is joe flacco now considered great

[IcEWoLF]

If he wins he will remind me of a certain Raven QB that won the Sb and the following year being let go...now I am not saying he will be let go of, but he is not a game changer.

Give any QB's the Ravens O-Line & receiver corp and they will outplay Flacco.

 

Imagine RG3 with the Ravens.

[Warhorse]

If I had to choose between him and Matt Ryan right now, I would take Matty.

[Qwiz]

If I had to choose between him and Matt Ryan right now, I would take Matty.

As would I. Ryan is the real deal, he finally got the playoff monkey off his back as well.

[braveheartcolt]

Ryan had 4 shots at the end zone to go to the SB and came up short. Going by comments on here the past few weeks, that is the definition of 'choker'.....

 

I'd have taken Ryan before Flacco prior to the play-offs this season, but that is under evaluation right now. Some players just seem to 'come great' after a few years of just being good. Perhaps Joe will grow from this year's experience? 

[coltsfan_nyc]

Stepping back and looking at his record alone, the Ravens are always in the playoffs. Flacco seems to flip a switch at playoff time and transforms into another person. I think he's clutch and even though people say the defense carries the team, I think he has a cannon for an arm and can make EVERY throw!

 

In my opinion, the only thing keeping him from being elite is a superbowl ring. If he wins this superbowl, I will call him elite!

[tonychen]

Ryan had 4 shots at the end zone to go to the SB and came up short. Going by comments on here the past few weeks, that is the definition of 'choker'.....

 

I'd have taken Ryan before Flacco prior to the play-offs this season, but that is under evaluation right now. Some players just seem to 'come great' after a few years of just being good. Perhaps Joe will grow from this year's experience? 

 

See a lot of shadows of #18 in Matt Ryan: Style of audibles, success in regular season to turn a bad franchise around, lack of success in the playoffs, lack of support from running games, bad luck at crucial moments (obvious PI not called). Also see a lot of shadows of Eli in Flacco: Never considered good enough to carry the team in early career, supported by teams with other playmakers, inconsistent regular season plays, super coolness and huge improvements when it matters in the playoff, and good luck (the bomb at the end of Denver game).

 

Still I don't see Flacco being consistent enough next yr to carry his team, and after Ray Lewis retires there will be a big hole to fill and they may miss the playoff next yr. Ryan may have a nice regular season again but he is more likely to fall early in the playoff as well, especially they may need to play on the road after Saints take the division back.

[pacolts56]

Ryan had 4 shots at the end zone to go to the SB and came up short. Going by comments on here the past few weeks, that is the definition of 'choker'.....

 

I'd have taken Ryan before Flacco prior to the play-offs this season, but that is under evaluation right now. Some players just seem to 'come great' after a few years of just being good. Perhaps Joe will grow from this year's experience? 

 

 

 

See a lot of shadows of #18 in Matt Ryan: Style of audibles, success in regular season to turn a bad franchise around, lack of success in the playoffs, lack of support from running games, bad luck at crucial moments (obvious PI not called). Also see a lot of shadows of Eli in Flacco: Never considered good enough to carry the team in early career, supported by teams with other playmakers, inconsistent regular season plays, super coolness and huge improvements when it matters in the playoff, and good luck (the bomb at the end of Denver game).

 

Still I don't see Flacco being consistent enough next yr to carry his team, and after Ray Lewis retires there will be a big hole to fill and they may miss the playoff next yr. Ryan may have a nice regular season again but he is more likely to fall early in the playoff as well, especially they may need to play on the road after Saints take the division back.

Yes....Ryan appears to be suffering from the same thing that has often plagued Peyton Manning.

 

It's called Seasonitis Regularis....a condition where 16 weeks of outstanding QB play is followed by increasing lousy QB play as the games become more important. :yes:

[braveheartcolt]

 

See a lot of shadows of #18 in Matt Ryan: Style of audibles, success in regular season to turn a bad franchise around, lack of success in the playoffs, lack of support from running games, bad luck at crucial moments (obvious PI not called). Also see a lot of shadows of Eli in Flacco: Never considered good enough to carry the team in early career, supported by teams with other playmakers, inconsistent regular season plays, super coolness and huge improvements when it matters in the playoff, and good luck (the bomb at the end of Denver game).

 

Still I don't see Flacco being consistent enough next yr to carry his team, and after Ray Lewis retires there will be a big hole to fill and they may miss the playoff next yr. Ryan may have a nice regular season again but he is more likely to fall early in the playoff as well, especially they may need to play on the road after Saints take the division back.

Good words TC, apart from the PI call. Close, but I think it was within 5 yards, and prior to the throw....

[Truckin Sanders]

No, but he does know how to show up in the playoffs. During the regular season he had plenty of blunders. He is a top 10 guy.

[Matugi]

Thing is Flacco HAS carried his team. The defense has been, uh, not good this year. It's time Ray Lewis retires because it's disappointing watching him struggle as much as he has been.

The team will go as far as Flacco and Rice take them.

[jvan1973]

Thing is Flacco HAS carried his team. The defense has been, uh, not good this year. It's time Ray Lewis retires because it's disappointing watching him struggle as much as he has been.

The team will go as far as Flacco and Rice take them.

Lewis has 45 tackles in the three playoff games

[Superman]

I think even if Flacco plays well in the Superbowl, whether he belongs to the elite rank is still to be determined next season, since their defense will lose some leaders and may not be as dominant as they used to be. Then Flacco will be asked to carry the team more often. The past regular season for them is a reflection of what they expect to happen next season due to the injury of many key defensive players, and Flacco has been good in home games while very inconsistent on the road. By the end of the regular season, they were still not very sure whether they can depend on him as a franchise QB. Therefore he was not offered a new contract. Now he has proven his ability to deliever under pressure: Not only pressure by the opposing defense, but also the pressure from the possiblity of losing his starting job or having to find another team. But this is also based on the mentality that he "has nothing to lose". Being handed a big contract and under more expectation by all people he will need to prove he can play consistently at elite level.

 

I agree with a lot of this. But I don't think the Ravens ever want to rely on Flacco to the degree that other teams rely on their quarterback. I don't think they ever want him attempting 600 passes a season. They want to continue to have a dominant defense, and they continue to spend resources to that end. And that's smart.

 

But there's a world of difference between Flacco and great quarterbacks. Winning the Super Bowl doesn't change that.

[tonychen]

Thing is Flacco HAS carried his team. The defense has been, uh, not good this year. It's time Ray Lewis retires because it's disappointing watching him struggle as much as he has been.

The team will go as far as Flacco and Rice take them.

 

If you were watching their Pats game you'd figure out the offense did not do much the entire first half but the defense kept them in the game which gave their offense hope. Had it been any other defense in AFC it could easily be 21-7 going into the half and it would be a totally different story.

 

Forget about the regular season stats, this defense was similar to the Colts 06 defense with Bob Sanders back from injury and they are playing extremely well.

[Dustin]

This is why Super Bowls are a terrible metric when rating QBs. Remember last season when Eli was better than Peyton?

 

Of course they help make your case, but they aren't the be all end all of QBs.

 

If Flacco wins the Super Bowl he'll move up to a 2nd-tier QB to me. That's about it.

[tonychen]

I agree with a lot of this. But I don't think the Ravens ever want to rely on Flacco to the degree that other teams rely on their quarterback. I don't think they ever want him attempting 600 passes a season. They want to continue to have a dominant defense, and they continue to spend resources to that end. And that's smart.

 

But there's a world of difference between Flacco and great quarterbacks. Winning the Super Bowl doesn't change that.

 

Agree to your comment on Flacco unless he can prove us wrong next season. But defensive leaders like Ray Lewis is as difficult to find as elite QBs. He not only contributes by his plays, but also the spiritual level and defensive audibles. This showed in their regular season this yr when they were without Ray Lewis as in many games they were just smashed by mediocore teams. You may find Flacco's name called more than anybody could expect next season to make plays.

[tonychen]

This is why Super Bowls are a terrible metric when rating QBs. Remember last season when Eli was better than Peyton?

 

Of course they help make your case, but they aren't the be all end all of QBs.

 

If Flacco wins the Super Bowl he'll move up to a 2nd-tier QB to me. That's about it.

 

I'd give him more credit and rate him a 1.5 tier and if he can finish next season with 12 wins and good stats I'd say he deserve 1st tier.

[Superman]

Statistically....Joe Flacco is pretty comparable, and in number of INTs thrown, favorable to Peyton Manning after their first 5 years of regular season play.....and more successful in post season play, both statistically and in the win column.

 

Don't take my word for it.....

 

http://www.nfl.com/player/joeflacco/382/careerstats

 

http://www.nfl.com/player/peytonmanning/2501863/careerstats

 

I was actually surprised to see how comparable they are after 5 seasons....that is if you think stats matter all that much.

 

So I don't know if that puts Flacco in the "great" category for fans here....but in their first 5 years of NFL play he measures well statistically against the great Peyton Manning.

 

Unless you don't care about stats as much as you care about playoff success.

 

In which case Joe Flacco, in his first 5 years, has been better.

 

You don't really think Flacco's stats are comparable to Manning's in their first five years, do you?

 

First off, Flacco plays in a pass-first league, whereas the NFL from 1998-2002 was still dominated by running backs and the old smash-mouth mentality. This is pre-2004, when the NFL started to enforce illegal contact and the passing game really opened up. Comparing Flacco now to any quarterback before 2004 isn't an apples-to-apples comparison.

 

Secondly, Flacco plays for a team that has devoted significant resources to having a top notch defense. The Ravens are always near the top of the league in virtually every key defensive stat. Manning's Colts were always toward the bottom of the league.

 

Third, comparing Flacco's postseason record to Manning's in terms of wins and losses ignores the fact that Flacco has never been the catalyst for his team's success; it's always been the defense. Outside of a handful of playoff games, Flacco has been an afterthought. He has a playoff win in a game in which he threw ten (10!) passes, total, for 34 yards, total. If that doesn't illustrate how big a fallacy it is judge quarterbacks based on their team's postseason success, to say "Quarterback A has more postseason success than Quarterback B," then I don't know what else to say.

 

Are we really comparing Peyton Manning to Joe Flacco right now???

 

Lastly, Flacco's first five years were NOT comparable to Manning's. Flacco has inferior stats across the board. Manning averaged 4,123 yards/year in his first five years; Flacco has never thrown for 4,000 yards. Flacco's career high in touchdowns is 25; Manning never threw less than 26 in his first five years (or ever). Compare their fifth years: Flacco threw for 3,817 yards, 59.7% completion rate, 22 touchdowns, 10 interceptions. Manning threw for 4,200 yards, 66.3% completion rate, 27 touchdowns, 19 interceptions. These are NOT comparable numbers.

 

Manning was well ahead of Flacco at that point. And Manning hadn't even moved into "great" territory yet. He was on the cusp, and everyone knew he would get there, but he wasn't Peyton Manning yet. Joe Flacco is comparable to rookie Peyton Manning, after five years, in terms of statistical production, with fewer interceptions.

[Matugi]

Lewis has 45 tackles in the three playoff games

Tackle stats are completely overrated. He was getting pushed aside in the run game and abused in coverage.

[amfootball]

You don't really think Flacco's stats are comparable to Manning's in their first five years, do you?

 

First off, Flacco plays in a pass-first league, whereas the NFL from 1998-2002 was still dominated by running backs and the old smash-mouth mentality. This is pre-2004, when the NFL started to enforce illegal contact and the passing game really opened up. Comparing Flacco now to any quarterback before 2004 isn't an apples-to-apples comparison.

 

Secondly, Flacco plays for a team that has devoted significant resources to having a top notch defense. The Ravens are always near the top of the league in virtually every key defensive stat. Manning's Colts were always toward the bottom of the league.

 

Third, comparing Flacco's postseason record to Manning's in terms of wins and losses ignores the fact that Flacco has never been the catalyst for his team's success; it's always been the defense. Outside of a handful of playoff games, Flacco has been an afterthought. He has a playoff win in a game in which he threw ten (10!) passes, total, for 34 yards, total. If that doesn't illustrate how big a fallacy it is judge quarterbacks based on their team's postseason success, to say "Quarterback A has more postseason success than Quarterback B," then I don't know what else to say.

 

Are we really comparing Peyton Manning to Joe Flacco right now???

 

Lastly, Flacco's first five years were NOT comparable to Manning's. Flacco has inferior stats across the board. Manning averaged 4,123 yards/year in his first five years; Flacco has never thrown for 4,000 yards. Flacco's career high in touchdowns is 25; Manning never threw less than 26 in his first five years (or ever). Compare their fifth years: Flacco threw for 3,817 yards, 59.7% completion rate, 22 touchdowns, 10 interceptions. Manning threw for 4,200 yards, 66.3% completion rate, 27 touchdowns, 19 interceptions. These are NOT comparable numbers.

 

Manning was well ahead of Flacco at that point. And Manning hadn't even moved into "great" territory yet. He was on the cusp, and everyone knew he would get there, but he wasn't Peyton Manning yet. Joe Flacco is comparable to rookie Peyton Manning, after five years, in terms of statistical production, with fewer interceptions.

I would rather have Flacco as my starting QB in a playoff game than Peyton.

[Dustin]

I would rather have Flacco as my starting QB in a playoff game than Peyton.

 

I'd rather have him than Brady as well. He's a much better playoff QB than both of them.

[jvan1973]

I would rather have Flacco as my starting QB in a playoff game than Peyton.

Or Tom Brady. Peyton had a better game against the ravens than Brady did

[Superman]

I would rather have Flacco as my starting QB in a playoff game than Peyton.

 

::sighs prayerfully::

[pacolts56]

You don't really think Flacco's stats are comparable to Manning's in their first five years, do you?

 

First off, Flacco plays in a pass-first league, whereas the NFL from 1998-2002 was still dominated by running backs and the old smash-mouth mentality. This is pre-2004, when the NFL started to enforce illegal contact and the passing game really opened up. Comparing Flacco now to any quarterback before 2004 isn't an apples-to-apples comparison.

 

Secondly, Flacco plays for a team that has devoted significant resources to having a top notch defense. The Ravens are always near the top of the league in virtually every key defensive stat. Manning's Colts were always toward the bottom of the league.

 

Third, comparing Flacco's postseason record to Manning's in terms of wins and losses ignores the fact that Flacco has never been the catalyst for his team's success; it's always been the defense. Outside of a handful of playoff games, Flacco has been an afterthought. He has a playoff win in a game in which he threw ten (10!) passes, total, for 34 yards, total. If that doesn't illustrate how big a fallacy it is judge quarterbacks based on their team's postseason success, to say "Quarterback A has more postseason success than Quarterback B," then I don't know what else to say.

 

Are we really comparing Peyton Manning to Joe Flacco right now???

 

Lastly, Flacco's first five years were NOT comparable to Manning's. Flacco has inferior stats across the board. Manning averaged 4,123 yards/year in his first five years; Flacco has never thrown for 4,000 yards. Flacco's career high in touchdowns is 25; Manning never threw less than 26 in his first five years (or ever). Compare their fifth years: Flacco threw for 3,817 yards, 59.7% completion rate, 22 touchdowns, 10 interceptions. Manning threw for 4,200 yards, 66.3% completion rate, 27 touchdowns, 19 interceptions. These are NOT comparable numbers.

 

Manning was well ahead of Flacco at that point. And Manning hadn't even moved into "great" territory yet. He was on the cusp, and everyone knew he would get there, but he wasn't Peyton Manning yet. Joe Flacco is comparable to rookie Peyton Manning, after five years, in terms of statistical production, with fewer interceptions.

It's really not that much of a difference, Superman...

 

On a per season basis thru their first 5 years Manning's differential is...

 

593 yards more per season (substantial but not overwhelming)

 

6 TDs more per season (again, substantial but not overwhelming)

 

9 INTs more per season (kinda not good, right?)

 

And their QB rating for their first 5 years is almost dead even with Flacco slightly ahead..... 86.3 to 85.9

 

As far as playoff stats and success....they both had a couple tough early years, but Flacco WON GAMES, and in his last three runs has really improved. And we know he's a Lee Evans drop from going to his 2nd straight Super Bowl.

 

Peyton had some shining moments in 3 or 4 playoff games but the bad memories far outnumber them.

 

I know the Ravens are a very different team than the Manning-era Colts...and the league was different when Peyton started. But that was mostly my point in bringing this up in the first place. We didn't lack for a great rushing attack with Edge in that backfield....and Marvin was flat-out better than any WR who's ever donned a Ravens uniform.

 

Defensively....I'll concede the Ravens have been consistently better without question and it does make a difference. But it doesn't turn Joe Flacco into a slug either.

 

My summation...and I know some will disagree is that due to playoff performance Joe Flacco isn't as "average" a QB as he's been painted and Manning has without question has had his legacy tarnished by some very lackluster postseason play.

 

I simply believe that after their first 5 seasons...they are alot closer than we thought.

[Jules]

Yes....Ryan appears to be suffering from the same thing that has often plagued Peyton Manning.

 

It's called Seasonitis Regularis....a condition where 16 weeks of outstanding QB play is followed by increasing lousy QB play as the games become more important. :yes:

 

[Jules]

This is why Super Bowls are a terrible metric when rating QBs. Remember last season when Eli was better than Peyton?

 

Of course they help make your case, but they aren't the be all end all of QBs.

 

If Flacco wins the Super Bowl he'll move up to a 2nd-tier QB to me. That's about it.

 

Eli's legacy will go down as "Patriots killer".

 

Honestly I would laugh so hard if the Pats ever got back to the Super Bowl again and their opponent was the Giants.

[Superman]

It's really not that much of a difference, Superman...

 

On a per season basis thru their first 5 years Manning's differential is...

 

593 yards more per season (substantial but not overwhelming)

 

6 TDs more per season (again, substantial but not overwhelming)

 

9 INTs more per season (kinda not good, right?)

 

And their QB rating for their first 5 years is almost dead even with Flacco slightly ahead..... 86.3 to 85.9

 

As far as playoff stats and success....they both had a couple tough early years, but Flacco WON GAMES, and in his last three runs has really improved. And we know he's a Lee Evans drop from going to his 2nd straight Super Bowl.

 

Peyton had some shining moments in 3 or 4 playoff games but the bad memories far outnumber them.

 

I know the Ravens are a very different team than the Manning-era Colts...and the league was different when Peyton started. But that was mostly my point in bringing this up in the first place. We didn't lack for a great rushing attack with Edge in that backfield....and Marvin was flat-out better than any WR who's ever donned a Ravens uniform.

 

Defensively....I'll concede the Ravens have been consistently better without question and it does make a difference. But it doesn't turn Joe Flacco into a slug either.

 

My summation...and I know some will disagree is that due to playoff performance Joe Flacco isn't as "average" a QB as he's been painted and Manning has without question has had his legacy tarnished by some very lackluster postseason play.

 

I simply believe that after their first 5 seasons...they are alot closer than we thought.

 

Flacco did NOT win games; the Ravens won games. I already cited a game in which he did virtually nothing to contribute to the win, a game against the Patriots of all teams, where he basically wasn't needed. 

 

And that's the major pushback among those who defend Manning against this criticism. Not taking anything away from Flacco or Brady or anyone else who has a superior postseason reputation, but quarterbacks don't win games, especially in the playoffs against other good teams. Teams win games. Football is the ultimate team sport, and even now, when quarterback is probably the single most important position in professional sports, the quarterback doesn't do it on his own. He can't. 

 

Compare the Vikings vs. Packers in Week 17, when Adrian Peterson ran all over the Packers defense, to the playoff game a week later, when they corralled him as well as any team did all year (except the Colts, ironically). Aaron Rodgers threw for 365 yards and four touchdowns in the loss; he threw for 274 yards and one touchdown in the win. But if you flip the results, and put the win in the regular season and the loss in the playoffs, we're talking about how Rodgers can't get it done in the postseason. This entire line of reasoning is flawed, and it's unbelievably juvenile from an analytical standpoint.

 

The other thing: Joe Flacco has played 12 postseason games, so far. He's played pretty poorly in some of those wins, and better in a couple of losses. Out of eight wins, he only has three good games; two were mediocre; three were downright awful. Out of four losses, he has three stinkers, and one good game. He's played 80 regular season games. The majority of them were mediocre, some high points, others really bad. I disagree with the notion that because he's 8-4 in the postseason that those 12 games make up for the largely average career he's put together through five seasons. His postseason record, to this point, makes up 15% of his career. I wouldn't care if he were stellar in the postseason, every game, that wouldn't change the fact that he's mostly average the other 85% of the time. A quarterback's postseason performance can certainly add to or detract from his overall legacy, but it doesn't change that legacy entirely.

 

Flacco's postseason performance has been hit and miss, despite the really good 8-4 record. Less hit than miss. His recent performances have improved, but that doesn't take him from slightly above average to great. 

[pacolts56]

Flacco did NOT win games; the Ravens won games. I already cited a game in which he did virtually nothing to contribute to the win, a game against the Patriots of all teams, where he basically wasn't needed. 

 

And that's the major pushback among those who defend Manning against this criticism. Not taking anything away from Flacco or Brady or anyone else who has a superior postseason reputation, but quarterbacks don't win games, especially in the playoffs against other good teams. Teams win games. Football is the ultimate team sport, and even now, when quarterback is probably the single most important position in professional sports, the quarterback doesn't do it on his own. He can't. 

 

Compare the Vikings vs. Packers in Week 17, when Adrian Peterson ran all over the Packers defense, to the playoff game a week later, when they corralled him as well as any team did all year (except the Colts, ironically). Aaron Rodgers threw for 365 yards and four touchdowns in the loss; he threw for 274 yards and one touchdown in the win. But if you flip the results, and put the win in the regular season and the loss in the playoffs, we're talking about how Rodgers can't get it done in the postseason. This entire line of reasoning is flawed, and it's unbelievably juvenile from an analytical standpoint.

 

The other thing: Joe Flacco has played 12 postseason games, so far. He's played pretty poorly in some of those wins, and better in a couple of losses. Out of eight wins, he only has three good games; two were mediocre; three were downright awful. Out of four losses, he has three stinkers, and one good game. He's played 80 regular season games. The majority of them were mediocre, some high points, others really bad. I disagree with the notion that because he's 8-4 in the postseason that those 12 games make up for the largely average career he's put together through five seasons. His postseason record, to this point, makes up 15% of his career. I wouldn't care if he were stellar in the postseason, every game, that wouldn't change the fact that he's mostly average the other 85% of the time. A quarterback's postseason performance can certainly add to or detract from his overall legacy, but it doesn't change that legacy entirely.

 

Flacco's postseason performance has been hit and miss, despite the really good 8-4 record. Less hit than miss. His recent performances have improved, but that doesn't take him from slightly above average to great. 

But don't you think that at times great QBs are pumped up a bit beyond their already lofty status....and guys like Flacco get too deeply discounted?

 

Being a team sport, yes, these QB comparisons only go so far anyway no matter how we measure them.....stats, MVPs, clutch wins/losses or otherwise. A QB can't usually win a game single-handedly...but they can sure screw it up.

 

One thing is certain.....Denver and Baltimore both have very good O-lines, WRs, TEs and respectable running games along with solid defenses. Overall, two pretty balanced teams.

 

Sadly....Peyton came out on the short end again....being only moderately effective and with a critical error, while Flacco played very well. I was just honestly stunned to see Peyton falter again in the playoffs....finally equipped with a more balanced team and spotted a 14-0 lead.  And I was equally impressed with Flacco's performance.

 

I don't think Joe Flacco is great....yet....but IMO he's off to a better start than he gets credit for.

[southwest1]

Statistically....Joe Flacco is pretty comparable, and in number of INTs thrown, favorable to Peyton Manning after their first 5 years of regular season play.....and more successful in post season play, both statistically and in the win column.

 

Don't take my word for it.....

 

http://www.nfl.com/player/joeflacco/382/careerstats

 

http://www.nfl.com/player/peytonmanning/2501863/careerstats

 

I was actually surprised to see how comparable they are after 5 seasons....that is if you think stats matter all that much.

 

So I don't know if that puts Flacco in the "great" category for fans here....but in their first 5 years of NFL play he measures well statistically against the great Peyton Manning.

 

Unless you don't care about stats as much as you care about playoff success.

 

In which case Joe Flacco, in his first 5 years, has been better.

 

 

Yes....Ryan appears to be suffering from the same thing that has often plagued Peyton Manning.

 

It's called Seasonitis Regularis....a condition where 16 weeks of outstanding QB play is followed by increasing lousy QB play as the games become more important. :yes:

 

2 excellent posts pacolts56. Is Flacco better than Manning? It depends...Are we talking stats or Playoff success? I'd still take Manning hands down because Flacco has always had a good to great defense & a pretty good offense line. Peyton hasn't always had that luxury except maybe in 2005 & 2006 perhaps. 

 

I do envy the fact that Flacco seems to do well in the Playoffs, but like others have said correctly, Flacco does live & die by the long ball throw...Whereas, Peyton Manning can still beat you if the opposing safeties stay deep & force you to win by dinking & dunking with consistent 1st downs. Flacco seems to struggle when he can't throw his way out of trouble with a long pass completion IMO. 

[Superman]

But don't you think that at times great QBs are pumped up a bit beyond their already lofty status....and guys like Flacco get too deeply discounted?

 

Being a team sport, yes, these QB comparisons only go so far anyway no matter how we measure them.....stats, MVPs, clutch wins/losses or otherwise. A QB can't usually win a game single-handedly...but they can sure screw it up.

 

One thing is certain.....Denver and Baltimore both have very good O-lines, WRs, TEs and respectable running games along with solid defenses. Overall, two pretty balanced teams.

 

Sadly....Peyton came out on the short end again....being only moderately effective and with a critical error, while Flacco played very well. I was just honestly stunned to see Peyton falter again in the playoffs....finally equipped with a more balanced team and spotted a 14-0 lead.  And I was equally impressed with Flacco's performance.

 

I don't think Joe Flacco is great....yet....but IMO he's off to a better start than he gets credit for.

 

I do think some quarterbacks are pumped up a bit; I've said that about Brady for a long time now. And I kind of feel like people are getting ready to give Flacco the pre-2004 Brady treatment (to an extent) if the Ravens win the Super Bowl, and it's nuts. Same thing for Eli. To me, there's a huge difference between Peyton Manning, Brady, Brees and Rodgers, and everyone else, including Eli and Roethlisberger. 

 

I think Manning is ripped to shreds because of a lackluster postseason record, but I don't think that's reasonable or fair. Just like with Flacco, I don't agree that 20 postseason games outweigh 224 regular season games.

 

And, just to illustrate, you're calling Manning "moderately effective" in the Ravens game (290 yards, three touchdowns), when he threw the go-ahead touchdown in the fourth quarter, then inexplicably had the game taken out of his hands by the coaching staff. You're saying you're surprised that he "faltered again," despite a more balanced team with a good defense, but the defense gave up 28 points, including a game-tying 70 yard touchdown with 31 seconds left. The secondary was torched, mostly due to poor play. Again, I'm not trying to take anything away from Flacco, but the Broncos defensive backs made several mistakes that led to huge games and scores. You say he was "spotted a 14-0 lead" -- which isn't true, the Ravens answered every Broncos score with one of their own -- as if he didn't help put three touchdowns on the board.

 

This is the nuance that goes out of the window when people say things like "Flacco did what it took to win, and Manning faltered." I come off sounding like a wild-eyed Manning defender, and I swear that's not the point here. I could do the same for Matt Ryan or heck, Joe Flacco last year, or Tom Brady in the 2007 Super Bowl, or a dozen other quarterbacks who have bad playoff losses on their record, despite turning in pretty good performances. This whole "quarterbacks get judged by whether their team wins in the playoffs" stuff is beyond crazy to me. Joe Flacco can "win" having a 4/10 day with 34 yards and a pick against a mediocre defense (Patriots, 2009), and Manning can "lose" going 18/26 with 225 yards and a touchdown against a great defense (Jets, 2010), and some people take that as license to upgrade Flacco and downgrade Manning. I reject that out of hand. And it's not about Manning. It's about the fact that it makes no sense.

 

And it especially irritates me when certain Colts fans get all "even as a Colts fan, you have to admit..." as if it's blind homerism that causes me to feel the way I feel.

 

Flacco might get too deeply discounted; I too have been impressed with his play at times this season. Through the first month, he was on pace for 5,000 yards. The team relied on him to play well to get to the Super Bowl, and he did. He's clearly not a bum, and that's what a lot of people would have you believe. But remember, my objection here is that winning the Super Bowl puts him in the "great" conversation. If he's not great now, he won't be two weeks from now; one game doesn't change who you are.

[southwest1]

Flacco might get too deeply discounted; I too have been impressed with his play at times this season. Through the first month, he was on pace for 5,000 yards. The team relied on him to play well to get to the Super Bowl, and he did. He's clearly not a bum, and that's what a lot of people would have you believe. But remember, my objection here is that winning the Super Bowl puts him in the "great" conversation. If he's not great now, he won't be two weeks from now; one game doesn't change who you are.

 

A very nice post written above Superman. I ran out of likes unfortunately. You do a nice job of integrating statistics with thoughtful analysis that forces a person to engage in critical thinking. I respect that. You have a gift. I completely agree with the section I bolded. However, if you win a Championship you are considered elite.

 

Look at QB Trent Dilfer in 2000. He won a SB with a great Ravens defense. Does that make Trent elite by talent alone? No, but it does by association or osmosis. It just comes with winning a ring. Is Trent brilliant on a football field? No, just lucky I agree, but the world will no longer see a Championship QB as average or not too bad anymore.

 

Look at Tampa Bay Bucs QB Brad Johnson who won a ring in 2002 against the Raiders. He's definitely no football genius just lucky again thanks to Warren Sapp & that great defense. Brad Johnson's stock rose. Do I call him elite? No, but a Championship puts a QB in the elite conversation. I don't agree with it, but reality is reality. 

[pacolts56]

I do think some quarterbacks are pumped up a bit; I've said that about Brady for a long time now. And I kind of feel like people are getting ready to give Flacco the pre-2004 Brady treatment (to an extent) if the Ravens win the Super Bowl, and it's nuts. Same thing for Eli. To me, there's a huge difference between Peyton Manning, Brady, Brees and Rodgers, and everyone else, including Eli and Roethlisberger. 

 

I think Manning is ripped to shreds because of a lackluster postseason record, but I don't think that's reasonable or fair. Just like with Flacco, I don't agree that 20 postseason games outweigh 224 regular season games.

 

And, just to illustrate, you're calling Manning "moderately effective" in the Ravens game (290 yards, three touchdowns), when he threw the go-ahead touchdown in the fourth quarter, then inexplicably had the game taken out of his hands by the coaching staff. You're saying you're surprised that he "faltered again," despite a more balanced team with a good defense, but the defense gave up 28 points, including a game-tying 70 yard touchdown with 31 seconds left. The secondary was torched, mostly due to poor play. Again, I'm not trying to take anything away from Flacco, but the Broncos defensive backs made several mistakes that led to huge games and scores. You say he was "spotted a 14-0 lead" -- which isn't true, the Ravens answered every Broncos score with one of their own -- as if he didn't help put three touchdowns on the board.

 

This is the nuance that goes out of the window when people say things like "Flacco did what it took to win, and Manning faltered." I come off sounding like a wild-eyed Manning defender, and I swear that's not the point here. I could do the same for Matt Ryan or heck, Joe Flacco last year, or Tom Brady in the 2007 Super Bowl, or a dozen other quarterbacks who have bad playoff losses on their record, despite turning in pretty good performances. This whole "quarterbacks get judged by whether their team wins in the playoffs" stuff is beyond crazy to me. Joe Flacco can "win" having a 4/10 day with 34 yards and a pick against a mediocre defense (Patriots, 2009), and Manning can "lose" going 18/26 with 225 yards and a touchdown against a great defense (Jets, 2010), and some people take that as license to upgrade Flacco and downgrade Manning. I reject that out of hand. And it's not about Manning. It's about the fact that it makes no sense.

 

And it especially irritates me when certain Colts fans get all "even as a Colts fan, you have to admit..." as if it's blind homerism that causes me to feel the way I feel.

 

Flacco might get too deeply discounted; I too have been impressed with his play at times this season. Through the first month, he was on pace for 5,000 yards. The team relied on him to play well to get to the Super Bowl, and he did. He's clearly not a bum, and that's what a lot of people would have you believe. But remember, my objection here is that winning the Super Bowl puts him in the "great" conversation. If he's not great now, he won't be two weeks from now; one game doesn't change who you are.

These are fair points and QB comparisons are indeed very nuanced. And even the truly great QBs have had forgettable playoff games.

 

My own expectations as a football fan however, were ramped up by Peyton and the Broncos 11-game regular season streak going into the playoffs. Had they staggered into the playoffs like they did last year that would have been different.

 

So my "moderately effective" comment was factoring in the other 52 guys on his Bronco team that, on balance, is the most complete team he's ever played with. Lord knows he never got that kind of special teams support, even in the regular season let alone 14 points worth in a playoff game. And without getting into the whole indoor/outdoor "weather" debate that has sometimes been leveled against Peyton....the Broncos home field advantage is usually as good as any.

 

Trust me....I'm no Ravens fan whatsoever....and once the Colts were eliminated I was hoping that Peyton would help slap them aside on his way to a Super Bowl.

 

A couple things happened to prevent that outcome....and one of them was Flacco having the better day at QB.

 

I agree it doesn't make Joe Flacco "great" right now at this very moment...but at this juncture of his career compared to Manning at the same point in his career, and the arc of Flacco's last 3 years worth of playoff performances....his stature as a QB is on the upswing.

 

I imagine that we'll continue being wowed by QB style points from these young kids coming in....and Flacco will still be seen as that kind of boring drop-back guy with the mad-bomber arm. That's pretty accurate, and its easy for a guy like him to get lost in the conversation, but some of those 20-30 yard lasers he hit Boldin and Pitta with against Denver were pretty impressive too.

 

IMO....a good outing and a Super Bowl win propels him well into the 2nd tier of NFL QBs....still behind Manning, Brady, Brees and Rodgers, but along side Ryan, Eli and Big Ben.

 

And the important reminder that you very well noted is that the other 52 guys matter....a lot.

[Superman]

A very nice post written above Superman. I ran out of likes unfortunately. You do a nice job of integrating statistics with thoughtful analysis that forces a person to engage in critical thinking. I respect that. You have a gift. I completely agree with the section I bolded. However, if you win a Championship you are considered elite.

 

Look at QB Trent Dilfer in 2000. He won a SB with a great Ravens defense. Does that make Trent elite by talent alone? No, but it does by association or osmosis. It just comes with winning a ring. Is Trent brilliant on a football field? No, just lucky I agree, but the world will no longer see a Championship QB as average or not too bad anymore.

 

Look at Tampa Bay Bucs QB Brad Johnson who won a ring in 2002 against the Raiders. He's definitely no football genius just lucky again thanks to Warren Sapp & that great defense. Brad Johnson's stock rose. Do I call him elite? No, but a Championship puts a QB in the elite conversation. I don't agree with it, but reality is reality. 

 

Thanks for the kind words.

 

However, I don't think anyone considers Trent Dilfer or Brad Johnson to be "elite." 

[jvan1973]

Thanks for the kind words.

However, I don't think anyone considers Trent Dilfer or Brad Johnson to be "elite."

Or Jim Plunkett who won two super bowls

[Superman]

These are fair points and QB comparisons are indeed very nuanced. And even the truly great QBs have had forgettable playoff games.

 

My own expectations as a football fan however, were ramped up by Peyton and the Broncos 11-game regular season streak going into the playoffs. Had they staggered into the playoffs like they did last year that would have been different.

 

So my "moderately effective" comment was factoring in the other 52 guys on his Bronco team that, on balance, is the most complete team he's ever played with. Lord knows he never got that kind of special teams support, even in the regular season let alone 14 points worth in a playoff game. And without getting into the whole indoor/outdoor "weather" debate that has sometimes been leveled against Peyton....the Broncos home field advantage is usually as good as any.

 

I agree with a lot of that. But I think scoring 35 points at home is good enough to win a playoff game. It should be. Getting two special teams touchdowns ought to put the game away for you (I wonder if any other playoff team has lost a game in which they scored twice on special teams, especially at home). This was one of the most complete teams he's ever had -- I'd put the 2005 team up there, and if not for the injuries to Freeney and Mathis, I'd put the 2007 team up there as well.

 

However, in this game, the defense didn't hold up their end of the bargain. Giving up a 70 yard touchdown with 31 seconds left to send the game into overtime is unacceptable. I'm not going to pretend that Manning was perfect, but I think the offense did enough to win that game in regulation, and the defense gave it away.

 

I'm not going to comment on the coaching.

 

Trust me....I'm no Ravens fan whatsoever....and once the Colts were eliminated I was hoping that Peyton would help slap them aside on his way to a Super Bowl.

 

A couple things happened to prevent that outcome....and one of them was Flacco having the better day at QB.

 

Same here. And I agree that Flacco had a better game at quarterback, and his defense and special teams were just as problematic. But his defense also came up with the deciding play in overtime, whereas the Broncos defense essentially gave the game away in regulation. Nuance. Still, credit to Flacco for a(nother) good road playoff game.

 

I agree it doesn't make Joe Flacco "great" right now at this very moment...but at this juncture of his career compared to Manning at the same point in his career, and the arc of Flacco's last 3 years worth of playoff performances....his stature as a QB is on the upswing.

 

Definitely. I felt that way after last year's loss to the Patriots. He's not the bum people pretend he is. But he's not great, and winning the Super Bowl won't outweigh the 92 other games he's played as a pro. Unless he absolutely shreds the Niners, it doesn't change my opinion of him.

 

I imagine that we'll continue being wowed by QB style points from these young kids coming in....and Flacco will still be seen as that kind of boring drop-back guy with the mad-bomber arm. That's pretty accurate, and its easy for a guy like him to get lost in the conversation, but some of those 20-30 yard lasers he hit Boldin and Pitta with against Denver were pretty impressive too.

 

IMO....a good outing and a Super Bowl win propels him well into the 2nd tier of NFL QBs....still behind Manning, Brady, Brees and Rodgers, but along side Ryan, Eli and Big Ben.

 

And the important reminder that you very well noted is that the other 52 guys matter....a lot.

 

I'm more about substance than style. I appreciate Flacco for what he is, and if his performances continue to improve, he'll keep getting more and more credit from me. But I still have him a step behind Ryan, Eli and Ben, even if they win the Super Bowl. Those guys have shown the ability to put their teams on their backs for an entire season and carry them into the playoffs. Flacco hasn't. What he's done once he's in the playoffs the past couple of years has been noteworthy, but I still favor the overall results over a few games worth in the playoffs.

 

If the Ravens win, I see it being mostly on the strength of their defense being able to stop the Niners from running the ball, and Kaepernick being unable to throw it effectively. And then Flacco is going to be heralded as great, elite, and all that, and it's going to annoy the heck out of me.

 

By the way, you know who else has some pretty impressive playoff results? Mark Sanchez. The Jets are 4-2 in the postseason, all on the road, with wins against Brady, Manning and Good Philip Rivers, etc. He outplayed Roethlisberger in Pittsburgh in the 2010 AFCCG. His postseason numbers are MUCH better than his regular season numbers. But those results from those six games don't outweigh the other 63 games he's played.

[pacolts56]

By the way, you know who else has some pretty impressive playoff results? Mark Sanchez. The Jets are 4-2 in the postseason, all on the road, with wins against Brady, Manning and Good Philip Rivers, etc. He outplayed Roethlisberger in Pittsburgh in the 2010 AFCCG. His postseason numbers are MUCH better than his regular season numbers. But those results from those six games don't outweigh the other 63 games he's played.

That's about as good a football example of the word "outlier" as there is. Poor Sanchez. But hey....he's still young, maybe he can get himself squared away.

 

Unless he was really THAT rattled by Tim Tebow, then I have my doubts.

 

Anyway....you're right about Flacco, and if the Ravens win the Super Bowl that he'll probably be hyped beyond his true place among current NFL QBs. And maybe the word "great" kinda gets thrown around a little too liberally when it comes to QBs that are still playing.

[Superman]

That's about as good a football example of the word "outlier" as there is. Poor Sanchez. But hey....he's still young, maybe he can get himself squared away.

 

Unless he was really THAT rattled by Tim Tebow, then I have my doubts.

 

Anyway....you're right about Flacco, and if the Ravens win the Super Bowl that he'll probably be hyped beyond his true place among current NFL QBs. And maybe the word "great" kinda gets thrown around a little too liberally when it comes to QBs that are still playing.

 

The Jets offensive coaches have been terrible. The only thing worse than Brian Schottenheimer is Tony Sparano. And the Tebow circus didn't help. I don't think Sanchez is anything special, but I don't think he's as bad as people say. I think he's been in a very unfavorable situation, especially the past two seasons. And the Jets defense is now old and slow. They need a lot of help.

[Dustin]

 I don't think he's as bad as people say. 

 

 

[southwest1]

Priceless! I never get tired of seeing this...    Excellent comic relief any day of the week. Nice post Dustin! 

[Superman]

 

 

I retract my previous statement. LOL

[SilentHill]