(10-01-2016, 01:29 AM)BengalChris Wrote: In all fairness to Luck he certainly hasn't had the talent around him that Dalton has had. Not saying that makes Dalton worse or better. The Bengals have a defense, the Colts really aren't close.

If Luck were the Bengals QB we'd be winning just the same. Of course, we don't get #1 overall picks either, so if you want to have a value grade on them Dalton has been the better value.

Seriously? Dalton started with a rookie WR, 2nd year TE and weak rest of skill players as a rookie. Yes, Green is awesome, but so are guys like A. Brown, Fitzgerald, J. Jones and a bunch of others. Hilton is no slouch either. According to many our OL stinks too.

AD has better stats than Luck and less turnovers when compared side by side. He also makes a lot less money which helps us keep a solid roster.

Edit: AD also had no rookie camps due to the strike. I find many thought Luck was the smarter QB since he is a Stanford grad, I think they are dead wrong. Luck is the better athlete, but AD is the brains.

(10-01-2016, 12:31 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Seriously? Dalton started with a rookie WR, 2nd year TE and weak rest of skill players as a rookie. Yes, Green is awesome, but so are guys like A. Brown, Fitzgerald, J. Jones and a bunch of others. Hilton is no slouch either. According to many our OL stinks too.

AD has better stats than Luck and less turnovers when compared side by side. He also makes a lot less money which helps us keep a solid roster.

Edit: AD also had no rookie camps due to the strike. I find many thought Luck was the smarter QB since he is a Stanford grad, I think they are dead wrong. Luck is the better athlete, but AD is the brains.

I'd rather be educated by Stanford than TCU. Just sayin.

(10-01-2016, 12:26 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Their numbers weren't done with the same team. That should be easy to understand. It doesn't happen in a vacuum; different teams, 

Well i just use your words you said that Luck came in much better stats don't show that. As for comparing teams the Bengals were worse the previous few years than the Colts before dalton or luck was drafted .

(10-01-2016, 01:48 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: Well i just use your words you said that Luck came in much better stats don't show that. As for comparing teams the Bengals were worse the previous few years than the Colts before dalton or luck was drafted .

Yes, the stats do show that Luck came in and did more with less in their first 3 years. 

(10-01-2016, 10:22 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Oh, i know. I've pointed that out many times. If you ask pretty much anyone, they will tell you that top to bottom, the Bengals have a much better roster than the Colts. A better coaching staff and system too. 

At this point, i wouldn't trade them straight up if offered, but just speaking hypothetically, in the exact same circumstances, i think Luck could do a little bit more. Most of it would have come in the early years though. It took Dalton a while to get where he is, whereas Luck came in able to put up bigger numbers.

To be fair Luck had waaaay better weapons his first few years than Daltons first few years. Plus Dalton had a rookie OC and no training camp. 

(10-01-2016, 11:33 AM)BengalChris Wrote: You always run down our offensive weapons, presumably to make Andy Dalton look better than he is, but I assure you that many QBs in the league would love to have the Bengals weapons. Just look at the contracts handed out to Marvin Jones and Sanu. And Gresham had no difficulty in landing on another team either.

And only 1 if them has done anything on another team. Plus Jones was hurt half the time he was here. He really only had 1.5 years as the starter. Both Sanu and Gresh has looked like poop on other teams.

(10-01-2016, 10:58 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: A few years back, I was skeptical of Andy's long term chances of maturing into a great NFL QB.  My biggest cling-to line was that Andy wouldn't be great, in my eyes, until he demonstrated the ability to put the team on his back and carry it to victory.  In my opinion, Andy does put the team on his back and carry it to wins.

Anyone that doubts Andy needs ony watch game 1 against the Jets. 

(09-30-2016, 08:52 PM)Joelist Wrote: If people knew at their drafts how they would play as pros, Luck would have been the second round pick and Andy would have gone #1 in the draft.

I wouldn't go that far. Dalton probably would've gone 2nd overall behind Cam. The Colts may have thought about trading the pick and letting Peyton retire a Colt. I still think Luck would've been the top pick that year, but there's no doubt he hasn't lived up to the hype.

(09-30-2016, 09:12 PM)jason Wrote: This.

The colts have done Luck no favors these last few years. He doesn't have a whole lot to work with. Andy would struggle mightily on that team.

Has Dalton struggled with a consistently bad run game? Has he struggled with poor pass blocking in '12 and '16? Has he struggled after losing guys like MLJ, Sanu and Eifert? Let's face it...outside of AJ, Dalton doesn't have any real "weapons" this year, the run game and pass blocking have been atrocious. So how would the Colts be any worse than what he's presently dealing with?

(10-01-2016, 09:23 AM)Rhinocero23 Wrote: This is not even a serious question for any one outside of our fan base...our Andy fans are typically a bit delusional.
Good is not Great & Luck > Dalton. There is really nothing left to be said.

If "Andy fans" are delusional, make an argument based in facts. Shouldn't be too difficult if one side is being delusional.

(10-01-2016, 12:50 PM)Fresno B Wrote: I'd rather be educated by Stanford than TCU. Just sayin.

Listen to Andy, then listen to Andrew. 

(10-01-2016, 01:55 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Yes, the stats do show that Luck came in and did more with less in their first 3 years. 

I really don't see where the big difference is. Both had/have terrible run games, both had/have one great WR. Both have had quality TEs, Luck was beat up a little more but he holds the ball much longer - and there really wasn't much difference in sack numbers, Luck had a quality veteran #2 in Reggie Wayne. Say what you want about Wayne's age, I'd take him over Jerome Simpson or some raw rookies like Dalton had in year 2.

Other than AJ being better than Hilton (who is damned good), I'm just not seeing a huge gap in talent. Dalton's weapons were exaggerated beyond belief up until last year. Probably to explain why a perceived crappy QB was better than advertised. In contrast, I feel people exaggerated how BAD Luck's weapons were to explain away why he wasn't meeting expectations.

The offenses weren't all that different if you look at the facts.

(10-01-2016, 01:55 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Yes, the stats do show that Luck came in and did more with less in their first 3 years. 

ok so now it is the first three years instead of right away.. i see you shifting things... as for more with less .. I don;t agree at all with that statement, both teams were building for the future with young and older players... They still had Wayne and a veteran in Avery at WR so they still had a edge even with Green coming in, and their offensive line was on par with ours, we had a edge at Running back, so really splitting hairs on who was deeper.

You just seem to be holding on to this idea that Luck was so superior to Dalton starting out with a much more minor league team and I don;t think the stats or personal support that.. THE END

(10-01-2016, 09:55 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: ok so now it is the first three years instead of right away.. i see you shifting things... as for more with less .. I don;t agree at all with that statement, both teams were building for the future with young and older players... They still had Wayne and a veteran in Avery at WR so they still had a edge even with Green coming in, and their offensive line was on par with ours, we had a edge at Running back, so really splitting hairs on who was deeper.

You just seem to be holding on to this idea that Luck was so superior to Dalton starting out with a much more minor league team and I don;t think the stats or personal support that.. THE END

Since Rfaulk likes passer rating a lot... Dalton had a better passer rating both his first and second years vs Lucks first 2nd second years...

Passer rating by years
Year 1: Dalton > Luck
Year 2: Dalton > Luck
Year 3: Luck > Dalton
Year 4: Dalton > Luck
Year 5: Most likely Dalton > Luck

Yep... Luck is better

(09-30-2016, 10:22 PM)BengalRed Wrote: In Andy's first couple of years you could see that he was just a kid and the team only did what they had to do to win without any leadership from him. But in the last couple of years I can see where he has matured as a leader of the offense and that the team follows his lead. I think he has become way more intelligent in reading defenses and putting players in the right spots. Luck's first couple of years were impressive but as they have lost some good players it seems to be harder and harder for him to thrive.

Dalton broke the franchises 4th quarter comeback record his rookie year... but yeah the team must have carried him on their backs.

(10-01-2016, 09:53 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I wouldn't go that far. Dalton probably would've gone 2nd overall behind Cam. The Colts may have thought about trading the pick and letting Peyton retire a Colt. I still think Luck would've been the top pick that year, but there's no doubt he hasn't lived up to the hype.


Has Dalton struggled with a consistently bad run game? Has he struggled with poor pass blocking in '12 and '16? Has he struggled after losing guys like MLJ, Sanu and Eifert? Let's face it...outside of AJ, Dalton doesn't have any real "weapons" this year, the run game and pass blocking have been atrocious. So how would the Colts be any worse than what he's presently dealing with?


If "Andy fans" are delusional, make an argument based in facts. Shouldn't be too difficult if one side is being delusional.


Listen to Andy, then listen to Andrew. 


I really don't see where the big difference is. Both had/have terrible run games, both had/have one great WR. Both have had quality TEs, Luck was beat up a little more but he holds the ball much longer - and there really wasn't much difference in sack numbers, Luck had a quality veteran #2 in Reggie Wayne. Say what you want about Wayne's age, I'd take him over Jerome Simpson or some raw rookies like Dalton had in year 2.

Other than AJ being better than Hilton (who is damned good), I'm just not seeing a huge gap in talent. Dalton's weapons were exaggerated beyond belief up until last year. Probably to explain why a perceived crappy QB was better than advertised. In contrast, I feel people exaggerated how BAD Luck's weapons were to explain away why he wasn't meeting expectations.

The offenses weren't all that different if you look at the facts.

Shake... AJ Green alone makes Dalton's life easier. The Colts don't have a single player of that caliber on offense. Hilton's no slouch; but he ain't AJ Green.

Luck has never had that kind of talent to work with. He got an older Reggie Wayne, an older Frank Gore, old Andre Johnson.

In no way am I knocking Dalton. I just think Luck is the superior talent. Dalton has outplayed him for a season and some change, but they count on Luck to elevate that team. Dalton is more of a point guard ... He gets the ball to his playmakers. He couldn't do squat with that Indy team. Luck would look really good on the Bengals.

Andy definitely holds his own in comparison to Luck though.

Remember Luck came in with Reggie Wayne, had Hilton, had an actual pass catching TE and plays a LOT of weak defenses by dint of the Colts schedule rotation in the AFC South.

Andy came in with.....AJ. No TE, no real second WR and no running game. Plus he has every year of his career been regularly playing top defenses. He only got the pass catching TE when Eifert finally put in a full season (last year) and only had a legit #2 WR in 13 and 15.

Also, TCU is no slouch in the world of Universities. In particular its Medicine and Business programs are very highly rated.

(10-01-2016, 09:55 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: ok so now it is the first three years instead of right away.. i see you shifting things... as for more with less .. I don;t agree at all with that statement, both teams were building for the future with young and older players... They still had Wayne and a veteran in Avery at WR so they still had a edge even with Green coming in, and their offensive line was on par with ours, we had a edge at Running back, so really splitting hairs on who was deeper.

You just seem to be holding on to this idea that Luck was so superior to Dalton starting out with a much more minor league team and I don;t think the stats or personal support that.. THE END

Damn, you're seeing a whole lot of shit that's not there. 

Whether you go by year one or the first three years, facts are, Luck took a bad 2-14 team to 11-5 his first year, lost a playoff game and Dalton took a 4-12 team that wasn't nearly as devoid of talent to a 9-7 record and lost a playoff game. Luck threw for 1,000 more yards and 3 more touchdowns. 

Regardless, i wouldn't take Luck over Dalton anyway so you can stop trying to twist this into me saying things i'm not saying. I'm just not going to sit by while people comment with their orange and black glasses on and make ridiculous statements. 

One guy is the prototypical NFL QB that was taken #1 overall in the draft and thrown for over 4,000 yards twice in his career, a high of 40 TDs in his best year and has 20 less TDs and 3,500 less yards in 23 less games, while doing it with what is widely considered an inferior team and the other guy was taken 35th overall in the draft and has yet to crack a 68 passer rating in four playoff losses while the overrated #1 pick had 98 or better twice and is 3-3 in the playoffs.

If you want to look through those glasses, be my guest. I prefer not to so i can see things a little more clearly without bias. 

(10-01-2016, 10:10 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Since Rfaulk likes passer rating a lot... Dalton had a better passer rating both his first and second years vs Lucks first 2nd second years...

Passer rating by years
Year 1: Dalton > Luck
Year 2: Dalton > Luck
Year 3: Luck > Dalton
Year 4: Dalton > Luck
Year 5: Most likely Dalton > Luck

Yep... Luck is better

Physically and potentially, yes. If you put both guys on the same team and think Dalton can do better, you're either lying or on some strong drugs. 

I'm sorry i've hurt your fragile psyche so much by saying Luck has more physical skills but still wouldn't trade Dalton for him. 

Boo freaking hoo. 

P.S. Blind homers are so freaking annoying, man. 

(10-01-2016, 11:48 PM)jason Wrote: In no way am I knocking Dalton. I just think Luck is the superior talent. Dalton has outplayed him for a season and some change, but they count on Luck to elevate that team. Dalton is more of a point guard ... He gets the ball to his playmakers. He couldn't do squat with that Indy team. Luck would look really good on the Bengals.

Why do you hate Andy Dalton so much!!!!!!!!!????!11!!!!!!!1???!!!!!!!!!!

hehe

(10-01-2016, 11:53 PM)Joelist Wrote: Remember Luck came in with Reggie Wayne, had Hilton, had an actual pass catching TE and plays a LOT of weak defenses by dint of the Colts schedule rotation in the AFC South.

Andy came in with.....AJ. No TE, no real second WR and no  running game. Plus he has every year of his career been regularly playing top defenses. He only got the pass catching TE when Eifert finally put in a full season (last year) and only had a legit #2 WR in 13 and 15.

Also, TCU is no slouch in the world of Universities. In particular its Medicine and Business programs are very highly rated.

Jermaine Gresham had his 2nd best season in '11 and his best season in '12. Colts TEs COMBINED couldn't match him either year.

Revisionist Historians unite!!!!

Tough one, they both have different styles. Luck is a better passer, he takes more chances I think which is like Palmer. Dalton I see a lot of short stuff that inflates his stats. Dalton looks best when he gets rid of the ball fast. I know this scenario would never happen but I think I'd go with luck to be honest. Just because I'm still unsure on Dalton. Luck has won two playoff games.

(10-02-2016, 01:39 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Physically and potentially, yes. If you put both guys on the same team and think Dalton can do better, you're either lying or on some strong drugs. 

I'm sorry i've hurt your fragile psyche so much by saying Luck has more physical skills but still wouldn't trade Dalton for him. 

Boo freaking hoo. 

P.S. Blind homers are so freaking annoying, man. 

And yet you have no argument that Lucks better. By your favorite metric (passer rating) Dalton is better. Sorry that gets your panties in a bunch. Just because Luck physically is more gifted than Dalton doesn't mean that Dalton is a worse QB.

Dalton had worse weapons than Luck too, so I don't get where you can say if Luck was on the same team as Dalton he would do better. Dalton had no one the first couple of years other than a young Green. He didn't even get Jones or Sanu until 2013 really and Eifert until 2015. Luck had MULTIPLE solid weapons. 3 good WRs and a good TE.

Sorry you only can get upset and have no real argument against it.

(10-02-2016, 01:47 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Jermaine Gresham had his 2nd best season in '11 and his best season in '12. Colts TEs COMBINED couldn't match him either year.

Revisionist Historians unite!!!!

Gresham 2011: 596 yards, 6 TDs, 1 fumble
Allen + Fleener 2012: 802 yards, 5TDs, 1 fumble

Gresham 2012: 737 yards, 5 TDs, 2 fumbles (was 2nd in the league in offensive skilled position penalties with 9)
Coby Fleener 2013: 608, 4 TDs, 1 fumble

Gresham 2013: 458 yards, 4 TDs, 3 fumbles (was 1st in the league in offensive skilled position penalties with 11)
Fleener + Allen 2014: 1169 yards, 16 TDs, 1 fumble

WOW Gresham had 1 arguably better year. Too bad that pretty much was a fluke year for him. Don't even make me look up dropped passes either.

Revisionist Historians unite!!!!