End of the "Dalton Scale"?

[fredtoast]

(05-27-2015, 10:21 AM)djs7685 Wrote: Where did I claim that it was impossible for a QB to get better after his fourth season?

When you use the term "magically" to describe the chances of something happening I assume you mean it is not very possible.

[djs7685]

(05-27-2015, 10:24 AM)fredtoast Wrote: When they stop keeping score and decide who wins football games based on "style points" then you might have an argument.

But even then you don't really have the qualifications to judge a QB.  In 2013 Dalton forced the ball down the filed much better than he did in 2012.  Yet you claim he didn't look any different at all.  In 2012 Dalton was only 12-54 for 450 yards with 3 tds and 4 interception when throwing the ball over 20 yards downfield.  In 2013 he was 18-67 for 729 yards with 8 tds and 3 ints.  He almost DOUBLED his passer rating from 49.5 to 93.3.

If your expert eyeball test didn't pick that up maybe you should get some glasses.

Where did I say that he "didn't look any different at all"??

Is that what you got out of me saying that he didn't look like an extremely different QB than the previous year?

You honestly need to stop blatantly making shit up or else there's no point to even talk to you. You're better than this.

[djs7685]

(05-27-2015, 10:28 AM)fredtoast Wrote: When you use the term "magically" to describe the chances of something happening I assume you mean it is not very possible.

Yes, it is not very likely that every QB in the league is going to have statistical improvements in every single year of their respective careers. That would be quite "magical", no?

I don't recall ever saying "it's impossible for a QB to improve after their 4th year".

I find it amusing how you claim he improved statistically, but only in the categories that you wish to bring up. Completely ignore that his INT% has gone up every single year as a pro. That's probably nothing to be worried about.

[fredtoast]

First you say this

(05-27-2015, 08:23 AM)djs7685 Wrote: Did you really see an extremely different QB on the field from 2012 to 2013?

Was that guy so much different as you claim?

Then you say this

(05-27-2015, 10:29 AM)djs7685 Wrote: Where did I say that he "didn't look any different at all"??

Is that what you got out of me saying that he didn't look like an extremely different QB than the previous year?

You honestly need to stop blatantly making shit up or else there's no point to even talk to you. You're better than this.

So which is it? Did he improve from 2012 to 2013 or not?

Which is it? first you claim he has not really improved. Then you seem to acknowledge that he has improved. It is getting hard for me to keep track of which side of your mouth you are talking from.

[fredtoast]

(05-27-2015, 10:32 AM)djs7685 Wrote: I find it amusing how you claim he improved statistically, but only in the categories that you wish to bring up. Completely ignore that his INT% has gone up every single year as a pro. That's probably nothing to be worried about.

Passer rating takes ints into consideration.

You are the one cherry picking stats to make your point, not me.

[djs7685]

(05-27-2015, 10:37 AM)fredtoast Wrote: So which is it?  Did he improve from 2012 to 2013 or not?

Which is it?  first you claim he has not really improved.  Then you seem to acknowledge that he has improved.  It is getting hard for me to keep track of which side of your mouth you are talking from.

Huh? I'm talking out of the side that's explaining that I never said "he didn't improve at all", but I did say something along the lines of "he didn't improve as much as you're implying". Fred, if you're having trouble reading, I can only help so much. I can't force you to be able to read properly 100% of the time. Seriously, you need to stop putting words in my mouth to try and be right. I didn't contradict myself at all no matter how many times you try and lie about it. You even quoted my posts that show 0 contradiction, I don't know why you're trying to force something that's not there. Are you hoping people will see you claiming this and just believe you without reading my posts? I don't know why else you'd be doing this unless you just honestly can't read very well.

(05-27-2015, 10:38 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Passer rating takes ints into consideration.

You are the one cherry picking stats to make your point, not me.

No, if you actually used INTs, completion percentage, or QBR then your "he has improved every year" propaganda would be proven to be incorrect. By only showing the stats that make statement true, you'd be the one cherry picking. Do you follow along or do I need to explain it in more detail? How would I be "cherry picking" when I'm not the one making the claim? I'm merely debunking your "he's improved statistically" claim by showing that there are, in fact, statistics that weren't improved every year. His INT% has gotten worse each year, his completion% dropped almost a half of a percentage between 2 of the years, and his QBR dropped a point or two as well (if you're into that sort of thing).

I don't think you know what cherry picking means if you think that's what I'm doing here.

For the record, I'm fine by using passer rating as the standard for QB statistics, I usually find it to be the most telling stat, though it doesn't hurt to look in depth as well. I also do believe Andy has improved in some ways throughout the years, but it's hardly the transformation that you always imply by using 100% statistics. You're never willing to just talk about him as a QB outside of stats, and that's because either 1. You don't know much about QB play, or 2. You're afraid it may hurt your arguments if you tell the truth about what you see.

[fredtoast]

(05-27-2015, 10:46 AM)djs7685 Wrote: Huh? I'm talking out of the side that's explaining that I never said "he didn't improve at all", but I did say something along the lines of "he didn't improve as much as you're implying". Fred, if you're having trouble reading, I can only help so much. I can't force you to be able to read properly 100% of the time. Seriously, you need to stop putting words in my mouth to try and be right

Okay Mr. Reading Expert. Please show me exactly how much I "implied" he improved. Feel free to use the quote button instead of just making stuff up.

[fredtoast]

(05-27-2015, 10:46 AM)djs7685 Wrote: You're never willing to just talk about him as a QB outside of stats, and that's because either 1. You don't know much about QB play, or 2. You're afraid it may hurt your arguments if you tell the truth about what you see.

No. It is because anyone can say anything when all we talk about is opinion. People like you claim he is not improving. Some people are even worse than you and claim he is absolutely terrible. So i don't waste my time arguing opinions when no one has anything to back up his opinion.

[Wes Mantooth]

(05-20-2015, 06:04 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: weird then why did the less successful tannenhill just get a decent contract?

Curious, have you watched him play? (Please answer)

The kid had a really nice year. Over 4,000 yards, over 90 QB rating. I'm not sure if you wanted a sincere answer to your question, but I'll attempt to answer it.

You asked why a "less successful" Tannenhill signed a decent contract. I guess first we would have to determine how you define "success" in relation to the QB position. Is it stats, is it team record, is it a combination, is it sitting down an evaluating each and every play, each and every player, and then trying to gauge it?

Fwiw, I'm not sure "success" in and of itself is the primary factor in determining a player's worth. While very important, I think we can label it something else, of find a better choice of words. If player's were signed solely based on success then it would change the market entirely. I think players are signed more based on potential and projected value moving forward. Their previous success helps gauge this, no doubt. But there is more to determining a player's worth moving forward.

Long story short, you pay a player an amount based more so on his current worth, right now, and projected worth in the future than you do on his worth in the past. Tannenhill's contract reflects his current and projected worth more than his worth two years ago. Pretty simple stuff.

Lastly, I'm always amazed people overlook this:

Tannenhill was a project QB coming out of college. He was a converted wide receiver with one year QB experience. His draft position was based way more on potential than results. He was a risk with the physical tools to be a big reward.

Dalton was an extremely experienced QB, who was more "NFL ready" than some of his peers in his draft class. I can even remember someone on out staff mentioning this is as plus, being that we needed someone who was ready to go.

Now I don't want to debate the strategy or merits of either. I only wanted to mention this because of your reply to Bfine. Saying Dalton did better than Tannenhill in years 1-3 is really irrelevant in projecting the value of their respective deals.

I would argue that the fact Tannenhill, a project QB, has posted an 84 rating to start his career, as opposed to Dalton, a NFL ready QB, has posted a 85.2., shows all the more how well Tannenhill has done with limited experience at the position.

Not to mention, since we're looking at W's and L's, we haven't even looked at talent surrounding each player. But that's a whole other story.

Too long didn't read: Tannenhill had a really nice year. Butthurt Dalton fan's attempt tear down other QB's to elevate Andy is rationally debated.

PS You know if Andy were actually good many of you wouldn't have to work so hard at diminishing the accomplishments of some of his peers. His play would speak for itself. But since it's average at best we have to spend ridiculous amount of time debating the likes of Tannenhill, Newton, Alex Smith, Jay Cutler, and every other middling QB, just so a few people can feel better about our middling QB.

[*rfaulk34*]

(05-27-2015, 09:57 AM)fredtoast Wrote: In Troy Aikman's first 3 seaons the Cowboys did not score a single td in a playoff game and Aikman's postseason numbers were 114 passing yards per game with a 63.0 passer rating.

Drew Bledsoe went to a Super Bowl in his fourth season, but his postseason stats through those first four seasons were 51.6 completion %, 207.5 yards per games, 4 tds, 10 ints, and a 49.1 passer rating

Kerry Collins was a Super Bowl QB, but his postseason numbers over his first four years were 157.5 yards per game and a 63.9 passer rating.

Randall Cunningham made the playoffs 8 times and won 5 postseason games, but over his first four seasons his playoff passer rating was 52.0

Jake Delhomme started 2 conference Championship Games and 1 Super Bowl, but he did not even make the playoffs his first 4 seasons.

Trent Dilfer won playoff games with two different teams (Tampa Bay, Baltimore) and took one to the Super Bowl. His postseason stats over his first four years were 38.7 completion percentage, 190.5 yards per game, and a 45.2 passer rating. In the 4 postseason games of his Super Bowl year (his 7th season) he compiled a respectable 83.7 passer rating.

In Troy Aikman's 2nd, 3rd and 4th playoff games, he had a QB rating over 110 in each.

I'll come back later to check the other names as i'm disappointed you were so disingenuous with your first example and i don't want to waste the rest of my lunch checking.

[J24]

(05-26-2015, 09:03 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Completely ignore that wins and losses are team statistics.

Seriously though, let's talk about those TD passes. How do you feel about Aaron Brooks? What about Jon Kitna?

I just want to clarify and make sure that this doesn't get taken the wrong way. I'm not saying that Andy is a bad QB because he's not. I'm just trying to say that while I believe that throwing a lot of TDs is impressive, it's not quite the amazing statistic some make it seem especially when a guy only does it once.

1.) I am not going to take out the win loss record.
2.)I think those guys were good but not great Qbs for there era. If Kitna started for today's team we would be in a very similar situation.
3.) I am not saying its an unbelievable stats but it does show he is doing something right.

[djs7685]

(05-27-2015, 11:57 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Okay Mr. Reading Expert.  Please show me exactly how much I "implied" he improved.  Feel free to use the quote button instead of just making stuff up.

I just said that it felt implied that you were saying that he improved a lot more than I feel that he did. At least I'm not sitting here blatantly lying and putting words into your mouth. I merely mentioned what I felt was implied. Nothing more, nothing less. If I was wrong, then that's great and just means that we're closer on our opinions than I originally thought.

(05-27-2015, 11:59 AM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  It is because anyone can say anything when all we talk about is opinion.  People like you claim he is not improving.  Some people are even worse than you and claim he is absolutely terrible.  So i don't waste my time arguing opinions when no one has anything to back up his opinion.

Sure, anyone can say anything, but why not be willing to have the conversation? Stats don't tell the whole story and they never have. Stats can also be manipulated in many ways. I can show you things that strengthen my argument while you do the same. Why not be able to throw our own opinion of what we actually saw on the field in the mix as well? It's obnoxious that people like you just go on about how I'm not a talent evaluator (none of us are paid to do so) and all you care about are the stats that fall in line with your opinions. I don't see what's wrong with having a discussion about which parts of Andy's game haven't really looked much improved compared to the ones that have been better over the years. Just because a guy throws a few more yards and TDs one year than the last doesn't mean that player has technically "improved" at his position. There's a lot more to it than that, and I'm sure that you understand but for some reason you don't want to have those talks about QB mechanics and whatnot.

Honestly, I think it's very interesting that the same people that are willing to throw out excuse after excuse for Andy's drop in statistics from 2013 to 2014 are the same people that completely ignore what Andy gained between 2012 to 2013. Everyone will bring up the injuries to excuse him last year but they don't bat an eye at the gain in talent around him from his first 2 years into his 3rd. It's quite interesting to say the least.

I think I'm mostly baffled at how we still all give even the smallest amount of care to what one another thinks about Andy Dalton. After all of these years of arguing, we're still having the same (yet slightly altered) conversations. The craziest part about it is that most of us that argue the most all hold the same belief that Andy is an average QB, the arguments are usually based on future predictions or nitpicking the past. I guess you can say that no matter which side of the fence you're on, at least we've all proven to be quite passionate about this team.

[djs7685]

(05-27-2015, 02:41 PM)J24 Wrote: 1.) I am not going to take out the win loss record.
2.)I think those guys were good but not great Qbs for there era. If Kitna started for today's team we would be in a very similar situation.
3.) I am not saying its an unbelievable stats but it does show he is doing something right.

I know you're not going to take out win/loss record, at least not until there comes a time in the future where it fits into your agenda to do so.

It honestly amazes me that the media has gotten the casual fan to believe that W/L record is an individual statistic in what is probably the biggest TEAM game in the history of organized sports.

[Wes Mantooth]

(05-27-2015, 02:49 PM)djs7685 Wrote: It honestly amazes me that the media has gotten the casual fan to believe that W/L record is an individual statistic in what is probably the biggest TEAM game in the history of organized sports.

Only in the regular season. Andy wins in the regular season. Andy went 10-6, Andy went 11-5. Andy won 40 games in 4 years, Andy made into the playoffs 4 years in a row, etc. But the same people who say these things are the first to point out the team lost the playoff games, the team played bad, Andy didn't lose it on is own the team did.

When the team wins it becomes an individual stat. When they lose everyone is reminded it's a team game. Funny how that works.

I don't know, I see a number of people (and it's dwindling each and every year) going out of their way to convince themselves that this guy is better than he really is. I see many of the same people pick and choose certain criteria only when it fits their agenda. I see these same people go out of their way to diminish accomplishment of others.

Why? Anyone who knows anything about the game knows this kid is average at best. Take all the stats, and throw them out the windows. His INT's, TD's, good stats, bad stats, throw them aside. Just watch the guy play, he's just not that good. Yes, Trent Dilfer won a ring (15 years ago). But unless we build a time machine and field a historically great defense, AND Andy has a great playoff run it's going to be harder to win with him. Can it be done, sure. Does that mean the QB position isn't a concern? Certainly not. I mean, the Bulls won a bunch of rings with an old Bill Cartwright at center, that doesn't mean the current Milwaukee Bucks shouldn't be concerned with their post play. It's two decades later and they don't have Michael Jordan.

Andy Dalton needs to play much better for us to compete for a ring. Period. End of story. Him and all his regular season wins means dick when trying to validate that statement.

[J24]

(05-27-2015, 02:49 PM)djs7685 Wrote: I know you're not going to take out win/loss record, at least not until there comes a time in the future where it fits into your agenda to do so.

It honestly amazes me that the media has gotten the casual fan to believe that W/L record is an individual statistic in what is probably the biggest TEAM game in the history of organized sports.

Qbs have more impact on the game then any other position in the NFL if you don't understand that then I don't know what to tell you. Should a pitcher in baseball not get credit for a win or a goalie in hockey not get credit for a win? Is it everything know but it does count for something.

[J24]

(05-27-2015, 03:16 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Only in the regular season.  Andy wins in the regular season.  Andy went 10-6, Andy went 11-5.  Andy won 40 games in 4 years, Andy made into the playoffs 4 years in a row, etc.  But the same people who say these things are the first to point out the team lost the playoff games, the team played bad, Andy didn't lose it on is own the team did.

When the team wins it becomes an individual stat.  When they lose everyone is reminded it's a team game.  Funny how that works.

I don't know, I see a number of people (and it's dwindling each and every year) going out of their way to convince themselves that this guy is better than he really is.  I see many of the same people pick and choose certain criteria only when it fits their agenda.  I see these same people go out of their way to diminish accomplishment of others.

Why?  Anyone who knows anything about the game knows this kid is average at best.  Take all the stats, and throw them out the windows.  His INT's, TD's, good stats, bad stats, throw them aside.  Just watch the guy play, he's just not that good.  Yes, Trent Dilfer won a ring (15 years ago).  But unless we build a time machine and field a historically great defense, AND Andy has a great playoff run it's going to be harder to win with him.   Can it be done, sure.  Does that mean the QB position isn't a concern?  Certainly not.  I mean, the Bulls won a bunch of rings with an old Bill Cartwright at center, that doesn't mean the current Milwaukee Bucks shouldn't be concerned with their post play.  It's two decades later and they don't have Michael Jordan.

Andy Dalton needs to play much better for us to compete for a ring.  Period.  End of story.  Him and all his regular season wins means dick when trying to validate that statement.

Mark Snachez has gone to two AFC championships, Eli Manning has won two Championships, Joe Flaco has won a championship, Colin Kaepernick has started a Superbowl, Big Ben has won two championships and went to another Superbowl while being mediocre QB with a great defense, and Russell Wilson has a championship and went to another. None of those Guys are astronomicaly better than Dalton and all have had success in the post season. Does Andy need to player better in the postseason yes but its been proven that Guys with similar abilities to him have been successfull in the playoffs.

[fredtoast]

(05-27-2015, 02:20 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: In Troy Aikman's 2nd, 3rd and 4th playoff games, he had a QB rating over 110 in each.

And those games came later in his career.

Basically you are penalizing Dalton for making the playoffs earlier in his career than Aikman.

[fredtoast]

(05-27-2015, 02:45 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Everyone will bring up the injuries to excuse him last year but they don't bat an eye at the gain in talent around him from his first 2 years into his 3rd. It's quite interesting to say the least.

In his third season Dalton had a t6errible run game behind him (18th in yards and 28th in yards per carry), and he had a VERY inexperienced receiving corps. Four of his top six receivers (Sanu, Jones, Bernard, Eifert) came into that season with a COMBINED 2 years of NFL experience and 34 receptions among them.

[Whatever]

(05-27-2015, 03:16 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Only in the regular season.  Andy wins in the regular season.  Andy went 10-6, Andy went 11-5.  Andy won 40 games in 4 years, Andy made into the playoffs 4 years in a row, etc.  But the same people who say these things are the first to point out the team lost the playoff games, the team played bad, Andy didn't lose it on is own the team did.

When the team wins it becomes an individual stat.  When they lose everyone is reminded it's a team game.  Funny how that works.

I don't know, I see a number of people (and it's dwindling each and every year) going out of their way to convince themselves that this guy is better than he really is.  I see many of the same people pick and choose certain criteria only when it fits their agenda.  I see these same people go out of their way to diminish accomplishment of others.

Why?  Anyone who knows anything about the game knows this kid is average at best.  Take all the stats, and throw them out the windows.  His INT's, TD's, good stats, bad stats, throw them aside.  Just watch the guy play, he's just not that good.  Yes, Trent Dilfer won a ring (15 years ago).  But unless we build a time machine and field a historically great defense, AND Andy has a great playoff run it's going to be harder to win with him.   Can it be done, sure.  Does that mean the QB position isn't a concern?  Certainly not.  I mean, the Bulls won a bunch of rings with an old Bill Cartwright at center, that doesn't mean the current Milwaukee Bucks shouldn't be concerned with their post play.  It's two decades later and they don't have Michael Jordan.

Andy Dalton needs to play much better for us to compete for a ring.  Period.  End of story.  Him and all his regular season wins means dick when trying to validate that statement.

Being fair, there are tons of Dalton detractors that give the team all the credit for winning enough games to make the playoffs every year, but place the blame for not winning in the playoffs almost solely on Dalton. I have never been a fan of the fictitious "QB W/L" statistic, but if people are going to apply it, they should apply it evenly, no matter which side of the argument they are on.

Reality is, Dalton perhaps more than any other QB in the NFL is not judged on his own merits. His supporters will build him up due to the fear of another "Lost Decade" with a glass is half full mentality. Dalton is good enough to get the team in the playoffs, and you have to make it to win. His detractors view the glass as half empty, and hold 20+ years of playoff futility against him, with every playoff failure being a cruel reminder of the failures of those that came before him.

There is a false perception surrounding Dalton that his supporting cast puts him on their back, and carries him. If you take a QBR of 80 as being "average", then Dalton played "poorly" and had to be carried by the team in 4 of the Bengals' 10 victories last year[Titans 68.9, Jaguars 79.1, Buccaneers 60.6, Browns 53.6]. By the same token, however, in 4 of the Bengals' 7 losses or ties, Dalton played well, but the team around him did not play well enough to win[Patriots 117.4, Panthers 93.5, Steelers 128.8 & 83.7]. In reality, the players around him simply made up what they gave away. If they were, in fact, carrying Dalton, then the club should have had 2-3 more wins, a first round bye, and a playoff game at home with AJ and Gresham.

Dalton is by no stretch elite, but the fact remains that the odds of acquiring a QB better than he currently is are very slim. In reality, Dalton's biggest flaw is consistency. He produced a QBR of 90 or better in 7 games last year, but a QBR below 70 in 6. The odds are Dalton becoming more consistent with time and eliminating more of those atrocious performances are far greater than the Bengals cutting bait and landing the next Andrew Luck in the draft.

[t3r3e3]

(05-27-2015, 02:20 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: In Troy Aikman's 2nd, 3rd and 4th playoff games, he had a QB rating over 110 in each.

I'll come back later to check the other names as i'm disappointed you were so disingenuous with your first example and i don't want to waste the rest of my lunch checking.

(05-27-2015, 06:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And those games came later in his career.

Basically you are penalizing Dalton for making the playoffs earlier in his career than Aikman.

Wouldn't this also mean you used a grand total of one game on your Aikman comparison? One game against four of Dalton's? How does that work? That's a mighty thin data set.