At least we have moved to an "offense v defense" argument.

Does everyone agree that Dalton has not been the only problem on the offense?

(07-12-2015, 11:02 AM)fredtoast Wrote: At least we have moved to an "offense v defense" argument.

Does everyone agree that Dalton has not been the only problem on the offense?

I agree Fred.

AJ Green dropped a huge TD pass in 2013 that could have swung momentum and out us down by 3 with 6 minutes to play. Yet, it is never really discussed.

Gio fumbles negating a first and goal, possibly putting us up 10 or even more if the defense stops the Chargers before the half (after the TD) with the crowd going nuts.

In 2014, no QB wins a Super Bowl with an average defense at best due to major injury to Burfict and Hall and Geno still not 100%. Add in he lost an all pro AJ Green for 6 games, Eifert and Jones for the season. By playoffs no Gresham (no 3rd string TE Smith either as he was lost for the year), no Wrigt, no Sanz. and no AJ.

AD has to made better decisions (avoid picks) and work on consistency. He has weaknesses no doubt, but so do our receiving corps. so did our OL once Smith was hurt and Winston took over. Our OL was different by the playoffs.

I am hopeful we can get a true gauge on AD in 2015, I think 2014 was a whacky injury plagued year so very hard to judge if AD is progressing, staying the same or getting worse.

(07-12-2015, 12:01 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: This pretty much sums it up for me when it comes to the SD game. Which is just one of six games where the defense has given up 150+ rushing yards, a 90+ passer rating with very few sacks or turnovers to speak of.


Agreed. The offense has been worse overall, no doubt. The only exceptions are (maybe) the Colts game or the first Texans game. In those 2 games both sides were flat out embarrassing. The point isn't that the defense has been worse, it's that the defense has also been a disappointment. Maybe not to the level that the offense has, but it's still been pretty bad.

There is no excusing the overall numbers the defense has put up. They've never stopped the run, they've never made a QB look bad, they have 5 sacks and 2 forced turnovers total in all 6 games combined. That would average out to 13 sacks and 5 turnovers for a full 16 game season. Those would be historically bad numbers. This from a defense that's either been top 8 overall or led the NFL in forced turnovers (2005). 

I find it interesting that so many people aren't concerned about that.

5 sacks and 2 turnovers in 6 GAMES is not a championship worthy defense regardless of how the offense has performed.  

(07-12-2015, 11:37 AM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: 5 sacks and 2 turnovers in 6 GAMES is not a championship worthy defense regardless of how the offense has performed.  

7.25 points per game average scored by the offense.  You don't overcome that.  In fact, in 2012 the defense outscored the offense.  Leon Hall outscored the entire offense...with a single play.  The offense contributed a grand total of 6 points while the defense scored 7 and gave up 19.  That isn't last-place defense there, but that is a dreadful offensive performance.

The offense generated the following net points:


2011 - 3 (10 points scored, -7 for Dalton's pick six)
2012 - 6 (13 points scored, but Hall's pick 6 generated 7 points for the defense)
2013 - 10
2014 - 10

Look at those numbers.  Look at them.  What defense can pull that offense across the finish line?  The defensive performance in 2012 could have dragged most offenses kicking and screaming to a win, but not this one.  The more I look at the actual numbers rather than throwing my hands and saying "the offense, coaching, and defense are all crap!!!!" the more I see an offense that plays at a sub 32-ranking in the playoffs.

7.25 net points per game

Even if you don't count it as net points and just go with the total the Bengals have scored 10,13,10, and 10 points in the playoffs. Here is the lowest score that resulted a win in each year's playoffs:

2011 - 20
2012 - 19
2013 - 23
2014 - 24

So we are a good 6-11 points below the lowest winning score achieved for each playoff year. Ugh.

(07-12-2015, 11:02 AM)fredtoast Wrote: At least we have moved to an "offense v defense" argument.

Does everyone agree that Dalton has not been the only problem on the offense?

He has been the biggest problem and the most consistent problem by far.

His position bares the most weight x10 any other position and he has been awful at it. The game he had 3 turnovers in a row was his BEST game out of 4. What does THAT say?

It starts with the QB. Until that's fixed there is no sense in looking past it because you can fix everything else around him but it still won't work. That's like worrying about your tires when your engine is locked up. The offense won't even start, so why is anyone worried about the wheels?

(07-12-2015, 06:33 PM)PDub80 Wrote: He has been the biggest problem and the most consistent problem by far.

His position bares the most weight x10 any other position and he has been awful at it. The game he had 3 turnovers in a row was his BEST game out of 4. What does THAT say?

It starts with the QB. Until that's fixed there is no sense in looking past it because you can fix everything else around him but it still won't work. That's like worrying about your tires when your engine is locked up. The offense won't even start, so why is anyone worried about the wheels?

Ya but, the team has had a rod knocking under Marvin anytime the "lights are on" well before Dalton.

Marvin's primetime record pre-Dalton is bad, Marvin's record against the Steelers before Andy is awful, and his Playoff record before AD is well.... you know.

I'm not just taking up for Dalton in any way, I'm not in any way convinced he's going to turn it around this season. I'm just saying there's a deeper problem with this team under pressure/lights/playoffs than just Andy Dalton. We've assumed the fetal position way more often that not anytime the heat is on and that very much includes pre-Dalton !

(07-12-2015, 06:33 PM)PDub80 Wrote: He has been the biggest problem and the most consistent problem by far.

His position bares the most weight x10 any other position and he has been awful at it. The game he had 3 turnovers in a row was his BEST game out of 4. What does THAT say?

It starts with the QB. Until that's fixed there is no sense in looking past it because you can fix everything else around him but it still won't work. That's like worrying about your tires when your engine is locked up. The offense won't even start, so why is anyone worried about the wheels?

Thism is getting ridiculous.

Look at how many really good QBs have never sniffed a Super bowl.

To claim that nothing else on a team matters and the QB is 100% responsible for every win and every loss  is absurd.

(07-12-2015, 11:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Thism is getting ridiculous.

Look at how many really good QBs have never sniffed a Super bowl.

To claim that nothing else on a team matters and the QB is 100% responsible for every win and every loss  is absurd.

Meh, I'll say the people insinuating that replacing Dalton is going to magically fix things are a bit off-base but I'll also admit Dalton and the offenses' performances (and a less extent the defense to be FAIR) in the 4 playoff games is very worthy of an 0-4 record.

(07-12-2015, 11:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Thism is getting ridiculous.

Look at how many really good QBs have never sniffed a Super bowl.

To claim that nothing else on a team matters and the QB is 100% responsible for every win and every loss  is absurd.

I agree.

Making a strawman argument claiming that somebody else said "nothing else on a team matters and the QB is 100% responsible for every win and every loss" IS quite ridiculous.

(07-13-2015, 02:16 PM)djs7685 Wrote: I agree.

Making a strawman argument claiming that somebody else said "nothing else on a team matters and the QB is 100% responsible for every win and every loss" IS quite ridiculous.

Ahem....

(07-12-2015, 06:33 PM)PDub80 Wrote:  you can fix everything else around him but it still won't work. 

(07-13-2015, 02:23 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Ahem....

If you take that one snippet out of the context of his entire post, uhh sure, I guess you could make your argument.

If you want to be like every non-Fred poster by not taking short samples out of posts to intentionally remove them from their original context, then you can clearly see that he didn't say "nothing else on a team matters and the QB is 100% responsible for every win and every loss".

PDub's post basically says that Andy has been awful (I'm assuming he is talking about the playoffs only here), more consistently than any other piece of the team. He seems to believe the team should fix the biggest problem (he feels is QB) because he doesn't think we'd have a good chance to win with Andy's poor performances even if the rest of the team played at a high level.

I could be completely wrong, but I think it's safe to say I'm a bit closer to my interpretation of his post than you were with the extreme point you attempted to make.

(07-13-2015, 02:44 PM)djs7685 Wrote: I could be completely wrong, but I think it's safe to say I'm a bit closer to my interpretation of his post than you were with the extreme point you attempted to make.

Who cares.  You are both wrong.

When we went to a Super Bowl with Boomer his postseason numbers were much worse than Dalton's.

And if the QB was the only thing that mattered Dan Marino would have been to a lot more Super Bowls.



I am willing to admit that Dalton has played poorly, but the people here who place 100% of the blame on him are just delusional.

(07-13-2015, 02:44 PM)djs7685 Wrote: If you take that one snippet out of the context of his entire post, uhh sure, I guess you could make your argument.

If you want to be like every non-Fred poster by not taking short samples out of posts to intentionally remove them from their original context, then you can clearly see that he didn't say "nothing else on a team matters and the QB is 100% responsible for every win and every loss".

PDub's post basically says that Andy has been awful (I'm assuming he is talking about the playoffs only here), more consistently than any other piece of the team. He seems to believe the team should fix the biggest problem (he feels is QB) because he doesn't think we'd have a good chance to win with Andy's poor performances even if the rest of the team played at a high level.

I could be completely wrong, but I think it's safe to say I'm a bit closer to my interpretation of his post than you were with the extreme point you attempted to make.

regardless of what PDub was trying to get at, to say you could fix everything else around Andy and still lose in the playoffs is not fair nor accurate. 
Big Ben has had some pretty awful (Dalton-esque, if you will) playoff games but his team was able to win. 
For god's sake, he had 22 rating in the friggin super bowl and WON.....

(07-13-2015, 03:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Who cares.  You are both wrong.

When we went to a Super Bowl with Boomer his postseason numbers were much worse than Dalton's.

And if the QB was the only thing that mattered Dan Marino would have been to a lot more Super Bowls.

I am willing to admit that Dalton has played poorly, but the people here who place 100% of the blame on him are just delusional.

How am I "wrong"? I was just interpreting his post fairly and not taking things out of context. I never once said that I agree with his points.

The only part I do agree with is the insinuation that it's very difficult to win a football game when your QB is playing miserably bad football.

(07-13-2015, 03:04 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: regardless of what PDub was trying to get at, to say you could fix everything else around Andy and still lose in the playoffs is not fair nor accurate. 
Big Ben has had some pretty awful (Dalton-esque, if you will) playoff games but his team was able to win. 
For god's sake, he had 22 rating in the friggin super bowl and WON.....

I don't agree with his entire post and it is definitely possible to win games no matter how bad your QB is.

I do, however, believe that it's much easier to win games if your QB is playing even somewhat crappy to mediocre instead of just flat out terribly.

(07-13-2015, 03:34 PM)djs7685 Wrote: How am I "wrong"? I was just interpreting his post fairly and not taking things out of context. 

Actually you were the one trying to spin his post to make it mean something different.

"When he said 'everything' he obviously didn't really mean 'everything'.  Everyone knows this. Why would you think that he meant what he said?"

And what I meant was that even with your added spin the post was wrong.

(07-13-2015, 03:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually you were the one trying to spin his post to make it mean something different.

"When he said 'everything' he obviously didn't really mean 'everything'.  Everyone knows this.  Why would you think that he meant what he said?"

And what I meant was that even with your added spin the post was wrong.

Does anyone see the irony of DJS getting on a poster for using one statement and ignoring everything else when he disagrees with the poster?

I thought it was clear he stated unprovoked and factually AD was the only issue and anything else would not be enough.
I can only assume the poster did indeed mean "everything" and that is after I read every word in the post and also read every post he made in this thread.

(07-13-2015, 03:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually you were the one trying to spin his post to make it mean something different.

"When he said 'everything' he obviously didn't really mean 'everything'.  Everyone knows this.  Why would you think that he meant what he said?"

And what I meant was that even with your added spin the post was wrong.

I didn't "add spin", I used context to know what the guy meant. Crazy, I know.

(07-13-2015, 03:59 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Does anyone see the irony of DJS getting on a poster for using one statement and ignoring everything else when he disagrees with the poster?

I thought it was clear he stated unprovoked and factually AD was the only issue and anything else would not be enough.
I can only assume the poster did indeed mean "everything" and that is after I read every word in the post and also read every post he made in this thread.

What kind of dummy uses context when they read something? I must be so stupid to do such a thing. Silly me!

Next time, I'll try to use the neanderthal Luvnit approach by not using any context or proper comprehension abilities.

(07-13-2015, 04:03 PM)djs7685 Wrote: I didn't "add spin", I used context to know what the guy meant. Crazy, I know.


What kind of dummy uses context when they read something? I must be so stupid to do such a thing. Silly me!

Next time, I'll try to use the neanderthal Luvnit approach by not using any context or proper comprehension abilities.

LOL

You need to chill, no sense going postal on a message board.

My reference to you is you pull out one liners from posts all the time and ignore the rest of the post.

I do it too, we all do it.

(07-13-2015, 03:59 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Does anyone see the irony of DJS getting on a poster for using one statement and ignoring everything else when he disagrees with the poster?

I thought it was clear he stated unprovoked and factually AD was the only issue and anything else would not be enough.
I can only assume the poster did indeed mean "everything" and that is after I read every word in the post and also read every post he made in this thread.

 
You obviously just don't know how to use context.  Here let me give you an example.  

(07-13-2015, 04:03 PM)djs7685 Wrote: I didn't "add spin", I used context to know what the guy meant. Crazy, I know.


What kind of dummy uses context when they read something? I must be so stupid to do such a thing. Silly me!

Next time, I'll try to use the neanderthal Luvnit approach by not using any context or proper comprehension abilities.

I think it is clear using "context" that djs is really saying "I just made a bunch of shit up and got called out on it, so now i am going to fall back on childish name-calling because that is all I got"


See how it works now?

(07-13-2015, 04:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote:  
You obviously just don't know how to use context.  Here let me give you an example.  


I think it is clear using "context" that djs is really saying "I just made a bunch of shit up and got called out on it, so now i am going to fall back on childish name-calling because that is all I got"


See how it works now?

What did I make up?

I apologize for properly interpreting a message board post instead of being a complete dick and arguing with a strawman instead.

My bad. I didn't realize this would turn into such a big deal, I guess that's what happens when you call someone out on a dumb strawman. Oh well. I'll be sure to not care about context of a post from now on when dealing with you, this could be fun!