I feel bad for Andy

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(12-26-2016, 12:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There's a very good chance they miss the playoffs and I would be willing to bet not go in as the top seed. Unless you think Hogan, Edelman, and Bennet are the type of talented receivers required to make Andy Awesome. 

Forget about ol Gronk...the other cat at TE? Blount? The line is usually trash in NE too.....unless you're one of those guys that thinks the flashy skill players are mythical creatures that totally make up for completely pathetic play up front that gets its ass kicked weekly.  We won't even get into having at least serviceable coaching.

[Brownshoe]

(12-26-2016, 12:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There's a very good chance they miss the playoffs and I would be willing to bet not go in as the top seed. Unless you think Hogan, Edelman, and Bennet are the type of talented receivers required to make Andy Awesome. 

You do realize the #2 receiver on our team couldn't stay on the Patriots team for pretty much vet minimum. That just makes what you said look super silly 

[fredtoast]

(12-26-2016, 08:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think it's a matter of semantics that have folks upset. 

First of all, I am not upset.  I am just telling you that you are wrong.  

Second, it is not just semantics.  You claim Stafford and Luck are clearly better than Dalton and that just is not true.

Average yearly rank among qualifying QBs
Dalton......15.2
Stafford....16.0
Luck.........18.2

Career passer rating
Dalton......88.9
Luck.........87.3
Stafford....86.7

I don't think anyone here is saying that dalton is elite.  But you are ranking him behind other QBs who are not as good.

Your claim that someone has to "blindly give Dalton the benefit of the doubt" to assume he would rank in the top 10 in passer rating if he had played the entire '15 season shows how silly your analysis is.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(12-27-2016, 11:02 AM)fredtoast Wrote: First of all, I am not upset.  I am just telling you that you are wrong.  

Second, it is not just semantics.  You claim Stafford and Luck are clearly better than Dalton and that just is not true.

Average yearly rank among qualifying QBs
Dalton......15.2
Stafford....16.0
Luck.........18.2

Career passer rating
Dalton......88.9
Luck.........87.3
Stafford....86.7

I don't think anyone here is saying that dalton is elite.  But you are ranking him behind pother QBs who are not as good.

Your claim that someone has to "blindly give Dalton the benefit of the doubt" to assume he would rank in the top 10 in passer rating if he had played the entire '15 season shows how silly your analysis is.

Pretty much this.

[*SHRacerX*]

(12-26-2016, 11:18 AM)Wyche Wrote: Yeah.....I really hated seeing Carr go down....for him and the Raiders.

Yeah, but let's be honest, had they played pitt in round 1, the steelers would have taken his knee out early and there would have been all this talk about how tough the steelers are.  Puke.  

[CanadianBengal]

Dalton is a good QB. He needs lots of weapons and a strong O-line to be successful. He cannot carry a team by himself. He simply can't make average players great. He is jumpy in the pocket and rarely goes through his progressions. As such he isn't going to find the open receiver and is dependent on the play call or his presnap read. The offence is at its best when he releases the ball immediately. To be able to do this he needs the right play call and the receiver to create one space.

He was hurt this year because the play calling was very predictable, the o-line allowed quick pressure and the receivers didn't create separation.

You can win with Andy but he needs lots of help. Same can be said for other QBs not named Brady and Rogers

[*bfine32*]

(12-26-2016, 10:16 PM)Wyche Wrote: Forget about ol Gronk...the other cat at TE? Blount? The line is usually trash in NE too.....unless you're one of those guys that thinks the flashy skill players are mythical creatures that totally make up for completely pathetic play up front that gets its ass kicked weekly.  We won't even get into having at least serviceable coaching.

Didn't forget about Gronk at all, but he's been hurt. I've read on some forum that is a huge liability for a QB and is a reason they are consistently middle of the road. I just didn't want to give Brady more credit by bringing up the fact that his top receiver is hurt. 

[*bfine32*]

(12-27-2016, 12:08 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: You do realize the #2 receiver on our team couldn't stay on the Patriots team for pretty much vet minimum. That just makes what you said look super silly 

I sure do hate looking super silly. Even if it is only through your eyes. 

[*bfine32*]

(12-27-2016, 11:02 AM)fredtoast Wrote: First of all, I am not upset.  I am just telling you that you are wrong.  

Second, it is not just semantics.  You claim Stafford and Luck are clearly better than Dalton and that just is not true.

Average yearly rank among qualifying QBs
Dalton......15.2
Stafford....16.0
Luck.........18.2

Career passer rating
Dalton......88.9
Luck.........87.3
Stafford....86.7

I don't think anyone here is saying that dalton is elite.  But you are ranking him behind other QBs who are not as good.

Your claim that someone has to "blindly give Dalton the benefit of the doubt" to assume he would rank in the top 10 in passer rating if he had played the entire '15 season shows how silly your analysis is.

So are you saying it's all about numbers? If you think Andy is better than Luck and Stafford; that points to your football acumen, just don't expect anyone outside of the forum to agree with you much. 

And I'm still waiting for the 20-24 starting QBs clearly worse than Andy

[*bfine32*]

(12-27-2016, 07:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So are you saying it's all about numbers? If you think Andy is better than Luck and Stafford; that points to your football acumen, just don't expect anyone outside of the forum to agree with you much. 

And I'm still waiting for the 20-24 starting QBs clearly worse than Andy

Here let me help you out. Here are the list of current starters. I will bold the ones I feel are clearly worse than Andy:

Tom Brady
Ryan Fitzpatrick
Tyrod Taylor
Ryan Tannehill
Marcus Mariota
Blake Bortles
Andrew Luck
Tom Savage
Ben Rothlisberger
Joe Flacco
Robert Griffith
Trevor Simmeon
Alex Smith
Derek Carr
Phillip Rivers
Eli Manning
Dak Prescot
Kirk Cousins
Carson Wentz
Matt Ryan
Drew Brees
Jameis Winston
Cam Newton
Matt Stafford
Sam Bradford
Jay Cutler
Aaron Rogers
Russel Wilson
Jared Goff
Carson Palmer
Colin Kaepernick


There I gave you 8 now just give the other 12-16 that are clearly worse than Andy. 

[Rubekahn29]

(12-27-2016, 07:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Here let me help you out. Here are the list of current starters. I will bold the ones I feel are clearly worse than Andy:

Tom Brady
Ryan Fitzpatrick
Tyrod Taylor*
Ryan Tannehill*
Andrew Luck*
Marcus Mariota*
Tom Savage
Ben Rothlisberger
Joe Flacco*
Robert Griffith
Trevor Simmeon*
Alex Smith*
Derek Carr
Phillip Rivers*
Eli Manning*
Dak Prescot
Kirk Cousins*
Carson Wentz
Matt Ryan
Drew Brees
Jameis Winston*
Cam Newton*
Matt Stafford*
Sam Bradford
Jay Cutler
Aaron Rogers
Russel Wilson*
Jared Goff
Carson Palmer*
Colin Kaepernick


There I gave you 8 now just give the other 12-16 that are clearly worse than Andy. 

Clearly better- no.

But the stars plus the bold, are who I would rather have for various reasons,, and I think Andy is either on par or better than. You had luck on there twice, so I took him off once.

[*bfine32*]

(12-27-2016, 08:17 PM)Rubekahn29 Wrote: Clearly better- no.

But the stars plus the bold, are who I would rather have for various reasons,, and I think Andy is either on par or better than. You had luck on there twice, so I took him off once.

Sure arguments can be made when you start comparing mid-tier QBs. I used clearly as a definer, because it was the one given to me to prepare my list. 

I do appreciate you giving your list. Although a couple I strongly disagree with. 

[Shake n Blake]

(12-27-2016, 07:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So are you saying it's all about numbers? If you think Andy is better than Luck and Stafford; that points to your football acumen, just don't expect anyone outside of the forum to agree with you much. 

And I'm still waiting for the 20-24 starting QBs clearly worse than Andy

The only arguments you've used to down Andy lately are (a) how often he has a passer rating over 90, and once it started looking likely that he'd finish 2016 with a 90+ rating, you switched to (b) his yearly rankings in passer rating.

Now that Fred has used your own standards against you, suddenly it's "stats don't matter"?

(12-27-2016, 07:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Here let me help you out. Here are the list of current starters. I will bold the ones I feel are clearly worse than Andy:

Tom Brady
Ryan Fitzpatrick*
Tyrod Taylor*
Ryan Tannehill*
Andrew Luck 
Marcus Mariota*
Tom Savage*
Ben Rothlisberger
Joe Flacco*
Robert Griffith*
Trevor Simmeon*
Alex Smith*
Derek Carr
Phillip Rivers*
Eli Manning*
Dak Prescot*
Kirk Cousins*
Carson Wentz*
Matt Ryan
Drew Brees
Jameis Winston*
Cam Newton*
Matt Stafford*
Sam Bradford*
Jay Cutler*
Aaron Rogers
Russel Wilson
Jared Goff*
Carson Palmer*
Colin Kaepernick*


There I gave you 8 now just give the other 12-16 that are clearly worse than Andy. 

The problem is the word "clearly". It implies that Dalton is a great deal better. Would I take Dalton over Newton and Stafford? Yes. Do I think Andy is "clearly" or a great deal better? No.

I put a star next to 22 QBs I would not trade Dalton for, straight up. Btw, you listed Luck twice, and without the duplicate, you only listed 30 QBs.

[*bfine32*]

(12-27-2016, 08:47 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: The only arguments you've used to down Andy lately are (a) how often he has a passer rating over 90, and once it started looking likely that he'd finish 2016 with a 90+ rating, you switched to (b) his yearly rankings in passer rating.

Now that Fred has used your own standards against you, suddenly it's "stats don't matter"?


The problem is the word "clearly". It implies that Dalton is a great deal better. Would I take Dalton over Newton and Stafford? Yes. Do I think Andy is "clearly" or a great deal better? No.

I put a star next to 22 QBs I would not trade Dalton for, straight up. Btw, you listed Luck twice, and without the duplicate, you only listed 30 QBs.

I didn't introduce the criteria of clearly, someone else did. Of course I use Andy's inability to consistently finish high each year in passer rating as proof that he is mid-tier. I was just determining the criteria we want to use to determine who i clearly better than whom. \

Ahh... Blake Bortles is who was missing; that clouds it a little bit, but I'll give Andy the nod over Blake; although, I'm not sure clearly.

So you've got Andy over:
Rivers
Smith
Cousins
Prescot.

Should we use numbers now?

[*Nately120*]

(12-27-2016, 08:47 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: The only arguments you've used to down Andy lately are (a) how often he has a passer rating over 90, and once it started looking likely that he'd finish 2016 with a 90+ rating, you switched to (b) his yearly rankings in passer rating.

Now that Fred has used your own standards against you, suddenly it's "stats don't matter"?


The problem is the word "clearly". It implies that Dalton is a great deal better. Would I take Dalton over Newton and Stafford? Yes. Do I think Andy is "clearly" or a great deal better? No.

I put a star next to 22 QBs I would not trade Dalton for, straight up. Btw, you listed Luck twice, and without the duplicate, you only listed 30 QBs.

Well, TRADING for is different.  Are we talking about which QB you want to build your franchise around OR which guy you want if you need to win right now.  I'd take Brady over Prescott RIGHT NOW, for one...but for the next 10+ years?  That's harder.

[*bfine32*]

(12-27-2016, 09:36 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Well, TRADING for is different.  Are we talking about which QB you want to build your franchise around OR which guy you want if you need to win right now.  I'd take Brady over Prescott RIGHT NOW, for one...but for the next 10+ years?  That's harder.

Adding qualifiers allows the list of who Andy is more awesome than to grow. For Instance Andy is currently "better" than Wentz and I wouldn't trade him for Romo; so I get to say he is more awesome than both. But I would trade him for Wentz and he is not better than Romo. 

[Shake n Blake]

(12-27-2016, 09:36 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Well, TRADING for is different.  Are we talking about which QB you want to build your franchise around OR which guy you want if you need to win right now.  I'd take Brady over Prescott RIGHT NOW, for one...but for the next 10+ years?  That's harder.

Good point. Poor wording on my part. Let's leave it at "which guy do you want if you want to win right now?" My list remains the same though, honestly.

[Shake n Blake]

(12-27-2016, 09:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I didn't introduce the criteria of clearly, someone else did. Of course I use Andy's inability to consistently finish high each year in passer rating as proof that he is mid-tier. I was just determining the criteria we want to use to determine who i clearly better than whom. \

Ahh... Blake Bortles is who was missing; that clouds it a little bit, but I'll give Andy the nod over Blake; although, I'm not sure clearly.

So you've got Andy over:
Rivers
Smith
Cousins
Prescot.

Should we use numbers now?

I would say "you tell me", but you can't seem to make up your mind on whether they mean everything or nothing. 

[Brownshoe]

(12-27-2016, 07:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I sure do hate looking super silly. Even if it is only through your eyes. 

Actually it clearly shows that the Patriots have better weapons than the Bengals. If our current best receiver couldn't even make their team isn't an obvious indicator that the Patriots have a LOT better weapons then I don't know what to tell you other than you need to let go of your bias.

[*bfine32*]

(12-27-2016, 10:26 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Actually it clearly shows that the Patriots have better weapons than the Bengals. If our current best receiver couldn't even make their team isn't an obvious indicator that the Patriots have a LOT better weapons then I don't know what to tell you other than you need to let go of your bias.

At the risk of looking Super Silly it shows no such thing. It simply shows players perform differently in various systems. The league is littered with players that did not work out at spot A, that excelled at spot B. We cut James Devlin in 2012; he has been the Pats Fullback ever since, wouldn't that mean we have a LOT better weapons. Yes, I really should let go of MY bias.