(11-06-2015, 12:21 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: I thought it was awkward Deion Sanders sitting there trying to convince Dalton that he actually liked him.  Dalton's success is measured by playoff wins.  Guys like Bradford, Tannehill, and Stafford seem to be measured by some other metric.  

well that just means dalton is on another level than those guys.... lol

Bradford, Tannehill, Stafford have what 1 combined playoff appearance.

Dalton is beyond that... He has shown that he can get his team to the playoffs every year.

Now he has to move beyond the first round of the playoffs to the AFC Championship game and beyond.

Hopefully in 10 years dalton will be judged on the number of rings on his fingers. which im hoping will be at least 2

If Dalton had the career that Stafford did, he would have been ran out of Cincinnati. Stafford avoids a lot of scrutiny, even now.

Dalton will never really get credit, even with a playoff win. I just don't see it happening because it's now who the NFL wants to sell.

(11-06-2015, 01:05 PM)djs7685 Wrote: The labels mean as much as you put into them. I love discussing player rankings, so I do so very often. I discuss current rankings for the season and also discuss rankings in general over the players' entire careers.

If you don't care about rankings, the only thing I can tell you is to not engage in discussion with people that are talking about rankings. Wouldn't it make the most sense for you to just ignore them?


Alright that's fine, listen, it's the internet. I don't know you. I can only go by the words you put on here to come up with my conclusions. From what you wrote, if someone says "body of work", to me that means everything in the past. So from how you worded it, it obviously looks like you were saying that Andy is top 5/10 and that was before this season happened or right at the beginning of the football year.

If that's not what you meant, that's fine, I'm just pointing out that I can't read minds so maybe some better choices of words would be better in the future if you don't want people getting mixed up with your opinions. I understand what you're saying now, but it wasn't so clear beforehand.


All good. Andy is playing at a very high level and we can all be happy about that

haha - Having a Master's Degree in communications (Yes, I do) doesn't always make one so clear - especially on the internet.  I'm sure if we were sitting face-to-face drinking a coke or whatever we'd have a good discussion.  It's all good.  I don't even like the way I sound from my "body of work" in this thread because I'm not really like this.  I guess when my first posts on these boards were with the mindset of being excited with what I was seeing out Andy Dalton and having high expectations for this year, and then the response from more sobering individuals were much more cautious (which I understand), I get a bit more emotionally charged and clarity is sacrificed.  To be honest, charges from both directions are most likely nit-picking (with the exception of some of the more extreme positions which are, thankfully, seldom voiced any more).  With that said, we undeniably have ourselves a top-shelf quarterback right now (which is what I believed we had in September) and here's to hoping that over a period of years at this level (and Super Bowls - wouldn't that be awesome?!) we can all talk about top shelf career.  But really, Dalton's just a kid right now w/ a great start and lots of potential.

(11-06-2015, 01:37 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: well that just means dalton is on another level than those guys.... lol

Bradford, Tannehill, Stafford have what 1 combined playoff appearance.

Dalton is beyond that... He has shown that he can get his team to the playoffs every year.

Now he has to move beyond the first round of the playoffs to the AFC Championship game and beyond.

Hopefully in 10 years dalton will be judged on the number of rings on his fingers.  which im hoping will be at least 2

I sure hope you're right!
And really, the window is for this time period right now.

(11-06-2015, 02:09 PM)The Caped Crusader Wrote: If Dalton had the career that Stafford did, he would have been ran out of Cincinnati. Stafford avoids a lot of scrutiny, even now.

Dalton will never really get credit, even with a playoff win. I just don't see it happening because it's now who the NFL wants to sell.

Numbers don't lie - and assuming Dalton plays to this level of development, as I have no reason to believe he won't continue - they are either going to have to change their narrative or look really foolish.  It will be interesting to see what they say in the weeks, months, years to come.

(11-06-2015, 12:35 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: For a guy who has accomplished as much as he has in his short career, Dalton sure does get crapped on a lot.  The narrative is changing now.  I recall during the broadcast Simms and Nance were trying to put his playoff losses in perspective.  They were basically saying what I've said all along:  the SD game was the only one of those games we had any business winning.  If you can look past 4 games for a moment, the dude's had a pretty damn good start to a career.  

To be fair....Simms has ALWAYS had good things to say about Andy, even when he has those roller coaster games.  Maybe it comes from actually being in his shoes at one point....

I agree with the rest, I was one of the few who thought he actually turned a corner in Indy last season.  He didn't force things, no TOs, we just straight up ran out of talent.

(11-06-2015, 12:40 PM)West Union KennyG Wrote: This.  Although I saw last season as a set-back in his development I attributed to 'The Mash Unit.' 
I saw his development and potential may be a little higher than some - and came here stating as such - to be ripped as "A Troll." 
I'm NOT a homer.  I used to get into it w/ others on the old boards and I was on the other side of the fence.  I lost the sig bet Dalton's first year and had to sport that terrible Richard Simmons rainbow sig.  That's some credentials that separate me from the over the top 'Homer' crowd.  When I have reasons to be optimistic - I am.  When I have reasons to be pessimistic - I am.  I don't blame anyone else here for not knowing that about me - I don't really expect anyone to know or care that much about what I post.  I'm just glad the pieces are coming together that the folks that were calling to sit Dalton and start AJ are silenced (much like the crowd asking for Kenny Anderson to be benched - early in the very same year he led that team to The Super Bowl).  

I remember ya "Waynesboro"

(11-06-2015, 02:10 PM)West Union KennyG Wrote: I sure hope you're right!
And really, the window is for this time period right now.

 
Yeah, the announcers even said as much...and I agree.

(11-06-2015, 11:56 AM)djs7685 Wrote: I'm not letting anyone in the media sway my thoughts, I actually think it's a huge insult to basically insinuate that only the homers have their own thought process and people that had issues with Andy's play weren't doing so because of their own opinions. Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? My criticism of Andy came from watching some issues with his play. It's just dumb when people make it seem like anyone that critiqued him did so just because of what the media had to say, that's stupid, plain and simple.

Correct. I've been watching some games from previous years and it's obvious he's playing at a higher level this year. Decision making, decisiveness, pocket manipulation, it all just looks different from previous years.

Watching some of his decisions and play from '11-'14, i get how people want to say they were behind him all along--and that's fine--and i always said if he could just cut down on the ints and raise the comp%, it would make a big difference in his overall numbers, but his play from previous years and this year can't really be compared due to the difference in how he looks this year.

There were too many "if's", before, to say anyone could 'see' that he was going to develop into what he has this year.

(11-06-2015, 02:39 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Correct. I've been watching some games from previous years and it's obvious he's playing at a higher level this year. Decision making, decisiveness, pocket manipulation, it all just looks different from previous years.

Watching some of his decisions and play from '11-'14, i get how people want to say they were behind him all along--and that's fine--and i always said if he could just cut down on the ints and raise the comp%, it would make a big difference in his overall numbers, but his play from previous years and this year can't really be compared due to the difference in how he looks this year.

There were too many "if's", before, to say anyone could 'see' that he was going to develop into what he has this year.

I agree....but sometimes QBs "get it" in three years, some in four, it looks like it took Andy five years.  I really saw those flashes at the outset of last year, and in some pretty tough games with Sanu as our #1 that we gutted out and won.  Hell, some guys come out in year one like gang busters and fade away when the league figures them out.  Then you have those "once in a lifetime" guys.  Andy is not one of those, but he is far better than what some gave him for credit for being.  He has worked hard at his craft, and I TRULY think Hue Jackson has been that mentor that he was lacking.  Lest we forget, Jay Gruden was a rookie too.

(11-06-2015, 02:48 PM)Wyche Wrote: I agree....but sometimes QBs "get it" in three years, some in four, it looks like it took Andy five years.  I really saw those flashes at the outset of last year, and in some pretty tough games with Sanu as our #1 that we gutted out and won.  Hell, some guys come out in year one like gang busters and fade away when the league figures them out.  Then you have those "once in a lifetime" guys.  Andy is not one of those, but he is far better than what some gave him for credit for being.  He has worked hard at his craft, and I TRULY think Hue Jackson has been that mentor that he was lacking.  Lest we forget, Jay Gruden was a rookie too.

Agreed. He's had plenty of flashes in his 4+ years that would lead someone to say "if only". Before the season started i made a post to point out the year 5 jump that i expected to see. Specifically, if his weapons were able to stay healthy. 

Experience + health = great season so far.

(11-06-2015, 02:52 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Agreed. He's had plenty of flashes in his 4+ years that would lead someone to say "if only". Before the season started i made a post to point out the year 5 jump that i expected to see. Specifically, if his weapons were able to stay healthy. 

Experience + health = great season so far.

Abso-damn-lutely!  Great times in Bengaldom friends....great times.  I haven't been this proud since '88.

(11-06-2015, 11:43 AM)jj22 Wrote: The thing is qb's don't go from below average, ranked 22-32 (which is what we've been told he was regardless of his franchise accomplishments) to top 5. I asked people to name me one that has before an they can't.  So someone was wrong.... Fact is the national media never let Dalton struggle like they do other qb's who they gave elite/franchise status to. His game against the Steelers was the first time he's ever got a pass from them. Some of these characteristics they claim has made him top 5....maturity, 4th quarter comebacks, recovering from mistakes (INT/Fumble), he's done his whole career. They just act like it's something new, and fans let them by acting like it's something new as well.

Kurt Warner - Went from Arena League nobody to Top Five fell out of that position to the point where he couldn't find a starting job, and then jumped back to elite level with Arizona.

(11-06-2015, 12:21 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: I thought it was awkward Deion Sanders sitting there trying to convince Dalton that he actually liked him.  Dalton's success is measured by playoff wins.  Guys like Bradford, Tannehill, and Stafford seem to be measured by some other metric.  

I so hate it when people credit wins and losses to the QB. There are so many other players who make it all happen or not, as the case may be. To point to the QB just insults the work of the team.

All the players on this team are measured by the lack of playoff wins and so is the coaching staff. I'd like that to continue to be the case because none of them have handled the playoffs well.

Tannehill, Bradford and Stafford happen to play on teams which aren't nearly as talented as the Bengals. I believe that's rather obvious, except to a few.

Dalton's problems, when we start talking about playoffs, is that his numbers are just so bad that they stand out more than the other low stats we see from the rest of the team.

(11-07-2015, 05:27 PM)BengalChris Wrote: I so hate it when people credit wins and losses to the QB. There are so many other players who make it all happen or not, as the case may be. To point to the QB just insults the work of the team.

All the players on this team are measured by the lack of playoff wins and so is the coaching staff. I'd like that to continue to be the case because none of them have handled the playoffs well.

Tannehill, Bradford and Stafford happen to play on teams which aren't nearly as talented as the Bengals. I believe that's rather obvious, except to a few.

Dalton's problems, when we start talking about playoffs, is that his numbers are just so bad that they stand out more than the other low stats we see from the rest of the team.

It is all or nothing on credit to QB win or losses

Sorry, that is BS argument to argue different standard when AD loses

(11-07-2015, 05:27 PM)BengalChris Wrote: I so hate it when people credit wins and losses to the QB. There are so many other players who make it all happen or not, as the case may be. To point to the QB just insults the work of the team.

(11-07-2015, 06:06 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: It is all or nothing on credit to QB win or losses

Sorry, that is BS argument to argue different standard when AD loses

Yeah, or not, but that's cool too.

(11-07-2015, 06:06 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: It is all or nothing on credit to QB win or losses

Sorry, that is BS argument to argue different standard when AD loses

It's a team game and teams win or lose. Our playoff loses pretty prove that with the exception of the second Houston game where the defense played decent.

(11-07-2015, 08:37 PM)BengalChris Wrote: It's a team game and teams win or lose. Our playoff loses pretty prove that with the exception of the second Houston game where the defense played decent.

Wasn't that the game that Owen Daniels made Rey Maualuga his *****?

(11-08-2015, 12:42 AM)Wyche Wrote: Wasn't that the game that Owen Daniels made Rey Maualuga his *****?

Or was that the one where Rey forced the fumble on the goal line to save the game? (Before it was lost) 

I feel, for whatever reasons, Daltons pocket presence or awareness has increased greatly from what it once was. And that's the major difference ! Confidence ? Healthy weapons ? Hue ? All the above ?

But you don't see him abandoning the pocket when there's no real pressure like he used to. You don't see him not seeing pressure and taking sacks like you used to. You don't see him in panic mode way before he needs to be.

Whatever it was I think he's past it to stay.

(11-07-2015, 08:37 PM)BengalChris Wrote: It's a team game and teams win or lose. Our playoff loses pretty prove that with the exception of the second Houston game where the defense played decent.

I have no problem you saying it is a team game and QB does not get the credit for wins and losses (but NFL does rack QB wins and losses to use as a criteria for ranking them).

My issue is if no credit for wins, then no blame for losses also.

Otherwise, you are a hypocrite.

(11-08-2015, 03:04 AM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: Or was that the one where Rey forced the fumble on the goal line to save the game? (Before it was lost) 

I dunno....you tell me.  I was just mentioning the fact that it's hard to say our defense played decent when we made Owen Daniel look like the second coming of Kelen Winslow Sr.