You want a true determination of a QB go to pro football reference type in Andy Dalton then look at his advance passing stats. His career advance stats are average which is pretty accurate 100 is average. this season through 3 games his numbers are remarkable. their is a true correlation between advanced passing stats and the good QB's. All other metrics lie advanced passing metrics don't lie

(09-29-2015, 01:54 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Philip Rivers was 12th in 2014 with 4200 yards 66.5% completion 31 TDs and 18 INTs. (Alex Smith only had .4 worse passer rating than Rivers and these were Smiths stats - 3200 yards 65.3% completion 18 TD 6 INTs)
Tom Brady was 17th in 2013 with 4300 yards 60.5% completion 25 TDs and 11 INTs.
Kaepernick was 10th in 2013 with 3100 yards 58.4% completion 21 TDs and 8 INTs.

There are a lot more examples if I could use QBs that didn't play a full 16 games, and I don't feel like going back further than a few years.

Rivers- 18 ints
Smith- 6 ints
Check

Brady- 4343 yds on 628 att- 6.92 ypa
Kaep- 3197 yds on 416 att- 7.69 ypa
Check

Total yards or total TDs doesn't mean you're a better QB or had a better year. How efficient you are with all your passes; comp %, ypa, TD % and INT % tells how good you are. 

Question: Is Andy Dalton, at the very least, equaling his best stretch of quarterbacking? Answer: Yes
And how does that correlate to passer rating? He's #2 in the NFL right now. That's not magic or luck, it's because his comp %, ypa, TD % and INT % are ridick so far.

I rest my case. Thank you.

(09-29-2015, 02:01 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Eli Manning was 15th in 2014 with 4400 yards 63.1% completion 30 TDs and 14 INTs
Flacco was 16th in 2014 with 3986 yards 62.1% completion 27 TDs and 12 INTs

LOL. Those two are right next to each other because their numbers mirror each other.
Manning with slightly more yards, better comp %, a couple more TD passes and a couple more INTs. 

Their quarterback rating was a 1.1 difference. 

We're wasting time here though. You believe how many yards and TDs a QB throws for are what determines who is better. 

The National Football league disagrees with you.

(09-29-2015, 08:43 AM)djs7685 Wrote: This thread could have turned into everybody discussing how great Andy has been this year, but all it takes is 1 or 2 people to start the "I told you so!!!" prematurely and to go batshit crazy over a time tested, proven, statistical formula.

This is why we can't have nice things.

I think you're missing the point that a professional sports league and a group of dudes that are good at math, as well as biiiiiiiillions of people that realize a statistical analysis is much more accurate when using averages and a larger sample size, aren't as smart as a fan on a message board.

(09-29-2015, 10:24 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Who would you rather have

QB1:
3118 yards, 64.1% completion, 26 TDs, 10 INTs

or

QB2:
4827 yards, 63% completion, 34 TDs, 8 INTs

Those 2 QBs have a whopping 1.3 difference in rating and they were both in the top 6. And they both won at least 1 playoff game that year.

(09-29-2015, 10:05 AM)jj22 Wrote: You have to be careful listening to the National media when it comes to Dalton. First they swore Dalton in all his passing yards/td's etc had never thrown anything like the three balls McCarron threw in game three of the preseason. Then all yesterday they swore when Dalton fumbled on the sack/strip the Dalton of prior year would have folded up. The team would have lost, and the Bungles would have returned. Um last game (last year) against the Ravens Ngata strip sacked Dalton in the 4th quarter for a potential game changer. What Dalton do? Drove the team down for the winning TD (with only Sanu as a weapon). It's funny how the hate for Dalton is so mainstream that logic and facts blind the narrative. Even crazier how Bengal fans tend to fall for it as well.

One poor outing and watch how quick these good qb qualities everyone is pointing out now is forgotten and he's back to raggedy Andy no better than McCrarron.

Agreed.  They act like Dalton didn't do the same thing TWICE to the Ravens last year.  This is his 10th 4th quarter comeback.  This shouldn't be shocking to Bengals fans.  Especially with a full stable of weapons.

You just have the national media setting narratives and Bengals fans follow. Dalton was on the same tear in 2013 ended with career and record setting numbers, but the national media called him a bum (said he was below average, Jaws ranked him below Bradford, Stafford, Cutler, Kaep) and told us he should be cut and we should be in the market of a new qb (hello Carr/Bridgewater/Johnny football) fans ran with it. It looks like he will have 2013 numbers again this year and the media tells us he's turned the corner and those same fans run wit that narrative. If you've watched Dalton you know his ceiling and we are seeing it. We've seen it before. It's nothing new, the consistency maybe but it's only been 3 games. Those national media heads acting like it's a new Dalton, just are out to cover for their unfair narrative of his career accomplishments.

Fact is Dalton has been a very successful qb, and shouldn't't be ashamed of his career as a 2nd round draft pick. There are many teams, 28 other ones, who wish they were lucky enough to have a below average qb. Why? Cause only 4 other teams have made the playoffs back to back years the last 4 (and looking like 5) years. It's time the national media focuses on the qb's of those other 28 teams. Not one of the big 4.

(09-30-2015, 02:01 PM)jj22 Wrote: You just have the national media setting narratives and Bengals fans follow. Dalton was on the same tear in 2013 ended with career and record setting numbers, but the national media called him a bum (said he was below average, Jaws ranked him below Bradford, Stafford, Cutler, Kaep) and told us he should be cut and we should be in the market of a new qb (hello Carr/Bridgewater/Johnny football) fans ran with it. It looks like he will have 2013 numbers again this year and the media tells us he's turned the corner and those same fans run wit that narrative. If you've watched Dalton you know his ceiling and we are seeing it. We've seen it before. It's nothing new, the consistency maybe but it's only been 3 games. Those national media heads acting like it's a new Dalton, just are out to cover for their unfair narrative of his career accomplishments.

Fact is Dalton has been a very successful qb, and should be ashamed of his career as a 2nd round draft pick. There are many teams, 28 other ones, who wish they were lucky enough to have a below average qb. Why? Cause only 4 other teams have made the playoffs back to back years the last 4 (and looking like 5) years. It's time the national media focuses on the qb's of those other 28 teams. Not one of the big 4.

So much flawed bullshit throughout this post, it's unreal.

Andy has never played like he has been in 2015. Watch the games, not the stat sheets.

Fans didn't run with anything other than their own opinions of actually watching the football games. I don't need anyone else to tell me that Andy had an awfully average career from 2011 - 2014. We can figure that out on our own.

Winning games is a team accomplishment, not an individual one. Andy isn't better than every other QB that's on a team that has won less games over the last 4 years. That's absurdly poor logic.

Meh, I'm not surprised that casual fans still buy into this type of stuff though.

(09-30-2015, 02:01 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Those 2 QBs have a whopping 1.3 difference in rating and they were both in the top 6. And they both won at least 1 playoff game that year.

And you actually think that they should even be close to each other? Lol Ok. I guess football isn't about scoring points and it's about who is more efficient. One QB has 1700 more yards 8 more TDs and 2 less INTs and only 1% less completion percentage, and he has a lower passer rating. Anyone who is shown those two stat lines and picks QB1 as a better QB has lost their minds.


Efficientcy does not = who's better. Passer rating = efficiency.

(09-30-2015, 02:11 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: And you actually think that they should even be close to each other? Lol Ok. I guess football isn't about scoring points and it's about who is more efficient. One QB has 1700 more yards 8 more TDs and 2 less INTs and only 1% less completion percentage, and he has a lower passer rating. Anyone who is shown those two stat lines and picks QB1 as a better QB has lost their minds.


Efficientcy does not = who's better. Passer rating = efficiency.

Because he had to throw the ball a billion more times. Volume passer =/= who's better. Who gets the most out of what they do = who's better. I.E., efficiency. 

(09-30-2015, 02:11 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: And you actually think that they should even be close to each other? Lol Ok. I guess football isn't about scoring points and it's about who is more efficient. One QB has 1700 more yards 8 more TDs and 2 less INTs and only 1% less completion percentage, and he has a lower passer rating. Anyone who is shown those two stat lines and picks QB1 as a better QB has lost their minds.


Efficientcy does not = who's better. Passer rating = efficiency.

How often do inefficient football teams score points compared to the efficient ones?

How often do inefficient passing performances lead to winning games compared to efficient ones?

Your crusade against passer rating is just getting absurd.

(09-30-2015, 03:32 PM)djs7685 Wrote: How often do inefficient football teams score points compared to the efficient ones?

How often do inefficient passing performances lead to winning games compared to efficient ones?

Your crusade against passer rating is just getting absurd.

I disagree

























with the word "getting"

Dalton won offensive player of the month in October of 2013 for a reason (4 game stretch, 115+ rating, 9+ ypa) not the current 3 game run he is on). With a 11-3 td int rate.

Perfect example of fans listening to the national media and thinking Dalton has never played this well. He has.

Dalton is going to have to play well longer than this 3 game stretch to make me believe he's turned the corner. Until then, I've (unlike some I guess) seen him play well and make throws. We did average 40 points per game or something like that at home in 2013. So he was making throws and putting up numbers believe it or not.

Now were exactly did you see the bs?

And as always Dj we know the rules. Wins are on the team. Losses are on Dalton. The fact remains only 4 teams have made the playoffs back to back to back to back years, maybe it's time for the national media to pick on the qb's of the other 28 teams.

Dalton is playing great.

As DJ said he WILL eventually have an off game.(everyone does)

I believe he is putting it all together and I believe giving him more control plays to his strengths.


That being said I find it hilarious some of the efficiency arguments going on in this thread.
Obviously when Andy is playing lights out some posters just go right at each other instead of having the usual red-headed catalyst.

VENOM BE FLOWIN!!!

Damn, can we talk about anything but Andy Dalton?


Just kidding. It is the megathread, after all.

(09-30-2015, 03:24 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Because he had to throw the ball a billion more times. Volume passer =/= who's better. Who gets the most out of what they do = who's better. I.E., efficiency. 

Whats better in football? Scoring more points or scoring points more efficient?

Plus look up the phrase diminishing returns.

(09-30-2015, 05:28 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Whats better in football? Scoring more points or scoring points more efficient?

Plus look up the phrase diminishing returns.

Scoring efficiently.
Inefficient scoring is erratic 
Means you are unreliable week to week and may also be contributing to the scoring of the other team. 

(09-30-2015, 04:07 PM)jj22 Wrote: Dalton won offensive player of the month in October of 2013 for a reason (4 game stretch, 115+ rating, 9+ ypa) not the current 3 game run he is on). With a 11-3 td int rate.

Perfect example of fans listening to the national media and thinking Dalton has never played this well. He has.

Dalton is going to have to play well longer than this 3 game stretch to make me believe he's turned the corner. Until then, I've (unlike some I guess) seen him play well and make throws. We did average 40 points per game or something like that at home in 2013. So he was making throws and putting up numbers believe it or not.

Now were exactly did you see the bs?

And as always Dj we know the rules. Wins are on the team. Losses are on Dalton. The fact remains only 4 teams have made the playoffs back to back to back to back years, maybe it's time for the national media to pick on the qb's of the other 28 teams.

Andy has played better in 2015 than he ever has in his career. This is just a case of you watching the stat sheets and the rest of us watching the games.

Stop the bullshit with the last paragraph, it's just a total waste of an argument because it makes you look like a complete joke. Nobody has ever said the wins are on the team but the losses are on Andy, so grow up and stop making shit up. Blatantly lying just makes you look stupid and doesn't help your argument. This is the exact bullshit that you always pull that makes you look silly in the Andy debates. You think you're going to write a "gotcha!" post by putting words into others' mouths.

Okay, here we go, I'll play the jj game. As always jj, we know the rules. Wins are on Andy, but losses are on the team. Maybe you should stop blaming the team for everything bad and giving Andy too much credit for everything. You need to stop calling him elite and stop saying that he's better than Joe Montana. You shouldn't say that he's the greatest quarterback of all time because that's wrong.

See? Are my arguments better now that I'm just making shit up?

(09-30-2015, 06:13 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: Scoring efficiently.
Inefficient scoring is erratic 
Means you are unreliable week to week and may also be contributing to the scoring of the other team. 

In 2013 Seattle had a much more efficient offense than New England, but New England scored more points. So you would have taken Seattles offense over NEs in 2013?

(09-30-2015, 06:35 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: In 2013 Seattle had a much more efficient offense than New England, but New England scored more points. So you would have taken Seattles offense over NEs in 2013?

Define efficient in this case.
New England scored more points in the season.
Had a higher overall quality of offense. 
Fewer fumbles and interceptions.

More efficient.

Now if you are referring strictly to QB rating, then you absolutely have to factor in the 200 more attempts Brady had over Wilson.