bills_red Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index...%3dclayton_john McCargo's days numbered: The Bills accepted defensive tackle John McCargo back after his trade to the Indianapolis Colts was voided because of a bulging disk but it will be interesting to see how long he remains in Buffalo. The trading deadline is over, so he can't go anywhere. Coaches took a few public shots at McCargo so it's pretty clear they don't want him back. Expect him to be released pretty quickly. Why not just put him on IR and trade him in the offseason? not just cut him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaGimp Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 This situation makes no sense. The trade is voided due to the bulging disk yet he passes the Bills test. Now if we cut him the Colts would instantly pick him up. WTF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Considering the source, and the fact that McCargo participated in practice yesterday, I look forward to a long and fruitful career from McCargo as a Bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsVet Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Considering the source, and the fact that McCargo participated in practice yesterday, I look forward to a long and fruitful career from McCargo as a Bill. McCargo's on life support with this team right now, and everyone knows it. They're practicing him in an attempt to prove he's healthy, but with the trade deadline passed, he's in no man's land. They could entertain a trade after the season, but I wouldn't be surprised if he's cut. Let's all agree the guy was a bust, though not without some decent plays. It's bad when a player isn't capable of playing in the NFL. I think it's safe to say McCargo has great ability, but serious motivational issues. Then again, Indy drafted Quinn Pitcock in the third and he didn't want to play football. It happens to teams, just hopefully not with first rounders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Release him and replace him with...whom? Corey Mace? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JStranger76 Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Keep him but make him inactive. I'll be pissed if we release him and he instantly gets picked up. That's what you get for being a lazy millionare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKOOBY Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 If the Bills cut him and the Colts pick him up, that's tampering in my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JStranger76 Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Yeah but not in the NFL's mind. Anything that could help improve an NFL poster boy led team would get a free pass. It would get called a "great strategy" by all the Manning pole smokers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsfaninFl Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 I was tickled by the article that said that the Colts will make McCargo a solid player. I guess they think the Bills coaching staff is not very good. But in my opinion, if we had Peyton Manning at QB our O-line would be looking a lot better than Indy's. I believe Edwards has a lot of potential, but he cannot be expected to carry a team while he has yet to play in 16 games. Peyton can and does carry that team often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffaloboyinATL Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 McCargo's on life support with this team right now, and everyone knows it. They're practicing him in an attempt to prove he's healthy, but with the trade deadline passed, he's in no man's land. They could entertain a trade after the season, but I wouldn't be surprised if he's cut. We now know that when healthy he is worth at least a 4th rounder, for this reason, I don't see us cutting him. I hope he gets healthy and starts to contribute or if not, he lands in the IR. I agree withthe poster that said the Colts will pick him up if we drop him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kota Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 It doesn't make sense to put him on IR or release him. You gain nothing by doing it. They traded Mccargo to get a 4th round pick. If they release him they get nothing but a open roster spot. I hope this lights a fire under Mccargo because he is playing for his 2nd contract at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 I hope he plays on Sunday, to tell the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davefan66 Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 It doesn't make sense to put him on IR or release him. You gain nothing by doing it. They traded Mccargo to get a 4th round pick. If they release him they get nothing but a open roster spot. I hope this lights a fire under Mccargo because he is playing for his 2nd contract at this point. Problem is, if we trade him it won't be until the offseason. Right now is when Indy needs a DT and are willing to pay up with a 4th rounder. I don't see us getting anything, unless it is a late-late rounder, for him. I fully expect us to release him, or to prevent another team from using him this season (yep, this has happened before), be put on IR. Just a case of supply and demand, and the fact now the entire NFL knows we don't want him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davefan66 Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 I hope he plays on Sunday, to tell the truth. Me too, and see if he answers the bell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsVet Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 We now know that when healthy he is worth at least a 4th rounder, for this reason, I don't see us cutting him. I hope he gets healthy and starts to contribute or if not, he lands in the IR. I agree withthe poster that said the Colts will pick him up if we drop him. How much more motivation did he need than this off-season? Signing Marcus Stroud (admittedly to play the 1 tech position), seeing unheralded UFA Spencer Johnson come in AND Kyle Williams get a moderate extension. I really think the Bills have given up on the guy and will remain in the unenviable position of taking him back. He's not going to fetch a 4th rounder unless he plays real well and the market is a tad limited as well. He fits mainly with C2/T2 teams. As far as I can tell, this means teams like TB, IND, CHI, DET, PHI would be more interested in him than most. That also hurts is trade value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GripnRip Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Really no reason to release him, either keep him in his current role or put him on IR. In either case, trade him in the off-season for a late round pick or as icing in another deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Release him and replace him with...whom? Corey Mace? They were prepared to do this if the Colts didn't send him back. Why all of a sudden should he be part of their plans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChevyVanMiller Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Juat a thought about the whole "didn't pass the physical" deal: Do you think a team uses that as a safety valve? For instance: Let's say that McCargo shows up in Indy and has a terrible interview. He shows a bad attitude and the team figures he's a bad fit. Do they then "fail" him to get the pick back? Also, could Indy figure that there's no way the Bills keep him after he's sent back so why not get him on waivers and keep the draft pick? If that's the case the NFL should make it a rule that if you void a trade you can't claim that player if they are waived. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhg Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Also, could Indy figure that there's no way the Bills keep him after he's sent back so why not get him on waivers and keep the draft pick? If that's the case the NFL should make it a rule that if you void a trade you can't claim that player if they are waived. I would be surprised if there isn't a rule like that already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Didn't "the shots" happen before the season even started? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrFishfinder Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index...%3dclayton_john Why not just put him on IR and trade him in the offseason? not just cut him. Expect him to not be missed much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Juat a thought about the whole "didn't pass the physical" deal: Do you think a team uses that as a safety valve? For instance: Let's say that McCargo shows up in Indy and has a terrible interview. He shows a bad attitude and the team figures he's a bad fit. Do they then "fail" him to get the pick back? Also, could Indy figure that there's no way the Bills keep him after he's sent back so why not get him on waivers and keep the draft pick? If that's the case the NFL should make it a rule that if you void a trade you can't claim that player if they are waived. Sounds like an interesting guess. Another i entertained is that, perhaps the Indy coaching staff saw something on film they thought they could correct, or improve with McCargo. Maybe their doctors told them, a reason he might not be able to consistently do "X" might be related to that bulging disk. He may not be in great pain, or notice it much most of the time, but it could impact his ability to do that particular thing (that they feel needs doing). But, my guess is they saw a guy that, because of the disk issue, could be damaged goods at any time, and they didn't want to give a 4th rounder for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans4e64 Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 If the Bills cut him and the Colts pick him up, that's tampering in my mind. Do you know what tampering is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whites Bay Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 Praise where praise is due, criticism where criticism is due. In my case, it's criticism. I was CERTAIN McCargo would be given an injury release a couple of days ago. I'm still scratching my head that he's with the team. Which makes me.....oh, wait a minute. It makes me just-another-internet-blogger. This all having been said, okay, he's with the team. I love a happy ending. If they're going to keep him, I'd love to see the kid get out there this weekend and break some bones. Wouldn't THAT be something? I don't pretend to know whether the guy is motivated or not, but I can tell you how the attempted trade would affect ME. I'd get out there and send someone off the field on a cart. Not because I'd give a schit about Ralph Wilson, Buffalo or TBD, but because I want someone to get me the hell out of here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 It is interesting that McCargo is back after the failed trade just like nothing ever happened. One might think that the trade was made because He was becoming a problem/distraction He was demanding a trade and refusing to play or practice They had an upgrade/replacement all ready to sign and bring aboard Any or all of the above It's sort of befuddling that this trade happened and un-happened like it did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans4e64 Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 It makes no sense to cut him. There are two much better options. 1.) He plays his ass off because maybe there is some new sort of motivation. 2.) He is the same player he has been, and the Bills don't want him as a distraction for the rest of the season, so they put him on IR where he can disappear, and they try and trade him in the offseason. Cutting him would be retarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistolPeaTear Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 Considering the source, and the fact that McCargo participated in practice yesterday, I look forward to a long and fruitful career from McCargo as a Bill. Yeah cuz for McCargo, Its sad when Tim Anderson has a better Bills career than you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 It is interesting that McCargo is back after the failed trade just like nothing ever happened. One might think that the trade was made because He was becoming a problem/distraction He was demanding a trade and refusing to play or practice They had an upgrade/replacement all ready to sign and bring aboard Any or all of the above It's sort of befuddling that this trade happened and un-happened like it did. where do get this stuff? He wasn't contributing on a regular basis, the coaches tried to motivate him and it didn't work. So, trade him and get some value for a former #1 pick. There's no mystery there. The Bills had a taker in Indy, but he failed his physical based on something that isn't always painful or clear on an x-ray. Also, he failed the Colts physical and passed the Bills version after the trade fell through. The Bills own his rights and can no longer trade him, so rather than release him and get nothing, it's pretty obvious they'll hold on to him in the hopes that he gets it and/or they get a new trading partner in the off season. none of the above... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 The Bills have already said that in their eyes, McCargo is healthy. So how are they going to put him on IR? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 where do get this stuff? He wasn't contributing on a regular basis, the coaches tried to motivate him and it didn't work. So, trade him and get some value for a former #1 pick. There's no mystery there. You obviously don't understand the question. Yes, an idiot can understand that the definition of a trade is an exchange between parties of things they value. The Bills exchanged their rights to McCargo to Indy for an undisclosed draft pick. The question is not whether or not they made a trade or whether or not they are happy with McCargo's production. The answers to those questions are obvious to everyone. The question is that the trade should be evaluated in both a short and long term context. In the longer term, the Bills would have received a draft pick. Again, no brainer, stupid obvious stuff. In the short term, what was the plan? Why dump McCargo? How does that improve the Buffalo Bills football team right this fuggin instant? Is he such a fug up that they are better without him? Did they have a plan to bring in somone else? Did they even fuggin have a plan for the short term? McCargo may be a backup and an underachiever, but he did make the 53 man roster and in the event someone goes down, he would be forced into a contributing role. Trading him with no plan on how to replace him with anything other than hot air isn't a plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IQ Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 A bulging disc is a very grey area. If we did an MRI on everyone on this list, I'd bet 50% of the folks over 30 would have some (or many) "bulging discs." This is really a non issue unless the disc becomes focally larger (i.e., a "protrusion") or the bulge itself starts to block some of the nerve roots or causes pain. From what I understand, he had no motor muscle weakness and no pain. In that sense, the bulging disc diagnosis is fairly useless unless its a huge bulge without symptoms in which case they may be worried about it getting worse. This brings up two points: 1) Maybe Indy did use this as an excuse 2) Maybe McCargo has been limited by pain and has not really told anyone. Second unrelated question. How do we know that McCargo was "unmotivated?" It seems everyone has just taken that as a fact. Minus an offhand vague comment from the D-line coach, what evidence has there been that he's not working hard? I ask more out of curiosity. It seems if you aren't Edwards, Denney, or Kelsay, you are never heard on Buffalo radio/newspapers. Has McCargo said anything to lead people to believe he is unmovitated? Have people watched him in practice to see this? He looked pretty damn motivated for his previous 2-3 yrs to me. What changed this offseason? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 In the short term, what was the plan? Why dump McCargo? How does that improve the Buffalo Bills football team right this fuggin instant? Is he such a fug up that they are better without him? Did they have a plan to bring in somone else? Did they even fuggin have a plan for the short term? McCargo may be a backup and an underachiever, but he did make the 53 man roster and in the event someone goes down, he would be forced into a contributing role. Trading him with no plan on how to replace him with anything other than hot air isn't a plan. Since there was no other announcement and the trade deadline past, the short term showed nothing else. If there were some free agent DL, they could've signed him anyways and deactivated JMC. So there was no plan, other than probably Corey Mace. It's not that he's so bad that they're better off with him. They gave up on JMC and would've taken the draft choice and written him off. Bill Kollar (to me) seems like a really good coach, and I yield to him and the other coaches about depth. Now he's back from the dead, since it's release him and get nothing, see if the light turned on, or back to no worse than they started - they're likely going for the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuanGuzman Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 It makes no sense to cut him. There are two much better options. 1.) He plays his ass off because maybe there is some new sort of motivation. 2.) He is the same player he has been, and the Bills don't want him as a distraction for the rest of the season, so they put him on IR where he can disappear, and they try and trade him in the offseason. Cutting him would be retarded. Yeh, I agree completely with your assessment. The bills should try and make the best of the lousy situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 It's not that he's so bad that they're better off with him.I assume that you mean "without him". There are 3 possibilities here if they considered the short term. Either they thought they'd be better off without him, they'd be about the same without him, or they'd be a worse team without him. The other possibility is that they didn't think about the short term impact much at all. They gave up on JMC and would've taken the draft choice and written him off. Bill Kollar (to me) seems like a really good coach, and I yield to him and the other coaches about depth. Now the Bills only have 4 DTs on the roster to start. Stroud has spent significant time in the hot tub in recent years. If he or Williams got dinged, the Bills would have 0 depth in their 4-3 defense without McCargo. It's OK to think Kollar is a good coach, but unless he's going to pull a Wade Phillips and change the entire defense overnight, the lack of depth could be a major blunder for a team that is trying to make a playoff run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans4e64 Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 You obviously don't understand the question. Yes, an idiot can understand that the definition of a trade is an exchange between parties of things they value. The Bills exchanged their rights to McCargo to Indy for an undisclosed draft pick. The question is not whether or not they made a trade or whether or not they are happy with McCargo's production. The answers to those questions are obvious to everyone. The question is that the trade should be evaluated in both a short and long term context. In the longer term, the Bills would have received a draft pick. Again, no brainer, stupid obvious stuff. In the short term, what was the plan? Why dump McCargo? How does that improve the Buffalo Bills football team right this fuggin instant? Is he such a fug up that they are better without him? Did they have a plan to bring in somone else? Did they even fuggin have a plan for the short term? McCargo may be a backup and an underachiever, but he did make the 53 man roster and in the event someone goes down, he would be forced into a contributing role. Trading him with no plan on how to replace him with anything other than hot air isn't a plan. Do you really think the Bills were going to not sign or promote anyone to the 53 man roster after the trade? Because if you don't, that's called a plan. Just because you weren't aware of what the next step was, doesn't mean one didn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 Do you really think the Bills were going to not sign or promote anyone to the 53 man roster after the trade? Because if you don't, that's called a plan. Just because you weren't aware of what the next step was, doesn't mean one didn't exist. I would've expected the Bills would've had someone ready to sign immediately after they dealt McCargo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bizell Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 did McCargo play yesterday? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2003Contenders Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 did McCargo play yesterday? Yes, he did. I don't recall him making anay plays, but he was definitely on the field for at least a few plays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeFerguson Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 did McCargo play yesterday? Yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts