AJ McCarron is a future star

[Stormborn]

(08-06-2015, 08:28 PM)EatonFan Wrote: Thought I'd bump this up to the "McCarron sucks" thread and see what happens.

[Tiger Teeth]

(08-06-2015, 08:28 PM)EatonFan Wrote: Thought I'd bump this up to the "McCarron sucks" thread and see what happens.

Well, he's apparently "sucking".

[fredtoast]

(08-04-2015, 01:03 PM)djs7685 Wrote: There's a huge difference between benching and cutting Andy. I've never said that there aren't guys that would want to trade or bench Andy. I'd bet there are at least a handful on this board that have said one of those things.

So basically you are squirting all over yourself because of semantics.

[BayouBengal]

I've been away for a week and now Mccarron sucks. WTF is going on! The only explanation has to be that if I don't post good news about him then he suffers. So I apologize for AJ's bad streak I promise I'll be on the board more regularly so he does well.  

But on a serious note, we need AJ to be the for sure number 2 by the end of preseason to save some roster spots. I think he is just adjusting though, and this can be chalked up to a slow news week. He's got that new throwing motion and is now in pads learning to use it. Plus he is working with new receivers and he's probably just learning to play with their timing and speed.

Arguably if he was playing with only the #1s some of his overthrows and over leads would turn into spectacular AJ to AJ highlights. Give him time people. Camp is time to make mistakes and learn from them.

But don't worry faithful. I'm going to keep posting for real. And I'll also continue to shotgun a beer after ever Bengals touchdown so the football gods know we are appreciative, and I'll do my 20 push ups when our offense gives it up to pump up the D to get it back, and all those other little things that I do throughout the season that I will never get any appreciation for.

Don't worry guys I haven't given up on the Bengals, AJ Mccarron or my Grandiose delusions.

[fredtoast]

Nothing has changed for me. I didn't buy into the hype over his OTA performance, and I won't buy into the doom and gloom over his slow start in training camp. I am still going to wait and see how he performs in preseason games.

Since we don't have an established #2 QB I am guessing we will see him get a lot of playing time.

[djs7685]

(08-06-2015, 10:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So basically you are squirting all over yourself because of semantics.

The whole reason that I made the original complaint is because some guy (you may know him) was "squirting all over himself" all through this thread losing his mind because someone said "people don't want McCarron to succeed" and he flipped out due to, you guessed it, semantics. He claimed people weren't hoping McCarron doesn't succeed, just that they don't think he will, there's a difference. There's ALSO a difference between cutting Andy and benching him, right?

I wonder who that guy was??

Thanks for playing.

[djs7685]

(07-12-2015, 10:33 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Link to anyone saying that?

Stop with the silly strawmen.  I don't see hardly anyone hating on McCarron.  I have not seen a single person saying he hope he fails.  All I have seen is people saying that they need to see a 5th round pick throw a few passes in a game situation before they heap praise on him.

We need a good #2 QB.  I am guessing most people here want McCarron to develop into a good NFL QB.

I am a Vol fan.  I hated McCarron in college, but even I am hoping he becomes a good NFL QB.

omg Fred is squiriting all over himself due to semantics.

What a loser, squirting all over himself. What a squirt.

Squirt on that, strawman.

So it's okay for you to point out someone's strawman but it's not okay when I do it? Gotcha. Let's see if you actually own up to this or if you just ignore your typical hypocritical shit like you always do.

[fredtoast]

(08-07-2015, 02:12 PM)djs7685 Wrote:  He claimed people weren't hoping McCarron doesn't succeed, just that they don't think he will, there's a difference. There's ALSO a difference between cutting Andy and benching him, right?

There is a BIG difference between "hoping McCarron does not succeed" and "doubting he will succeed".  In fact many people who doubt he will succeed may actually hope he succeeds.

On the other hand there really isn't much difference between "cutting andy" and "benching andy".   Both pretty much mean the exact same thing i.e. Andy is not good enough to be the QB of this team.  

[fredtoast]

(08-07-2015, 02:14 PM)djs7685 Wrote:  or if you just ignore your typical hypocritical shit like you always do.

I never ignore any claims that I am not a hypocrite.

I defend everything I say, and I prove them wrong.

[djs7685]

(08-07-2015, 02:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There is a BIG difference between "hoping McCarron does not succeed" and "doubting he will succeed".  In fact many people who doubt he will succeed may actually hope he succeeds.

On the other hand there really isn't much difference between "cutting andy" and "benching andy".   Both pretty much mean the exact same thing i.e. Andy is not good enough to be the QB of this team.  

Okay Fred, of course there's a "big difference" between the strawman argument that you wanted to point out, but the exact same situation happens with a nutty homer and it's no big deal.

Whatever you say, spin doctor.

There's a ***** HUGE difference between benching and cutting a player, regardless of how you spin.

[fredtoast]

(08-07-2015, 02:28 PM)djs7685 Wrote: There's a ***** HUGE difference between benching and cutting a player, regardless of how you spin.

Really?  I just don't see it.  

Seems to me that they both mean "I want Dalton gone."

But that is why it is an argument over semantics instead of substance.

[djs7685]

(08-07-2015, 02:38 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Really?  I just don't see it.  

[BigSeph]

(08-07-2015, 02:38 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Really?  I just don't see it.  

Seems to me that they both mean "I want Dalton gone."

But that is why it is an argument over semantics instead of substance.

John Elway was benched after his first 5 games as a Denver Bronco.

He was not cut.

See the difference?

[djs7685]

(08-07-2015, 04:33 PM)BigSeph Wrote: John Elway was benched after his first 5 games as a Denver Bronco.

He was not cut.

See the difference?

No, he won't.

Some people wanted to see Andy benched to see what the guy behind him could do in a real, game time atmosphere. If the backup sucks, you can put Andy back in since you just benched him and didn't cut him. For some reason, to Fred, benching and cutting are almost identical. How a human being can read these scenarios and say "I just don't see it" is mind boggling.

Or others wanted to trade Andy to get some sort of value for him since he would definitely start on at least a handful of other teams.

Nobody is stupid enough to say to cut him completely, and that was the strawman Xeno used. BUT, it's only a strawman if Fred says so, its only semantics if Fred says so, we won't go by the literal, given definitions of the terms. Freddy makes up how we play as he goes, that's the only way he's "right", which is very important to him on a message board.

Zero people have said to cut Andy. Xeno claimed many wanted him cut to strengthen his point. It's a strawman argument, plain and simple.

[*Nately120*]

(08-07-2015, 04:33 PM)BigSeph Wrote: John Elway was benched after his first 5 games as a Denver Bronco.

He was not cut.

See the difference?

John Elway is also proof that you can't give up on a QB because he might win his first Super Bowl(s) when he is eligible for AARP, so we can't quit on Dalton until 2027.

[Beaker]

(08-07-2015, 01:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Nothing has changed for me.  I didn't buy into the hype over his OTA performance, and I won't buy into the doom and gloom over his slow start in training camp.  I am still going to wait and see how he performs in preseason games.

Which was the point of me posting the article about him doing lousy the first few days of TC. You can't anoint him the successor because of some good OTAs, you can't call for his head due to some bad days in TC. People are way too knee jerk. I am glad our FO doesn't listen to the squeaky wheel fans in these matters.

I do believe that most people should and will approach this with the wait and see attitude fred is referring to.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-07-2015, 04:43 PM)djs7685 Wrote: No, he won't.

Some people wanted to see Andy benched to see what the guy behind him could do in a real, game time atmosphere. If the backup sucks, you can put Andy back in since you just benched him and didn't cut him. For some reason, to Fred, benching and cutting are almost identical. How a human being can read these scenarios and say "I just don't see it" is mind boggling.

Or others wanted to trade Andy to get some sort of value for him since he would definitely start on at least a handful of other teams.

Nobody is stupid enough to say to cut him completely, and that was the strawman Xeno used. BUT, it's only a strawman if Fred says so, its only semantics if Fred says so, we won't go by the literal, given definitions of the terms. Freddy makes up how we play as he goes, that's the only way he's "right", which is very important to him on a message board.

Zero people have said to cut Andy. Xeno claimed many wanted him cut to strengthen his point. It's a strawman argument, plain and simple.

I don't know if "zero people have said to cut Andy", but I do know that a larger number said that the Bengals needed to get rid of Andy or that "Andy has to go." Now for either of the latter to happen, cutting Andy is certainly one of the ways in which that goal can be acheived. So while no one may have specifically said to "cut" him, the sentiment was still there regardless.

[Luvnit2]

(08-07-2015, 02:28 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Okay Fred, of course there's a "big difference" between the strawman argument that you wanted to point out, but the exact same situation happens with a nutty homer and it's no big deal.

Whatever you say, spin doctor.

There's a ***** HUGE difference between benching and cutting a player, regardless of how you spin.

I would agree that there is a huge difference from cutting and benching 95% of the NFL players.

The exceptions are benching QB's due to be cap hits of 15+ million. No team is benching (non-injury) a QB long term without the intent to cut him immediately or very soon if their contract is not guaranteed in my humble oinion.

[Luvnit2]

(08-07-2015, 04:33 PM)BigSeph Wrote: John Elway was benched after his first 5 games as a Denver Bronco.

He was not cut.

See the difference?

There were no rookie contracts limits (lot more 1st round pick dollars when John played) and his contract was mostly guaranteed (he had to be paid most of the contract if he was cut) short term and likely  long term a well so this is a very bad example to use as AD can be cut next year with little financial liability (cash and cap) so 2 situations not even close.

So of course they were not going to cut him.

[BigSeph]

(08-08-2015, 10:36 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: There were no rookie contracts limits (lot more 1st round pick dollars when John played) and his contract was mostly guaranteed (he had to be paid most of the contract if he was cut) short term and likely  long term a well so this is a very bad example to use as AD can be cut next year with little financial liability (cash and cap) so 2 situations not even close.

So of course they were not going to cut him.

And if McCarron were to come in and stink up the joint, Dalton wouldn't be cut either.

I think what people want is to see if they have something besides AD, and if they don't, then so be it, go AD!

But when you fail repeatedly in the playoffs, people will always want to try something else at QB.