@suomi said:

Sam Darnold will be the target of every QB hungry team 2018!!!

@bbedward said:

I've always liked him too, but I WOULD give up our Titans 2nd rounder & a conditional 2018 pick.

It is shaping up to be a very interesting off season.

Mike

I'd be fine with him, anybody who would give up the #12 pick for him is mad though. 2nd rounder this year is iffy to me too.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Hue said flatly Gordon was no longer in Cleveland's future plans, right? But the team hasn't released him, and probably won't until they've exhausted their quest to get a draft pick in return. And the same is true for Johnny Feetball, right? Your team chooses to restrict the movement of potential FAs it no longer wants because it can, and because it doesn't cost them a thing to do so. By comparison the Bengals haven't blocked McCarron from anything, paid for his surgery and rehab, paid his salary when they knew he couldn't play OR practice, will happily continue paying his salary if he's retained, and seem willing to grant his trade request now, before his contract expires, if another NFL team will meet their trade demands.

So which teams actions seem punitive?

The Gordon situation is entirely different since he was place on the Commisioners list... twice.

And for the record the NFLPA did chime in when we suspended him for the final game of 2015 for being late to one meeting too many... a game that would have been his critical 6th.

In the McCarron example the wrinkle is used strategically as an incentive encouraging teams to draft injured players. In the Gordon example the wrinkle is used as strictly as damage control. A way for a team to continue controlling the salvage value of a damaged asset it never should have drafted in the first place.

But we're getting sidetracked. Because whether you deem the strategy to be fair or unfair the end result is what's important. And there's the rub because all things being equal all things are NOT equal between Garrapalo and McCarron when discussing salary, free agency, the draft picks needed to acquire, OR in the amount of experience each QB already has running your teams offense.

The shiny apple comparison only goes so far.

@umadogg1 said:

I get what you're saying, but when a player is stashed and fails to accrue a season, even if it's a "benign" situation, I can't imagine the NFLPA not getting involved.

And the more common the situation, to my mind, the more likely it would be for the NFLPA to get involved.

It's all about the money...

The McCarron example isn't THAT unique. In fact, the Bengals have a DT, Brandon Thompson, who had a serious knee injury but signed a 1-year FA contract last season. Because Thompson was never active or practiced last season his 1-year contract rolls over to this season intact. There's no negotiation.

Finally, the only reason we're still talking about this is precisely because not accruing a season towards FA makes McCarron a more attractive trade asset. As I've noted, any team looking for a new starting QB could trade for McCarron and give him a two year audition for peanuts.

@tour2ma said:

Apparently neither did Hue since he benched him for not stretching the field if I recall correctly. That would tell me that in practice/preparation he was able to do so, but in games he did not, thus leading to the benching.

@medicineman said:

I'm starting to think we should go with Kessler in 2017 as well. If we can give him the margin of error from our defense that other QBs in this league get from their defense, we might not always be behind 7-0 just 2-3 minutes after the coin toss we defer.

We have the picks in this coming draft to improve our defense - if used right...

@roycerolls said:

Yup... goes back to player evaluations. I see no more sure-fire pick than Allen and he fills a need. While I see no sure-fire QBs, the rarest of the rare draft commodity, if I thought there was one who came close, whose odds of success were very high, then I'd roll the dice with him.

Still work to do, but not seeing one yet and simply being "the best in the class" isn't good enough... not even when it is "merely" the #1 overall at risk.

@umadogg1 said:

Too late... I only offer one apology per poster and now you've had yours... It is hard for me to believe the NLFPA hasn't injected themselves into Cinci's handling of AJ.

Not seeing a $620k figure on his overthecap page, but no matter as I got the point you were making. There's a decent difference between a R2 rookie's contract and a R5's...

@flugel said:

Precisely. That's exactly where I am about the trade idea within the division.

My McCarron idea required patience in lieu of knee jerking. We can wait a year.

I think Kelly has some good football worth tapping if the right team takes him. Wasn't that the case with Dak Prescott from another Mississippi school? If we take him with the understanding we don't have to race him out there before he's ready or our oline is ready to protect the QB - we could be the right place.

Some years there just isn't a first round QB; and we've learned that the hard way every damn time we tried to pretend there was...

While within the division would not be a first choice, it's a choice. So it depends on the premium we might offer. How much of a premium would I be willing to pay? Not much is about as far as I can quantify it. But I think that #58 mid-2nd rounder I maxed out at in my earlier hypothetical would be a pretty tasty inducement.

And I agree we can wait a year. It fits with my impression that RG did enough, showed enough late to get another shot in '17. Do I think he's the solution? Should be obvious by now that's a "big, fat no."

Ditto on Cahd and lessons learned... or should have been learned about the dangers of need.

Of course you can argue that a new QB is unlikely to fare any better than the current bunch due to the overall crapfest that is the rest of your roster, but you can use the same argument to talk yourself out of any player at any position. Just as you could flip the rant and argue Joe Thomas isn't worth spit because you can easily go 1-15 with a vastly inferior player.

But that's the same type of nonsense rant that sometimes convinces a team it doesn't need an Alex Mack, Mitchell Schwartz, Travis Benjamin, etc.

Myself, I don't care if you guys prefer to wait or don't want McCarron at all. As I said earlier, if I were in your shoes I'd prefer Garrapalo and I wouldn't mind taking a longer look at Kessler. So clearly this isn't an example of me doing a hard sell. I don't really care where McCarron is traded to as long as the price is right.

Besides, as a Bengal fan there's a part of me that hopes your team keeps trotting out fresh versions of RG3, Josh McCown, Brandon Weeden, or Johnny Feetball. So yeah, Chad Kelly. You should do that.

@roycerolls said:

Precisely. That's exactly where I am about the trade idea within the division.

Aside from that, I also try to envision what Cody Kessler would have looked like with a well experienced/highly talented AJ Green on 1 side of formation and a TD machine like Tyler Eifert (13 TDs) at TE working in tandem with a decent running game and offensive line. I'm guessing there's a lot more trust from inexperienced QB in more polished WRs than using 2 first year starters outside. I'm not guaranteed McCarron would have had any better luck with OUR WRs than all the QBs that got punished in the pocket while inexperience on the perimeter rarely received as much credit as our QBs or offensive line.

My McCarron idea required patience in lieu of knee jerking. We can wait a year. We have enough draft picks to pull the trigger on a guy like Chad Kelly later in the draft (coming off an ACL injury that will prevent him from workouts). While Bama caused some very bad decisions out of him during a game Ole Miss scored about 37 points on them in 2016 (when most SEC teams only scored 1 TD or less vrs Bama) - he was the only QB/passing game that beat the National Champion Bama team in 2015. And his go-to WR (LaQuan Treadwill) wasn't even good enough to start on the Minnesota Vikings in 2016. I think Kelly has some good football worth tapping if the right team takes him. Wasn't that the case with Dak Prescott from another Mississippi school? If we take him with the understanding we don't have to race him out there before he's ready or our oline is ready to protect the QB - we could be the right place.

Some years there just isn't a first round QB; and we've learned that the hard way every damn time we tried to pretend there was...

That said, Flugel tripped over something that does work in the favor of a team looking to trade for McCarron, but it doesn't involve waiting until he's a FA. McCarron has dropped more than a few hints about his unwillingness to re-sign with Cincy should he ever become a FA. There's no rancor between the player and the coaching staff or ownership, but McCarron wants a chance to be a starting QB in the NFL and he feels like he's ready now. By openly stating his reluctance to sign a 2nd contract with the Bengals McCarron is trying to motivate the Bengals to trade him now. By all accounts it's working.

And there's the rub because if it's working it becomes far less likely any team interested in acquiring his services can wait for him to reach FA.

It should also be noted that McCarron has never complained about the way his rookie season was handled. He may or may not have accrued a season towards RFA, but he did get paid, the Bengals covered his medical expenses, and McCarron had access to professional medical and training staff staffs during his rehab. To be fair, he did express disappointment about the way he fell to the 5th round after being told he'd likely be a 2nd or 3rd round pick, but post draft he seemed to realize just how close he came to being undrafted.

Also, if you bothered looking on overthecap.com you may have noticed McCarron's 2017 salary is even cheaper than I claimed. According to Sportrac.com the actual figure is just 620k, not the rounded up 750k I used. Quite frankly, all I was trying to do is show how acquiring McCarron was less expensive than Garrapalo.

Last, the Bengals may indeed play the waiting game with McCarron but they've sent mixed signals. Marvin Lewis has repeatedly said the Bengals weren't interested in trading McCarron, but that only prompted owner Mike Brown to come out of hibernation last year to utter the immortal words...."Not so fast." Perhaps that explains why Lewis didn't flatly reject the idea of a trade the last time he was asked.