CountDorkula Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 On 5/7/2018 at 7:45 PM, Sky Diver said: McCarron wanted the opportunity to start. Buffalo gave him the best chance of doing that. Expand Cleveland, Denver, Arizona all could have made him a starter, they chose not to.
Sky Diver Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 On 5/7/2018 at 7:46 PM, CountDorkula said: All of them? McCarron won his hearing back in February. He was out there with every other UFA. Expand McCarron couldn't sign with another team until March 14.
26CornerBlitz Posted May 7, 2018 Author Posted May 7, 2018 On 5/7/2018 at 7:48 PM, Sky Diver said: McCarron couldn't sign with another team until March 14. Expand Just like every UFA QB.
Sky Diver Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 On 5/7/2018 at 7:48 PM, CountDorkula said: Cleveland, Denver, Arizona all could have made him a starter, they chose not to. Expand Cleveland traded for TT on March 10 and McCarron wasn't available until March 14.
CountDorkula Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 On 5/7/2018 at 7:48 PM, Sky Diver said: McCarron couldn't sign with another team until March 14. Expand That's when UFA opened. Every team knew he was going to be a free agent on February 9
Hapless Bills Fan Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 On 5/7/2018 at 4:53 PM, aceman_16 said: I wouldn't do it because it is disingenuous and a passive aggressive way to make a point - in case you MISSED my point. If someone wants to post a negative review... go for it. However, call it what it is. To say it is a "highlight" film is innane and immature. Expand My take on it is by putting "highlight" in quotes, the OP intended to indicate that it was NOT highlights. I concede that the point might be over-subtle, but since there are now real highlights in this thread, my take is it slides. 1
Sky Diver Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 On 5/7/2018 at 7:49 PM, 26CornerBlitz said: Just like every UFA QB. Expand And the Browns traded for TT on March 10 so they weren't in the hunt for a QB. I guess you don't like Allen or McCarron.
CountDorkula Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 On 5/7/2018 at 7:49 PM, Sky Diver said: Cleveland traded for TT on March 10 and McCarron wasn't available until March 14. Expand But they knew that McCaron was going to be available well before then. They chose to give up assets for Taylor instead of signing McCarron for the cost of a contract.
26CornerBlitz Posted May 7, 2018 Author Posted May 7, 2018 (edited) On 5/7/2018 at 7:51 PM, Sky Diver said: And the Browns traded for TT on March 10 so they weren't in the hunt for a QB. I guess you don't like Allen or McCarron. Expand The Browns knew he was going to be a UFA, so they could have waited instead of dealing a valuable 3rd round pick. Assessing them for what they are as players has nothing to do with like or dislike. Edited May 7, 2018 by 26CornerBlitz
BuffaloHokie13 Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 On 5/7/2018 at 7:47 PM, Sky Diver said: Not the Browns. They traded for TT on March 10. Expand Trades couldn't become official until the 14th at 4PM. Also, I thought you said the Browns valued McCarron more than TT. So why would TT stop them from signing Free Agent McCarron?
Sky Diver Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 On 5/7/2018 at 7:51 PM, CountDorkula said: But they knew that McCaron was going to be available well before then. They chose to give up assets for Taylor instead of signing McCarron for the cost of a contract. Expand So you trust the Browns process more than the Bills process? Was it the Browns 0 - 16 season that persuaded you? Maybe the Browns didn't want to compete for a QB in free agency. On 5/7/2018 at 7:52 PM, 26CornerBlitz said: Assessing them for what they are as players has nothing to do with like or dislike. Expand I thought what I said was obvious, but let's try again. I guess you have a poor assessment of Allen and McCarron?
Hapless Bills Fan Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 On 5/7/2018 at 7:49 PM, Sky Diver said: Cleveland traded for TT on March 10 and McCarron wasn't available until March 14. Expand No. https://operations.nfl.com/football-ops/league-governance/2018-important-nfl-dates/ Cleveland may have worked out the details of the trade for Taylor on March 10th, but it didn't become official until March 14th 4 pm, the start of the new league year. McCarron's agent could have worked out a handshake deal just like any other pending FA agent once his NFL hearing completed on 15 February, but no FA could enter "official" negotiations until 12 March or sign until 14 March. There's no difference - the start of the new League year is the time trades are "officially" made and the time FA are "officially" signed.
Sky Diver Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 On 5/7/2018 at 7:52 PM, BuffaloHokie13 said: Trades couldn't become official until the 14th at 4PM. Also, I thought you said the Browns valued McCarron more than TT. So why would TT stop them from signing Free Agent McCarron? Expand The Browns offered the Bengals a 2nd and a 3rd rd draft pick for McCarron, but they didn't submit the paperwork in in time. They got TT for a 3rd rd pick.
26CornerBlitz Posted May 7, 2018 Author Posted May 7, 2018 On 5/7/2018 at 7:54 PM, Sky Diver said: So you trust the Browns process more than the Bills process? Was it the Browns 0 - 16 season that persuaded you? Maybe the Browns didn't want to compete for a QB in free agency. I thought what I said was obvious, but let's try again. I guess you have a poor assessment of Allen and McCarron? Expand I think McCarron is a bottom end starter who could be a decent backup. I don't know what Josh Allen is, but I'm hoping for the best.
Sky Diver Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 (edited) On 5/7/2018 at 7:57 PM, Hapless Bills Fan said: No. https://operations.nfl.com/football-ops/league-governance/2018-important-nfl-dates/ Cleveland may have worked out the details of the trade for Taylor on March 10th, but it didn't become official until March 14th 4 pm, the start of the new league year. McCarron's agent could have worked out a handshake deal just like any other pending FA agent once his NFL hearing completed on 15 February, but no FA could enter "official" negotiations until 12 March or sign until 14 March. There's no difference - the start of the new League year is the time trades are "officially" made and the time FA are "officially" signed. Expand McCarron wanted the opportunity to start which is why he filed a grievance to break his contract with the Bengals. Maybe he thought that his best opportunity to start was with Buffalo and he didn't have any interest in going to Cleveland. Edited May 7, 2018 by Sky Diver
CountDorkula Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 On 5/7/2018 at 7:57 PM, Sky Diver said: The Browns offered the Bengals a 2nd and a 3rd rd draft pick for McCarron, but they didn't submit the paperwork in in time. They got TT for a 3rd rd pick. Expand Didn't you just say to me "So you trust the Browns process more than the Bills process? Was it the Browns 0 - 16 season that persuaded you?" But then you go on to say the browns wanted to get McCarron more than Taylor. You're all over the board here. 1
HappyDays Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 On 5/7/2018 at 7:42 PM, Sky Diver said: The Browns offered the Bengals a 2nd and a 3rd round pick for McCarron. The Browns saw more value in McCarron than Taylor. Expand That was never confirmed. This article implies not everyone in the Browns front office was on board with the trade and they intentionally held off until the last minute to make sure the trade didn't go through: http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2017/11/browns_and_bengals_aj_mccarron.html But if they wanted McCarron they could have had him for $6 million a season and no draft picks. Instead they gave a 3rd rounder to pay Tyrod $16 million. McCarron is not even seen as a bridge starter in the league, he is just a backup. That's what we're paying him to be.
BuffaloHokie13 Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 On 5/7/2018 at 7:57 PM, Sky Diver said: The Browns offered the Bengals a 2nd and a 3rd rd draft pick for McCarron, but they didn't submit the paperwork in in time. They got TT for a 3rd rd pick. Expand And then they determined that they were better off giving up the 65th pick and $16M of cap space for TT instead of 0 draft picks and $10M for 2 years of McCarron when given the choice. The offer you are referencing was made by the 1-31 FO. What actually happened was decisions by the new FO. 1
Sky Diver Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 On 5/7/2018 at 7:57 PM, 26CornerBlitz said: I think McCarron is a bottom end starter who could be a decent backup. I don't know what Josh Allen is, but I'm hoping for the best. Expand I don't think we know what either if them is, but the Bills think highly of both, and their process seems to be working okay so far. I don't see any reason not to be optimistic. McCarron was 2 - 1 with the Bengals, and should have been 3 - 0, except the Bengal imploded. https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/bengals-have-playoff-meltdown-for-the-ages-vs-steelers-5-things-to-know/
HappyDays Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 On 5/7/2018 at 7:45 PM, Sky Diver said: McCarron wanted the opportunity to start. Buffalo gave him the best chance of doing that. Expand The Browns would have been his best chance to start. They already said there is no open competition, Mayfield is not starting. But the Browns didn't want him. No one did. We were the last team looking and he was the last QB available. He didn't come here because we gave him the best chance, we came here because we gave him the only chance he will get. And listening to Beane talk I don't think he has a very good chance. They're adamant that Allen is part of an open competition, and Beane has said multiple times that Allen isn't raw like people think.
Recommended Posts