Dalton & McCarron are in a very awkward situation

[Ravage]

(01-06-2016, 10:20 AM)Daddy-O Wrote: He is a top 10 tier QB in a league where it is very difficult to find franchise QB's.  It's the "known" versus the unknown.  You always go with history.  And when you have a QB that's won more games in his first 5 seasons than any other QB in history it's a no-brainer.

2000: New Orleans Saints, Jeff Blake playing at a Pro Bowl level in his first season in New Orleans breaks his foot. Replaced by Aaron Brooks. Blake never gets his job back.

2001 : New England Patriots, Drew Bledsoe, former #1 overall pick, arguably a top 10 NFL QB at the time gets hurt. Replaced by second year 6th round QB Tom Brady. Bledsoe never gets his job back and is traded to Buffalo during the off-season.

2004: Pittsburgh Steelers, Tommy Maddox (a year removed from being named NFL comeback player of the year) is injured and replaced by rookie QB Ben Roethlisberger. Maddox never gets his job back.

I could keep going, but please tell me how you "always go with history" again?

I'm in no way advocating that I want McCarron to replace Dalton.  McCarron's looked good...for a backup QB. But to assert that established starters (especially at qb) are immune to losing their job due to injury is a fallacy.

[fredtoast]

(01-07-2016, 10:39 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote:  If McCarron is already going into the Patriots game hot or even just looking good, I say we start him regardless of how good Dalton was during the regular season.

I say we look at them both in practice and start the one who looks the best.  Why would they start McCarron if Dalton looks better?

[*rfaulk34*]

(01-07-2016, 10:39 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: I think it's a valid thread.

There's three things we have to think about regarding the "starting Dalton if McCarron beats the Steelers" issue. Dalton hasn't practiced for almost four weeks. Dalton hasn't played for almost four weeks. Dalton had an injury involving his throwing hand. If McCarron convincingly beats the Steelers, should we really start Dalton the next game? If McCarron is already going into the Patriots game hot or even just looking good, I say we start him regardless of how good Dalton was during the regular season.

Fans, players and coaches are always talking about how the playoffs are a "new season" and how it's a "different atmosphere". Yet the way people are talking around here, you'd think we're still in the regular season, that the playoffs aren't different and that Dalton isn't coming off a 3 and a half week injury because his job is up against McCarron and "That just shouldn't be because Dalton had an MVP like season". Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Dalton didn't play well during the regular season, but I feel like a lot of people are having tunnel vision about Dalton.

There's also the fact that the coaches have adjusted the offense a bit to fit McCarron since he's come into the game. If we start Dalton against the Patriots are the coaches going to go back to their Dalton playbook? If Dalton ends up not playing well and they have to put McCarron in at some point during the game, is McCarron and the offense going to have enough time to adjust?

Health is a valid argument to be made when deciding who starts. I don't want Daton starting unless he can do everything he did pre-injury. And i want him to have a full week of reps with the gameplan. 

That aside, i wouldn't elevate McCarron just because he's the QB if the team wins one or two playoff games. It's widely believed the team has one of if not the best roster in the NFL. That will help a backup. 

When we're discussing who is better when both are healthy, the easy answer is Dalton. That's my only beef. Those that think McCarron is the better option when health isn't a question.

[XenoMorph]

(01-06-2016, 10:32 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: 1. Over the last 2 years, we've played 8 prime time games. 6 of those teams made the playoffs the year we played them. Both games against non-playoff teams were against the Browns, a divisional opponent. So all 8 prime time games would've been deemed "big games" by most.

2. The argument isn't that divisional games only matter when they're in prime time. The argument is that prime time games are usually big. You say yourself that division games are always big in nature, so that only helps my argument that prime time games are usually big games.

3. This part matters the least, honestly, but prime time crowds are usually more amped than 1 pm crowds. I said nothing about attendance.

Dude the only reason they are considered big games is because they are the only games on TV... the Wins and Losses all count the same.

[ItsOdellThurman]

I love the argument how Jeff Blake and Tommy Maddox, who were never very good to begin with, "losing" their jobs is a similar situation here. Jeff Blake was 31 and Maddox was 34, both had been on other teams and weren't considered a lock starter like Dalton. Dalton is in his prime, is still younger than both and has 5 years of foundation as the starter.

[fredtoast]

(01-07-2016, 02:48 PM)ItsOdellThurman Wrote: I love the argument how Jeff Blake and Tommy Maddox, who were never very good to begin with, "losing" their jobs is a similar situation here.  Jeff Blake was 31 and Maddox was 34, both had been on other teams and weren't considered a lock starter like Dalton.  Dalton is in his prime, is still younger than both and has 5 years of foundation as the starter.

And Bledsoe was nothing close to a top 10 QB when he got hurt.  He was 5-13 in '00 and '01 with a passer rating in the mid 70's.

[Shake n Blake]

(01-07-2016, 02:50 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Right now?  Yes.  But you have to wonder how Alex Smith would have handled Harbaugh leaving and being replaced by an instant lame-duck one year coach while half the team retired out of nowhere.  I'm not defending Krapernick, but we've seen Alex Smith play lots of QB for the 49ers and he was as much a beneficiary of the Harbaugh effect as Krapernick was.

I would agree with you if A.Smith hadn't played so well for Andy Reid. I think it's more likely that Smith just fell victim to bad coaching (Singletary). 

(01-07-2016, 02:15 PM)Ravage Wrote: 2000: New Orleans Saints, Jeff Blake playing at a Pro Bowl level in his first season in New Orleans breaks his foot. Replaced by Aaron Brooks. Blake never gets his job back.

2001 : New England Patriots, Drew Bledsoe, former #1 overall pick, arguably a top 10 NFL QB at the time gets hurt. Replaced by second year 6th round QB Tom Brady. Bledsoe never gets his job back and is traded to Buffalo during the off-season.

2004: Pittsburgh Steelers, Tommy Maddox (a year removed from being named NFL comeback player of the year) is injured and replaced by rookie QB Ben Roethlisberger. Maddox never gets his job back.

I could keep going, but please tell me how you "always go with history" again?

I'm in no way advocating that I want McCarron to replace Dalton.  McCarron's looked good...for a backup QB. But to assert that established starters (especially at qb) are immune to losing their job due to injury is a fallacy.

First off, Jeff Blake wasn't on Dalton's level. He was a 30 year old journeyman at that point. Aaron Brooks came in and played better than Blake. So it was easy to stick with the younger guy who played better. Has McCarron outplayed Dalton? Nope. Not even close.

Dalton is better than Drew Bledsoe. Bledsoe was coming off 2 straight pretty weak (and losing) seasons. Brady came in and played 12 regular season games (McCarron played 4). Again, Brady outplayed Bledsoe. Has McCarron outplayed Dalton?

The last example is silly. Roethlisberger was a 1st round pick, drafted to be the future of the franchise. Maddox's injury just made the future arrive a bit sooner. McCarron wasn't drafted with the intention of replacing Dalton.

(01-07-2016, 02:41 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: Dude the only reason they are considered big games is because they are the only games on TV... the Wins and Losses all count the same.

Dude I guess you didn't read the post you quoted. Of the 8 prime time games we've played over the last 2 seasons, which ones weren't big games? I'll wait.

[zygrot24]

(01-06-2016, 04:33 AM)Atomic Orange Wrote: 1st- Without Dalton does any of these scenarios even exist?

With that out of the way.

You go with the hot hand. If AJM plays well and is a big reason for beating the Stoolers he gets the start against NE. If he falters in that game you do what Denver just did and bring in Dalton. Win or lose, we will then have8 our answer to who should start in the next game.

And we'll worry about that later..

Agreed.  If the kid throws for 300 plus, a couple score, and doesn't have a turnover, I don't see how you sit the kid.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

The OP did a lotta thinkin there lol

I see it going down like this myself...

AJM squeeks out a win vs Pitt.

Dalton is ready for the Pats and starts cause Marv and AJM vs Belichick and Brady gives us pretty much no chance.

But Dalton is a pro and was a MVP candidate before the injury, he can read Defenses much better than AJM and that
alone gives us a much better chance against the Pats in New England. If we can beat the Pats with Dalton we might
even have a chance at homefield in the AFC Championship game if the Chiefs get there.

I hope this is the way it goes down and that way both guys have helped themselves outta this awkward situation.

[fredtoast]

(01-07-2016, 04:37 PM)zygrot24 Wrote: Agreed.  If the kid throws for 300 plus, a couple score, and doesn't have a turnover, I don't see how you sit the kid.

If he has a game like that then there would be a legit debate.  But McCarron has never done anything close to that.

[WhoDeySince81]

(01-07-2016, 05:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If he has a game like that then there would be a legit debate.  But McCarron has never done anything close to that.

Well he kinda does......280/2/2 the last time, after coming in cold and playing from behind the whole game. Its not beyond the realm of possibility he puts those kind of #s up.

[Ravage]

(01-07-2016, 03:19 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: First off, Jeff Blake wasn't on Dalton's level. He was a 30 year old journeyman at that point. Aaron Brooks came in and played better than Blake. So it was easy to stick with the younger guy who played better. Has McCarron outplayed Dalton? Nope. Not even close.

Dalton is better than Drew Bledsoe. Bledsoe was coming off 2 straight pretty weak (and losing) seasons. Brady came in and played 12 regular season games (McCarron played 4). Again, Brady outplayed Bledsoe. Has McCarron outplayed Dalton?

The last example is silly. Roethlisberger was a 1st round pick, drafted to be the future of the franchise. Maddox's injury just made the future arrive a bit sooner. McCarron wasn't drafted with the intention of replacing Dalton.

Blake was a journeyman at that point? Really? You must put a ton of stock into those two years he spent on the Jets to begin his career. 1992-2001: 3 teams total (2 yrs with NYJ, 6 years in CIN, 2 years in NO. 2002-2005 4 teams in 4 years (02 BAL, 03 ARI, 04 PHI, 05 CHI) it wasn't until AFTER he left New Orleans that you could start to describe him as a journeyman.

Bledsoe was coming off 2 straight weak and losing seasons huh? I never realized that 8-8 was a losing season, they finished in last, sure, and it wasn't a winning record, but it wasn't a losing record either. In addition his stats in 1999: 6th in yds (3985), 8th in YPA (7.4), admittedly 3rd in INT's (behind Favre and Jake Plummer) 8-8 record. Not great, but I fail to see how that falls into the 'pretty weak' category.

I didn't like using the Maddox/Roethilisberger example either, as it was inevitable Ben would take over, that one I'll concede. That being said...

The hindsight-aided criticisms of the examples, however, are irrelevant, as there have been zero denials that all three of those swaps happened. The rationale for WHY they happened is also irrelevant in this context. The statement was 'you always go with history' (or the 'known commodity') That is not the case, and that was my point. The three QB's I listed that were replaced were 'known commodities', the players that replaced them were not. 

You don't have to look any farther back in time than last week. If teams 'always' went with history/known commodity then Brock Osweiler wouldn't of started over Manning last week, but he did.

Subsequently, to pretend that Dalton wasn't entering a 'make or break' year before the season started is revisionist history at best. Other than Cutler, I don't think there was a legitimate QB last off-season (and I use Cutler and legitimate together begrudgingly) who's impending fate was more debated than Andy Dalton's. So the 'no-brainer' argument, while true now, wasn't true just 5 short months ago when the season started. 

In no circumstance whatsoever do I think McCarron should replace Dalton. But to pretend that it isn't a possibility, albeit a small possibility, would be ignorant.

[Shake n Blake]

(01-07-2016, 05:14 PM)Ravage Wrote: Blake was a journeyman at that point? Really? You must put a ton of stock into those two years he spent on the Jets to begin his career. 1992-2001: 3 teams total (2 yrs with NYJ, 6 years in CIN, 2 years in NO. 2002-2005 4 teams in 4 years (02 BAL, 03 ARI, 04 PHI, 05 CHI) it wasn't until AFTER he left New Orleans that you could start to describe him as a journeyman.

Bledsoe was coming off 2 straight weak and losing seasons huh? I never realized that 8-8 was a losing season, they finished in last, sure, and it wasn't a winning record, but it wasn't a losing record either. In addition his stats in 1999: 6th in yds (3985), 8th in YPA (7.4), admittedly 3rd in INT's (behind Favre and Jake Plummer) 8-8 record. Not great, but I fail to see how that falls into the 'pretty weak' category.

I didn't like using the Maddox/Roethilisberger example either, as it was inevitable Ben would take over, that one I'll concede. That being said...

The hindsight-aided criticisms of the examples, however, are irrelevant, as there have been zero denials that all three of those swaps happened. The rationale for WHY they happened is also irrelevant in this context. The statement was 'you always go with history' (or the 'known commodity') That is not the case, and that was my point. The three QB's I listed that were replaced were 'known commodities', the players that replaced them were not. 

You don't have to look any farther back in time than last week. If teams 'always' went with history/known commodity then Brock Osweiler wouldn't of started over Manning last week, but he did.

Subsequently, to pretend that Dalton wasn't entering a 'make or break' year before the season started is revisionist history at best. Other than Cutler, I don't think there was a legitimate QB last off-season (and I use Cutler and legitimate together begrudgingly) who's impending fate was more debated than Andy Dalton's. So the 'no-brainer' argument, while true now, wasn't true just 5 short months ago when the season started. 

In no circumstance whatsoever do I think McCarron should replace Dalton. But to pretend that it isn't a possibility, albeit a small possibility, would be ignorant.

Regardless of all the other BS, there's no denying that Dalton is better than Blake, Bledsoe and Tommy Maddox. Bledsoe was 22nd in passer rating 1999 and 19th in 2000. Yes, that's weak. As for Osweiler replacing Manning, Manning was dead last in passer rating this year. He was terrible. Dalton was the opposite of terrible.

And again, both Brady and Brooks outperformed Bledsoe and Blake, respectively. McCarron did not outperform Dalton. Of course, I fully expect you to keep ignoring that.

[The Burfict Answer]

Ajm is playing with house money right now . He has no pressure to win. Yeah the 25 year drought . But this is only his 4th start.

He is going into the game knowing they are the underdogs. Dalton had critics and fans breathing down his neck to get a win.

If ajm does win the steelers game and dalton is ready to go against the Patriots and gets the start , I would think dalton would have more pressure than ever to win considering ajm broke the streak in prime time the week before.if aj were to start assuming dalton can't go . He once again goes into the Patriots game with same attitude only more confidence . No one expects him to win , playing with no pressure and nothing to lose but alot to gain

Interesting to think about .

[Ravage]

(01-07-2016, 05:32 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Regardless of all the other BS, there's no denying that Dalton is better than Blake, Bledsoe and Tommy Maddox. Bledsoe was 22nd in passer rating 1999 and 19th in 2000. Yes, that's weak. As for Osweiler replacing Manning, Manning was dead last in passer rating this year. He was terrible. Dalton was the opposite of terrible.

And again, both Brady and Brooks outperformed Bledsoe and Blake, respectively. McCarron did not outperform Dalton. Of course, I fully expect you to keep ignoring that.

It's not BS, the statement I took issue with spoke in an absolute context. I set out to disprove that statement. Want a better example? Fine. Steve Young replacing Joe Montana. A journeyman QB if I ever saw one (He washed out of TAMPA before Dungy arrived and made them an actual NFL team) replacing a no-doubt HOF'er who still had plenty left in the tank (albeit not HOF level play).

I never said Dalton wasn't better than those three in either of my posts. If I did I'd love to see it. Nor did I at any point suggest that McCarron ever outperformed Dalton. I also never at any point suggested that McCarron should replace Dalton either. 

Of course, I fully expect you to keep ignoring that.

Edit: Brooks outplayed Blake?
Brooks: 3-2, 58.2%, 9/6 TD/INT, 85.7 QB rating.
Blake: 7-4, 60.9%, 13/9 TD/INT, 82.7 QB rating.
They look awful similar to me. Except only one of those two ever intentionally threw a pass backwards...to no one. And it wasn't Blake. https://vine.co/v/OJlitxm1Z6T

[fredtoast]

(01-07-2016, 05:53 PM)The Burfict Answer Wrote: Ajm is playing with house money right now . He has no pressure to win. Yeah the 25 year drought . But this is only his 4th start.  

Maybe Dalton is really healthy enough to play but Marvin is keeping on the bench just so he will have a valid excuse for another playoff loss.

[XenoMorph]

(01-07-2016, 05:56 PM)Ravage Wrote: It's not BS, the statement I took issue with spoke in an absolute context. I set out to disprove that statement. Want a better example? Fine. Steve Young replacing Joe Montana. A journeyman QB if I ever saw one (He washed out of TAMPA before Dungy arrived and made them an actual NFL team) replacing a no-doubt HOF'er who still had plenty left in the tank (albeit not HOF level play).

I never said Dalton wasn't better than those three in either of my posts. If I did I'd love to see it. Nor did I at any point suggest that McCarron ever outperformed Dalton. I also never at any point suggested that McCarron should replace Dalton either. 

Of course, I fully expect you to keep ignoring that.

If your point was to show 3 QBs that had been replaced by their backup due to an injury over the past 15 years...

it wasnt much of a point. It does happen look at alex smith lost his job to Keap who was just benched for a jacksonville washout 1st rounder.

It happens. It all depends on what the team wants to do. How many years after Joe Montana got replace did he continue to play? If you have an older QB thats declining vs a young prospect you think could carry your team the next 10 years. youd probly be nuts to hold on to the older guy. over the younger guy.

But thats not the situation here. dalton is young in his prime didnt have a major injury just one bad enough to cost him some games. Dalton will be back and running the team next season.

AJM has pressure though.... Unless he wants to be the backup here again next season he could draw some interest from other teams if he plays well enough.. And his goal was to be a 100 mil $ QB....

But thats not very likely.... Teams will draft a prospect or go with someone with more starts than 4 under their belt.

[Ravage]

(01-07-2016, 06:07 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: It happens.  It all depends on what the team wants to do.  How many years after Joe Montana got replace did he continue to play?    If you have an older QB thats declining vs a young prospect you think could carry your team the next 10 years.  youd probly be nuts to hold on to the older guy. over the younger guy.

But thats not the situation here.   dalton is young in his prime didnt have a major injury just one bad enough to cost him some games.    Dalton will be back and running the team next season.

That was my point, that it happens. So thank you for unintentionally proving my point. 

And, despite Montana's age, referring to a then 30 year old Steve Young as 'young' in any context other than referring to him by last name is a bit off. 

[Shake n Blake]

(01-07-2016, 06:17 PM)Ravage Wrote: That was my point, that it happens. So thank you for unintentionally proving my point. 

And, despite Montana's age, referring to a then 30 year old Steve Young as 'young' in any context other than referring to him by last name is a bit off. 

Young was 5 years younger than Montana, who had suffered a career threatening injury. Montana missed nearly 2 full seasons due to the injury, and during that time, Steve Young was named NFL MVP (1992), and led the #1 offense in the league to the NFC title game.

Now do you see why it's silly to compare McCarron to that? What has McCarron done to usurp a 28 year old MVP candidate?   

None of your comparisons have been remotely close to Dalton/McCarron.

[Browns Town Bengal]

(01-06-2016, 11:08 AM)BritishBengal Wrote: Unless AJM throws for like 5tds, has a perfect passer rating and single handedly wins the game with moments of sheer brilliance, you put Dalton straight back in the moment he is ready.

I agree. 100%