(06-04-2015, 10:58 AM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: They were a "different" team.  They had a rookie QB and a rookie WR.  

True, but the 2010 and 2011 team both had the same number of wins against winning teams.  The 2010 schedule was brutal and while 2010 stunk and 2011 was encouraging I just don't think there was a really big difference in the talent levels between the two teams...at least not enough to justify a 5-win swing.

The number of teams the 2010 Bengals played that ended the season with 10-14 wins was just ridiculous.

(06-04-2015, 12:21 PM)djs7685 Wrote:

Yes, WhoDeyWho, you completely got me! You bringing up turnovers by other members of the team is really refuting my stance that the passing game declined and every other facet of the game improved. Other than Andy throwing less INT in 2011 than Carson in 2010, everything else about the passing game declined from 2010. I'm showing the entire picture, you're showing the 1 point that doesn't even make sense in a feeble attempt to not look silly. I don't know why you do this. Do you know, it's perfectly reasonable to change your opinions based on new information that someone gives you? I'm showing you that everything EXCEPT the passing game improved, yet you refuse to say anything but Andy being the "main reason" the team improved. lolwat

2+2=4. "NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" STOMP STOMP STOMP. WHERE'S MY BOTTLE?!?!

Andy accounted for 8 less turnovers than Palmer did.  From an efficiency standpoint, there wasn't much of a dropoff between the two.  Would this team had won "in spite" of Dalton had he come out as a rookie and laid an egg?  Were they really that good?  

(06-04-2015, 11:10 AM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: And some people want to make excuses for a 4-12 team so they don't have to give Andy an award for being a big part of turning the franchise around.  He is only the QB after all.

No biggie.

I'll give Dalton credit, but what did we really turn around?  It's almost like every Dalton year was just reliving 2009 over and over again.  Good but possibly overachieving team that gets to the playoffs and gets smoked, thus making the whole season look like a bit of a fluke BUT it's the Bengals, so it's good for them.

Dalton is a decent QB, but I think there is plenty of evidence Palmer could have gone one-n-done with AJ Green and a top 10 defense, too. Hell, the Cardinals were 5-11 before Palmer showed up and notched 10 wins, so that's a pretty short-sighted way to view things.

(06-04-2015, 12:33 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: Andy accounted for 8 less turnovers than Palmer did.  From an efficiency standpoint, there wasn't much of a dropoff between the two.  Would this team had won "in spite" of Dalton had he come out as a rookie and laid an egg?  Were they really that good?  

No they weren't, but the defense got a little better, the running game got a little better, and QB play dropped off slightly. The 2010 schedule was absurd and 2011 wasn't really that bad.

Looking at all of those things doesn't lead me to believe that it makes a person sound like an intelligent human being to say "Andy Dalton was the main reason the team turned it around!". That just sounds dopey if you're willing to look at context.

I think A.J. Green is a phenomenal athlete, but he was hardly the biggest reason the team went from 4-12 to 9-7. That's not a knock on A.J., it's just the truth. Production from the #1 receiver spot didn't explode from 2010 to 2011, so I can't give him that credit. He didn't personally do anything that would make me give him the credit for those wins.

It's the same for Andy. I'm not bashing the guy by saying that he wasn't the biggest reason for this team to win 5 more games, I'm just trying to be fair by looking at the context of the entire situation.

More than likely, no single player deserves a ton of credit for 2011. Andy and A.J. played well enough to not have a huge dropoff from those before them, but they didn't come in here and wreck defenses to 5 extra wins.

(06-04-2015, 11:38 AM)BonnieBengal Wrote: We had a pretty tough schedule last year, especially for a team that lost it's top 2 receivers, top TE, and top LB a big chunk of the year.  Yet we won 10 games.

Losing Eifert stunk and this team overcame some tough luck, but how do you figure he was our top TE going into 2014?

(06-04-2015, 12:37 PM)djs7685 Wrote: No they weren't, but the defense got a little better, the running game got a little better, and QB play dropped off slightly. The 2010 schedule was absurd and 2011 wasn't really that bad.

Looking at all of those things doesn't lead me to believe that it makes a person sound like an intelligent human being to say "Andy Dalton was the main reason the team turned it around!". That just sounds dopey if you're willing to look at context.

I think A.J. Green is a phenomenal athlete, but he was hardly the biggest reason the team went from 4-12 to 9-7. That's not a knock on A.J., it's just the truth. Production from the #1 receiver spot didn't explode from 2010 to 2011, so I can't give him that credit. He didn't personally do anything that would make me give him the credit for those wins.

It's the same for Andy. I'm not bashing the guy by saying that he wasn't the biggest reason for this team to win 5 more games, I'm just trying to be fair by looking at the context of the entire situation.

More than likely, no single player deserves a ton of credit for 2011. Andy and A.J. played well enough to not have a huge dropoff from those before them, but they didn't come in here and wreck defenses to 5 extra wins.

I never said he was the "main" reason, but let's not pretend he was a bystander and was carried by the defense. His QB rating as rookie was only 2 points lower than a seasoned veteran the year before throwing to two seasoned veteran receivers.  Had QB play dropped off substantially, that team wouldn't have made the playoffs.  Why would the running game improve with a worse QB and skill players?  Who were the biggest additions made to that team between 2010 and 2011?

(06-04-2015, 12:38 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Losing Eifert stunk and this team overcame some tough luck, but how do you figure he was our top TE going into 2014?

He had more targets and receptions in the only game he played in that year than Gresham did.  Not a big stretch to think he could have gotten more attention in the passing game than Gresham did.  It is equally telling we let Gresham go following the season.   

(06-04-2015, 12:08 PM)djs7685 Wrote: The passing game got worse from 2010 to 2011.

The running game, defense, and special teams got better from 2010 to 2011.

Andy accounted for 8 fewer turnovers 
Andy had 3 more game-winning drives and 4th qtr comebacks
Andy had a 101.5 passer rating in the red zone with 0 int's, compared to Carson's 80.5 with 3 int's
Andy was better on 3rd downs (84.4 rating with 2 int's) than Carson (72.6 rating with 7 int's)

So basically Andy turned the ball over less and was much better in scoring situations and 3rd downs (kept drives going).

Imo, the defense was probably the #1 reason for the turnaround, followed by better QB play. Our run game and ST were only marginally better. I honestly don't see how you'd believe the passing game got worse from '10 to '11, unless you're just looking at bulk yards and TD's, while ignoring INT's (what seems familiar about that?) 

(06-04-2015, 01:36 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Andy accounted for 8 fewer turnovers 
Andy had 3 more game-winning drives and 4th qtr comebacks
Andy had a 101.5 passer rating in the red zone with 0 int's, compared to Carson's 80.5 with 3 int's
Andy was better on 3rd downs (84.4 rating with 2 int's) than Carson (72.6 rating with 7 int's)

So basically Andy turned the ball over less and was much better in scoring situations and 3rd downs (kept drives going).

Imo, the defense was probably the #1 reason for the turnaround, followed by better QB play. Our run game and ST were only marginally better. I honestly don't see how you'd believe the passing game got worse from '10 to '11, unless you're just looking at bulk yards and TD's, while ignoring INT's (what seems familiar about that?) 

It also didn't help that Carson threw 5 pick 6's (all in losing causes) to Dalton's 1 (A win against Buffalo).

(06-04-2015, 01:36 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Andy accounted for 8 fewer turnovers 
Andy had 3 more game-winning drives and 4th qtr comebacks
Andy had a 101.5 passer rating in the red zone with 0 int's, compared to Carson's 80.5 with 3 int's
Andy was better on 3rd downs (84.4 rating with 2 int's) than Carson (72.6 rating with 7 int's)

So basically Andy turned the ball over less and was much better in scoring situations and 3rd downs (kept drives going).

Imo, the defense was probably the #1 reason for the turnaround, followed by better QB play. Our run game and ST were only marginally better. I honestly don't see how you'd believe the passing game got worse from '10 to '11, unless you're just looking at bulk yards and TD's, while ignoring INT's (what seems familiar about that?) 

I've acknowledged the turnovers. That's a positive for Andy. Andy also had 3.7% less completion percentage, 600 less yards, and 5 less TDs overall (6 less passing).

Gamewinning drives and 4th quarter comebacks are tough in year to year comparisons like this. Is it possible that the 2011 defense allowed for Andy to have more opportunities in that regard? I don't know if that's exactly the case without looking into very specific details, but I'm just pointing out one reason why that is tough to compare.

Andy was and still is pretty much great in the red zone. His career RZ numbers are excellent. Kudos to him. Carson's rating to get into the red zone was higher and Carson directly accounted for 30 more points than Andy. I thought putting points on the board was a huge part of the Andy debates before? I guess it's not so important now.

Since when is 3rd down more important than 1st and 2nd?   Okay, well Carson was better than Andy on 1st and 2nd (I'm guessing here, didn't look it up) and Andy was better on 3rd. I guess that counts for something.

My point is that QB play didn't drastically improve to where I can say that Andy is the reason for the big turnaround and 5 extra wins. I have a very good hunch that the Bengals would have still won 4-ish games in 2010 with Andy at the helm, and the 2011 Bengals would have still been bounced in the WC round with Carson throwing the ball around.

The #1 reason for the turnaround was the schedule. The defense is somewhere up there with everything else coming in pretty far behind those 2 things. Andy limiting turnovers, Benson limiting turnovers, and A.J. being pretty damn good are all wonderful things, but those 3 things combined aren't a 5 win difference maker. The most obvious thing that changed that took us from 4 to 9 wins was the insane schedule from 2010 not being there again the next year. No matter what anyone tries to say, the difference between 2010 Carson and 2011 Andy isn't that huge, and the difference between the receivers didn't win us 5 more games. You can argue that QB play didn't diminish from 2010 to 2011, sure, you make some fine arguments, but there's no possible way that anybody could rationalize Andy's performance compared to Carson's into +5 wins.

I'll continue to be a Dalton supporter and will say that in his first 4 seasons he performed at a level very few QBs in NFL history and even fewer in recent history performed at as well. Downers will keep being downers until a playoff game is won, there is no point in trying to convince them. He can get the job done. He had a down season because of a new system (not really I cooperated until week 9) and injuries. But now we have a run game which is potentially the most lethal duo in the league. And the real reason for the turn around from 4-12 to playoff bound? The defense. Defense and the run were, are and always will be vital factors for any success (look at the 49ers from 2010-2014 with Alex Smith and Kaep, Ravens SB win, Seahawks).

(06-04-2015, 10:22 AM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: They were 4-12 when he took over.  As the QB, he has to get some credit for the turn around.  With Gresham gone, Dalton and Green are basically the oldest skill players on the offense.  It's not like he inherited a good team.

and that same team was 1 year removed from the playoffs.

I really blame Chad and TO for that failed season, the schedule did us no favors either.
The 2 of them together was not a good thing for the team chemistry. Both of them were more worried about getting paid and trying to set themselves up for life after football.

Edit, also wanted to point out that AD did get coaching during the time when he wasn't allowed to be coached by the Bengals. John Gruden was coaching him up and getting him ready for the season.

Andy is one of the best red zone QBs in the NFL today.

(06-04-2015, 04:39 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: and that same team was 1 year removed from the playoffs.

I really blame Chad and TO for that failed season, the schedule did us no favors either.
The 2 of them together was not a good thing for the team chemistry. Both of them were more worried about getting paid and trying to set themselves up for life after football.

Edit, also wanted to point out that AD did get coaching during the time when he wasn't allowed to be coached by the Bengals. John Gruden was coaching him up and getting him ready for the season.

Palmer, handing the other team 5 TDs didn't help either.  

(06-04-2015, 04:59 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: Palmer, handing the other team 5 TDs didn't help either.  

Palmer wasn't exactly playing well that year, but I think he's the only guy on offense who had a job the next season or within the next few, honestly.

Benson had one more season in him before crapping out with the Packers
Chad sat the bench in New England
TO got cut from the Seahawks and never played again (he actually put up some good numbers here, though)
whatever crappy TE's we had never did anything
Shipley and Gresham stepped up fairly well, admittedly

Toss in the fact that our defense took a big step back from 2009, Benson started fumbling like it was going out of style, and our late-game heroics of 09 either came up short or turned into late-game collapses and it's all so clear.  I think like 7 or 8 of the losses that year were by less than 7 points or something, but I haven't looked it up in a while.

(06-04-2015, 05:13 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Palmer wasn't exactly playing well that year, but I think he's the only guy on offense who had a job the next season or within the next few, honestly.

Benson had one more season in him before crapping out with the Packers
Chad sat the bench in New England
TO got cut from the Seahawks and never played again (he actually put up some good numbers here, though)
whatever crappy TE's we had never did anything
Shipley and Gresham stepped up fairly well, admittedly

Toss in the fact that our defense took a big step back from 2009, Benson started fumbling like it was going out of style, and our late-game heroics of 09 either came up short or turned into late-game collapses and it's all so clear.  I think like 7 or 8 of the losses that year were by less than 7 points or something, but I haven't looked it up in a while.

There were at least 3 losses where if Palmer didn't throw a pick 6 they could have won the game:

23-17 loss against the Colts (1 pick 6)
24-21 loss against TB (1 pick 6)
23-7 loss against the Steelers (2 pick 6)

In fairness to T.O., he was a 37-year old wide out. 

(06-04-2015, 05:21 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: There were at least 3 losses where if Palmer didn't throw a pick 6 they could have won the game:

23-17 loss against the Colts (1 pick 6)
24-21 loss against TB (1 pick 6)
23-7 loss against the Steelers (2 pick 6)

In fairness to T.O., he was a 37-year old wide out. 

Again, I'm not saying Palmer was solid-gold in 2010 but again, most of the pieces around him were either unemployed or on other team's benches as soon as the season wrapped.

(06-04-2015, 05:28 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Again, I'm not saying Palmer was solid-gold in 2010 but again, most of the pieces around him were either unemployed or on other team's benches as soon as the season wrapped.

Not Gresham and Benson. Benson had another full season in him, plus he was solid for the Pack before getting injured. 

RB's tend to fall off suddenly, but he still had plenty of life in 2010.

TO was 37 with a reputation, so I'm not surprised he was out of work. Chad had trouble learning the Pats complex playbook (he wasn't traded until the lockout ended, so not much time to learn and gel). Shipley's career was ruined by injury. The o-line was great. I don't really buy the no talent excuse for 2010. 

Besides, were Dalton's weapons in 2011 really that much better? He still had Benson (1 year older) and Gresham. No Shipley. AJ was an upgrade, but Simpson was a downgrade. 

(06-04-2015, 09:56 AM)jason Wrote: Andy Dalton has played on teams that in my opinion are better than those of Marino, early 2000s Manning, Cam, or Carson.  I think that has contributed to his success.  That same team has also contributed to "his" failures, so go figure.

Haha wow Dalton hasn't had near as good of offensive weapons as most of people on that list. Peyton had a hof RB, and 2 WR that is / will be in the hof. Carson had a much better run game and weapons too. I would even say Newton had better weapons the first couple of years.

(06-04-2015, 04:51 PM)Synric Wrote: Andy is one of the best red zone QBs in the NFL today.

This.

One of the main reasons IMO for his drop in TD to INT ratio in 2014.

Hue didnt let his guy does what he does best in the redzone in 2014.

Just another example of the team playing against his strengths last year.

I mean Andy has to improve but he didnt get a lot of help from Hue last year.
I think it affected his confidence.

They know they have a running game now when they need it... I hope they cut Dalton loose a little more this year ala 2013.