So now that Sammy is gone...who is even worth using the FT

[87168]

 

Because they actually HAVE a QB.

 

Sticking with a scrub like Taylor or any of the other dozen qb we've had since 2000 wasn't a plan for success.

oh really?

 

Carr was 3-13 his rookie year. 7-9 the following year, then 12-4 last year. see the improvement when the coaching staff, FO and roster isn't changing every year?

 

so we should have kept Rexy?

if that's what you took from that, you might want to work on your comprehension.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

oh really?

 

Carr was 3-13 his rookie year. 7-9 the following year, then 12-4 last year. see the improvement when the coaching staff, FO and roster isn't changing every year?

 

Intellectual dishonesty, thy name is 87168.

 

EVERYONE who knows QB play, knew Carr had the magic. Just like they did when Aikman went 1-15.

 

Tyrod is NOT Carr.

[Roundybout]

oh really?

 

Carr was 3-13 his rookie year. 7-9 the following year, then 12-4 last year. see the improvement when the coaching staff, FO and roster isn't changing every year?

if that's what you took from that, you might want to work on your comprehension.

 

You said the Raiders got good because of keeping their staff and not having lots of roster turnover. So yes, it's logical to ask if you wanted to keep Rex in the name of consistancy.

[87168]

 

Intellectual dishonesty, thy name is 87168.

 

EVERYONE who knows QB play, knew Carr had the magic. Just like they did when Aikman went 1-15.

 

Tyrod is NOT Carr.

haha sure, if that helps your agenda. a player given a stable environment and clear direction, is going to develop better than one that does not. simple.

 

 

You said the Raiders got good because of keeping their staff and not having lots of roster turnover. So yes, it's logical to ask if you wanted to keep Rex in the name of consistancy.

hmm no not quite. that would be under the assumption that Rex should have been hired in the first place...again poor FO decision, and it showed.