NFL.com "AJ McCarron a better trade target than Garoppolo?"

[*SHRacerX*]

(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.