04-13-2019, 11:28 PM
(04-13-2019, 08:17 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: You don't get to pick and choose what is "virtually" the same and what is better for Andy. If Carson and Andy are "virtually the same" when it comes to completion percentage and yards per completion (62.5% and 11.7 for Carson, 62.3% and 11.5 for Andy), then they are also "virtually the same" in touchdown percentage and interception percentage (4.7% and 3% for Carson, 4.8% and 2.7% for Andy). To put it into easier numbers, Andy throws a touchdown, on average, every 21 attempts while throwing an interception every 37 attempts. Carson threw a touchdown every 21 attempts while throwing an interception every 33 attempts. Just say it how it is.
Andy has slightly better touchdown and interception percentages while Carson has slightly better yards per completion and completion percentage. Carson also has higher yards per game, the best statistical season between both of their careers (2015) and higher yards per attempt. On top of this, if you are just going to say "Palmer was on bad teams, that's why he has a higher YPG" all I'm going to say is "Andy has the amount of playoff appearances that he does because he was on good teams."
It's a dumb argument, see? Both of those points hold some water, but it isn't the real reason for either of them. Andy is a good quarterback AND had good teams (from 2013-2015, the Bengals had arguably the best roster in the league from top to bottom.) Carson WAS on bad teams but he also, when healthy, was a really good quarterback. That 2015 Cardinals team didn't have the talent that Cincinnati had, but he lit the league on fire that year.
This is a completely fair response, and is the kind I've been looking for from someone pretty much sense this discussion began. Thanks for actually backing up your opinion unlike the others. You actually come across like you know what you're talking about and aren't just spitting out the same tired talking points you've heard from others. Rep to you.
Remember, this whole thing was started when it was said somebody would have to be "delusional" to think that Carson was a better quarterback for the Bengals than Andy was, which was my primary point of contention to begin with.
The two have posted very similar numbers through their careers. I wouldn't have guessed they'd be as close as they are prior to this discussion (I would've assumed Carson was farther ahead), and I just think maybe instead of holding Carson up and saying "someone would be delusional to think Andy is on this level", we could give Andy just a *little* credit (which you have) for pretty much matching Carson at a fraction of the cost. But then there is, of course, a group of fans who won't give Andy credit for anything.
It's fair to say that a big reason Andy's had a better surrounding cast (particularly on defense) during his time here is because he cost so much less than Carson did. If they're going to post similar stats, Andy's been the better value.
