It's not defensive to say that I think this team is going to surprise people.
And I don't think it's defensive to call a viewpoint that presents the Raiders as nothing to fear to a team that just won the Superbowl as lacking in originality or obviousness.
You brought up two games as an indictment of Carr, so not exactly a holistic opinion, and it's bizarre to me that you think that an unproven Lock is automatically a "game changer" when Carr has 3 Pro Bowls under his belt. And let's be clear, this wasn't only about Carr, you threw in some choice criticism of Guenther and said the only reason the Raiders aren't the joke of the division is that the Chargers drafted Hebert.
Just because you rain compliments on some players does not make your opinion immune to scrutiny. You should avoiding labeling people defensive for disagreeing with your point of view. And I think you are vastly underrating Carr and the competitiveness that's going to come from all teams in this division.
I do think you raise some good points -- overall, we can agree that Carr still has to prove he can bring this team to the next level. Your comparison to Alex Smith is a good one. I think Smith may have struggled more initially that Carr out of the gate, but their overall completion percentages and ratings align (while Carr is much better in the INT department).
I actually think Smith is vastly underrated, and both of these QBs have shown their specific contributions can take their team to the playoffs (Smith in '11, Carr in '16). Both are above average talents and are able to create wins based on their skills. Both need talent around them to make that happen -- as do most QBs not named Brady or Manning or Brees. Carr isn't a QB that automatically raises the talent around him, but he's far better than many give him credit for IMO.
Yes, it isn't holistic but those two games--along with Tennessee (the game with the 4th down throw away)--were the most important of the Raiders season. They had the chance to catapult themselves into a division title and home playoff game and instead got trashed 3 times in embarrassing fashion--one by an Adam Gase coached team. It might not be fair but those are the types of games that stand out in a QB's body of work.
And I don't believe Lock is automatically a game changer. My exact words I believe were "has the chance to be a game changer (in theory)"--far from a guarantee, just saying that he is not a finished product while I think Carr (for the most part) is. That does not mean the finished version of Lock will be a stud or even better than Carr.
As for the non Carr part, Guenther isn't a huge problem or anything but from how I saw the Bengals D fall from one of football's best units after he took over for Zimmer, how Mahomes put up an entire game's worth of stats on his defense in one quarter of the first matchup with no Tyreek, how he sent off the Oakland faithful by making a sixth round rookie look like Peyton Manning---I don't believe he is the solution either.
Additionally, "joke" was too strong of a word but remember that the Raiders are a national brand, while nobody cares about the Chargers and Denver/KC are still relatively small market.
Both the Raiders' good and bad will be exaggerated by the media and missing the playoffs 3 years in a row after hiring a high profile Super Bowl winning coach and giving him a 10 year deal would be mocked quite a bit--whether fairly or not.
My "defensiveness" comment wasn't because you were disagreeing but because you were interpreting my comment as mocking/making fun of the Raiders--which it wasn't. Things change fast in the NFL and I can think of quite a few AFC teams that are close to "scary" level--even to a Super Bowl champ--and the Raiders aren't that far if for only one reason (as I have said).
For the last paragraph, I am going to say that I think pre-leg injury Carr was a very different QB. More of a gunslinger, more able to create outside the pocket and scramble for tough yards (instead of throw it away on 4th and goal). IMO he was on his way to a Matt Stafford type career as a back end of the top 10 level QB with the potential for a top 5 year every now and then before the leg snapped
As for competitiveness: I expect the Chiefs to win the division (admittedly am biased) with a floor of 11 wins and a ceiling of 14-15. After that, it's trickier: I would take the Broncos and think their ceiling is 11 wins and contending for division, but the Raiders have a substantially higher floor despite a lower ceiling (goes back to Carr). If I had to pick, I think Denver finishes higher by a game or two and both make the playoffs as wild cards--as the 5 and 7 seeds respectively.
I just don't see much in the Chargers. Don't think any of their players besides Keenan, Bosa and rookie Kenneth Murray are as good as they are hyped up to be. Tyrod is to me a way below average QB and Herbert is flat out horrible. I think they win 2-3 games.
In the coming years though both the Broncos and Raiders have the potential to be very interesting
Especially statements 1 and 4.
