Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 78910111213 LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 190
  1. #151

    Re: Flacco Deal Update...



    add 5-10 mil to whatever matt ryan ends up getting...




  2. #152
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    31,923
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Flacco Deal Update...

    http://blogs.baltimoreravens.com/201...out-to-change/

    PFT stated that no progress has been made, but Aaron Wilson has been informed that the Ravens and Joe Linta have met twice since the combine to discuss Flacco's extension.
    Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer.

    -Arnold Schwarzenegger



    Check out Fatherhood Rules - a blog site dedicated to sports, food, music, movies, and politics.
    http://fatherhoodrules.com




  3. #153

    Re: Flacco Deal Update...

    Quote Originally Posted by ballhawk View Post
    Flacco had a great season last year...what the hell are you guys talking about? And he did it with a cast of rookie and 2nd year receivers (who probably led the league in dropped passes). He is going to get $100 million...and he is worth it.
    I dont know what you watched, but Flacco had a pretty shitty season last year, even to his standards which already arent very high.

    Flacco has always had the benefit of a ridiculously good defense to bail him out.

    And that absolutely should reflect in his contract.




  4. #154

    Re: Flacco Deal Update...

    Quote Originally Posted by landspeed View Post
    I dont know what you watched, but Flacco had a pretty shitty season last year, even to his standards which already arent very high.

    Flacco has always had the benefit of a ridiculously good defense to bail him out.

    And that absolutely should reflect in his contract.
    He didn't have a great year, but he did look good in the playoffs. As far as his off-year is concerned, its hard to tell how much of that is attributed to his terrible offensive coordinator. When the line isn't blocking and everyone is running 9 routes, its hard to be consistent.




  5. #155

    Re: Flacco Deal Update...

    Quote Originally Posted by bmorecareful View Post
    Are you seriously willing to put so much faith in QB rating that you'll decide whether to re-sign Flacco based on 10 points of variance from year to year? I'm sorry, but for as logical and intelligent as you sound, the core of your argument is very dubious.

    Prognosticate over 10 points worth of QB rating as much as you want, but here's a simpler explanation: 1) a given player's performance doesn't exist in a vacuum, 2) because of that fact, a certain degree of variance one way or the other is COMPLETELY unavoidable, 3) you can't be sure that variance is due entirely or mostly to the player himself.

    Case in point: as I said earlier, 5 (or possibly 6, depending on how you want to define it) of Ray Rice's rushing TDs in 2011 came as a result of a long pass play downed within the 10 yard line or a DPI in the end zone. If those 5 TDs are passing TDs, Flacco's QB rating goes up almost 5 points.

    Does that "really" mean he was 5 points better? I think we can all agree that is not necessarily the case.

    You can play with the numbers however you want, but to pin all your hopes on QB rating is, in a word, hopeless. I don't care what Flacco's QB rating is in 2012 if he's helping his team win, particularly when the chips are down and no one else seems to be stepping up. He did exactly that often enough to convince me last year.

    And I'm not an anti-stats guy. I'm actually pretty big on stats in a lot of respects. But you'll never see a Cam Cameron passer post gaudy stats under ANY circumstances. Drew Brees has been the most consistently excellent passer of the last 5 years, and even he only broke a 90 QB rating once under Cam, in 2004. His average QB rating in San Diego was an 84.9, slightly lower than Joe's career average, and he was a worse passer on the whole in San Diego. Do you think that's a coincidence? I don't, and I think it further illustrates why pinning all your hopes on 1 stat is a mistake.
    First, QB rating isn't '1 stat,' it's four stats rolled into one number, intended to be a measure of overall efficiency of a QB's play. You can debate its validity if you like, but it exists and is constantly referenced because it is one of the better indicators of how well a team is doing offensively. Not just the QB, I grant you--it also says something for how well the receivers are getting the ball, how far they're making it when they catch a pass, etc. About the only thing it measures that is mostly on the QB is interceptions.

    Second, it's like this. Here's two sets of data for you--first, the ratings for all the QBs of the teams that won 12 or more games last year, and then the records of the teams that had QBs which finished the year +/- 5 points of Flacco on the QB rating scale, and who played all 16 games (if you want, throw out Jackson--he only played 15). I posted this earlier, but not in this format, so maybe it'll be clearer this way:

    Rodgers-122.5
    Brees- 110.6
    Brady- 105.6
    Smith- 90.7
    Roethlisberger- 90.1
    Flacco- 80.9

    Newton- 84.9/6 wins
    Hasselbeck- 82.4/9 wins
    Flacco- 80.9/12 wins
    Dalton- 80.4/9 wins
    Jackson- 79.2/7 wins
    Fitzpatrick- 79.1/6 wins
    Sanchez- 78.2/8 wins


    So what does it tell you? Obviously, it's not a large enough sample size to say anything definitively, but it does show two things--that Flacco's QB rating was by far the worst of the teams that were the 'elite' of the league last year, and that QBs who got ratings similar to Flacco tended to win far fewer games.

    So... upon seeing this, it raises a few questions for me, and makes one thing seem likely. The latter first--getting high quality (statistically) play out of whoever is at the QB position is less important to the Ravens than it is to other teams (or, at least it was to the 2011 Ravens--maybe 2012 will be different). If you get 12 wins with an 80.9 rating, you're apparently making up for that deficiency in other areas (defense, running... probably not special teams!). The questions it raises are these--how many wins would that have been at a 90 rating? How many at a 70 rating? If that's the spread you're working with, what's that actually worth paying for?

    Is this in any way definitive? Am I saying I'm right? Not at all. But I think it's a logical, cogent viewpoint, and I think that I want to see another year of this offense before I spend any big money on any part of it, if I'm the Ravens FO. You may be right--Cam may be the whole problem. The Ravens should have gotten rid of him just to see what would happen, IMO. But until you've got a better idea as to exactly where the problem is... I wouldn't throw a lot of cash around.
    Last edited by redmike34; 04-09-2012 at 09:23 PM. Reason: format of stats was effed




  6. #156

    Re: Flacco Deal Update...

    If you go to the playoffs with a quarterback for all four years of his career, you keep him.

    Redmike, you can draw other conclusions from your same stats. How about this one: Joe Flacco's QB rating was aberrantly low in the 2011 season despite his success as an NFL quarterback.
    Festivus

    His definitions and arguments were so clear in his own mind that he was unable to understand how any reasonable person could honestly differ with him.




  7. #157
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,547
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Flacco Deal Update...

    Wanna know what kills me?

    Last year, when Flacco's stats were among the best in the league, the usual suspects where all "but that doesn't mean anything, just look at him play".

    Now when people are saying the stats don't tell the whole story, Flacco visibly played better, made more clutch plays, etc, those same people are saying "but his stats went down".

    Those same people also bashed Flacco for not having good numbers in the playoffs. Now that over the last two years his rating is in the mid-upper 90's, they want to dismiss them.

    There is no winning with these people, and quite frankly, I think most of us are getting tired of this stupid, idiotic debate. Look at what this thread, that started out as something informative, has turned into.




  8. #158

    Re: Flacco Deal Update...

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    Noway hes worth rivers money? I realize eli and ben won SBs but at the same point in their respective careers theyre all arguably similar players even statistically. Wanting more isnt necessarily below market price with inflation and considering his age. I believe, may be wrong, but eli has the latest deal and it was signed in 2008? If he was asking to be paid brady or brees money id agree youre better off waiting him out but those deals those guys signed were young qbs you believe will take the next step and can lead your team which i believe he falls under.
    Rivers' year before he got his extension was off-the-charts good. Totally different than Flacco's last year. I am not saying Flacco isn't as good as Rivers (though I probably would). And I am definitely not saying Flacco cannot become better than Rivers will ever be. All I am saying is at the time the contracts were negotiated, Rivers was by FAR more able to argue for big money.

    Rivers signed in August of 2009. His 2008 season consisted of a 105.5 QB rating (best in league by 8 pts), 34 TDs (tied for best in league with Brees), 11 Ints only (6 less than Brees), 4009 yards (5th in league BUT he had way less attempts than those ahead of him such that his YPA was significantly the best in league at 8.39). In short, Rivers could easily argue he was the best QB in the league in 2008; even if he might not quite win that argument, it wouldn't be a stretch to claim that by any means. And since we all agree that you pay people for their trajectory as much as anything, his huge deal was easy to rationalize. Age also isn't relevant to the comparison because Rivers was roughly the same age as Joe is now when he signed; he had played one extra year in the league but came out 1 year earlier than Joe.

    As for BigBen, he signed his 'big' deal in March of 2008. He also had a ring at that point and his stats for the 2007 season, were: QB rating 104.1 (2nd behind Brady), 32 TDs (3rd in league), 'only' 3154 yards, but only 404 attempts, gving him a YPA of 7.81 (4th in the league). He also made the ProBowl. And also the deal was 8 yrs for 'only' $102M, less than $13M per.

    As for total 'career' statistics, I would say that they matter less than the trend/trajectory. And more importantly, passing stats have been going up across the league and completely spiked last year, making it harder to compare year to year totals without some kind of adjustment.

    Eli's big-money extension was signed in the preseason of 2009. If Eli had not won a SuperBowl in 2007 and then followed it up with a significantly improved year statistically (to his fairly mundane stats from 2003-2007) I don't think he gets anywhere near that extension. Eli is the one that is closest to Flacco in terms of performance in the contract year. Eli's year was better but not by a ton, but more importantly it was better than the year before (he improved). And again he had a SB title and SB MVP under his belt.

    While we can agree or disagree about how Flacco's stats are harmed by forces outside his control, the fact remains, he is not coming into the negotiations with as much leverage as these other three were when they signed their deals. QB rating ranking around 15th-18th depending on who you include, TDs tied for 13th, yardage ranked 12th, YPA ranked a pitiful 24th. That doesn't mean he doesn't have leverage obviously, I would just say that it isn't some kind of 'given' that he deserves deals similar to the deals these three signed.

    As for inflation, I hear you and agree, though the salary cap in 2009 was $123M, roughly the same as it will be this year (and maybe next). Also, as has been said, the guaranteed money (and structure/details) is really as crucial as the total and yearly average.
    Last edited by Haloti92; 04-09-2012 at 11:19 PM.




  9. #159
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Northern Ireland, UK
    Posts
    2,812

    Re: Flacco Deal Update...

    and the counter arguement is flaccos rating could have been in the 90s if not for PI calls and then a rushing TD, or if not for a few drops, or torreys drop that lead to a INT
    Quote Originally Posted by redmike34 View Post
    First, QB rating isn't '1 stat,' it's four stats rolled into one number, intended to be a measure of overall efficiency of a QB's play. You can debate its validity if you like, but it exists and is constantly referenced because it is one of the better indicators of how well a team is doing offensively. Not just the QB, I grant you--it also says something for how well the receivers are getting the ball, how far they're making it when they catch a pass, etc. About the only thing it measures that is mostly on the QB is interceptions.

    Second, it's like this. Here's two sets of data for you--first, the ratings for all the QBs of the teams that won 12 or more games last year, and then the records of the teams that had QBs which finished the year +/- 5 points of Flacco on the QB rating scale, and who played all 16 games (if you want, throw out Jackson--he only played 15). I posted this earlier, but not in this format, so maybe it'll be clearer this way:

    Rodgers-122.5
    Brees- 110.6
    Brady- 105.6
    Smith- 90.7
    Roethlisberger- 90.1
    Flacco- 80.9

    Newton- 84.9/6 wins
    Hasselbeck- 82.4/9 wins
    Flacco- 80.9/12 wins
    Dalton- 80.4/9 wins
    Jackson- 79.2/7 wins
    Fitzpatrick- 79.1/6 wins
    Sanchez- 78.2/8 wins


    So what does it tell you? Obviously, it's not a large enough sample size to say anything definitively, but it does show two things--that Flacco's QB rating was by far the worst of the teams that were the 'elite' of the league last year, and that QBs who got ratings similar to Flacco tended to win far fewer games.

    So... upon seeing this, it raises a few questions for me, and makes one thing seem likely. The latter first--getting high quality (statistically) play out of whoever is at the QB position is less important to the Ravens than it is to other teams (or, at least it was to the 2011 Ravens--maybe 2012 will be different). If you get 12 wins with an 80.9 rating, you're apparently making up for that deficiency in other areas (defense, running... probably not special teams!). The questions it raises are these--how many wins would that have been at a 90 rating? How many at a 70 rating? If that's the spread you're working with, what's that actually worth paying for?

    Is this in any way definitive? Am I saying I'm right? Not at all. But I think it's a logical, cogent viewpoint, and I think that I want to see another year of this offense before I spend any big money on any part of it, if I'm the Ravens FO. You may be right--Cam may be the whole problem. The Ravens should have gotten rid of him just to see what would happen, IMO. But until you've got a better idea as to exactly where the problem is... I wouldn't throw a lot of cash around.




  10. #160
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Cockeysville, MD
    Posts
    4,505

    Re: Flacco Deal Update...

    Quote Originally Posted by arnie_uk View Post
    and the counter arguement is flaccos rating could have been in the 90s if not for PI calls and then a rushing TD, or if not for a few drops, or torreys drop that lead to a INT
    Rodgers, Brady, Brees, Roethlisberger et al also had drops. Please don't start playing the coulda woulda shouda game. Flacco is entering his 5th year. He is who he is. Enough with the excuses.




  11. #161
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    31,923
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Flacco Deal Update...

    Quote Originally Posted by alienrace View Post
    Wanna know what kills me?

    Last year, when Flacco's stats were among the best in the league, the usual suspects where all "but that doesn't mean anything, just look at him play".

    Now when people are saying the stats don't tell the whole story, Flacco visibly played better, made more clutch plays, etc, those same people are saying "but his stats went down".

    Those same people also bashed Flacco for not having good numbers in the playoffs. Now that over the last two years his rating is in the mid-upper 90's, they want to dismiss them.

    There is no winning with these people, and quite frankly, I think most of us are getting tired of this stupid, idiotic debate. Look at what this thread, that started out as something informative, has turned into.



    Great post and completely true.
    Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer.

    -Arnold Schwarzenegger



    Check out Fatherhood Rules - a blog site dedicated to sports, food, music, movies, and politics.
    http://fatherhoodrules.com




  12. #162
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pasadena
    Posts
    10,130
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Flacco Deal Update...

    Quote Originally Posted by ballhawk View Post
    Flacco had a great season last year...what the hell are you guys talking about? And he did it with a cast of rookie and 2nd year receivers (who probably led the league in dropped passes). He is going to get $100 million...and he is worth it.
    Agreed. He was a Lee Evans drop away from taking the Ravens to the Superbowl. I'm excited for this season to see what the Flacco-Smith connection can do with a year under their belts working together.




  13. #163
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    31,923
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Flacco Deal Update...

    Quote Originally Posted by Terpsfan82 View Post
    Rodgers, Brady, Brees, Roethlisberger et al also had drops. Please don't start playing the coulda woulda shouda game. Flacco is entering his 5th year. He is who he is. Enough with the excuses.
    Are you insinuating that players can't get better each year?

    Or, are you pretty much claiming that players only have a "4 or 5 year window to become what they are".


    I also like how you include Rodgers and Roethlisberger in this convo when Rodgers had a top 5 defense when the Packers won the Super Bowl and Roethlisberger has had a top 5 defense every year he's been in the league...yet you're one of the posters who are so quick to claim that the Ravens defense is REALLY the reason why the Ravens win and are constantly bailing Joe out.
    Last edited by wickedsolo; 04-10-2012 at 07:31 AM.
    Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer.

    -Arnold Schwarzenegger



    Check out Fatherhood Rules - a blog site dedicated to sports, food, music, movies, and politics.
    http://fatherhoodrules.com




  14. #164
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Northern Ireland, UK
    Posts
    2,812

    Re: Flacco Deal Update...

    its not an excuse, its a clear flaw in his arguement taking QB rating as the be all and end all
    Quote Originally Posted by Terpsfan82 View Post
    Rodgers, Brady, Brees, Roethlisberger et al also had drops. Please don't start playing the coulda woulda shouda game. Flacco is entering his 5th year. He is who he is. Enough with the excuses.




  15. #165

    Re: Flacco Deal Update...

    Quote Originally Posted by Haloti92 View Post
    Rivers' year before he got his extension was off-the-charts good. Totally different than Flacco's last year. I am not saying Flacco isn't as good as Rivers (though I probably would). And I am definitely not saying Flacco cannot become better than Rivers will ever be. All I am saying is at the time the contracts were negotiated, Rivers was by FAR more able to argue for big money.

    Rivers signed in August of 2009. His 2008 season consisted of a 105.5 QB rating (best in league by 8 pts), 34 TDs (tied for best in league with Brees), 11 Ints only (6 less than Brees), 4009 yards (5th in league BUT he had way less attempts than those ahead of him such that his YPA was significantly the best in league at 8.39). In short, Rivers could easily argue he was the best QB in the league in 2008; even if he might not quite win that argument, it wouldn't be a stretch to claim that by any means. And since we all agree that you pay people for their trajectory as much as anything, his huge deal was easy to rationalize. Age also isn't relevant to the comparison because Rivers was roughly the same age as Joe is now when he signed; he had played one extra year in the league but came out 1 year earlier than Joe.

    As for BigBen, he signed his 'big' deal in March of 2008. He also had a ring at that point and his stats for the 2007 season, were: QB rating 104.1 (2nd behind Brady), 32 TDs (3rd in league), 'only' 3154 yards, but only 404 attempts, gving him a YPA of 7.81 (4th in the league). He also made the ProBowl. And also the deal was 8 yrs for 'only' $102M, less than $13M per.

    As for total 'career' statistics, I would say that they matter less than the trend/trajectory. And more importantly, passing stats have been going up across the league and completely spiked last year, making it harder to compare year to year totals without some kind of adjustment.

    Eli's big-money extension was signed in the preseason of 2009. If Eli had not won a SuperBowl in 2007 and then followed it up with a significantly improved year statistically (to his fairly mundane stats from 2003-2007) I don't think he gets anywhere near that extension. Eli is the one that is closest to Flacco in terms of performance in the contract year. Eli's year was better but not by a ton, but more importantly it was better than the year before (he improved). And again he had a SB title and SB MVP under his belt.

    While we can agree or disagree about how Flacco's stats are harmed by forces outside his control, the fact remains, he is not coming into the negotiations with as much leverage as these other three were when they signed their deals. QB rating ranking around 15th-18th depending on who you include, TDs tied for 13th, yardage ranked 12th, YPA ranked a pitiful 24th. That doesn't mean he doesn't have leverage obviously, I would just say that it isn't some kind of 'given' that he deserves deals similar to the deals these three signed.

    As for inflation, I hear you and agree, though the salary cap in 2009 was $123M, roughly the same as it will be this year (and maybe next). Also, as has been said, the guaranteed money (and structure/details) is really as crucial as the total and yearly average.
    i completely agree that he doesnt have as much leverage as he would have had, even the year before. I do think the team realizes those outside factors but obviously are going to use that for their benefit, making now the best time to sign him rather than waiting a year when, in a reality his stats will probably go back up closer to his previous trajectory and give him more leverage. I think with everything said hes still going to end up getting in that 6-7 for 85-100 with 35-40 guaranteed range simply because thats what its going to take to sign him and they have to.

    Quote Originally Posted by alienrace View Post
    Wanna know what kills me?

    Last year, when Flacco's stats were among the best in the league, the usual suspects where all "but that doesn't mean anything, just look at him play".

    Now when people are saying the stats don't tell the whole story, Flacco visibly played better, made more clutch plays, etc, those same people are saying "but his stats went down".

    Those same people also bashed Flacco for not having good numbers in the playoffs. Now that over the last two years his rating is in the mid-upper 90's, they want to dismiss them.

    There is no winning with these people, and quite frankly, I think most of us are getting tired of this stupid, idiotic debate. Look at what this thread, that started out as something informative, has turned into.
    I agree with this as well. A lot of people just have their mind made up about Flacco and there is no reasoning with them. theyll use whatever they can cling to try to support their hatred. I feel some of these guys are the ones still crying about Troy Smith as well... where is he again?
    -JAB




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland