+- 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: Browns wanted McCarron and were close (/thread-13242.html)
RE: Browns wanted McCarron and were close - CageTheBengal - 10-31-2017
(10-31-2017, 08:49 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Yup. I couldn't give 2 shits about a couple draft picks next year.
Are you a drama queen or just naive about how draft picks help NFL teams?
RE: Browns wanted McCarron and were close - jfkbengals - 10-31-2017
So Mary Kay Cabot is saying we were the ones who effed up
RE: Browns wanted McCarron and were close - rfaulk34 - 10-31-2017
(10-31-2017, 08:55 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: Are you a drama queen or just naive about how draft picks help NFL teams?
I'm a drama queen.
RE: Browns wanted McCarron and were close - RoyleRedlegs - 10-31-2017
(10-31-2017, 08:55 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: How many of our 2nd and 3rd round players have become pro-bowlers? Seriously. List them all off and show me. This team isn't a couple Jeremy Hill's or Tyler Boyd's away...and those are some of our better picks. I have zero faith in Paul Alexander to pick a good lineman after his recent history.
So losing a guy for nothing is better than something?
That's just weird logic man.
McCarron is bad. We know this.
We could have got the first pick in rd2 and rd 3.
Those are PRIME fodder to move up in the first too.
This trade failing could set this franchise back a lot. (you know, relatively to how far they set themselves back anyways)
RE: Browns wanted McCarron and were close - Go Cards - 10-31-2017
Bengals and Browns McCarron trade debacle.
Can't even make this stuff up. Head scratcher.
RE: Browns wanted McCarron and were close - CageTheBengal - 10-31-2017
(10-31-2017, 08:57 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: I'm a drama queen.
It's evident.
RE: Browns wanted McCarron and were close - Go Cards - 10-31-2017
Know what Shake is saying about needing immediate OL help.
But put me down for would have loved to have seen this deal done.
RE: Browns wanted McCarron and were close - rfaulk34 - 10-31-2017
(10-31-2017, 08:59 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: It's evident.
Evident that there's no real reason to believe they will get any kind of game changer with either of those picks?
You are correct.
Hmmm. Maybe you are the naive one.
RE: Browns wanted McCarron and were close - CageTheBengal - 10-31-2017
(10-31-2017, 08:57 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: So losing a guy for nothing is better than something?
That's just weird logic man.
McCarron is bad. We know this.
We could have got the first pick in rd2 and rd 3.
Those are PRIME fodder to move up in the first too.
This trade failing could set this franchise back a lot. (you know, relatively to how far they set themselves back anyways)
Stop being a buzzkill and let them rant without logic.
It's bad enough we can't blame Mike Brown.
RE: Browns wanted McCarron and were close - RoyleRedlegs - 10-31-2017
(10-31-2017, 09:01 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Evident that there's no real reason to believe they will get any kind of game changer with either of those picks?
You are correct.
Hmmm. Maybe you are the naive one.
What good is McCarron on the roster then?
Something > Nothing
RE: Browns wanted McCarron and were close - reuben.ahmed - 10-31-2017
(10-31-2017, 09:01 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Evident that there's no real reason to believe they will get any kind of game changer with either of those picks?
You are correct.
Hmmm. Maybe you are the naive one.
"But, But, Tom Brady!!"
I don't know, I think a 2nd and 3rd rounder can have an impact. Maybe more of an impact than a backup QB that will never see the field.
RE: Browns wanted McCarron and were close - rfaulk34 - 10-31-2017
(10-31-2017, 08:57 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: So losing a guy for nothing is better than something?
That's just weird logic man.
McCarron is bad. We know this.
We could have got the first pick in rd2 and rd 3.
Those are PRIME fodder to move up in the first too.
This trade failing could set this franchise back a lot. (you know, relatively to how far they set themselves back anyways)
That's assuming it was their pick in rd2 and not one they acquired from the Eagles or Texans.
Would you trade the 1st pick in rd2 (essentially an extended 1)?
I find it highly doubtful.
RE: Browns wanted McCarron and were close - rfaulk34 - 10-31-2017
(10-31-2017, 09:06 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: What good is McCarron on the roster then?
Something > Nothing
Something is better than nothing, yes. I would stack that in the category of those that think winning in the regular season is ok, even without playoff wins.
Go back and check the Bengals 2 and 3 rd picks from the last 7 drafts--not counting 2017--and tell me how many average to above average (what you should get, at least in rd 2) players they have from those drafts.
RE: Browns wanted McCarron and were close - RoyleRedlegs - 10-31-2017
(10-31-2017, 09:09 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Something is better than nothing, yes. I would stack that in the category of those that think winning in the regular season is ok, even without playoff wins.
Go back and check the Bengals 2 and 3 rd picks from the last 7 drafts--not counting 2017--and tell me how many average to above average (what you should get, at least in rd 2) players they have from those drafts.
So would you be happy if it were a 4th rounder given our success there historically?
Bollocks
RE: Browns wanted McCarron and were close - CageTheBengal - 10-31-2017
(10-31-2017, 09:01 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Evident that there's no real reason to believe they will get any kind of game changer with either of those picks?
You are correct.
Hmmm. Maybe you are the naive one.
I don't believe in Marv but am I going to whine about the fact we almost got 2 high value picks for a player that won't see the field for us? No because that's ludicrous. Maybe it's time to find a new hobby if you can't even enjoy the idea of something positive happening to your team. There's enough negative aspects about being a Bengals without whiners hellbent on throwing a pity party.
RE: Browns wanted McCarron and were close - rfaulk34 - 10-31-2017
(10-31-2017, 09:06 PM)reuben.ahmed Wrote: "But, But, Tom Brady!!"
I don't know, I think a 2nd and 3rd rounder can have an impact. Maybe more of an impact than a backup QB that will never see the field.
Sure, they "can".
How often has this worked out for the Bengals, acquiring an early round pick and turning it into a pro bowl type player?
And i agree about McCarron. He does nothing for them now or in the future, other than bring pick(s). My question is, why not to that before the season starts and not when you know exactly what your needs are half way through the season?
RE: Browns wanted McCarron and were close - RoyleRedlegs - 10-31-2017
(10-31-2017, 09:07 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: That's assuming it was their pick in rd2 and not one they acquired from the Eagles or Texans.
Would you trade the 1st pick in rd2 (essentially an extended 1)?
I find it highly doubtful.
1. The Browns.
2. Hue Jackson
so....
RE: Browns wanted McCarron and were close - The Real Deal - 10-31-2017
Anyone else wonder if this was a deal that could help one of the higher profile teams the league would have allowed the trade to go through? You know the teams I’m talking about
RE: Browns wanted McCarron and were close - rfaulk34 - 10-31-2017
(10-31-2017, 09:11 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: So would you be happy if it were a 4th rounder given our success there historically?
Bollocks
Nah. I'm not happy with getting any picks (obv an overall #1-5 would suffice) because there's no track record of better than average success from them. Heap on the fact they have needs and a few guys were moved that could have helped the Bengals this year...and i think one or two that were rumored to be available.
RE: Browns wanted McCarron and were close - rfaulk34 - 10-31-2017
I just see trying to get future draft picks, mid-season, as another half-assed attempt by a badly run organization.