Convenient to leave out the context of that quote.
You forgot the part where he says he thinks everyone should think that way.
Teams have been offering ludicrous contracts to QB's who have proven nothing for years. Just look at the NFL draft.
Not only did the Cardinals give up draft picks for Kevin Kolb, but then they paid him a contract with a value of $65 million over 5 years...or roughly 13 mill/year on average. Are you REALLY willing to claim that Kolb was worth 13 mill per year...but Flacco is not?
Yes, the Jets owe Sanchez 8.25 million next year. But that is for the Jets to deal with. Flacco still makes them better.
Carson's deal was 4 years $43 million. I don't know what his cap hit would be if they cut him but people in Oakland are talking as though that could happen. And since they didn't go to the playoffs, they don't owe the Bengals their 2013 second pick.Quote:
Oakland? Not sure how the Palmer deal is structured, but if they still owe him significant money, same deal. Plus, let's be real--most dysfunctional franchise in football.
Flacco I think can make them better, but not as much as Arizona or the Jets. I don't think that's the best place for him either.
Arizona's biggest problem is that they can't decide on one of their three QB's to be the starter, they need consistency. And that is wasting the football life of arguably the current best wide receiver in the league. They would back the truck up for Flacco if he was on the open market, and considering how bad Skelton, Kolb, and Lindey have been, Flacco makes them a contender even if you plugged in last year's stats. Arizona makes the playoffs with Flacco at QB.Quote:
Arizona? Maybe if they keep Whisenhunt--if not, it depends on who they get to coach, and that's the toughest division in football right now. Not likely to make the Cards a contender immediately in those circumstances.
All the places in question all have QB issues that make it all the more flummoxing that we're here in Baltimore arguing over Joe Flacco. And the FO has to know that. That's why he will get his deal here anyway, no matter what we think they will or won't do.
You're putting words in my mouth. Never have I said that Flacco does not contribute at all to the success of the Ravens. I just believe that the proportion which he contributes is decidedly smaller than some others around here seem to believe. Some seem to think he's entirely responsible by himself for the team's success. I beg to differ.
No, I'm not putting words in your mouth. You've blamed Flacco for losses. That you give him some small credit for wins isn't exactly at the same level as blaming him for the losses. Those wins and losses, in truth, were on the team as a whole. Flacco doesn't throw to himself. He doesn't block for himself. He's not lead-blocking for Rice, Pierce, or Leach. He's not playing defense. In every game the Ravens have played, the entire team was part of the outcome. The loss to the Redskins was certainly hurt by his turnovers, but if Reed and Johnson play their position instead of gambling on a big play, we still win.
Sure, you knew what was going to happen. Where were the receivers? What the was play called? Did he have anyone to throw it to?Quote:
I don't play fantasy football... so in answer to your question, no. Well, irrespective of anything else, if Flacco outplayed Brady in the AFCCG by some twisted logic that I can't fathom, then I fail to see how Charlie Batch didn't outplay him while not only posting a better passer rating but also winning the game. Since I did watch the game, and therefore watched Flacco throw a ridiculous pick that he should have thrown OOB, and also watched him hold onto a ball far too long while Harrison was coming, and I just KNEW what was going to happen next... yeah. I doubt you watched the game if you thought Flacco played better.
This would be the same QB who has been criticized for getting "happy feet," a "deer in the headlights" look, throwing it away too quickly, and checking down to Rice too often. Christ, there were even idiots criticizing him for checking down to Rice on the 4th and 29 when no one else was open.
He's been operating under a playcalling schema that on nearly every pass play only has routes that take time to develop. The receivers, with the exception of Boldin, aren't great route-runners, and it's not like the offensive coaching made it a priority to improve that (or so it looks on the field). If he doesn't hold onto the football, he never makes a completion this year. When you watch the games- as you say you do (or, at least, did- let me not put words in your mouth)- have you seen that?
If so, what's your criticism again?
Upthread someone laid out the analysis comparing Flacco to Brady in that game- the passes with Ample Time and Space (ATS), completion percentage, etc. As far as what both of them could control, Flacco played better than Brady. He performed better under a heavier pass rush. Brady made a beautiful pass to Webb, for instance. He threw another pick as well. That Tom Brady sucked isn't just my opinion, it was his. Flacco, OTOH, was 22 of 36 for 306 yards with two touchdowns and one interception. As far as *his* end of the passing went, he threw three touchdowns. Lee Evans begged to differ.
It was probably the best postseason performance of his career, and he didn't despite Wilfork abusing the middle of his o-line the entire game.
As for Batch: watch that fourth quarter. Batch has ample time and wide-open receivers to hit. On the sack-fumble, there's no one open. Rice is cutting across in front of the linebackers, and every receiver is covered while Flacco looks downfield. Harrison blew up Oher on that play: it's not like Flacco held it an unusual amount of time.
The score could have been worse. Batch overthrew a wide-open Wallace in the end zone, and underthrew another receiver (maybe Wallace again) that Reed picked off.
Batch outplayed Flacco only by a standard you obviously only use to denigrate Flacco.
In any event, again, he's the effing QB. He's the only skill position player who touches the ball on every snap. That means he gets the lion's share of credit when the offense does well, and the lion's share of blame when it doesn't. It's the nature of the beast. I'm not holding Flacco to a standard any different that what Sanchez is held to. Or what Brady is held to. Maybe it's not fair, but it's the way it is.
It really comes down to whether the Ravens or Joe or we think he should be paid like the SB-winning QBs or whether he should be paid a bit below them (and above Kolb, Cassel, etc). Vick's deal was terrible, and Rivers' deal was large but came off of an absolutely monster season (so did Big Ben's).
By your standard, Flacco is best regular season QB of the last four+ years, but you don't give him that credit, do you? He's won more games over his first four seasons than anyone else, and he won more games his first four seasons than any QB in the history of the league. That, by your standard, would make him The Elite QB. But, you don't apply your standard in any way that might benefit Flacco, do you?
You can watch the play at NFL.com. He's sacked in less than three seconds, and probably closer to two than three. There's no one open. Only Rice isn't streaking down the field past 10 yards, and he's bracketed by two linebackers. Somewhere around here is a Flacco thread with an analysis of "Road Joe" versus "Home Joe," and the breakdown is basically that Flacco shows more patience (holds the damn ball) at home than he does on the road. That's what Cameron's playcalling required. But that's Flacco's fault, I'm sure.Quote:
I don't know. What we do know for sure is that he held onto the ball for longer than the situation dictated he should and that he fumbled because of it. We also know that the same thing has happened two other times this year (that I can think of off the top of my head--@ Philly, @ Was). Irrespective of what the play call was, what whoever else on the field was doing, do you expect me to believe that those were the best attainable outcomes on those plays? Since it has continued to happen, instead of being fixed, do you expect me to believe that he's improving in some way?
While it's only two games (and only one where it was effective early enough to continue), so it's hard to say Caldwell is really going to deviate from CamBall, if he does it has been fixed. We're actually seeing hot routes available to Flacco when there's a blitz, and the pass plays called have a mix of deep and quick routes that give him the option to get rid of the ball quickly.
If I give you a bag of loose shit, you ain't carving Michaelangelo's David with it. But you expect Flacco to do that. It's not "all somebody else's fault," but the offensive schema and the playcalling aren't on Flacco.Quote:
Ah, I see. It's the "Joe is a helpless victim of circumstance" argument. Well, that might work for rookies... but in 5th year QBs expecting paydays? You'll forgive me if I expect him to be able to take what he's given and do his best with it. Considering that his best only seems to pop up occasionally, and mysteriously not when he's playing on the road (Ryan actually has a better QB rating on the road than at home this year, and among the better franchises in the league, Flacco is the only one with such a wide disparity in home vs. road performance)... you'll just have to excuse me for not believing that it's ALL somebody else's fault.
I was at the Houston playoff game last year. The second offensive play for the Ravens, Flacco dropped a perfect pass onto Smith's hands up the right sideline. Smith dropped it. The fat woman next to me howled, "Oh no! There goes Flacco again."
What's the difference between you and her?
If that's the standard, Flacco's outplayed the other QB in far more games than not over his career. He outplayed Brady in '09 in New England when he went 4 for 10. Somehow, I don't see you touting his performance in that game. Flacco won more games over his first four years in the league than any other QB won during those same four years. But, obviously, that's a convenient standard, not a real one.Quote:
Again... what did the scoreboard say at the end? And Flacco outplayed Batch? If you're going to give QBs credit for wins, they have to get credit for losses too. Point is, the Ravens didn't outplay the Steelers that day, period. That includes the fact that the Ravens QB didn't outplay the Steelers QB... whoever it may have been.
Hey bacchys--the difference between our posts is that I'm telling you what I think, and you're telling me what I think. I don't really see the point in carrying on that conversation. I'll just leave it with the sentiment that whatever happens, I hope it's the best thing for the Ravens.
If they win, Flacco gets some small credit. If they lose, it's Flacco's fault because he's the QB.
We do agree that, whatever happens, let's hope it's the best thing for the Ravens. I trust Ozzie won't break the team to pay Flacco.