10-04-2017, 10:39 PM
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.
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.
The training, nutrition, medicine, fitness, playbooks and rules evolve. The athlete does not.
