Dalton or Luck?

[*rfaulk34*]

(10-02-2016, 03:43 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: And yet you have no argument that Lucks better. By your favorite metric (passer rating) Dalton is better. Sorry that gets your panties in a bunch. Just because Luck physically is more gifted than Dalton doesn't mean that Dalton is a worse QB.

Dalton had worse weapons than Luck too, so I don't get where you can say if Luck was on the same team as Dalton he would do better. Dalton had no one the first couple of years other than a young Green. He didn't even get Jones or Sanu until 2013 really and Eifert until 2015. Luck had MULTIPLE solid weapons. 3 good WRs and a good TE.

Sorry you only can get upset and have no real argument against it.

I'm sorry you're so firmly planted in the land of delusion. 

Enjoy it. I have no intent on arguing with someone that is so biased. 

[*rfaulk34*]

(10-02-2016, 04:07 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Gresham 2011: 596 yards, 6 TDs, 1 fumble
Allen + Fleener 2012: 802 yards, 5TDs, 1 fumble

Gresham 2012: 737 yards, 5 TDs, 2 fumbles (was 2nd in the league in offensive skilled position penalties with 9)
Coby Fleener 2013: 608, 4 TDs, 1 fumble

Gresham 2013: 458 yards, 4 TDs, 3 fumbles (was 1st in the league in offensive skilled position penalties with 11)
Fleener + Allen 2014: 1169 yards, 16 TDs, 1 fumble

WOW Gresham had 1 arguably better year. Too bad that pretty much was a fluke year for him. Don't even make me look up dropped passes either.

Revisionist Historians unite!!!!

Thank you for actually taking the time to get this together to show that it took 2 TEs to do what 1 could do for the Bengals, completely negating any argument that the Bengals didn't have an advantage.

Hopefully one day you will see how ridiculous the argument is. 

With that said, evidence to the fact that it's fruitless to have a conversation with such homers, i'm done with it. 

[Brownshoe]

(10-02-2016, 10:50 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Thank you for actually taking the time to get this together to show that it took 2 TEs to do what 1 could do for the Bengals, completely negating any argument that the Bengals didn't have an advantage.

Hopefully one day you will see how ridiculous the argument is. 

With that said, evidence to the fact that it's fruitless to have a conversation with such homers, i'm done with it. 

Or it shows that they have a lot of weapons and don't have to rely on two players for their passing offense. Having 2 good TEs and 3 good receivers is a lot better than having 1 really good young receiver and 1 "good" TE that makes a lot of mistakes and not a lot else to work with. But whatever makes you feel better.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

Luck is probably the most overrated QB in the NFL. Career 58.4% completion, 7.0 ypa, ~16 int per 16gms, 85.4 QB rating, ~10 fumbles per 16gms.

Combine that with the fact I believe he is career sub-.500 outside of the truly awful AFCS.

If they played in a more competitive division, they might make the Browns look decent. Luck is hella overrated.

[Joelist]

After seeing Luck show zero game situation awareness in the game today plus zero pocket awareness in the final drive I had to just chuckle at parts of this thread.

[Essex Johnson]

(10-02-2016, 10:50 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Thank you for actually taking the time to get this together to show that it took 2 TEs to do what 1 could do for the Bengals, completely negating any argument that the Bengals didn't have an advantage.

Hopefully one day you will see how ridiculous the argument is. 

With that said, evidence to the fact that it's fruitless to have a conversation with such homers, i'm done with it. 

that is why i gave up showing you facts.. you are in the homer Luck camp

[*rfaulk34*]

(10-02-2016, 07:59 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: that is why i gave up showing you facts.. you are in the homer Luck camp

You're either not very smart or can't read very well. 

You choose.

[34blast]

True fans here who love their team. Ask any GM and they will laugh at this question, Luck is far superior.

[James Brooks]

Just read this saying somewhere recently: some QBs need weapons to win football games. Some QBs are the weapons. I think Andy needs weapons to win games for us. He's missing his weapons right now.

[Brownshoe]

(10-03-2016, 12:11 AM)James Brooks Wrote: Just read this saying somewhere recently: some QBs need weapons to win football games. Some QBs are the weapons. I think Andy needs weapons to win games for us. He's missing his weapons right now.

How did 2014 happen then?

[Joelist]

Both 2014 and this year Andy is making it happen without weapons. He also did in 2011 and 2012 when basically AJ was the weapon. 2013 and last year were the only years he actually had "weapons". But then again we have some "fans" here who for whatever bizarre reason get a man-crush on Luck, Newton and other such pieces of crap.

[James Brooks]

(10-03-2016, 12:15 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: How did 2014 happen then?

Very good defense and running backs having a good year. Wasn't that the year Andy was booed at the All Star game?

[Shake n Blake]

(10-01-2016, 11:48 PM)jason Wrote: Shake... AJ Green alone makes Dalton's life easier. The Colts don't have a single player of that caliber on offense. Hilton's no slouch; but he ain't AJ Green.

Luck has never had that kind of talent to work with. He got an older Reggie Wayne, an older Frank Gore, old Andre Johnson.

In no way am I knocking Dalton. I just think Luck is the superior talent. Dalton has outplayed him for a season and some change, but they count on Luck to elevate that team. Dalton is more of a point guard ... He gets the ball to his playmakers. He couldn't do squat with that Indy team. Luck would look really good on the Bengals.

Andy definitely holds his own in comparison to Luck though.

Sorry man, I'm just not buying the tired old "AJ (or the weapons) makes Andy" argument that's been used to discredit Andy since day 1. Dalton has played well without AJ, and he's continued to play at a high level after losing MLJ, Sanu and Eifert when many thought he'd look rough without them. Maybe it's time people simply acknowledge that the dude can ball, and stop giving all the credit to someone else.

We have a damn good QB. Period.

(10-02-2016, 04:28 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Luck is probably the most overrated QB in the NFL. Career 58.4% completion, 7.0 ypa, ~16 int per 16gms, 85.4 QB rating, ~10 fumbles per 16gms.

Combine that with the fact I believe he is career sub-.500 outside of the truly awful AFCS.

If they played in a more competitive division, they might make the Browns look decent. Luck is hella overrated.

Luck's numbers don't look so good when you include all of them.

(10-03-2016, 12:04 AM)34blast Wrote: True fans here who love their team.  Ask any GM and they will laugh at this question,  Luck is far superior.

Most arguments that Luck is far better than Andy are going to lack facts and feature speculation. Fact is, none of us know this. It's quite possible that the opinion of GMs would surprise you. None of us know.

[James Brooks]

(10-03-2016, 12:21 AM)Joelist Wrote: Both 2014 and this year Andy is making it happen without weapons. He also did in 2011 and 2012 when basically AJ was the weapon. 2013 and last year were the only years he actually had "weapons". But then again we have some "fans" here who for whatever bizarre reason get a man-crush on Luck, Newton and other such pieces of crap.

Then it's settled. Andy is the best QB in the NFL. 

[Joelist]

(10-03-2016, 12:27 AM)James Brooks Wrote: Then it's settled. Andy is the best QB in the NFL. 

No one said that. But acting like Luck is so wonderful and Andy is so limited is wide of reality. 

[Shake n Blake]

Fwiw, I don't necessarily think Andy is better than Luck. I think they're on a similar level. I'd probably prefer Andy for the Bengals, just because Luck reminds me very much of Carson. Tons of hype, prototype QB yada yada, but both seem mentally limited and both are prone to hella turnovers - often at the most inopportune times.

I just take issue with the people that scoff at the notion that Dalton is anywhere near Luck's level, and suggest only a homer would think it's even close.

For one thing, Dalton has been statistically superior. For another, many experts don't see a big gap between them. Rosenthal even has Dalton 10th in his last QB ranking, only 4 spots back of Luck.

Dalton has earned our respect. Sure, you can bring up playoffs, but lack of playoff success hasn't kept us from respecting Green, Atkins, Gio, etc. Or Luck for that matter. Luck has shattered playoff records for turnovers and has a losing record.

[Joelist]

I live right by Colts fans (they are in Indiana I am in Illinois) and for the past year I hear them more and more saying:

Andrew Luck = Jeff George 2.0

Big prototypical QB with a cannon but not a whole lot of game smarts.

[Brownshoe]

(10-03-2016, 12:23 AM)James Brooks Wrote: Very good defense and running backs having a good year. Wasn't that the year Andy was booed at the All Star game?

The defense didn't play well at all, and the RBs didn't start producing until about half way through the year. We still ended up with only 5 losses though.

[Joelist]

(10-03-2016, 12:55 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: The defense didn't play well at all, and the RBs didn't start producing until about half way through the year. We still ended up with only 5 losses though.

Yep. By the time the defense began to come around we had entered the stage of the season where AJ was missing games, no MLJ, no Eifert, we were actually running Sanu and Burkhead out there as the WRs and Hewitt as TE.