Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Rigotz

Week 10 Hindsight: Was the AJ McCarron Trade a Good One?

Hindsight: Was the AJ McCarron Trade a Good One?  

91 members have voted

  1. 1. Hindsight: Was the AJ McCarron Trade a Good One?

    • Yes (AJ to Raiders for a high 5th Round Pick)
    • No (AJ the Starter/Backup in Buffalo)


Recommended Posts

After week 10, we know 3 new things:

- Raiders pick will likely be top 3, which makes the 5th rounder more valuable.

- Matt Barkley might be a decent backup / interim starter.

- Nate Peterman is not a decent backup / interim starter.

 

Curious where you all fall on this one now.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it was the wrong move at the time. Up until yesterday it was still the wrong move. Even if Barkley becomes a decent asset it was poor judgement to move McCarron and rely on Peterman. The QB situation over the last month has been an embarrassment for the organization.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 If Josh Allen becomes a franchise QB this will not be a topic in the future. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably would’ve won a game or two that we lost to keep us in playoff contention all year long.  

 

Long term though, it was the right move.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AJ would not have been the difference in any of our losses if his preseason performance (and limited action versus SF on Thursday) was any indication. A high fifth for a guy that will be lucky to still be in the NFL in a few years is a big win for us. 

Edited by JimKellyTryouts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither AJ nor Peterman was the answer and never would be. Bills went cheap dumping TT's 16m and looking for a quick fix while they went after their franchise QB. Smart money would have signed Teddy B.  Barkley wasn't available until a few weeks ago, so we can't factor that in.  DA should have been here in camp. They had to measure the little 3 (JA/AJ/NP) against a vet to see what they had. AJ's play was so bad, that we couldn't even get a read on how pathetic Peterman was until the bullets started flying. By then it was too late and we lost the season.  

We all shuffled the blame from the OL, WR, TE and even the OC trying to figure out what went so wrong. Barkley let us see al plainly see that it was QB play and a few bad apples (KB/Clay,Ducasse) that were causing the problems. Now that we have fixed what we could, it's time to move forward full speed ahead and get as many wins as possible. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted no because for a professional football operation, they showed an astounding lack of planning for a worst case scenario and an absurd amount of what I'd call "blind faith" in Nate Peterman.

 

What if Peterman sucks?

What if we don't want to play Allen or he's hurt?

 

Out of moves on the chess board, they had to go out and grab a guy off a golf course (Anderson) and a guy who hadn't played in over two years (Barkley). 

 

IMO, highly paid NFL executives shouldn't be reduced to doing those things IN season.  

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Trade value is what it is.  The real problem was it saddled them with Peterman this year, which beget Andersen, and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it was a good trade to get anything for that bum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, dpberr said:

I voted no because for a professional football operation, they showed an astounding lack of planning for a worst case scenario and an absurd amount of what I'd call "blind faith" in Nate Peterman.

 

What if Peterman sucks?

What if we don't want to play Allen or he's hurt?

 

Out of moves on the chess board, they had to go out and grab a guy off a golf course (Anderson) and a guy who hadn't played in over two years (Barkley). 

 

IMO, highly paid NFL executives shouldn't be reduced to doing those things IN season.  

 

 

 

 

 

Shhh. You can't question them on that. According to the Billievers they know what they are doing. Trust the process cause next season they are going to fix the offense. 

 

I myself can't trust them in fixing the offense after seeing how they evaluated the QB situation this season. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With a $5M salary and given that he was unable to beat out Peterman in practice or the pre-season games, trading McCarron was absolutely the right move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BillsRdue said:

Neither AJ nor Peterman was the answer and never would be. Bills went cheap dumping TT's 16m and looking for a quick fix while they went after their franchise QB. Smart money would have signed Teddy B.  Barkley wasn't available until a few weeks ago, so we can't factor that in.  DA should have been here in camp. They had to measure the little 3 (JA/AJ/NP) against a vet to see what they had. AJ's play was so bad, that we couldn't even get a read on how pathetic Peterman was until the bullets started flying. By then it was too late and we lost the season.  

We all shuffled the blame from the OL, WR, TE and even the OC trying to figure out what went so wrong. Barkley let us see al plainly see that it was QB play and a few bad apples (KB/Clay,Ducasse) that were causing the problems. Now that we have fixed what we could, it's time to move forward full speed ahead and get as many wins as possible. 

There's a lot of good here. But especially the point that if Peterman showed us more in the preseason than AJ, how exactly does anyone expect that retaining AJ would have gone any differently/better? I get going into the season with NP and JA only was an issue and we likely should have picked up DA at that time if we could have, or someone else for contingency, but the fact that NP beat out AJ in preseason says everything.

 

Caveats? One game from Barkley doesn't all of a sudden prove this all to be true. Our OL is still atrocious and our WR corps depleted - I'm not sure we've seen an NFL TE on the roster for quite some time either. 

 

The other point in reference to this post - it's still too early to tell whether it was good or bad. We haven't picked our guy in the 5th yet with the raiders pick so long term we may actually end up being okay and it'll be a complete non-issue when we create a perennial playoff contender. Even if we don't, there's no pointing to this as the exact reason why as keeping AJ wouldn't have set us up in any different a position as a result. Short term? Likely hurt us only because we didn't replace him and put too much faith in Peterman to carry the team. But even then, I wonder exactly just how different things would've been if we kept him on the roster. My guess is not much at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Rock'em Sock'em said:

With a $5M salary and given that he was unable to beat out Peterman in practice or the pre-season games, trading McCarron was absolutely the right move.

You are right about this.  So the real question is given the potential veteran FA QB's available at the time did they make an error in judgement by signing McCarron and being put into a position where trading him for a 5th and taking a $2.1M dead cap hit was the best option?   Given the drafting of Allen was an older veteran 'mentor' (e.g. D. Anderson) a better option from the start of the season?  My view, they screwed the pooch with their handling of the QB position from the start but maybe, just maybe they stepped in it with Barkley.  But with just one game against the Jets the jury is still out on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of surprising to see 32% of people still saying it's a bad trade. What would the benefit be of having McCarron right now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, klos63 said:

I think it was the wrong move at the time. Up until yesterday it was still the wrong move. Even if Barkley becomes a decent asset it was poor judgement to move McCarron and rely on Peterman. The QB situation over the last month has been an embarrassment for the organization.

 

Maybe you forgot how AJ getting owned by 3rd string defenses in the preseason?  If you are going to fault Beane, it should be for not having a better plan once AJ and then Peterman weren’t going to work out.   But the trade of AJ was actually a good move 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all the comp picks the fifth will be more like a 6th round talent. Hope for a developmental guy but likely will be a Tanner Vallejo type guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it was a completely fine move. Some people seem to forget that AJ was not good in the preseason. He likely would have played no better than Derek Anderson had he started. Which is probably the same train of thought Beane and McDermott had. If you can get any asset for a completely replaceable player, you do it. 

Edited by Bills2ref

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Phil The Thrill said:

 

Maybe you forgot how AJ getting owned by 3rd string defenses in the preseason?  If you are going to fault Beane, it should be for not having a better plan once AJ and then Peterman weren’t going to work out.   But the trade of AJ was actually a good move 

I'm not saying AJ was the savior, but he was also playing with 3rd stringers. We saw with Peterman and Allen really that preseason games aren't a good indication for regular season performance. The coaches shouldn't get fooled by preseason games, that's what fans do. We can probably agree they botched the QB situation this season.

51 minutes ago, Rigotz said:

Kind of surprising to see 32% of people still saying it's a bad trade. What would the benefit be of having McCarron right now?

Perhaps the previous few weeks wouldn't have been historically poor offensive performances and maybe we would have beaten Houston too.  He might not have ruined so many fans Sunday's watching horrendous QB play.  Do you want  a chance to win games or don't you?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think he is any kind of difference maker.  Buffalo drafted Wyatt Teller in the fifth round in 2018.  He's suddenly looking like a pretty good pick.  A fifth for McCarron might product a pretty good contributer to the Bills next year and longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, JimKellyTryouts said:

AJ would not have been the difference in any of our losses if his preseason performance (and limited action versus SF on Thursday) was any indication. A high fifth for a guy that will be lucky to still be in the NFL in a few years is a big win for us. 

You do realize that AJ McCarron looked positively Barkley-esque in some of his infrequent starts in Cincy?  For example:  Here's his first ever start: 15-21, 192, 115.6 QB rating. 

What Barkley's start proves to me is this: if we had gone into the season with a reasonably competent NFL QB as our starter, we actually could have been competitive this year, just like we were last year. As it is, it's been a squandered opportunity - a half-assed rebuild, a flaccid PeterTank, whatever you want to call it. So yes, it was a mistake.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

You do realize that AJ McCarron looked positively Barkley-esque in some of his infrequent starts in Cincy?  For example:  Here's his first ever start: 15-21, 192, 115.6 QB rating. 

What Barkley's start proves to me is this: if we had gone into the season with a reasonably competent NFL QB as our starter, we actually could have been competitive this year, just like we were last year. As it is, it's been a squandered opportunity - a half-assed rebuild, a flaccid PeterTank, whatever you want to call it. So yes, it was a mistake.

Well yeah, he was much better set up for success in Cincinnati (great OL, running and receiving weapons, coaching, the whole shebang). The years he did took ever were the peak of that team. I'm still inclined to think he wouldn't be good enough to elevate our level of play from loss to win in most - if not all - our games though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barkley's brought stability to the position. They need to extend him

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Rigotz said:

After week 10, we know 3 new things:

- Raiders pick will likely be top 3, which makes the 5th rounder more valuable.

- Matt Barkley might be a decent backup / interim starter.

- Nate Peterman is not a decent backup / interim starter.

 

Curious where you all fall on this one now.

 

Getting a 5th rounder for a guy who wasn't good enough in pre season to beat out Peterman when we were most likely going to cut him anyways? I'd say that was a heck of a deal imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×