The Dalton Dilemma

[*bengalfan74*]

(04-23-2019, 04:13 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: The only Dalton Dilemma this year is navigating through all of the threads started by people looking for ways to talk others into giving up on Dalton.

Every snap that Andy Dalton has had as a QB was under the "leadership" of Marvin Lewis. This handicap alone buys him another year.

For sure ! Not to mention he's had over the past couple seasons a pure awful OC (Zampese) and another (Lazor) that IMHO was very average as an OC at best.

I'm anxious to see what Dalton can do without the Marvin handicap.

[Catmandude123]

(04-23-2019, 02:40 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Roethlisberger was also the third QB taken behind Rivers and Eli. He also played in the MAC, not a Power 5 conference.
Roethlisberger had 3 years of college experience too, not just one like Haskins.

Roethlisberger dropping to 11 wouldn't be the same reasons that Haskins would.

Haskins threw fifty TDs in the Big Ten , Andy threw 27 his senior year in the Mountain west conference but Haskins is a sure fire bust while Andy is a god to some fans.  I just can't figure some thinking that goes on here. 

[XenoMorph]

(04-23-2019, 06:10 PM)Catmandude123 Wrote: Haskins threw fifty TDs in the Big Ten , Andy threw 27 his senior year in the Mountain west conference but Haskins is a sure fire bust while Andy is a god to some fans.  I just can't figure some thinking that goes on here. 

I don't think anyone has called haskins a bust...

but he was a 1 year starter...  Which will worry teams.  as experience goes a long way and a big knock on haskins as well.

Dalton was a 4 year starter in college I believe and was coin most field ready QB in the draft. 


If you look at haskins numbers and maholmes  Haskins looks like he could be the next big thing..   



I think the point your missing is we aren't saying we don't want a QB like haskins...  We are saying we have bigger needs to fix before a rookie QB can step in a help the team. or hell even survive the team

[XenoMorph]

(04-23-2019, 02:29 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: It depends what the Bengals trying to do. Are we trying to compete this year or are we building for the future? If its for the future then the other parts of the team don't matter much (and you would almost think the Bengals agree with their pathetic attempts to upgrade any part of the team in FA).

The Bengals are in a weird spot. They could completely blow it up and stock pile picks with trades and draft a QB of the future this year or they could try and compete with what they have (we have seen this movie before). 

I mean if that was the goal we should have just hired hue Jackson...    We already saw what he could do in Cleveland..

since we didn't I have to think we are in it to compete.   or we would have possibly droped/traded some of or more tenured vets.

[XsandOs]

Dalton gives this Team the best chance to win now.

To me, that is the most important factor.

To win now, we need to upgrade via draft, certain positions. Not QB.

We need players at position that can contribute immediately.

LBs, WRs, DBs, RBs and certain DEs, generally contribute immediately, as they don't have to physically build to the level of an NFL player. Speed and agility are the main tools.

Line players generally take time, unless they are top shelf. QBs take time, unless top shelf.

I agree that drafting a QB and grooming him for a couple of years behind Dalton, is a great idea.

But spending any of the first two picks on a QB is contrary to a win-now approach.

Again, I want to win now. So an OT, LB or DE in the first two rounds align with that mentality.

[*jason*]

(04-23-2019, 06:18 PM)XsandOs Wrote: Dalton gives this Team the best chance to win now.

To me, that is the most important factor.

To win now, we need to upgrade via draft, certain positions. Not QB.

We need players at position that can contribute immediately.

LBs, WRs, DBs, RBs and certain DEs, generally contribute immediately, as they don't have to physically build to the level of an NFL player. Speed and agility are the main tools.

Line players generally take time, unless they are top shelf. QBs take time, unless top shelf.

I agree that drafting a QB and grooming him for a couple of years behind Dalton, is a great idea.

But spending any of the first two picks on a QB is contrary to a win-now approach.

Again, I want to win now. So an OT, LB or DE in the first two rounds align with that mentality.

This... There aren't words for how pissed I'll be a QB's name is called at 11.

[Catmandude123]

(04-23-2019, 06:13 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: Dalton was a 4 year starter in college I believe and was coin most field ready QB in the draft. 

 

If Dalton Played at Ohio state he may have only started one season also. If Haskins (who would be a junior this year if he would have stayed at osu) played two more years he could have set multiple Big Ten records.

[t3r3e3]

(04-23-2019, 10:40 AM)Socal Bengals fan Wrote: Quarterback is the most important position in all of sports.   We need a change at the position.

Would you rather improve the line and defense for the next QB, or put a rookie QB behind a terrible line  with a modestly improved defense?  As much as I'm not a Dalton fan, he's not the biggest problem on this team.  Let him play this year, start QB hunting next Draft.

[*ochocincos*]

(04-23-2019, 06:10 PM)Catmandude123 Wrote: Haskins threw fifty TDs in the Big Ten , Andy threw 27 his senior year in the Mountain west conference but Haskins is a sure fire bust while Andy is a god to some fans.  I just can't figure some thinking that goes on here. 

I have not said Haskins is a "sure fire bust." Point to one of my statements where I said that.
Not once have I either said Haskins can't be as good as Andy Dalton. I think Haskins, along with others, can be better than Dalton.
If I'm taking a QB in the 1st round, they better be markedly better than Dalton. The definition of markedly is "to an extent which is clearly noticeable; significantly." 


To me, markedly would be a consistently Top 10 QB in the NFL. If I'm not 95% confident a QB can be a Top 10 QB in the NFL within a few years, I'm not taking him in the top half of the first round. While Haskins is accurate on his short to intermediate throws and plays well when he has a clean pocket, he struggles with pressure, isn't very mobile, and isn't very accurate with the deep ball. Is there a chance that can all be worked out? Sure. However, only having 1 year of starting experience doesn't really show you what a guy truly is. Dalton had 4 years of starting experience. We had much more confidence in what we were going to get. Do you really want to gamble on the 11th pick in the draft? I want someone who is proven elite for multiple seasons with the 11th pick. Save the gambles for Day 3.

[*jason*]

(04-23-2019, 07:35 PM)Catmandude123 Wrote: If Dalton Played at Ohio state he may have only started one season also. If Haskins (who would be a junior this year if he would have stayed at osu) played two more years he could have set multiple Big Ten records.

Real quick... Name one of Andy Dalton's college teammates.

[Catmandude123]

(04-23-2019, 08:08 PM)jason Wrote: Real quick... Name one of Andy Dalton's college teammates.

Really quick name a top defensive player or team from the Mountain west conference, this year or any year.

[Catmandude123]

(04-23-2019, 06:18 PM)XsandOs Wrote: Dalton gives this Team the best chance to win now.

To me, that is the most important factor.

To win now, we need to upgrade via draft, certain positions. Not QB.

We need players at position that can contribute immediately.

LBs, WRs, DBs, RBs and certain DEs, generally contribute immediately, as they don't have to physically build to the level of an NFL player. Speed and agility are the main tools.

Line players generally take time, unless they are top shelf. QBs take time, unless top shelf.

I agree that drafting a QB and grooming him for a couple of years behind Dalton, is a great idea.

But spending any of the first two picks on a QB is contrary to a win-now approach.

Again, I want to win now. So an OT, LB or DE in the first two rounds align with that mentality.

The way free agency went we have as much chance as a snow ball in hell to win a super bowl or even win  playoff game. Drafting a QB now and also adding other pieces later in this draft and filling other needs next year is not going to make a difference one way or another. The fact is the team needs a complete rebuild. Marvin and his group have had the better part of a decade to succeed and they have failed. Give the reins to Zac and let him decide what needs to be done.

[*jason*]

(04-23-2019, 08:49 PM)Catmandude123 Wrote: Really quick name a top defensive player or team from the Mountain west conference, this year or any year.

I dunno.... You like Bobby Waggner?

Remember George Iloka?

[Catmandude123]

(04-23-2019, 09:06 PM)jason Wrote: I dunno.... You like Bobby Waggner?

Remember George Iloka?

Dalton threw for 2800 yds his senior seasons against those kind of defenses. Haskins threw for 5000 against top defenses and beat Michigan twice.

[*jason*]

(04-23-2019, 09:36 PM)Catmandude123 Wrote: Dalton threw for 2800 yds his senior seasons against those kind of defenses. Haskins threw for 5000 against top defenses and beat Michigan twice.

Big difference in the talent level of their teammates. Not to mention one was coached by Urban Meyer. Haskins averaged way more attempts per game than Dalton. An argument can be made that TCU is no longer in the MWC because of Andy Dalton. Not to mention Dalton beat a Big 10 team in the Rose Bowl. A team that had JJ Watt on it. You know him right?

I went to school at OSU. I'm as big a homer as there is. I don't want Haskins at 11... Period. Put him behind this shit line, and watch out... Oh yeah. Andy's more athletic, and a better rusher.

[Ravage]

(04-23-2019, 11:18 AM)PV Bengal Wrote: We will never know if Klingler or A. Smith would have been decent QBs (long term) because they played behind some horrible OLs and those teams had some pretty horrible defenses to boot. Hell, Tom Brady would look like an average QB playing behind the Bengals OL.

Akili's lone year as a starter (2000) he had Willie Anderson, Mike Goff, Matt O'Dwyer, Rich Braham, and Rod Jones as an O-Line. The same O-Line that blocked Corey to 1400+ yds and an at the time single game NFL rushing record against the Broncos (who I believe had the NFL's 2nd best run D going into that game). While O'Dwyer and Jones weren't much to write home about, Willie, Goff, and Braham were all good to great O-Linemen. Akili's sack percentage that year was 11.9% whereas Scott Mitchell (of all people) had a sack percentage of 7.9% behind the same exact O-Line and Mitchell wasn't remotely mobile. Akili got himself sacked significantly more often by holding on to the ball too long and generally looking like a deer in headlights all the time.

The D was 21st in points allowed and 22nd in yards allowed, not good, but not bottom of the barrel either. 

Akili can blame many things on his lack of developing into a good NFL QB, but his O-Line and D aren't among them. 

As far as Kiingler's concerned, yes, his O-Line was mostly forgettable. But again, the D in his one year as a full-time starter wasn't nearly as bad as you seem to think it was. The 1993 Bengals D was 20th in points, and 16th in yards, not good at all, but not horrible. The offense meanwhile? 28th in points (dead last), and 27th in yards. The year previous, with Boomer at QB for most of the year? Offensively they were 18th in points, and a still bad 26th in yards, but the D was worse than in 1993 (24th in points, 26th in yards). 

1994, when Klingler started 7 games (0-7) and Blake started 9 (3-6):
Klingler had 1327 yds, 6 TD's, 9 INT's. 
Blake on the other hand, with the same exact team had 2154 yds, 13 TD's, and 9 INT's. 
Blake was an off-the-street 3rd string QB who was picked in the 6th round of the same draft that Klingler was the 6th overall pick, was on his second team, and he did nearly twice as much with the same team as Klingler did. Klingler just was not any good. 

The 1994 D was bad at giving up points (26th) but surprisingly middle of the pack in giving up yards (15th), so again, while not a good D, not outright atrocious like say...the 2003 D (Marvin's first year) was 28th in both points and yards, or last year's D (30th in points, 32nd (dead last) in yards.

[Shake n Blake]

(04-23-2019, 05:24 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: Yep. Also add in that he was 5-6 with what was at the time a historically bad defense. 

I remember when people said the defense carried Andy. It certainly looked like the other way around early last year.

(04-23-2019, 08:49 PM)Catmandude123 Wrote: Really quick name a top defensive player or team from the Mountain west conference, this year or any year.

Talent level of his conference was kinda irrelevant when he was the Rose Bowl MVP. 

He proved himself against top competition. Multiple times.

[KillerGoose]

(04-23-2019, 09:36 PM)Catmandude123 Wrote: Dalton threw for 2800 yds his senior seasons against those kind of defenses. Haskins threw for 5000 against top defenses and beat Michigan twice.

Overall production of a QB is irrelevant. Plenty of QBs with gaudy stats have flopped. Ohio State ran an offense that generated plenty of easy throws, which is great but doesn’t show off what Haskins can do as an NFL passer as much. He struggles with the deep ball, collapses under pressure and isn’t mobile enough to make plays with his feet.

Haskins is a fine prospect, but I’ve seen many Cincinnati fans clamoring over him as if he is some sure fire prospect when that isn’t the case. He has plenty of questions.

[Gamma Ray Tan]

(04-23-2019, 08:49 PM)Catmandude123 Wrote: Really quick name a top defensive player or team from the Mountain west conference, this year or any year.

Brian Urlacher.

[Essex Johnson]

(04-23-2019, 05:54 PM)Catmandude123 Wrote: I would argue that Rodgers, Brady, Breeze , Ben are good and thus Dalton is just decent.

So please define a HOF then.. you just named 4 future ones as good players..