Good Andy/Bad Andy

[Shake n Blake]

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.

[GodFather]

Yes what is Alex Smiths record. People put the two of them in the same category. I'd be curious what the numbers show.

[muskiesfan]

Thank you for doing the work, Shake. I know it can be a pain in the ass and time consuming.

So for his career, Dalton has 61 games of a passer rating of 80 or higher which comes out to around 63%. That means that basically 2 out of every 3 games Dalton plays he will be at 80 or higher which would be right around the 10-11 game mark every season. Not bad.

The others

Ben 72% 80 or better
Flacco 60%
Palmer 65%
Luck 64%
Newton 57%

That's pretty interesting because it puts all of these guys (except Ben) in the 9-10 game a season range where they hit 80 or better. With the exception of Flacco, I know the other ones are always mentioned as hands down better than Andy.

[GreenCornBengal]

Props shake, this is really cool information.




What I'm seeing from this is that all of these guys, and probably most QBs in the NFL, are good QBs. You don't make it to the NFL if you aren't a good QB.

I believe the difference is how guys perform in big games.

It would be interesting to create a statistic that measures non pressure game vs the most pressure 'biggest game on your schedule' type of game. I wonder how many of these 'big moment' games each QB had higher QBRs for... My guess is the story would be a bit different. Big Ben and Flacco may have higher QBR games in these situations while Dalton and Palmer would have lower.

It would be a smaller sample size, but QBR in playoff games may be a better indicator. Dalton does have a few playoff games under his belt for comparison.

[Shake n Blake]

(10-04-2017, 10:50 PM)GodFather Wrote: Yes what is Alex Smiths record. People put the two of them in the same category. I'd be curious what the numbers show.

Alex Smith
142 games played
100+: 40 games (28.2%) vvv
90+: 64 games (45.1%) v
80-89.9: 26 games (18.3%) ^
sub 79.9: 52 games (36.6%) =
sub 69.9: 40 games (28.2%) =
sub 59.9: 23 games (16.2%) ^^

Smith's career should be broken in two, but it'd take a lot of work for me to do that. Plus if I did that, should I take away Dalton's rookie season for fairness? A good chunk of Dalton's worst games came in year 1. Overall though, Smith has far fewer great games, and a significantly higher % of awful games, although many of those came when he had poor coaching. 

Fwiw, I'd love to see Dalton playing for Andy Reid and Jim Harbaugh. 

[ShowMeUrTDs]

Props on the research! The true question is when the majority of his “bad” performances are?

The fact is AD is a decent to average NFL QB, he did have a monster year in 2015, but he is 0-for in the playoffs and his primetime record and ratings are abysmal. When the pressure is the least he can be great, but when the going gets tough he wears it on his face and you can physically see it.

IMO Marvin’s coaching and game philosophy are flawed, so I would be curious as to how Andy could perform under a different staff, but from what he has shown at this point of his career he cannot take a team to the promised land of competing for championships. As a Bengal fan I cannot fathom what else matters than getting that elusive playoff win and making a run! IMO Andy is not the guy that will make that happen.

I hope they rid Marvin, his staff, and let the new people pick their guy at QB.

[Shake n Blake]

(10-04-2017, 11:18 PM)ShowMeUrTDs Wrote: Props on the research! The true question is when the majority of his “bad” performances are?

The fact is AD is a decent to average NFL QB, he did have a monster year in 2015, but he is 0-for in the playoffs and his primetime record and ratings are abysmal. When the pressure is the least he can be great, but when the going gets tough he wears it on his face and you can physically see it.

IMO Marvin’s coaching and game philosophy are flawed, so I would be curious as to how Andy could perform under a different staff, but from what he has shown at this point of his career he cannot take a team to the promised land of competing for championships. As a Bengal fan I cannot fathom what else matters than getting that elusive playoff win and making a run! IMO Andy is not the guy that will make that happen.

I hope they rid Marvin, his staff, and let the new people pick their guy at QB.

Well we all know Andy has been bad in the playoffs. That and the prime-time stuff has been going on as long as Marv has been coaching the Bengals. 

Palmer had a 75 rating in prime-time and a 58.3 in the playoffs vs the Jets. He's been better since he left. Dalton has improved in PT with an 88.2 rating in his last 10 PT starts, but the team is only 3-6-1 in those games. It's just more evidence that it's a team-wide problem, not just an Andy thing.

I'd be fine with the new coach picking his QB, but I selfishly want to see what Andy could do with a good offensive HC.

[ShowMeUrTDs]

(10-04-2017, 11:21 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Well we all know Andy has been bad in the playoffs. That and the prime-time stuff has been going on as long as Marv has been coaching the Bengals. 

Palmer had a 75 rating in prime-time and a 58.3 in the playoffs vs the Jets. He's been better since he left. Dalton has improved in PT with an 88.2 rating in his last 10 PT starts, but the team is only 3-6-1 in those games. It's just more evidence that it's a team-wide problem, not just an Andy thing.

Yeah, I believe it is coaching, philosophy, and improper preparation for big time games. That’s why I said i would be curious to see what he could do under a different staff and if the new staff wanted him to be their guy I’d be okay with it just to see.

The thing that worries me is the look on his face (the “lost” or “deer in the headlights” look ppl refer to) when things are horribly bad, like that Cleveland Thursday night game and the first game this season. I’m worried that is just something that is in him, and cant be coached out.

[Shake n Blake]

(10-04-2017, 11:27 PM)ShowMeUrTDs Wrote: Yeah, I believe it is coaching, philosophy, and improper preparation for big time games. That’s why I said i would be curious to see what he could do under a different staff and if the new staff wanted him to be their guy I’d be okay with it just to see.

The thing that worries me is the look on his face (the “lost” or “deer in the headlights” look ppl refer to) when things are horribly bad, like that Cleveland Thursday night game and the first game this season. I’m worried that is just something that is in him, and cant be coached out.

It's weird how 2 people can watch the same thing and see things so differently. Dalton never looks lost or scared to me. I see his face get red sometimes, which might be frustration. The Browns game (3 years and 11 prime-time games ago) and the Ravens games this year are by far Dalton's 2 worst games of his career. I'm not sure why our fanbase gets so stuck on those. 

IMO, when things go that awry, something is terribly wrong. In both those games, our receivers were getting zero separation, which puts Dalton in a tough spot. Force it and risk throwing multiple picks, or throw away from the receiver and hope he can adjust...if not, the throw looks like it was way off target. When our receivers are so well covered (which has been pointed out in several games over the last few years), it makes me wonder if we're too predictable or are not making enough adjustments.

Of course, looking at how other QB's are just as prone to having bad games, maybe that's just a league wide struggle.

Either way, I've never looked at Dalton as a soft guy or a choker. He was the Rose Bowl MVP for pete's sake. Playing a favored Wisconsin team that had far more fans at the stadium, in front of the biggest crowd of his life, on national TV. He rose to the occasion there, but chokes as a Bengal. Go figure. Join the list.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

Again, I NEVER see Andy lost or anything: I see him focused, happy or pissed. Nothing else.

Showme is being a (respectful) hater.

[Nicomo Cosca]

Marvin is the one that constantly looks lost. Very reassuring for the rest of the team I'm sure.

[Joelist]

It's pretty telling when the only receiver on the team who gets separation with any consistency is AJ Green. Meanwhile Sanu bolts to Atlanta and looks like a different receiver there. He actually gets separation and comes back to the ball properly. Seeing as we've had multiple WR coaches the difference again has to be Marvin. I think it is his marked tendency to shut the offense down when he has a decent lead - it causes the players to lose focus. Also the excessive rotation of players in and out - robs the offense of rhythm (which the going conservative with a lead also does).

[THE PISTONS]

(10-04-2017, 11:21 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Well we all know Andy has been bad in the playoffs. That and the prime-time stuff has been going on as long as Marv has been coaching the Bengals. 

Palmer had a 75 rating in prime-time and a 58.3 in the playoffs vs the Jets. He's been better since he left. Dalton has improved in PT with an 88.2 rating in his last 10 PT starts, but the team is only 3-6-1 in those games. It's just more evidence that it's a team-wide problem, not just an Andy thing.

I'd be fine with the new coach picking his QB, but I selfishly want to see what Andy could do with a good offensive HC.

This organization is tough to overcome.

IF Tom Brady or Rodgers were here...they'd probably have never won a playoff game and be blamed.

In some sense, I think Marvin is the Andy Dalton of coaches. We had how many coaches before him that failed. He came in and had marginal success. It's tough to win with an organization that doesn't believe in using free agency heavily and allows players to leave so they can get Comp Picks. It's like running in quicksand. You can't replace players fast enough to replace the losses.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

(10-05-2017, 12:22 AM)Joelist Wrote: It's pretty telling when the only receiver on the team who gets separation with any consistency is AJ Green. Meanwhile Sanu bolts to Atlanta and looks like a different receiver there. He actually gets separation and comes back to the ball properly. Seeing as we've had multiple WR coaches the difference again has to be Marvin. I think it is his marked tendency to shut the offense down when he has a decent lead - it causes the players to lose focus. Also the excessive rotation of players in and out - robs the offense of rhythm (which the going conservative with a lead also does).

Sanu has been wrose in ATL than he had been here.

Clearly worse. YPC is down, not being utilised as well as he was here, etc.

He always came back to balls and showed his competency, when he was here.

[hollodero]

(10-04-2017, 10:39 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: 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. 

I seriously doubt that this passer rating number is the one and only tool to determine a QB's play. It's an indication, I give you statistic happy guys that. But not every interception is the same, not every recieving corps is the same (as example, when Kelvin Benjamin was injured, Cam had basically one good TE and a bunch of subpar recievers to throw the ball to), rushing or getting sacked or pointless scrambling to the sidelines for no gain, as far as I know, isn't a part of these numbers. These are all important things as well. But first and foremost, it doesn't take game situations into any account. It also doesn't take into account reading the defense correctly and changing the play. The QB rating is too flawed to determine a certain impression is a "myth". Say I.

Despite your QB rating numbers, I stand by my personal evaluation that Andy has good and bad games, even when some numbers don't really show it.

[THE PISTONS]

(10-05-2017, 10:23 AM)hollodero Wrote: I seriously doubt that this passer rating number is the one and only tool to determine a QB's play. It's an indication, I give you statistic happy guys that. But not every interception is the same, not every recieving corps is the same (as example, when Kelvin Benjamin was injured, Cam had basically one good TE and a bunch of subpar recievers to throw the ball to), rushing or getting sacked or pointless scrambling to the sidelines for no gain, as far as I know, isn't a part of these numbers. These are all important things as well. But first and foremost, it doesn't take game situations into any account. It also doesn't take into account reading the defense correctly and changing the play. The QB rating is too flawed to determine a certain impression is a "myth". Say I.

Despite your QB rating numbers, I stand by my personal evaluation that Andy has good and bad games, even when some numbers don't really show it.

Well his numbers show that he has been subpar or worse in 37% of his games. That's nearly 2 out of 5 games.

Cam Newton had 1 really great year when they went 15-1...then has been pretty bad since.

Andrew Luck has always been extremely overrated. I'd say in his prime, Carson Palmer is better than Luck.

But yeah...a garbage TD late in the game can skew passer rating. And sometimes a QB leads an epic drive only to have a RB score from the 1 thus the passer rating doesn't get the TD boost. But all things considered, this is a decent method to use to compare.

[hollodero]

(10-05-2017, 10:29 AM)THE PISTONS Wrote: But all things considered, this is a decent method to use to compare.

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.

[*Synric*]

(10-05-2017, 10:29 AM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Well his numbers show that he has been subpar or worse in 37% of his games. That's nearly 2 out of 5 games.

Cam Newton had 1 really great year when they went 15-1...then has been pretty bad since.

Andrew Luck has always been extremely overrated. I'd say in his prime, Carson Palmer is better than Luck.

But yeah...a garbage TD late in the game can skew passer rating. And sometimes a QB leads an epic drive only to have a RB score from the 1 thus the passer rating doesn't get the TD boost. But all things considered, this is a decent method to use to compare.

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.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(10-05-2017, 10:23 AM)hollodero Wrote: I seriously doubt that this passer rating number is the one and only tool to determine a QB's play. It's an indication, I give you statistic happy guys that. But not every interception is the same, not every recieving corps is the same (as example, when Kelvin Benjamin was injured, Cam had basically one good TE and a bunch of subpar recievers to throw the ball to), rushing or getting sacked or pointless scrambling to the sidelines for no gain, as far as I know, isn't a part of these numbers. These are all important things as well. But first and foremost, it doesn't take game situations into any account. It also doesn't take into account reading the defense correctly and changing the play. The QB rating is too flawed to determine a certain impression is a "myth". Say I.

Despite your QB rating numbers, I stand by my personal evaluation that Andy has good and bad games, even when some numbers don't really show it.

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.

[THE PISTONS]

(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.

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.