(06-28-2015, 01:20 AM)t3r3e3 Wrote: Maybe It was a bit harsh, but they share similar size, mobility, arm strength, and propensity for interceptions.   The classic limited upside QB's.   I'd argue that Fitzpatrick has played on worse teams than The Dalton Bengals, so he's usually playing from behind.  Hence, the gunslinging and turnovers.  Their playing styles are remarkably similar.

Consider this:  

Andy Dalton season averages since 2011.  (64 games total)
Yards.         TD.           INT.          Passer Rating.  
3689.5     24.75.     16.5.         85.2

Ryan FitzPatrick season averages since 2011 (55 games total)
Yards.         TD.           INT.         Passer Rating
3042.25         19.75.       14.75.     84.925

Slap another nine games into 2013/14 for Fitzpatrick and those averages would be even closer.

Yeah. Lets compare a guys 7th NFL season to Dalton's rookie year when he didn't even have any offseason to learn the offense.  That makes a lot of sense.  

Plus Fitzpatrick's passer rating since '11 is only 83.8 and he has 29 fumbles in 55 games compared to Dalton's 19 in 64 games.

(06-28-2015, 01:16 AM)t3r3e3 Wrote: I agree that Quick is unproven, and of the lowest quality of the four players, albeit with upside.  I also agree that AJ is the best raw talent of the bunch.   I do think the talent gap between Green and Wilson is smaller than the talent gap between Wilson and Dalton.  That's just my opinion, and your mileage may vary.

Substitute Jordan Matthews, or Allen Robinson for Quick and the "trade" gets a bit more interesting.  The caveat on all this would be look what Wilson has already done with inferior receivers.  Hardin only played two meaningful games, Tate was pushed into a WR1 role with WR2 talent, and the rest of Seattle's receivers are role players.  Yet, despite that, Wilson puts up pretty good numbers in a run first offense.  A Bengals receiving corps with Quick instead of Green profiles similarly to what Seattle had last year.  If Jones and Eifert are healthy I'd give the talent edge to Cincy.  Quick has a good deal of potential, and has flashed it, but was slow to pick up the NFL game and then got hurt.

If I'm not mistaken the reason Quick is mentioned is because he'll become a free agent next year. Those two obviously won't.

Malcolm Floyd would be another option.

(06-28-2015, 02:13 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Dalton has had to play a lot harder defenses in those years. In 2011 and 2012 Pittsburgh had the #1 defense, Baltimore had the #3 defense in 2011 and is normally in the top 10 or at least close to it.  Shoot even Cleveland has been in the top 10 defenses 2 years. 41% (27 INTs) of Dalton's INTs are from his own division, and most of his bad games. Fitzpatrick has been in the AFC south (horrible defenses), and the AFC east (horrible defenses at the time).

I can agree with some of that, and it likely influences Dalton's numbers. If you go back and look at the entirety of the post, it's eerie how similar Fitzpatrick and Dalton are. Virtually identical YPA, passer ratings, completion percentage, pretty close on yards, picks, and TD's. They're both 6'2" with a little bit of mobility and average to below average NFL arms. Most people on here look at Fitzy as a journeyman, lower tier NFL starter. He is, but he's serviceable. Where Fitzy, and Dalton, get into trouble is when they have to sling it a bunch and play from behind. Then the INT's start flying.

(06-28-2015, 02:17 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Yeah. Lets compare a guys 7th NFL season to Dalton's rookie year when he didn't even have any offseason to learn the offense.  That makes a lot of sense.  

Plus Fitzpatrick's passer rating since '11 is only 83.8 and he has 29 fumbles in 55 games compared to Dalton's 19 in 64 games.

79.1+83.3+82+95.3 / 4. = 84.925, not 83.8.

All I did was compare both for the time both were in the league at the same time, same as Wilson and Dalton earlier. Both guys were starting at the same time, and playing under the same rules package. No comparison is perfect counselor. Opinions aside, the numbers are very close, as are their measurables, playing styles, and even terrible nicknames. Ryan is the "Amish Rifle".

(06-28-2015, 02:09 AM)t3r3e3 Wrote: See post just above for a comparison.  All the stats came from Pro Football Reference.  I had to do some extrapolating for 2013 (5 games) and 2014 (4games) when Fitzpatrick got hurt, but the 64 game averages for Andy and Fitzy are pretty similar.  Using the raw numbers (55games) for Fitzy they're also similar, albeit a bit fuzzy because of the missed games due to injury.

Tell me what you think?

Here is a comparison of both QBs in their first 4 years as a starter;

(stats from games started only.  Average per 16 starts)

Fitzpatrick ('05, '08-'10).....288-495...58.2%...2965 yds...17.7 tds...17.3 ints...73.0 rating...11 fum
Dalton ('11-'14).................325-528...61.6%...3690 yds...24.8 tds...16.5 ints...85.2 rating... 5 fum

Russell Wilson has a 3 TD to INT ratio compared to Dalton's 2 to 1 ratio. That sums it up right there.

(06-28-2015, 02:32 AM)t3r3e3 Wrote: 79.1+83.3+82+95.3     / 4. = 84.925, not 83.8.

You can't average passer ratings because the number of attempts are not the same each year.

1073-1736 for 12169 yds, 79 tds, and 59 ints produces a 83.8 passer rating.

(06-28-2015, 02:36 AM)fredtoast Wrote: You can't average passer ratings because the number of attempts are not the same each year.

1073-1736 for 12169 yds, 79 tds, and 59 ints produces a 83.8 passer rating.

I stand corrected.

(06-28-2015, 02:33 AM)Lawless_1 Wrote: Russell Wilson has a 3 TD to INT ratio compared to Dalton's 2 to 1 ratio. That sums it up right there.

Wilson isn't that far off from a 2 to 1 turnover to TD ratio

(06-28-2015, 02:33 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Here is a comparison of both QBs in their first 4 years as a starter;

(stats from games started only.  Average per 16 starts)

Using 05 (started 4 games for Rams after multiple QB injuries) and 08 (started 12 after Palmer went down with season ending elbow injury) seem a bit disingenuous.  I could see if you used 08, but 05 should be tossed out.  You could go 08,10,11,12, maybe.
My point was to compare both when they were the unquestioned starters playing under the same rules package.  The rules package was different in 05 and 08 than from 11 onward.

Fitzpatrick ('05, '08-'10).....288-495...58.2%...2965 yds...17.7 tds...17.3 ints...73.0 rating...11 fum
Dalton ('11-'14).................325-528...61.6%...3690 yds...24.8 tds...16.5 ints...85.2 rating... 5 fum

My response is embedded in yours. Stupid tablet.

(06-28-2015, 02:40 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Wilson isn't that far off from a 2 to 1 turnover to TD ratio

2.77 TD/INT ratio, 2.37 Total TD/Total TO ratio.

Considering he's one of the best running QBs in the game, I can allow a few fumble for better production on the ground.


And God damnit man, now you made me check Andy's and it's worse than I thought.

1.5 TD/INT ration, 1.57 Total TD/Total TO ratio.

(06-28-2015, 02:44 AM)t3r3e3 Wrote: My point was to compare both when they were the unquestioned starters playing under the same rules package.  The rules package was different in 05 and 08 than from 11 onward.

Only 3 of the 36 starts in Fitzpatrick's stats came before '08, and the league passer rating only increased by 2.6 points from '08 to '13 (from 81.5 to 84.1).

So the rule changes didn't make near enough difference to account for Dalton having a passer rating over 12 points higher than Fitzpatrick's.

(06-28-2015, 02:40 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Wilson isn't that far off from a 2 to 1 turnover to TD ratio

So you round Wilson's TDs down from 2.77 and Dalton's up from 1.57 so they both are equal at 2 to 1?

(06-28-2015, 08:19 AM)djs7685 Wrote: With that logic you can say Andy isn't that far off from a 1 to 1 turnover to TD ratio. Or do we just round over half of a point down when it's Russell Wilson?

(06-28-2015, 12:19 PM)Lawless_1 Wrote: So you round Wilson's TDs down from 2.77 and Dalton's up from 1.57 so they both are equal at 2 to 1?

Lol are you guys so eager to try to insult me that you make stuff up? All I said was is that Wilson was close to a 2 to 1 ratio for total turnovers (which he is only .37 away). I never said anything about Dalton's ratio did I? Next time try to use some reading comprehension.

(06-28-2015, 05:02 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Lol are you guys so eager to try to insult me that you make stuff up? All I said was is that Wilson was close to a 2 to 1 ratio for total turnovers (which he is only .37 away). I never said anything about Dalton's ratio did I? Next time try to use some reading comprehension.

I never said you did. I merely asked if we were allowed to round your boyfriend's down as well. I never made anything up.

Let me know if you worked on that reading comprehension at all.

I'd absolutely take Wilson and wouldn't think twice. QB is the toughest position to upgrade and Wilson is right outside of the elite options. I'd rank him somewhere around 8th best at his position. He has physical tools that Dalton doesn't have, he's great at limiting turnovers, and he has played well in the playoffs (although I'm not sure if that would transfer).

Although AJ is an elite talent, good WR's aren't nearly as important as QB's and they're much...much easier to find. Quick is decent, but I'd take Wilson and draft a top talent at WR. Use the money we would've used on Quick to shore up a different position.

(06-28-2015, 10:38 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I'd absolutely take Wilson and wouldn't think twice. QB is the toughest position to upgrade and Wilson is right outside of the elite options. I'd rank him somewhere around 8th best at his position. He has physical tools that Dalton doesn't have, he's great at limiting turnovers, and he has played well in the playoffs (although I'm not sure if that would transfer).

Although AJ is an elite talent, good WR's aren't nearly as important as QB's and they're much...much easier to find. Quick is decent, but I'd take Wilson and draft a top talent at WR. Use the money we would've used on Quick to shore up a different position.

That is my exact opinion. 

If the Bengals were to let AJ walk and throw that money at Wilson I'd be thrilled. Nothing against AJ but I think that situation would improve the team by leaps and bounds.

Quick was simply used as an example due to being a free agent of similar age that could become a decent #1 wideout but hasn't reached his full potential.

Take Wilson in a New York minute. Any way to work around to keep green? If not we still would have Eifert ,Marvin jones and Quick. I think we would be fine. I'm not hating on Andy, but any time you can upgrade you go for it. With that said. I'll say it again I'm a Bengal fan and as long as Andy is our qb , I will support him. As we all should. Sure he craps the bed from time to time, but he's the qb of my team so go Andy.

Just curious.

How many WRs have been to the Pro Bowl in their first 4 seasons while accumulating 1,000 yards in each season as well?

I don't know how easy it would be to replace a WR of Green's caliber.

(07-01-2015, 12:00 AM)Bengalfan11164 Wrote: Just curious.

How many WRs have been to the Pro Bowl in their first 4 seasons while accumulating 1,000 yards in each season as well?

I don't know how easy it would be to replace a WR of Green's caliber.

No one said it would be easy to compensate the loss of receiver talent level with him gone, but last time I checked elite level WRs haven't won a lot of Super Bowls lately without the aid of a great QB.

Great WR play and average QB? Very hard.

Great QB play and average WR? Very possible.

I would trade A.J. if it meant getting a guaranteed improvement under center.