Just understand there's many people here who are getting tired of the outrage over what appears to be yet again a misinterpreted article on Joe as some sort of dis.
I perceive this as a bit of thin skinned reactions and said such. You're free to debate otherwise.
On the flip side of what you are saying, I have noticed a trend on this forum that those who defend Ravens players from national articles are often accused of having "thin skin", or drinking "purple kool aid". That's OK. It's all part of the debate I guess. But I think those types of comments are counter productive to debating, in this case whether or not Joe Flacco is top 5. Just my opinion and an observation from a relatively still new poster.
As you point out, it's this season only. Through three games, and the stats bear this out, Joe is indeed almost there *this year*. The author is not saying Joe's an overall sub top ten QB for his career or anything like that. Since the author is strictly dealing in stats, in what metric is he wrong anyway?
And as another poster pointed out, the author goes on to praise Joe, saying the stats don't tell the whole story, a narrative that you also seem to agree with in your debate here.
His choice of using stats as his sole metric may be a bad choice in your mind but that's a completely different debate.
There are certainly media pundits who do just that (Skip Bayless and Heath Evans comes to mind as does Jamie Dukes).
The problem is every time someone feels injustice towards the Ravens, they start a thread about it and it almost always reads as the following:
"Can you believe _________ said that the Ravens ____________!??!"
"______________ said that Joe Flacco is average at best; the media continues to hate the Ravens and Joe Flacco gets no respect."
So, if some posters who look at threads such as this as a "thin skin" reaction, you have to understand that is how it has been for years here.
If you disagree with the analytical report, that's one thing, but look at your original post:
You acknowledge that the analyst is using this year as his statistical reasoning for his ranking. Then you go into how Rivers has never won anything and Matt Ryan is a loser.Quote:
smh... when will these football analysts learn? Granted the article is for THIS YEAR and not a lifetime of work. But still, C'MON MAN!
Philip Rivers who has never won anything and owns a losing record this year is ranked in the top 5 along with fellow loser record QB golden boy Matt Ryan. Flacco at 2-1 can't crack the top 10. He's "almost there". Quite comical actually.
I think if you take a step back and look at it from other perspectives you could see how this comes across as another "thin skin overreaction" thread.
So with that said I can't put myself in the "Everyone hates Baltimore" category, which is why I don't see my original post as thin skin. I put the line in there about the article being about 3 games so that you guys would know that I read the article and didn't just cherry pick a line about Flacco.
I disagree with the article and how the author goes about deterinming who he thinks is the best through 3 weeks. He's ranking the QBs through 3 weeks based on QB index. I get that. I disagree with the premise on ranking and how he arrived there. I gave my reason why due to the intangibles. For example, a three and out depending on where it is in the game and why it occured is something that should be in the equation, but is not and never will be. Hence his flawed concept of ranking the starters.
Is it possible you're so used to some people playing the "Ravens disrespect" card that you dismiss threads like this?
Well said Wicked.
And in totally stealing that pic. :)