(01-16-2019, 08:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So you would rather pay a QB who is not as good as Dalton $78.5 million over 4 years instead of paying Dalton $33.9 over two?


Sorry, but I can't see any logic in that argument at all.

I'm just going to let you and Wyche talk among yourselves through the egg on your faces.

I get you both will work extra hard to hide it, but it's in plain view.

I would gladly pay a younger QB coming off his best year and playing with a terrible supporting cast (you know, the reason Andy always fails) $5 mil more over the next 2 years than an older QB coming off injury and has proven not to have "it" when the lights are brightest. 

If Carr didn't work out then his dead money in 2 years is only $2.5Mil and nothing in 3 years. 

You guys can keep talking to each other explaining how the money is anything other than a moot point, because I'm done with both of you on the subject. 

(01-16-2019, 07:50 PM)Wyche Wrote: This.  So why would you spend MORE money with a HUGE cap hit if you cut the guy, for a different version of the guy we have now...who is cheaper and has ZERO cap hit.....to be the bridge QB for a year or two?



Who's pimping anyone?  We're talking CASH FLOW.  Please pay attention.

Derek Carr is Andy Dalton with more checkdown tendencies.....for more money, and a bigger cap hit.  Not hard to see the lunacy in your thought process.  We get it, you didn't like Palmer, you don't like Dalton.  Is there a chance you're not a Bengals fan?

I don't see any benefit in adding Carr !

Why not just stay with Dalton until the new guy gets here for less money ?

(01-16-2019, 08:33 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: I don't see any benefit in adding Carr !

Why not just stay with Dalton until the new guy gets here for less money ?

Because Carr has put up passer ratings of 91 or higher 3 times in his young career while playing with an absolutely awful supporting cast. Andy has put up a passer rating over 91 only twice in his 8 year career.

Carr was sack 51 times last year. Do you have any idea how many statues we'd be building for Andy if he could take that pressure and have a passer rating of over 93?

As I mentioned earlier this trade would matter very little in terms of drafting a QB. If Carr worked out, great, if not we could turn to the younger guy in a couple years and either keep Carr or cut him for $2.5 Mil in dead cap.

All that said, the suggestion of trading for Carr was made in reply to someone suggesting Carr would be cut and I stated I'd be fine trading Andy for Derek. You've basically got two of the most vocal soldiers in Andy's Army saying it would be silly to trade for a younger Andy. While my assergtion is he's not another Andy; this kid has upside.

(01-16-2019, 08:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm just going to let you and Wyche talk among yourselves through the egg on your faces.

I get you both will work extra hard to hide it, but it's in plain view.

I would gladly pay a younger QB coming off his best year and playing with a terrible supporting cast (you know, the reason Andy always fails) $5 mil more over the next 2 years than an older QB coming off injury and has proven not to have "it" when the lights are brightest. 

If Carr didn't work out then his dead money in 2 years is only $2.5Mil and nothing in 3 years. 

You guys can keep talking to each other explaining how the money is anything other than a moot point, because I'm done with both of you on the subject. 

Egg on our faces??? LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


2.5 is still > 0 everywhere I've ever been!

(01-16-2019, 08:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Because Carr has put up passer ratings of 91 or higher 3 times in his young career while playing with an absolutely awful supporting cast. Andy has put up a passer rating over 91 only twice in his 8 year career.

Carr was sack 51 times last year. Do you have any idea how many statues we'd be building for Andy if he could take that pressure and have a passer rating of over 93?

As I mentioned earlier this trade would matter very little in terms of drafting a QB. If Carr worked out, great, if not we could turn to the younger guy in a couple years and either keep Carr or cut him for $2.5 Mil in dead cap.

All that said, the suggestion of trading for Carr was made in reply to someone suggesting Carr would be cut and I stated I'd be fine trading Andy for Derek. You've basically got two of the most vocal soldiers in Andy's Army saying it would be silly to trade for a younger Andy. While my assergtion is he's not another Andy; this kid has upside.

Awful supporting cast, like when they went 12-4?  Had Crabtree, Cooper, Murray, Richard, Cook, Beast Mode for the middle stretch. Those awful casts?  Yet, somehow, when the team actually WAS awful (as in Carr's first season, and then this one), that wasn't an excuse for your other favorite whipping boy, Palmer. 

(01-16-2019, 08:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Because Carr has put up passer ratings of 91 or higher 3 times in his young career while playing with an absolutely awful supporting cast. Andy has put up a passer rating over 91 only twice in his 8 year career.

Carr was sack 51 times last year. Do you have any idea how many statues we'd be building for Andy if he could take that pressure and have a passer rating of over 93?

As I mentioned earlier this trade would matter very little in terms of drafting a QB. If Carr worked out, great, if not we could turn to the younger guy in a couple years and either keep Carr or cut him for $2.5 Mil in dead cap.

All that said, the suggestion of trading for Carr was made in reply to someone suggesting Carr would be cut and I stated I'd be fine trading Andy for Derek. You've basically got two of the most vocal soldiers in Andy's Army saying it would be silly to trade for a younger Andy. While my assergtion is he's not another Andy; this kid has upside.

I get it, I just don't see that much upside.

(01-16-2019, 09:03 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: I get it, I just don't see that much upside.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained. But as I said the suggestion of trade was simply brought up because someone said OAK was thinking of cutting Derek. I'd happily give him a year or two to see what he can do with out supporting cast. 

(01-16-2019, 09:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nothing ventured, nothing gained. But as I said the suggestion of trade was simply brought up because someone said OAK was thinking of cutting Derek. I'd happily give him a year or two to see what he can do with out supporting cast. 

If he's being cut or were cut, then his current salary isn't important at all. Just let him clear waivers and sign him to a prove it deal while letting Oakland eat his contract money. Then salary doesn't mean anything at all except for the prove it deal.

(01-16-2019, 08:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Because Carr has put up passer ratings of 91 or higher 3 times in his young career while playing with an absolutely awful supporting cast. Andy has put up a passer rating over 91 only twice in his 8 year career.

Carr was sack 51 times last year. Do you have any idea how many statues we'd be building for Andy if he could take that pressure and have a passer rating of over 93?

As I mentioned earlier this trade would matter very little in terms of drafting a QB. If Carr worked out, great, if not we could turn to the younger guy in a couple years and either keep Carr or cut him for $2.5 Mil in dead cap.

All that said, the suggestion of trading for Carr was made in reply to someone suggesting Carr would be cut and I stated I'd be fine trading Andy for Derek. You've basically got two of the most vocal soldiers in Andy's Army saying it would be silly to trade for a younger Andy. While my assergtion is he's not another Andy; this kid has upside.

love that word it is so close to the word Potential which means Have Not Done Shit Yet...  

(01-16-2019, 08:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I would gladly pay a younger QB coming off his best year 

How do you figure? Carr had a higher QB rating in 2016 and he threw the lowest amount of TDs ever in his career (fewer than his rookie season even), not to mention it was the 2nd worst won/loss record of his career.

(01-16-2019, 08:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Because Carr has put up passer ratings of 91 or higher 3 times in his young career while playing with an absolutely awful supporting cast. Andy has put up a passer rating over 91 only twice in his 8 year career.

And yet, their career QB ratings are exactly the same: 88.8

Speaking of arbitrary QB rating benchmarks: Andy has put up a passer rating over 87 five times in his 8 year career. Carr only thrice. Also, Dalton has never had a season QB rating less than 80. Carr has.

And yet, again, their career QB ratings are exactly the same: 88.8.

(01-16-2019, 08:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Carr was sack 51 times last year. Do you have any idea how many statues we'd be building for Andy if he could take that pressure and have a passer rating of over 93?

Well, in 2016, Dalton was sacked 41 times and had a passer rating of 91.8. How many statues were built? Also, could you link me your posts praising Dalton for doing this feat seeing as how you find it so remarkable? Thanks.

(01-17-2019, 01:25 AM)Essex Johnson Wrote: love that word it is so close to the word Potential which means Have Not Done Shit Yet...  

As opposed to our current QB?

(01-17-2019, 12:44 PM)PhilHos Wrote: And yet, their career QB ratings are exactly the same: 88.8

Speaking of arbitrary QB rating benchmarks: Andy has put up a passer rating over 87 five times in his 8 year career. Carr only thrice. Also, Dalton has never had a season QB rating less than 80. Carr has.

And yet, again, their career QB ratings are exactly the same: 88.8.


Well, in 2016, Dalton was sacked 41 times and had a passer rating of 91.8. How many statues were built? Also, could you link me your posts praising Dalton for doing this feat seeing as how you find it so remarkable? Thanks.

So he was sacked fewer times and had a worse QB rating, but it's "the same"

Insert gif provided for Wyche.

(01-16-2019, 08:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Carr was sack 51 times last year. Do you have any idea how many statues we'd be building for Andy if he could take that pressure and have a passer rating of over 93?

Carr has posted a 88.8 passer rating while getting sacked 142 times.

Over the same period of time Dalton has posted a passer rating of 90.6 while getting sacked 173 times (in 177 FEWER attempts)

So where are these statues you are talking about?

(01-17-2019, 05:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So he was sacked fewer times and had a worse QB rating, but it's "the same"

Says the guy who thinks a guy with an 88.8 career QB rating is "better" than a guy with a career 88.8 career QB rating. 

(01-17-2019, 05:10 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Says the guy who thinks a guy with an 88.8 career QB rating is "better" than a guy with a career 88.8 career QB rating. 

And the "better" guy fumbles twice as often and has 1/11th as many rushing tds.

(01-17-2019, 05:10 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Says the guy who thinks a guy with an 88.8 career QB rating is "better" than a guy with a career 88.8 career QB rating. 

Said he was younger (more upside). Where did I say he was better?  

(01-17-2019, 05:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Said he was younger (more upside). 

Oh, I forgot that Carr is practically still a rookie.  It always takes six years to see how good a QB can be.

(01-17-2019, 04:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As opposed to our current QB?

The point is dalton is a proven veteran that we have and can continue to win with so no 

(01-17-2019, 05:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Said he was younger (more upside). Where did I say he was better?  

Here:

(01-16-2019, 08:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Because Carr has put up passer ratings of 91 or higher 3 times in his young career while playing with an absolutely awful supporting cast. Andy has put up a passer rating over 91 only twice in his 8 year career.

And here:

(01-16-2019, 07:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: it's telling that you bring up Dalton's best year that happened 4 years ago and hasn't come close to those numbers since; yet Carr just put up a career best season and posted a QB rating Andy have only beaten once in his live and that was about a 1/2 decade ago.

 (which isn't accurate considering Carr had a better rating in '16 and better stats in other years, too)

There are probably more but I'm not going back through the whole thread.