Good Andy/Bad Andy

[*Synric*]

(10-05-2017, 11:19 AM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Oh...no doubt. What other metrics are there? We could go PFF ratings, but then people will come back to no offensive line.

Which I think comes back to my point: This organization is going to be hard to overcome for any coach/QB. This is a team who knows that Russell Bodine is one of the worst starting Centers in the league and doesn't draft to replace him until possibly after his contract is up.

Also, they lowballed Zeitler with a $5.5 million offer according to Lapham, lose him, then don't attempt to bring in a quality Guard like Ronald Leary. We then have 4 backups starting on the offensive line.

Meh hindsight is 20/20. I bet the Patriots are kicking themselves about not upgrading the defense.

The Bengals signed Andre Smith...I know I know he's never played guard. Fact is Offensive line is one of thr few positions where they switch from tackle to guard ALOT. Next you're going to say a Andre got beat out...Did Andre get beat out or was Winston that bad they knew they needed Andre for thr backup swing tackle?

Really though while 2017 season is likely going to be a down year 6-10 to 8-8 The Bengals are in an excellent position entering the 2018 draft to really stock up across thr offensive line.

PS: In football there is only one metric to clearly evaluate a player. The Tape.

[hollodero]

(10-05-2017, 11:16 AM)Wyche Wrote: Good point, but in 2014, we had Eifert out all season, Marvin Jones hurt a great deal of the season, AJ Green missed several games, leaving us Mo Sanu as our #1.  We started Rex Burkhead at WR in the playoffs.  Yet, 14 still had a solid, if unspectacular year, and we made the playoffs.  So, if Cam gets that excuse, Andy does too.

He does get that excuse. I just feel these excuses often are forgotten when people say "QB A is better than QB B because of passer rating". The QB rating doesn't so much say "good QB" as "good QB in a good offense". With good recievers, a good line... all that.

That the QB rating is flawed in itself is also often forgotten when comparing these numbers. Cam used to run for a ton of yards and TDs, but as far as I understand the QB rating formula doesn't account for that.

Which makes up for my initial point, proving that good Andy/bad Andy is just a myth using QB ratings numbers seems like a stretch.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(10-05-2017, 11:53 AM)hollodero Wrote: He does get that excuse. I just feel these excuses often are forgotten when people say "QB A is better than QB B because of passer rating". The QB rating doesn't so much say "good QB" as "good QB in a good offense". With good recievers, a good line... all that.

That the QB rating is flawed in itself is also often forgotten when comparing these numbers. Cam used to run for a ton of yards and TDs, but as far as I understand the QB rating formula doesn't account for that.

Which makes up for my initial point, proving that good Andy/bad Andy is just a myth using QB ratings numbers seems like a stretch.

Ah....I got what you're saying now.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(10-05-2017, 11:46 AM)Synric Wrote: Meh hindsight is 20/20. I bet the Patriots are kicking themselves about not upgrading the defense.

The Bengals signed Andre Smith...I know I know he's never played guard. Fact is Offensive line is one of thr few positions where they switch from tackle to guard ALOT. Next you're going to say a Andre got beat out...Did Andre get beat out or was Winston that bad they knew they needed Andre for thr backup swing tackle?

Really though while 2017 season is likely going to be a down year 6-10 to 8-8 The Bengals are in an excellent position entering the 2018 draft to really stock up across thr offensive line.

PS: In football there is only one metric to clearly evaluate a player. The Tape.

They REALLY need to consider FA on the oline, not bargain bin bullshit either, if they are serious about winning anything of any relevance next season.  The window is closing fast on the core of this team.  Alas, we all know they won't.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-05-2017, 11:53 AM)hollodero Wrote: He does get that excuse. I just feel these excuses often are forgotten when people say "QB A is better than QB B because of passer rating". The QB rating doesn't so much say "good QB" as "good QB in a good offense". With good recievers, a good line... all that.

That the QB rating is flawed in itself is also often forgotten when comparing these numbers. Cam used to run for a ton of yards and TDs, but as far as I understand the QB rating formula doesn't account for that.

Which makes up for my initial point, proving that good Andy/bad Andy is just a myth using QB ratings numbers seems like a stretch.

While I agree that the QB rating is not the end-all-be-all when it comes to QB, I still think it's an effective tool to measure a QB's performance. Yes, there are other factors to consider - and running QBs are especially hurt by the QB rating - but it still is probably about as efficient a stat that can be created to determine QB play.

Think about it, when's the last time, if ever, you saw a QB have a remarkable game but his QB rating was low?

[THE PISTONS]

(10-05-2017, 12:40 PM)Wyche Wrote: They REALLY need to consider FA on the oline, not bargain bin bullshit either, if they are serious about winning anything of any relevance next season.  The window is closing fast on the core of this team.  Alas, we all know they won't.

Yep. Isn't Atkins a free agent after next year?

Teams are going to try to sign him away and we know the Bengals will likely be hesitant to give him a big payday.

Also Green is 29. Atkins is 29. Dunlap is a free agent after next year.

IF we lose Atkins, our entire defense gets a lot worse.

[Shake n Blake]

(10-05-2017, 10:43 AM)hollodero Wrote: AS I said, I admit that much. It is. 
The truth derivated from a QB rating shall not be overrated though. I feel it usually is.

QB rating wouldn't be overrated if it backed your view. Just stop.

(10-05-2017, 11:09 AM)Synric Wrote: System is very important to passer rating also. A team that runs an high percentage west coast offensive (Jay Gruden) is likely to have a QB with a higher passer rating than a team that runs the deep passing Air Coryell (Bruce Arians)...

Just look at the difference in passer rating for Big Ben during the Arians era and the Haley era.

I went ahead and ran the numbers. Gruden's system did feature more short passing. However, Palmer did not pass deep more often than Dalton in the years I looked at (2012 and 2013 for Dalton, 2015 and 2016 for Palmer). Deep to most people is over 20 yards. In the Air Coryell system, it seems the sweet spot is 11-20 yards. Mid-range throws. Palmer did throw a significantly higher percentage of these throws than Dalton, BUT...

Dalton had his highest passer rating on such throws, at a 94.6...which was higher than his rating on short throws. So how does the WCO help again?

[Shake n Blake]

(10-05-2017, 11:53 AM)hollodero Wrote: He does get that excuse. I just feel these excuses often are forgotten when people say "QB A is better than QB B because of passer rating". The QB rating doesn't so much say "good QB" as "good QB in a good offense". With good recievers, a good line... all that.

That the QB rating is flawed in itself is also often forgotten when comparing these numbers. Cam used to run for a ton of yards and TDs, but as far as I understand the QB rating formula doesn't account for that.

Which makes up for my initial point, proving that good Andy/bad Andy is just a myth using QB ratings numbers seems like a stretch.

Too much changes from year to year for there to be anything that's a 100% accurate way to judge how well a QB is playing. It's a good indicator though. Honestly, it's pretty predictable that people are attacking the QB rating system when they're not happy with the results of the research. 

I don't think it's a stretch to say that if the outcome painted Andy in a different light, you'd be singing a different tune. Btw, no other QBs run like Cam anymore. Heck, Cam doesn't run like Cam anymore. But if rush stats were added to QB rating, it would only help Dalton against 99% of QB's out there.

[hollodero]

(10-05-2017, 01:58 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: QB rating wouldn't be overrated if it backed your view. Just stop.

Alright, I guess I'll stop then. Sorry for interrupting.

[Shake n Blake]

(10-05-2017, 02:40 PM)hollodero Wrote: Alright, I guess I'll stop then. Sorry for interrupting.

Well what do you suggest as a comprehensive and perfect way to measure QB performance?

Or are you just here to knock my work because you don't like the result?

[*rfaulk34*]

(10-04-2017, 10:39 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: This talk has been going on for about as long as we've had Dalton, but how true is it? Does Dalton have more bad games than other QB's?

First, we have to define what "bad" is. As hard as it is to get everyone to agree, I figure I'll just list all games that fall below a 60.0 rating, and well as games that fall below a 70.0, etc. Good games would be a 90+ rating and great games are 100+ and so on. I'll list each QB's total career games played, followed by the percentage of games that fall in each category.

All stats were compiled using pro football reference. I will put an indicator next to each % to show if the % is higher or lower than Dalton's in each category. If the percentages are close (less than 1% difference) then you'll see an = symbol.

Andy Dalton
97 games played
GREAT - 100+ rating: 38 games (39.2% of all games played)
GOOD- 90+: 47 games (48.5%)
SOLID- 80-89.9: 14 games (14.4%)
SUBPAR- 79.9 or below: 36 games (37.1%)
BAD- 69.9 or below: 27 games (27.8%)
AWFUL- 59.9 or below: 11 games (11.3%)

Ben Roethlisberger
189 games played
100+: 77 games (40.7%) ^
90+: 105 games (55.6%) ^^
80-89.9: 31 games (16.4%) ^
sub 79.9: 53 games (28.0%) vv
sub 69.9: 32 games (16.9%) vvv
sub 59.9: 20 games (10.6%) =

Ben is better across the board, but only marginally in the extremes. The % of "great" games and "awful" ones are nearly identical. But overall, Ben has more good games and fewer subpar ones. Of course, when people talk "bad Andy" they're usually not talking about the subpar games, they're talking about the awful ones, and Ben has just as many of those.

Joe Flacco
142 games played
100+: 43 games (30.3%) vvv
90+: 64 games (45.1%) v
80-89.9: 21 games (14.8%) =
sub 79.9: 57 games (40.1%) ^
sub 69.9: 37 games (26.1%) v
sub 59.9: 21 games (14.8%) ^

Flacco is worse in almost every category. More subpar games. More awful games. Far fewer great games to balance it out. Dalton is simply better and more consistent.

Carson Palmer
179 games played
100+: 62 games (34.6%) vv
90+: 90 games (50.3%) ^
80-89.9: 27 games (15.1%) =
sub 79.9: 62 games (34.6%) v
sub 69.9: 39 games (21.8%) vv
sub 59.9: 22 games (12.3%) ^

Palmer is slightly better at not having subpar games. When I say "slightly", I mean slightly. If you project the % of subpar games Carson has over the span of a 200 game career, he'd have 5 fewer subpar games than Andy. It's practically nothing, and that's with a 2.5% difference. Dalton makes up for this slight difference by having 4.6% more great games, although Palmer has more games that qualify as good (again, by a very slight margin - 1.8%)

Andrew Luck
70 games played
100+: 18 games (25.7%) vvv
90+: 32 games (45.7%) v
80-89.9: 13 games (18.6%) ^
sub 79.9: 25 games (35.7%) v
sub 69.9: 15 games (21.4%) v
sub 59.9: 8 games (11.4%) =

Luck is interesting. Slightly smaller % of subpar games (less than 2% difference), but he has FAR fewer great games, which is surprising. Again, it seems most QB's hover around 11% with their "awful" games.

Cam Newton
97 games played
100+: 32 games (33.0%) v
90+: 40 games (41.2%) v
80-89.9: 15 games (15.5%) ^
sub 79.9: 42 games (43.3%) ^
sub 69.9: 24 games (24.7%) v
sub 59.9: 14 games (14.4%) ^

Cam has played fewer great games, fewer good games, more subpar games and more awful games. Does anyone call him "good Cam/bad Cam"?
______________________

I picked these QB's because they're Dalton's peers. Division guys and guys that are viewed as being on a similar level (except Ben). With the exception of Ben, the percentages are all similar and I'd argue that they mostly favor Dalton. He's certainly more consistent than Cam, Luck or Flacco. Palmer is roughly the same.

If you guys have any requests, I'll look it up and post the numbers for ya, but it seems pretty clear that the good Andy/bad Andy thing is a myth. All QB's have a similar % of bad games, outside of the elites I'd say, and Dalton is actually more consistent than many good QB's and has more big games to boot. This isn't to say he's better. This is simply to dispel the myth that Andy is far more prone to bad games or is more a roller coaster.

Good stuff and good work.

The only real point left when debating where Dalton ranks in terms of his peers is how he plays in prime time (sun, mon night) and how he plays in the playoffs.

There's really no debating he's on par with any QB regarded in the 3-10 range but his lack of "big" wins stands out like a bloated sore thumb. There is really no getting around that until he starts to win some of those. The "good andy/bad andy" comes strictly from that. 

[Shake n Blake]

(10-05-2017, 02:58 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Good stuff and good work.

The only real point left when debating where Dalton ranks in terms of his peers is how he plays in prime time (sun, mon night) and how he plays in the playoffs.

There's really no debating he's on par with any QB regarded in the 3-10 range but his lack of "big" wins stands out like a bloated sore thumb. There is really no getting around that until he starts to win some of those. The "good andy/bad andy" comes strictly from that. 

I can't blame Andy Dalton for prime-time and playoff wins/losses due to the lengthy history of failure in such situations under Marvin Lewis. It hasn't mattered who the QB is. Marvin is 0-3 in the playoffs with other QB's, and his prime-time reputation preceded Dalton.

It's simply not fair to pin all of that on one player. Not when there's a list of others who haven't performed in the same situations. Palmer got better elsewhere, and because of that, I can't help but feel Dalton would as well. And I disagree that the good Andy/bad Andy talk comes strictly from that. People have specifically stated that Dalton has more bad games and worse games than other QBs.

Here's an example, and the reason I made this thread:

http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Tale-of-Two-Andy-s?page=2

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(10-05-2017, 02:58 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Good stuff and good work.

The only real point left when debating where Dalton ranks in terms of his peers is how he plays in prime time (sun, mon night) and how he plays in the playoffs.

There's really no debating he's on par with any QB regarded in the 3-10 range but his lack of "big" wins stands out like a bloated sore thumb. There is really no getting around that until he starts to win some of those. The "good andy/bad andy" comes strictly from that. 

Agreed.....but then you factor in Marv's failures in those games with different QBs, and you get the ball rolling again on this debate.  I think that's why it has effectively reached a stalemate until either Dalton or Marv leaves.

[hollodero]

(10-05-2017, 02:56 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Well what do you suggest as a comprehensive and perfect way to measure QB performance?

Or are you just here to knock my work because you don't like the result?

:) You can't ask people to stop and then ask follow-ups. 

Nah, all is good, I didn't take it as offense. To answer your question. I have no issue with your result in the way of "I don't like it". I honestly don't feel either way about Andy (to be more precise: My feelings about Andy go back and forth all the time). I gave my rationale for doubting that the QB rating is the ultimate measurement to debunk a Bad Andy myth. But I agree that it is the best measurement there is available; I would think it can be possible to find better ones (a better formula, but none is common), but I do not think there is any "perfect way" to express QB performance in numbers. And that there actually can't be.

In other words, it simply can't be measured with perfect accuracy, there's a theoretical limit to put QB performance in a number that tells the whole story. Any number would always neglect certain aspects. To show what I mean: Take Tony Romo. His QB ratings usually were fine (as were his fantasy stats), but yet one has the impression that he often found ways to lose games in the end because of one costly mistake that doesn't do much with the numbers, but means the world in winning or losing a game. Or take Sam Bradford, who absolute torched the Saints behind an ok line, but looked like crap behind bad lines. Some interceptions are more costly then others, some are the result of a bad reciever corps, some can be partly blamed on the Oline rushing passes, some can be blamed on a lack of a running game threat. Same goes for missed throws or the lack of throwing TDs. And so on.

So again, a QB rating is a good indicator in general, I do not doubt that. I just think you took it a notch too far with your conclusion, not because your numbers are wrong, but because numbers are a limited tool in evaluating the performance of a football player. When I see a good QB rating, I always associate it with "good QB in a good offense", as I said, and the second part of the sentence is as essential as the first one. 

And to conclude it: Andy is a good QB as many others - but never have I seen a good QB have such a bad game like Andy had in Cleveland in '14. There were other undoubtedly bad games as well, no number could persuade me that I just got that all wrong. The bad Andy "myth" stems from things I witnessed on the screen without knowing his rating. Personal assessment can never be completely made irrelevant by any number one might come up with. I hope I made myself clear and could show that I didn't mean any disrespect. I consider your thread a very interesting one.

[Shake n Blake]

(10-05-2017, 03:22 PM)hollodero Wrote: :) You can't ask people to stop and then ask follow-ups. 

Nah, all is good, I didn't take it as offense. To answer your question. I have no issue with your result in the way of "I don't like it". I honestly don't feel either way about Andy (to be more precise: My feelings about Andy go back and forth all the time). I gave my rationale for doubting that the QB rating is the ultimate measurement to debunk a Bad Andy myth. But I agree that it is the best measurement there is available; I would think it can be possible to find better ones (a better formula, but none is common), but I do not think there is any "perfect way" to express QB performance in numbers. And that there actually can't be.

In other words, it simply can't be measured with perfect accuracy, there's a theoretical limit to put QB performance in a number that tells the whole story. Any number would always neglect certain aspects. To show what I mean: Take Tony Romo. His QB ratings usually were fine (as were his fantasy stats), but yet one has the impression that he often found ways to lose games in the end because of one costly mistake that doesn't do much with the numbers, but means the world in winning or losing a game. Or take Sam Bradford, who absolute torched the Saints behind an ok line, but looked like crap behind bad lines. Some interceptions are more costly then others, some are the result of a bad reciever corps, some can be partly blamed on the Oline rushing passes, some can be blamed on a lack of a running game threat. Same goes for missed throws or the lack of throwing TDs. And so on.

So again, a QB rating is a good indicator in general, I do not doubt that. I just think you took it a notch too far with your conclusion, not because your numbers are wrong, but because numbers are a limited tool in evaluating the performance of a football player. When I see a good QB rating, I always associate it with "good QB in a good offense", as I said, and the second part of the sentence is as essential as the first one. 

And to conclude it: Andy is a good QB as many others - but never have I seen a good QB have such a bad game like Andy had in Cleveland in '14. There were other undoubtedly bad games as well, no number could persuade me that I just got that all wrong. The bad Andy "myth" stems from things I witnessed on the screen without knowing his rating. Personal assessment can never be completely made irrelevant by any number one might come up with. I hope I made myself clear and could show that I didn't mean any disrespect. I consider your thread a very interesting one.

Good post. I agree with much of what you say, but passer rating is the best measurement we have available, and I do think think it balances out. What I mean by that is if a QB has a career passer rating near 90...he's probably had a good career and it's safe to say he's a good QB. 

Or if Dalton has fewer bad ratings than Joe Flacco over the course of 7-10 seasons, it's probably not a fluke or something you can chalk up to as Dalton padding his stats late in bad games. That's honestly something all QB's do, and Dalton has had fewer chances to do it seeing how he's been on a winning team.

You bring up Tony Romo, and he's another guy who I felt didn't deserve all the criticism aimed at him. Lo and behold, he happened to play for the only other owner that refused to hire a GM and had a heavy hand in shaping the roster. But anyway, I feel the Cowboys never had a great team around Romo, and he always got a disproportionate amount of blame for their shortcomings. They rarely had a good defense and Jason Garrett is about as mediocre as it gets as a HC.

[hollodero]

(10-05-2017, 03:36 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Good post. I agree with much of what you say, but passer rating is the best measurement we have available, and I do think think it balances out. What I mean by that is if a QB has a career passer rating near 90...he's probably had a good career and it's safe to say he's a good QB. 

Agreed. Andy is one of the better QBs in the league, and QB ratings seem to undermine that point of view.

(10-05-2017, 03:36 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Or if Dalton has fewer bad ratings than Joe Flacco over the course of 7-10 seasons, it's probably not a fluke or something you can chalk up to as Dalton padding his stats late in bad games. That's honestly something all QB's do, and Dalton has had fewer chances to do it seeing how he's been on a winning team.

I agree with that as well. Flacco is a worse QB then Dalton by my evaluation and probably also by all measurements except playoff wins.

(10-05-2017, 03:36 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: You bring up Tony Romo, and he's another guy who I felt didn't deserve all the criticism aimed at him. Lo and behold, he happened to play for the only other owner that refused to hire a GM and had a heavy hand in shaping the roster. But anyway, I feel the Cowboys never had a great team around Romo, and he always got a disproportionate amount of blame for their shortcomings. They rarely had a good defense and Jason Garrett is about as mediocre as it gets as a HC.

That is also true. Romo, overall, was a good QB. Stop saying things I agree with :) So to disagree a little, while his team was never too good overall, he often had some fine recievers and he did have a certain talent to choke up games he looked good in for most of the time. I stand by that assertion even though I do not have any numbers to prove it.

[*bengalfan74*]

Thanks Shake,

Two of the bigger Dalton myths have been he doesn't throw the deep ball well/weak armed. And two he has all these bad games/bad Andy, his seasons are a roller coaster.

When the fact is Dalton isn't anymore inconsistent than the vast majority of his peers and is even better than some.

Same thing with the deep balls ! Andy can't throw the deep ball he's to weak armed blah, blah. Fact is he's up in the top tier with the deep ball. Then it turns to A.J. saves him and on and on.

How it is these guys that continue to bash Dalton as "the problem" don't understand that it's much more than just the QB that's keeping this team on the mediocre train ? I don't know ?

Like you've said before deja vu from the Palmer era.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-05-2017, 05:52 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: How it is these guys that continue to bash Dalton as "the problem" don't understand that it's much more than just the QB that's keeping this team on the mediocre train ? 

Simplemindedness. 

[Shake n Blake]

(10-05-2017, 04:31 PM)hollodero Wrote: 1. Agreed. Andy is one of the better QBs in the league, and QB ratings seem to undermine that point of view.


2. I agree with that as well. Flacco is a worse QB then Dalton by my evaluation and probably also by all measurements except playoff wins.


3. That is also true. Romo, overall, was a good QB. Stop saying things I agree with :) So to disagree a little, while his team was never too good overall, he often had some fine recievers and he did have a certain talent to choke up games he looked good in for most of the time. I stand by that assertion even though I do not have any numbers to prove it.

1. I don't think his career rating undermines anything. It's actually reflective of how good he's been. Dalton is currently 9th among active QB's in passer rating at 89.1. He's actually ahead of some guys that I think are his equal or in the same tier. He's ahead of Carr, Palmer, Luck, Stafford, Newton, Tannehill, Smith, Bradford, Eli, and Flacco among others.

2. I sincerely believe that if you swapped their teams, Flacco would be the choker and Dalton would be wearing a ring. Not talking about the rubber one. It just seems the Ravens are a more professional franchise that rises in big moments. They don't look out of place. They put their players in good spots to succeed. 

3. I feel Romo botched that hold in his first playoff game, and that reputation stuck with him after that. I don't feel he had a bunch of choke worthy moments after that, really. It was mostly just team-wide disappointment. Going 8-8 several years in a row. The team performed below expectations (expectations that were probably high because they have stars on their helmets) and people blamed Romo for it due to his rep. 

It seems the only way to change a reputation like that is to win it all. Eli Manning was viewed as a semi-bust before he got a ring. Then people suddenly started muttering the "e" word when talking about him. Saying he was better than Peyton (lol). Seriously, perception in sports is so off sometimes.

[*rfaulk34*]

(10-05-2017, 03:08 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I can't blame Andy Dalton for prime-time and playoff wins/losses due to the lengthy history of failure in such situations under Marvin Lewis.



And I disagree that the good Andy/bad Andy talk comes strictly from that. People have specifically stated that Dalton has more bad games and worse games than other QBs.

No doubt, a little help from others every once in a while would be nice...but i can't let go of the 2nd half of the Chargers game and place the blame anywhere but him for how badly he played. Had a very nice 1st half, crapped the bed the 2nd half. And it would certainly help his cause if he hits that one pass to AJ, in Houston, with 3 minutes left in the game that would have given the Bengals a lead. As much as it can be pointed out how well he plays, overall, in the regular season, you also can't ignore how most of his Sun/Mon night games and all of his playoff games have been poop. I just don't get how he can't have a couple really good prime time games in wins against a good team and at least one good complete playoff game. I get "because Marv" and i agree he's milquetoast poo, but sometimes...hell, once or twice, you have to be able to overcome that and ball out over the course of 6 seasons. 


I was meaning that it should only be specifically because of that.