(11-13-2015, 10:33 AM)BengalD Wrote: I like Marvin's response.  My own personal thoughts are:

1. Last couple of games I've started to see a hint of the "bad andy" where he holds the ball too long in the pocket - typically first half's of both games before he hits his stride.

2.  Little of O line breakdown under pass rush - largely in part to 1. above.

3.  Still think they are thin at LB (starter quality talent only - back ups are solid), if TEZ comes on and stays healthy (agree totally with post before this) were ok.  I guess by being limited to a 53 man roster all teams can't have starter caliber back ups at all positions - but if you have a great D, sure makes it easier to deal with occasional mediocrity or errors by the O.  If you're in a shootout a good percentage of the time - it can be awfully hard to win consistently.  To date were good but Tez will always have somewhat of a bothersome knee issue (Deteriating Joint Disease DJD - been there,  done that - have on knee replaced) and he's concussion prone ( which is sad - probably the best LB talent they've had since Odell).  So that's a worry bead for me.



Hope they can just keep it rollin'!

This "Bad Andy" narrative is BS and you are allowing the media to warp your mind.

AD had a QB rating of over 100 his last outing on National TV.

All QB's have bad throws or bad games but I have never seen the media refer to Peyton Manning as bad Peyton and early in his career and lately they could have done it. I don't see them trash Andrew Luck who as bee great at times, but a turnover machine early his career.

I get the media's stupidity and bias,  don't get our fan using an old media narrative in 2015 with no accurate data to back it up.

(11-13-2015, 11:25 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: This "Bad Andy" narrative is BS and you are allowing the media to warp your mind.

AD had a QB rating of over 100 his last outing on National TV.

All QB's have bad throws or bad games but I have never seen the media refer to Peyton Manning as bad Peyton and early in his career and lately they could have doe it. I don't see them trash Andrew Luck who as bee great at times, but a turnover machine early his career.

I get the media's stupidity and bias,  don't get our fan using an old media narrative in 2015 with no accurate data to back it up.

and we are gonna blame andy for the OL not protecting past 2.5 seconds?

(11-13-2015, 11:32 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: and we are gonna blame andy for the OL not protecting past 2.5 seconds?

Don't all the experts think it needs to be gone in about 3 seconds?  Don't get me wrong - he's doing a hell of a job - it's just my opinion.  As far as I know I'm still allowed to have one (unless Lois Lerner can deny that now as well)

If you want to push hot buttons, but then refuse to use a sarcasm icon to clarify so be it. But don't be surprised when called out as in the context of your entire post, it does not look anything close to sarcasm. It looks like a lack of respect aimed at our QB.

My day is fine, but thanks for caring.

(11-13-2015, 11:25 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: This "Bad Andy" narrative is BS and you are allowing the media to warp your mind.

AD had a QB rating of over 100 his last outing on National TV.

All QB's have bad throws or bad games but I have never seen the media refer to Peyton Manning as bad Peyton and early in his career and lately they could have doe it. I don't see them trash Andrew Luck who as bee great at times, but a turnover machine early his career.

I get the media's stupidity and bias,  don't get our fan using an old media narrative in 2015 with no accurate data to back it up.

Then you seriously must not watch much sports analysis.  They have been all over Luck this year.  I have even seen a number of "Peyton is done, he has no arm strength" conversations.  Meanwhile, the "love" for Andy is massive.

Many of these Jeremy Hill conversations actually remind me of the Dalton conversations from the past.  Some people just can't seem to admit that he is struggling... it has to be someone else's fault.  The line doesn't block as well for him, they don't call the right plays, he isn't put in the right situations.  It could be that he is simply struggling, or that he is not the second coming of Jim Brown.

I really don't get the argument that the offense should be changed to cater to him.  I believe they are the second ranked offense? Dalton is having an MVP caliber year, the team is unbeaten.  Why on earth would they change what they are doing?  Yes, Hill is still going to get his carries.  And yes, there are going to be times they need to run the ball more.  Unfortunately for Hill, the other back has shown himself to be much more productive this year.  Fortunately for Bengals' fans, it really doesn't matter who get the yards as long as someone does.

(11-13-2015, 12:35 PM)BengalD Wrote: Don't all the experts think it needs to be gone in about 3 seconds?  Don't get me wrong - he's doing a hell of a job - it's just my opinion.  As far as I know I'm still allowed to have one (unless Lois Lerner can deny that now as well)

I saw a stat just the other day that Dalton has the second quickest release of the ball, just behind Brady.  I believe it was 2.3 seconds on average.

(11-13-2015, 11:00 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Plus, take this week, if we don't establish the run, JJ Watt will just tee-off on a pass rush and eat us alive.

Will it be just like the last time we met J.J. Watt? The time where the Bengals were one of only 4 teams in the league to hold him to 0 sacks in a game, and when even Gresham stood him up on a couple of plays?

Watt had 14 of his 20.5 sacks within his division last year. He's so hyped because he's athletic as all hell and terrorizes his weak division and is pretty damn good otherwise too, but people talk about him like he's the greatest defensive player to play the game.

I'm not very worried about Watt, but I could be completely wrong about that. I just can't see him "eating us alive" when we have a consistently stout o-line.

(11-13-2015, 11:25 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: This "Bad Andy" narrative is BS and you are allowing the media to warp your mind.

This "if I don't like what you have to say, it automatically means you're just mimicking the media and not forming your own opinions" narrative is BS. It's getting old to hear this shit from the same people all the time.

(11-13-2015, 12:40 PM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: Then you seriously must not watch much sports analysis.  They have been all over Luck this year.  I have even seen a number of "Peyton is done, he has no arm strength" conversations.  Meanwhile, the "love" for Andy is massive.

Many of these Jeremy Hill conversations actually remind me of the Dalton conversations from the past.  Some people just can't seem to admit that he is struggling... it has to be someone else's fault.  The line doesn't block as well for him, they don't call the right plays, he isn't put in the right situations.  It could be that he is simply struggling, or that he is not the second coming of Jim Brown.

I really don't get the argument that the offense should be changed to cater to him.  I believe they are the second ranked offense? Dalton is having an MVP caliber year, the team is unbeaten.  Why on earth would they change what they are doing?  Yes, Hill is still going to get his carries.  And yes, there are going to be times they need to run the ball more.  Unfortunately for Hill, the other back has shown himself to be much more productive this year.  Fortunately for Bengals' fans, it really doesn't matter who get the yards as long as someone does.

Awesome post OB.

(11-13-2015, 12:43 PM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: I saw a stat just the other day that Dalton has the second quickest release of the ball, just behind Brady.  I believe it was 2.3 seconds on average.

I saw third quickest but he is definately near the top.

(11-13-2015, 12:40 PM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: Then you seriously must not watch much sports analysis.  They have been all over Luck this year.  I have even seen a number of "Peyton is done, he has no arm strength" conversations.  Meanwhile, the "love" for Andy is massive.

Many of these Jeremy Hill conversations actually remind me of the Dalton conversations from the past.  Some people just can't seem to admit that he is struggling... it has to be someone else's fault.  The line doesn't block as well for him, they don't call the right plays, he isn't put in the right situations.  It could be that he is simply struggling, or that he is not the second coming of Jim Brown.

I really don't get the argument that the offense should be changed to cater to him.  I believe they are the second ranked offense? Dalton is having an MVP caliber year, the team is unbeaten.  Why on earth would they change what they are doing?  Yes, Hill is still going to get his carries.  And yes, there are going to be times they need to run the ball more.  Unfortunately for Hill, the other back has shown himself to be much more productive this year.  Fortunately for Bengals' fans, it really doesn't matter who get the yards as long as someone does.

You missed the point

Yes, the media has been critical of Peyton this year (were never critical early years) and Luck as well.

But, I have not heard one throw a negative label on either of them. I feel labeling someone "Bad" is over the top. I welcome critiques, I offer critical critiques, but I despise labels of opinion, I despise it more when inconsistencies of writers given some a free pass (no label) while others are disrespected.

I feel these labels border on childish.

(11-13-2015, 01:42 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: You missed the point

Yes, the media has been critical of Peyton this year (were never critical early years) and Luck as well.

But, I have not heard one throw a negative label on either of them. I feel labeling someone "Bad" is over the top. I welcome critiques, I offer critical critiques, but I despise labels of opinion, I despise it more when inconsistencies of writers given some a free pass (no label) while others are disrespected.

I feel these labels border on childish.

I think that adults posting on a Bengals fan message board that actually get upset over an anonymous poster calling him "bad Andy" or "good Andy" is pretty childish.

If we were Lions fans, we'd probably have similar nicknames and other things to say about Matthew Stafford. I can't believe anyone has such an issue with a fanbase using these terms to describe their QB when he plays poorly or plays very well. It's mind boggling that THIS is what irks you.

(11-13-2015, 01:42 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: You missed the point

Yes, the media has been critical of Peyton this year (were never critical early years) and Luck as well.

But, I have not heard one throw a negative label on either of them. I feel labeling someone "Bad" is over the top. I welcome critiques, I offer critical critiques, but I despise labels of opinion, I despise it more when inconsistencies of writers given some a free pass (no label) while others are disrespected.

I feel these labels border on childish.

I agree with the label part, i doubt any writer would ever call Peyton Manning, the bad Peyton if he plays a bad game.

(11-13-2015, 01:00 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Will it be just like the last time we met J.J. Watt? The time where the Bengals were one of only 4 teams in the league to hold him to 0 sacks in a game, and when even Gresham stood him up on a couple of plays?

Watt had 14 of his 20.5 sacks within his division last year. He's so hyped because he's athletic as all hell and terrorizes his weak division and is pretty damn good otherwise too, but people talk about him like he's the greatest defensive player to play the game.

I'm not very worried about Watt, but I could be completely wrong about that. I just can't see him "eating us alive" when we have a consistently stout o-line.

Watt may very well get a sack or two.  I think he is one of the few guys that deserves most of the hype he gets.  

But he is not going to be a disruptive force that will completely wreck our offense.  He can do that to lesser teams, but the Bengals should not let that happen.

(11-13-2015, 01:42 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: You missed the point

Yes, the media has been critical of Peyton this year (were never critical early years) and Luck as well.

But, I have not heard one throw a negative label on either of them. I feel labeling someone "Bad" is over the top. I welcome critiques, I offer critical critiques, but I despise labels of opinion, I despise it more when inconsistencies of writers given some a free pass (no label) while others are disrespected.

I feel these labels border on childish.

I don't remember the media referring to him as "bad Andy".  If they did, that is my bad for missing it.

(11-13-2015, 03:07 PM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: I don't remember the media referring to him as "bad Andy".  If they did, that is my bad for missing it.

It's been a consistent narrative for several years now.

(11-13-2015, 03:08 PM)Earendil Wrote: It's been a consistent narrative for several years now.

The media specifically refers to him as "bad Andy"?

Yes, I'll see if I can find examples when I get out of this stupid meeting.

EDIT:

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/bad-andy-dalton-emerges-bengals-brutal-loss-050125743--nfl.html

http://johnclay.bloginky.com/2014/10/26/good-andy-dalton-wins-out-in-the-end/

http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl-news/4659955-andy-dalton-bengals-steelers-game-adam-pacman-jones-aj-green

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2014/12/2/7314321/nfl-power-rankings-week-14-packers-are-no-1

These are just a few I found.

(11-13-2015, 03:10 PM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: The media specifically refers to him as "bad Andy"?

It IS brought up in the media occasionally, but the people who want to claim that we're all "parroting the media and can't form our own opinions like sheep!!!" are sadly mistaken.

The "Good Andy" and "Bad Andy" propaganda actually started over the internet and found it's way into the media, not the other way around. Analysts jumped on the wagon and started using the labels after they've been thrown all over on various forms of social media, message boards, and other outlets such as this one.

There is no evil conspiracy here. Andy Dalton was not like the average "average-to-good" quarterbacks who muddle along putting up decent numbers. Dalton was known for his ability to have great games and then real stinker games. His best was very good, but his worst was the worst of the worst.


So it was only natural for people to come up with "good Andy" and "bad Andy". Even the people who were most critical of Dalton admitted that when he was "on" he was better than most other QBs. Andy Dalton was defined more as an "inconsistent" QB than a "bad" QB.

(11-13-2015, 03:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There is no evil conspiracy here.  Andy Dalton was not like the average "average-to-good" quarterbacks who muddle along putting up decent numbers.  Dalton was known for his ability to have great games and then real stinker games.  His best was very good, but his worst was the worst of the worst.


So it was only natural for people to come up with "good Andy" and "bad Andy".  Even the people who were most critical of Dalton admitted that when he was "on" he was better than most other QBs.  Andy Dalton was defined more as an "inconsistent" QB than a "bad" QB.

I'll never understand why certain people get so upset about those terms, especially since they've been very reasonable to use over the years.

There have been so many QBs over the years that have fallen into the range of not as good as Brady, Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Rivers, etc. but not as bad as the journeymen or young guys thrown into the mix on revolving door teams at the bottom of the league.

Andy had a clear distinction from most of the others in those middle tiers, and as you said, it was because he was just flat out inconsistent where others were stuck in the middle for not having a high ceiling nor a low floor.

You said it very well with this post.

(11-13-2015, 03:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There is no evil conspiracy here.  Andy Dalton was not like the average "average-to-good" quarterbacks who muddle along putting up decent numbers.  Dalton was known for his ability to have great games and then real stinker games.  His best was very good, but his worst was the worst of the worst.


So it was only natural for people to come up with "good Andy" and "bad Andy".  Even the people who were most critical of Dalton admitted that when he was "on" he was better than most other QBs.  Andy Dalton was defined more as an "inconsistent" QB than a "bad" QB.

Agreed.