Carr needs a new parking spot
The Houston Texans released former No. 1 overall pick David Carr.
After acquiring Matt Schaub from the Atlanta Falcons, the Texans released Carr Friday and enabled him to become an unrestricted free agent.
Vikings coach Brad Childress lamented Carr's three-quarter release on K-FAN Thursday.
But would the Vikings be interested now that Carr wouldn't require a draft pick?
Carr completed 68 percent of his passes last season but had just 11 touchdowns against 12 interceptions. For his career, he has 59 touchdowns and 65 interceptions.
Say what you want about him. But Carr certainly is talented, and he could push Tarvaris Jackson and Brooks Bollinger.
For the right price, what would the Vikings have to lose?
After acquiring Matt Schaub from the Atlanta Falcons, the Texans released Carr Friday and enabled him to become an unrestricted free agent.
Vikings coach Brad Childress lamented Carr's three-quarter release on K-FAN Thursday.
But would the Vikings be interested now that Carr wouldn't require a draft pick?
Carr completed 68 percent of his passes last season but had just 11 touchdowns against 12 interceptions. For his career, he has 59 touchdowns and 65 interceptions.
Say what you want about him. But Carr certainly is talented, and he could push Tarvaris Jackson and Brooks Bollinger.
For the right price, what would the Vikings have to lose?
posted by Sean Jensen at 4:42 PM
37 Comments:
what do we have to lose? atleast half of our games every year if he does start, considering he had 5 years witht hte texans and never won more than 7 games in a season. not to mention his liking to just take a sack instead of throw it away. look at his pre-draft analysis and you'll find they say that he "takes too much time getting rid of the ball, inviting the sack." HAS NOT CHANGED ONE BIT, WHAT MAKES ANYONE THINK HE'LL BE GOOD FOR US NOW? EVEN THE MORONS THAT OWN THE TEXANS GOT RID OF HIM! HE WASNT GOOD ENOUGH FOR THEM? HE DEFINATELY WONT BE GOOD ENOUGH FOR US!
also imagine what he'd have been like if he didnt have pro-bowl wide reciever andre johnson to throw to? im disgusted that anyone inside the vikings fanclub would want another perennial loser to add to our losing ways. i thought the goal was to get to a super bowl? u people honestly think DAVID CARR WILL GET US THERE????? HAHAHAHAHA!!!!
vikings informer has the slow fury that BUILDS INTO ALL CAPS! But I agree; I like Carr but he's not for us right now. Our QB situation is probably pretty good. Childress is a renowned QB mentor, and all 3 of those guys have been with the team for at least part of last season, soaking it all in.
Whether RB, WR, TE, or DE, now I want to see a couple play makers, and am curious about our #7 spot...
colito says - Our QB situation is probably pretty good.
Are you kidding me!! Do you know who we have on our roster?? Our qb situation is far from good. D. Carr would be an upgrade, no doubt. Carr's issues in Texas were not that he didn't have anyone to through to..the problem was that he didn't have any time. Our o-line, as porous as it is, is about 10 times the o-line he had with the Texans.
Vikings informer is not as bright as he'd like us to believe...Give Carr a decent offensive line and a defense that will get the ball back and you never know. He is still more talented than when we have on the current roster...and at a bargain.
Carr would be a perfect fit for the Vikes, How can any of these idiots think that he was responsible for the Texans lack of success, No line, no recievers and no running game might have had a little to do with it.
He took 76 sacks last year and did not miss a game, and still completed 68% of his passes. Childress would be out of his mind to not try and snag him...oh thats right Childress is'ny out of his mind he is just an egotistical bad coach that would have passed on Steve Young given the chance
No you're right Samson. You're totally a better judge of QBs than Childress. He's only been paid to do it (and quite successful at it) for decades.
i think that would a great pick up because with are o-line we could cut down his sack problem and give him a enough time to throw the ball. i like to see him as a vikings then we could draft a WR instead of a QB that just be a backup anyways and we could pick up someone on FA for WR and we could have a good team on both side of the ball d and o. we already have a great RB in chestor taylor. I say for it and get him
Not saying Carr would be the answer. Just that he's done enough that the Vikings have nothing to lose. It's not like you guarantee him the starting spot. Give him a contract that makes him earn the spot, and then he gets paid accordingly. For instance, they could sign him to a minimum-salary contract with a modest signing bonus. Then, he gets a lot of his money based on playing time and performance.
I'm also not saying T. Jack won't work out. I just think the Vikings need to make sure there's serious competition since no one on the current roster is a proven NFL starter.
Hello all. I have enjoyed reading everyones thoughts on David Carr. We are not profesional scouts or renowned QB analysists (like are good coach Childress), but we are PRO Fans and we have an opion. With that said, I believe we (Vikings) have everything to gain in signing David Carr. He will give us (possibly only temporary)a ray of hope for the up coming 2007 season. If T-Jak is the man, as Childress thinks, could you honestly think of a better back up then David Carr (or would you prefer Hanson or Bollinger?) But my gut feeling (if I am aloud such a thing on here with out being ridiculed by "vikings fans"...) Carr would surpass T-Jak for the starting QB job. He would flourish in Childress's W.C.O. system. But again, if I am wrong, what are we out? Nothing but a little money and the last time I checked, we have about 21 million to spair. HMM sounds like a no brainer to me but again, I am just an avid fan who is not a renowned QB analysis or Mentor. I am just a Vikings Fan.
First off, I recognize that casual fans can have opinions.
Secondly, it is hard to take any opinion seriously when it is riddled with typos.
Third, Carr was in the WCO---last year. Don't forget that Denver is a West Coast team, and Kubiak is installing that same system in Houston.
Back to my first point, it is obvious that Childress, who has great experience in the QB business, is interested in acquiring people with
a)good physical skills
b)good throwing mechanics,
and while Carr clearly has the former, Childress has recently called him out for the latter. And, like Vikings Informer aptly noted, he tends to take too long in decision making and getting the ball out.
The O-Line in Houston has long been dreadful, but look at how the infusion of Romo over Bledsoe last year mysteriously got that line in good shape. It's called moving around and getting the ball out.
I like Carr, and hope he finds success somewhere. I don't think he's right for Minnesota right now.
well i totally disagree with viking informer, who is he major dads brother [childress].. carr is a better option then we have here.. jackson is not ready and bollinger sucks plain and simple!! so since this great coach of ours traded the franchise qb culpepper, we better sign carr or draft quinn or where in for 4-12 season.. our coach is frigging problem.. he never called plays in philly and now i know why, i way rather have tice here.. and in case u folks did not know if we actually listened to tice on draft day 2 yrs ago we would have shawn merriman not willamson or butterfingers, how he is the league is beyond me!!!!
There are a couple of things worth noting:
Childress, by his own admission, took the best job that was available last year. The 2005 Vikings nearly made the playoffs.
Childress ran the team into the ground. He seems a lot like the Cleveland Browns version of Bill Belichick.
The most glaring issue, though, is that he proved wholly incapable of adapting his ideas to the players that he had. Fat Wiggins has the worst body in pro football, but his production under the Tice regime was just behind Gonzales' and Gates'. Why was Childress not able to put Wiggins in a position to succeed? Childress elected to enter the season with an experienced quarterback, but Johnson wasn't allowed to audible. Does that make any sense? Brad Johnson's mother would concede that he has limited arm strength, but he has experience and has won a lot in the NFL. Why not give him the freedom to audible? If you do not trust Johnson's ability to made pre-snap reads, why is he on the roster? The first Chicago loss could have been avoided if Johnson audibled out of a trap play that left Birk having to make a difficult, if not impossible, down block on T. Harris a gap and a half over.
Zone blocking can be very effective, but the teams that have used it successfully (Denver, Atlanta) have small, athletic lineman. The Vikings have a big, strong line. Hutchinson, especially, is an overpowering mauler who was limited by the scheme that he was in. Why sign a player who dominated as a man blocker and then put him in a scheme that limites his effectiveness?
I contend that there is little evidence that Childress is a competent head coach. It's especially ironic that in all of his time in Philly, Andy Reid called the plays, but the first year after Childress leaves Marty Morhinweg is calling the plays. Does that make it seem that Andy had a lot of confidence in Childress?
As the article points out, what is there to lose by trying to bring Carr in? His career in Houston was irreperably harmed by Boselli's shoulder-induced retirement. Carr has never played behind a NFL-caliber left tackle. Why not bring him--this isn't the NBA where one can 'save' cap money for next year--and see what he does? Is it that crazy to want to have one quarterback in camp who has started more than five games in pro football?
you people just dont get it. the texans drafted carr first overall just like they drafted mario williams first overall. why? becuase that franchise is filled with idiotic money-hungry morons... they have no idea of what talent really is. they couldve drafted julius peppers, jeremy shockey, dante stallworth, ed reed, roy williams or dwight freeney instead of carr. but what do they do? they draft a quarterback that has a bad arm-movement and release and is prone to getting sacked and not throwing it away. JUST LIKE IT SAID IN HIS PRE-DRAFT SCOUTING REPORT AND ANALYSIS BY NFL.COM! here is the link go check for yourself- http://www.nfl.com/draft/2002/profiles/carr_david.htm , not to mention his notorious bad decision making, and we all know that he cant read defenses. what do they do in last years draft when they couldve got a franchise STAR running back in reggie bush? they draft mario williams only to release domonick davis the next off-season. THE TEXANS OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT ARE OBSCENELY STUPID...
you all just want carr because he has started for a nfl team. i say too all that want carr to start for the vikes instead of jackson this- YOU ARE ALL RACIST BASTARDS. and you know it. how the hell could you not want someone of jacksons caliber and skills leading us? first- we need a mobile qb because we all saw what our offense was like with a statue like brad johnson in there. just imagine what it would be like if we had carr in there getting sacked every other play instead of every three plays.
second- carr doesnt have even close to the arm strength and accuracy of jackson.
third- carr had 2 pro-bowl wide recievers to throw the ball to, imagine what he would be like without any pro-bowl wideouts! MORONS!
fourth- to all that say it was childress that lost the season for us, why dont you get your head out of your asses and blame the guy touching the ball and distributing it every play- brad johnson? its a team effort but johnson was the biggest weak spot on our team last year...
fifth- childress has stated to the houston chronicle (houston newspaper) that he has absolutely no interest in carr and that he is happy with jackson and bollinger battling it out for the starter spot. SO HA!!! IDIOTS!
BETTER YET, CHILDRESS TOLD HIS AGENT THAT HES NOT INTERESTED! LOL!!!
Yea, we are racist because we don't want a division II qb starting for us in his second year. Yea, that's it.
i think that dwayne jarrett would be worth the money of that #7 pick. we need someone who can catch the ball and be a threat in the red-zone. i've watched jarrett for years living in southern california. ive seen him play in many games and i can tell you one thing... he is a PLAYMAKER. which is exactly what we need. i think some people are thinking that he is "slow". if you watched him play you would know otherwise. besides, he has a clocked 4.45 40-yard dash. i wouldnt want to run again if i had that time for his size either.
The racism card? From the same fan base that wanted the team to keep Tomlin at Childress' expense? Moreover, by your "logic" Andre Johnson must be awful, too, since he was drafted by the Texans. Have you finished middle school?
Regarding the literate posts about Jackson, maybe he is good. Maybe he can get it done this year. I would love it if he can. There were numerous doubters about Culpepper going into the 2000 season, and he proved them wrong.
My point (and Jensen's) is simply this:
1. we have cap money;
2. we presently three inexperienced quarterbacks on the roster;
3. other than the Colts and Pack, teams often start multiple qbs in a season;
4. Carr has played behind the worst OL in football; and
5. the Vikings have nothing to lose by bringing him in.
If Jackson (whom this administration drafted and thus is tied to) blows the doors off of Winter Park this off-season, great. He's the guy for the foreseeable future. But what if he isn't? Or, what if he gets hurt? Mobile qbs don't have a strong track record of staying healthy.
Signing Carr doesn't mean anything except that the team has one more option at the position. If Bollinger proves the Jets wrong (remember, they kept Patrick Ramsey ahead of Bollinger this year) and is solid, the team is in great shape. But, there is not any discernible risk in bringing in Carr. Moreover, if Bollinger and Jackson do not get it done, I would rather have another option.
Well stated Andrew E.
I feel the same way...
ya andre johnson must suck really bad huh? he only went to the pro-bowl last year MORON. if it werent for johnson the texans wouldnt have won any games...
and why are you still lobbying for david carr? u do know that childress talked to his agent and told him personally that the vikings have NO INTEREST in him.
i could think of 11 positions on offense and 11 positions on defense that id rather spend that kind of money on instead of david "the loser sack monster machine" carr...
stop being so damn football illiterate and quit lobbying to bring in shitty ass players already. remember, there is another free agency period after the draft. actually forget about the quarterback position entirely. we have our starter.... so deal with it and give him a freakin chance.
The Vikings have absolutely lost their minds if they feel they can compete with Bollinger or Jackson at quarterback. These two are third stringers at best. Name me one positive thing these two QB's have ever brought to the table...Carr is right for them, any starter but these two reserves is right for them.
One point on Andrew's point. I believe (though not certain) that an extra QB limits snaps in the minicamps, training camp, and pre-season that the other QBs get. If that's the case, there is a downside to adding QBs ad infinitum.
Anyway, I wouldn't mind Carr, but I'm just not clamoring for him. I'm personally comfortable with what we've got.
Jarrett would be a good pick, but we'd be wasting the #7 pick on him. If we can't get CJ (and that's looking unlikely), I think we either trade down small and get a good defensive player, or trade down big to the middle of the 1st round and get one of those WRs with a 1st round grade. Jarrett, Bowe, or Meachem would be great with me.
There's just so many good players with 2nd round grades this year. I think having another 2nd rounder would really help us out.
gumby is just a hater of everything foreign to him. i doubt he even watches the games personally. anyways on colinitos comment, i think that trading down to around 12 or so would be excellent unless calvin is still there, which he wont be. and i think that even if we do pick up jarrett at #7 it will definately be worth it. he will be gone by middle of first round if we dont take him in the first. we would be losing out on another premier player, and one that would make the biggest impact on our team next year. we already have our burner in troy, our slot with wade all we need is a red-zone threat that knows how to consistantly get open. and will catch everything. i.e. - dwayne jarret.
erasmus will be healthy next year, dont need d.e.
we got several safeties that can get the job done and do it well, dont need safeties.
we have our future qb in jackson, dont need a qb.
the only thing thats left for us is o-line and wide-out. id rather take jarrett over anyone excpet joe thomas. jarrett is making the most sense to me right now.
It is not logically correct to say that one cannot draft a WR in the first round based on some hand-picked examples.
That said, I am not married to WR in the first round. I'd be happy to stand pat and get:
Gaines Adams
LaRon Landry
Adrian Peterson
or move down and get:
Leon Hall
Dwayne Jarrett
Dwayne Bowe
Robert Meachem
Omobi Okoye
Looking at the NFL draft value chart, it would not cost us all of our picks to trade up to #3, but a lot.
Also, looking at that same chart, it is interesting to me that the Pats hold 2 1st round picks and they roughly add up to the #7 pick. If we could move back to I think #24 and #28, we could pick up one of those receivers with the first pick and take best DFA available.
Colinito:
I understand your point about OTA reps, and it's valid. On the flip side, though, if one accepts that the team would be better served with an insurance policy that has started more than five professional games, wouldn't it be better to bring him in now, rather than in August? There is a lot to be learned from just having the playbook and being in meetings. Moreover, I wouldn't shed a tear if veteran qb X were to take Hensen's reps. Jerry Jones loved him and he got every chance to be the guy in Dallas. I think that a 50:40:10 split of reps (Jackson:Bollinger:veteran X) would make sense.
Informer, your "argument" was the Texans drafted Carr, therefore he sucks. I pointed out that the Texans drafted Johnson, which menas that either he, too, sucks because he, too, was drafted by Houston, or, your "logic" is faulty. We can all agree that he doesn't suck.
I am not lobbying. I am pointing out the significant shortcomings in the Vikings offseason decisions thus far. I do not deem it unreasonable to want to go into a NFL season with a viable fallback plan at quarterback. Even if we take a qb on day 1 of the draft, that would give us four players who have yet to start more than five professional games. Does that seem like a good idea?
Again andrew a., I think you are dead on. The Vikes would be much better off if they had an insurance policy at qb, especially one that would come very cheap and has been somewhat successful under very poor circumstances. There is a more than fair chance that TJ will be hurt at some point (almost all qb's are hurt at some point in the year) and Bollinger is skinny as a post and gets hit hard when he is in. I really don't want to see Henson get on the field, period.
i would much rather have bollinger in there backing up my team anyday over carr... if we want a "good" backup the best option would be bollinger or weinke, and we already have bollinger. david carr is going to suck just as bad for the dolphins when they sign him as he did for the texans. MARK MY WORDS!
about andre johnson... they picked one player in a draft that made a difference for them. wow... and you all still think that carr is god? quite laughable indeed.
also you know just as well as i do that henson will never make it on the field... even if tarvaris and brooks get hurt he still wont play a down. so quit with the "we need a solid third quarterback" bs. please. he's just there to be an extra arm throwing in practice. cmon guys, use ur brains.
Andrew,
I thank you for your coherence and you make good points, it's just that I disagree. :) Nah, but, at a certain point, you've just got to let those coaches do their jobs and prepare these kids for the game.
When Childress was Donovan's mentor, he showed significant progress his second year in the saddle. I wouldn't mind if the Vikings made it that far next year....
C:
Fair enough. I'm quite convinced that the only thing that Childress' oversight will lead to is the first blackout since 1998. I hope that you're right, but should having Carr or veteran qb X on the roster really limit Childress' ability to mould greatness in T-Jax? Brady seemed to be just fine with Bledsoe, and then Flutie, on the roster. Alex Smith did just fine with Dilfer behind him.
I don't see Carr as the savior or best-case scenario; I see him as a reasonable alternative if/when T-Jax and Bollinger get hurt or are ineffective. We put three qbs on the field last year, and I cannot stress how little I want to see Henson take the field in the regular season. The only upside such an event would offer is that, thanks to cancellations, I would have better seats in '08.
Cheers.
In reading all of these posts, I have to say that Andrew E. knows what he's talking about when it comes to football. There's a difference b/w an avid, ranting fan and one who actually knows the game. Anyone who knows the game or has at least played football at a decent level can see that Andrew's points make great football-logic. For a struggling franchise like ours right now, we need every life line we can take. I'm pretty sure that these bloggers irrefutably condemning David Carr have no idea what it takes to actually play the game. To play behind a horrible O-Line is stat killing for any QB (including Brady or Manning). We saw what happened to Culpepper when we had O-Line injuries in 2005 and in games where Brady's O-Line had problems (like against Buffalo in 2004), Tom was as terrible as they come. The bottom line is no matter what we say here though, the decision doesn't rest with us but rather with Mr. Wilf. Let's hope they make a smart decision and pick-up a decent QB. We paid money for Drew Henson so why not a better option like David Carr...
I'll be here to say I'm wrong if the Vikings go 3-13 as is the predominant opinion on this blog.
Alexander (I'm singling you out because you made an ad hominem argument against me) and others who disagree, I hope you'll be here to admit you were wrong if the Vikings make the playoffs (like I think they could).
C:
If the Vikings make the playoffs next year, I'll not only admit that I was wrong; if there is a home game at HHH, I'll buy you dinner.
I cannot discount the possibility that we make the playoffs. I honestly think that the Jets had the least talent in the NFL last year, and they made it happen. If we get one consistent pass rusher out of James, Udeze, Edwards and the draft, it significantly improves our pass defence. We can already stop the run and run the ball. It could all come together if we play a bunch of close games, our qbs work off of the play action, Williamson learns how to "receive" the ball and Longwell makes big kicks. In such a scenario, we can go 12-4 and win the division (assuming the Bears have the normal superbowl loser hangover). I do not think that this will happen, but I cannot suggest that it is impossible, either. Who had the Jets and Saints doing so well last year?
However, I think that Childress is a trainwreck who grossly misuses his players, such as having Hutch and the rest of our massive OL zone block, and not allowing Johnson to audible. I'm far from the president of the Brad Johnson fan club, but the guy did win a Super Bowl, and he did go 7-2 as a starter in 2005. Unless one dubiously argues that he "hit the wall" before last season, it seems reasonable to conclude that the Tice regime did a much better job of coaching the offense.
No-one knows what will happen this year, there are 32 teams who all think that they are going to the playoffs, and 20 of them will be wrong. We can determine, though, the quality of the job that Childress has done thus far. There are strong arguments that he's been abysmal.
Great post Andrew. I'm will you 100% on your analysis. There are five times as many "if"s than there are certainties for the Viking to be successful. If the pass rush comes around and James is healthy, If Henderson thrives in the middle and Greenway is a playmaker at the key linebacker spot in the Tampa 2, If Sharper isn't still losing steps due to age, If our corners stay healthy (we have no depth at corner with the possible exception of moving Smith there if needed), If Frazier uses the personnel correctly and is a good communicator and teacher, If Jackson plays good, stays healthy, and doesn't make all of the young QB mistakes, If Taylor isn't overworked and splits more carries, If Williamson becomes a number one receiver, If Schainco can catch, If Wade excels in the slot and puts up career numbers, If the right side of the lines plays even average this year, If our massive left side of the line adjusts to zone blocking, If we have a decent return game, If Childress swallows his pride and allows the offense to be successful by concentrating on being a head coach instead of trying to be the offensive coordinator from the sideline (where you can't adjust to the defensive schemes because your just can't see what they are doing well enough), then the Vikes have a chance to be a successful team this year and make a playoff run.
I sure hope it all comes together, but I don't see it happening.
Wouldn't it make a lot more sense, though, to swallow one's pride and let our OL primarily man block? Obviously, even in a man scheme one has to slip/chip from time to time. On the whole, though, why not run an isolation lead play to our left B gap to start the game? Who exactly has the defensive front to stop that? I loved the Hutch signing because I think that he can maul any DT in the world. He would have been a horrible signing, though, in Denver. It's not as though Hicks and M. Johnson are Matt Lepsis or Ben Hamilton, either. Maybe I'm crazy, but why not use schemes that play to our OL's strengths?
I sure don't like our O-line scheme either. It seems to me that Birk is the only lineman we have that is suited for it, and he also excels in a man scheme. I would love to see the offensive coaching staff adjust to the players strengths for once, but if they did, it would be the first time under the current leadership.
Andrew E, it's a deal, but just so you know I'm vegan, so I hope you like tofu!!
Your concerns are valid. I just see a lot of growth from the team as opposed to this time last year. I know how ugly change can be, and when you're up close it can be frustrating. But I see a lot of hope. And I love underdogs, so it's really fun for me that both the media and our own fans are already shrugging the Vikings off this year.
You make great points about the O-Line. All said, they should have performed better given the talent (and $) going into it. I like Cook taking on RT, though, if he can handle it.
You might be out of luck, unless Ruth's Chris has a vegan option.
OLs generally take time to jell, but at the end of the day a coach's primary job is to put his players in the position to excel. The best zone-blocking OLs in football (DEN, ATL) have average weights in the area of 295. That's not what we have. Just as I don't expect Darren Sharper to line up as a CB and play man-cover 0 against Roy Williams, I don't expect our OL to be able to zone block nearly as effectively as they can man block.
I don't mind underdogs; I mind grotesque incompetence. I was delighted in 2002 when the team finished a bad season with three straight wins. That was a team that had to be blown up because we were in cap jail after keeping a number of vets together (Carter, Randle, Smith, Steussie, McDaniel, Christy, Griffith) and the nucleus had run its course. I loved Tice's onions in going for 2 against the Saints (and Chris Liewenski just killed his guy on that play) to win, rather than go to overtime. We knew that 2002 wasn't going to be a good year.
Last year, Childress took over the "plum job" with a talented 9-7 team that had finished the season 7-2. In 2005 we didn't have Randy Moss, we didn't have Hutch, the best guard since Larry Allen and we didn't have a 1,000 yard back. The '05 offense wasn't to be confused with '98 or '00, but we weren't losing games 9-3 to the 32d ranked defence, either. 2006 should have been a much better year than it was. What makes me so angry is that expectations have been lowered when they should be cresting. Instead, we are faced with every indication that Childress took a talented roster and through ignorance, negligence or arrogance butchered it.
Post a Comment
<< Home