(09-03-2016, 04:20 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: 6 of the scoring drives that started on the Bengals side of the field were field goals. 6 out of the 18 scoring drives were TDs on the Bengals side of the field. Every other time we either had to kick a field goal or we got a TD from short field distance when we scored. Plus that's even ignoring the times we got the ball close to the 50 yard line, but still on the Bengals side.

Curious now. So how many total TD drives/how many TD drives started on the opposing side with McCarron?

(09-03-2016, 04:37 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: If Vick only converted 4 first downs on 30 third down then Landry Jones had about the same 3rd down conversion rate as McCarron.

5 of 15 (33%).  Still worse than McCarron.

Overall Jones completed 58.2% of his passes.  AJ completed 66.4%

Jones threw 3 tds and 4 ints.  AJ had 6 tds and 2 ints.

Jones had a 77.3 passer rating.  AJ had a 97.1 rating.

Jones had 5 rushes for (minus 5) yards.  AJ had 14 carries for 31 yards and a first down.


AJ was better than Jones in every way.  It is not even close.

(09-03-2016, 04:48 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Curious now. So how many total TD drives/how many TD drives started on the opposing side with McCarron?

There were 12 TD drives 6 of which were on the Bengals side of the field and the other 6 on the opposing side of the field with McCarron. 6 FGs were on the Bengals side of the field 0 FGs were on the opponents side of the field. 6 TDs were on the Bengals side of the field and 6 were on the opponents side of the field.

(09-03-2016, 04:51 AM)fredtoast Wrote: 5 of 15 (33%).  Still worse than McCarron.

Overall Jones completed 58.2% of his passes.  AJ completed 66.4%

Jones threw 3 tds and 4 ints.  AJ had 6 tds and 2 ints.

Jones had a 77.3 passer rating.  AJ had a 97.1 rating.

Jones had 5 rushes for (minus 5) yards.  AJ had 14 carries for 31 yards and a first down.


AJ was better than Jones in every way.  It is not even close.

Jones would have had way more scoring drives if his defense played like the Bengals. 6 of Jones scoring drives started on Pittsburgh's side of the field, and only 1 started on the opponents side of the field. He had a lot less playing time than McCarron too.  Just imagine how much his stats would be inflated if his defense gave him the same field position as McCarron.

(09-03-2016, 05:06 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Jones would have had way more scoring drives if his defense played like the Bengals. 6 of Jones scoring drives started on Pittsburgh's side of the field, and only 1 started on the opponents side of the field. He had a lot less playing time than McCarron too.  Just imagine how much his stats would be inflated if his defense gave him the same field position as McCarron.

He would not have had any more scoring drives because he was not nearly as efficient throwing the ball as McCarron and he threw a lot more picks.

He only had one td drive over 60 yards and it consisted of a short dump off that Martavius Bryant ran 88 yards for a td.

McCarron had five 80+ yard tds drives in just four games.

Give it up.  You are now basing your arguments on imaginary things that never happened.  That is ridiculous.

(09-03-2016, 04:36 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Only 5 TD drives of 80+ yards in 4 regular season games is pretty sad

No it isn't.  80 yard scoring drives are not that common at all.

(09-03-2016, 05:13 AM)fredtoast Wrote: He would not have had any more scoring drives because he was not nearly as efficient throwing the ball as McCarron and he threw a lot more picks.

He only had one td drive over 60 yards and it consisted of a short dump off that Martavius Bryant ran 88 yards for a td.

McCarron had five 80+ yard tds drives in just four games.

Give it up.  You are now basing your arguments on imaginary things that never happened.  That is ridiculous.

So you're saying that if the defense puts the ball on the opponents side of the field it won't help them score more? lol, are you serious? It obviously makes the offense seem more efficient if you barley had to move the ball down the field to get a score. ~86% of Jones scoring drives started on his side of the field. If McCarron wouldn't have had the defense play like it did at the end of the year half of his TD drives would be gone. That would take a LOT of his efficiency away.

(09-03-2016, 05:20 AM)fredtoast Wrote: No it isn't.  80 yard scoring drives are not that common at all.

Josh McCown had 4 TD drives for 80+ yards and 9 TD drives for 70+ yard drives (74,75,79,74, and 72). He only started 6 games, and was injured on his last one. It's not as uncommon as you would want to act like.

(09-03-2016, 05:24 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: So you're saying that if the defense puts the ball on the opponents side of the field it won't help them score more? lol, are you serious? It obviously makes the offense seem more efficient if you barley had to move the ball down the field to get a score. ~86% of Jones scoring drives started on his side of the field. If McCarron wouldn't have had the defense play like it did at the end of the year half of his TD drives would be gone. That would take a LOT of his efficiency away.

I see the usual. Every bad play from Dalton was caused of someone else. Every good play by McCarron was caused by someone else. Therefore McCarron is bad and Dalton is good. It's this way at every turn with you. You go to great lengths to come up with the someone elses is each case.

Thanks Brownshoe, finally someone who has a clear memory. AJ was fine considering his situation and experience but in no way did he show he was close to leading a team to or through the playoffs. In the playoffs, the defense held us in the game until the cheap shot on Gio fired up the crowd and team. Even the announcers commented that that hit changed the game completely. I think AJ can be a very good backup and maybe a starter for a bottom dwelling team. I haven't seen anything , at this point, that makes me believe he is the next Jeff Blake.

(09-03-2016, 10:22 AM)James Brooks Wrote: Thanks Brownshoe, finally someone who has a clear memory. AJ was fine considering his situation and experience but in no way did he show he was close to leading a team to or through the playoffs. In the playoffs, the defense held us in the game until the cheap shot on Gio fired up the crowd and team. Even the announcers commented that that hit changed the game completely. I think AJ can be a very good backup and maybe a starter for a bottom dwelling team. I haven't seen anything , at this point, that makes me believe he is the next Jeff Blake.

This...

Hill and the boys in front of him were out for blood at that point.  To them, it stopped being a game and became personal.

And the obvious non call by the officials threw gas on the situation and the officials continued throwing gas until the game was over.


I don't want to think about it because it just pisses me off.


OK I'm much better now.

(09-03-2016, 05:24 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: So you're saying that if the defense puts the ball on the opponents side of the field it won't help them score more? lol, are you serious?

So you are saying that a QB who is not nearly as efficient throwing the ball and has a lot more interceptions will score just as many points as McCarron?

LOL are you serious?

(09-03-2016, 05:41 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Josh McCown had 4 TD drives for 80+ yards. He only started 6 games,

McCarron had 5 in just 4 games.

What is your point?

(09-03-2016, 10:22 AM)James Brooks Wrote: Thanks Brownshoe, finally someone who has a clear memory.

Do you realize that Brownshoe is claiming that McCarron is no better than any other back up QB?

(09-02-2016, 09:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 4 posts in 5 pages; is this where I link the posts slamming him?

EDIT:

Post #4. Nobody compared AJ to Brady; simply replied to the OP that said a back up is not going to be Brady

Post#36 Nobody compared AJ to Brady; simply posted pictures of backups that have won the Super Bowl

Post #52 Nobody compared AJ to Brady; simply provided an example of a back up winning a Super Bowl

Post #64 Nobody compared AJ to Young; simply suggested someone should as Young if a back up can win a Super Bowl

To be honest, you should be ashamed for using them as examples and I hope folks read the posts quoted to see how hard folks try.

As I said: I don't know which thread you are reading but it is not this one.

Right. By bringing up Brady, these people aren't suggesting that something similar could happen with McCarron. Gotcha.

You always call people out for being biased or having a slant. Funny thing is, I'm doing the same. There's maybe 1 poster here that thinks Dalton can do no wrong and that McCarron is terrible. However, there's probably 20+ (probably way more than that) posters who think McCarron can be better than Dalton and actually want him to take the starting gig.

Maybe that's not totally evident in this thread in particular (which is mostly a back-and-forth with 3-4 posters), but that doesn't make it any less true. You can list the threads where people bash McC if you want. I'm not claiming it doesn't happen. But it's shameful for you to pretend there isn't some pretty heavy bias for McCarron as well. People that have somehow twisted a 68.3 rating, 3 fumble, 1 INT, 16 point performance into a good thing. We have some pretty big Bama homers here, and some of the Dalton haters from years past have converted into huge McCarron fans. Call a spade a spade, or you appear biased yourself.

(09-03-2016, 12:31 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: But it's shameful for you to pretend there isn't some pretty heavy bias for McCarron as well. People that have somehow twisted a 68.3 rating, 3 fumble, 1 INT, 16 point performance into a good thing. We have some pretty big Bama homers here, and some of the Dalton haters from years past have converted into huge McCarron fans. Call a spade a spade, or you appear biased yourself.

How do explain all the love for Mccarron from the national media?  He is generally considered one of the best (if not the best) back up in the league, and his name pops up everytime there is talk about another team looking to trade for a QB.

I agree there are some McCarron homers here, but the people showing the most bias are the ones claiming that we would be just as good with any other backup as we are with McCarron.

I am not claiming he looked great in the playoff game, but his regular season stats (66.4 comp percentage, 97 passer rating, 6 td, only 2 ints) were excellent for a back up.

(09-03-2016, 12:38 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 1. How do explain all the love for Mccarron from the national media?  He is generally considered one of the best (if not the best) back up in the league, and his name pops up everytime there is talk about another team looking to trade for a QB.

2. I agree there are some McCarron homers here, but the people showing the most bias are the ones claiming that we would be just as good with any other backup as we are with McCarron.

3. I am not claiming he looked great in the playoff game, but his regular season stats (66.4 comp percentage, 97 passer rating, 6 td, only 2 ints) were excellent for a back up.

1. McCarron is young, he's a "name", he plays for a very good team that has a good history with QBs, and he was solid in his 3 regular season starts last year. He didn't hurt his team for the most part. That's what a good backup does. So when you consider all this, naturally his name is going to come up. I do think McCarron is a top tier backup. I just didn't see enough last year to lead me to believe he's going to be a good starter in this league, and I certainly don't think he's going to usurp Dalton.

I think some of the people (not you) who are so against trading him are just holding out hope that McCarron is some miracle sitting on the bench. Another Tom Brady waiting to happen. Just the vibe I get from some people here.

2. I would not agree with that statement, but I will say this: how much is an insurance policy actually worth if you don't have to cash it in? Dalton has missed 4 games in 5 seasons. He was also healthy through his time at TCU. So are people actually worried about losing Dalton, or do they just like having McCarron on the team because they really like McCarron?

3. The numbers you listed look good. No denying that. The offense clearly dropped off though. We have 4 straight games of evidence that it did. They never topped 300 yards with McCarron at the helm. I'd say that's to be expected from a backup though. He kept us in games and didn't kill us with mistakes. Not bashing the kid, just don't see anything that leads me to believe this team would have no drop off if we lose Dalton.

There's always going to be some drop off from a top notch starter to any type of backup, no matter who they are. That's why I liked the idea of trading McCarron (for a 2nd rounder+) and signing a Mark Sanchez. We're not likely to cash in that insurance policy, and even if we do, I don't see any backup leading this team like Dalton does. So as long as we have a good backup (I feel Sanchez qualifies), I don't care who it is.

Honestly though, this ship has already sailed, as we're only days away from the opener. Any new QB would have to learn a new system, so it's probably best to stick with McCarron this year. Next year is a different story though. With only 1 year remaining on his deal, I think it'd be pretty dumb not to at least listen to offers.

(09-03-2016, 09:57 AM)BengalChris Wrote: I see the usual. Every bad play from Dalton was caused of someone else. Every good play by McCarron was caused by someone else. Therefore McCarron is bad and Dalton is good. It's this way at every turn with you. You go to great lengths to come up with the someone elses is each case.

He has to be related to Dalton.

(09-03-2016, 10:55 AM)fredtoast Wrote: So you are saying that a QB who is not nearly as efficient throwing the ball and has a lot more interceptions will score just as many points as McCarron?

LOL are you serious?

If the defense puts him on the opponents side of the field he would score more points, are you trying to deny that simple fact? If you start on the opponents side of the field you're naturally going to be MUCH more efficient. How don't you understand that? It's pretty much as simple as 2+2.

(09-03-2016, 10:57 AM)fredtoast Wrote: McCarron had 5 in just 4 games.

What is your point?

McCarron had 5 70+ TD drives in 5 games. McCown had 9 70+ TD drives in 6 games. McCown was moving the BROWNS offense a lot better than McCarron with the BENGALS offense. McCown had 0 TD drives starting on his opponents side of the field, because his defense never put him on that side of the field. Half of McCarrons TD drives came from the opponents side of the field, because his defense put him on that side of the field.

(Note: TD drive doesn't mean that he threw the TD either. It could have been ran in by a RB)