Results 49 to 60 of 74
-
Re: Flacco #100 on PFF's Top 101 of 2012 (and why it's ridiculous)
Back to my point "but you can't judge a player on what he wasn't doing, you can only go by what he did." The only way to view Flacco's performance is what he did with the system he was in and the players around him. Saying "If he'd had this OC or this TE..." it's supposition. When you're grading/rating past performance you grade/rate the past performance, not how it would have been different under different circumstances. And it's odd that these players around Ryan make him better, and not that his accuracy and ability also helps those players. It's not the one way street you all seem desperate to make it out to be.
It's entirely possible that Flacco plays better next year under a new OC, but that doesn't change what he actually did on the field last season.Last edited by Lee Van Cleef; 05-09-2013 at 08:07 AM.
-
05-09-2013, 08:22 AM #50
- Join Date
- Jan 2013
- Location
- Formerly Carpetbaggerville (IND) --now back in MD
- Posts
- 1,412
- Blog Entries
- 1
Re: Flacco #100 on PFF's Top 101 of 2012 (and why it's ridiculous)
Well they are entitled to their opinion just as I am entitled to laugh at it. Numbers schumbers. All the man does is win. They can completely take him off the list for all I care long as he keeps taking us deep into January. At least they didn't have Josh Freeman ahead of him again.
-
Re: Flacco #100 on PFF's Top 101 of 2012 (and why it's ridiculous)
Disclaimer: The content posted is of my own opinion.
-
Re: Flacco #100 on PFF's Top 101 of 2012 (and why it's ridiculous)
I Think saying the WRs are linked to the result of the play for the QBs success is more of a two way street than saying the QBs stats are this and taking away any effect the WRs had all together. My way is more of a two way street than yours where the QB is responsible good or bad and the WRs arent taken into account at all. The QB ultimately is only there to give their WRs a chance to make a play even the best QB cannot make the throw and catch himself, which ultimately is how theyre being compared. Result of the play not the parameters of that result.
It's entirely possible that Flacco plays better next year under a new OC, but that doesn't change what he actually did on the field last season.-JAB
-
05-09-2013, 08:46 AM #53
-
Re: Flacco #100 on PFF's Top 101 of 2012 (and why it's ridiculous)
Disclaimer: The content posted is of my own opinion.
-
05-09-2013, 11:23 AM #55
Re: Flacco #100 on PFF's Top 101 of 2012 (and why it's ridiculous)
Any grading or rating system that attempts to evaluate Flacco (or any of our offensive players since 2011) and refuses fails to account for Cam Cameron's all-too-often inexplicable play-calling these past 2 seasons is automatically invalidated.
I mean when's the last time you can recall a QB, WR corp and Head Coach all staring in dumbfounded frustration at their OC during ANY game? Because beginning in 2011, for the Ravens that's precisely what happened about 4 to 5 times for each season (roughly 1/4 of the season).
In 2011: against the Texans, Jaguars and Chargers (also arguably Jets, Seahawks and 2nd Browns game)
In 2012: against the Texans, 2nd Browns game, both Steelers games, the Chargers and the Redskins (You can make an argument for the Eagles loss too).
And yet somehow despite the undeniability of Cam's stubborn incompetence, all these "experts" seemed to gloss over Cam's failings as an OC--some of them even questioned the wisdom of firing Cam when the Ravens were clearly playoff bound, leading the AFC North.
Even after Caldwell turned the season back around, transforming the offense into a scoring machine throughout the playoffs (124 points in 4 games for a 31 point avg) what did many of these experts attribute the Ravens' success in winning the Super Bowl too?
Ray Lewis announcing his retirement.
And now (retroactively because he's no longer a Raven) Boldin's performance and how he "bailed out" Flacco time and time again (he's the real playoff MVP don't you see)
-
05-09-2013, 11:37 AM #56
-
05-09-2013, 11:37 AM #57
Re: Flacco #100 on PFF's Top 101 of 2012 (and why it's ridiculous)
No he didn't. He had a terrific, deservedly-award-winning season. It was not even close to worthy of GOAT discussion. Ray Lewis in 2000 had a GOAT season. Montana in '84 and Young in '94 had GOAT seasons. Watt's 2013 wasn't a GOAT season.
What Peterson did this past year could most certainly be considered a GOAT season even without considering his coming off a late-season 2012 major knee injury. Throw in the fact he did it off a blown ACL, and it's absolutely incredible. He single-handedly took a team that had no QB and a severe talent deficiency and probably should have been picking top-five two weeks ago, and took them into the playoffs. Peterson shouldn't "probably" be #1 overall on this list, he should be and there's no one else that should be close to him.
I buy that, but as has been discussed ad nauseum here, they just seem to have severe gaps in their methodology. This shows itself if you simply consider the eyeball test. You can certainly make an argument that Flacco should be #100 if you only look at his regular season. He was slightly higher than average at the most important position in the game on a team with a mediocre-to-poor defense, leading his team to the division title.
However, when you know they're considering post-season in this equation, it quite simply makes no sense to put him at #100. Let's forget for a moment that the post-season just by itself represents 20% of the overall games he played this season, which is a pretty major chunk. Post-season performance is significantly more important than regular season performance, and Joe Flacco had one of the greatest post-season performances in the history of the game. Given this, his performance at the position over the entirety of the season + post-season was undoubtedly top ten, and arguably top five.
Having him at #100 just doesn't pass the eyeball test.
- C ----------------------------------------------------
www.oblongspheroid.com
A blog about any and everything football.
Twitter: oblong_spheroid
-
05-09-2013, 04:38 PM #58Rookie Poster
- Join Date
- Apr 2013
- Location
- MD
- Posts
- 19
Re: Flacco #100 on PFF's Top 101 of 2012 (and why it's ridiculous)
I 100% agree with this. You can't grade someone efficiently without taking everything into account. Its not like these two sat down and bubbled in some answers on the SAT. Matt Ryan did better than Flacco ON PAPER, but he did it throwing to better talent and weaker defenses. LVC, these things effect performance no matter how you look at it. Does a guy like Matt Ryan throwing to them help their stats? Sure. But having one of the best WR duos in the league sure helped his too. Trying to act like it doesn't is trying to make it into a one way street going the opposite direction. Besides, if its just supposition to say "well Ryan had Jones and White to throw to" than Flacco's grade/ranking shouldn't take a hit because of a handful of clutch catches by Q. That would be PFF taking circumstances surrounding Flacco into account.
To me, it's like saying I'm faster than Usain Bolt because in beat him in 100m running naked and he ran it towing 300 lbs. in 3 feet of snow (although with my whopping 5.5 second 40, he'd probably still win). According to LVC, it doesn't matter what would happen in different circumstances; it's supposition. In all honesty, I could care less about a popularity contest but bottom line, if this list takes playoffs into account, Flacco should be higher than most of the other QBs on it.
-
05-10-2013, 08:17 AM #59
-
Re: Flacco #100 on PFF's Top 101 of 2012 (and why it's ridiculous)
World Domination 3 Points at a Time!
Bookmarks