(11-08-2015, 11:31 AM)bengalfan74 Wrote: I feel, for whatever reasons, Daltons pocket presence or awareness has increased greatly from what it once was. And that's the major difference ! Confidence ? Healthy weapons ? Hue ? All the above ?

But you don't see him abandoning the pocket when there's no real pressure like he used to. You don't see him not seeing pressure and taking sacks like you used to. You don't see him in panic mode way before he needs to be.

Whatever it was I think he's past it to stay.

(11-09-2015, 01:09 PM)OShake n Blake Wrote: So is anyone still waiting for the other shoe to drop or do you think Dalton has really become a top QB?

(11-09-2015, 01:09 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: So is anyone still waiting for the other shoe to drop or do you think Dalton has really become a top QB?

(11-09-2015, 01:09 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: So is anyone still waiting for the other shoe to drop or do you think Dalton has really become a top QB?

(11-09-2015, 01:24 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: Year 5 is when they are suppose to hit their prime....  more experience better and more experienced weapons (and healthy to boot)  

He seems more comfortable in hues system year 2

Yes  I would this season hes a TOP QB...  if just looking at this season.  there are still a few playing that their career accomplishments slide them ahead but this season only Brady has been better

(11-09-2015, 01:39 PM)djs7685 Wrote: I call bullshit on the bold. I've heard the same damn thing by the same damn people since 2012.

2012 - He was a rookie last year, he'll show the world how great he is now!
2013 - Year 3 is when QBs really start to click in the NFL, here comes greatness!
2014 - Year 4 is actually when QBs typically have their best season, you'll see!
2015 - Year 5 is when they're "supposed to hit their prime".

C'mon now. Andy had a solid rookie year and was more NFL ready than most guys are. He didn't change much (mechanics and whatnot) for the first couple of years, but they surrounded him with better players and put a good scheme in place for him to rack up some volume (which he accomplished in 2013). We saw some improved mechanics and decision making in year 4 but Hue/Hill ate up the red zone TDs while Andy's weapons dropped like flies. Year 5 we're seeing excellent mechanics, great teamwork, and Hue calling a balanced/somewhat pass heavy game plan.

That's just a quick summary of Andy's career and obviously there's a lot more to it. My point is that while Andy's career unfolded this way, there's no magic number that people like to throw out for an excuse for the guy. The reason the Bengals didn't get rid of him was that he's been a solid performer since entering the league and he obviously has shown signs to the coaching staff that he can become the player he has today. There are plenty of reasons to explain this, but we don't need to pull bullshit out of a hat and say stuff like "well, ya know, year 5 is really when QBs start to be great, so yeah, obviously Andy was right on track with everybody else in the history of the NFL!!!". It's just silly.

(11-09-2015, 01:39 PM)djs7685 Wrote: I call bullshit on the bold. I've heard the same damn thing by the same damn people since 2012.

2012 - He was a rookie last year, he'll show the world how great he is now!
2013 - Year 3 is when QBs really start to click in the NFL, here comes greatness!
2014 - Year 4 is actually when QBs typically have their best season, you'll see!
2015 - Year 5 is when they're "supposed to hit their prime".

C'mon now. Andy had a solid rookie year and was more NFL ready than most guys are. He didn't change much (mechanics and whatnot) for the first couple of years, but they surrounded him with better players and put a good scheme in place for him to rack up some volume (which he accomplished in 2013). We saw some improved mechanics and decision making in year 4 but Hue/Hill ate up the red zone TDs while Andy's weapons dropped like flies. Year 5 we're seeing excellent mechanics, great teamwork, and Hue calling a balanced/somewhat pass heavy game plan.

That's just a quick summary of Andy's career and obviously there's a lot more to it. My point is that while Andy's career unfolded this way, there's no magic number that people like to throw out for an excuse for the guy. The reason the Bengals didn't get rid of him was that he's been a solid performer since entering the league and he obviously has shown signs to the coaching staff that he can become the player he has today. There are plenty of reasons to explain this, but we don't need to pull bullshit out of a hat and say stuff like "well, ya know, year 5 is really when QBs start to be great, so yeah, obviously Andy was right on track with everybody else in the history of the NFL!!!". It's just silly.

(11-09-2015, 01:47 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: just saying you hear that line alot.. .about year 5...  I think that is more of having experience in the game than the general year or age of the QB...  After 4 years you have seen alot of different defenses and have had a lot of work within your offense especially with the continuity we have enjoyed here...

And its not just ADs experience but the group hes been with for years now...   Instead of going out and keep bringing in a yearly rental MB and ML gave this group a chance to grow together.  And while that didnt bring the instant success (depends on your stance on that but lets say playoff victories)  it does seem to be paying off now.

Of course like they say on the TV we gotta wait till january to really see.

But it seems like everything is clicking.

Dont know if its just having the weapons back.
Being more experienced
Or the confidence he has in himself now.
Or him being a leader

Or all of it.

but its working.

and while i expected dalton to improve each season... for those first few years everyone around him kept getting younger and less experienced.
especially 2012 where they replaced caldwell and simpson with 2 rookies named Jones and sanu.   then we replaced the RB core the next 2 years and got a young TE whos finally paying huge dividends

(11-09-2015, 02:18 PM)djs7685 Wrote: I understand what you're saying Xeno, but I just find the whole "well, QBs usually don't show their full potential until year X!!!" argument to have always been used as a cop out for people to complain that we shouldn't be able to critique Andy or ever be allowed to hold the opinion that the team should go in a different direction.

No matter how you felt in the past, I think everybody is happy that the Bengals stuck with the guy, but that's not the point here.

Even to the very warranted critiques in the past, it always got met with "can't judge a QB until year X!!!" argument, which is silly if you apply that to every QB in the league. There are many reasons you could have been on the pro-Andy side in the past, I just find this specific idea to be a very weak argument. If we should wait until year 5 for every QB to see what they're "really going to play like!!!" (or year 4 which I heard in 2014, or year 3 in 2013, etc.), then many teams would end up in even worse positions than they already are due to giving some of these schlubs more time than they deserve.

It's perfectly fine to have case-by-case arguments and discussions, and we certainly don't have to make things up just to cut Andy slack. There are many valid reasons Andy should have been given more time (I disagreed with some of them, and I'm glad I was wrong about that), but some magical number of a QB's "prime" just isn't one of them.

(11-09-2015, 02:26 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: He threw 33 "volume" TDs.  If only more OCs can devise schemes that allow average QBs to throw 33 TDs in a season. 

(11-09-2015, 02:29 PM)djs7685 Wrote:

I guess you've missed where I always comment that it's a good thing that Andy could handle the scheme he was put into. I guess he totally sucked balls in 2014 according to your volume circle jerk.

Here come the excuses. Andy's 2 girlfriends are on the scene now.

(11-09-2015, 02:32 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: Just hopes he throws more "volume" TDs this year.  You know you throw the ball enough you're liable to find the endzone 33 times.  

(11-09-2015, 02:33 PM)djs7685 Wrote:

The ultimate passive aggressive crybaby, it never fails with you.

I give Andy compliments and say good things about him, and it's never enough. Such a shame. Instead of initiating good debate as Xeno and I were having, you have to spoil the party.

(11-09-2015, 02:36 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: I just think it's ridiculous to chalk up his 2013 numbers to "volume".  You would think more QBs would be throwing "volume" TDs if that were the case.  

(11-09-2015, 02:39 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Holy hell, do you know what the word "volume" means??? What I'm talking about is the definition of the damn word. It's not an insult to your boy.

When you talk about athletes, there are volume numbers and efficiency numbers. Why do you think "volume" is an insult??

Volume is the whole numbers (totals at the end of the year and whatnot), efficiency stats are generally in ratios and percentages (YPG, TD ratios, completion%, etc.).

You're an intelligent enough dude to understand this.

(11-09-2015, 02:44 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: I've never heard TDs thrown referred to as "volume" numbers.  Is all.  

(11-09-2015, 02:53 PM)djs7685 Wrote: volume


[vol-yoom, -yuh m]  

noun

6.

a mass or quantity, especially a large quantity, of something:
a volume of mail.
7.
amount; total:
the volume of sales.

Let's talk about 2013. Matthew Stafford had a shit load of volume yardage, his efficiency wasn't top notch though. Andy threw a lot of volume TDs and also ranked highly in total yards (volume statistic). His efficiency wasn't off the charts either.

Peyton Manning was highly efficient AND topped the charts with volume yards and TDs.

Russell Wilson was extremely efficient with his good YPA and low INT ratios, but he lacked the volume of a Peyton Manning or even Dalton/Stafford. He still chucked 26 TDs but his volume yardage was very low compared to others that played a full season.

Is any of that stuff insulting enough to make passive aggressive statements over? I don't think. It's just a bunch of facts from the 2013 season.