Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 115
  1. #76

    Re: joe flacco #74 on nfl network top 100



    Quote Originally Posted by leachisabeast View Post
    At the end of the day the Cowboys have a talented team, but consistently under perform with Romo at the helm. Yes the Ravens are stacked, and I'm sure if Flacco was drafted by the Browns back in 08 he wouldn't have had the success he has today, but on a talented team Joe wins. The Cowboys have a more talented offense with more receivers, play in a dome, play no one special on defense (apart from the Giants pass rush), don't have to play in cold and rough Ohio, Baltimore, or Pittsburgh, where four of these defenses where in the top 10 in 2011, and are always rough when playing each other regardless. Romo as it stands has only made the play offs once on a talented team and has cost his team in key games, where as Flacco has helped his team to the play offs in every year he's been in the league so far.
    At the end of the day, your first sentence is stated as a fact but is merely an opinion, Romo is not "at the helm" of anything but the offense.

    You are still penalizing Romo for others' failures, while crediting Flacco for others' successes.

    As for the "teams they play," Philly's D finished 8th, Washington's 13th, the Giants were pitiful (27th) but were playing well by the last game of the season (when they played Dallas the 2nd time). They aren't as good as the North but they aren't all horrific. As for offenses, and obviously there is a feedback effect here: Pitt, Cincy, Cleveland are ranked 12th, 20th and 29th, while Philly, Giants, Skins were ranked 4th, 8th and 16th. Are the NFC East D's suffering from playing the NFC East's O's? Or do the O's benefit from the D's? Is the AFC North D's benefiting from playing the AFC North O's? Or are the O's suffering from the D's? Hard to say. As for cold and rough, NJ, Philly and even DC aren't very warm; obviously the 8 home dome games helps their offense, as well as the offenses of those they face.

    Common opponents of 2011 (3 of the 5 were top 10 defenses): NYJ, SF, Arizona, Seattle, and St. Louis. The Ravens went 4-1, Cowboys 3-2.

    Flacco in those 5 common games: 112/205 for 1304 yds, 5 TDs and 3 INTs, a QB rating of 76.14
    Romo in those 5 common games: 104/166 for 1431 yds, 9 TDs and 1 INT, a QB rating of 105.77

    Of these 5, Flacco won games with QB ratings of 103.6, 100.1, 72.0, and 37.4; in the loss he rated 67.4

    Of these 5, Romo won games with QB ratings of 116.4, 112.2, 107.3; in the losses he rated 101.9 and 95.2




  2. #77
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Detroit Michigan
    Posts
    1,908
    Quote Originally Posted by Haloti92 View Post
    Romo's "habit" is much exaggerated. And you are missing the point that while committing a mistake that is the last mistake to be made by your team and therefore "loses" the game is a negative, making positive plays in the game up until that point to put your team in a position where the game can be "lost" at all (i.e. you are winning) are positives.
    Let me clarify myself. Yes I understand that more TDs are "positive," as are passing yards, and both contribute significantly to a win. However, the fact remains; you win Super Bowls by winning in the playoffs, and you get to the playoffs by winning games. The only "positive" that matters is winning. Its not that all "positives" cease to exist when you lose. It's that they simply don't matter if you don't win. Your essentially saying he gets a free pass even if he loses his team the game because hey, they wouldn't have had the lead in the first place without him anyways.
    I don't think so. He was only doing his job, and costing your team the game ultimately means you failed at that job. It's like a pitcher who has a no hitter going in a game tied at 0-0 but lets up a home run in the 9th that costs his team the game.


    By assigning way too much weight to the former while way too little weight to the latter, you imply that it is a better result to play relatively poorly all game so that you are never in a position to win or choke, than it is to play very well all game to be ahead before making a rare mistake costing you the game. I completely disagree.
    That's not what I imply at all, but considering your premises were erroneously concluded I would expect as much.

    Further clarification: If despite playing poorly the whole game you lead the game winning drive and throw a TD to close out the game then yes that is absolutely 100% better than throwing for 500 yards and 6 TDs, but throwing a pick six that loses your team the game. Notice I didn't say the latter QB had a bad game or the former played better. Nice try innocuously calling an interception/fumble a rare mistake as if it were beyond his control though.


    All this coming from a guy complaining about the use of poor logic on the boards.
    “Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.”

    –Eleanor Roosevelt




  3. #78
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    section 132
    Posts
    2,648
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: joe flacco #74 on nfl network top 100

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    and until flacco throws for 4500+ yards and 30+ TDs some fans will still point to him as the problem. Superbowls make people forget things quickly. Like how eli didnt even complet 60% of his passes until his 6 th year, now hes a champion and talked about as being "elite". The day will come for flacco.
    I agree 100%. Everything they say about flacco is the same stuff thet they said about eli and rothlisberger. Thats why i dont buy into it. Plus i trust my eyes. We have been watching joe for 4 years, unlike most sportswriters.




  4. #79

    Re: joe flacco #74 on nfl network top 100

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirdowski View Post
    Let me clarify myself. Yes I understand that more TDs are "positive," as are passing yards, and both contribute significantly to a win. However, the fact remains; you win Super Bowls by winning in the playoffs, and you get to the playoffs by winning games. The only "positive" that matters is winning.
    Yes, and teams win, players do not. A player can have a bad performance in a win, or a good performance in a loss. If you are saying otherwise, and it sounds like you are, then there isn't much else to discuss. I obviously disagree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirdowski View Post
    Its not that all "positives" cease to exist when you lose. It's that they simply don't matter if you don't win.
    It's not that they "cease to exist" but just that they "cease to matter" when trying to gauge a player's talent level. Got it. So no one can argue Joe had a good game against NE in the AFCC game last year. They lost, nothing else matters. Got it. But one is allowed to argue that Joe played well in the win against the Jets last year. Again, I think I understand what you are saying now. Obviously I vehemently disagree, but I understand what you are trying to say.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirdowski View Post
    Your essentially saying he gets a free pass even if he loses his team the game because hey, they wouldn't have had the lead in the first place without him anyways.
    I don't think so. He was only doing his job, and costing your team the game ultimately means you failed at that job. It's like a pitcher who has a no hitter going in a game tied at 0-0 but lets up a home run in the 9th that costs his team the game.
    I am not saying he "gets a free pass" at all. I am saying the poor play should be viewed as poor play. And good play as good play. I'll take a 0-1 pitcher that goes 8 hitless innings and loses 1-0 with a 1.00 ERA over a 1-0 guy who leaves after 5 innings with a 10-5 lead and has a 9.00 ERA. That said, a starting pitcher in baseball is much much more important to a team's single game success than a QB; in addition, the pitcher's stats are much much more indicative of his talent than a QB stats. The comparison isn't that great in terms of positions/sports.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sirdowski View Post

    That's not what I imply at all, but considering your premises were erroneously concluded I would expect as much.
    Sounds like you are still implying, not sure what was erroneously concluded.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirdowski View Post
    Further clarification: If despite playing poorly the whole game you lead the game winning drive and throw a TD to close out the game then yes that is absolutely 100% better than throwing for 500 yards and 6 TDs, but throwing a pick six that loses your team the game. Notice I didn't say the latter QB had a bad game or the former played better. Nice try innocuously calling an interception/fumble a rare mistake as if it were beyond his control though.
    The word "rare" does not mean "beyond one's control." I used the word properly. Romo threw 10 INTs all year. Any INT was "rare," and I used this word because people seem to keep implying Romo was some kind of turnover machine. As for 6TDs and 6INTs, why the exaggerated totals? Why not 3 TDs and 3 INTS like the actual game we were talking about. And who is comparing it to a game where the QB played poorly all game then threw a game-winning TD?

    I was comparing it to a game like Jacksonville, where we also lost, but where Joe didn't choke the game away. Sure he and the offense didn't play well enough to have anything to choke away, but again, as far as you are concerned Flacco's performance vs Jax was better than Romo's vs Detroit. And, to repeat myself, I would say both had "bad" games compared to normal.

    Or how about comparing it to having a QB rating of 37.4, throwing 0 TDs, throwing nothing game-winning at all, and even throwing what would perhaps be a game-losing/choke pick-6-INT except for the fact your defense has forced 4 turnovers, held the opponent to 7 first downs and scored 3 TDs themselves to give your team the all-important win. Or in other words, Flacco vs the Jets.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirdowski View Post
    All this coming from a guy complaining about the use of poor logic on the boards.
    Yep, still coming from a guy "complaining" about the occasional use of poor logic on the boards. Well, not complaining as much as pointing/calling it out.
    Last edited by Haloti92; 05-11-2012 at 06:43 PM.




  5. #80
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    4,492

    Re: joe flacco #74 on nfl network top 100

    Quote Originally Posted by seraph View Post
    Wins and losses don't use it in an argument please. Also someone give a specific example how Romo "lost" games. Let's not forget how Flacco has gotten away with making bad decisions in his career. Regardless of the talent on the Cowboys offense Romo puts up the best numbers among all QBs. He's underrated just from all the nonsense of how he loses games by himself lol.
    Fumbled hold in a playoff game for a chip shot FG.

    Quote Originally Posted by seraph View Post
    I'm pretty sure Romo could do that. It would probably be easier for Romo becuase he has better teammates on offense. The problem with the Cowboys defense is that they're bad so the offense had to play in shoot outs. In those games the Ravens defense were able to keep the score close so that it would take one scoring drive to win the game. Playing good defense throughout the game would help the Cowboys win more.
    You are pretty sure he could? He has been in the league longer and has not. Flacco has. Again, who do you want leading that drive, Flacco or Romo?




  6. #81
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    31,932
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: joe flacco #74 on nfl network top 100

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    and until flacco throws for 4500+ yards and 30+ TDs some fans will still point to him as the problem. Superbowls make people forget things quickly. Like how eli didnt even complet 60% of his passes until his 6 th year, now hes a champion and talked about as being "elite". The day will come for flacco.
    Exactly. Good post.
    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




  7. #82
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    31,932
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: joe flacco #74 on nfl network top 100

    Quote Originally Posted by Haloti92 View Post
    Robinson's health was not what was keeping him from 850+ yards and 11 TDs. It is as simple as that. If Robinson were on the Ravens you would be calling him "not very good."


    You're right. Robinson's health and inability to get onto the field until going to Dallas had nothing to do with his lack of production. How silly of me. If he can't get on the field because he's IR'ed or injured then he's not going to be productive. As the #3 receiver in Jason Garrett's offense he was pretty damn good. Other than his rookie year he hasn't been healthy for an entire season up until playing in Dallas last year and he even replaced Miles Austin as the #1/#2 receiver when Miles Austin was down for the count.


    The Ravens WR history pre-2008 isn't relevant to the debate. Unless you are defending Boller from criticism, and it seems you are, which is fine. I am not saying that the Cowboys have worse receivers than us, I am saying the difference and therefore the value of the excuse is not as great as people claim. This is because people make the claims by starting with their favorite assumption, then dismissing or highlighting the facts depending on that assumption. Boldin stats only good with Cardinals because of X,Y,Z, but he is "not very good" when he gets here. Robinson stats only bad with Rams and Falcons because injuries and/or X,Y,Z, but he is "very good" when he goes to Dallas.
    You keep trying to bring stats into it. I'm not. It's impossible to compare the two offenses (Dallas vs Baltimore) simply because one is geared towards a heavily influenced aerial attack and the other is not. Jason Garrett runs a very QB-friendly offense whereas Cam, obviously, does not.

    My comparison of the receiver units is simple: In my opinion (and several others) Tony Romo has had better weapons surrounding him in Dallas than Joe has had in Baltimore. I don't see what's so complicated and illogical about MY opinion on that. If you disagree, fine.

    The problem with using stats in this case is that there are only two possible conclusions that have any leg to stand on, rationally: A) stats have meaning and their results tell us something (even if we dispute how much), or B) they have no meaning, in which case nothing can be concluded. The problem around here (a lot of times) is people are attempting C) they not only do not mean what they show, but somehow they mean the opposite of what they show. I am partial to A), though think their worth is limited, and could accept B) (and not argue about it), it is C) that gets me to enter the discussion.
    Again, I'm not comparing stats. I'm simply making a blanket statement that Tony Romo has better weapons around him than Flacco does. I'm not saying Boldin and Torrey aren't good players, but they're not what Miles Austin and Jason Witten are. I don't see how anyone can refute that. They're perfect compliments for the offensive design that Jason Garrett is employing there, so maybe the root of all this is that Jason Garrett is better at assembling personnel than Cam is?

    Regardless - it doesn't matter at all what you say - IMO, Jason Witten, Dez Bryant, and Miles Austin are better players than Flacco has ever been surrounded with.


    And by "can't find ways to win games" you mean "can't get on a team where the defense carries mediocre QB play/passing game." Yes, Romo is unable to get on a team where the defense can carry the team to a win with mediocre play from the passing game. As evidenced by the Cowboys 1-4 record when Romo throws less than 2 TD passes last year; compared to Flacco's 7-3 record in such games. Not sure where Marino or Dilfer come in here, except to bolster the point that QB play and team/playoff wins do not always perfectly match.
    If you can't understand something as simple as a great QB who couldn't win a championship being viewed and perceived as "The best QB to never win a SB" vs a mediocre (at best) QB who is a "SB QB", then I don't know what to tell you. This is not complicated at all. You're trying to make it complicated and it's not. Like I said, Marino said he'd give up all of his stats to be a SB champion.

    The problem with this is it is pure speculation. And specifically it assumes that throwing more (and actually Flacco had more attempts than Romo last year) or relying more on your passing game means your QB benefits. This is what Joe himself implies when he compares himself and his stats to Rodgers and Brees, etc. This isn't necessarily the case. If you ask a QB to carry the team, then two things could happen, a) his stats look better because he gets the chance to put up more good stats and he is up to the task, or b) his stats look worse because he is forced to take more risks or do more and is not up to the task. It is easier to finish with a 97.1 rating by going 14/27 for 176, with 2 TDs/0 Ints than it is to finish with a 97.1 QB rating by going 28/54 for 352, with 4TDs/0 Ints. It is easier to keep to your Int total low when you are told/allowed/mandated to not take any risks, check it down, throw it away or even take a sack. If Flacco were asked to throw all game because his defense couldn't keep them in games, he could excel or look worse. We don't know, we can guess or have opinions, but it isn't a given that more responsibility/opportunity means more stats and the same success.
    But it's not pure speculation when you say that if Dallas and Baltimore switches defensive units Romo wins more and Baltimore loses more?


    My opinion on the Flacco/Romo comparison hasn't really been given, but let's just say I don't think your opinion has been supported by much; I am really addressing the leaps of logic that occur around here. I am addressing people choosing C) when arguing about stats.
    There are no leaps of logic in here. Just opinion and discussion. I use my eyes to formulate my opinions because stats can be manipulated to suit anyone's opinion. That's why at the end of the day - to me - it's about wins vs losses. If a QB (and a team) wins more than they lose, then it's a testament to their ability to find ways to win. You can't sit there and say that it's the team that wins games and not consider the impact the QB has on the team. He touches the ball every snap when the offensive unit is on the field. It's arguably the most important position on the field at any given time simply because of that.

    Whether or not you "haven't stated your opinion" is BS. You've clearly stated your opinion without coming right out and saying it.

    And to prove my point, "finds a way to win" rears its ugly head. Like when Romo found a way to go 21/31 for 321, 4 TDs/0 Ints and a 141.3 QR rating against the eventual SB champs only to lose the game 37-34 because his defense is horrendous. Like that "finding a way to win?"
    So what? The Giants lost both games to the Redskins last year and at one point went through a 4 or 5 game losing streak. Does any of that matter now? No. They snuck into the playoffs and ran the table.
    Last edited by wickedsolo; 05-12-2012 at 10:22 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




  8. #83

    Re: joe flacco #74 on nfl network top 100

    I think whats getting lost in this or atleast what i dont understand is dallas defense at least uner wade phillips was always an above average defense in either yards or acoring (minus 2010 when romo was hurt) its not like theyre horrible in the sense that they cant do anything good. But i believe theyve been top 10-12 most years or in other words above average.
    -JAB




  9. #84
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    2,366
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: joe flacco #74 on nfl network top 100

    Steven A vs Skip and also who the nation thinks is the better QB. Skip makes the same old tired arguments that a lot here want to bring up.

    http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/post...acco-tony-romo
    "What would you give for the man beside you?"




  10. #85

    Re: joe flacco #74 on nfl network top 100

    I like Joe Flacco and think he is better than some give him credit for but I've got to say I think Haloti92 is totally correct in his assessment. It seems like some here are saying that Romo's personal QB rating is somehow irrelevant to guaging his performance but Flacco's win/loss record is relevant to guaging his.

    To me this makes no sense. QB ratings, although not perfect, are the best indicator we have of how a QB performs. It is black and white really. When the same criteria are used to measure every QB we can feel pretty good that we have the best comparison because numbers are objective. I can't understand any argument that says Romo's 31TD 10INT is inferior to Flacco's 20TD 12INT because the Ravens won more games than the Cowboys.

    Also if Romo throws a pick 6 on a 4th quarter drive down 24-28 to cause his team to lose 24-35 worse than Flacco throwing a 4th quarter pick 6 when you are up 24-14 but holding on to win 24-21? The result is worse but the INT is what it is. (This is just an example I made up, not an actual situation that happened).

    In this case one Defense giving up 24 and the other only 14 led to the Loss/Win not the QB play directly, as both QB's threw pick 6's. So in my opinion to judge a QB's performance by wins/losses is less accurate than sheer numbers.




  11. #86
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    31,932
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: joe flacco #74 on nfl network top 100

    Quote Originally Posted by vinny600 View Post
    I like Joe Flacco and think he is better than some give him credit for but I've got to say I think Haloti92 is totally correct in his assessment. It seems like some here are saying that Romo's personal QB rating is somehow irrelevant to guaging his performance but Flacco's win/loss record is relevant to guaging his.

    To me this makes no sense. QB ratings, although not perfect, are the best indicator we have of how a QB performs. It is black and white really. When the same criteria are used to measure every QB we can feel pretty good that we have the best comparison because numbers are objective. I can't understand any argument that says Romo's 31TD 10INT is inferior to Flacco's 20TD 12INT because the Ravens won more games than the Cowboys.

    Also if Romo throws a pick 6 on a 4th quarter drive down 24-28 to cause his team to lose 24-35 worse than Flacco throwing a 4th quarter pick 6 when you are up 24-14 but holding on to win 24-21? The result is worse but the INT is what it is. (This is just an example I made up, not an actual situation that happened).

    In this case one Defense giving up 24 and the other only 14 led to the Loss/Win not the QB play directly, as both QB's threw pick 6's. So in my opinion to judge a QB's performance by wins/losses is less accurate than sheer numbers.
    Valid point, both QB's are not without their issues, and yes the "W-L" argument isn't always indicative of who the better individual player is.

    The problem I (and many) have with comparing stats between someone like Flacco and someone like Romo is that you can't adequately compare the two due to offensive scheme differences. Romo has been in an offensive system designed for the pass and Joe has not. Romo is in an offensive system where the design is to get multiple receivers out on the field and into open space, Flacco has not. I don't think Tony Romo in Cam's offense has anywhere near the successful production that he's had under Jason Garrett simply because of the variance in offensive philosophy. Pure speculation, I know, but based on Cam's history with QB's and based on Tony Romo working under Garrett since 2006, that's how I see it.

    Until we all see what Flacco can do with another coordinator who is more willing to open up the playbook throughout the entire season then it's impossible to gauge (from stats) who is the better player. Dallas values offense more than defense and in Baltimore it's been just the opposite.

    I've seen Tony Romo torch teams before, but I've also seen him completely give the game away. There aren't too many teams that Flacco has "torched", but you also don't see him giving games away either. To me, that is the most glaring difference and maybe that's because Romo is more of a gambler in the passing game, I don't know.

    From my seat in the stands, I'd rather have Joe Flacco than Tony Romo as the QB.
    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. #87
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    2,366
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: joe flacco #74 on nfl network top 100

    Quote Originally Posted by wickedsolo View Post
    Valid point, both QB's are not without their issues, and yes the "W-L" argument isn't always indicative of who the better individual player is.

    The problem I (and many) have with comparing stats between someone like Flacco and someone like Romo is that you can't adequately compare the two due to offensive scheme differences. Romo has been in an offensive system designed for the pass and Joe has not. Romo is in an offensive system where the design is to get multiple receivers out on the field and into open space, Flacco has not. I don't think Tony Romo in Cam's offense has anywhere near the successful production that he's had under Jason Garrett simply because of the variance in offensive philosophy. Pure speculation, I know, but based on Cam's history with QB's and based on Tony Romo working under Garrett since 2006, that's how I see it.

    Until we all see what Flacco can do with another coordinator who is more willing to open up the playbook throughout the entire season then it's impossible to gauge (from stats) who is the better player. Dallas values offense more than defense and in Baltimore it's been just the opposite.

    I've seen Tony Romo torch teams before, but I've also seen him completely give the game away. There aren't too many teams that Flacco has "torched", but you also don't see him giving games away either. To me, that is the most glaring difference and maybe that's because Romo is more of a gambler in the passing game, I don't know.

    From my seat in the stands, I'd rather have Joe Flacco than Tony Romo as the QB.
    Agreed. It's funny because those that argue and and say Flacco's W/L success is mostly because of the defense dismiss the fact that Romo's success as you stated numerous times has a lot to do with his surrounding talent on offense and offensive scheme.
    "What would you give for the man beside you?"




  13. #88

    Re: joe flacco #74 on nfl network top 100

    Quote Originally Posted by wickedsolo View Post
    You keep trying to bring stats into it. I'm not. It's impossible to compare the two offenses (Dallas vs Baltimore) simply because one is geared towards a heavily influenced aerial attack and the other is not. Jason Garrett runs a very QB-friendly offense whereas Cam, obviously, does not.
    I am bringing stats plus everything you are bringing into it. As for the scheme/attack, Garrett/Cam, I agree, but mentioning this, as I said does not support the assertion that the guy in the better scheme is the lesser player (the previously-mentioned "C" option)
    Quote Originally Posted by wickedsolo View Post
    My comparison of the receiver units is simple: In my opinion (and several others) Tony Romo has had better weapons surrounding him in Dallas than Joe has had in Baltimore. I don't see what's so complicated and illogical about MY opinion on that. If you disagree, fine.
    I already admitted he had better weapons, my opinion is that the degree to which they are "better" does not absolutely account for the stat difference. I also pointed out how people support their opinion (about the quality of receivers) by twisting facts/stats/reality around to fit their preconceived ideas.

    Quote Originally Posted by wickedsolo View Post

    Again, I'm not comparing stats. I'm simply making a blanket statement that Tony Romo has better weapons around him than Flacco does. I'm not saying Boldin and Torrey aren't good players, but they're not what Miles Austin and Jason Witten are. I don't see how anyone can refute that. They're perfect compliments for the offensive design that Jason Garrett is employing there, so maybe the root of all this is that Jason Garrett is better at assembling personnel than Cam is?
    Already addressed. My issue, as I said, is with the degree of this blanket statement being used as some kind of catchall excuse. Afterall Colt McCoy has worse receivers than Joe's, and of course Aaron Rodger's are better than Joe's and Colt's.

    Quote Originally Posted by wickedsolo View Post

    Regardless - it doesn't matter at all what you say - IMO, Jason Witten, Dez Bryant, and Miles Austin are better players than Flacco has ever been surrounded with.
    Probably true, but this tells us nothing really. Rice is better than any RB Romo has been surrounded with, etc. It is a small piece of a larger argument, it isn't an argument-ender like it is being used. And again, it is overstated, imo, based on people's tendency to smash square pegs into round holes when it comes to defending their preconceived notion. We don't know how good Miles Austin is. We know how good he is with Romo throwing to him. Period. We can assume things, but they are not facts. When a player like Robinson looks markedly better when catching balls from Romo, it goes a ways towards arguing that Romo's (and their scheme's) contribution to the success is some amount above zero. When the reverse happens with Boldin, similar things can be concluded.


    Quote Originally Posted by wickedsolo View Post

    If you can't understand something as simple as a great QB who couldn't win a championship being viewed and perceived as "The best QB to never win a SB" vs a mediocre (at best) QB who is a "SB QB", then I don't know what to tell you. This is not complicated at all. You're trying to make it complicated and it's not. Like I said, Marino said he'd give up all of his stats to be a SB champion.
    I understand it perfectly well, and also pointed out that it supports my argument. Nothing complicated about that fact. Marino is viewed as a better QB than Dilfer. Period. There is a reason for this, and it has nothing to do with SBs (obviously). And of course Romo and Flacco have the same number of rings at the moment.



    Quote Originally Posted by wickedsolo View Post

    But it's not pure speculation when you say that if Dallas and Baltimore switches defensive units Romo wins more and Baltimore loses more?
    Not as pure; not nearly as pure.

    For starters, I would say that the claim that Baltimore's defense if better than Dallas' defense is much much more obvious or defensible than the claim that Flacco is better than Romo.

    Plus the two sides are not on the field at the same time. In that respect it is easier/easy to argue that there are really two (or three if you count STs) different and separate sub-games or matchups going on in each overall game. A team's QB does not affect the team's defensive performance as much as the QB affects the offensive performance. The probability and size of a change in performance on offense (under a new QB) is larger and therefore harder to predict than that of the change in performance of the defense (under a new QB, who is on the sidelines while the defense is playing). Or in short, the effect of my proposed change is more easily segregated and estimated.

    Plus, you got into predicting specific stats, whereas I talked team wins. It is easier to predict who will win a game than what stats each or any player will have in the game. The former is a more general prediction than the latter.

    So I am making a more obvious assumption to start (our D better than theirs vs Flacco better than Romo). I am swapping "units" (whole defense vs player) that are easier to measure in terms of contribution. And I am limiting my speculation to a more predictable area in general.

    Plus, my main point there in that blurb was to point out that doubling the amount that is asked of a QB does not necessarily result in a straight doubling of their stats/results. If Joe is forced to attempt his top 15 looks to WRs every game due to the fact the game will be shootout (due to defenses, dome, opponents' offense, etc) vs. his top 10 plus checking down and punting on the other 5 (playing it safe because we have good D), then there is a chance that mistakes/INTs go up and the last 5 attempts yield below the average of the best 10 (lowering the average of the whole 15 obviously).

    In short, being asked to be a "game manager" can make a QB look worse OR better, and that depends on the QBs talent level. I think it makes Dilfer look better, for example. If Dilfer were asked to do more, every game, in 2000, we lose more games, imo (which is what the Ravens felt obviously). I am not saying Joe is a Dilfer, nor am I saying I think Joe would look worse if asked to do more. In fact, my opinion is that he would look better, and he is being held back. My point is that it isn't a given to assume that all that keeps Joe from looking like and putting up Brees/Rodgers' numbers is which team he is on and what he is asked to do. It could be true, but stating it like it is fact (or even with extreme confidence, imo) is unfounded. We don't know.

    Quote Originally Posted by wickedsolo View Post
    There are no leaps of logic in here. Just opinion and discussion. I use my eyes to formulate my opinions because stats can be manipulated to suit anyone's opinion. That's why at the end of the day - to me - it's about wins vs losses. If a QB (and a team) wins more than they lose, then it's a testament to their ability to find ways to win. You can't sit there and say that it's the team that wins games and not consider the impact the QB has on the team. He touches the ball every snap when the offensive unit is on the field. It's arguably the most important position on the field at any given time simply because of that.
    The leaps of logic mention wasn't referring to the underlying opinions as much as the arguments being put forward to support or defend the opinions. To say "based on my eye test, Flacco is better than Romo" is not a leap of logic, nor did I say it was. Nor is there anything wrong with saying that, even if people disagree with it (and essentially negate it) by saying "based on my eye test, Romo is better than Flacco."

    I have been debating/discussing the arguments that are being made using more than eye tests. And one of them is the "team wins" vs individual contribution to the wins. This isn't an eye test argument, and as such I will debate it. I have already pointed out the obvious deficiency in this line of argument (as you did yourself a bit by mentioning Marino). Above you don't really address any of the points that have been made about the weakness of this line of reasoning, but rather you attempt to claim that I have said the QB doesn't contribute to wins at all. Obviously I said no such thing. In fact I have pointed to very specific examples where teams win despite horrendous QB play, and also examples where teams lose despite near perfect QB play. I understand why these examples/arguments were ignored.


    Quote Originally Posted by wickedsolo View Post
    So what? The Giants lost both games to the Redskins last year and at one point went through a 4 or 5 game losing streak. Does any of that matter now? No. They snuck into the playoffs and ran the table.
    So what? You missed the point, that's what. Giants lost to Redskins? So what? I see no point to that mention. Does "any of that" matter now? If by "that" you mean Giants losing to the Redskins, then no. If by "that" you mean what I mentioned, Romo's 141 QB rating in a loss, then yes, it matters, for the reasons I stated. It does massive damage to the arguments that team wins are always correlated to good QB play (and losses to poor QB play), that QB skill can be directly/accurately measured and compared by team records, that a QB is only as good as net results of the combined effort of himself and his 44 or 45 teammates vs. the combined effort of the opposing QB and his 44 or 45 teammates..
    Last edited by Haloti92; 05-12-2012 at 12:47 PM.




  14. #89
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina
    Posts
    5,171
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: joe flacco #74 on nfl network top 100

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayc00 View Post
    Steven A vs Skip and also who the nation thinks is the better QB. Skip makes the same old tired arguments that a lot here want to bring up.

    http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/post...acco-tony-romo
    I think Stephan A makes an intelligent point that most media members seem to gloss over. Flacco is only going into year 5. QB's don't usually hit their prime until around year 7 or 8. He's not a finished product.

    It's one of the reason that it bothers to see him compared to 8, 9, 10 etc vets. They've been playing the game almost twice as long they SHOULD be better players at this point in their careers.




  15. #90

    Re: joe flacco #74 on nfl network top 100

    Problem with qb rating is it doesnt take into account personnel or system. It may be the "best" but its still horribly flawed. Qb rating is heavily dependent upon completion percentage. In a system where we run alot and only throw deep like ours, youre going to really hurt your qbs rating vs a team that tgrows heavy but short higher percentage passes. Its not apples to apples eventhough your using one "stat".

    Tds to ints argument is as simple as looking at rices tds. He scored more this year than his previous 3 combined. With our bad receiving core dropping balls in the endzone, lee evans example a, when you have 2-3 of the best redzone targets in the league with romo. So is romos 30-10 better than flaccos 20-12? Obviously. But consider scheme and personnel i dont feel its so much higher, as it should be, to be make him considered better. Thats not even taking into account his lack of clutch play. Every qb makes bad throws/decisions once in awhile but with the game on the line flacco improves his play and romo chokes. Once again its opinion based on what i see not something that can be substantiated by a stat which so many seem to feel is necessary to even have an opinion.

    Also this a players poll. They were asked to rank the players this is how it turned out. They felt flacco improved from last year and is better than romo. You can form your own but theguys that actually play the game have stated theirs.
    Last edited by JAB1985; 05-12-2012 at 02:54 PM.
    -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