Andrew Luck retires... Chance for the Bengals to trade a promising QB?

[*Nately120*]

(08-30-2019, 12:41 PM)NKURyan Wrote: I hear ya. I'm not dead set on spending a high pick on a QB, either, all I'm saying is that I'd prefer to wait until we have the supporting cast and infrastructure needed to prime him for success, and I don't think that's been the case for a few years. I don't want the Bengals to fall into the trap that so many teams seem to fall into where you draft a QB, put him in a bad offense with bad coaching and a bad offensive line, watch him struggle for a few years, and then repeat the whole process. We've certainly been down that route before as Bengals fans. I value stability at the QB position, especially when you're getting good play (which Andy does) at a very good price (which Andy has... for now). I certainly don't think that having Andy prohibits you from having success as some others do (not you).

As for the "should haves"... sadly that just comes along with Cincinnati sports in general. The Reds should have made the World Series in 2012 if Cueto doesn't get hurt, the Bearcats should have been able to predict a 20+ point lead to beat Nevada in the NCAA tournament a couple of years ago, the Bengals should have not handed the Steelers 30 free yards in 2015, and that list goes on and on. As a fan of all these teams noone gets more tired of the should haves than me... I guess I've gotta believe at some point it'll pay off and make it all worth it.

Stability at QB is something that is certainly important, but lordy between Palmer and Dalton being two QBs who have flirted with MVP play here and there, and would be seen as favorable to any franchise missing a SB-winner we have had 15 years of solid QB play and zero playoff wins to show for it.  We hoped it was on Palmer until Marvin moved on after losing another 5 wild card games and now we hope it was Marvin that caused us to disappoint despite our QB stability.

Before we finally moved on from Marvin one could argue the Bengals were as much proof that stability doesn't equate winning as the Browns were proof constant fluctruation doesn't equate winning (well, they were really bad so it's not exact).

And again, we can cherry pick but Bears fans won't forget passing on Aaron Rodgers because they had Rex Grossman and Kyle Orton, the Steelers passed on Marino because they had Terry Bradshaw and Malone or Cliff Stoudt or something, the Browns didn't NEED to take Ben, and so on.  There is a chance the Bengals passing on Mahommes because they had Dalton and McCarron (a guy Mike Brown valued at a 1st round pick or so) goes down as another draft boner.  

And yea, hindsight is 20/20 but lordy, looking at what the Chiefs did these past few years or seeing the Patriots continually dump their backups for high picks and just saying "Well, the Bengals can't do that" is both very understandable and annoying. 


And the "should haves" just make me think of how the Browns and Bengals apparently play the Steelers "so close and so tough" and yet the Steelers still win like 90% of the time. Lordy, how close can it truly be if the odds are so skewed? ANyways, that's another topic.