(09-03-2016, 01:25 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: 1. McCarron is young, he's a "name", he plays for a very good team that has a good history with QBs, and he was solid in his 3 regular season starts last year. He didn't hurt his team for the most part. That's what a good backup does. So when you consider all this, naturally his name is going to come up. I do think McCarron is a top tier backup. I just didn't see enough last year to lead me to believe he's going to be a good starter in this league, and I certainly don't think he's going to usurp Dalton.

I think some of the people (not you) who are so against trading him are just holding out hope that McCarron is some miracle sitting on the bench. Another Tom Brady waiting to happen. Just the vibe I get from some people here.

2. I would not agree with that statement, but I will say this: how much is an insurance policy actually worth if you don't have to cash it in? Dalton has missed 4 games in 5 seasons. He was also healthy through his time at TCU. So are people actually worried about losing Dalton, or do they just like having McCarron on the team because they really like McCarron?

3. The numbers you listed look good. No denying that. The offense clearly dropped off though. We have 4 straight games of evidence that it did. They never topped 300 yards with McCarron at the helm. I'd say that's to be expected from a backup though. He kept us in games and didn't kill us with mistakes. Not bashing the kid, just don't see anything that leads me to believe this team would have no drop off if we lose Dalton.

There's always going to be some drop off from a top notch starter to any type of backup, no matter who they are. That's why I liked the idea of trading McCarron (for a 2nd rounder+) and signing a Mark Sanchez. We're not likely to cash in that insurance policy, and even if we do, I don't see any backup leading this team like Dalton does. So as long as we have a good backup (I feel Sanchez qualifies), I don't care who it is.

Honestly though, this ship has already sailed, as we're only days away from the opener. Any new QB would have to learn a new system, so it's probably best to stick with McCarron this year. Next year is a different story though. With only 1 year remaining on his deal, I think it'd be pretty dumb not to at least listen to offers.

Agree with entire post. 

Like McCarron and glad to have him, another Duke Tobin diamond found.

But a fan at stadium next to me the other night actually said that McCarron was the best QB Bengals had and that we should trade Dalton now to get him in there pronto. 

Find this mentality absurd presently but believe there are many that secretly think as much. 

(09-03-2016, 01:25 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote:  how much is an insurance policy actually worth if you don't have to cash it in?

That's why I liked the idea of trading McCarron (for a 2nd rounder+) and signing a Mark Sanchez. We're not likely to cash in that insurance policy, and even if we do, I don't see any backup leading this team like Dalton does. So as long as we have a good backup (I feel Sanchez qualifies), I don't care who it is.

1.  The odds are very slim that your house will burn down.  So why keep your insurance?

2.  Sanchez sucks.  Just because he won a playoff game seven years ago does not mean he is good.  If Sanchez was anywhere near as good as McCarron then no team would trade for McCarron.  They would just sign Sanchez.

(09-05-2016, 11:41 AM)fredtoast Wrote: 1.  The odds are very slim that your house will burn down.  So why keep your insurance?

2.  Sanchez sucks.  Just because he won a playoff game seven years ago does not mean he is good.  If Sanchez was anywhere near as good as McCarron then no team would trade for McCarron.  They would just sign Sanchez.

1. As long as we have a solid backup, we'd be covered. Our policy doesn't have to be "AJ McCarron". If I can trade my home insurance policy for another solid policy and a new Dodge Challenger, I'm doing it.

2. Sanchez does not "suck". His rating over the last 2 years is 86.6 since you only count recent stuff. I'll have to remember this "the past doesn't matter" stuff for later. For a franchise that hasn't won a playoff game in 25 years and has won 5 playoff games in 50 years, I'd say a QB winning 5 playoff games 6-7 years ago is pretty relevant. Not sure why we should thumb our nose at that.

Btw, if Sanchez sucks so bad, why was he signed before his release was even made public? The Cowboys were so desperate to sign him that they risked tampering charges.

(09-05-2016, 12:02 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: 1. As long as we have a solid backup, we'd be covered. Our policy doesn't have to be "AJ McCarron". If I can trade my home insurance policy for another solid policy and a new Dodge Challenger, I'm doing it.

2. Sanchez does not "suck". His rating over the last 2 years is 86.6 since you only count recent stuff. I'll have to remember this "the past doesn't matter" stuff for later. For a franchise that hasn't won a playoff game in 25 years and has won 5 playoff games in 50 years, I'd say a QB winning 5 playoff games 6-7 years ago is pretty relevant. Not sure why we should thumb our nose at that.

Btw, if Sanchez sucks so bad, why was he signed before his release was even made public? The Cowboys were so desperate to sign him that they risked tampering charges.

Not to interject here but the better question is why was he cut in the first place? And lost out to a second year northwestern qb. 

(09-05-2016, 12:15 PM)Jpoore Wrote: Not to interject here but the better question is why was he cut in the first place? And lost out to a second year northwestern qb. 

Simple answer: Maybe they like what they've seen out of Trevor Siemian?

I mean, Siemian is starting over 1st round pick Paxton Lynch for now. That should tell you something.

Obviously Lynch is the future, but if the Broncos are confident enough in Siemian to let him start the season, maybe he's not as terrible as you think. Btw, the Broncos saved 3.5 million by cutting Sanchez and rolling with Siemian. If they plan on letting Lynch start at some point this year, why not save 3.5 mil and see what they have in Siemian?

(09-03-2016, 12:31 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Right. By bringing up Brady, these people aren't suggesting that something similar could happen with McCarron. Gotcha.

Of course something similar could happen; however, that is not the same as your claim that folks are calling AJ the next Brady. 
2 of the 4 posts you referenced were simply pointing out the irony in the OP when he said a backup is not going to beat Brady and the other 2 suggest a backup could win and provided examples. Nowhere did anyone compare AJ's talent to Brady or suggest he is the "next one".
We are lucky to have AJ as our backup and are a better team with him on it as opposed to a draft choice. Anything that the Bengals could get for AJ today, they can get the same this off-season. 

(09-05-2016, 11:41 AM)fredtoast Wrote: 1.  The odds are very slim that your house will burn down.  So why keep your insurance?

2.  Sanchez sucks.  Just because he won a playoff game seven years ago does not mean he is good.  If Sanchez was anywhere near as good as McCarron then no team would trade for McCarron.  They would just sign Sanchez.

Isn't that exactly what happened twice within the last 6 months?

(09-05-2016, 05:15 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Isn't that exactly what happened twice within the last 6 months?

You have no way of knowing if teams haven't approached the Bengals about McCarron.  The fact that Sanchez is on his second team this offseason should tell you that he was a reluctant choice by those teams.  I'd be willing to be that the Bengals have been approached by both the Cowboys and Vikings in regard to attaining AJ McCarron, in recent weeks.

(09-05-2016, 05:32 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: You have no way of knowing if teams haven't approached the Bengals about McCarron.  The fact that Sanchez is on his second team this offseason should tell you that he was a reluctant choice by those teams.  I'd be willing to be that the Bengals have been approached by both the Cowboys and Vikings in regard to attaining AJ McCarron, in recent weeks.

You hear when team's are interested in players. You hear about everything in this day and age. Hell, we even heard about Dalton losing his luggage, why wouldn't we hear if a team approached Mike Brown (who even said that he's willing to trade McCarron)?

(09-05-2016, 06:31 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: You hear when team's are interested in players. You hear about everything in this day and age. Hell, we even heard about Dalton losing his luggage, why wouldn't we hear if a team approached Mike Brown (who even said that he's willing to trade McCarron)?

Perhaps it was just phone calls, no official offers submitted or rejected.

(09-05-2016, 05:32 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: You have no way of knowing if teams haven't approached the Bengals about McCarron.  The fact that Sanchez is on his second team this offseason should tell you that he was a reluctant choice by those teams.  I'd be willing to be that the Bengals have been approached by both the Cowboys and Vikings in regard to attaining AJ McCarron, in recent weeks.

Perhaps the Broncos realize that Paxton Lynch will be starting sooner rather than later. They saved 3.5 million by cutting Sanchez and rolling with Siemian for those few games where Lynch is on the bench. The Cowboys promptly picked him up before his release was even announced, risking tampering charges in the process. I don't see how this proves Sanchez sucks...for a backup. Fwiw, Sam Bradford is on his 3rd team in a just over a year. These backup caliber/low level starting QBs tend to change teams quite a bit. It doesn't mean they suck (as backups or even short term starters). It just means that they're not viewed as a long term answer. I have a feeling that some day McCarron may be regarded similarly.

(09-05-2016, 07:19 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Perhaps the Broncos realize that Paxton Lynch will be starting sooner rather than later. They saved 3.5 million by cutting Sanchez and rolling with Siemian for those few games where Lynch is on the bench. The Cowboys promptly picked him up before his release was even announced, risking tampering charges in the process. I don't see how this proves Sanchez sucks...for a backup. Fwiw, Sam Bradford is on his 3rd team in a just over a year. These backup caliber/low level starting QBs tend to change QBs quite a bit. I have a feeling that some day McCarron may be regarded similarly.

I'm totally good with Broncos decision to roll with Siemian.  He was there all of last season, understudy to Manning and Osweiller, plus the coaching staff.  He's had his clipboard year, Northwestern guys are pretty smart to begin with.  They will be fine.  I'm sure that they only had Sanchez around as a last ditch backup plan.

I am, however, suggesting that the Cowboys and likely the Vikings placed a "friendly" feel out, phone call to the Bengals in regard to what it might take to attain AJ McCarron.

(09-05-2016, 07:25 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I'm totally good with Broncos decision to roll with Siemian.  He was there all of last season, understudy to Manning and Osweiller, plus the coaching staff.  He's had his clipboard year, Northwestern guys are pretty smart to begin with.  They will be fine.  I'm sure that they only had Sanchez around as a last ditch backup plan.

I am, however, suggesting that the Cowboys and likely the Vikings placed a "friendly" feel out, phone call to the Bengals in regard to what it might take to attain AJ McCarron.

Very possible. I agree with brownshoe that this kind of stuff usually gets leaked somehow, but if the Bengals made it known they weren't interested in dealing him, maybe the phone call(s) never got far enough to report anything interesting.

(09-05-2016, 07:35 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Very possible. I agree with brownshoe that this kind of stuff usually gets leaked somehow, but if the Bengals made it known they weren't interested in dealing him, maybe the phone call(s) never got far enough to report anything interesting.

I don't think that it's very far fetched for a scenario where Mike Zimmer might call Duke Tobing, on his personal cell phone, independent of the Vikings team, and ask "What are the chances of getting McCarron?".  If no one else knew, who the heck would tweet it? 

(09-05-2016, 06:31 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: You hear when team's are interested in players. You hear about everything in this day and age. Hell, we even heard about Dalton losing his luggage, why wouldn't we hear if a team approached Mike Brown (who even said that he's willing to trade McCarron)?

When was the first you heard about the Vikes interest in Bradford?

(09-05-2016, 07:41 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I don't think that it's very far fetched for a scenario where Mike Zimmer might call Duke Tobing, on his personal cell phone, independent of the Vikings team, and ask "What are the chances of getting McCarron?".  If no one else knew, who the heck would tweet it? 

Mike Brown already publicly said he's willing to trade McCarron this off-season.

(09-05-2016, 07:19 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Perhaps the Broncos realize that Paxton Lynch will be starting sooner rather than later. They saved 3.5 million by cutting Sanchez and rolling with Siemian for those few games where Lynch is on the bench. The Cowboys promptly picked him up before his release was even announced, risking tampering charges in the process. I don't see how this proves Sanchez sucks...for a backup. Fwiw, Sam Bradford is on his 3rd team in a just over a year. These backup caliber/low level starting QBs tend to change teams quite a bit. It doesn't mean they suck (as backups or even short term starters). It just means that they're not viewed as a long term answer. I have a feeling that some day McCarron may be regarded similarly.

They negotiated with him with the Broncos' permission.

(09-05-2016, 07:56 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Mike Brown already publicly said he's willing to trade McCarron this off-season.

He did, several days after the Bridgewater injury.  Plenty of time for calls of "inguiry" to have been fielded.

(09-05-2016, 07:58 PM)jfkbengals Wrote: They negotiated with him with the Broncos' permission.

Sorry, first time I've heard that. I believe you, but that's just what PFT was reporting earlier today - that the Cowboys possibly tampered.

(09-05-2016, 08:03 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Sorry, first time I've heard that. I believe you, but that's just what PFT was reporting earlier today - that the Cowboys possibly tampered.

They later had the article explaining they had permission.

I'll see if I can find it...