NYRaider Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 2 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: He's been a starter for like 5 years on the Raiders and got paid. I think he's above by definition, at least until he gets cut. Carr played well last season: 4,169 yards (11th), 27 TD (11th), 67.3% comp (11th). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matts4313 Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 2 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said: I am? Because it complies with your description of it. Go eat your crayons. Yes, you are. Because listing QBs that have been released aside from straight performance flies in the face of the concept. In practice, its simple. "Is this guy good enough". If your team is trying to keep him, he is above the Dalton line. If they are looking to replace him due to performance, than he is below it. Truth is, many QBs are nearly touching the "Dalton line" whether above or below. Its just a silly reference that I guess all the people who attacked me or turned this into a Dak debate dont understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrry32 Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 2 minutes ago, NYRaider said: Goff had 174 passing yards and was 3rd in the league last season in turnovers. Adding Stafford adds a huge dynamic to their offense because he is one of the best deep passers in the league. Goff had zero turnovers and was like 20 of 22 at a late point in that game. The reason the Rams had so little yardage was because the Packers were dominating the TOP and unstoppable on offense for most of that game. The Rams would have lost with Stafford in that game too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 1 minute ago, SalvadorsDeli said: I guess as this thread is showing, people have different definitions of what the Dalton Line is. But for me the idea of the Dalton Line was always the line you draw at which QB's you can win a championship with, not which QB's are necessarily starter-worthy. Dalton himself got paid and started for the Bengals for years even while basically actualizing what the Dalton Line was. I think Carr is that new threshold of 'above average but still makes you feel like you're just treading water as long as he's your starter' that Dalton used to be. Yeah he's right there. Even if they haven't ascended to the peak of mediocrity that is Jeff Fisher/Andy Dalton, they're in the ballpark. I've always thought it was supposed to be something meaningfully different from 'franchise QB', which is why I set the bar lower. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronjon1990 Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 Just now, Matts4313 said: Yes, you are. Because listing QBs that have been released aside from straight performance flies in the face of the concept. In practice, its simple. "Is this guy good enough". If your team is trying to keep him, he is above the Dalton line. If they are looking to replace him due to performance, than he is below it. Truth is, many QBs are nearly touching the "Dalton line" whether above or below. Its just a silly reference that I guess all the people who attacked me or turned this into a Dak debate dont understand. You got all that from 5 seconds of skimming, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkippyX Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 The conceptual idea of the Dalton line is idiotic. Thinking Goff is below this pretend imaginary though exercise line is stupid. He is 42-27 with a 91.5 QB rating. He won 3 playoff games (including 1 with a broken thumb) and he QB'd a team to the Super Bowl. If you conceptually think that is not worth the 10th overall pick of round one or whatever its because a bologna sandwich knows more about football than you do. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYRaider Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 2 minutes ago, BofaDeez54927 said: How does any of that prevent the Packers from scoring on five consecutive drives to open the game? The Rams went 3&out on 2 of their first 3 drives which put the Packers in a position to go up 16-3 in the 2nd quarter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYRaider Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 2 minutes ago, jrry32 said: Goff had zero turnovers and was like 20 of 22 at a late point in that game. The reason the Rams had so little yardage was because the Packers were dominating the TOP and unstoppable on offense for most of that game. The Rams would have lost with Stafford in that game too. The Rams go 3&out on 2/3 drives to start the game with Stafford? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matts4313 Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 4 minutes ago, SkippyX said: The Mendoza line had nothing to do with drafting anyone at any point. The Mendoza line was a demarcation between awful and horrendous. .200 batting average Its an insult. The Dalton line is also an insult because it has the words Andy and Dalton in it. You could just say "I had no clue what I was talking about" instead of digging in further. 3 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said: Googling things you are ignorant of takes about 4 seconds. Knowing what your basis of argument is takes more than 5 seconds of skimming. Try harder next time, young grasshopper. Read the below 3 minutes ago, Jakuvious said: For the record, it's called the Dalton Scale, not the Dalton Line. The Dalton Scale was coined by Chris Wesseling in a podcast back in like 2013, and was just the vague idea that if your QB is better than Andy Dalton, you keep him long term, and if he's worse, you don't. yup yup yup.... 3 minutes ago, Jakuvious said: Googling the Dalton Line just takes you to some Jaguars blog about evaluating draft prospects at QB based on Andy Dalton. nope... The very first link is this 3 minutes ago, Jakuvious said: Both are silly, arbitrary, out of date, and useless concepts. Its none of the above. Maybe silly, but its just a fun/different way of talking about it. In fact, some point this summer I will make a gen thread about it for ish and giggles. 3 minutes ago, Jakuvious said: So Matts, you should really get your terms right They are interchangeable. Both terms have been used. 3 minutes ago, Jakuvious said: before you get pretentious and uppity with everyone about not knowing a phrase that you yourself apparently don't know. Never. You cant make me. I knew you before you were a mod. You hold no power here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matts4313 Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 4 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said: You got all that from 5 seconds of skimming, eh? Ive known about it for a long time. Aside from that, its used on other sites/blogs/articles. People also use it on reddit often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronjon1990 Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 5 minutes ago, NYRaider said: Goff had 174 passing yards and was 3rd in the league last season in turnovers. Adding Stafford adds a huge dynamic to their offense because he is one of the best deep passers in the league. He was 21/27-174-1/0 against a pretty strong D in adverse circumstances with a recently repaired throwing hand. That's gutsy as hell. Stafford maybe keeps the came closer if he's healthy, but "huge dynamic" might be a bit of an overstatement. The Rams weren't winning either way that day. Frankly, I'm amazed Tampa squeezed by once LeFleur wilted. The Packers were damn near a team of destiny this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakuvious Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 3 minutes ago, Matts4313 said: Yes, you are. Because listing QBs that have been released aside from straight performance flies in the face of the concept. In practice, its simple. "Is this guy good enough". If your team is trying to keep him, he is above the Dalton line. If they are looking to replace him due to performance, than he is below it. Truth is, many QBs are nearly touching the "Dalton line" whether above or below. Its just a silly reference that I guess all the people who attacked me or turned this into a Dak debate dont understand. You have it backwards. You're interpreting it as, if you're replacing your QB, he's below Andy Dalton. That's the opposite of the intent. The idea is, you evaluate your QB, and if you believe him to be below Andy Dalton, then you replace him. A poorly managed team can absolutely keep a QB who they shouldn't, or get rid of a QB who they shouldn't. That decision alone is not an evaluation of a QB, as there are more factors involved (age, what point the team is at in a rebuild or superbowl window, what else they have at QB, etc.) The Rams replacing Goff doesn't mean he's below Dalton. Statistically, he's clearly above (a big portion or proving the Dalton concept is that he had a career 100 ANY/A+, when 100 is exactly average, and Goff has always been higher save his rookie year.) But Dalton as a midline is way out of date anyways. There are plenty of QBs better than Andy Dalton that won't cut it because the standard is higher. It's a stupid idea that was entertaining for a podcast to discuss annually. That's it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronjon1990 Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 Just now, Matts4313 said: Ive known about it for a long time. Aside from that, its used on other sites/blogs/articles. People also use it on reddit often. So long that you forgot what it was actually called? People use it on Reddit? I'm so impressed. Teach me more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrry32 Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 3 minutes ago, NYRaider said: The Rams go 3&out on 2/3 drives to start the game with Stafford? The Lions scored 6 points the last time Stafford was in the playoffs. The Lions playoff PPG average during Stafford's career there is 18 points. Goff led the Rams to points on two of their four first half drives. Do I think Stafford does markedly better? No. Maybe we lose 32-25 or 32-21 instead of 32-18. Big whoop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 Just now, Jakuvious said: It's a stupid idea that was entertaining for a podcast to discuss annually. That's it. In this case, I think it opens up the "what the hell do the Lions do with Goff" question that isn't getting national traction since they're rebuilding and the Rams are all-in (again). As a hardcore fan, that question is more interesting to me. Matt Stafford's fit on the Rams is more obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts