Dalton or Luck?

[Brownshoe]

(09-30-2016, 08:54 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: As much as i despise him, there's no denying Luck is much more of a physical specimen. Bigger, stronger arm. Dalton compensates that by reading defenses and throwing the ball where it should go quickly. 

There's no telling what this team could do with Luck, but if i had to bet money, i'd still say they would have an equal or better amount of wins, with more primetime  and playoff victories. 

Luck has a horrible record outside of his division. I think it's under .500 since 2013 tbh.


EDIT: Luck is 10-17 in games he's started against people outside of his division since 2013.

[Nicomo Cosca]

The AFC North is arguably the best division, and the AFC South is arguably the worst. When you can win a division with 9 wins that says a lot.

[BengalChris]

In all fairness to Luck he certainly hasn't had the talent around him that Dalton has had. Not saying that makes Dalton worse or better. The Bengals have a defense, the Colts really aren't close.

If Luck were the Bengals QB we'd be winning just the same. Of course, we don't get #1 overall picks either, so if you want to have a value grade on them Dalton has been the better value.

[Brownshoe]

(10-01-2016, 01:29 AM)BengalChris Wrote: In all fairness to Luck he certainly hasn't had the talent around him that Dalton has had. Not saying that makes Dalton worse or better. The Bengals have a defense, the Colts really aren't close.

If Luck were the Bengals QB we'd be winning just the same. Of course, we don't get #1 overall picks either, so if you want to have a value grade on them Dalton has been the better value.

Dalton has had a better defense throughout his career, but he really didn't have anything other than Green until 2013 when Marvin Jones stepped up. 2014 is the obvious and 2015 he had really good weapons. Luck has had 2 good receivers and a good TE pretty much his whole career. Both haven't had good run games either. So it's not like Dalton had a lot more talent around him... If we did I don't think that we would have went 4-12 the year before he was drafted. Hell, we even lost our top 2 receivers from that year too.

[Rhinocero23]

(09-30-2016, 08:15 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: So I just got ridiculed on another MB (non-football) for saying I wouldn't trade Dalton for Luck. I wouldn't even trade him straight up for Luck tbh. But then the idea was suggested that a trade of Luck for Andy & AJ was still lopsided in favor of the Bengals. Wtf? Am I taking crazy pills? I'm curious as to how many here would do either of those deals?

To me, Dalton continues to be one of the most underrated QBs in the league. I don't think people who don't regularly watch the Bengals  (outside of playoff games) know how good he really is. Did Luck ever have an MVP caliber season like Dalton was having last year? Is it still hype from college, and being drafted #1? Or is he clearly far better than Dalton? 

This is not even a serious question for any one outside of our fan base...our Andy fans are typically a bit delusional.
Good is not Great & Luck > Dalton. There is really nothing left to be said.

[Fan_in_Kettering]

Trade Andy Dalton for Andrew Luck? No way. Not on this planet nor any other.

Andrew Luck is presently as good as he's ever going to get. He peaked early and the rest of his career will be a huge plateau with a few highlights and low points here and there. Conversely, Andy Dalton is going to get better and better. Some of the throws he made against Miami were ones he couldn't have made in his first few years in the NFL. Cincinnati fans forget how far Andy has come since Day One and what few of us can see is how great he'll be as his career progresses. The 2011-2013 version of Andy Dalton could not improvise behind 2016's sieve-like offensive line, for example, but now Andy can move, step up in the pocket, throw accurately on the run, run for first downs, and make plays when none seemingly exist.

Would any of us have predicted Andy could find ways to score without a credible running game? Without an offensive line? Without Marvin Jones, Mohamed Sanu, or Tyler Eifert?

[Pat5775]

If it's Dalton for Luck straight up, I take that deal in a heartbeat. As others have already stated, Luck has next to nothing to work with. Imaging what Luck could do with Green. I like Dalton but he does some of the most infuriating things with the ball at times. I think Luck would do far better with this team than Andy has. With that said, I'm perfectly happy with Andy as our QB. But even with Marv as his head coach, I believe Luck would have a playoff win or two by now.

[Daddy-O]

Everyone should realize that Luck must be better because he was drafted so high! Andy was a 2nd round QB and therefore can't possible be as good as Luck.

[*rfaulk34*]

(10-01-2016, 12:57 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Luck has a horrible record outside of his division. I think it's under .500 since 2013 tbh.


EDIT: Luck is 10-17 in games he's started against people outside of his division since 2013.

Oh, i know. I've pointed that out many times. If you ask pretty much anyone, they will tell you that top to bottom, the Bengals have a much better roster than the Colts. A better coaching staff and system too. 

At this point, i wouldn't trade them straight up if offered, but just speaking hypothetically, in the exact same circumstances, i think Luck could do a little bit more. Most of it would have come in the early years though. It took Dalton a while to get where he is, whereas Luck came in able to put up bigger numbers.

[Daddy-O]

(09-30-2016, 08:52 PM)Joelist Wrote: If people knew at their drafts how they would play as pros, Luck would have been the second round pick and Andy would have gone #1 in the draft.

this

[Essex Johnson]

(09-30-2016, 08:54 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: As much as i despise him, there's no denying Luck is much more of a physical specimen. Bigger, stronger arm. Dalton compensates that by reading defenses and throwing the ball where it should go quickly. 

There's no telling what this team could do with Luck, but if i had to bet money, i'd still say they would have an equal or better amount of wins, with more primetime  and playoff victories. 

I thought I was reading about Jeff George.. old Colt QB.. there is the problem with Luck.. having a big strong arm does not warrant a outstanding QB.. if he actually starts to develop some of Andy attributes.. reading defense, quick release etc.. he can move his game.. 

The other problem is QBs have to progress and change as they go along their careers,, I have seen that out of Andy have not seen that out of Luck

[SunsetBengal]

(10-01-2016, 10:06 AM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: Trade Andy Dalton for Andrew Luck? No way.  Not on this planet nor any other.

Andrew Luck is presently as good as he's ever going to get.  He peaked early and the rest of his career will be a huge plateau with a few highlights and low points here and there.  Conversely, Andy Dalton is going to get better and better.  Some of the throws he made against Miami were ones he couldn't have made in his first few years in the NFL.  Cincinnati fans forget how far Andy has come since Day One and what few of us can see is how great he'll be as his career progresses.  The 2011-2013 version of Andy Dalton could not improvise behind 2016's sieve-like offensive line, for example, but now Andy can move, step up in the pocket, throw accurately on the run, run for first downs, and make plays when none seemingly exist.

Would any of us have predicted Andy could find ways to score without a credible running game?  Without an offensive line?  Without Marvin Jones, Mohamed Sanu, or Tyler Eifert?  

A few years back, I was skeptical of Andy's long term chances of maturing into a great NFL QB.  My biggest cling-to line was that Andy wouldn't be great, in my eyes, until he demonstrated the ability to put the team on his back and carry it to victory.  In my opinion, Andy does put the team on his back and carry it to wins.

[Essex Johnson]

(10-01-2016, 10:22 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Oh, i know. I've pointed that out many times. If you ask pretty much anyone, they will tell you that top to bottom, the Bengals have a much better roster than the Colts. A better coaching staff and system too. 

At this point, i wouldn't trade them straight up if offered, but just speaking hypothetically, in the exact same circumstances, i think Luck could do a little bit more. Most of it would have come in the early years though. It took Dalton a while to get where he is, whereas Luck came in able to put up bigger numbers.

If you compare their first two seasons, you are going to find similar numbers with edge to Luck in yards 256 to 220 a game but Andy had one more TD in those first two years 47 to 46.  So not a great difference between the first two years as far as stats.

[*rfaulk34*]

(10-01-2016, 10:56 AM)Essex Johnson Wrote: I thought I was reading about Jeff George.. old Colt QB.. there is the problem with Luck.. having a big strong arm does not warrant a outstanding QB.. if he actually starts to develop some of Andy attributes.. reading defense, quick release etc.. he can move his game.. 

The other problem is QBs have to progress and change as they go along their careers,, I have seen that out of Andy have not seen that out of Luck

4,700 yards, 40 TDs and a 96.5 rating in his 3rd year. There was consistent progress in his first 3 years before he was hurt. He's gotten back on track this year as well. 

I get the criticism and i've thrown out plenty myself but sometimes it's not rooted in reality. 

[Froob]

(09-30-2016, 08:54 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: As much as i despise him, there's no denying Luck is much more of a physical specimen. Bigger, stronger arm. Dalton compensates that by reading defenses and throwing the ball where it should go quickly. 

There's no telling what this team could do with Luck, but if i had to bet money, i'd still say they would have an equal or better amount of wins, with more primetime  and playoff victories. 

much more of a physical specimen that gets hurt much more often? 

[*rfaulk34*]

(10-01-2016, 11:16 AM)Froob Wrote: much more of a physical specimen that gets hurt much more often? 

Last year was the only time he's missed games. Just like Dalton.

[BengalChris]

(10-01-2016, 01:35 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Dalton has had a better defense throughout his career, but he really didn't have anything other than Green until 2013 when Marvin Jones stepped up. 2014 is the obvious and 2015 he had really good weapons. Luck has had 2 good receivers and a good TE pretty much his whole career. Both haven't had good run games either. So it's not like Dalton had a lot more talent around him... If we did I don't think that we would have went 4-12 the year before he was drafted. Hell, we even lost our top 2 receivers from that year too.

You always run down our offensive weapons, presumably to make Andy Dalton look better than he is, but I assure you that many QBs in the league would love to have the Bengals weapons. Just look at the contracts handed out to Marvin Jones and Sanu. And Gresham had no difficulty in landing on another team either.

[Essex Johnson]

(10-01-2016, 11:11 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: 4,700 yards, 40 TDs and a 96.5 rating in his 3rd year. There was consistent progress in his first 3 years before he was hurt. He's gotten back on track this year as well. 

I get the criticism and i've thrown out plenty myself but sometimes it's not rooted in reality. 

So here is your quote not mine  "It took Dalton a while to get where he is, whereas Luck came in able to put up bigger numbers." so then I pointed out that when Luck came in " first two years" he did not have a commanding performance over Dalton... so in your response I guess we have to disregard the first two years as not "came in able to put up bigger numbers" and just skip to year 3 ??? now which response is rooted in reality... ??????

[Essex Johnson]

(10-01-2016, 11:33 AM)BengalChris Wrote: You always run down our offensive weapons, presumably to make Andy Dalton look better than he is, but I assure you that many QBs in the league would love to have the Bengals weapons. Just look at the contracts handed out to Marvin Jones and Sanu. And Gresham had no difficulty in landing on another team either.

I actually think he mentioned Jones coming in and helping. not sure how that is running down the offense.  If you look at Sanu numbers he was average at best with regards to other 2/3 WRs... As for judging talent by contracts.. you are missing a bit of economics.. called supply and demand.  overall WR salaries have went over much more due to lack of supply on the market with an increased in demand, this has resulted in a bit of inflated contracts not bases on overall performance numbers but on the lack of supply with an increase in demand for WRs on the market.

[*rfaulk34*]

(10-01-2016, 12:07 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: So here is your quote not mine  "It took Dalton a while to get where he is, whereas Luck came in able to put up bigger numbers." so then I pointed out that when Luck came in " first two years" he did not have a commanding performance over Dalton... so in your response I guess we have to disregard the first two years as not "came in able to put up bigger numbers" and just skip to year 3 ??? now which response is rooted in reality... ??????

Their numbers weren't done with the same team. That should be easy to understand. It doesn't happen in a vacuum; different teams, different circumstances.