trust their judgment (for now).

The guy at the top of that food chain prefers the draft and develop route.

[CamWhoaaCam]

2 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

The Packers have stated they won't trade him to an NFC team.

Rodgers isn't an option.

Packers trading him for the best offer. Rodgers not playing for much longer imo. If he was younger you might have a point.

It would be worth a 2 year run with Rodgers imo.