11-09-2015, 02:18 PM
I understand what you're saying Xeno, but I just find the whole "well, QBs usually don't show their full potential until year X!!!" argument to have always been used as a cop out for people to complain that we shouldn't be able to critique Andy or ever be allowed to hold the opinion that the team should go in a different direction.
No matter how you felt in the past, I think everybody is happy that the Bengals stuck with the guy, but that's not the point here.
Even to the very warranted critiques in the past, it always got met with "can't judge a QB until year X!!!" argument, which is silly if you apply that to every QB in the league. There are many reasons you could have been on the pro-Andy side in the past, I just find this specific idea to be a very weak argument. If we should wait until year 5 for every QB to see what they're "really going to play like!!!" (or year 4 which I heard in 2014, or year 3 in 2013, etc.), then many teams would end up in even worse positions than they already are due to giving some of these schlubs more time than they deserve.
It's perfectly fine to have case-by-case arguments and discussions, and we certainly don't have to make things up just to cut Andy slack. There are many valid reasons Andy should have been given more time (I disagreed with some of them, and I'm glad I was wrong about that), but some magical number of a QB's "prime" just isn't one of them.
No matter how you felt in the past, I think everybody is happy that the Bengals stuck with the guy, but that's not the point here.
Even to the very warranted critiques in the past, it always got met with "can't judge a QB until year X!!!" argument, which is silly if you apply that to every QB in the league. There are many reasons you could have been on the pro-Andy side in the past, I just find this specific idea to be a very weak argument. If we should wait until year 5 for every QB to see what they're "really going to play like!!!" (or year 4 which I heard in 2014, or year 3 in 2013, etc.), then many teams would end up in even worse positions than they already are due to giving some of these schlubs more time than they deserve.
It's perfectly fine to have case-by-case arguments and discussions, and we certainly don't have to make things up just to cut Andy slack. There are many valid reasons Andy should have been given more time (I disagreed with some of them, and I'm glad I was wrong about that), but some magical number of a QB's "prime" just isn't one of them.
