07-07-2015, 10:15 AM
(07-07-2015, 09:15 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Doesn't mean a lot to me
Luck produces his worst twice as often as Tannehill.
Russell Wilson produces his worst more than Ryan Fitzpatrick.
Tom Brady produces his worst more than Alex Smith or Jay Cutler.
So does this mean that Tannehill is twice as good as Luck, Fitz is better then Wilson, and Smith and Cutler are better than Brady? I don't think so.
This is not who is better (ceiling). This is who is more likely to perform their worst (floor) and what that worst is. I also noted that it does not take into account timing: The quarters in which a player is good or bad in.
- Andrew Luck, Tannehill, Smith, & Brady have each only had 3 games with a sub 60 QBR over that span (Wilson has had 4). DALTON HAS HAD 6 is the point.
- Wilson/Fitzpatrick is a bad comparison because Wilson played more games so I didn't compare their actual numbers vs. <70 performances.
So, yeah, the above quarterbacks are considerably more likely to not stink than AD. In the playoffs, those QBs have posted much better numbers (90s, 100s), while Dalton is in the 60s.
Regular season <80 QBR rankings among the QBs I listed:
Dalton: 10
Brady: 7
Luck: 6
Wilson: 5
Smith: 5
Tannehill: 4
All of the above, with the exception of Tannehill - who hasn't made it yet, have had huge games in the playoffs as well.
Point is: Andy Dalton is more likely to hit his floor (a bad game) and have it be worse (lower) than a lot of other QBs. Like the others, Dalton can also have a great game, but with that low of a floor and frequency, it shows Dalton to be inconsistent. Throw in the playoff numbers and it gets uglier. IF the Bengals can raise the floor of the QB play into the 60's and not 50's they will certainly be better as a whole. Russell Wilson is a bit of an anomaly for having ups and downs, playing big in games when it counts, and having a strong team around him.
