Backup QBs do matter if you want to win a Super Bowl and your starting QB goes down. Here's 4 examples:

1. Brady won it after coming in for Bledsoe. We all know that one.
2. Kurt Warner came in for Trent Green after Green was lost for the year and Warner took Saint Louis to the promised land. Most know about this one.
3. Last year when Manning went down, the Oswelier dude played pretty well and kept Denver in the hunt and even started in some of the playoffs. Say what you will about their defense, I assure one and all that if a sucky QB came in and played, they'd have not done nearly as well and certainly wouldn't have had home field advantage.
4. Here's one you may not know or remember. The undefeated 1972 Dolphins lost Bob Griese to a broken ankle in game 5 and backup QB Earl Morrall started at QB all the way through the AFC Championship game. Griese played the second half of the AFC Championship game and started in the Super Bowl.

Now consider all those teams who just tank when they lose a QB.

Who would you rather the Bengals be?

And it just doesn't make any sense to trade him for a pick when we'll just have to turn around and use a pick to draft his replacement, who will need to be trained and groomed in the system. I'm not even sure it would be smart to trade him this off season for anything less than a 1st round pick in the 2017 draft. But that would only be after he's filled his duties for the Bengals "this year".

McCarron doesn't have to be Brady or Warner. But if he's as good as Oswelier was he'll due for our purposes.

(09-02-2016, 11:46 PM)Nately120 Wrote: According to that logic any starting QB in the NFL played well enough in 2015 to get "us" into the Super Bowl.

Our backup was good enough to get us into the Super Bowl. He mattered. 

(09-03-2016, 01:42 AM)Utts Wrote: Our backup was good enough to get us into the Super Bowl. He mattered. 

Wow, we won the Super Bowl? I didn't realize that happened. I thought we lost the playoff game because we couldn't score enough points.

(09-03-2016, 02:02 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Wow, we won the Super Bowl? I didn't realize that happened. I thought we lost the playoff game because we couldn't score enough points.

We lost a lead with less than 2 minutes left because of a defensive meltdown.

(09-03-2016, 01:42 AM)Utts Wrote: Our backup was good enough to get us into the Super Bowl. He mattered. 

I'm not sure about a Super Bowl, but it sure could have been worse. Helped us clinch the playoff spot that much is for sure and the players respond to him.

Some people just hate him because of the ribbing Dalton took after his 2014 sub-average year, and there was McCarron with two national championships looking over Dalton's shoulder.

(09-02-2016, 03:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Wrong again

http://www.behindthesteelcurtain.com/nfl-pittsburgh-steelers-news/2015/10/27/9621076/steelers-qb-landry-jones-supplants-mike-vick-as-no-2-qb-on-depth-chart

"Landry Jones' performance the past two weeks has proven to be enough for the team to list him as the No. 2 quarterback on the team's depth chart, ahead of Mike Vick.

This shouldn't come as a shock to anyone with the ability to watch football. Jones has outplayed Vick in every possible sense of the term, but more importantly, Jones has gained the trust of the coaching staff to the point where he would be the "next man up" if Roethlisberger were to be lost again for any amount of time."




Vick sucks.  Sanchez sucks.  People who watch football know this.  The only people who would take either of those guys over McCarron are the ones who just look at names they recognize from years ago.

Landry Jones only had 1 full game and he went 209 yards, 55% completion, 1 TD, 2 INTs, 60.8 rating. The full 2 games Vick played he averaged 192 yards, 61.5% completion, 1 TD, .5 INTs, 84.3 rating. Yeah that's outplaying Vick so much. You can bring up the Cardinals game, but don't forget about that 5 yard pass Jones had that Bryant took for 88 yards and a TD, which was half of Jones stat line for that game.

(09-03-2016, 02:08 AM)fredtoast Wrote: We lost a lead with less than 2 minutes left because of a defensive meltdown.

We got the lead in the 4th quarter because the defense put the offense in scoring position 2 out of the 3 drives that gave us the lead. If we had any type of offense we would have smoked the Steelers. The offense scored 0 points the first 3 quarters. We couldn't pass against the 29th rated pass defense, and the defense was stopping one of the best offenses in the league. You have to put in perspective how we got the lead, and we got it despite our QB play.

(09-03-2016, 02:21 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Landry Jones only had 1 full game and he went 209 yards, 55% completion, 1 TD, 2 INTs, 60.8 rating. The full 2 games Vick played he averaged 192 yards, 61.5% completion, 1 TD, .5 INTs, 84.3 rating. Yeah that's outplaying Vick so much. You can bring up the Cardinals game, but don't forget about that 5 yard pass Jones had that Bryant took for 88 yards and a TD, which was half of Jones stat line for that game.

You have forgotten the original point.

Both Vick and Jones suck when compared to McCarron.

I don't care which one sucks more.  Anyone claiming either Jones or Vick would give us just as good of a chance at winning as McCarron is just wrong.

(09-03-2016, 02:24 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: We got the lead in the 4th quarter because the defense put the offense in scoring position 2 out of the 3 drives that gave us the lead. If we had any type of offense we would have smoked the Steelers. The offense scored 0 points the first 3 quarters. We couldn't pass against the 29th rated pass defense, and the defense was stopping one of the best offenses in the league. You have to put in perspective how we got the lead, and we got it despite our QB play.

All I know is we were ahead with less than 2 minutes left and the Steelers had the ball on their own 10 yard line with a crippled QB.

(09-03-2016, 02:25 AM)fredtoast Wrote: You have forgotten the original point.

Both Vick and Jones suck when compared to McCarron.

I don't care which one sucks more.  Anyone claiming either Jones or Vick would give us just as good of a chance at winning as McCarron is just wrong.

Yeah, because McCarron did much better? lol, he didn't. The fact that he had trouble scoring any points unless the defense put him on the opponents side of the field (which happened in pretty much every game he was in) and him having a extremely bad 3rd down conversion rate, a lot of which were 3 and outs show that McCarron didn't play that much better, if any better than what Jones and Vick did.

(09-03-2016, 02:29 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Yeah, because McCarron did much better? lol, he didn't. The fact that he had trouble scoring any points unless the defense put him on the opponents side of the field (which happened in pretty much every game he was in) and him having a extremely bad 3rd down conversion rate, a lot of which were 3 and outs show that McCarron didn't play that much better, if any better than what Jones and Vick did.

There comes a time when folks should just stop posting before everybody realizes that he or she is not objective.

You crossed that threshold about 3 pages ago.

(09-03-2016, 02:28 AM)fredtoast Wrote: All I know is we were ahead with less than 2 minutes left and the Steelers had the ball on their own 10 yard line with a crippled QB.

That's because the defense made it all happened. The defense put the offense in scoring positions to come back into the game. The defense held the opposing offense (which was one of the best in the league) to only 18 points. The defense gave our offense chance after chance after chance to score on the 29th rated pass defense, and we couldn't for the first 3 quarters until the defense gave the offense amazing field position. The offense under McCarron was horrible. The only way we could get a drive moving was if the RBs went off or we got a penalty to keep the drive going. If you look at the reason why we were ahead with less than 2 minutes left was because the defense carried the whole team, and to deny that would be insane.

(09-03-2016, 02:33 AM)bfine32 Wrote: There comes a time when folks should just stop posting before everybody realizes that he or she is not objective.

You crossed that threshold about 3 pages ago.

And you can't say why I'm wrong. Very objective of you. I'm saying what actually happened in the games.

(09-03-2016, 02:29 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: The fact that he had trouble scoring any points unless the defense put him on the opponents side of the field (which happened in pretty much every game he was in) 

Only one third of Bengals scoring drives (6 of 18) with McCarron at QB started in the opponents side of the field.  Half of those scoring drives covered over 62 yards, 8 were at least 70 yards, and 5 were over 80 yards. 

(09-03-2016, 02:29 AM)Brownshoe Wrote:  and him having a extremely bad 3rd down conversion rate, 

On pass plays on third down McCarron converted 36% for first down (14 of 39).  That is exactly the same as the league average (1966 of 5434)

(09-03-2016, 02:29 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: show that McCarron didn't play that much better, if any better than what Jones and Vick did.

Vick and Jones combined to convert only 9 of 45 third downs on passing plays. That is only 20%


You have no clue what you are talking about.

(09-03-2016, 03:54 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Only one third of Bengals scoring drives (6 of 18) with McCarron at QB started in the opponents side of the field.  Half of those scoring drives covered over 62 yards, 8 were at least 70 yards, and 5 were over 80 yards. 

6 of the scoring drives that started on the Bengals side of the field were field goals. 6 out of the 18 scoring drives were TDs on the Bengals side of the field. Every other time we either had to kick a field goal or we got a TD from short field distance when we scored. Plus that's even ignoring the times we got the ball close to the 50 yard line, but still on the Bengals side.

(09-03-2016, 04:17 AM)fredtoast Wrote: On pass plays on third down McCarron converted 36% for first down (14 of 39).  That is exactly the same as the league average (1966 of 5434)



Vick and Jones combined to convert only 9 of 45 third downs on passing plays. That is only 20%


You have no clue what you are talking about.

You have to do passing first downs, because you know that there were multiple times where McCarron had 3rd and forever and they did a HB draw to gain field position. If you did the actual first down % of both then they would be MUCH closer. Plus Vick had 4 first downs from his legs that you're forgetting about. Nice little spin on those stats.

(09-03-2016, 04:20 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: 6 of the scoring drives that started on the Bengals side of the field were field goals. 6 out of the 18 scoring drives were TDs on the Bengals side of the field. Every other time we either had to kick a field goal or we got a TD from short field distance when we scored. Plus that's even ignoring the times we got the ball close to the 50 yard line, but still on the Bengals side.

He had five td drives of 80+ yards in 4 regular season games, and only a third of our scoring drives started on the other teams side of the field.

Give it up.  You were wrong when you said he struggled to score unless he got the ball on the other teams side of the field.

(09-03-2016, 04:29 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Plus Vick had 4 first downs from his legs that you're forgetting about. Nice little spin on those stats.

Vick converted 2 first downs on 5 third down runs.  McCarron converted 1 first down on 3 third down runs.

But throwing the ball Vick only converted 4 first downs on 30 third downs for a ridiculously horrible 13% while McCarron converted 36%.

(09-03-2016, 04:29 AM)fredtoast Wrote: He had five td drives of 80+ yards in 4 regular season games, and only a third of our scoring drives started on the other teams side of the field.

Give it up.  You were wrong when you said he struggled to score unless he got the ball on the other teams side of the field.

Only 5 TD drives of 80+ yards in 4 regular season games is pretty sad especially when those 5 aren't just passing TDs. Only 1/3rd of your scoring drives are TDs that started on your side of the field is struggling. If you looked at any other starter it would be extremely rare to find one that scores 1/2 of his TD drives from his side of the field. That is pretty much the definition of struggling to score unless he has the ball on the other teams side of the field.

(09-03-2016, 04:35 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Vick converted 2 first downs on 5 third down runs.  McCarron converted 1 first down on 3 third down runs.

But throwing the ball Vick only converted 4 first downs on 30 third downs for a ridiculously horrible 13% while McCarron converted 36%.

If Vick only converted 4 first downs on 30 third down then Landry Jones had about the same 3rd down conversion rate as McCarron.