Is the fact that AJ Mccarron hasn't been traded yet maddening to anyone else?

[jj22]

(02-27-2017, 05:03 PM)Hammerstripes Wrote: Except Minnesota wanted a veteran starter.

I think McCarron should have been in play. It sounded like Teddy's career was in jeopardy by the way everyone reacted, so a long term option should have been discussed.

I can't imagine the disappointment (albeit he's made a ton of money) that is Bradford was the future. That move to me was a head scratcher. Ask Philly who couldn't have stumbled on a better day.

It's possible McCarron wasn't in play. It's the Driskel claim that made me feel a call was made and they knew they weren't prepared to lose McCarron. Wanted to make sure they were never caught flat footed again and had a backup plan. Especially odd move now that it's out that we have him for 2 more years under contract.

It all smells fishy to me. Something happened in between that Zimmer trade and us suddenly willing to give up a roster spot to a 3rd qb.

In a year with high expectations.