Would you rather have cheap Dalton or expensive Prescott?

[Calvert28]

14 hours ago, JustAnotherFan said:

He didn't have the official "free agent" title but the Bengals have openly been trying to shop him for the last 5 months or so and it was no secret to anyone that Burrow was going to be their #1 pick and Dalton was going to be available. Essentially, he was a free agent since the end of the regular season but he is not a starting caliber QB and has no upside at this point in his career. 

It says alot about what Gms and coaches really think about Dalton when Bridgewater, Mariota, Cam, Foles, Winston and every other QB drafted find a new home before he does. That's some pretty low standards even as a backup QB  

Wait when did Cam get signed?

[JAF-N72EX]

On 5/12/2020 at 8:49 AM, SmittyBacall said:

This just isn’t true. 

It is very true and professional GM's and coaches tend to agree with me whether you wanna a believe it or not. 

He was passed over by every other team in the league that needed a QB, then he signed to the Cowboys as a "backup QB" and now he is getting paid "backup QB" money.  But I'll come back to this later.

On 5/12/2020 at 8:49 AM, SmittyBacall said:

He won 70 games over a 9 year span since his rookie season. He had a 5-year stretch during his career in which he went 43-26-1 and lead the Bengals to the playoffs 5 consecutive years. That’s not a career backup getting lucky. You can call him an average starter or a below average starter, but he’s certainly still a starting caliber QB; he has the resume to back that up. Nothing has changed skillset wise since then.

Oh jesus christ, the QB Winz gamez argument again huh.This ridiculous notion needs to stop, and the fact that people still use this argument to try and prop up players in 2020 is even more ridiculous.

Do you not realize that you are essentially saying that Dalton won those 70 games all by himself with no help and every single one of those wins were a direct result of Andy Dalton himself? And don't try to spin it either because that is essentially what you are doing whenever you try to correlate team wins to QB's. And again, that is ridiculous. 

Plus, if you are going to use the QB wins argument to prop up a player then you also need to take the losses too. And in the last 3 years, Dalton only has 14 wins-- which is good for about ~25th most in the league over that span (including those QB who haven't even been in the league that long).

Based on your QB wins argument, over the last 3 years there atleast  25 QB's better than Dalton. Which essentially makes him a back up quality QB. 

Jay Cutler had nearly just as many wins as Dalton during the same span......what does that say?

No. Dalton did NOT win 70 games.... the TEAM won 70 games. Or are we just going to forget about those type of games where Dalton's TEAM defense bailed him late in teh game after he threw an INT in the redzone in a close game and the defense picked off Mariota on the very next throw to give him another shot. Or how about the special teams setting up Dalton in the opponents side of the field only for Dalton to turn the ball over?

Is Qb wins your only argument for Dalton because that's all I have ever seen from you?

Bottomline, I don't care what he did 5-9 years ago in 2020 and neither do GM and coaches. They care about what kind of player they are getting right now based on what he has done in recent years. Otherwise Cam Newton, a former NFL MVP, 1st all-pro, OPOY, and SB QB, would have been signed long ago.

On 5/12/2020 at 8:49 AM, SmittyBacall said:

First of all, just because he wasn’t dealt doesn’t mean there was zero or minimal interest. There are other factors at play here. Namely, a combination of the asking price for return compensation being too high, contract, and a flush QB market. By many reputable accounts Dalton was the first choice for Chicago, but the Bengals wanted a 3rd in which the Bears didn’t have (although they did have two 2nds). The Bears likely offered their late 4th round pick which was eventually dealt to Jacksonville for Foles. The Bengals stupidly turned it down by playing hardball. Eventually more QBs signed, spots filled, and the market dried up quick, rapidly driving down any leverage the Bengals had.

You named one team that showed interest out of 32. That is the exact definition of zero to minimal interest. (actually the Jets were interested to before the Cowboys so that's two teams).

Your next point is just speculation and opinion on your part and you're entitled to tghat, it's cool, so I won't even entertain it.

But I will say, I agree that the Bengals were trying to get far more for him than they really could. Especially since they weren't even willing to take on his contract despite being flush with cap space already. 

I think the Bengals should have tried to deal him mid-season before teh trade deadline instead of waiting until end of season. He didn't look good before his injury in 2018 and wasn't looking any better in the first few weeks in 2019 either. Now, I know the couldn't have predicted the future or anything but the writing was on the wall long before his 3 back-to-back-to-back INT drives against the Patriots that got him benched for Ripley. 

I'm still not sure they would have had many bidders because of his contract, but his name alone would have probably drawn more interest from desperate teams that were still trying keep their afloat. 

On 5/12/2020 at 8:49 AM, SmittyBacall said:

The fact that Dalton isn’t competing for a starting job right now isn’t entirely indicative of Dalton’s ability as a starting QB, as much as it is about the Bengals incompetence in terms of handling the situation. Just because guys like Winston and Dalton (and likely Newton soon) are signing for back up jobs isn’t because they aren’t starting caliber QBs, there’s just not enough jobs to go around at the moment. 

 I strongly disagree.They are backup QB's because they are both turnover prone and you cannot win in this league with a QB who turns the ball over as much as they do. 

Look man, Dalton has atleast 1 turnover in 25 of his last 40 games(3 years) and that isn't even counting the other 13 passes that should have been INTs (per FO's adjusted INT's). That is terrible and over 75% of them are his fault alone. Not the team or supporting cast. 

There is a strong correlation between team wins and winning the turnover battle, and it's even harder to win the turnover battle when the most important player on your team is the reason WHY you can't win this battle. 

I really don't remember so don't quote me on this (I'll have to go through my thousand spreadsheets to find it) but I did a quick a study before on what percentage of games were won and lost based on how many turnovers were from the QB position ONLY, and if I'm not mistaken it went something like this. 

---0 turnovers from the QB and you have a great chance to win the game. 
---1 turnover is no big deal. A team can overcome that.
---2 turnovers from the QB and you are not exactly putting your team dead in the water but you are certainly putting them at risk. 
---3 turnovers or more and you have essentially handed the opposing team a win.

I bring this up because Winston and Dalton both fall into those "2 and 3 or more" turnover departments rather than the former and GM's and coaches see this. Winston loves to throw INT's in his first throw of every game and Dalton alone has, I think, 12 games where he has 2 or more turnovers in the last 2 and half years (nearly a full season). And I can assure you that the majoriy of those turnovers were absolutley his fault and NOT because of his supporting cast.

I have went back and watched Dalton and I have each and every one of his turnovers recorded, right now, over the last 3 years and it's not pretty. If you wanna see it and don't believe me then give the word and I will upload all of them and you can see it for yourself.  
 

 

Edited May 15, 2020 by JustAnotherFan

[YogiBiz]

On 5/8/2020 at 10:27 AM, Matts4313 said:

I will say this - if you dont know - I am big into advanced analyticals. Every analytical site in the world will tell you the same thing: Run Game does not improve your QB. For example, Zeke only commanded a loaded box 17% of the time last year. Thats ranked #24... Meaning 23 other RBs drew a loaded box more often. Teams were scared of Dak, not Zeke. 

I give Matts a lotta flack for his love of Dak. But this stat is the most telling of his status in the NFL. The Cowboys have a Top 5 pick a RB in this era in Zeke, and he is easily one of the best 3 or 4 RB in the league. Teams are still more concerned about stopping Dak, and the passing attack.  I'm going through the list, and I can't find 10 guys I'd rather have unless I am just being Dak-hater. If he stays in Dallas with those weapons, he's going to have a statistically great career.

[Uncle Buck]

I want the best chance to win a Super Bowl, so give me Dak.  Now that there is an actual coach in Dallas (and a great QB coach to boot), I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see Dak blow up and play great this season.

Edited May 15, 2020 by Uncle Buck

[Uncle Buck]

 

 

 

1

On 5/8/2020 at 9:27 AM, Matts4313 said:

OL

2016 = #1 in the NFL

2017 = Very mediocre

2018 = Absolute trash until we fired our OL coach mid season, then better

2019 = Top 10 for sure, probably top 5

 

Run game

2016 = #1 in the NFL

2017 = Good not great

2018 = Top 10, possibly top 5

2019 = Top 10, possibly top 5

 

I will say this - if you dont know - I am big into advanced analyticals. Every analytical site in the world will tell you the same thing: Run Game does not improve your QB. For example, Zeke only commanded a loaded box 17% of the time last year. Thats ranked #24... Meaning 23 other RBs drew a loaded box more often. Teams were scared of Dak, not Zeke. 

Christian Ponder says "hi."

 

 

And then he ends up agreeing with you. 

[The Juice]

On 8/5/2020 at 3:34 PM, Kirill said:

Cycle him out for another 1 year vet. Dak and Goff aren't guys you wanna be paying like they're Joe Montana.

There are a lot of retirements coming, but as of right now with more butts than seats to start at QB, there's an argument to be made about going with the Cams, Winstons or Daltons if they want a chance at starting for the minimum. Not talking just about this Dak argument.

I mean, QB top-10 money could buy you a couple All-Pros at your two worst positions. That's crazy improvement. It will depend on the QB you have to extend, but lots of times if this high-end retreats keep being available the value just won't be there.

[Chuck80]

On 5/11/2020 at 7:46 PM, Matts4313 said:

Dak has both the stats and the wins. Along with intangibles. 

Also, Daks first 4 years are way, way, way better than Flacco. The only QB with a better start to their career in recent memory is Russell Wilson. 

I fully agree if Jerry Jones was a better manager of the cap I'd say go for it ..he should of never paid Zeke or Cooper what they got 

[SpacemanSpiff]

I'm still waiting for the team that gets sick of QB money and is bold enough to just start cycling QBs every few years the way teams cycle running backs. Especially if said team can just keep a stout defense together and win by playing moneyball with draft picks at QB. I think it's going to start happening soon. Teams are starting to see what a double-edged sword this megamillions QB thing is. It's only a matter of time before a visionary GM sets the bar by trading a superstar ahead of their extension and nets his team like 3 first rounders. Dallas could be that team. I don't fault Dak for wanting to get paid big money. Get your money while you can, man, but also, I think it's going to be within the next 2-3 years we'll see the first franchise QB get traded before his deal comes up.

[TheGame316]

13 hours ago, SpacemanSpiff said:

I'm still waiting for the team that gets sick of QB money and is bold enough to just start cycling QBs every few years the way teams cycle running backs. Especially if said team can just keep a stout defense together and win by playing moneyball with draft picks at QB. I think it's going to start happening soon. Teams are starting to see what a double-edged sword this megamillions QB thing is. It's only a matter of time before a visionary GM sets the bar by trading a superstar ahead of their extension and nets his team like 3 first rounders. Dallas could be that team. I don't fault Dak for wanting to get paid big money. Get your money while you can, man, but also, I think it's going to be within the next 2-3 years we'll see the first franchise QB get traded before his deal comes up.

Great defenses cover up a lot of warts at QB or on offense in general

Rex Grossman made a Superbowl, Trent Dilfer and Joe Flacco won one

It's rare you see a team with a Top 5 Defense not make the playoffs and be a contender for the SB. Spend the money there

[SpacemanSpiff]

1 minute ago, TheGame316 said:

Great defenses cover up a lot of warts at QB or on offense in general

Rex Grossman made a Superbowl, Trent Dilfer and Joe Flacco won one

It's rare you see a team with a Top 5 Defense not make the playoffs and be a contender for the SB. Spend the money there

My Titans were a great example, except we made the mistake of the part where we kept our value QB who overperformed his salary, which is the part you're not supposed to do