+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (https://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Cincinnati Bengals / NFL (https://thebengalsboard.com/forum-3.html)
+--- Forum: JUNGLE NOISE (https://thebengalsboard.com/forum-2.html)
+--- Thread: NFL.com "AJ McCarron a better trade target than Garoppolo?" (/thread-10082.html)
RE: NFL.com "AJ McCarron a better trade target than Garoppolo?" - leonardfan40 - 02-19-2017
(02-19-2017, 01:16 PM)SHRacerX Wrote: You can look at it that way, but I can also say that if Nugent doesn't miss a FG that would have put the Bengals up 17 on the road, in Denver, that the Bengals win that game (that goes to OT) and get the #1 seed in the playoffs.
Consider the dropoff. We all keep talking about Andy's pending death due to the offensive line woes (although I think they will address it and I am not as much Chicken Little as some), but if Dalton goes down, I think the Bengals could still win with McCarron. Driskell? Uh, not so much...
If Andy goes down because of our poor o line play then our backup QB doesn't matter because we will be back on our way to another sub .500 season.
RE: NFL.com "AJ McCarron a better trade target than Garoppolo?" - SunsetBengal - 02-19-2017
(02-19-2017, 02:32 PM)J24 Wrote: There is no such thing as too many picks.
Yeah, sure there's not..
RE: NFL.com "AJ McCarron a better trade target than Garoppolo?" - SHRacerX - 02-19-2017
(02-19-2017, 03:14 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: That Denver game they started playing man coverage, and McCarron tore them up, and as soon as they switched to zone, he didn't reach 6 yards per attempt the rest of the year.
We all keep talking about Andy's pending death due to offensive line woes, true. But also recall Dalton has one of the top two quickest release times in the NFL last I knew. Meanwhile McCarron took 15 sacks in just under 5 games behind an OL that only gave up 20 in the previous 12-and-change games. McCarron would have taken 100+ sacks (if he survived that long) behind the 2016 OL.
He can't read (as of last we saw) zone defenses, he is slow to get rid of the ball, and he gets happy feet with running it despite clearly not having the ability to do so (19 rushes for 40 yards). If Dalton goes down, the team is screwed. That goes double if the OL isn't improved over last season. Regardless McCarron or Driskell.
I don't think McCarron puts up the numbers that he did in his very minimal opportunities (thrust in, mind you, without getting all the reps in practice, etc) without being able to read a zone defense. I give him more credit than that I wouldn't lump him in with Driskell.
RE: NFL.com "AJ McCarron a better trade target than Garoppolo?" - SHRacerX - 02-19-2017
(02-19-2017, 05:42 PM)leonardfan40 Wrote: If Andy goes down because of our poor o line play then our backup QB doesn't matter because we will be back on our way to another sub .500 season.
Not necessarily. Andy could take 100 shots and be fine. He could also take 1 bad shot and be out...that is the nature of the NFL. I would feel a lot better with McCarron backing him up and wouldn't give up that security for anything less than a VERY high second rounder. That's just me.
RE: NFL.com "AJ McCarron a better trade target than Garoppolo?" - leonardfan40 - 02-19-2017
(02-19-2017, 07:58 PM)SHRacerX Wrote: Not necessarily. Andy could take 100 shots and be fine. He could also take 1 bad shot and be out...that is the nature of the NFL. I would feel a lot better with McCarron backing him up and wouldn't give up that security for anything less than a VERY high second rounder. That's just me.
I didn't say if he goes down, I said if he goes down because our o line is terrible. That is true, Tom Brady could be our backup and it wouldn't matter if our o line is still terrible
RE: NFL.com "AJ McCarron a better trade target than Garoppolo?" - Joelist - 02-19-2017
(02-19-2017, 03:14 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: That Denver game they started playing man coverage, and McCarron tore them up, and as soon as they switched to zone, he didn't reach 6 yards per attempt the rest of the year.
We all keep talking about Andy's pending death due to offensive line woes, true. But also recall Dalton has one of the top two quickest release times in the NFL last I knew. Meanwhile McCarron took 15 sacks in just under 5 games behind an OL that only gave up 20 in the previous 12-and-change games. McCarron would have taken 100+ sacks (if he survived that long) behind the 2016 OL.
He can't read (as of last we saw) zone defenses, he is slow to get rid of the ball, and he gets happy feet with running it despite clearly not having the ability to do so (19 rushes for 40 yards). If Dalton goes down, the team is screwed. That goes double if the OL isn't improved over last season. Regardless McCarron or Driskell.
And this is why we've gotten no offers for him (remember the myth of offers for McCarron was debunked a couple of weeks ago). He held on to the ball too long and showed zero ability to read zones. If they expect to get offers for him they would have to show he can read zones and get rid of the ball quicker - which would mean playing him in games. No thanks.
RE: NFL.com "AJ McCarron a better trade target than Garoppolo?" - Housh - 02-19-2017
(02-19-2017, 12:19 PM)guyofthetiger Wrote: Mikey will keep him as the backup QB this year. Just watch. He wants insurance if Dalton goes down.
Not a bad play in my book unless hes an UFA after next season
If that's the case then youd have to be dumb as hell to turn down a deal with a 2nd involved. Basically getting a 2nd round pick for nothing
RE: NFL.com "AJ McCarron a better trade target than Garoppolo?" - Murdock2420 - 02-19-2017
(02-19-2017, 12:27 PM)SHRacerX Wrote: That's a really good point. A player trade and a conditional pick in 2018? Something to that effect could be very nice, but player trades rarely happen in the NFL....although one of the best trades the Bengals ever made was for Deltha O'Neal.
Reggie Nelson comes to mind as well. Perhaps the Bengals could turn McCarron into that next gem.
RE: NFL.com "AJ McCarron a better trade target than Garoppolo?" - eoxyod - 02-20-2017
If a starting QB goes down, that team is screwed 99.99999% of the team in regards to future success for that season. Backup QBs are valuable only in the sense of very stupid front office people, like the ones that will be fired who are quoted in this article, trading picks to get them. If the Bengals are offered a 2nd round pick, they will have maximized their value for him rather than watching him sit on the bench.
RE: NFL.com "AJ McCarron a better trade target than Garoppolo?" - Au165 - 02-20-2017
(02-20-2017, 02:55 AM)eoxyod Wrote: If a starting QB goes down, that team is screwed 99.99999% of the team in regards to future success for that season. Backup QBs are valuable only in the sense of very stupid front office people, like the ones that will be fired who are quoted in this article, trading picks to get them. If the Bengals are offered a 2nd round pick, they will have maximized their value for him rather than watching him sit on the bench.
This. You don't plan for your franchise QB to go down, because if he does your not winning a Super Bowl and that is the goal. The pick that back up QB could bring you though may help you reach that goal.
RE: NFL.com "AJ McCarron a better trade target than Garoppolo?" - SHRacerX - 02-20-2017
(02-20-2017, 02:55 AM)eoxyod Wrote: If a starting QB goes down, that team is screwed 99.99999% of the team in regards to future success for that season. Backup QBs are valuable only in the sense of very stupid front office people, like the ones that will be fired who are quoted in this article, trading picks to get them. If the Bengals are offered a 2nd round pick, they will have maximized their value for him rather than watching him sit on the bench.
Don't tell that to Tom Brady, Kurt Warner, and Jeff Hostettler....
RE: NFL.com "AJ McCarron a better trade target than Garoppolo?" - Au165 - 02-20-2017
(02-20-2017, 10:30 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: Don't tell that to Tom Brady, Kurt Warner, and Jeff Hostettler....
We could tell that to every other team who ever lost a starting QB though and won nothing (Meaning 99% of them),right? That is like saying you are better off drafting a QB late because he could be Tom Brady! You don't plan to be the exception, you accept reality and know this team even with Andy probably isn't good enough to win a SB so we need that pick to make the team Andy plays on better.
RE: NFL.com "AJ McCarron a better trade target than Garoppolo?" - SHRacerX - 02-20-2017
(02-20-2017, 10:32 AM)Au165 Wrote: We could tell that to every other team who ever lost a starting QB though and won nothing (Meaning 99% of them),right? That is like saying you are better off drafting a QB late because he could be Tom Brady! You don't plan to be the exception, you accept reality and know this team even with Andy probably isn't good enough to win a SB so we need that pick to make the team Andy plays on better.
Those three teams won Super Bowls BECAUSE they had a capable backup. And that is 3 teams in the past 30 years that had that situation, and only counting one of Brady's titles.
Your statement about drafting a QB late because he could be Tom Brady is just nonsense. The Pats drafted and developed him. He wasn't much more than a game manager that first Super Bowl, but he developed over time.
Saying this team would have no chance if Dalton went down isn't accurate. They had putzburg beat two years ago with their backup QB. That putzburg team was capable of winning the Super Bowl and very well might have if not for a costly fumble (which I was very thankful for).
Factor in that if McCarron goes elsewhere after his FA period is up and signs a decent contract, he will likely be a third round compesatory pick. Why give him away for anything close to that when he provides security as a backup?
This will be very interesting to see what teams are willing to offer up for him. I still think he would make a perfect NY Jet.
RE: NFL.com "AJ McCarron a better trade target than Garoppolo?" - ochocincos - 02-20-2017
(02-19-2017, 10:02 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: The Bengals already have enough picks for this year's draft. I'd be happy if they traded McCarron for future picks, or even a straight up swap for another promising young player such as OL, DL or LB.
Or trade up some of those late round picks to get an extra pick in rounds 1-4. I'm not liking the 5th round or later in terms of prospects this year except to address kicker. Of course there will be talent that "falls", but still.
RE: NFL.com "AJ McCarron a better trade target than Garoppolo?" - Au165 - 02-20-2017
(02-20-2017, 10:44 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: Those three teams won Super Bowls BECAUSE they had a capable backup. And that is 3 teams in the past 30 years that had that situation, and only counting one of Brady's titles.
Your statement about drafting a QB late because he could be Tom Brady is just nonsense. The Pats drafted and developed him. He wasn't much more than a game manager that first Super Bowl, but he developed over time.
Saying this team would have no chance if Dalton went down isn't accurate. They had putzburg beat two years ago with their backup QB. That putzburg team was capable of winning the Super Bowl and very well might have if not for a costly fumble (which I was very thankful for).
Factor in that if McCarron goes elsewhere after his FA period is up and signs a decent contract, he will likely be a third round compesatory pick. Why give him away for anything close to that when he provides security as a backup?
This will be very interesting to see what teams are willing to offer up for him. I still think he would make a perfect NY Jet.
3 in 30 years are not good enough odds to bank on. We aren't good enough to win right now with our starter, so a capable back up does 0 for us. You point to pittsburgh, but they didn't win so what does that mean? We beat Pittsburgh then lose to Denver instead (who already beat us with McCaron), still doesn't mean we get a SB. We need more pieces, that the back up can get us. If you wait until you can use the compensatory/tender pick your looking at a team a couple years older and further from their prime.
I simply think a back up QB on a team not good enough to win now is a wasted Luxury.
RE: NFL.com "AJ McCarron a better trade target than Garoppolo?" - leonardfan40 - 02-20-2017
(02-20-2017, 11:15 AM)Au165 Wrote: 3 in 30 years are not good enough odds to bank on. We aren't good enough to win right now with our starter, so a capable back up does 0 for us. You point to pittsburgh, but they didn't win so what does that mean? We beat Pittsburgh then lose to Denver instead (who already beat us with McCaron), still doesn't mean we get a SB. We need more pieces, that the back up can get us. If you wait until you can use the compensatory/tender pick your looking at a team a couple years older and further from their prime.
I simply think a back up QB on a team not good enough to win now is a wasted Luxury.
Exactly, and if people are worried about the number of picks we have we can always trade later round picks for future year picks. Or use them to move up in the draft. This team could definitely use an extra pick in the first 3 rounds though
RE: NFL.com "AJ McCarron a better trade target than Garoppolo?" - SHRacerX - 02-20-2017
(02-20-2017, 11:15 AM)Au165 Wrote: 3 in 30 years are not good enough odds to bank on. We aren't good enough to win right now with our starter, so a capable back up does 0 for us. You point to pittsburgh, but they didn't win so what does that mean? We beat Pittsburgh then lose to Denver instead (who already beat us with McCaron), still doesn't mean we get a SB. We need more pieces, that the back up can get us. If you wait until you can use the compensatory/tender pick your looking at a team a couple years older and further from their prime.
I simply think a back up QB on a team not good enough to win now is a wasted Luxury.
Ok, we will have to agree to disagree.
I will ask you this: if backup QBs are so pointless, why didn't New England trade Garappolo last year, when some team would still have his rights for one year on the relative cheap? I'm sure there would have been a number of teams that would have made a good offer.
The difference is you see our team as "not good enough to win with our starter", but I think last year was a comedy of errors and not the core of this team. Nugent cost them three games all by himself....Ced O staying out there lost another 3, minimum. I still remember the 8-0 team from a year ago and what Dalton looked like before his injury.
Get a FA like Pryor, have a healthy AJ and Eifert, and draft a solid G to replace Zeitler and I think this team will be in the running again. If you don't believe that, fine, but either way I think a solid backup QB is better than a 3rd round pick...as I have stated before, I would trade him, but not for less than a very early 2nd rounder.
RE: NFL.com "AJ McCarron a better trade target than Garoppolo?" - Au165 - 02-20-2017
(02-20-2017, 12:25 PM)SHRacerX Wrote: Ok, we will have to agree to disagree.
I will ask you this: if backup QBs are so pointless, why didn't New England trade Garappolo last year, when some team would still have his rights for one year on the relative cheap? I'm sure there would have been a number of teams that would have made a good offer.
...because they knew going into the year Brady was missing the first 4 weeks.
RE: NFL.com "AJ McCarron a better trade target than Garoppolo?" - eoxyod - 02-20-2017
(02-20-2017, 12:33 PM)Au165 Wrote: ...because they knew going into the year Brady was missing the first 4 weeks.
This, plus him playing those weeks will give the Pats more value than they could ever reach. The Pats realize they aren't winning without Brady. They might make the playoffs but they aren't going further. So the Pats will get whatever maximum value for GOATaropolo they can, unless the value given to them isn't worth what Jimmy might be worth
RE: NFL.com "AJ McCarron a better trade target than Garoppolo?" - TheLeonardLeap - 02-20-2017
(02-20-2017, 12:56 PM)eoxyod Wrote: This, plus him playing those weeks will give the Pats more value than they could ever reach. The Pats realize they aren't winning without Brady. They might make the playoffs but they aren't going further. So the Pats will get whatever maximum value for GOATaropolo they can, unless the value given to them isn't worth what Jimmy might be worth
Yup, people remember Brady going down and Cassel doing really well, but what people don't remember is they didn't even make the playoffs that year. In fact the only year the Patriots missed the playoffs in the last 14 years is the year Brady went down.
EDIT: They actually went from 16-0 and a SB loss the year before, to missing the playoffs entirely without Brady.