List of QBs with most passing yards in first four seasons.

[Brownshoe]

(06-17-2015, 09:01 AM)Rhinocero23 Wrote: Not really a good point...no facts to prove it. 

There is only one similarity between Manning and Dalton. They both play QB in the Nfl. To even insinuate that critics of Dalton are similar to critics of Manning just "shows a lack of understanding".

lol everything that I posted are facts, and most of your "facts" are twisted stats. Like how you say it doesn't matter what the teams record was at the end of the year it only matters what it was when they played them. I gave you as much proof as you gave too. I know you just can't accept it to be true, because then your argument would just fall apart.

[djs7685]

(06-17-2015, 12:39 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: lol everything that I posted are facts, and most of your "facts" are twisted stats. Like how you say it doesn't matter what the teams record was at the end of the year it only matters what it was when they played them. I gave you as much proof as you gave too. I know you just can't accept it to be true, because then your argument would just fall apart.

I'd say your facts were as "twisted" as his.

You both posted facts, but one of you wanted to add in ties and use the record for the end of each season and one of you didn't include ties and used record at the time that the Bengals played the other team.

Your way shows it being better for Andy while his show it being worse. I don't think you can sit here and claim he's intentionally manipulating anything without being a complete hypocrite.

[Brownshoe]

(06-17-2015, 12:46 PM)djs7685 Wrote: I'd say your facts were as "twisted" as his.

You both posted facts, but one of you wanted to add in ties and use the record for the end of each season and one of you didn't include ties and used record at the time that the Bengals played the other team.

Your way shows it being better for Andy while his show it being worse. I don't think you can sit here and claim he's intentionally manipulating anything without being a complete hypocrite.

When has it ever been the standard to look at what the teams record was when we played them, and not at the end of the year? Why wouldn't you add in the tie (which he did, but he only added it to his losses) to both the win, and the loss? I'm the one trying to be fair, and I'm letting him know that most QBs have losing records vs .500 or better teams. So how have my facts been twisted? How am I manipulating anything? All I'm doing is showing the whole picture, and not a small portion like he's trying to do.

[djs7685]

(06-17-2015, 12:52 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: When has it ever been the standard to look at what the teams record was when we played them, and not at the end of the year? Why wouldn't you add in the tie (which he did, but he only added it to his losses) to both the win, and the loss? I'm the one trying to be fair, and I'm letting him know that most QBs have losing records vs .500 or better teams. So how have my facts been twisted? How am I manipulating anything? All I'm doing is showing the whole picture, and not a small portion like he's trying to do.

Most people go with their record at the end of the year for the simple fact that it's easier to compile data that way. People are lazy and don't want to do a ton of work, so finding out what each team's record was at the time of playing them would take much more time than simply looking at the end of year standings on 1 page and seeing if the team had a winning/losing record.

Whether it makes Andy better or worse, I see zero "manipulation" from looking at the team's record at the time of playing them. It does make sense. If the Browns were 0-4 when we beat them, that probably means they were playing like shit at the time, so if they end the year 9-7, they would have been added as a team above .500 when in reality they were probably not playing like a .500 team at the time. That makes a lot of sense, I'd say.

I didn't read through the whole thing, but I didn't see him only add in the ties to the losses. If that's the case, then yeah you should probably add them in properly unless his claim is that "The Bengals only WON X games against .500 teams" because at that point a tie would be the equivalent to a loss. If you're just doing overall record (like I believe you guys are), then you're correct with the whole tie situation.

I wouldn't say he's trying to only look at a small portion or that he's twisting anything, he's just presenting the data in a slightly different manner than you are (minus the whole tie fiasco). Again, I don't see anything wrong with looking at the team's record at the time of playing them and I have no idea how you can argue against that unless you're just mad that it doesn't make Andy look better his way. It could actually be argued that he's looking at it a "better" way than you since his numbers reflect approximately how the teams were playing at the time of the Bengals meeting them, and not letting any crazy turnarounds skew the data by only looking at end of the year records. Just sayin'.

[Brownshoe]

(06-17-2015, 02:42 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Most people go with their record at the end of the year for the simple fact that it's easier to compile data that way. People are lazy and don't want to do a ton of work, so finding out what each team's record was at the time of playing them would take much more time than simply looking at the end of year standings on 1 page and seeing if the team had a winning/losing record.

Whether it makes Andy better or worse, I see zero "manipulation" from looking at the team's record at the time of playing them. It does make sense. If the Browns were 0-4 when we beat them, that probably means they were playing like shit at the time, so if they end the year 9-7, they would have been added as a team above .500 when in reality they were probably not playing like a .500 team at the time. That makes a lot of sense, I'd say.

I didn't read through the whole thing, but I didn't see him only add in the ties to the losses. If that's the case, then yeah you should probably add them in properly unless his claim is that "The Bengals only WON X games against .500 teams" because at that point a tie would be the equivalent to a loss. If you're just doing overall record (like I believe you guys are), then you're correct with the whole tie situation.

I wouldn't say he's trying to only look at a small portion or that he's twisting anything, he's just presenting the data in a slightly different manner than you are (minus the whole tie fiasco). Again, I don't see anything wrong with looking at the team's record at the time of playing them and I have no idea how you can argue against that unless you're just mad that it doesn't make Andy look better his way. It could actually be argued that he's looking at it a "better" way than you since his numbers reflect approximately how the teams were playing at the time of the Bengals meeting them, and not letting any crazy turnarounds skew the data by only looking at end of the year records. Just sayin'.

The reason I don't like using their record when they play is that they could have just had a bunch of close / hard games in a row, and using the whole season shows what they generally play like.

[*SHRacerX*]

(06-17-2015, 09:01 AM)Rhinocero23 Wrote: Not really a good point...no facts to prove it. 

There is only one similarity between Manning and Dalton. They both play QB in the Nfl. To even insinuate that critics of Dalton are similar to critics of Manning just "shows a lack of understanding".

This is hilarious.  You have zero response to post #216, so you go after this response to another poster?  Is that your way of waiving the white flag? 

And as far as this response goes, I don't think you remember how people were killing Manning early in his career for his playoff performances.  Regardless, it gave me a really good laugh.  Thanks for that!

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-17-2015, 05:19 PM)SHRacerX Wrote: This is hilarious.  You have zero response to post #216, so you go after this response to another poster?  Is that your way of waiving the white flag? 

And as far as this response goes, I don't think you remember how people were killing Manning early in his career for his playoff performances.  Regardless, it gave me a really good laugh.  Thanks for that!

Killing Manning early in his career for his playoff losses?

He had Seven losses by a combined 26 points and 1 other by 41 points

How's we do in our 4 losses:
Game 1: 31-10  21 points
Game 2: 19-13     6 points
Game 3: 27-10   17 points
Game 4: 26-10   16 points

4 Losses by 60 points.

Seems to me even though PM was loosing, they were still in the game.
Also never seen some of the wildest plays in my life except against the colts.
Ben's Shoestring Tackle that saved the game for Pitt......
Back up came off the bench to replace Rivers and win the game for the Chargers
2 missed FG's by Vanderjagt that would've been game winners that were setup by PM.
Forget Snap count on 3-1 with chance to clinch game.
Allow 70 yard game tying TD bomb in closing seconds.
Had worst starting Field Position for a road team in 30 years.

When you look at PM's overall stats during his Post Season games, it becomes quite clear that PM is not at fault for his team losing, but because of his position, it falls on his shoulders.

[Rhinocero23]

(06-17-2015, 08:28 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: A negative trending stat?  That's rich.  You mean like Dalton's fourth year which had a new OC?  BTW, Palmer ran the same offense from day 1.  You think I have a "blind dislike" for Palmer?  What is so blind about a guy that got paid a ton of money in a front loaded contract and walked away from said contract before the conclusion?  I supported him 100% when he was the QB, but no longer.  Instead of making his team a winner, a la Kurt Warner, who took two of the worst franchises in the NFL to Super Bowls, he just quit.  And what has happened since he left?  Four consecutive playoff appearances. 

Your sig makes me laugh.  Here you are on Jungle Noise, but you like to put down the leader of the team with any stat that you feel justifies your attitude.  If you actually watched all four playoff games, Dalton played poorly in the first two.  The second two, he played fairly well.  His team did not play well in any of the four, especially his offensive line and the defense.  Does that mean they both (the defense and offensive line) suck and we should all post the yards and sacks that were allowed by them in our sigs?  Of course not.  But if it gives you some sort of satisfaction being the town crier then boo hoo away.  It really just points to a lack of understanding. 

(06-17-2015, 05:19 PM)SHRacerX Wrote: This is hilarious.  You have zero response to post #216, so you go after this response to another poster?  Is that your way of waiving the white flag? 

And as far as this response goes, I don't think you remember how people were killing Manning early in his career for his playoff performances.  Regardless, it gave me a really good laugh.  Thanks for that!

So what is it you would like me to respond to. 


You act as if Palmer schemed to take the money in the front end of the deal just to outsmart Mike Brown down the road? If your flawed theory is correct and it was just about the money to Palmer then explain why he did not show up for 1 day of minicamp to collect 12 million. 

You are just emotional about a guy who told your boy Mike Brown to suck it. In Palmer's opinion Mike was not fielding a team that was built to win a SUPERBOWL (and Palmer is correct as the fact have proven). Palmer's actions were the equivalent of saying hey you are not doing what I think will work so I am taking what you agreed to pay me and leaving the rest on the table. 

That takes balls man....think of the number of players that half assed their way through the last dime of their deal (getting it all) then telling Mike to suck it as they go play for a better ran organization. The list is massive and has been discussed in many previous threads in the old place. I am sure you do not need me to remind you of Justin Smith, Spikes, Max Montoya, J Jo, Dillon, etc.

Or do you want me to respond to the fact that you think Dalton did not  step-up in every Playoff game. Dalton did nothing to win any playoff game and did plenty to lose them all. What is your point? I refuse to live in your fantasy world that Dalton played well at all in any of them.

[Rhinocero23]

(06-17-2015, 02:42 PM)djs 7685 Wrote: Most people go with their record at the end of the year for the simple fact that it's easier to compile data that way. People are lazy and don't want to do a ton of work, so finding out what each team's record was at the time of playing them would take much more time than simply looking at the end of year standings on 1 page and seeing if the team had a winning/losing record.

Whether it makes Andy better or worse, I see zero "manipulation" from looking at the team's record at the time of playing them. It does make sense. If the Browns were 0-4 when we beat them, that probably means they were playing like shit at the time, so if they end the year 9-7, they would have been added as a team above .500 when in reality they were probably not playing like a .500 team at the time. That makes a lot of sense, I'd say.

I didn't read through the whole thing, but I didn't see him only add in the ties to the losses. If that's the case, then yeah you should probably add them in properly unless his claim is that "The Bengals only WON X games against .500 teams" because at that point a tie would be the equivalent to a loss. If you're just doing overall record (like I believe you guys are), then you're correct with the whole tie situation.

I wouldn't say he's trying to only look at a small portion or that he's twisting anything, he's just presenting the data in a slightly different manner than you are (minus the whole tie fiasco). Again, I don't see anything wrong with looking at the team's record at the time of playing them and I have no idea how you can argue against that unless you're just mad that it doesn't make Andy look better his way. It could actually be argued that he's looking at it a "better" way than you since his numbers reflect approximately how the teams were playing at the time of the Bengals meeting them, and not letting any crazy turnarounds skew the data by only looking at end of the year records. Just sayin'.

(06-17-2015, 05:15 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: The reason I don't like using their record when they play is that they could have just had a bunch of close / hard games in a row, and using the whole season shows what they generally play like.

As djs 7685 pointed out  It is just much harder to collect the data if you are using the record of the teams at that exact point. So the easy thing to do is take the end of year record. There are too many reasons to point out why it is more telling to use records of when the game was played and why this makes sense. 

I will try to make it simple...in your methodology KC (who destroyed) the Pat's last year on MNF should feel that are a better team than the Super Bowl champs. News flash KC was not even in the Playoff's. They can lie to themselves and say "we can beat them on most Sunday's" and they would be doing just that...lying to themselves. The Pat's team that got smoked on MNF was not the same team that made a run to the Superbowl and won it. The team mindset changed, or they were sprinkled with pixie dust, ot they deflated balls, hell I don't know but I do know that they were not the same caliber team.

Point being teams change, the method I use is beneficial on both ends of the argument (making it fair). The flip side of the example above is  say your team beats a 5-0 team in week six. The QB goes out in week 7 and they end up 7-9. Should your team not be credited with betting and undefeated winning team? You know how the Pro- Andy crowd would side if that were the case with him. 

To the point about not using the tie as a win. I specifically said WON the game. I already build in fluff for the Pro-Andy argument by saying teams 500 and above. That means the shitty Browns team that we opened up with was credited as beating a team with a 500 or better record. You want to stack the deck so badly it has to be embarrassing to even the most fanatic Dalton fan.

[*SHRacerX*]

(06-17-2015, 07:53 PM)Rhinocero23 Wrote: So what is it you would like me to respond to. 


You act as if Palmer schemed to take the money in the front end of the deal just to outsmart Mike Brown down the road? If your flawed theory is correct and it was just about the money to Palmer then explain why he did not show up for 1 day of minicamp to collect 12 million. 

You are just emotional about a guy who told your boy Mike Brown to suck it. In Palmer's opinion Mike was not fielding a team that was built to win a SUPERBOWL (and Palmer is correct as the fact have proven). Palmer's actions were the equivalent of saying hey you are not doing what I think will work so I am taking what you agreed to pay me and leaving the rest on the table. 

That takes balls man....think of the number of players that half assed their way through the last dime of their deal (getting it all) then telling Mike to suck it as they go play for a better ran organization. The list is massive and has been discussed in many previous threads in the old place. I am sure you do not need me to remind you of Justin Smith, Spikes, Max Montoya, J Jo, Dillon, etc.

Or do you want me to respond to the fact that you think Dalton did not  step-up in every Playoff game. Dalton did nothing to win any playoff game and did plenty to lose them all. What is your point? I refuse to live in your fantasy world that Dalton played well at all in any of them.

It takes balls to quit a team?  And you say it is because of a lack of winning yet he goes to the Raiders?  What is your point?  Hint:  it is on the top of your head. 

Clueless. 

[*SHRacerX*]

(06-17-2015, 07:02 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Killing Manning early in his career for his playoff losses?

He had Seven losses by a combined 26 points and 1 other by 41 points

How's we do in our 4 losses:
Game 1: 31-10  21 points
Game 2: 19-13     6 points
Game 3: 27-10   17 points
Game 4: 26-10   16 points

4 Losses by 60 points.

Seems to me even though PM was loosing, they were still in the game.
Also never seen some of the wildest plays in my life except against the colts.
Ben's Shoestring Tackle that saved the game for Pitt......
Back up came off the bench to replace Rivers and win the game for the Chargers
2 missed FG's by Vanderjagt that would've been game winners that were setup by PM.
Forget Snap count on 3-1 with chance to clinch game.
Allow 70 yard game tying TD bomb in closing seconds.
Had worst starting Field Position for a road team in 30 years.

When you look at PM's overall stats during his Post Season games, it becomes quite clear that PM is not at fault for his team losing, but because of his position, it falls on his shoulders.

So, we are going to give Manning credit in his 8 losses for the games being closer than Dalton's four losses?  OK, I guess it was Dalton's fault that Gio fumbled at the 5 yard line.   I guess it is also his fault that the defense gave up huge runs in that game as well, including a TD to seal it. 

I really doubt Dalton would be cut any slack if the losses were "closer" and I remember clearly Manning got a lot of grief over his early playoff performances.  But, hey, at least he was close...which counts in horseshoes.  (That was a Colt reference, in case you missed it)

[*PhilHos*]

(06-17-2015, 07:02 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Killing Manning early in his career for his playoff losses?

He had Seven losses by a combined 26 points and 1 other by 41 points

How's we do in our 4 losses:
Game 1: 31-10  21 points
Game 2: 19-13     6 points
Game 3: 27-10   17 points
Game 4: 26-10   16 points

4 Losses by 60 points.

Seems to me even though PM was loosing, they were still in the game.
Also never seen some of the wildest plays in my life except against the colts.
Ben's Shoestring Tackle that saved the game for Pitt......
Back up came off the bench to replace Rivers and win the game for the Chargers
2 missed FG's by Vanderjagt that would've been game winners that were setup by PM.
Forget Snap count on 3-1 with chance to clinch game.
Allow 70 yard game tying TD bomb in closing seconds.
Had worst starting Field Position for a road team in 30 years.

When you look at PM's overall stats during his Post Season games, it becomes quite clear that PM is not at fault for his team losing, but because of his position, it falls on his shoulders.

Here are Peyton's stats in his first 3 playoff games:
Game 1: 19 for 42 45.2% 227 yards 0 TD 0 INT 62.3 rating

Game 2: 17 for 32 53.1% 194 yards 1 TD 0 INT 82.0 rating

Game3: 14 for 31 45.2% 137 yards 0 TD 2 INT 31.2 rating



Here are his QB ratings for his next 2 playoff losses (after he and the Colts did win some games) : 35.5, 69.3. After 2004, Manning never had lower than a 73 rating in any playoff game (win or loss).


In other words, until 2005, Peyton Manning was just as much to blame for the playoff losses as Dalton is for the Bengals.

(06-17-2015, 08:21 PM)Rhinocero23 Wrote: To the point about not using the tie as a win. I specifically said WON the game. I already build in fluff for the Pro-Andy argument by saying teams 500 and above. That means the shitty Browns team that we opened up with was credited as beating a team with a 500 or better record. You want to stack the deck so badly it has to be embarrassing to even the most fanatic Dalton fan.

That's bullshit. You cannot add the tie to the formula for total games played but not count it towards wins. Even saying you're only talking about wins, you still need to add the tie. The tie is literally half a win. It's NOT a loss. Not adding the half a win, you're basically calling the tie a loss and it's NOT. 

Criticize the dude all you want for manipulating the stats, but not counting the tie with the winsbut still using it in the overall games played, you're just as guilty of manipulating stats.

[Brownshoe]

(06-17-2015, 08:21 PM)Rhinocero23 Wrote: As djs 7685 pointed out  It is just much harder to collect the data if you are using the record of the teams at that exact point. So the easy thing to do is take the end of year record. There are too many reasons to point out why it is more telling to use records of when the game was played and why this makes sense. 

I will try to make it simple...in your methodology KC (who destroyed) the Pat's last year on MNF should feel that are a better team than the Super Bowl champs. News flash KC was not even in the Playoff's. They can lie to themselves and say "we can beat them on most Sunday's" and they would be doing just that...lying to themselves. The Pat's team that got smoked on MNF was not the same team that made a run to the Superbowl and won it. The team mindset changed, or they were sprinkled with pixie dust, ot they deflated balls, hell I don't know but I do know that they were not the same caliber team.

Point being teams change, the method I use is beneficial on both ends of the argument (making it fair). The flip side of the example above is  say your team beats a 5-0 team in week six. The QB goes out in week 7 and they end up 7-9. Should your team not be credited with betting and undefeated winning team? You know how the Pro- Andy crowd would side if that were the case with him. 

To the point about not using the tie as a win. I specifically said WON the game. I already build in fluff for the Pro-Andy argument by saying teams 500 and above. That means the shitty Browns team that we opened up with was credited as beating a team with a 500 or better record. You want to stack the deck so badly it has to be embarrassing to even the most fanatic Dalton fan.

Using what the teams record when we play them rather than using their final record has a lot more downside than it does upside. Every team in the NFL has stretches of games where they play bad teams, and stretches where they play good teams. The end result of the season shows a much more accurate gauge on how good the team was. When the Chiefs beat the Patriots the Patriots had a record above .500 too, so what was your point there? Do you not count that as a win for the Chiefs just because they didn't go to the playoffs? If you want to go by that then Dalton was 7-5-1 vs teams with a .500 or better last year, He was 6-1 against teams .500 or better in 2013, in 2012 he was 4-3 against teams that were .500 or better, and in 2011 he was 3-5 against .500 teams or better (all 4 years according to YOUR way). So the grand total would be 20-14-1 against teams that was .500 or better the way you want to add it all up. So what were you saying?


Also ties count as .5 wins. That's how they count it in the NFL. Why try to count something different than what the NFL does?