01-07-2016, 05:14 PM
(01-07-2016, 03:19 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: First off, Jeff Blake wasn't on Dalton's level. He was a 30 year old journeyman at that point. Aaron Brooks came in and played better than Blake. So it was easy to stick with the younger guy who played better. Has McCarron outplayed Dalton? Nope. Not even close.Blake was a journeyman at that point? Really? You must put a ton of stock into those two years he spent on the Jets to begin his career. 1992-2001: 3 teams total (2 yrs with NYJ, 6 years in CIN, 2 years in NO. 2002-2005 4 teams in 4 years (02 BAL, 03 ARI, 04 PHI, 05 CHI) it wasn't until AFTER he left New Orleans that you could start to describe him as a journeyman.
Dalton is better than Drew Bledsoe. Bledsoe was coming off 2 straight pretty weak (and losing) seasons. Brady came in and played 12 regular season games (McCarron played 4). Again, Brady outplayed Bledsoe. Has McCarron outplayed Dalton?
The last example is silly. Roethlisberger was a 1st round pick, drafted to be the future of the franchise. Maddox's injury just made the future arrive a bit sooner. McCarron wasn't drafted with the intention of replacing Dalton.
Bledsoe was coming off 2 straight weak and losing seasons huh? I never realized that 8-8 was a losing season, they finished in last, sure, and it wasn't a winning record, but it wasn't a losing record either. In addition his stats in 1999: 6th in yds (3985), 8th in YPA (7.4), admittedly 3rd in INT's (behind Favre and Jake Plummer) 8-8 record. Not great, but I fail to see how that falls into the 'pretty weak' category.
I didn't like using the Maddox/Roethilisberger example either, as it was inevitable Ben would take over, that one I'll concede. That being said...
The hindsight-aided criticisms of the examples, however, are irrelevant, as there have been zero denials that all three of those swaps happened. The rationale for WHY they happened is also irrelevant in this context. The statement was 'you always go with history' (or the 'known commodity') That is not the case, and that was my point. The three QB's I listed that were replaced were 'known commodities', the players that replaced them were not.
You don't have to look any farther back in time than last week. If teams 'always' went with history/known commodity then Brock Osweiler wouldn't of started over Manning last week, but he did.
Subsequently, to pretend that Dalton wasn't entering a 'make or break' year before the season started is revisionist history at best. Other than Cutler, I don't think there was a legitimate QB last off-season (and I use Cutler and legitimate together begrudgingly) who's impending fate was more debated than Andy Dalton's. So the 'no-brainer' argument, while true now, wasn't true just 5 short months ago when the season started.
In no circumstance whatsoever do I think McCarron should replace Dalton. But to pretend that it isn't a possibility, albeit a small possibility, would be ignorant.
