I've Got Something to Say

[WhoDeyWho]

(10-21-2015, 12:43 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I don't think I've been proven wrong on all that much actually.  Much less "very" wrong on anything.

Just because Dalton is playing well now does not mean I was wrong when I deemed somwhere in the 18-22 range last year.  It doesn't mean I was wrong in any and all descriptions and evaluations I offered up in the past.  The only thing that I think I've been proven wrong on is his ceiling.  And even that remains to be seen, as far as sustainability.

As far as management, I can't think of much anything that I've been proven wrong on.  As I don't seem to recall every campaigning against the idea that they were incapable of starting a season 6-0.  What gripes do you hear often from me regarding management, let's make a checklist:

1.) Need to have a practice facility.  Perception is poor, players deserve comfort, it can only help.  Have I been proven wrong on that?  I don't think so.
2.) Marvin should have been fired long ago.  I'm pretty sure that simply a fact.  He should have been, and he would have been literally anywhere else.  Nothing done now changes the idea that this probably should have happened.  And last I checked, he still has a lot season left to prove me wrong.
3.) This team can't win in the postseason.  Um, yeah, still waiting.
4.) We need to spend more in FA.  Again, wake me up in January.  Until I see real results after the first of the year, in terms of us contending for a Superbowl, then I will not be convinced that we're at a disadvantage for not utilizing free agency better.
5.) Mike Brown is cheap.  Yup, he still cheap.  Maybe cheap can win, and I'm wrong on that.  But I aint wrong about him spending less than many of his peers.

So, please, you tell me all of what I've been proven wrong on.  I started this thread as mainly praise for the team, while also taking the time to admit that my mind has been changed on some things.  I thought I needed to own up to previous gripes and it would only be fair to in turn offer praise.  And I expect some ribbing here there, although I hoped it would be in fun.  But it doesn't seem at all fair to me to label me being proven wrong on everything.  And it seems some would rather pile and continue to create a false division among the fanbase, which is the last thing I would expect from someone who is in charge of the forum.

Right now should be a happy time, the fact that I of all people are joining in is certainly evidence of that.  This thread was to serve as boht a truthful and tongue-in-cheek reminder of that.  Things are so good that Toast is on board so to speak.  But rather than enjoy it and have some laughs some choose to as opportunity to continue this idea that they're somehow a better fan than others, because of the way they evaluate the team.  And I'm the negative one?

Toast, I recall you criticizing management for lack of moves to make this team competitive this offseason.  You seemed to ignore the moves like bringing MJ back for some reason.  You even ignored all the injured starters that were coming back.  At any rate the team is 6-0 doing exactly what they did.  

They seem to be competing rather well.  

It is a "happy time" indeed, but what do you expect when you have gone out of your way to be cynical and clown the franchise?

[InTheJungleNow9]

(10-21-2015, 12:44 PM)djs7685 Wrote: No. Having certain receivers or not shouldn't change whether a guy senses pressure that isn't there and gets happy feet or how accurate his intermediate and deep throws are.

How so?  He is more confident in his playmakers leading to more confidence in himself.  This confidence quells nerves and affects his demeanor in the pocket and his throws.  Does that not make sense?

[Wes Mantooth]

(10-21-2015, 12:25 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: "This version".  Lol.  It's the same damn QB!  It's called PROGRESSION gentlemen.   Some of us saw the potential given his first 4 years in the league.  Some of us didn't.  

But he regressed last year?

Just so we're clear, here is the definition of "progression":a movement or development toward a destination or a more advanced state, especially gradually or in stages.

He didn't move forward, towards being a better QB last season.  He didn't continue to improve.  In fact, he moved backwards, both statistically and level of play.

Now you can argue to till the cows come home about the reasons for this.  And we can all agree or disagree about whether that regression was ok or not, or whether it was to be expected, should be forgiven, is now forgotten because of his current play.  None of it changes the fact he did NOT progress in each of his first 4 years.  Not positively at least.

Saying that you were able to take into account a positive progression is not accurate.  It didn't happen.  Maybe you were deservedly more forgiving.  Maybe you can see the future.  But you can't change the past.  There was no progression last season.  End of story.

[WhoDeyWho]

(10-21-2015, 12:56 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: But he regressed last year?

Just so we're clear, here is the definition of "progression":a movement or development toward a destination or a more advanced state, especially gradually or in stages.

He didn't move forward, towards being a better QB last season.  He didn't continue to improve.  In fact, he moved backwards, both statistically and level of play.

Now you can argue to till the cows come home about the reasons for this.  And we can all agree or disagree about whether that regression was ok or not, or whether it was to be expected, should be forgiven, is now forgotten because of his current play.  None of it changes the fact he did NOT progress in each of his first 4 years.  Not positively at least.

Saying that you were able to take into account a positive progression is not accurate.  It didn't happen.  Maybe you were deservedly more forgiving.  Maybe you can see the future.  But you can't change the past.  There was no progression last season.  End of story.

It was an anomaly given his progression the first 3 years.  Some of us wrongly attributed it to his "ceiling" being reached because it fit their narrative of him being an "average"  or "less than average" talent.  Some of us realized he lost a lot of playmakers and got a new coach.  

[Wes Mantooth]

(10-21-2015, 12:51 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: 1.) Toast, I recall you criticizing management for lack of moves to make this team competitive this offseason. 2.)  You seemed to ignore the moves like bringing MJ back for some reason.  You even ignored all the injured starters that were coming back.  At any rate the team is 6-0 doing exactly what they did.  

They seem to be competing rather well.  

3.) It is a "happy time" indeed, but what do you expect when you have gone out of your way to be cynical and clown the franchise?

1.) I criticized management for a lack of moves to make this team better in the postseason and in ability to compete for Lombardi's.  I don't ever recall questioning their ability to simply be competitive.  Regardless, we'll have to wait and see if I was wrong on this.  I still believe they can, and should, do more in FA.  It is just another tool at their disposal.  And money left on the table, if continually unspent, is of no use right now.

I hope I'm wrong.  I really, really, really do.  Before the season I would have told you I had about a 10% chance of eating crow come Feb.  Now I'm about 50-50 on that.  I'm starting to believe.  Truly.  I'm slowly buying into the idea that this team will end up a true contender.  But let's not pretend then my complaints have been proven wrong just yet.  It's going to take more than 6-0 to show that their lack of activity is was indeed the right choice.

2.) No, I didn't.  Many people just claim I overlooked it because I thought they did too little.  I look at it from a simple dollar standpoint.  When you're top 5 in cap space each and every offseason at some point you should be more active.  When there is money leftover, even after our own resignings, that bothers me.  Michael Johnson doesn't change that idea for me.  I'm not ignoring anything.

3.) I expect people to either welcome back, join me (if also negative), have a laugh at my expense, or bust my balls.  What I don't expect or appreciate, is people referring me to as a bandwagon fan, questioning my motives, accusing me of having an agenda, or now declaring every single argument I've made null and void.

[Luvnit2]

(10-21-2015, 12:13 PM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: Actually, they do.  Guys like Brady, Rodgers, Peyton, Brees... they have all had multiple years that they are well over 100 rating.  I am not detracting from what Dalton has done this year, I have readily said he is playing great.  Just saying that six games does not put him into the top tier of quarterbacks.

:
Let's take a look at the guys you mentioned their 1st 4 years starting in the NFL 

Brady did not start year 1 so I will compare years 2 through 5
#1 - 86.5
#2 - 85.7
#3 - 85.9
#4 - 92.6
Average is 87.67 and had one year on bench to prepare

Brees - Did not start year one so again years 2 through5
#1 - 76.9
#2 - 67.5
# 3 - 104.8
#4 - 89.2
Average is 84.60 and had one year on the bench to prepare

Peyton Manning - started immediately
#1- 71.2
#2 - 90.7
#3 - 94.7
#4 - 84.1
Average is 85.17 over 1st 4 years and then had 2 more years under 100 QBR

Rodgers - sat 1st 3 years (played sparingly and had QBR of 62, but very little playing time)
Year #1 (first year starting year #4) - 106
#2 - 93.8
#3 - 103.2
#4 - 101.2
Average of 101.05
Rodgers was obviously groomed and ready after getting 3 years under Favre to be ready and without a doubt on everyone's discussion for the HOF already

Dalton - started immediately
#1 - 80.4
#2 - 87.4
#3 - 88.8
#4 - 83.5
Overall AD is 85.02 first 4 years


These are the facts and yes all kinds of debate as some on this list started careers in less friendly rules for QB's and receivers
But of the guys you mentioned only Manning and Dalton started year #1 and the rest had time to hone their skills and learn on the bench for at least one year.
We can argue to talent and many other factors that surround(ed) them, but that is very subjective and a lot of research needed to gather accurate facts like we already know about our Bengals (injuries in 2014 to WR and TE position) so to me it may all be a wash if trying to figure out if AD had advantage over any of them.

I am not saying AD is elite or even in that discussion (career) right now, but looking back at these great QB's, he could be someday if he continues to progress.

I also noticed only Brady and Rodgers were consistent while the rest did not have a steady progression in years 1 to 4.

[Bengalholic]

Gotta say, I see a lot of silliness in this thread. No one could of known that Andy would be playing at such an incredible level right now. You can say you thought he had the potential, or hoped that he would...but to imply that you always knew this would happen seems disingenuous at best, at least IMO.

Coming into this season, Andy had only achieved a passer rating of 70+ in only 58% of his games. That put him in the middle of the pack, just with those QB's drafted in 2010 or later, with a minimum of 25 starts. If you applied it against all QB's, it got much worse.

Andy's inconsistent stretches were a very real thing, and his 'bad' games tended to be pretty ugly. With that said, yes, there were also games and stretches that gave you hope, and made you think he was capable of being a very good NFL QB. On the whole, there was obvious talent, work ethic, and desire to improve on Andy's part. However, until now, it had always been tempered by inconsistency and what seemed to be easily shaken confidence.

And the word 'elite' is being thrown around a lot right now. Is Andy playing at a very high level through 6 games? Hell yes! Is Andy now an elite QB? Not yet. 6 games does not make a QB elite. Neither does one season. If it did, Don Majkowski would be considered one of the all-time greats.

But, from what I've seen of Andy this year, with the growth, the new level of confidence, and a swagger that I've haven't seen before...he certainly has the ingredients to now to put himself in the elite conversation if he can maintain a similar level of play for the next couple of seasons. "Elite' is a status that has to be earned over a period of time.

Also, for those that are dogging people who were critical of Andy in the past, the 'wide brush strokes' aren't applicable. I know there were a few that simply slammed Andy for anything and everything, but they aren't really taken seriously. But, for those that were fairly critical of Andy when he wasn't playing well, the criticism was justified. If you are unable to point out flawed play, or to honestly critique a player...then I can't take you any more seriously than those who never see any positives or reasons for hope.

[Luvnit2]

(10-21-2015, 01:45 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: Gotta say, I see a lot of silliness in this thread. No one could of known that Andy would be playing at such an incredible level right now. You can say you thought he had the potential, or hoped that he would...but to imply that you always knew this would happen seems disingenuous at best, at least IMO.

Coming into this season, Andy had only achieved a passer rating of 70+ in only 58% of his games. That put him in the middle of the pack, just with those QB's drafted in 2010 or later, with a minimum of 25 starts. If you applied it against all QB's, it got much worse.

Andy's inconsistent stretches were a very real thing, and his 'bad' games tended to be pretty ugly. With that said, yes, there were also games and stretches that gave you hope, and made you think he was capable of being a very good NFL QB. On the whole, there was obvious talent, work ethic, and desire to improve on Andy's part. However, until now, it had always been tempered by inconsistency and what seemed to be easily shaken confidence.

And the word 'elite' is being thrown around a lot right now. Is Andy playing at a very high level through 6 games? Hell yes! Is Andy now an elite QB? Not yet. 6 games does not make a QB elite. Neither does one season. If it did, Don Majkowski would be considered one of the all-time greats.

But, from what I've seen of Andy this year, with the growth, the new level of confidence, and a swagger that I've haven't seen before...he is certainly has the ingredients to now to put himself in the elite conversation if he can maintain a similar level of play for the next couple of seasons. "Elite' is a status that has to be earned over a period of time.

Also, for those that are dogging people who were critical of Andy in the past, the 'wide brush strokes' aren't applicable. I know there were a few that simply slammed Andy for anything and everything, but they aren't really taken seriously. But, for those that were fairly critical of Andy when he wasn't playing well, the criticism was justified. If you are unable to point out flawed play, or critique at the time they're occurring...then I can't take you any more seriously than those who never see any positives or reasons for hope.

Good post as always.

My only comment is those who take their comments away from facts to a personal attack as Toast did at times with AD fall into your last comments.

I feel using the term "Noodle Arm" was a personal attack and in the end it was wrong as AD is a pro QB with a pro QB arm. Maybe I am wrong, but (not me) some are having trouble getting past the personal attacks on our QB. Your stats are facts and a reason he definitely deserved criticism. But calling our QB "Noodle Arm" is not constructive criticism in any way, shape or form regardless how you look at that analogy in my opinion.

[WhoDeyWho]

(10-21-2015, 01:45 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: Gotta say, I see a lot of silliness in this thread. No one could of known that Andy would be playing at such an incredible level right now. You can say you thought he had the potential, or hoped that he would...but to imply that you always knew this would happen seems disingenuous at best, at least IMO.

Coming into this season, Andy had only achieved a passer rating of 70+ in only 58% of his games. That put him in the middle of the pack, just with those QB's drafted in 2010 or later, with a minimum of 25 starts. If you applied it against all QB's, it got much worse.

Andy's inconsistent stretches were a very real thing, and his 'bad' games tended to be pretty ugly. With that said, yes, there were also games and stretches that gave you hope, and made you think he was capable of being a very good NFL QB. On the whole, there was obvious talent, work ethic, and desire to improve on Andy's part. However, until now, it had always been tempered by inconsistency and what seemed to be easily shaken confidence.

And the word 'elite' is being thrown around a lot right now. Is Andy playing at a very high level through 6 games? Hell yes! Is Andy now an elite QB? Not yet. 6 games does not make a QB elite. Neither does one season. If it did, Don Majkowski would be considered one of the all-time greats.

But, from what I've seen of Andy this year, with the growth, the new level of confidence, and a swagger that I've haven't seen before...he certainly has the ingredients to now to put himself in the elite conversation if he can maintain a similar level of play for the next couple of seasons. "Elite' is a status that has to be earned over a period of time.

Also, for those that are dogging people who were critical of Andy in the past, the 'wide brush strokes' aren't applicable. I know there were a few that simply slammed Andy for anything and everything, but they aren't really taken seriously. But, for those that were fairly critical of Andy when he wasn't playing well, the criticism was justified. If you are unable to point out flawed play, or critique at the time they're occurring...then I can't take you any more seriously than those who never see any positives or reasons for hope.

Perhaps no one could have known that Dalton would play as good or better than some of the best QBs in the game to start his 5th season, but surely it could have been known that Dalton could settle into being a franchise QB worthy of the contract he signed last offseason.  

I can't take anybody seriously who couldn't at least see that much from his first 4 years of play.  

[Bengalholic]

(10-21-2015, 01:51 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Good post as always.

My only comment is those who take their comments away from facts to a personal attack as Toast did at times with AD fall into your last comments.

I feel using the term "Noodle Arm" was a personal attack and in the end it was wrong as AD is a pro QB with a pro QB arm. Maybe I am wrong, but (not me) some are having trouble getting past the personal attacks on our QB. Your stats are facts and a reason he definitely deserved criticism. But calling our QB "Noodle Arm" is not constructive criticism in any way, shape or form regardless how you look at that analogy in my opinion.

I definitely agree with that. I always thought the 'Noodle arm' thing was childish and as you stated, wasn't even accurate.

[Luvnit2]

(10-21-2015, 01:51 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: Perhaps no one could have known that Dalton would play as good or better than some of the best QBs in the game to start his 5th season, but surely it could have been known that Dalton could settle into being a franchise QB worthy of the contract he signed last offseason.  

I can't take anybody seriously who couldn't at least see that much from his first 4 years of play.  

I am on record as someone who saw AD's potential. I did say I thought those who felt he had peaked were wrong. I felt he could be a franchise QB and was closer to one last year than a lot of others.

But, I can see why some would question if he could overcome the inconsistencies? Just because I thought he could and would did not make me lose respect who disagreed with my opinion.

But opinions are what make this site worthwhile and create great discussions. My wish is we just don't take the discussions to personal attacks to other members or to our coaches or players. Everyone is passionate and wants the team to win, we have all made mistakes, I hope moving forward we learn from the personal attacks as they are counter productive to great conversation.

[Bengalholic]

(10-21-2015, 01:51 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: Perhaps no one could have known that Dalton would play as good or better than some of the best QBs in the game to start his 5th season, but surely it could have been known that Dalton could settle into being a franchise QB worthy of the contract he signed last offseason.  

I can't take anybody seriously who couldn't at least see that much from his first 4 years of play.  

I have no problem with the bold part. As I said, at times, Dalton's play absolutely suggested that was a possibility. 

[OrlandoBengal]

(10-21-2015, 01:15 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: :
Let's take a look at the guys you mentioned their 1st 4 years starting in the NFL 


These are the facts and yes all kinds of debate as some on this list started careers in less friendly rules for QB's and receivers
But of the guys you mentioned only Manning and Dalton started year #1 and the rest had time to hone their skills and learn on the bench for at least one year.
We can argue to talent and many other factors that surround(ed) them, but that is very subjective and a lot of research needed to gather accurate facts like we already know about our Bengals (injuries in 2014 to WR and TE position) so to me it may all be a wash if trying to figure out if AD had advantage over any of them.

I am not saying AD is elite or even in that discussion (career) right now, but looking back at these great QB's, he could be someday if he continues to progress.

I also noticed only Brady and Rodgers were consistent while the rest did not have a steady progression in years 1 to 4.

I was responding to a quote from Spazz where he said "not even elite quarterbacks carry these numbers through an entire season".  I was simply pointing out that they do.  And not just for a single season, but for multiple.

I am not saying Dalton is incapable of finishing the year like he has started it.  I'm not saying it is impossible for him to have multiple seasons with these type numbers.  I'm just saying that until he does, he will not yet have elevated himself into that top echelon of NFL quarterbacks.  And trust me, I certainly hope he does it!

[Wes Mantooth]

(10-21-2015, 01:15 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: :
Let's take a look at the guys you mentioned their 1st 4 years starting in the NFL 

Brady did not start year 1 so I will compare years 2 through 5
#1 - 86.5
#2 - 85.7
#3 - 85.9
#4 - 92.6
Average is 87.67 and had one year on bench to prepare

Brees - Did not start year one so again years 2 through5
#1 - 76.9
#2 - 67.5
# 3 - 104.8
#4 - 89.2
Average is 84.60 and had one year on the bench to prepare

Peyton Manning - started immediately
#1- 71.2
#2 - 90.7
#3 - 94.7
#4 - 84.1
Average is 85.17 over 1st 4 years and then had 2 more years under 100 QBR

Rodgers - sat 1st 3 years (played sparingly and had QBR of 62, but very little playing time)
Year #1 (first year starting year #4) - 106
#2 - 93.8
#3 - 103.2
#4 - 101.2
Average of 101.05
Rodgers was obviously groomed and ready after getting 3 years under Favre to be ready and without a doubt on everyone's discussion for the HOF already

Dalton - started immediately
#1 - 80.4
#2 - 87.4
#3 - 88.8
#4 - 83.5
Overall AD is 85.02 first 4 years


These are the facts and yes all kinds of debate as some on this list started careers in less friendly rules for QB's and receivers
But of the guys you mentioned only Manning and Dalton started year #1 and the rest had time to hone their skills and learn on the bench for at least one year.
We can argue to talent and many other factors that surround(ed) them, but that is very subjective and a lot of research needed to gather accurate facts like we already know about our Bengals (injuries in 2014 to WR and TE position) so to me it may all be a wash if trying to figure out if AD had advantage over any of them.

I am not saying AD is elite or even in that discussion (career) right now, but looking back at these great QB's, he could be someday if he continues to progress.

I also noticed only Brady and Rodgers were consistent while the rest did not have a steady progression in years 1 to 4.

You are having an entirely different discussion than what was being discussed earlier.  Fwiw, it's gone like this:

1.) I mentioned that I currently ranked Andy in the 6-10 range of QB's.  I thought he is a QB worthy to be considered in that group.
2.) Someone asked me why I didn't have him as "elite" and what my top 3 were.
3.) I responded with my 3 (Rodgers, Brady, Rivers) and explained why I have him where I do, and agreed with the idea of his elite level of play we're seeing currently.
4.) For some reason, someone else mentioned that you can't expect any elite QB to keep up this pace.  (Not really sure what that has to do with anything, but whatever)
5.) Someone simply reminded them that plenty of elite QB have done just that (See multiple 110 plus years, 40, 50 TD's, 5,000 yards, etc.)  I don't think they did this to detract from Dalton, just to clarify further what constitutes elite play and it's sustainability.

Somehow we're now here.  Talking about the first four years of QB's careers.  This was never an Andy's career vs anyone else debate though.  It started as a simple explanation as to why someone regards his current level of play elite, while regarding his talent level good to very good (6-10).

I could mistaken, but I do think some of you are hyper-sensitive when it comes to the team you root for.  If anything this has been a praise Andy thread.  Why go to all the trouble of finding stats to defend Andy's first four years when it's not even a discussion.

Andy has played absolutely great to start the season.  No doubt.  But Andy is not great (elite) yet.  If you're building a team, and you start going down the list of the guys you want at QB, Rodgers and Brady are going to top that list right now.  Most likely guys like Rivers, Rapes McGee and Brees and going to go next.  And there's a very good chance Andy goes in the next group, among names like Ryan and Wilson.  There is nothing wrong with saying that.  It's no knock on Andy. 

Great start.  Good QB.  Can we all just agree on that? 

[Luvnit2]

(10-21-2015, 02:23 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: You are having an entirely different discussion than what was being discussed earlier.  Fwiw, it's gone like this:

1.) I mentioned that I currently ranked Andy in the 6-10 range of QB's.  I thought he is a QB worthy to be considered in that group.
2.) Someone asked me why I didn't have him as "elite" and what my top 3 were.
3.) I responded with my 3 (Rodgers, Brady, Rivers) and explained why I have him where I do, and agreed with the idea of his elite level of play we're seeing currently.
4.) For some reason, someone else mentioned that you can't expect any elite QB to keep up this pace.  (Not really sure what that has to do with anything, but whatever)
5.) Someone simply reminded them that plenty of elite QB have done just that (See multiple 110 plus years, 40, 50 TD's, 5,000 yards, etc.)  I don't think they did this to detract from Dalton, just to clarify further what constitutes elite play and it's sustainability.

Somehow we're now here.  Talking about the first four years of QB's careers.  This was never an Andy's career vs anyone else debate though.  It started as a simple explanation as to why someone regards his current level of play elite, while regarding his talent level good to very good (6-10).

I could mistaken, but I do think some of you are hyper-sensitive when it comes to the team you root for.  If anything this has been a praise Andy thread.  Why go to all the trouble of finding stats to defend Andy's first four years when it's not even a discussion.

Andy has played absolutely great to start the season.  No doubt.  But Andy is not great (elite) yet.  If you're building a team, and you start going down the list of the guys you want at QB, Rodgers and Brady are going to top that list right now.  Most likely guys like Rivers, Rapes McGee and Brees and going to go next.  And there's a very good chance Andy goes in the next group, among names like Ryan and Wilson.  There is nothing wrong with saying that.  It's no knock on Andy. 

Great start.  Good QB.  Can we all just agree on that? 

All I did was provide some facts. I did not quote you on my post.

I also stated he is not elite as well so not sure why you felt the need to dismiss a QB comparison based on as close to apples to apples as possible among QB's. I even stated others will weigh different things differently.

I thought the numbers were interesting basing off of experience and the consistencies of the greats was for the most part inconsistent. Only Rodgers and Brady showed consistency and neither started year #1 in the NFL.

My post was not a shot at you, I was just trying to provide some more texture to the conversation.

"Why go to all the trouble of finding stats to defend Andy's first four years when it's not even a discussion."
My facts backed up your OP on how AD was inconsistent so not sure why you are sensitive to the facts I provided. I just added the comparision as some may not realize some elite QB's failed to play at elite levels early in the career either?

[djs7685]

(10-21-2015, 02:31 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: All I did was provide some facts. I did not quote you on my post.

I also stated he is not elite as well so not sure why you felt the need to dismiss a QB comparison based on as close to apples to apples as possible among QB's. I even stated others will weigh different things differently.

I thought the numbers were interesting basing off of experience and the consistencies of the greats was for the most part inconsistent. Only Rodgers and Brady showed consistency and neither started year #1 in the NFL.

My post was not a shot at you, I was just trying to provide some more texture to the conversation.

"Why go to all the trouble of finding stats to defend Andy's first four years when it's not even a discussion."
My facts backed up your OP on how AD was inconsistent so not sure why you are sensitive to the facts I provided. I just added the comparision as some may not realize some elite QB's failed to play at elite levels early in the career either?

I think the entire thing comes to be a pointless discussion when you sit down and understand that you can pick literally ANY QB currently in the NFL, and show some kind of statistical manipulation of why they shouldn't be "written off" as a non-elite QB. I mean, there is evidence out there of players making career resurrections of all types, including having a few rough years followed by some elite performance.

Whenever you can use the same set of stats that you use to "prove" Andy's potential to also "prove" that Tim Tebow or Ryan Fitzpatrick could be the next Peyton Manning or Kurt Warner, the entire thing gets kind of.....meh. It loses it's luster when all you have is "yeah, but, but, but, THESE guys didn't play at an extremely high level immediately either! SEE???" because at that point you can pretty much say that literally any QB in the NFL "could" be elite at some point.

[Daddy-O]

(10-21-2015, 08:49 AM)Atomic Orange Wrote: All I kept reading between the lines was

"I want on the bandwagon before it's too late yet i wish to keep my options open in case it isn't".

FWIW Toast, this has been the best Bengals team probably of all time going on five years now. Sure they failed in the playoffs but IMO they never deserved the venom the haters (you being a big one) ,spewed week in/out on the old forum. The realist's realize that the team was a mess for a decade plus and the laughing stock of the entire sports world.

It takes time to clime out of the ashes from that you know? Maybe you expected a little too much out of our rookie quarterback coming into a bad situation yet still managing to lead the team to the playoffs not only in his rookie year but every year since. All the while never having veteran leadership to learn anything from. It appears he has put it all together in year 5 which would have been par back in the olden days when QB's sat behind veterans for a year or two. Aaron Rodgers had that benefit behind Favre and it paid off great for him because honestly I saw nothing in him that lead me to believe he would become the QB he is today and i'm sure many Packer fans would agree. Decent yes, on par with Brett Favre? No. Better than Brett Favre? HELL NO. So yeah sometimes it just takes time.

I personally have been hard on Marvin in the past but i came to the realization that the guy is pretty strapped operating under the antique which is Mike Brown. The truth is he is probably the savior of this small market NFL franchise so he deserves dome props as well.

Anyway, it's all just football man.  A game for the players and entertainment for the fans. No sense in getting bent out of shape to the extreme one way or the other.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but to your point about Aaron Rodgers, I believe he sat behind Favre for 3 years.

AD came into the Bengals in a shambles, coming off a disastrous season in the middle of a strike.  The fact he won as many games as he did that first year is nothing short of a miracle.  Not to mention that all of the so-called "talent" he has now was not here then or were rookies (e.g. AJ Green).

In fact, if he wins a couple more road ball games he will have won the most road games in his first 5 years than any QB in the history of the NFL.  Simply amazing.  Heck, I remember the days when the Bengals had zero chance of winning any road game.  Wow, have times changed!

[fredtoast]

Lot's of back and forth here about what people said in the past.

People critical of Dalton trying to step back on their claims.  Or trying to say their criticism was all justified.

People who supported Dalton trying to claim they never had any doubt.

I say lets just look at who thought the contract extension was a good idea.  I'd say that at least 50% of the members of the old board were against it.  It still may be too early to decide, but soi far it is looking like a good decision.

And for the record I ranked Dalton as part of a group of about 10 QBs that you could shuffle up in any order between 10 and 20.  And I always felt that when you had a QB of that quality you paid to keep him unless you had a better proven replacement.  Too many people were claiming that it would be easy to get a better QB.  The fact is it is not easy at all because other teams lock these guys up to long term contracts when they get one. 

So all the guys who were critical can now claim that they always considered his good play a "possibility" the real question nis how many people were in favor of his contract extension.  That will show how people really felt about him.

[WhoDeyWho]

(10-21-2015, 03:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Lot's of back and forth here about what people said in the past.

People critical of Dalton trying to step back on their claims.  Or trying to say their criticism was all justified.

People who supported Dalton trying to claim they never had any doubt.

I say lets just look at who thought the contract extension was a good idea.  I'd say that at least 50% of the members of the old board were against it.  It still may be too early to decide, but soi far it is looking like a good decision.

Those who thought it was a bad contract were basically saying they would have preferred the team go in a different direction at QB.

I seriously doubt going in a different direction would have resulted in the season we are witnessing now.  

[spazz70]

(10-21-2015, 02:14 PM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: I was responding to a quote from Spazz where he said "not even elite quarterbacks carry these numbers through an entire season".  I was simply pointing out that they do.  And not just for a single season, but for multiple.

I am not saying Dalton is incapable of finishing the year like he has started it.  I'm not saying it is impossible for him to have multiple seasons with these type numbers.  I'm just saying that until he does, he will not yet have elevated himself into that top echelon of NFL quarterbacks.  And trust me, I certainly hope he does it!

Just responding here and asking the same question..

If Dalton completed the year at around 100 rating would you be happy?

Dalton is currently at 116 and that is the number I was referring to and certainly do not expect him to carry that all season....Even the elite QBs do not...even at the 100 range

These guys imo are "elite"...Whether just the eye test, winning or just see them as heads above Dalton in ability

Brady..13 complete seasons...4 times over 100
Manning...16 seasons...6 times
Rodgers...7 seasons...6 times
Brees...13 seasons...4 times
Rivers...10 seasons...5 times
Ben..11 seasons...3 times
Luck...3 seasons...0 times
 These guys are more consistent over their careers but everyone of them but Rodgers has had seasons that dipped into the 80 range in rating at some point in their career...especially early on..


The next group of Palmer, Romo, Wilson, E Manning, Flacco, Ryan, Stafford, Bradford and the likes have all had bad years mixed with good...none of them having more than 2 years over a 100 (Wilson, Romo) and Palmer with 1 year (w/Bengals)...  


To answer my own question...I would be ecstatic if Dalton finished this year with a rating over 95...Absolutely disappointed if we get to the playoffs and lose if he is rated that high....

Also, looking at those numbers I think shows what a real stud Rodgers is...6 years over 100 out of 7...WOW