End of the "Dalton Scale"?

[*PhilHos*]

(05-21-2015, 11:32 AM)Nately120 Wrote: What defines QB talent to you?  Pryor has athletic ability to be sure, but I'm not sure why a guy who was a 3rd round supplemental pick by a senile Al Davis so obviously has zounds more talent than a second round QB and another QB who was an 8th overall pick.  Don't get me wrong, draft order isn't a fail-safe method to rate talent, but Pryor is going on his what...4th year as a total project and "unknown" sort of player.

When I speak of talent, I'm speaking of the physical. Pryor has the all the physical tools to be an outstanding QB. The problem with him (and with a lot of "talented" QBs) is that the mind may not match the talent. Ryan Leaf is always the first that pops into my mind as an example.

Dalton was not the most talented QB in his draft, yet, he had a pretty good mind and that's why he was basically equal, statistically with Newton (a far more talented QB) in their rookie seasons and arguably the best QB in that draft (don't get me wrong, Newton is the better QB; I'm just saying a case can be made that Dalton's career has been better, ergo he's better. It may be a weak case, but a case nonetheless).

(05-21-2015, 11:37 AM)djs7685 Wrote: This just isn't true, at least not for everybody.

There are a lot of us that don't think W/L is on a QB whether his name is Peyton Manning, Andy Dalton, or Joe Montana. Wins and losses are team accomplishments, and it's not as simple as giving them 100% of the credit for every single win or loss. There are certainly games that I would say Dalton had more to do with the W than most other players, and there are certainly games that I would say Dalton had more to do with the L than most other players. For the most part, it's the media that clings to W/L (or Andy homers that need something positive to look at). They do that because the media is what feeds the casual fan, and that type of fan is obsessed with illogical reasoning for why their favorite player is better than your favorite player.

Now, if you want to say "Andy Dalton put up some impressive performances in those 5 wins, he was really good!", I have no issue with that, especially if you have substance to back that up. What I have a problem with is the people that push "40 wins" on Andy as if he was the main reason we won every last one of those games.

Stats will never tell the entire story, but they point you in the right direction. Passer rating is the one easy stat to look at to tell if a QB is good or not. How many guys do you see with high passer ratings that suck? How many guys do you see with low passer ratings that are great? The fact is, whether Andy homers and haters like it or not, his passer rating hovers around mediocre by the time the season is finished every damn year. What does that mean? It means he's somewhere around average, which isn't a bad thing, but it's not great either. It's gotten to the point where it's just dumb to nitpick each other over the exact terminology to use to describe him, as long as we can all acknowledge that he isn't terrible but he isn't great either.

You're missing my point, djs. I agree that not everybody judges QBs in the manner described, but the fact remains that the media and most fans still judge QBs based on wins and stats, but then decry Dalton as a QB even though those same standards say otherwise.