05-26-2015, 12:43 PM
(05-26-2015, 12:21 PM)PhilHos Wrote: It happened to Peyton Manning. His 4th year starting was his 2nd worse passer rating of his career up 'til that point. Manning's career passer rating after his 4th season? 85.1
Was Peyton not a good QB after his 4th year?
And has been demonstrated time and again, many QBs have started off with poor (and poorer than Dalton's) playoff stats and yet have won a Super Bowl. Flacco is the first that comes to mind.
Like I said, there will definitely be exceptions. I believe Tom Brady may even fall into that as well, statistically in the regular season at least. It sucks because there's no way to really debate certain aspects of someone's game other than with stats, but I don't think there was any question that either Brady or Manning were destined for greatness even if their statistics didn't reflect that. That's just opinion, but I seem to remember it being the general consensus of pretty much anyone involved in the game of football whether it was players, fans, or the media. Statistically yes, there will be exceptions to what I said though when it comes to their passer ratings, absolutely.
(05-26-2015, 12:21 PM)PhilHos Wrote: His role was not reduced. The Bengals went with a different philosophy (they wanted to run more), but that doesn't mean Dalton's role was reduced. He still had to read defenses and was still tasked with changing the play if the defense matched up too well with what the play was called.
Plus, according to NFL.com, the Bengals called 507 passing plays and 492 rushing plays. So, even if you want to equate Dalton throwing less passes as a reduced role, he still was called to pass more than the running backs were called to run (remember some of those runs were Dalton runs).
With that said, 17 INTs is inexcusable, in my mind, no matter the role of the QB. DON'T TURN THE BALL OVER!
Yeah I meant reduced role as in many less attempts compared to previous years. He had the least attempts of his career last season and 100+ less than 2013. I'm sure everybody should agree that 17 INTs were just too many last year.
I do believe the passing plays v rushing plays that you provided are a bit misleading to people that don't know how the average NFL offense is run. I don't think it's a very telling statistic unless your team has an extreme difference like the 2014 Raiders. They were dead last in rushing attempts on the year but #4 in passing attempts per game. Now THAT is a big difference. Most teams are going to hover somewhere around 50%+ with a few more passes than runs per game. That's just how the NFL is now. I guess I shouldn't say it's misleading because I'm not sure what you were trying to say with that and I don't want to put words in your mouth. To clarify my earlier points, I wasn't trying to say "reduced role" as in the coaches were trying to keep the ball out of his hands or anything if that's what you thought I meant, I was only pointing out why 17 INTs was such a big deal to me because he had over 100 less attempts than 2013 with only 3 less INT.
(05-26-2015, 12:21 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Let's not forget, that the first 6 games last year, Andy was pretty consistent (his other big criticism). He wasn't flashy, but he was getting the job done. That's one of the reasons I have hope that Andy can turn around his playoff performances.
For sure, I was actually very happy with Andy early last year. He wasn't real flashy throwing all over the field like he was in October 2013 though. I personally wouldn't complain if he kept up the efficient and quality performances of weeks 1-6 (games 1-5. game 6 was the IND game that I'm sure we'd all like to forget) in 2014. He only had a sub-90 rating in 1 of the first 5 games, and went 3 of the 5 without an INT. He wasn't on pace for a million yards or TDs, but he was playing like I've been wanting him to for years now. Give me 2014 week 1-6 Andy for at least the majority of a season and in the playoffs and I'll be a happy camper!
