06-04-2015, 02:09 PM
(06-04-2015, 01:36 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Andy accounted for 8 fewer turnovers
Andy had 3 more game-winning drives and 4th qtr comebacks
Andy had a 101.5 passer rating in the red zone with 0 int's, compared to Carson's 80.5 with 3 int's
Andy was better on 3rd downs (84.4 rating with 2 int's) than Carson (72.6 rating with 7 int's)
So basically Andy turned the ball over less and was much better in scoring situations and 3rd downs (kept drives going).
Imo, the defense was probably the #1 reason for the turnaround, followed by better QB play. Our run game and ST were only marginally better. I honestly don't see how you'd believe the passing game got worse from '10 to '11, unless you're just looking at bulk yards and TD's, while ignoring INT's (what seems familiar about that?)
I've acknowledged the turnovers. That's a positive for Andy. Andy also had 3.7% less completion percentage, 600 less yards, and 5 less TDs overall (6 less passing).
Gamewinning drives and 4th quarter comebacks are tough in year to year comparisons like this. Is it possible that the 2011 defense allowed for Andy to have more opportunities in that regard? I don't know if that's exactly the case without looking into very specific details, but I'm just pointing out one reason why that is tough to compare.
Andy was and still is pretty much great in the red zone. His career RZ numbers are excellent. Kudos to him. Carson's rating to get into the red zone was higher and Carson directly accounted for 30 more points than Andy. I thought putting points on the board was a huge part of the Andy debates before? I guess it's not so important now.
Since when is 3rd down more important than 1st and 2nd?
Okay, well Carson was better than Andy on 1st and 2nd (I'm guessing here, didn't look it up) and Andy was better on 3rd. I guess that counts for something.My point is that QB play didn't drastically improve to where I can say that Andy is the reason for the big turnaround and 5 extra wins. I have a very good hunch that the Bengals would have still won 4-ish games in 2010 with Andy at the helm, and the 2011 Bengals would have still been bounced in the WC round with Carson throwing the ball around.
The #1 reason for the turnaround was the schedule. The defense is somewhere up there with everything else coming in pretty far behind those 2 things. Andy limiting turnovers, Benson limiting turnovers, and A.J. being pretty damn good are all wonderful things, but those 3 things combined aren't a 5 win difference maker. The most obvious thing that changed that took us from 4 to 9 wins was the insane schedule from 2010 not being there again the next year. No matter what anyone tries to say, the difference between 2010 Carson and 2011 Andy isn't that huge, and the difference between the receivers didn't win us 5 more games. You can argue that QB play didn't diminish from 2010 to 2011, sure, you make some fine arguments, but there's no possible way that anybody could rationalize Andy's performance compared to Carson's into +5 wins.
