(06-10-2015, 03:42 AM)J24 Wrote: Agree to an extent. 1st Mike sabotaged him by not letting him play in the 2013 preseason he never got his timing back that year. I personally think that was a bigger blow then the injury itself. Secondly he needs to be in an environment where he isn't asked to carry a team with his arm which might make this place a perfect fit for him. My only concern with him would be his attitude; he seems to be a me first type of guy.

I am very confused by RG3.  He is about the only QB I have seen who has gotten much worse at basics like reading defenses and running the offense after his rookie season.  And that is not just based on my olpinion since I don't watch him play on a regular basis.  That is what just about every expert said about him.

(06-10-2015, 03:55 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I am very confused by RG3.  He is about the only QB I have seen who has gotten much worse at basics like reading defenses and running the offense after his rookie season.  And that is not just based on my olpinion since I don't watch him play on a regular basis.  That is what just about every expert said about him.

I think a lot of mobile QBs go through that maybe not regress but not improve in those areas as much as you  would like to see. Vick was never really  a good passer, Tebow never improved, and Vince young never became a great passer either. If your going to build an offense around RG it has to be a pretty  basic offense.    

(06-10-2015, 04:20 AM)J24 Wrote: I think a lot of mobile QBs go through that maybe not regress but not improve in those areas as much as you  would like to see. Vick was never really  a good passer, Tebow never improved, and Vince young never became a great passer either. If your going to build an offense around RG it has to be a pretty  basic offense.    

There are plenty of mobile QBs that have improved in running their respective offense and reading defenses.

Russell Wilson
Cam Newton
Andrew Luck
Alex Smith
Ryan Tannehill
Aaron Rodgers

Just because RGIII is a mobile QB doesn't excuse him from improving in very, very important areas. There is a reason that 3 of the 6 on my list are consensus top 10 QBs and 2 of the others just got $20 million per year contracts.

If you can't read a defense, you're probably not going to be considered a very good QB regardless of what "type" of QB you are.

(06-10-2015, 03:55 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I am very confused by RG3.  He is about the only QB I have seen who has gotten much worse at basics like reading defenses and running the offense after his rookie season.  And that is not just based on my olpinion since I don't watch him play on a regular basis.  That is what just about every expert said about him.

RG3 started off with the attitude that he knew more than the coaches.

I'm not that happy with Dalton, but I'd be quite unhappy if RG3 were our QB.

(06-10-2015, 02:21 AM)CornerBlitz Wrote: I expected Dalton to win this poll but not by this margin. I wonder what these poll results would look like at a neutral message forum? Both had subpar seasons but prior to that I'm not sure how you could argue that Dalton is better especially if you were to include the playoffs.

Man, if this were the offseason after 2012, I'd definitely be on board with you.

Have you watched Kaepernick play football lately? There's nothing that tells me that he's clearly a better QB in this league than Andy Dalton.

I don't think a lot of us are saying that Andy is necessarily better, he's just not worse to the point that you'd be happy making the trade. I think Andy's career can be argued to be somewhere around Kaep's minus 1 season of legitimate playoff success (2012). The 49ers may have won some games in 2013 as well, but c'mon, Kaep barely completed half of his passes in the postseason, threw for less than 200 yards per game, and had a 3/3 TD/INT ratio in the air. He may have done a bit of work on the ground too, but Carolina's D shut him down in that regard in the second game and then vs. Seattle his 100+ yards rushing didn't mean much whenever he seemingly forgot how to throw a football.

There are a lot of QBs in the league that I'd entertain to receive in a trade, some people would probably be surprised when I say that I'd trade Andy straight up for Blake Bortles right now. I think that kid has a bright future and would be excellent on a team with as much talent as we have in Cincinnati. There are a couple of other guys that may be considered surprises as well, but CK just isn't one of them, and it would be hard to change my mind about the guy. I've watched him play and while he amazes me at times with his athletic ability, I don't see a QB of the future when I watch him. I'm not saying that I see that with Andy either, but I'm not going to trade Andy for a guy that I don't see either immediate upside or huge future potential with.

(06-10-2015, 03:29 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Green is not that much better than Mike Wallace.  WR Brandon Gibson had two 50 reception seasons with the Rams before coming to the Dolphins in 2013.  TE Charles Clay has 117 reception over the last two years which is more than any Bengal TE.  Brian Hartine had back-to-back with at least 75 receptions and 1000 receiving yards.  Tannehill had a deep, experienced receiving corps last year.

So other than Green all of his other weapons were better than Dalton's by far.

As for the rest of Dalton's career behind Green at #1 he had Jerome Simpson, Andre Caldwell, Andrew Hawkins, Sanu, and Jones.  None of those guys have produced like Hartline.  And to claim they are all "superior weapons" is a farce.  And until Bernard arrived Dalton didn't even have  RB who was a receiving threat.

And finally, the Bengals running game was not that much better than the Dolphins last year.  In fact the dolphins  averaged 4.7 yards per carry which was good for second in the league.

Green is better than Wallace. Wallace has not had a 1000 yard season since 4 years ago. Gibson didn't do much in Miami with 326 and 295 yards. Gio had more receiving yards for us. While there have been some weapons in Miami, the fact that they've spent two 1st round picks in a row on the WR spot shows that it's an area they want to upgrade significantly. Eifert and Gresham combined for more than Clay.

(06-10-2015, 08:56 AM)BengalChris Wrote: Green is better than Wallace. Wallace has not had a 1000 yard season since 4 years ago. Gibson didn't do much in Miami with 326 and 295 yards

That is my point exactly.  These guys were productive until they had Tannehill throwing to them.

Wallace went from a QB who was one of the best deep throwers in the league (Roethlisberger) to one of the worst in Tannehill and his production dropped dramatically.

I actually like Tannehill as a QB.  It is amazing how well he has learned to play the position in such a short time.  But the claim that he has no weapons is total BS.  And the claim that Dalton has had "superior weapons" around him is also BS.

Marvin Jones has 51 catches for 712 yards and people claim he is an elite WR, but Brandon Gibson has 51 catches for only 21 fewer yards (691) and he is a bum.

(06-10-2015, 11:09 AM)fredtoast Wrote: That is my point exactly.  These guys were productive until they had Tannehill throwing to them.

Wallace went from a QB who was one of the best deep throwers in the league (Roethlisberger) to one of the worst in Tannehill and his production dropped dramatically.

If Wallace's production has drastically dropped with Tannehill throwing to him versus playing with Roethlisberger, how much do you think Green's production would increase with a top 5 QB throwing to him?

(06-10-2015, 11:47 AM)GodFather Wrote: If Wallace's production has drastically dropped with Tannehill throwing to him versus playing with Roethlisberger, how much do you think Green's production would increase with a top 5 QB throwing to him?

Not much.  Green is currently third all time in NFL history in receiving yards per game.

(06-10-2015, 03:29 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Green is not that much better than Mike Wallace.  

(06-10-2015, 11:56 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Not much.  Green is currently third all time in NFL history in receiving yards per game.

Then how can Green not be much better than Wallace?

(06-10-2015, 03:29 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Green is not that much better than Mike Wallace.  WR Brandon Gibson had two 50 reception seasons with the Rams before coming to the Dolphins in 2013.  TE Charles Clay has 117 reception over the last two years which is more than any Bengal TE.  Brian Hartine had back-to-back with at least 75 receptions and 1000 receiving yards.  Tannehill had a deep, experienced receiving corps last year.

So other than Green all of his other weapons were better than Dalton's by far.

As for the rest of Dalton's career behind Green at #1 he had Jerome Simpson, Andre Caldwell, Andrew Hawkins, Sanu, and Jones.  None of those guys have produced like Hartline.  And to claim they are all "superior weapons" is a farce.  And until Bernard arrived Dalton didn't even have  RB who was a receiving threat.

And finally, the Bengals running game was not that much better than the Dolphins last year.  In fact the dolphins  averaged 4.7 yards per carry which was good for second in the league.

All this talk about "superior weapons".  Simpson and Armon Binns were once the #2 receivers on this team.  The current #2 has 69 receptions for his career and the #3 has 119 for his career.  

Brian Hartline has more receptions than both of those guys combined.  

(06-10-2015, 12:07 PM)GodFather Wrote: Then how can Green not be much better than Wallace?

To be fair, Green is already pretty darn productive, and there are diminishing returns once you start getting up to the 100 reception, 1,500 yards, 10 TD zone for a WR. Even though Aaron Rodgers is a MUCH better QB than Andy Dalton, the way that the NFL works alone just tells me that A.J. Green's stats wouldn't drastically jump with Rodgers throwing him the ball. I do think A.J. would look better with Rodgers than Andy (who wouldn't look better with Rodgers?), but his stats wouldn't blow up. He'd definitely be around a 100/1,500/10 guy almost every year though, but he was close to that already with Andy from 2012 - 2013.

Not the biggest Andy supporter here, but just sayin'.

(06-10-2015, 12:13 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: All this talk about "superior weapons".  Simpson and Armon Binns were once the #2 receivers on this team.  The current #2 has 69 receptions for his career and the #3 has 119 for his career.  

Brian Hartline has more receptions than both of those guys combined.  

Brian Hartline was forced into a #1 role though. That doesn't automatically make him a great WR. Sanu had to step up for injured players and ended up with about an 800 yard season. Harry Douglas has been forced into a #1/#2 role and put up 1,000. Golden Tate was put into Calvin Johnson's role and had a 1,300 year! That doesn't make any of them amazing receivers. They're clearly not BAD, because they were all able to at least handle the bigger roles (Tate more than any of them obviously), but it doesn't make them better than guys with less catches for their sheer volume alone.

I know what you're saying, and I do agree that Armon Binns isn't and wasn't a good football player, Simpson is meh, but Marvin Jones is a very talented kid.

It's really hard to have a fair discussion about WRs with statistics only because a lot of guys are products of seeing a lot of balls thrown to them. I mean, Calvin Johnson could go out there and not rack up stats, but that doesn't mean he's a shitty athlete and WR. We can assume that the best players see the bulk of the receptions, but every team has to have a #1 target, and not every team has an equal receiving corp or QB throwing to them. We can go around and around and around all day long, but I'll never convince you that our receivers are better than Miamis and you'll never convince me the opposite.

(06-10-2015, 12:13 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: All this talk about "superior weapons".  Simpson and Armon Binns were once the #2 receivers on this team.  The current #2 has 69 receptions for his career and the #3 has 119 for his career.  

Brian Hartline has more receptions than both of those guys combined.  

In 2012, the year that Binns was on the 53...the Bengals top 3 recievers (Green, Gresham, Hawkins) had 212 receptions. The next non-RB on the list was Binns & Jones with 18.


The same year, the Dolphins top 3 (Hartline, Bess, Fasano) had 176. The next non-RB on the list was Clay with 18.


The only reason I mention this is because I've seen the Binns reference made a couple of times.

I'm in the group that Kaepernick is no better than Dalton. I sure as hell wouldn't give up a third-rounder as well.

When comparing 2012 (Kaepernick's coming-out year), Dalton and Kaepernick were practically identical on completion percentage (CK=62.4, AD=62.3). In 2013 and 2014, Dalton was 3.5+% higher than Kaepernick each year.

Dalton's TD-INT ratio suffered last season, but the Bengals also chose to run the ball a lot more in the red zone last year compared to 2012-2013.

Dalton does have a bigger tendency to throw more INTs compared to CK, so that's a plus for CK. Although we know that not all INTs should be blamed on the QB, and we know that at least a handful of AD's INTs last season should be blamed on the receivers.

When I think of postseason success, I put CK in the same boat as Flacco. A serviceable, non-elite QB who happened to get hot at the right time and who played on VERY good, healthier teams. Dalton's best shot at success would have been 2013. Otherwise, there were glaring holes due to injuries and/or lack of talent. CK had the benefit of VERY good all-around teams to help him advance in the playoffs (similar to Flacco's Super Bowl run).

Others have hit on this as well...but there's no guarantee that CK would improve this team given the existing coaching staff. I think Harbaugh instead of Marvin Lewis would have a bigger impact on the success of this team in the postseason instead of CK over AD.

No, statistically Dalton is the best QB out of that draft. Cam has nothing on Dalton when it comes to wins and stats and CK has mediocre stats and had a fine D. Now? This year i see CK being below average, far below. Dalton should be above average and Cam average.

(06-10-2015, 01:09 PM)ochocincos Wrote: When I think of postseason success, I put CK in the same boat as Flacco. A serviceable, non-elite QB who happened to get hot at the right time and who played on VERY good, healthier teams. Dalton's best shot at success would have been 2013. Otherwise, there were glaring holes due to injuries and/or lack of talent. CK had the benefit of VERY good all-around teams to help him advance in the playoffs (similar to Flacco's Super Bowl run).

I agree with most of your points, but I would definitely not put CK and Flacco in the same boat.

CK has had a couple of good postseason games that got him overhyped all over the internet.

Joe Flacco is one of your better postseason QBs and it's not just good Ravens teams that are carrying him. Flacco has performed at a very, very high level in the postseason after stumbling early in his career. Since 2010 he's thrown 24 TDs to only 4 INT with about 2,500 yards in 10 games. If he didn't have those abysmal first 5 playoff games in his first 2 seasons, he'd probably be in the talks of the best playoff QB in history.

CK has stumbled recently but Average Joe hasn't had any issues lighting it up in the playoffs even though his regular season numbers aren't great. I'd take Flacco over CK in a heartbeat and not think twice about it.

(06-10-2015, 12:56 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: In 2012, the year that Binns was on the 53...the Bengals top 3 recievers (Green, Gresham, Hawkins) had 212 receptions. The next non-RB on the list was Binns & Jones with 18.


The same year, the Dolphins top 3 (Hartline, Bess, Fasano) had 176. The next non-RB on the list was Clay with 18.


The only reason I mention this is because I've seen the Binns reference made a couple of times.

The fact that your #2 receiver wasn't even targeted should tell you everything you need to know about our WR corp his first few years in the league.  Going into 2012 Bess had more receptions than Green, Gresham, and Hawkins combined. 

That team also had a playmaker in Reggie Bush.   

(06-10-2015, 01:35 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: The fact that your #2 receiver wasn't even targeted should tell you everything you need to know about our WR corp his first few years in the league.

Not really. Hawkins had 77 targets so he was pretty much the #2 receiver even though he was in the slot.

I'm not arguing saying that our receiving options were absolutely amazing in 2011 or 2012, but let's not make it sound like Armon Binns was a huge part of the Bengals' gameplan in those years. The Binns experiment lasted for around 6 weeks of the 2012 season and that's about it.

(06-10-2015, 01:42 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Not really. Hawkins had 77 targets so he was pretty much the #2 receiver even though he was in the slot.

I'm not arguing saying that our receiving options were absolutely amazing in 2011 or 2012, but let's not make it sound like Armon Binns was a huge part of the Bengals' gameplan in those years. The Binns experiment lasted for around 6 weeks of the 2012 season and that's about it.

Andrew Hawkins was undrafted and in his second season in the league after 23 receptions the previous year.  Why does that make our receiving options better?  

(06-10-2015, 01:47 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: Andrew Hawkins was undrafted and in his second season in the league after 23 receptions the previous year.  Why does that make our receiving options better?  

Being a second year player doesn't automatically mean you're not good.

You don't think Andrew Hawkins getting more targets than Armon Binns makes your receiving options better? In which universe would anyone say Binns > Hawkins??

Andrew Hawkins isn't amazing, but he's clearly proven to be a better NFL WR than Binns. Are you seriously arguing that?