What makes a backup QB trade happen

[jowczarski]

Kind of weekend read here, a really deep dive into TRUE backup QB trades. I've seen a lot of comparisons for McCarron and Garroppolo over the last year, but none really fit what those guys are - true backups who haven't really played.

Check it out - I think some of the numbers and "success" of those trading FOR the QBs will surprise you.

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/nfl/bengals/2017/03/03/what-makes-a-backup-nfl-quarterback-trade-happen/98706682/

Of course, any other social shares are appreciated! And as usual, so, so much can't make the story so if you have any questions about these trades or the people I talked to, leave them here and I'll answer as best I can.

As always, thanks!

[McC]

Nice article. Thank you.

Seems like about a fifty/fifty proposition, evidence on both sides. The pursuit of a QB makes teams without one do crazy things. That will always be the case until God starts making more of them. Hard to imagine there aren't 32 guys in the universe who are one.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

Thanks Jim.

I honestly think the Osweiler signing made teams think twice.

All the more reason to get whatever you can for McCarron while there is a chance.

[BengalChris]

Jim,

Nice article!

We'll have to wait and see what happens. McCarron does have a lot of tape available on him from his time at Alabama where he won two national championships. But that has to be taken in a grain of salt in that he was surrounded by talent. His likely landing spots in a trade are teams which aren't that talent laden.

In the NFL, talent holes around a QB can prevent that QB's success. Dalton is a good QB but he could not overcome our piss poor O-line play. McCarron could be a success in this league in the right situation.

Teams like Cleveland and SF have vast gaping holes devoid of talent and I just don't see any QB having success with those teams until a quality team is put there.

It's not like every coach in the league is Bill Belichick, who can seemingly always make the sum of the parts play much better than their individual talents would indicate.

Then there are coaches who can't seem to obtain the native talent from a talented group of players and have success in the post season or even reach the post season is some cases.

Cleveland and SF change GMs, coaches and players like underwear and that never lets anyone build anything. In Cincinnati we seem to have the opposite problem. We hang on to people to a fault, which I'd like to point out is a fault, not a benefit.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(03-04-2017, 03:15 PM)BengalChris Wrote: Jim,

Nice article!

We'll have to wait and see what happens. McCarron does have a lot of tape available on him from his time at Alabama where he won two national championships. But that has to be taken in a grain of salt in that he was surrounded by talent. His likely landing spots in a trade are teams which aren't that talent laden.

In the NFL, talent holes around a QB can prevent that QB's success. Dalton is a good QB but he could not overcome our piss poor O-line play. McCarron could be a success in this league in the right situation.

Teams like Cleveland and SF have vast gaping holes devoid of talent and I just don't see any QB having success with those teams until a quality team is put there.

It's not like every coach in the league is Bill Belichick, who can seemingly always make the sum of the parts play much better than their individual talents would indicate.

Then there are coaches who can't seem to obtain the native talent from a talented group of players and have success in the post season or even reach the post season is some cases.

Cleveland and SF change GMs, coaches and players like underwear and that never lets anyone build anything. In Cincinnati we seem to have the opposite problem. We hang on to people to a fault, which I'd like to point out is a fault, not a benefit.

Good post Chris.

The team that gets McCarron better have a good O-line. If he has time he could be really good actually.

[phil413]

(03-04-2017, 02:39 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Thanks Jim.

I honestly think the Osweiler signing made teams think twice.

All the more reason to get whatever you can for McCarron while there is a chance.

I don't think that impacts an AJ trade.  Houston took a gamble in offering a huge deal instead of a super high pick in trade on a leap of faith in Brock. The upside of dealing for AJ is you get him for pennies, get to see his development firsthand and likely are giving a low 2nd or a 3rd. 

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(03-04-2017, 03:30 PM)phil413 Wrote: I don't think that impacts an AJ trade.  Houston took a gamble in offering a huge deal instead of a super high pick in trade on a leap of faith in Brock. The upside of dealing for AJ is you get him for pennies, get to see his development firsthand and likely are giving a low 2nd or a 3rd. 

Great point, cannot disagree with that. I could see this happening.

Would be a good move for a QB needy team like the Jets, Rams, Niners, Browns or even Vikings.

[kevin]

(03-04-2017, 01:41 PM)jowczarski Wrote: Kind of weekend read here, a really deep dive into TRUE backup QB trades. I've seen a lot of comparisons for McCarron and Garroppolo over the last year, but none really fit what those guys are - true backups who haven't really played.

Check it out - I think some of the numbers and "success" of those trading FOR the QBs will surprise you.

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/nfl/bengals/2017/03/03/what-makes-a-backup-nfl-quarterback-trade-happen/98706682/

Of course, any other social shares are appreciated! And as usual, so, so much can't make the story so if you have any questions about these trades or the people I talked to, leave them here and I'll answer as best I can.

As always, thanks!

I really think Bengal Fans over rate this as if every team in the NFL wants to trade a first round pick for our 5th round pick back up QB, so they can bench their QB and make McCarron their Franchise QB for the next 10 years.  What has he done so fantastic and wonderful to fill Fans heads with this notion.  I will add he is low cost in 2017 and gives us a better back-up than the clunkers we became use to.  Remember all the raving about that QB that could run a little but no passing arm. I think his name was Jackson or something.  Just what you need a QB that can't throw. Look, this isn't college.  We have McCarron who is a great back-up. Probably his last year here. If Dalton gets injured we will regret trading him.  He isn't costing much money to keep him one more year. 

[CINwillWIN]

(03-04-2017, 05:35 PM)kevin Wrote: I really think Bengal Fans over rate this as if every team in the NFL wants to trade a first round pick for our 5th round pick back up QB, so they can bench their QB and make McCarron their Franchise QB for the next 10 years.  What has he done so fantastic and wonderful to fill Fans heads with this notion.  I will add he is low cost in 2017 and gives us a better back-up than the clunkers we became use to.  Remember all the raving about that QB that could run a little but no passing arm. I think his name was Jackson or something.  Just what you need a QB that can't throw. Look, this isn't college.  We have McCarron who is a great back-up. Probably his last year here. If Dalton gets injured we will regret trading him.  He isn't costing much money to keep him one more year. 

Good article Jim,

I think this like Kevin. I don't see the organization letting McCarron go unless it is such a blockbuster deal, but we as fans even seen blockbuster deals go by. I see us doing the usual, keeping him again this season under center/backup for AD, then if something happens we don't have to answer all of those annoying 'what if' scenarios. 

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(03-04-2017, 05:35 PM)kevin Wrote: I really think Bengal Fans over rate this as if every team in the NFL wants to trade a first round pick for our 5th round pick back up QB, so they can bench their QB and make McCarron their Franchise QB for the next 10 years.  What has he done so fantastic and wonderful to fill Fans heads with this notion.  I will add he is low cost in 2017 and gives us a better back-up than the clunkers we became use to.  Remember all the raving about that QB that could run a little but no passing arm. I think his name was Jackson or something.  Just what you need a QB that can't throw. Look, this isn't college.  We have McCarron who is a great back-up. Probably his last year here. If Dalton gets injured we will regret trading him.  He isn't costing much money to keep him one more year. 

I don't know of anyone saying AJM is worth a first round pick.

But he has in game experience against NFL teams and was not terrible.

He might be worth something to a QB needy team and if so you have to keep your options open to make your team better.

A dude riding the bench is not going to help the team. Plus if Dalton gets injured cause the OL is shit, AJM will have it even
worse cause he holds onto the ball for fricking ever from what we saw when he did start. Your notion that he has more value
here than somewhere else is a wild one Kev.

(03-04-2017, 06:23 PM)CINwillWIN Wrote: Good article Jim,

I think this like Kevin. I don't see the organization letting McCarron go unless it is such a blockbuster deal, but we as fans even seen blockbuster deals go by. I see us doing the usual, keeping him again this season under center/backup for AD, then if something happens we don't have to answer all of those annoying 'what if' scenarios. 

I think this would be stupid myself. We should get something for the guy why he has some value.

We shouldn't just have him as a backup this year and let him leave for nothing. This makes no sense to me.

[phil413]

(03-04-2017, 03:34 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Great point, cannot disagree with that. I could see this happening.

Would be a good move for a QB needy team like the Jets, Rams, Niners, Browns or even Vikings.

Solid list, though I'd swap LA (Goff investment) with the Bears, and maybe Washington becomes an option if Cousins is dealt, Vikes may not be in the market.  Point being, there are many suitors and the market is thin.  All it takes is one team to bow out of the asking price for Garoppolo or Cousins yet not be blown away with some of the prospects.  

Cleveland's #52 or 65 makes sense value wise and a conditional pick next year.  Hue saw him firsthand, and they have a lot of picks.  They'll either pony up to offer the 52 that it would take for Mike Brown to sign off on giving a division foe a starting QB, or they'll settle on Kessler being comparable and use their picks to build around him.  

The Jets are confusing.  They liked Smith and Hackenberg's strengths enough to select them, but still show no direction at the position.  They played chicken all offseason with Fitzpatrick, so though they say their picks (remember they have an extra 3rd) are available for the right price its hard to tell what they do.  Cincy should ask them for #70 and maybe they throw in a 4th next year too.  

Those are just examples of what kind of offers they'd be getting.  I'd look for an actual deal a few weeks before the draft.  That's when a few dominos will fall (Romo? Cutler? Garoppolo?) and teams will figure our if they want to take or trade up for a guy like Watson.  This is also a time when Cincy will consider kicking tires on a cut vet replacement to compete with their unknown Driskell that stuck on the roster.  Most likely, they'll just wait til the draft and consider if a 4th or 5th rounder looks like a better prospect than Driskell and/or  then let a guy like old Bruce Gradkowski come in as a 3rd QB if either of the two youngsters look totally lost.  Regardless, Cincy is doing nothing wrong by letting the market come to them and they do have plenty of suitors as you say. 

[J24]

People are 1.) Underestimating Teams that don't have a starting QB desperation when it comes to getting a new QB. And 2.) People are Underestimating AJ has a Qb; while I agree that he is not in the same category as Andy right now that doesn't mean he isn't a starting caliber QB. He only has 5 starts as a QB and he was impressive in those starts. I think teams look at that and say I would want that on my team.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(03-04-2017, 06:45 PM)phil413 Wrote: Solid list, though I'd swap LA (Goff investment) with the Bears, and maybe Washington becomes an option if Cousins is dealt, Vikes may not be in the market.  Point being, there are many suitors and the market is thin.  All it takes is one team to bow out of the asking price for Garoppolo or Cousins yet not be blown away with some of the prospects.  

Cleveland's #52 or 65 makes sense value wise and a conditional pick next year.  Hue saw him firsthand, and they have a lot of picks.  They'll either pony up to offer the 52 that it would take for Mike Brown to sign off on giving a division foe a starting QB, or they'll settle on Kessler being comparable and use their picks to build around him.  

The Jets are confusing.  They liked Smith and Hackenberg's strengths enough to select them, but still show no direction at the position.  They played chicken all offseason with Fitzpatrick, so though they say their picks (remember they have an extra 3rd) are available for the right price its hard to tell what they do.  Cincy should ask them for #70 and maybe they throw in a 4th next year too.  

Those are just examples of what kind of offers they'd be getting.  I'd look for an actual deal a few weeks before the draft.  That's when a few dominos will fall (Romo? Cutler? Garoppolo?) and teams will figure our if they want to take or trade up for a guy like Watson.  This is also a time when Cincy will consider kicking tires on a cut vet replacement to compete with their unknown Driskell that stuck on the roster.  Most likely, they'll just wait til the draft and consider if a 4th or 5th rounder looks like a better prospect than Driskell and/or  then let a guy like old Bruce Gradkowski come in as a 3rd QB if either of the two youngsters look totally lost.  Regardless, Cincy is doing nothing wrong by letting the market come to them and they do have plenty of suitors as you say. 

Good stuff, probably right about the Rams, they might like what they have with Goff.

Man it sure would be pretty dumb of the Skins to let Cousins get away, don't understand what they are thinking there.

Don't know why i didn't think of the Bears, they are definately in play. Atleast AJM shown that he can win the turnover
battle with his time here. He didn't make bad mistakes besides the Steeler game where he got thrust into action.

I have heard some say that Bridgewater's career may be over. Bradford sure didn't impress me last year from the
games i watched. Dude is one weird looking QB too lmao, he just makes me laugh looking at him, mean Nate.      

I know pretty much nothing about Driskell but i do know we need a QB with a quicker release than McCarron.

Like i said, AJM could be very good behind a good O-line. Just not here if Dalton goes down cause of poor OL play.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(03-04-2017, 08:43 PM)J24 Wrote: People are 1.) Underestimating Teams that don't have a starting QB desperation when it comes to getting a new QB. And 2.) People are Underestimating AJ has a Qb; while I agree that he is not in the same category as Andy right now that doesn't mean he isn't a starting caliber QB. He only has 5 starts as a QB and he was impressive in those starts. I think teams look at that and say I would want that on my team.

He has some fire to him, gotta give him that as well.

Reminds me a little of Phillip Rivers with that swagger.

Can be a gunslinger at times but he can also reign it in and not turn the ball over.

Some of McCarron's good qualities.

[McC]

(03-04-2017, 08:43 PM)J24 Wrote: People are 1.) Underestimating Teams that don't have a starting QB desperation when it comes to getting a new QB. And 2.) People are Underestimating AJ has a Qb; while I agree that he is not in the same category as Andy right now that doesn't mean he isn't a starting caliber QB. He only has 5 starts as a QB and he was impressive in those starts. I think teams look at that and say I would want that on my team.

A bunch of people are going to come here shortly and tell you how good he isn't and they will have stats to back it up. 

They won't mention how he was thrown to the fire and had to learn on the fly and ran an offense that wasn't even made for him.  And the fact that Andy was having a career year probably made him look that much worse by comparison.  And speaking of stats, wonder what the ypc was in the games in which he played.   It doesn't matter.  No inexperienced QB needs a running game.

I don't think he was Joe Montana but he wasn't Joe Blow either.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(03-04-2017, 08:52 PM)McC Wrote: A bunch of people are going to come here shortly and tell you how good he isn't and they will have stats to back it up. 

They won't mention how he was thrown to the fire and had to learn on the fly and ran an offense that wasn't even made for him.  And the fact that Andy was having a career year probably made him look that much worse by comparison.  And speaking of stats, wonder what the ypc was in the games in which he played.   It doesn't matter.  No inexperienced QB needs a running game.

I don't think he was Joe Montana but he wasn't Joe Blow either.

For sure, it was the bench Andy for AJM crowd that i didn't agree with at all.

Not that McCarron is a bad QB, he just isn't as good as Dalton.

Maybe one day we will be able to compare the two on different teams, should be fun.

[phil413]

(03-04-2017, 08:48 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Good stuff, probably right about the Rams, they might like what they have with Goff.

Man it sure would be pretty dumb of the Skins to let Cousins get away, don't understand what they are thinking there.

Don't know why i didn't think of the Bears, they are definately in play. Atleast AJM shown that he can win the turnover
battle with his time here. He didn't make bad mistakes besides the Steeler game where he got thrust into action.

I have heard some say that Bridgewater's career may be over. Bradford sure didn't impress me last year from the
games i watched. Dude is one weird looking QB too lmao, he just makes me laugh looking at him, mean Nate.      

I know pretty much nothing about Driskell but i do know we need a QB with a quicker release than McCarron.

Like i said, AJM could be very good behind a good O-line. Just not here if Dalton goes down cause of poor OL play.

Yeah I'll start where you finished regarding the importance of the line, man is that such a big deal.  You're right, we saw it firsthand that AJM looked pretty solid when the line looked good.  He was thrown in there down the stretch and was up against a really good Denver and Pitt team and should have beat both (funny..not haha funny that Burfict's PFs killed both games).  I hear this debate on the board of having him so the season isn't lost if Dalton goes down, well the season WAS lost when Dalton was healthy.  

IF AJM yields fair value now you do it for two reasons:

1. The return (2nd/3rd and 5th/etc...) should give you not only an asset but an actual body to help protect Dalton.  Even if they don't directly use that pick directly for an OL, having the extra pick could allow them to take BPA early and then sway toward a OL if things are close after that.  A lot of mocks tackle the issue of needing a DL high and take an OL because most of us don't trust the team to have a competent OL going into the draft.  The Fournette rumor is a good example of needing to cash in on AJM.  Say they see him (or another player like as a top 3 player in the draft) sitting at 9 but feel they have to fill a starter spot by reaching for Ramczyk/Robinson.  That or they see DL as a deep position, would be content with Barnett/Charlton but feel tempted to get the bigger need out of the way.  So gaining the extra pick allows you to take your Fournette/Hooker/Cook, and open things up to still be able to land the other two needs by say the next 3 or 4 picks.  If they go heavy on defense and skill positions early based on BPA, you could still trade out of your quantity (say use a comp 4 to move up out of your early 3rd) to gain a top OL that has fallen as teams load up elsewhere.  The extra pick only helps in whatever way to add a descent body that even Paul Alexander will have issues burying.  

2.  The QB schedule.  We of coarse know that AJM isn't a long term option, even Dalton haters (should should have been converted after what Dalton did while he ran for his life this year) can see this.  Mike Glennon could get above 10M as a FA, AJ will get that next year if he doesn't play a snap.  It's now time to either groom another young backup or deal with a cheap vet to spot game manage (think Gradkowski or aging Kitna in the past) and cash in AJM.  Yea Driskell is a mystery. I just remember us worrying about who the last cut would be and instead they add a 3rd QB and keep him ALL year.  It says a lot about what THEY see in him when some of us were expecting them to cut him for a few weeks and sign him back in case of an injury elsewhere.  So just as they look like they're letting a AJM trade come to them, they're acting like they're ready to let Driskell fight for the backup job much like AJM as a rookie (though he was hurt).  Like AJM's situation, they had Jason Campbell as cheap insurance.  For Campbell, it was system knowledge over talent.  To get something similar it could be Gradkowski again because of his work with Zampese.  It's just what they do, I want something better than Driskell/Grad, but the QB class doesn't show depth to warrant another AJM type sliding to where they'd take one (4th or 5th?).  The two times a vet could come to them and lower their cost is just prior to the draft to secure a job that may not be there after, or just prior to training camp.  


-Per Bradford's roto, Spielman and Zimmer speak highly of him.  He did have a 72 comp %, 20-5 TD-INT and may have hit 4,000yds if he was there a week earlier.  The guy used to be fragile and is kinda weird but he will be their guy no matter if Bridgewater is done.  They just have to hope that Teddy recovers to at least be a pawn in Bradford negotiations.  


-Speaking of negotiations, Cousins is an example of what the tag can become.  Washington would be crazy to trade him, but they literally can't keep tagging him.  Similar to our MJ situation but a larger scale, it can be hard to negotiate when that's an option.  When negotiations get this nasty, especially when tagging him again after this season would cost 34M, they may consider his trade value.  With Shanahan's connection, San Fran's desperation, cap space and for all we know not being sold on a QB at #2...they may throw a modern day Herscel Walker deal at Washington for a guy they can't lock down. 

[yellowxdiscipline]

It's gonna take a desperate team to go after AJ. So if we don't get what the team has in mind, the it's possible that a needy team might be forced to give up that second rounder later on.

[BURROWorBUST]

(03-05-2017, 01:34 AM)yellowxdiscipline Wrote: It's gonna take a desperate team to go after AJ. So if we don't get what the team has in mind, the it's possible that a needy team might be forced to give up that second rounder later on.

I agree. AJ did well on a pretty damn good team (us). I don't know how he'd do with a team like the Browns or 49ers. He's not exactly mobile. I don't see anyone giving up a second rounder for him. Either we're fishing for a third, or waiting on that stupidly desperate team that you mention to prefer AJ over a rookie. 

[McC]

(03-04-2017, 09:01 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: For sure, it was the bench Andy for AJM crowd that i didn't agree with at all.

Not that McCarron is a bad QB, he just isn't as good as Dalton.

Maybe one day we will be able to compare the two on different teams, should be fun.

Yes, he was 2-3.  He lost in overtime at their place to the eventual champs and twice to the Steelers.  What is Marvin's record against the Steelers?

I don't know how good he would end up being but I like his heart and that is a big deal.