McCarron wins grievance, will be UFA

[Shake n Blake]

(02-16-2018, 05:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: We did not have a viable option to replace McCarron.

Why in the world would you trade a back up QB immediately after you needed your back up QB in order to make the playoffs?  Bengals held onto Mccarron just like the Pats held on to Garraappoolloo.

Yeah, but I believe the Pats held on to Jimmy G so long because they intended for him to take over when Brady fell off and retired. It just didn't go according to plan and Brady is obviously still playing at a high level...so they finally had to bail. I don't think having a high quality backup in case of injury was ever the priority for keeping him. 

If teams have a quality young backup, the value of the pick they could get in return usually trumps how much they value having that backup. They almost always get traded or take over the starting job.

(02-16-2018, 05:29 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: True for his value not sure if we got any options on him back then.

And really it was more valuable to have a backup we know could step in for Dalton if he was hurt again or took longer to recover than expected. than a 2-4th draft pick...  decent backup QBs are very valuable and not in high supply (baring a cant refuse offer which it seems we never received)

This is where we disagree. Good young backup QB's are rare and often hold trade value due to potential. There are plenty of good backup QB's that aren't young though. I preferred taking the pick and the good old backup over keeping Mac.

If Dalton suffers a major injury, we're pretty well boned anyway. McCarron wound up going 2-3 in games he appeared in, despite all the hype. He held his own pretty well, but we could've found another backup capable of going 2-3 over a stretch.