Confession of a Dalton Defender

[Brownshoe]

(05-27-2015, 09:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: All that stuff you listed is combined to make up the passer rating. Not sure how in anybody's head using it would be considered "cherry picking". But it takes all types.

Lol yeah ignore the part how it's cherry picking by having very specific qualifiers, and just ignore the fact that it's still made up. You do realize that stuff like QBR negatively effects people who run WCO? If every offense was the same then it might be a bit more legit, but different offenses value different stats... differently. But I don't expect you to understand all that.

[t3r3e3]

(05-26-2015, 05:12 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: He's a "journeyman" entering his 5th season.

Seems fair to compare him to a guy who was in his 7th season by the time he QB this franchise (Kitna) and a guy who in his only season as a starter, put up a 70 rating.

The point was he has "journeyman" type measurables and talent. Andy's skillset aligns him pretty closely with the Mark Sanchez, Ryan Fitzpatrick, John Kitna, Eric Kramer, Josh McCown, Neil O' Donnelll, Kevin Kolb, Trent Dilfer, Stan Humphries, bad shoulder Chad Pennington types of NFL QB's. Limited skillset guys who will produce a good season here and there, but don't have the skills to carry the offense. These types of guys typically bounce around the league, make valuable backups, and decent short term starters. However, they're never relied on as foundation pieces. Often they're bridge guys for teams searching for an upper tier talent to groom into a starter. They aren't neccesarily bad players, but not very good either. These types of guys, as Sparky would say, end up reverting to the back of their ball card if allowed to start long enough.

[*bfine32*]

(05-27-2015, 09:40 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Lol yeah ignore the part how it's cherry picking by having  very specific qualifiers, and just ignore the fact that it's still made up. You do realize that stuff like QBR negatively effects people who run WCO? If every offense was the same then it might be a bit more legit, but different offenses value different stats... differently. But I don't expect you to understand all that.

Actually West Coast Offense should help passer rating as yards are not included.

As to specific qualifiers; did you mean 4 years as a full-time starter like Andy or was it something else?

Perhaps you thought 90 was too high, because only 16 QBs achieved that last year.

[Brownshoe]

(05-27-2015, 09:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Actually West Coast Offense should help passer rating as yards are not included.

As to specific qualifiers; did you mean 4 years as a full-time starter like Andy or was it something else?

Perhaps you thought 90 was too high, because only 16 QBs achieved that last year.

Why not just the first four years in the league? If they were good enough they would have started that year. Also it hurts WCO more because a big part of QBR is YPA. Like I said I don't expect you to understand.

[t3r3e3]

(05-26-2015, 06:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Brady was ranked 17th in 2013.

And Brady has a track record of being elite, is probably the most clutch QB of all time, has stone cold willed his team to numerous Playoff and Super Bowl wins, and is entering his 15th or 16th NFL campaign. Comparing Andy to Brady is the height of reaching. Andy isn't even a Top 2 QB in his own division. Leave Brady out of this one.

your objection is not sustained...

[t3r3e3]

(05-27-2015, 09:58 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Why not just the first four years in the league? If they were good enough they would have started that year. Also it hurts WCO more because a big part of QBR is YPA. Like I said I don't expect you to understand.

You do realize Bfine quoted "passer rating", the official NFL statistic, and not QBR, the flawed ESPN metric, don't you? Maybe not...

There's a significant difference.

[t3r3e3]

(05-26-2015, 06:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote: He is not a "journeyman".  He is a solid NFL starter that belongs in a group that can pretty much be shuffled around in any order between 10 and 18.  These type of QBs are so hard to find that teams pay them over $15 million per year.

If Andy is let go after this year, what teams would reasonably sign him to start over what they currently have? Other than Buffalo, Houston, the Jets, the Browns, who else is a definite? You could have possibilities in Wash/Chicago if they cut their current guys, but who else? Philly? Likely not. KC? Same kind of QB with fewer turnovers. Asking this question should give you an accurate representation of Andy's value in the league.

[*bfine32*]

(05-27-2015, 09:58 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Why not just the first four years in the league? If they were good enough they would have started that year. Also it hurts WCO more because a big part of QBR is YPA. Like I said I don't expect you to understand.

..or they could have had someone better that Gradkowski to compete against. You don't think Rogers was good enough to start as a rookie, our very own CP9?

Passer rating has been in use since 1960 (recognized officially by the NFL in 1973) obviously the plan was to allow a MB poster to cherry pick Andy Dalton performance 55 years later.

When oh when will I understand?

[*rfaulk34*]

(05-27-2015, 06:58 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Let's make another list of starting AFC QBs

Phillip Rivers
Ryan Tannehill
Andrew Luck
Tom Brady
Matt Cassel
Marcus Mariota
Geno Smith
Peyton Manning
Derek Carr
Alex Smith
Ben Rothlisberger
Joe Flacco
Josh McCown
Blake Bortles
Brian Hoyer
Andy Dalton

List of starting AFC QBs who threw 99+ TDs in their first 4 years

Peyton Manning
Andy Dalton

Shoot let's just do everyone who's a NFL starting QB who threw 99+ TDs in their first 4 years

Peyton Manning
Andy Dalton

Let me axt you a quick question.

Which season would you prefer from a QB?

35 TDs and no playoff wins. Or,
20 TDs and 1 or more playoff wins.

[*rfaulk34*]

(05-27-2015, 09:16 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: QBR is a made up stat. You can't show me QBR on the field, but I can show you TDs, INTs, competions, and incompletions. You only picking QBR with very specific variables is cherry picking even more so than most people do.

completion percentage, yards per attempt, touchdown percentage and interception percentage are the stats that are used to get a QB rating.

(05-27-2015, 09:40 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Lol yeah ignore the part how it's cherry picking by having  very specific qualifiers, and just ignore the fact that it's still made up. You do realize that stuff like QBR negatively effects people who run WCO? If every offense was the same then it might be a bit more legit, but different offenses value different stats... differently. But I don't expect you to understand all that.

QB rating does not hurt anyone as it uses percentages, not raw numbers. Whether you throw less or more, it's all percentages.

[Brownshoe]

(05-27-2015, 10:28 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Let me axt you a quick question.

Which season would you prefer from a QB?

35 TDs and no playoff wins. Or,
20 TDs and 1 or more playoff wins.

So would I rather have a good team or a good QB? I would rather have a good team, but if you were asking something else you shouldn't have said a QB stat with a team stat.

[Brownshoe]

(05-27-2015, 10:32 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: completion percentage, yards per attempt, touchdown percentage and interception percentage are the stats that are used to get a QB rating.


QB rating does not hurt anyone as it uses percentages, not raw numbers. Whether you throw less or more, it's all percentages.

Yes it hurts teams that throw short to intermediate passes, because it lowers their YPA. Don't you understand how it works? It favors QBs that pass less, but throw intermediate to long passes.

[*bfine32*]

(05-27-2015, 10:41 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Yes it hurts teams that throw short to intermediate passes, because it lowers their YPA. Don't you understand how it works? It favors QBs that pass less, but throw intermediate to long passes.

Only if they complete them. Passer rating does not hurt a West Coast team. Those 49er QBs seem to rate pretty good,

Passer rating does hurt a running QB. Do you want to go there?

[Brownshoe]

(05-27-2015, 10:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ..or they could have had someone better that Gradkowski to compete against. You don't think Rogers was good enough to start as a rookie, our very own CP9?

Passer rating has been in use since 1960 (recognized officially by the NFL in 1973) obviously the plan was  to allow a MB poster to cherry pick Andy Dalton performance 55 years later.

When oh when will I understand?

So your awnser is to penalize Dalton for being a 1st year starter, and ignore that the other QBs couldn't be a 1st year starter? Seems fair

Oh and if you keep trying to understand you might get it one day. You just have to keep trying.

[hotweales]

Uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, I guess I don't even understand the conversation. Who cares - Go Bengals - Whodey

[Brownshoe]

(05-27-2015, 10:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Only if they complete them. Passer rating does not hurt a West Coast team. Those 49er QBs seem to rate pretty good,

That's only because they let their run game do all the work, and throw it a ton less than us. Just keep trying to figure out how football works. One day you might understand.

[*bfine32*]

(05-27-2015, 10:48 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: So your awnser is to penalize Dalton for being a 11st year starter, and ignore that the other QBs couldn't be a 11st year starter? Seems fair  

Oh and if you keep trying to understand you might get it one day. You just have to keep trying.

Dalton was not given a penalty for starting his first year. His first year was as good or better than many of the QBs on this list that topped 90 in their 1st 4 seasons as a starter.

Am I understanding yet?

[Brownshoe]

(05-27-2015, 10:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Dalton was not given a penalty for starting his first year. His first year was as good or better than many of the QBs on this list that topped 90 in their 1st 4 seasons as a starter.

Am I understanding yet?

How is letting someone sit and learn a offense and form chemistry with their receivers not an advantage compaired to going in blind year 1? It seems like you're not quite there yet. You need to put a little more effort.

[*bfine32*]

(05-27-2015, 11:00 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: How is letting someone sit and learn a offense and form chemistry with their receivers not an advantage compaired to going in blind year 1? It seems like you're not quite there yet. You need to put a little more effort.

Well you would expect someone that was forced to start from year one to drastically increase by year 4 wouldn't you?

For instance Tannehill was thrown in the fire year and had a 76.1 passer rating (I know biased against Andy stat) his rookie year, He just had a 92.8 in year 3.

BTW, you don't form chemistry by sitting on the bench and taking snaps with the 2nd team in practice.

I think I've almost got it figured out, so I best stop with the back and forth before I lose some knowledge.

[*rfaulk34*]

(05-27-2015, 10:36 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: So would I rather have a good team or a good QB? I would rather have a good team, but if you were asking something else you shouldn't have said a QB stat with a team stat.

Would you rather have a season in which the QB threw for 35 TDs and the team did not win a playoff game or the QB threw for 20 TDs and the team won 1 or more playoff games?

I asked the question the way i did because you were pointing out a statistic that showed how many TDs Dalton had thrown compared to others. To me, number of TDs doesn't mean anything when the end result is zero playoff wins.

We'd all love a perfect scenario where we have 35TDs and multiple playoff wins, but what we've seen so far is 30+TDs and zero playoff wins and 20TDs with zero playoff wins.

But i'm pretty sure you answered the question with "better team", so there's no real need to elaborate any more.