A historical comparison of Joe Flacco through year 5- Part two (quantitative)

[Ravenswintitle]

For one year, his rookie season when they went 3-13. The very next season they went 13-3 and won their division. After that, the Manning-led Colts only had one season where they won less than 10 games - 2001, Manning's fourth year, where I believe everybody in the Colts locker room came together under the common cause of getting Jim Mora fired.

that's why I said 'rookie season'. Joe came into a good team, most of those high first round guys did not

[Haloti92]

that's why I said 'rookie season'. Joe came into a good team, most of those high first round guys did not

Yes, the quantitative data is not necessarily very predictive due to the fact some guys are getting 0's across the board for years on the bench, combined with the fact that passing stats have gone way up over the decades to the point where direct comparisons of totals across decades don't mean much when gauging talent.

All that said, for HoF type qualifications, those "totals" will count at the end, and even if Hall voters might adjust a bit for different eras, it is hard to argue with "all-time" rankings in terms of statistics, especially very high rankings (regardless of how they came about).

In terms of judging talent and longterm prognoses, it might be better to compare years 3-5, etc, where the early-start bias is removed and we can better judge trendlines and development curves (to attempt to predict future results/comparisons).

[ActualSpamBot]

that's why I said 'rookie season'. Joe came into a good team, most of those high first round guys did not

Joe didn't come onto a good team, Joe came onto a 5-11 team with a rookie head coach and a fullback playing running back because the star runner was out of shape and the rookie runner wasn't ready to carry the load.

Flacco is a big part of the reason the 2008 Ravens made us forget the 2007 Ravens, taking away from that by claiming he inherited a good team is disingenuous.

[Ravenswintitle]

Joe didn't come onto a good team, Joe came onto a 5-11 team with a rookie head coach and a fullback playing running back because the star runner was out of shape and the rookie runner wasn't ready to carry the load.

Flacco is a big part of the reason the 2008 Ravens made us forget the 2007 Ravens, taking away from that by claiming he inherited a good team is disingenuous.

Not taking anything away from Joe just pointing out the different QB scenarios. And if you don't think he came into a pretty damn good team, we'll just disagree about that.

[TheSpiderWebb]

For one year, his rookie season when they went 3-13. The very next season they went 13-3 and won their division. After that, the Manning-led Colts only had one season where they won less than 10 games - 2001, Manning's fourth year, where I believe everybody in the Colts locker room came together under the common cause of getting Jim Mora fired.

Yeah it's very hard, nearly impossible, to be a great QB on a bad team. You can have no talent at all anywhere else on your team, but if you have a fantastic QB you will be in every single game. Just look at the Colts the last 3 years.

[dreamjo]

Not taking anything away from Joe just pointing out the different QB scenarios. And if you don't think he came into a pretty damn good team, we'll just disagree about that.

Alright, RWT. I'll just own up to being a massive purple glasses wearing homer on this issue. While I recognize that my argument is largely based in fandom, I'll try to lay it out in a way that might pass for rational.

Ultimately, I don't understand how a 5-11 team is a "good" team, but a 3-13 team is "horrible". Once you get below six wins in a season, 2 wins isn't enough to sway the definition of a team, for me. Sure, the Colts lost 13 games in Manning's rookie year, but the same guys won 13 the next year. I can't call a team capable of winning 13 games in a season horrible. Sure, they lost 13 the year before (putting them in the position to draft Manning), but that was not the same roster - Mora absolutely gutted the defensive roster when he took over.

In fact, the biggest difference between those two seasons is Manning himself - 26 TDs/28 INTs the 13 loss year, versus 26 TDs/15INTs the 13 win year. If I'm going to compare Joe's rookie year Ravens team to Manning's rookie year Colts team, I would not say the Colts team was horrible. I'd say their rookie QB was.

[Haloti92]

Not taking anything away from Joe just pointing out the different QB scenarios. And if you don't think he came into a pretty damn good team, we'll just disagree about that.

Yeah, some people are getting confused about what we are talking about in terms of "team." Most are assuming we are talking about the team other than QB, for the purposes of this discussion. In which case the Ravens have been a good 'team' for over a decade.

2006 we had the best record in franchise history with a journeyman QB putting up milquetoast stats. When the QB production went into the tank in 2007, combined with a lame duck HC who 'lost the team,' we were 5-11. But the non-QB part of the team was indeed very good (because of the defense primarily).