(08-20-2015, 12:14 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Cause and effect. Gio fumbling took points off the board. Green not catching that TD pass took points off the board. Those things and others made Dalton have to throw the ball more than what he should have, and because he threw the ball 50 times more negative things will happen because the defense knows he's going to throw the ball almost every play.

So your basic argument is that Andy would have played well if he didn't not play well.

Okay. Sure.

"Cause and effect". So is that going to apply to every other QB in the league that we discuss? Anytime one of their RBs fumble the ball in the first half, that QB has immunity to any poor decision making for the rest of the game. I think I'm catching on now. Thanks for teaching me this great new spin technique!

(08-20-2015, 12:14 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Cause and effect. Gio fumbling took points off the board. Green not catching that TD pass took points off the board. Those things and others made Dalton have to throw the ball more than what he should have, and because he threw the ball 50 times more negative things will happen because the defense knows he's going to throw the ball almost every play.

Dude, generally I'm on your side when it comes to these Dalton discussions, but didn't Green's dropped pass happen in the 4th QTR? If so, then you can't use that as proof of this argument you're making.

Instead of playing along and making jokes at Brownshoe's expense, I'm just going to debunk this bullshit for anybody to use this post the next time the extremist Andy nuthuggers try to say that "throwing 50 times", and "they knew we were going to pass" were the reasons Andy started handing the ball over on every down.

We were down by 4 points and he only attempted 19 passes at the time of his untouched fumble.

We were down by 7 points and he only attempted 20 passes before he threw his first INT.

It was his 26th pass of the game, down by only 10 points early in the 4th quarter when he threw the next INT.

Are we REALLY going to try and use the 50 pass attempts (super misleading) and "they knew we were going to pass!" (super bullshit)?? Or can we give those up now that the FACTS are laid out there and not hypothetical spin doctoring???

(08-20-2015, 12:27 PM)djs7685 Wrote: So your basic argument is that Andy would have played well if he didn't not play well.

Okay. Sure.

"Cause and effect". So is that going to apply to every other QB in the league that we discuss? Anytime one of their RBs fumble the ball in the first half, that QB has immunity to any poor decision making for the rest of the game. I think I'm catching on now. Thanks for teaching me this great new spin technique!

No, I'm saying that Dalton would have played well if the rest of the offense would have played well. You can't expect Dalton to look great when Gio looked like shit, Green looked like shit, and Gruden had bad play calling (Which all of these things you already admitted). Then on top of that the OL played like shit giving up 4 sacks.

I don't know why you expect a QB to look good when everyone around him looks like shit. Like I said it's a team sport.

(08-20-2015, 12:33 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Dude, generally I'm on your side when it comes to these Dalton discussions, but didn't Green's dropped pass happen in the 4th QTR? If so, then you can't use that as proof of this argument you're making.

Do you really believe that Gio's fumble was the "cause" for the "effect" that Andy turned the ball over THREE times in a row in the second half?

What about his "omg 50 passes!!!" excuse, even though he only attempted <20 when he started handing the ball over to the Chargers???

If not, maybe you could knock some sense into him with those feeble attempts at excuses, too.

(08-20-2015, 12:36 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Instead of playing along and making jokes at Brownshoe's expense, I'm just going to debunk this bullshit for anybody to use this post the next time the extremist Andy nuthuggers try to say that "throwing 50 times", and "they knew we were going to pass" were the reasons Andy started handing the ball over on every down.

We were down by 4 points and he only attempted 19 passes at the time of his untouched fumble.

We were down by 7 points and he only attempted 20 passes before he threw his first INT.

It was his 26th pass of the game, down by only 10 points early in the 4th quarter when he threw the next INT.

Are we REALLY going to try and use the 50 pass attempts (super misleading) and "they knew we were going to pass!" (super bullshit)?? Or can we give those up now that the FACTS are laid out there and not hypothetical spin doctoring???

I know it's not much and I'm not saying it discredits your post in any way, but you should add in plays that resulted in sacks as well since they were supposed to be passes too.

Also, you should list the number of running plays, too, because what if he only threw 20 passes by his first INT, but the Bengals only ran 23 offensive plays. Then it sure does look like we were leaning on Andy's arm WAY too much. I'm just sayin' it'll help your argument.

(08-20-2015, 12:40 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Do you really believe that Gio's fumble was the "cause" for the "effect" that Andy turned the ball over THREE times in a row in the second half?

What about his "omg 50 passes!!!" excuse, even though he only attempted <20 when he started handing the ball over to the Chargers???

If not, maybe you could knock some sense into him with those feeble attempts at excuses, too.

Do your own dirty work.

(08-20-2015, 12:40 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I know it's not much and I'm not saying it discredits your post in any way, but you should add in plays that resulted in sacks as well since they were supposed to be passes too.

Why? Those don't count for passing attempts for any team in the entire league, so why the heck would they count now?

That's an odd thing you want to add in there.

But uhh...sure. He was sacked twice (out of 3 total in the game) before the turnovers began. Not sure if that changes anything, but I'm sure to Brownshoe it does.

So is it okay for QBs to turn the ball over 3 times as long as he's sacked prior to that? He's immune since ya know, "cause and effect"??? I just want to learn how this spinning shit works, it seems fun!

(08-20-2015, 12:36 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Instead of playing along and making jokes at Brownshoe's expense, I'm just going to debunk this bullshit for anybody to use this post the next time the extremist Andy nuthuggers try to say that "throwing 50 times", and "they knew we were going to pass" were the reasons Andy started handing the ball over on every down.

We were down by 4 points and he only attempted 19 passes at the time of his untouched fumble.

We were down by 7 points and he only attempted 20 passes before he threw his first INT.

It was his 26th pass of the game, down by only 10 points early in the 4th quarter when he threw the next INT.

Are we REALLY going to try and use the 50 pass attempts (super misleading) and "they knew we were going to pass!" (super bullshit)?? Or can we give those up now that the FACTS are laid out there and not hypothetical spin doctoring???

The untouched fumble was caused because the OL gave pressure and Dalton had to scramble

The first INT was the same thing. The OL broke down, and there was pressure in Daltons face resulting in a bad pass.

the 4th qaurter pick was just a bad throw

Dalton didn't play bad that game until his team started shitting their pants around him.

(08-20-2015, 12:40 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Also, you should list the number of running plays, too, because what if he only threw 20 passes by his first INT, but the Bengals only ran 23 offensive plays. Then it sure does look like we were leaning on Andy's arm WAY too much. I'm just sayin' it'll help your argument.

I believe I counted at least 15 run plays (not even including the runs by Andy) before his 20th pass attempt (where the INTs started).

(08-20-2015, 12:45 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: The untouched fumble was caused because the OL gave pressure and Dalton had to scramble

The first INT was the same thing. The OL broke down, and there was pressure in Daltons face resulting in a bad pass.

the 4th qaurter pick was just a bad throw

Dalton didn't play bad that game until his team started shitting their pants around him.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

And you think everyone in the world was playing perfectly around them when Kaepernick throws INTs and fumbles? Wilson? Ben? Romo? Flacco?

My God, you're persistent, I'll give you that.

I really gotta remember that one, this is gold. The offensive line caused Andy to fumble without being touched? That's abso-damn-lutely amazing.

(08-20-2015, 12:46 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

And you think everyone in the world was playing perfectly around them when Kaepernick throws INTs and fumbles? Wilson? Ben? Romo? Flacco?

My God, you're persistent, I'll give you that.

I really gotta remember that one, this is gold. The offensive line caused Andy to fumble without being touched? That's abso-damn-lutely amazing.

If the offensive line wouldn't have broke down then he wouldn't have scrambled, and he wouldn't have fumbled. Cause and effect.

(08-20-2015, 12:45 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: The untouched fumble was caused because the OL gave pressure and Dalton had to scramble

The first INT was the same thing. The OL broke down, and there was pressure in Daltons face resulting in a bad pass.

the 4th qaurter pick was just a bad throw

Dalton didn't play bad that game until his team started shitting their pants around him.

Too many excuses for Dalton here in my opinion Brownshoe. That fumble was on Dalton, hold onto the ball, period.

The interception was on Dalton, he shouldn't of thrown the ball, period. Take the sack.

Yeah, the 4th qtr int was just a bad throw. Dalton played bad that game and Gruden called a bad game as well.

We could run on the Chargers and we were running on them, shouldn't of abandoned the run even if we were down.

Atleast use the run to set up the pass if it is effective, Dalton was not effective so put some of the pressure on someone else.

(08-20-2015, 12:50 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: If the offensive line wouldn't have broke down then he wouldn't have scrambled, and he wouldn't have fumbled. Cause and effect.

If Gruden wouldn't have called for those 33 specific passing plays in 2013, Andy wouldn't have those 33 TDs.

Cause and effect.

Andy no longer gets credit for the 33 TDs.

I see how this works now. Or does this only work in the very specific situations you'd like it to? I can do this all day, bud.

(08-20-2015, 12:55 PM)djs7685 Wrote: If Gruden wouldn't have called for those 33 specific passing plays in 2013, Andy wouldn't have those 33 TDs.

Cause and effect.

Andy no longer gets credit for the 33 TDs.

I see how this works now. Or does this only work in the very specific situations you'd like it to? I can do this all day, bud.

Then no QB gets credit for anything they do. So, then by that logic Dalton played fine.

(08-20-2015, 12:56 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Then no QB gets credit for anything they do. So, then by that logic Dalton played fine.

Which is why picking and choosing when something is "cause and effect" is utterly stupid. You can do that for literally EVERYTHING that happens in the NFL. Every single damn thing can be blamed on somebody else if you really want it to. You just want it to be "cause and effect" when it doesn't work out for Andy, but when it's something positive, it's just because ANDY IZ AWESOME!!!

The fact are, Andy gets blamed for the fumble, and Andy gets credit for his 33 TDs.

(08-20-2015, 12:58 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Which is why picking and choosing when something is "cause and effect" is utterly stupid. You can do that for literally EVERYTHING that happens in the NFL. Every single damn thing can be blamed on somebody else if you really want it to. You just want it to be "cause and effect" when it doesn't work out for Andy, but when it's something positive, it's just because ANDY IZ AWESOME!!!

The fact are, Andy gets blamed for the fumble, and Andy gets credit for his 33 TDs.

If the OL let's 3 people get in the QBs face, and he throws an interception that's not on the QB, because the cause of the INT was the OL letting 3 people get pressure. If the QB has no pressure and throws a bad throw the cause was the QB just made a bad throw. You have to actually look at what happened in the play to give the blame to someone. You can't just say it was one person "just because" like you're trying to do.

(08-20-2015, 01:03 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: If the OL let's 3 people get in the QBs face, and he throws an interception that's not on the QB, because the cause of the INT was the OL letting 3 people get pressure. If the QB has no pressure and throws a bad throw the cause was the QB just made a bad throw. You have to actually look at what happened in the play to give the blame to someone. You can't just say it was one person just because like you're trying to do.

So from now on, you're going to watch every single other QB in the league on every single pass and decide who is to blame for each throw? If not, we can just assume that it all evens out by the end of the year, and somewhere around a reasonable % of each QB's INTs will be their fault. So comparing them directly to one another is usually pretty fair because of that. It's rare that you'll have a guy with 20 INTs but only 3 of them are "his fault".

I have this crazy feeling that you blame a lot more Bengals problems on the team and a lot more of other team's problems on the QB. Just a hunch I have. Just kidding, I've seen you do it dozens of times. This was fun, I honestly had a lot of fun with this conversation. Hopefully a lot of people read through it to see what a crazy person you really can be and how nuts you're willing to make yourself look for the sake of Andy Dalton.

(08-20-2015, 01:08 PM)djs7685 Wrote: So from now on, you're going to watch every single other QB in the league on every single pass and decide who is to blame for each throw? If not, we can just assume that it all evens out by the end of the year, and somewhere around a reasonable % of each QB's INTs will be their fault. So comparing them directly to one another is usually pretty fair because of that. It's rare that you'll have a guy with 20 INTs but only 3 of them are "his fault".

I have this crazy feeling that you blame a lot more Bengals problems on the team and a lot more of other team's problems on the QB. Just a hunch I have. Just kidding, I've seen you do it dozens of times. This was fun, I honestly had a lot of fun with this conversation. Hopefully a lot of people read through it to see what a crazy person you really can be and how nuts you're willing to make yourself look for the sake of Andy Dalton.

Why would I do that for every QB? I would only do that if I was comparing the two QBs. I only blame people when it's their fault. I actually look at what happens in a play and not just give blame to a person when it's not really their fault. Maybe you need to do a little more research, or maybe you need to actually learn how to break down a play and find out who is really at fault?

(08-20-2015, 01:14 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Why would I do that for every QB? I would only do that if I was comparing the two QBs. I only blame people when it's their fault. I actually look at what happens in a play and not just give blame to a person when it's not really their fault. Maybe you need to do a little more research, or maybe you need to actually learn how to break down a play and find out who is really at fault?

So you've never just thrown out what a QB has done "poorly" without watching every single play first? You never said "Yeah, well X threw 3 INTs!!!" without going back and watching the INTs?

You've never brought up a QB's completion percentage before going back and watching every single pass, just to make sure you should be blaming the QB for the low percentage?

For some reason, I highly doubt you do that every time you talk about individual performances.