Does the backup QB really matter?

[XenoMorph]

(09-01-2016, 09:39 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Honestly, I wasn't overly impressed with what McCarron did last year. He beat teams led by Blaine Gabbert and Ryan Mallet. The rest is "he almost" or excuses. 

I think McC is a very solid backup, maybe the best we've had since Kitna. That said, people talk about McC like he's some treasure we absolutely have to hang on to. I don't get that mentality.


1. Dalton's injury was very flukey and he never missed a game in 4 previous seasons. Odds are he stays healthy this year. [/b]


2. We get this year and next year. Then McC is surely gone in search of a better opportunity to start. Why not get something?


3. Let's say we traded McC now. Guys like Sanchez and Mike Vick will be available. Does anyone think guys like that wouldn't be able to do a servicable job in this offense with these weapons? Honestly that's all McCarron was last year. Serviceable. Nothing spectacular. Any half decent QB could beat the teams McCarron did.

Heck, I'd prefer the Sanchize over McCarron. More experienced and a proven winner in the playoffs.

I say hang on to him cause the value people think we can get in a trade is no where close to his actual value lol...  

Hes been in the system a few years now and would be absolutely the best possible backup for this season with only a week to go.. 

In a good season backup qb doesn't matter squat cause he doesn't play.      But Dalton while he only missed a few games for the first time last season.  Has had to leave a few games early in his time here. 


Plus I think its funny as hell many of the people wanting McCarron to start for us are now trying to trade him away.

[wolfkaosaun]

Backup QBs matter. Every player on your team matters.

However, if trading a backup is for building towards your actual future, you look into that.

McCarron isn't going to be the starter here unless Dalton has some atrocious years.

Teams need QB. Broncos might struggle with theirs. Vikings lost Teddy. Things happen.

I mean, remember that the Bengals traded Palmer in 2011? They didn't trade him away until October 18th and that was because of an injury to QB. We got Gio and Kirkpatrick out of that deal.

[fredtoast]

(09-01-2016, 09:39 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Honestly, I wasn't overly impressed with what McCarron did last year.

(09-01-2016, 09:58 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Most backups in the league would give us about the same chance to win as what McCarron does.

His 87.8 passer rating against the Broncos top ranked defense was the fifth best in 16 regular season games.  Here are how some other top QBs fared against the Broncos last year

Joe Flacco.........38.2
Aaron Rodgers..69.7
Phillip Rivers.....71.7 (2 games)
Matt Stafford....74.5

The only teams he lost to were playoff teams.  He can't help it that the only other teams he played were very bad.

McCarron posted a 97.1 passer rating which was better than most starters and far superior to any back up who played significant snaps.

people who think we have just as good of a chance of winning games with any other back up (even guys like Vick and Sanchez) are clueless.  In Sanchez's 3 years as a starter he never had a passer rating higher than 78.2.  His career rating is 74.3 and he has thrown 84 ints in just 75 games.  He is a horrible QB.  Mike Vick has gone 8-14 as a starter over the last 4 years and posted a 78.2 passer rating.  He is washed up.

[Shake n Blake]

(09-01-2016, 04:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: His 87.8 passer rating against the Broncos top ranked defense was the fifth best in 16 regular season games.  Here are how some other top QBs fared against the Broncos last year

Joe Flacco.........38.2
Aaron Rodgers..69.7
Phillip Rivers.....71.7 (2 games)
Matt Stafford....74.5

The only teams he lost to were playoff teams.  He can't help it that the only other teams he played were very bad.

McCarron posted a 97.1 passer rating which was better than most starters and far superior to any back up who played significant snaps.

people who think we have just as good of a chance of winning games with any other back up (even guys like Vick and Sanchez) are clueless.  In Sanchez's 3 years as a starter he never had a passer rating higher than 78.2.  His career rating is 74.3 and he has thrown 84 ints in just 75 games.  He is a horrible QB.  Mike Vick has gone 8-14 as a starter over the last 4 years and posted a 78.2 passer rating.  He is washed up.

Look, the kid was managed. The offense was clearly pared down to protect him from mistakes. That's why the offense went from averaging 376.3 yards under Dalton, to averaging only 276.8 yards in McCarron's 4 starts. That's a 100 yard drop. Passer rating isn't going to tell the entire story. He was able to play it safe and rely on the weapons around him to make plays on short throws. This resulted in a higher completion % and low INT numbers, but he was lacking in big plays and only averaged 191 yards per start. Essentially, he is what Dalton bashers always accused him of being: an average QB whose weapons made him look better, not vice versa.

For another example of how McCarron was "managed", just look at the difference between the Steelers game and his starts following that. Against the Steelers, you actually saw him trying to air it out and be aggressive, with mixed results. He hit on a couple, but he also threw a couple picks (including a pick 6). The rest of the season, it was dink and dunk city, but he didn't throw the dreaded pick.

The Broncos figured him out in the second half of that key game, and the Steelers had his number for 3.5 quarters. Those were the only good teams he faced. All this leads me to believe that if relied upon to start a full 16 game schedule, we'd be boned and McCarron wouldn't be posting a 97.1 rating. He's a solid backup. One that can come in and play 2-3 games in a spot, but I don't want to see him any longer than that. That's why I said I wasn't "overly impressed". I didn't mean it as harsh criticism, I'm only saying I don't see him as the future stud that some on here believe he will be.

As for Sanchize, nobody is claiming the dude is a solid starter. But you're judging numbers where he was "the guy" and comparing it to a small sample size where a backup was micro-managed. Hardly a fair comparison. Sanchez was hardly impressive as a starter, but he's a proven winner (both regular and post season) and that is invaluable off the bench. Similar story with Vick. He's not the player he once was, but I have faith that these coaches and players would have him ready to win a couple if needed. He did go 2-1 with a not-so-bad 79.8 rating in 3 starts last year.

BTW, if you don't respect my post enough to address each point, I won't respond any further.

[BengalChris]

(09-01-2016, 11:09 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Look, the kid was managed. The offense was clearly pared down to protect him from mistakes. That's why the offense went from averaging 376.3 yards under Dalton, to averaging only 276.8 yards in McCarron's 4 starts. That's a 100 yard drop. Passer rating isn't going to tell the entire story. He was able to play it safe and rely on the weapons around him to make plays on short throws. This resulted in a higher completion % and low INT numbers, but he was lacking in big plays and only averaged 191 yards per start. Essentially, he is what Dalton bashers always accused him of being: an average QB whose weapons made him look better, not vice versa.

For another example of how McCarron was "managed", just look at the difference between the Steelers game and his starts following that. Against the Steelers, you actually saw him trying to air it out and be aggressive, with mixed results. He hit on a couple, but he also threw a couple picks (including a pick 6). The rest of the season, it was dink and dunk city, but he didn't throw the dreaded pick.

The Broncos figured him out in the second half of that key game, and the Steelers had his number for 3.5 quarters. Those were the only good teams he faced. All this leads me to believe that if relied upon to start a full 16 game schedule, we'd be boned and McCarron wouldn't be posting a 97.1 rating. He's a solid backup. One that can come in and play 2-3 games in a spot, but I don't want to see him any longer than that. That's why I said I wasn't "overly impressed". I didn't mean it as harsh criticism, I'm only saying I don't see him as the future stud that some on here believe he will be.

As for Sanchize, nobody is claiming the dude is a solid starter. But you're judging numbers where he was "the guy" and comparing it to a small sample size where a backup was micro-managed. Hardly a fair comparison. Sanchez was hardly impressive as a starter, but he's a proven winner (both regular and post season) and that is invaluable off the bench. Similar story with Vick. He's not the player he once was, but I have faith that these coaches and players would have him ready to win a couple if needed. He did go 2-1 with a not-so-bad 79.8 rating in 3 starts last year.

BTW, if you don't respect my post enough to address each point, I won't respond any further.

Isn't that how Dalton's first two years were? Managed and pared down? I'm pretty sure they were. In fact, I know they were.

[Brownshoe]

(09-01-2016, 11:16 PM)BengalChris Wrote: Isn't that how Dalton's first two years were? Managed and pared down? I'm pretty sure they were. In fact, I know they were.

Nope

[BengalChris]

(09-01-2016, 11:26 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Nope

Yes

[Shake n Blake]

(09-01-2016, 11:16 PM)BengalChris Wrote: Isn't that how Dalton's first two years were? Managed and pared down? I'm pretty sure they were. In fact, I know they were.

And I'd disagree with you. Most certainly about the 2nd season. Even in his rookie season, he connected deep with AJ Green and even Simpson quite a bit. You just didn't see that much with McCarron last year, except in the game where he threw 2 picks. If I'm wrong, feel free to point out some examples where Mac really aired it out in his 4 starts.

In his 4 starts, he averaged 6.16 YPA, which definitely helps prove my point. Heck, his yards/completion was 9.9. Anything under 11 is pretty rare, and anything under 10 almost never happens. He wasn't airing it out much. Dalton averaged a more respectable 6.59 YPA as a rookie (6.55 if you include his playoff game). He made many highlight throws that year, and averaged 11.3 yards/completion.

Also, the offense under rookie Dalton averaged 319.9 yards per game, more than 43 yards more per game on average than McCarron in his starts.

[Brownshoe]

(09-01-2016, 11:34 PM)BengalChris Wrote: Yes

You're wrong. The offense wasnted pared down for Dalton his first two years. They only called plays that His weapons were able to do. He still threw it down field a lot more often than what McCarron did. Gruden isn't going to game plan for players who's not even that good. Gruden had to work with a rookie WR and a rookie QB with almost no other weapons. It wouldn't have mattered who was the QB because the game plan would have been the same. You have no evidence or proof that the offense was pared down, and it makes you look very silly to say it was.

[Benton]

i dont like comparing one situation to another, but the Steelers are a golden example of having a semi competent backup. How many games did they pull out after Ben was carted off, just because they had a QB who didn't lose the game? How many times did that help them get to the post season?

a backup QB isn't going to save our season, but he might save a game or two. And that can save the season.

[Brownshoe]

(09-01-2016, 11:45 PM)Benton Wrote: i dont like comparing one situation to another, but the Steelers are a golden example of having a semi competent backup. How many games did they pull out after Ben was carted off, just because they had a QB who didn't lose the game? How many times did that help them get to the post season?

a backup QB isn't going to save our season, but he might save a game or two. And that can save the season.

It doesn't hurt to have the best WR in the league and one of the best RBs in the league. If they didn't have that do you think they still would have won those games?

[*pally*]

Ask the Patriots what happened in 2001 when Drew Bledsoe went down with injuries.  If I recall correctly some back up named Tom Brady came in to play.

Quote:i dont like comparing one situation to another, but the Steelers are a golden example of having a semi competent backup. How many games did they pull out after Ben was carted off, just because they had a QB who didn't lose the game? How many times did that help them get to the post season?


a backup QB isn't going to save our season, but he might save a game or two. And that can save the season.

 
Ben was 3rd string his rookie season.  Both Maddox and Strong went down with injuries.  The next season they went to the Superbowl despite Ben missing 4 games.

[OkamiW]

The one thing Tobin said best (not word for word but something close enough) We are not gonna help another team and trade Mccarron and go without a quality backup.

[*Nately120*]

Sometimes I look at our empty trophy case and wonder if the starting QB around here even matters!

[fredtoast]

(09-01-2016, 11:09 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote:  Sanchez was hardly impressive as a starter, but he's a proven winner

Sanchez is a proven loser.

It has been SIX YEARS since he had a winning record as a starter.

[fredtoast]

(09-01-2016, 11:09 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Look, the kid was managed. The offense was clearly pared down to protect him from mistakes.

Yeah, that was  a brilliant idea to have our running game only produce 68 yards against the Forty Niners and 155 in two games against the Steelers when McCarron was under center.  Maybe if we had went all the way down to zero rushing yards McCarron would have had a 120+ passer rating.  

So why doesn't every other team in the league just "pare down" their offense and make their QBs produce 97+ passer ratings if it is that easy.

[fredtoast]

(09-01-2016, 11:09 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Similar story with Vick. He's not the player he once was, but I have faith that these coaches and players would have him ready to win a couple if needed. He did go 2-1 with a not-so-bad 79.8 rating in 3 starts last year.

He sucked so bad as a back up that he got benched for Landry Jones.  He got credit for a win over the Cardinals even though he threw for only 6 yards adn the Steelers were trailing when Jones came into the game.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(09-01-2016, 03:57 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: I say hang on to him cause the value people think we can get in a trade is no where close to his actual value lol...  

Hes been in the system a few years now and would be absolutely the best possible backup for this season with only a week to go.. 

In a good season backup qb doesn't matter squat cause he doesn't play.      But Dalton while he only missed a few games for the first time last season.  Has had to leave a few games early in his time here. 


Plus I think its funny as hell many of the people wanting McCarron to start for us are now trying to trade him away.

Not trying to break up Fred's efforts at quadruple posting or anything, but I do feel like I need to point out that no, he has not. The system McCarron learned his first two years is gone and went to Cleveland. So the only advantage McCarron would have in knowing this offense over any other QB is this current preseason. That's it.

[Passepartout]

Backup QB's really are good to have. As they are security blankets. When the regular QB goes down!

[Brownshoe]

(09-02-2016, 12:35 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Sanchez is a proven loser.

It has been SIX YEARS since he had a winning record as a starter.

Yeah, and he's played what? 16 games the last 6 years?