(01-06-2016, 05:30 PM)Hammerstripes Wrote: This is what happens when people associate winning and losing with the QB.  IF McCarran is the QB this Saturday and the BENGALS win the game, then it tells me one thing:

This team is built so well from 1-53 that they can absorb the loss of their starting QB that was playing at a Pro-Bowl level and still win.  

Wins and losses are a TEAM stat, nothing can convince me otherwise.

(01-06-2016, 06:48 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: This thread is exactly how some fans (mostly folks clamoring for a non-Dalton QB) will view things, but the Bengals view Dalton as the franchise...for good reason.

On one hand, you have a QB who has been at the helm for 50 wins in 5 seasons, the best run in the team's 48 year history. He's set franchise season records for yards, TDs and passer rating. He's coming off his best season where he was considered an MVP candidate up to the point he went down.

On the other hand, you have a 5th rounder who was drafted purely to be a backup. 3 starts under his belt. He's minimized turnovers and manages games well, but the offense has clearly taken a hit with him in.

The only reason we have these discussions is Dalton's performance in playoffs and prime time. For that, I'll just say this:

Marvin with Dalton: 4-9 in prime time, 0-4 in the playoffs.
Marvin with other QBs: 4-10 in prime time, 0-2 in the playoffs.

Dalton had a fantastic game against the Cards this year. The defense gave up 28 points in the 3rd quarter. Was Dalton to blame for that L? Fact is, the prime time/playoff problems go way back, and were viewed as a Marvin problem until recently. I look back on 13 years with Marv and I struggle to think of any players that consistently showed up - at all - in the bright lights. Carson? Nope. Chad? Transparent. AJ? Covered. Gio? Nowhere to be found. Geno Atkins? Just a guy.

Dalton is just another in a long line of players who disappeared. If Marv ever figures out a way to get this team prepared, I have no doubt that Andy can get the playoff monkey off his back.

(01-06-2016, 10:59 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: If we beat the Steelers (I'm not seeing it personally, but statistically, it is possible) with McCarron as the starter and Andy Dalton is good to go for New England, you play Dalton.

This is an imaginary discussion among the fans that is not occurring between the coaches of this team.

If Dalton plays against New England and it is obvious his thumb/grip/throwing motion/rust is a detriment to the team, you put McCarron back in.

Starters are not required by rule to play the entire game unless injured. If Dalton shows that he came back too quickly, you simply sit him down and play McCarron.

But if he's healthy and effective, you play him.

I don't understand the argument of people who would play McCarron without giving Dalton even a chance in the next game.

Dalton was the MVP candidate, not McCarron.

(01-06-2016, 06:56 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: When did prime time ever become a stat in wins and losses.. this drives me crazy... it matters shit if you win at 1,4 or 8 oclock

I understand playoff performance since you are at least in the playoffs and there is more of a focus on win you keep going and lose you are done.  at same time we should count games that actually lead to making the playoffs or being knocked out of them in regular season with higher importance if you are just going to look at prime-time games

(01-06-2016, 03:45 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Since we know McCarron is the starter this week this brings up a problem.

 It will also beg the question of whether we continue to keep McCarron as the starter or bring back Dalton...... Which is where the dilemmas begin.

(01-06-2016, 07:20 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Prime time games are as close to a playoff atmosphere as it gets. Stadiums are amped, the entire nation is watching, plus the level of competition is usually higher. You're usually facing playoff teams or divisional opponents in prime time. Plus it eliminates subjectivity. Not everyone is going to agree on what constitutes a "big game". 

(01-06-2016, 09:18 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: 1. Most prime time games are scheduled from the year before and to be honest there are so many , it really is not that big any more with hype etc... unless you really have two marque teams which is rare.. 2. Also division games it does not matter what time you play them, they are big in nature anyway. 3. As for attendance it has been recorded especially thursday night and sunday night games have had subpar attendance in most of the games compared to a Sunday day game.  

I put more emphasis on a critical game in the season than just a random prime time game.. 

(01-06-2016, 10:59 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: here are four crucial games over the last 4 years  that the Bengals won that to me mean more than winning in prime time and if they did not win these game possible they don't even get to the playoffs.

2012:  Last game of year.. they defeat Steelers in a play in game to the playoffs .  
2013   Both teams Bengals and Steelers start out 0-1, crucial early matchup ( actually prime time game) going 0-2 usually means no playoffs, Bengals defeat Steelers and go on to playoffs that year, Steelers do not
2014   Bengals beat Denver in primetime to secure playoff spot
2015  November win against Steelers, they still had some hope for division,, that win in Pittsburgh pretty much closed the door on them.

As for your point about attendance.. if less people are at the game,, it is less amped up.....

(01-07-2016, 12:37 AM)wolfkaosaun Wrote: I wonder if 49ers fans would rather have Smith than Kaepernick right now.

(01-07-2016, 12:43 AM)Wyche Wrote:  I think you know the answer to that one.....

(01-07-2016, 12:37 AM)wolfkaosaun Wrote: I wonder if 49ers fans would rather have Smith than Kaepernick right now.

(01-07-2016, 02:50 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Right now?  Yes.  But you have to wonder how Alex Smith would have handled Harbaugh leaving and being replaced by an instant lame-duck one year coach while half the team retired out of nowhere.  I'm not defending Krapernick, but we've seen Alex Smith play lots of QB for the 49ers and he was as much a beneficiary of the Harbaugh effect as Krapernick was.

(01-07-2016, 03:35 AM)wolfkaosaun Wrote: But you also have to look at how he did in Kansas City with the types of receivers he had as well. He's had little to nothing and now ever since he got a legit wide receiver, he's been doing so much better.

Kaepernick regressed tremendously this year. And he wasn't all that great last year either. He sadly didn't improve.

Honestly, if they kept Smith, they probably would have made the playoffs last year too.

(01-06-2016, 03:23 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: These kind of "dilemma" threads make me laugh.

I might have enough fingers on my hand to count the number of times McCarron had a receiver open and failed to let it go, in some cases, leading to a sack. He has less experience reading a defense, he's been sacked more on average (due to all the inexperience) and the guys he's in for right now was having an MVP type season.

How can anyone doubt that Dalton is back the very second he's physically able?

If/when this team wins with McCarron in, it's because he didn't turn the ball over and the team played well around him.

He could develop into a solid NFL QB with time but, right now, Dalton is head and shoulders better and gives the team the best chance to win when the QB has to make throws to win the game.

(01-07-2016, 02:44 AM)wolfkaosaun Wrote: Gotta put that into perspective. Kaepernick came in and did extremely well. Much better than McCarron has done.

49ers were in a similar spot. Although Kaepernick was doing EXTREMELY well, they chose to stick with him rather than Smith.