(09-26-2017, 01:48 PM)PhilHos Wrote: It's been 3 games. And 1 of those 3 he played pretty well.

The Ravens won a Super Bowl with Joe Flacco. The same Flacco who is CURRENTLY lower rated than Dalton.
Also, Dalton is ABOVE a middle-tire QB when playing well. Prior to his injury 2 years ago, he was in the talk for league MVP (it may have been only whispers, but it was still talk).



I'm not sold on Mariota or Wentz (yet) and Dalton has proven to be at least equal to Luck, statistically speaking, but to each his own.


While I think the Bengals can win with Dalton, I would have no problem if the Bengals drafted what they believe could be the next elite QB in the draft. It would be nice to have a QB that all Bengals fans agree is good, but then again, even prior to his injuries there were Bengals fans that crapped on Palmer, so it might never happen.

Is Flacco worse than Dalton right now? Dalton has the league's worst total QBR at 16.6 and Flacco's total QBR is 24.1. I think anyone saying Dalton is better than Flacco right now is being subjective.

It's also worth noting that when Flacco won the Super Bowl with the Ravens, he was still on his rookie contract. Flacco's average per year during that contract was $6 mill per year. The Ravens invested that money saved from QB on other positions, and it paid off.
Dalton is no longer on his rookie contract. He's being paid $10 mill a year more than what first round rookie contracts pay. That extra $10 mill a year can pay for an elite player.

(09-26-2017, 01:59 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Just because they haven't traditionally done it doesn't mean they won't ever.
Ken Zampese is a great example.
Many of us thought he would stick through the rest of the season at least.
Yet he was fired after the Houston game.
I sure didn't think that would have happened knowing the traditional behavior of this organization.

And to follow up on my previous post...if the line isn't fixed, why do you want to still throw Dalton out there when he's occupying $16+ mill to underperform? Why not instead draft some QB who will be MUCH cheaper? If all that matters is having a good OL, I'd rather the Bengals roll with a QB on a rookie contract. At least having that money available means there's SOME chance it could be invested to upgrade the OL. With the amount of money set for the next couple years, the Bengals will only be able to afford one good outside FA OL and have to draft the rest. But getting rid of Dalton's contract could allow a much faster turnaround in success if that money saved were invested properly.

So let me flip the script on you.

If the Bengals keep Dalton, how do they get to the point of restoring this offense and winning a playoff game?
If they don't have the money to sign a couple outside FA OL, they will have to develop that talent from the draft.
Based on how the Bengals have been drafting OL, that very well may take years (if at all).
That leaves a serviceable-but-completely-OL-dependent QB (and the rest of the team) through the next few years, completely wasting the core of this team and ultimately accomplishing nothing.

I hate to break it to you friend, but the core of this team, and the one before it, has already been wasted.

You make some good points, and I'm not here to toot 14's horn as much as I am completely shitting all over this joke of a FO and "coaching" staff.  There were rumblings at the end of 2016 within the organization concerning doubt of Ken Zampese....yet they rolled on into 2017 with him calling the shots.  That's just completely moronic.  Even more stupid than standing pat on the o line.  Look at what Minnesota did with their line.  They shitcanned every last one of them.  THAT'S how you do things.  Even if it doesn't work out, at least friggin try FFS.

Also, even with Dalton's contract (which is team friendly by today's market), they HAD the cap space to address the line, and didn't.  They just didn't.  The thing is, most QBs rely on a good line, the others are generational talents.

Bottom line, it's total rebuild time, may as well cut bait on 14, 18, 97, and 85, and get on with it.

(09-26-2017, 02:09 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Is Flacco worse than Dalton right now? Dalton has the league's worst total QBR at 16.6 and Flacco's total QBR is 24.1. I think anyone saying Dalton is better than Flacco right now is being subjective.

I like you, ocho, so I'm going to give you some free advice. Don't use QBR. It's a bullshit stat and anyone who uses it in a debate is, at best, ignorant. I don't think you are, so just please don't use it and you'll be fine.

Flacco's stats right now are: 42 comp 69 att 60.9% 366 yards 3 TD 4 INT 65.2 QB rating
Compared to Dalton's: 57 comp 93 att 61.3% 606 yards 2 TD 4 INT 69.6 QB rating

Please tell me how having 1 more TD and less yards, smaller completion percentage, and a lower QB rating equals to being a better QB.

ochocincos Wrote:It's also worth noting that when Flacco won the Super Bowl with the Ravens, he was still on his rookie contract. Flacco's average per year during that contract was $6 mill per year. The Ravens invested that money saved from QB on other positions, and it paid off.

Dalton is no longer on his rookie contract. He's being paid $10 mill a year more than what first round rookie contracts pay. That extra $10 mill a year can pay for an elite player.

Since Dalton's contract is team friendly, I don't think that matters to the discussion of replacing him. If he had a burdensome contract, that'd be diferent.

(09-26-2017, 02:23 PM)Wyche Wrote: Bottom line, it's total rebuild time, may as well cut bait on 14, 18, 97, and 85, and get on with it.

You forgot 96, who also is set to hit FA after next year along with 97.

However, the difference between 14 and 85 compared to 18, 97, and 96 is that 18, 97, and 96 are top-tier players and still performing well. 85 can't stay healthy and 14 has declined.

I must confess. I was in grade school in the dark ages of Bengal history. With that said, I never cared to watch every game back then because they were so bad.
2005 brought me into football and caring about the Bengals again.
I've gone through the frustrations of the Palmer years, and those were entertaining because at least there was hope near the end of each year that the Bengals had a chance to make the playoffs.
2008 was a rough year but I wasn't going to stop watching the games with just one year of a poor record.
2009 hooked me back in.
2010 was similar to 2008 but I also was entertained by the TOcho Show.
2011-2015 were very enjoyable because it was the first time I had witnessed my hometown team consistently able to make the playoffs.
Then 2016 was another letdown.
This is the first time since I started caring about football again that the Bengals have been bad for consecutive years. So suffering through this is pretty new to me.
If this downward spiral continues into next season too, I'll likely end up doing what I've done with the Reds the past few years...watching sparingly and not really caring if I miss a game or not.

(09-26-2017, 02:48 PM)ochocincos Wrote: You forgot 96, who also is set to hit FA after next year along with 97.

However, the difference between 14 and 85 compared to 18, 97, and 96 is that 18, 97, and 96 are top-tier players and still performing well. 85 can't stay healthy and 14 has declined.

I must confess. I was in grade school in the dark ages of Bengal history. With that said, I never cared to watch every game back then because they were so bad.
2005 brought me into football and caring about the Bengals again.
I've gone through the frustrations of the Palmer years, and those were entertaining because at least there was hope near the end of each year that the Bengals had a chance to make the playoffs.
2008 was a rough year but I wasn't going to stop watching the games with just one year of a poor record.
2009 hooked me back in.
2010 was similar to 2008 but I also was entertained by the TOcho Show.
2011-2015 were very enjoyable because it was the first time I had witnessed by hometown team consistently able to make the playoffs.
Then 2016 was another letdown.
This is the first time since I started caring about football again that the Bengals have been bad for consecutive years. So suffering through this is pretty new to me.
If this downward spiral continues into next season too, I'll likely end up doing what I've done with the Reds the past few years...watching sparingly and not really caring if I miss a game or not.

LOL.....I actually looked at the post after I made it and thought....I forgot Dunlap.  Good call.

Oh, I agree 100% about 18, 97, 96 (although Los' production has slipped some), but, by the time you get this thing rebuilt, they'll be past their prime.  Might as well unload those contracts too.

I survived the 90s, but like you, I'm losing interest big time.  I like to come here and chat up some football, so I'll always be here, but if I miss a game, so be it.  I probably haven't seen 4 Reds games all year.

(09-26-2017, 02:23 PM)Wyche Wrote: Bottom line, it's total rebuild time, may as well cut bait on 14, 18, 97, and 85, and get on with it.

I disagree. Yes, we need to make some changes, but we have enough of a good team that with a new coaching staff and some upgrades at certain positions, we can be a championship caliber team. No sense in getting rid of all the great players we have now.

(09-26-2017, 02:45 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I like you, ocho, so I'm going to give you some free advice. Don't use QBR. It's a bullshit stat and anyone who uses it in a debate is, at best, ignorant. I don't think you are, so just please don't use it and you'll be fine.

Flacco's stats right now are: 42 comp 69 att 60.9% 366 yards 3 TD 4 INT 65.2 QB rating
Compared to Dalton's: 57 comp 93 att 61.3% 606 yards 2 TD 4 INT 69.6 QB rating

Please tell me how having 1 more TD and less yards, smaller completion percentage, and a lower QB rating equals to being a better QB.



Since Dalton's contract is team friendly, I don't think that matters to the discussion of replacing him. If he had a burdensome contract, that'd be diferent.

Fair enough. I was lazy and referred to an easy stat that was put in my face on the ESPN Week 4 power rankings.

The one thing that stands out to why Flacco is considered a higher QBR compared to Dalton with lower stats...fewer pass attempts and Dalton has fumbled once whereas Flacco has not. So one more TD and one less turnover.

Between you and me, I never did care for Flacco anyway, as I feel Anquan Boldin and Torrey Smith bailed him out of a lot of inaccurate throws and Ray Rice had a monster year at RB that year.

As to your last point, yes, when comparing to the average across the league for QB contracts, Dalton's contract is team-friendly. But you can't say that saving an extra $10 mill while having a QB like Sam Darnold would somehow be a downgrade vs $17 mill a year for Dalton.

Houshmandzadeh said it best in a recent interview - “Starting quarterbacks are getting paid like franchise quarterbacks.” And that's a problem. Andy Dalton no longer plays like a franchise quarterback. Time to cut bait.

(09-26-2017, 03:04 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I disagree. Yes, we need to make some changes, but we have enough of a good team that with a new coaching staff and some upgrades at certain positions, we can be a championship caliber team. No sense in getting rid of all the great players we have now.

As ocho noted, it will probably take a few years to fix the line.  By then, those cats are on the decline.  If you're gonna blow up the staff, can your QB, you may as well free up all of the cap space you can and start over.  If they give Marv another a rebuild, I'm done.  Hell, if friggin Piano Man is back, I'm done.  Although, I'll still come here and ***** about them.....lol.

(09-26-2017, 03:05 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Fair enough. I was lazy and referred to an easy stat that was put in my face on the ESPN Week 4 power rankings.

The one thing that stands out to why Flacco is considered a higher QBR compared to Dalton with lower stats...fewer pass attempts and Dalton has fumbled once whereas Flacco has not. So one more TD and one less turnover.

Between you and me, I never did care for Flacco anyway, as I feel Anquan Boldin and Torrey Smith bailed him out of a lot of inaccurate throws and Ray Rice had a monster year at RB that year.

As to your last point, yes, when comparing to the average across the league for QB contracts, Dalton's contract is team-friendly. But you can't say that saving an extra $10 mill while having a QB like Sam Darnold would somehow be a downgrade vs $17 mill a year for Dalton.

Houshmandzadeh said it best in a recent interview - “Starting quarterbacks are getting paid like franchise quarterbacks.” And that's a problem. Andy Dalton no longer plays like a franchise quarterback. Time to cut bait.

I agree with you on Flacco. 

As to the bolded part, we're tlaking about 3 games (2, really since his last game, he played pretty well, just not well enough). I don't think we should about cutting an above average QB after 2 really bad games and 1 decent one.

(09-26-2017, 03:35 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I agree with you on Flacco. 

As to the bolded part, we're tlaking about 3 games (2, really since his last game, he played pretty well, just not well enough). I don't think we should about cutting an above average QB after 2 really bad games and 1 decent one.

Fair enough. I should rephrase...unless Dalton turns it around by season's end, I think it's time to cut bait.

(09-26-2017, 03:10 PM)Wyche Wrote: As ocho noted, it will probably take a few years to fix the line.  By then, those cats are on the decline.  If you're gonna blow up the staff, can your QB, you may as well free up all of the cap space you can and start over.  If they give Marv another a rebuild, I'm done.  Hell, if friggin Piano Man is back, I'm done.  Although, I'll still come here and ***** about them.....lol.

Yep. And after 26+ years of no playoff wins some fans think we're 1 or 2 players away from a Super Bowl.

It's like being in Las Vegas and you lose 5 hands in a row and don't quit playing because you think the next hand is the winner.

I feel like we're at the phase now where we're going to take a few years to get the roster back to where it was...just to be good enough to make the playoffs and lose a game.

We have to start beating good teams in primetime games before we ever need to think about winning a Super Bowl.

(09-26-2017, 03:35 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I agree with you on Flacco. 

As to the bolded part, we're tlaking about 3 games (2, really since his last game, he played pretty well, just not well enough). I don't think we should about cutting an above average QB after 2 really bad games and 1 decent one.

He's NEVER been a franchise QB.

He's been an above average QB. He's been maybe a good to really good QB for half a season before.

He's not the guy to transcend this organization. With that said, I don't know if any QB is. If Tom Brady was here, he might have ended up like Jeff Rowe.

(09-26-2017, 03:42 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Fair enough. I should rephrase...unless Dalton turns it around by season's end, I think it's time to cut bait.

See, we're not that far apart here.....I've said in a few threads that I'd give him and Lazor until the bye to get something going, or bench him coming off the bye.  That way, he gets a deserved shot at righting the ship under an OC that at least is competent enough to be doing the job at this level, and if they fail, you give AJM an extra week of reps with the ones to be ready for his first start.

(09-26-2017, 03:42 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Fair enough. I should rephrase...unless Dalton turns it around by season's end, I think it's time to cut bait.

Fair enough, though, I would still disagree.

The worst thing about 14 now, especially the Packers game, is that he is back to being two guys. The TD to Green was outstanding--the anticipation, ripping it into a tight window, confident and decisive. Same guy misses a wide open receiver 20 yards downfield and runs away from pressure that ain't even there.

And I swear there are plays that look like he never believed in them from the start and executes accordingly. I don't think he's happy with some of the things they do.

I found a play with some audio. Not sure what part of the game this was...

With a poor OLine, does his height and vision come into play even more? I know that he's had a knack for taking a sack that makes a medium field goal into a long field goal, that's bitten the team several times.

To have pocket presence, a pocket must first exist.

(09-26-2017, 03:48 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: He's NEVER been a franchise QB.

He's been an above average QB.

Teams have shown you can win a Super Bowl with an above average QB AND you can not win a Super Bowl with an elite QB. If you have an above average QB, then your focus should be on improving the areas of weakness on your team with the goal to win a Super Bowl.

One of Mike Brown's problem throughout the 90s was he was always looking for that franchise QB, instead of taking advantage of the above average QBs he had (for example, Jeff Blake).

(09-26-2017, 03:48 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: He's been maybe a good to really good QB for half a season before.

I'd consider good QB play to have a QB rating of 90 or more and a below average QB play to have a QB rating under 80. Dalton has 46 games with a QB rating of 90 or more and 36 games with a QB rating of less than 80. Add the 14 games he's had a rating between 80 and 90 and Dalton has been average-to-great more often than half a season.

I'm not opposed to drafting the next franchise QB this offseason, but let's not rewrite history to make Dalton out to be worse than he has been.

(09-26-2017, 04:04 PM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: To have pocket presence, a pocket must first exist.

Oh...there is a pocket on most plays. When there is he made bad decisions in games 1 and 2.