Bone Head Move Of The Decade Goes To The Ravens

[Superman]

 I get your point on the 49er's/Ryan game, and the 2011 Flacco /Patriots game. The one thing I would point out though, is Flacco is one of the best long ball throwers in the league. Not every quarterback could make the throw he made in Denver. That was one heck of a bomb, and caught Moore off guard.

 

I just acknowledged in the post right above that Flacco is one of the best deep throwers in the league, so credit to him for that. But even then, Moore was a bonehead and Flacco and the Ravens were the beneficiaries. 

 

And take out the deep throws, Flacco had nothing to do with Manning making a terrible decision to throw across his body in double overtime. The Ravens took over on the Broncos 45, ran the ball four times, and kicked a field goal. Not taking anything away from Flacco for a good game, but the Ravens didn't win because he put him on his back and carried them across the finish line. 

[Superman]

The other point is the agent is a complete * for mouthing off. Maybe this is why Linta has only one major client. Linta caught a big break with the Super Bowl win, so just be thankful, and act like you've done a deal before. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

 

Agreed. Linta doesn't come off well here.

[The Old Crow]

I honestly believe Ozzie was the one shocked most of all by Joe's performance. If he really thought Joe had that in him, he would have signed him in a heartbeat last year. Goes to show you that even the smartest GMs get it wrong just like the rest of us.

 

Not sure if you ever saw the movie Moneyball with Brad Pitt where he plays A's GM Billy Beane but it is a great movie on just how hard it is to predict a guys talent/worth...

 

Maybe Ozzie did get it wrong, but suppose the Ravens won at least one other Super Bowl in the next three years. Is it still a mistake ? Interesting.

[Yehoodi]

I was wrong, it's just games, not wins. IIRC He he 3-2 in games with a passer rating under 62. Sorry for the confusion.

 

okay fair enough . . . was not sure . . . I only remember a few wins where he had a low QB rating and one was the pats game where I have already said my peace on that one . . . .

[dw49]

I know, but his legacy is based really one one Super Bowl win. All I'm saying is the post season and Super Bowl wins can really move you up, or down, on all time polls. Because Namath doesn't have a lot of the other criteria, I agree with you. My point was showing you how much a Super Bowl win is important to a legacy, and how this one win parlayed Namath into the Hall of Fame.

 

 

Just curious if you are old enough to have watched Namath during his career ? I'm not saying that SB 3 didn't have a ton to do with his election to the hall , but he was a heck of a QB when healthy. He played on two horrible knees many of his years and you really have to forget comparing stats back then to today's game. Bottom line is that when his body was right , he was indeed a great QB. Should that short body of work put him in the hall ? I don't know .. but he was special for at least a few years.

[The Old Crow]

Just curious if you are old enough to have watched Namath during his career ? I'm not saying that SB 3 didn't have a ton to do with his election to the hall , but he was a heck of a QB when healthy. He played on two horrible knees many of his years and you really have to forget comparing stats back then to today's game. Bottom line is that when his body was right , he was indeed a great QB. Should that short body of work put him in the hall ? I don't know .. but he was special for at least a few years.

 

 

Yes, I did see him play. He was a very good quarterback when he was healthy, but Namath is the unltimate guy who got in the Hall of Fame for a Super Bowl win. I wasn't trying to disparage Namath, but just wanted to spotlight winning on a quarterback's legacy. 

[dw49]

Yes, I did see him play. He was a very good quarterback when he was healthy, but Namath is the unltimate guy who got in the Hall of Fame for a Super Bowl win. I wasn't trying to disparage Namath, but just wanted to spotlight winning on a quarterback's legacy. 

 

 

No.. I didn't think you were disparaging in your remark , I was just wondering if you had seen him play or were going by his stats and what you read. If you saw him play when he was at his best and feel he should have not made the HOF , it is more legitimate than going by what you've read. That game still makes me sick when I think of it. What's never brought u is that if the Colts were just efficient and not unlucky , they would have been up big at halftime.

[BleedingBlue]

Flaccos deep "gems" were floating ducks.

Ravens won that game when Moreno got hurt.

had nothing to do with his deep game.

[mvbighead]

So we can nitpick a quarterback when his team loses, but we can't nitpick a quarterback when his team wins?

 

I don't think Flacco's gambles were good; I think he was bailed out by his receivers and poor coverage in several instances. Good for him, but I don't see how he gets credit for throwing a virtual hail mary that connects. That's not clutch, nor is it good quarterbacking. It's almost just luck.

 

And to that point, I'll acknowledge that Flacco is one of the better deep ball passers in the NFL. He has a cannon, and it worked out for him a lot in the playoffs. But a lot of those connections were more about poor defense and/or great grabs by his receivers than anything special on his part. 

 

Similarly, I think Eli Manning is a guy who can come through in the clutch, but I don't think he deserves special credit for the David Tyree helmet catch. Eli got lucky. 

 

To your first question, well, to some extent, yes.  When the team wins, the QB did whatever he had to do to win in the end.  Whether that's sitting on the ball, or lobbing a ball to a receiver to give them a chance to win the game.

 

For Ryan, he had 4 minutes left, and had to score a TD.  He didn't.  His team loses.

[The Old Crow]

Flaccos deep "gems" were floating ducks.

Ravens won that game when Moreno got hurt.

had nothing to do with his deep game.

 

 

Not many quarterbacks could have made that pass. That one wasn't a floating duck. We were missing Webb the whole season. They got two touchdowns on a punt and kick off return. Flacco outplayed Manning. Those are the facts.

[The Old Crow]

No.. I didn't think you were disparaging in your remark , I was just wondering if you had seen him play or were going by his stats and what you read. If you saw him play when he was at his best and feel he should have not made the HOF , it is more legitimate than going by what you've read. That game still makes me sick when I think of it. What's never brought u is that if the Colts were just efficient and not unlucky , they would have been up big at halftime.

 

 

Take a look at Namath's statistics in the 1976 season for the Jets. Wow

[The Old Crow]

To your first question, well, to some extent, yes.  When the team wins, the QB did whatever he had to do to win in the end.  Whether that's sitting on the ball, or lobbing a ball to a receiver to give them a chance to win the game.

 

For Ryan, he had 4 minutes left, and had to score a TD.  He didn't.  His team loses.

 

It always seems when Ryan doesn't get the job done , it's ill-fortune, when Flacco gets the job done, it's luck, or the wide receivers bailing him out. Lets be frank here, wide receivers bail out all quarterbacks a lot !

[dw49]

Take a look at Namath's statistics in the 1976 season for the Jets. Wow

 

 

That's about as bad as it gets and 1975 was just as bad only on a bigger scale.

[mvbighead]

Flaccos deep "gems" were floating ducks.

Ravens won that game when Moreno got hurt.

had nothing to do with his deep game.

 

Hmmmm...

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-cant-miss-plays/0ap2000000125261/Divisional-Can-t-Miss-Play-Torrey-Smith-59-yard-touchdown-catch

[Jules]

To your first question, well, to some extent, yes.  When the team wins, the QB did whatever he had to do to win in the end.  Whether that's sitting on the ball, or lobbing a ball to a receiver to give them a chance to win the game.

 

For Ryan, he had 4 minutes left, and had to score a TD.  He didn't.  His team loses.

 

Yep. I am surprised more do not bring this up. Did Ryan even do anything in the second half let alone the end of the game? No.

 

But, many have their minds already made up and it doesn't matter, Ryan is good. Flacco is overrated since it's a team sport and even though he leads his team to playoff wins it doesn't really matter since Flacco really isn't any good and everyone around him bails him out and he is just lucky and overrated and not far above average compared to the leagues chosen QBs who are untouchable and never do anything wrong since Flacco sucks and others are at ELITE status or in ELITE status training due to the universal elite club proclaiming certain players/QBs elite on a yearly basis at a special ceremony.

 

Because, you also cannot give postseason credit to QBs who have good teams who win in the playoffs since those QBs are just along for the ride and nothing more and for those QBs who lose it's because the team is not good enough but if they had won then the team was good enough and mostly because the QB was so good because the QB was the only reason they got there in the first place but he has nothing to do with the fact that they are eliminated.

[mvbighead]

Yep. I am surprised more do not bring this up. Did Ryan even do anything in the second half let alone the end of the game? No.

 

But, many have their minds already made up and it doesn't matter, Ryan is good. Flacco is overrated since it's a team sport and even though he leads his team to playoff wins it doesn't really matter since Flacco really isn't any good and everyone around him bails him out and he is just lucky and overrated and not far above average compared to the leagues chosen QBs who are untouchable and never do anything wrong since Flacco sucks and others are at ELITE status or in ELITE status training due to the universal elite club proclaiming certain players/QBs elite on a yearly basis at a special ceremony.

 

Because, you also cannot give postseason credit to QBs who have good teams who win in the playoffs since those QBs are just along for the ride and nothing more and for those QBs who lose it's because the team is not good enough but if they had won then the team was good enough and mostly because the QB was so good because the QB was the only reason they got there in the first place but he has nothing to do with the fact that they are eliminated.

 

Honestly, I think there is some debate there.  But in the question of Flacco/Ryan, it just seems that far too many look at Ryan as this great QB.  But what has he done?  He hasn't set any regular season records, so he isn't a Manning type.  And his post-season success is equivalent to what Manning was doing early in his career.

 

As for that four minutes, when I look at the play it ended on, I am shocked.  You have Gonzalez in the endzone against what appeared to be 5-10/5-11 safeties and corners.  And you have Roddy White underneath against about 3 different players in a very tight space.  Flacco lobs that ball up for Gonzo to make a play.  Ryan?  Well, i guess he throws it into Roddy White hoping the refs call PI so he can get four more downs to work with.  In the end, had Gonzo made the play on a Flacco ball, he'd have "bailed out" Flacco.  But in my mind, based on what was showing on that play, the right play is to give your team a chance to get a TD.  Throwing underneath on 4th into triple coverage is a guy who is trying to get the refs to decide the game.  I'd have taken Flacco on that play 10 times out of 10.

[The Old Crow]

Hmmmm...

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-cant-miss-plays/0ap2000000125261/Divisional-Can-t-Miss-Play-Torrey-Smith-59-yard-touchdown-catch

 

I like it !

[Superman]

To your first question, well, to some extent, yes.  When the team wins, the QB did whatever he had to do to win in the end.  Whether that's sitting on the ball, or lobbing a ball to a receiver to give them a chance to win the game.

 

For Ryan, he had 4 minutes left, and had to score a TD.  He didn't.  His team loses.

 

To the bolded, this is where we disagree. There are games where the quarterback actually hurts his team more than he helps, but they still win. Look at Rex Grossman's numbers in the 2006 playoffs, for instance. Sometimes the win isn't about the quarterback.

 

And on the other side of that coin, sometimes the loss isn't about the quarterback. Matt Ryan had a chance to make plays at the end of the Niners game and didn't, and if you want to be critical of him for that, I understand. But he played a whale of a game, and really didn't get much help from his teammates. It's hard for me to be critical of a guy who threw for 400 yards and three touchdowns against a pretty good defense, whose receivers dropped passes and made mistakes, and say that he didn't do enough. It's hard for me to be critical of Joe Flacco in the 2011 game vs the Patriots; he threw what should have been a game winning touchdown, and then the kicker missed what should have been a game tying kick. That's not on Flacco.

 

I just think this whole "it's all about winning, and it's all on the quarterback" angle is lacking perspective. And that's the nice way to put it. As important as the quarterback is (I'm the guy who argues that paying a quarterback 16-20% of your cap is just part of the business, by the way), sometimes the outcome isn't about the quarterback.

[Superman]

Yep. I am surprised more do not bring this up. Did Ryan even do anything in the second half let alone the end of the game? No.

 

But, many have their minds already made up and it doesn't matter, Ryan is good. Flacco is overrated since it's a team sport and even though he leads his team to playoff wins it doesn't really matter since Flacco really isn't any good and everyone around him bails him out and he is just lucky and overrated and not far above average compared to the leagues chosen QBs who are untouchable and never do anything wrong since Flacco sucks and others are at ELITE status or in ELITE status training due to the universal elite club proclaiming certain players/QBs elite on a yearly basis at a special ceremony.

 

Because, you also cannot give postseason credit to QBs who have good teams who win in the playoffs since those QBs are just along for the ride and nothing more and for those QBs who lose it's because the team is not good enough but if they had won then the team was good enough and mostly because the QB was so good because the QB was the only reason they got there in the first place but he has nothing to do with the fact that they are eliminated.

 

Why all the extremes?

 

I never said Flacco isn't good; I certainly never said he sucks (at least not in the last two years). I haven't called Matt Ryan elite.

 

And the last paragraph is so circular that I don't know how to respond... 

 

My entire argument is based on the idea of nuance. And to say "they lost so the quarterback should have done more," or "they won, so the quarterback did just what he was supposed to do," necessarily ignores the nuance associated with every game. To say that Flacco is a winner, and Matt Ryan isn't, on the basis of their postseason records, is a surface argument that I disagree with.

[Jules]

Why all the extremes?

 

I never said Flacco isn't good; I certainly never said he sucks (at least not in the last two years). I haven't called Matt Ryan elite.

 

And the last paragraph is so circular that I don't know how to respond... 

 

My entire argument is based on the idea of nuance. And to say "they lost so the quarterback should have done more," or "they won, so the quarterback did just what he was supposed to do," necessarily ignores the nuance associated with every game. To say that Flacco is a winner, and Matt Ryan isn't, on the basis of their postseason records, is a surface argument that I disagree with.

 

Meh, I was half asleep last night and thinking about basketball and having some fun. sorry about the weird run on sentences. ;)

[Superman]

Meh, I was half asleep last night and thinking about basketball and having some fun. sorry about the weird run on sentences. ;)

 

Cool deal.

[mvbighead]

To the bolded, this is where we disagree. There are games where the quarterback actually hurts his team more than he helps, but they still win. Look at Rex Grossman's numbers in the 2006 playoffs, for instance. Sometimes the win isn't about the quarterback.

 

And on the other side of that coin, sometimes the loss isn't about the quarterback. Matt Ryan had a chance to make plays at the end of the Niners game and didn't, and if you want to be critical of him for that, I understand. But he played a whale of a game, and really didn't get much help from his teammates. It's hard for me to be critical of a guy who threw for 400 yards and three touchdowns against a pretty good defense, whose receivers dropped passes and made mistakes, and say that he didn't do enough. It's hard for me to be critical of Joe Flacco in the 2011 game vs the Patriots; he threw what should have been a game winning touchdown, and then the kicker missed what should have been a game tying kick. That's not on Flacco.

 

I just think this whole "it's all about winning, and it's all on the quarterback" angle is lacking perspective. And that's the nice way to put it. As important as the quarterback is (I'm the guy who argues that paying a quarterback 16-20% of your cap is just part of the business, by the way), sometimes the outcome isn't about the quarterback.

 

While I get your point, and largely agree, Ryan did not finish that game.  His last play was, IMO, a bonehead play.  His throw had a 1% chance of impacting his team positively, and that 1% was the refs.  While his team (defense and offensive counterparts) could have done more, the play that ended their chances was a bonehead throw.  Why throw into coverage, 3 guys surrounding your receiver, 5 yards short of the 1st down, on fourth?  He could've thrown 6 TDs in that game, but if that is the last chance to win it, you have to make a throw that gives you a chance to win.

 

All in all, he played a great game, and had they won, he would've been given a lot of the credit due to his numbers.  But they lost... some times, that has to fall back on the QB.  In that game, and the way it ended, a big part of that loss is his.  He had a chance, but he didn't give his receiver a legitimate chance to get a TD.  Had he lobbed it to Gonzalez, it would've been more on Tony G for not finishing the game so long as the pass was catchable.

 

In the end, 5-6 TDs are only worthwhile if you finish the game.

[Narcosys]

Meh, I was half asleep last night and thinking about basketball and having some fun. sorry about the weird run on sentences. ;)

I understood what you were trying to say.

[Superman]

While I get your point, and largely agree, Ryan did not finish that game.  His last play was, IMO, a bonehead play.  His throw had a 1% chance of impacting his team positively, and that 1% was the refs.  While his team (defense and offensive counterparts) could have done more, the play that ended their chances was a bonehead throw.  Why throw into coverage, 3 guys surrounding your receiver, 5 yards short of the 1st down, on fourth?  He could've thrown 6 TDs in that game, but if that is the last chance to win it, you have to make a throw that gives you a chance to win.

 

All in all, he played a great game, and had they won, he would've been given a lot of the credit due to his numbers.  But they lost... some times, that has to fall back on the QB.  In that game, and the way it ended, a big part of that loss is his.  He had a chance, but he didn't give his receiver a legitimate chance to get a TD.  Had he lobbed it to Gonzalez, it would've been more on Tony G for not finishing the game so long as the pass was catchable.

 

In the end, 5-6 TDs are only worthwhile if you finish the game.

 

That's nonsense to me. At some point, your teammates have to do their job. If the quarterback throws 5-6 touchdowns and the team still loses, that's not on the quarterback, even if he throws the game-ending interception. Play some defense. 

 

That's an extreme, of course, but going back to Ryan, my point isn't that he couldn't have done more. My point is that just because he didn't make a game-winning play doesn't mean that he didn't do enough to help his team. He did. He practically carried the offense all game, getting virtually nothing out of his running attack. They jumped out to a 17 point lead. The defense gave up 28 points at home, with Kaepernick playing a nearly perfect game. They gave up three rushing touchdowns.

 

Again, Ryan could have done more, but at what point do we acknowledge the fact that his teammates could have done more as well? Particularly on defense? Or does the onus always fall back on the quarterback? "Yeah, your defense gave up the lead with four minutes left, but you still had a chance to score again, so the loss is your fault." I can't go along with that. It's a team sport, and the quarterback has no impact on half of the game. The rest of the team has to do their job.

 

And the flip side of that is that, no matter how ineffective or inconsequential the play of the quarterback is, we're going to give him credit for a win and say "he did what he had to do." No, he just didn't matter because his teammates performed so well.

 

And this goes for every quarterback, not just the ones I have a soft spot for. Peyton Manning played terribly against the Chiefs in the wildcard game in 2006; deserves criticism. He played pretty doggone well in the divisional game against the Chargers in 2007; I don't think he deserves criticism. My analysis of a quarterback goes beyond whether the team won or lost.

[Yehoodi]

And this goes for every quarterback, not just the ones I have a soft spot for. Peyton Manning played terribly against the Chiefs in the wildcard game in 2006; deserves criticism. He played pretty doggone well in the divisional game against the Chargers in 2007; I don't think he deserves criticism. My analysis of a quarterback goes beyond whether the team won or lost.

 

just curious . . .

 

In 2008 AP lead the league in rushing and yards from scrimmage and was about 100 yards behind the yardage that LT and Shawn Alexander had in their MVPs years a few years earlier . . . also helped his team, that did not really have a great QB, to its first playoff appearance in 4 years and first division title in 8 years . . . who is your MVP for 2008? . . . my was AP . . .

 

in a smaller list of candidates like the SB game . . . QBs will get the node when there may not be another person to win it, like Brady in SB 36 . . . altho he was solid on that last drive, but overall numbers were very pedestrian . . . . actually Montana's first SB MVP was not to dissimilar   . . . its tough for a non QB to win it . . . but we have a larger candidate pool in the regular season and 16 games to play with

 

hopefully we will get a D players wining the MVP soon . . .

 

PS.  Thank God the AP got it right last year . . .

 

PS2. . . I just realized I got AP going two ways . . . lol . . .

[Dustin]

just curious . . .

In 2008 AP lead the league in rushing and yards from scrimmage and was about 100 yards behind the yardage that LT and Shawn Alexander had in their MVPs years a few years earlier . . . also helped his team, that did not really have a great QB, to its first playoff appearance in 4 years and first division title in 8 years . . . who is your MVP for 2008? . . . my was AP . . .

in a smaller list of candidates like the SB game . . . QBs will get the node when there may not be another person to win it, like Brady in SB 36 . . . altho he was solid on that last drive, but overall numbers were very pedestrian . . . . actually Montana's first SB MVP was not to dissimilar . . . its tough for a non QB to win it . . . but we have a larger candidate pool in the regular season and 16 games to play with

hopefully we will get a D players wining the MVP soon . . .

PS. Thank God the AP got it right last year . . .

Alexander and LT broke the record for all purpose TDs in their MVP seasons. AP had 10 TDs in 2008.

[Superman]

just curious . . .

 

In 2008 AP lead the league in rushing and yards from scrimmage and was about 100 yards behind the yardage that LT and Shawn Alexander had in their MVPs years a few years earlier . . . also helped his team, that did not really have a great QB, to its first playoff appearance in 4 years and first division title in 8 years . . . who is your MVP for 2008? . . . my was AP . . .

 

in a smaller list of candidates like the SB game . . . QBs will get the node when there may not be another person to win it, like Brady in SB 36 . . . altho he was solid on that last drive, but overall numbers were very pedestrian . . . . actually Montana's first SB MVP was not to dissimilar   . . . its tough for a non QB to win it . . . but we have a larger candidate pool in the regular season and 16 games to play with

 

hopefully we will get a D players wining the MVP soon . . .

 

PS.  Thank God the AP got it right last year . . .

 

PS2. . . I just realized I got AP going two ways . . . lol . . .

 

Not sure why we're talking about regular season MVPs, but okay. 

 

An argument could be made for AP in 2008, just like there was an argument for him in 2012. In 2012, no doubt, I thought he was most deserving (while I personally rooted for Manning, of course). He carried his team offensively, and did so from a position that's nearly irrelevant, while almost breaking a 30 year old record. But Minnesota's passing game was even worse in 2012, in an era where it's supposed to be easier to throw. And the defense wasn't quite as effective either. I think the Vikings were better overall in 2008, and AP wasn't quite as prolific. So the argument isn't as strong for him in 2008.

 

There wasn't a clear cut favorite in 2008. It went to Manning, and I think he was deserving. I thought Kurt Warner and Drew Brees were deserving, but their teams just didn't win enough games in the regular season. I think what set Manning apart was the 9 game win streak to end the season, the 12 wins, and the fact that the defense and run game were both so pathetic. But of all four of Manning's MVP seasons, that was probably the weakest one.

 

Going back to AP in 2008, you compared his numbers to LdT and Shaun Alexander in 2005 and 2006. First of all, that's just yardage. Alexander had 28 touchdowns; LdT had 31; AP had 10. World of difference. And even then, I didn't think LdT or Alexander should have won MVP either of those years. They won because they had great seasons, but they weren't the MVPs, not to my mind. I would have given it to Brady :: gasp :: in 2005, and Brees in 2006.

 

For Super Bowl MVP, I think Ben Roethlisberger got robbed in 2008. Holmes played a great game, but he doesn't make the plays on that last drive without Ben doing great work. And really, the biggest play of the game was Harrison's return at the end of the first half. Either way, I wouldn't have given it to Holmes.

[Yehoodi]

Alexander and LT broke the record for all purpose TDs in their MVP seasons. AP had 10 TDs in 2008.

 

this is exactly my point - records . . . well specifically leading the league in something and bottom line being the head of your class in something for that year . . . every year in well over a blue moon the MVP award is always awarded to someone that leads the league in some "key" category . . . be it total yards [rushing or passing], passer rating, completion percentage, total TDs (rushing or passing], or if not your a clear #1 overall seed in the NFL like Montana in 1990, or some combination of the above , . . .also it is extremely rare that the award goes to a player on a wild card team (and btw, this is always my "team" portion of the MVP award in that you have to be on one of the 8 division winners to be eligible for the award) . . .  in 2008 PM was not in any of these categories but AP was . . . and also PM was on a wild card team which for the most part means you are not in consideration (altho McNair won a tie with PM in '03 but not an outright win) . . .  but the QB manning got the MVP award . . . beats me . . .

 

I just brought it up because for the life of me I do not see how he got the award . . . and was only bringing it up to show that QB get a great deal of love and direct accounting of the team wins even though they may or may not be involve . . . and as this thread had a great deal of QB to win credit and QB win to loss criticism in the thread and how some felt it was more directly related to wins and other felt (like Superman) that is was not directly related to wins, which I do agree with . . . but along this same vein is the reason why I cant understand how PM got the MVP award and was curious from Superman if he felt the same way as we are basically using the same theme of the stepping back and looking at the QB stats and not necessarily the wins . . . and if we do I don't see a PM getting the award . . .

 

again the same holds true for SB 36, I would of loved to have seen a Team D MVP award, or even the award go to Ty Law . . . I may not agree with it, but unless a non QB had a absolute stellar game (or the QB is terrible, like Big Ben in SB 40) the award will default to the QB . . . also like TB's CPOY in 2009, he had a solid year and the ACL injury was big, but he had a terrible decision making year even though had his one of best statistical years . . . I can't quote another player that might of garnered in in '09, but Brady just went through the motions had a solid year and got the awards, perhaps there was another that might have been a better candidate . . . on the other hand thought PM getting the award last year was fine, had a solid year, #1 seed, great numbers and so on . .

 

but my only point is I was just pointing out a few examples where a QB got an award that was more to do with his team record that his personal stats against other candidates . . . 

 

and for what it is worth PM had one of his lowest TD production in 2008 . . .

[Yehoodi]

Not sure why we're talking about regular season MVPs, but okay. 

 

An argument could be made for AP in 2008, just like there was an argument for him in 2012. In 2012, no doubt, I thought he was most deserving (while I personally rooted for Manning, of course). He carried his team offensively, and did so from a position that's nearly irrelevant, while almost breaking a 30 year old record. But Minnesota's passing game was even worse in 2012, in an era where it's supposed to be easier to throw. And the defense wasn't quite as effective either. I think the Vikings were better overall in 2008, and AP wasn't quite as prolific. So the argument isn't as strong for him in 2008.

 

There wasn't a clear cut favorite in 2008. It went to Manning, and I think he was deserving. I thought Kurt Warner and Drew Brees were deserving, but their teams just didn't win enough games in the regular season. I think what set Manning apart was the 9 game win streak to end the season, the 12 wins, and the fact that the defense and run game were both so pathetic. But of all four of Manning's MVP seasons, that was probably the weakest one.

 

Going back to AP in 2008, you compared his numbers to LdT and Shaun Alexander in 2005 and 2006. First of all, that's just yardage. Alexander had 28 touchdowns; LdT had 31; AP had 10. World of difference. And even then, I didn't think LdT or Alexander should have won MVP either of those years. They won because they had great seasons, but they weren't the MVPs, not to my mind. I would have given it to Brady :: gasp :: in 2005, and Brees in 2006.

 

For Super Bowl MVP, I think Ben Roethlisberger got robbed in 2008. Holmes played a great game, but he doesn't make the plays on that last drive without Ben doing great work. And really, the biggest play of the game was Harrison's return at the end of the first half. Either way, I wouldn't have given it to Holmes.

 

I would kindly ask you to read my last post about why I brought the MVPs into the thread . . . and will add more here . . .agree there was not clear cut favorite in 2008 and I agree with your and Dustin's point regarding APs low TD production . . . and he fumbled some too . . . I was just bringing in it into the thread to show the point that QB will default and get an award (credit) and likewise get some criticism too . . . of coarse ones needs to step back and not auto criticize the QB when rational minds can see that he played well but for his mates not helping out . . . I think we three mostly agree, I was just checking in . . . of the three of us I think I might be the one that thinks that QB get a little bit too much love and accordingly don't might given them a tad more criticism that others might like to dole out . . .  

 

and yes I do think that PM's candidate status was helped by the 9 wins but at the same time his team helped too . . . they played Houston twice with Sage R. (with the second time with is helicopter  run and D coming up big in that game late), Tenn last game when they rapped up the #1 seed, and the D helping out in that Cleveland game . . . . and a bradyless pats team with matt Cassell and Gaffney's gaff of dropping a sure TD ball . . . so yes the 9 wins might be the last thing the voters see but 4 of those wins were helped out by other events . . .

 

As for 05 and 06, I am not too bother but the RBs getting some love, yes Brady played well in 05, especially with the turnover on D, but we ended up 10-6 . . . I think he had a better campaign in '06 but LT had a great year and was on the 14-2 Chargers . . .

[Dustin]

 

this is exactly my point - records . . . well specifically leading the league in something and bottom line being the head of your class in something for that year . . . every year in well over a blue moon the MVP award is always awarded to someone that leads the league in some "key" category . . . be it total yards [rushing or passing], passer rating, completion percentage, total TDs (rushing or passing], or if not your a clear #1 overall seed in the NFL like Montana in 1990, or some combination of the above , . . .also it is extremely rare that the award goes to a player on a wild card team (and btw, this is always my "team" portion of the MVP award in that you have to be on one of the 8 division winners to be eligible for the award) . . .  in 2008 PM was not in any of these categories but AP was . . . and also PM was on a wild card team which for the most part means you are not in consideration (altho McNair won a tie with PM in '03 but not an outright win) . . .  but the QB manning got the MVP award . . . beats me . . .

 

I just brought it up because for the life of me I do not see how he got the award . . . and was only bringing it up to show that QB get a great deal of love and direct accounting of the team wins even though they may or may not be involve . . . and as this thread had a great deal of QB to win credit and QB win to loss criticism in the thread and how some felt it was more directly related to wins and other felt (like Superman) that is was not directly related to wins, which I do agree with . . . but along this same vein is the reason why I cant understand how PM got the MVP award and was curious from Superman if he felt the same way as we are basically using the same theme of the stepping back and looking at the QB stats and not necessarily the wins . . . and if we do I don't see a PM getting the award . . .

 

again the same holds true for SB 36, I would of loved to have seen a Team D MVP award, or even the award go to Ty Law . . . I may not agree with it, but unless a non QB had a absolute stellar game (or the QB is terrible, like Big Ben in SB 40) the award will default to the QB . . . also like TB's CPOY in 2009, he had a solid year and the ACL injury was big, but he had a terrible decision making year even though had his one of best statistical years . . . I can't quote another player that might of garnered in in '09, but Brady just went through the motions had a solid year and got the awards, perhaps there was another that might have been a better candidate . . . on the other hand thought PM getting the award last year was fine, had a solid year, #1 seed, great numbers and so on . .

 

but my only point is I was just pointing out a few examples where a QB got an award that was more to do with his team record that his personal stats against other candidates . . . 

 

and for what it is worth PM had one of his lowest TD production in 2008 . . .

 

He finished 4th in TD percentage, 3rd lowest INT percentage of QBs with 400+ attempts, 5th highest passer rating in the league, and 3rd in completion percentage. He was also 2nd in DYAR and 2nd in DVOA. And if you ESPN QBR metric (I personally don't), he led the league in that as well.

 

He may not have led the league in any specific category, but he was top 5 in basically every efficiency statistic.

[Superman]

I would kindly ask you to read my last post about why I brought the MVPs into the thread . . . and will add more here . . .agree there was not clear cut favorite in 2008 and I agree with your and Dustin's point regarding APs low TD production . . . and he fumbled some too . . . I was just bringing in it into the thread to show the point that QB will default and get an award (credit) and likewise get some criticism too . . . of coarse ones needs to step back and not auto criticize the QB when rational minds can see that he played well but for his mates not helping out . . . I think we three mostly agree, I was just checking in . . . of the three of us I think I might be the one that thinks that QB get a little bit too much love and accordingly don't might given them a tad more criticism that others might like to dole out . . .  

 

and yes I do think that PM's candidate status was helped by the 9 wins but at the same time his team helped too . . . they played Houston twice with Sage R. (with the second time with is helicopter  run and D coming up big in that game late), Tenn last game when they rapped up the #1 seed, and the D helping out in that Cleveland game . . . . and a bradyless pats team with matt Cassell and Gaffney's gaff of dropping a sure TD ball . . . so yes the 9 wins might be the last thing the voters see but 4 of those wins were helped out by other events . . .

 

As for 05 and 06, I am not too bother but the RBs getting some love, yes Brady played well in 05, especially with the turnover on D, but we ended up 10-6 . . . I think he had a better campaign in '06 but LT had a great year and was on the 14-2 Chargers . . .

 

I didn't mind the running backs getting love, but I don't think MVP and OPOY are synonymous. It became that way for a little while, and I didn't think it should have. I think Brady's performance in 2005 was more important to the Patriots than Alexander's was to the Seahawks, and I think Brees' performance in 2006 was more important to the Saints than LdT's was to the Chargers. But oh well. 

 

In 2008, I think Manning was more valuable to his team than any other player was to his team. Given the state of the defense and the running game, it's an easy argument to make. Not saying that no one else on the team had an impact, or that the defense didn't make some plays and even win some games, but overall, the defense was awful, and the run game was nonexistent. Yet, the team won 12 games, including nine to end the season, and won the division again. Not Manning's best year in terms of raw statistics, but he was the catalyst for everything the team did that year.

 

That's not to say there aren't arguments for other players in 2008. I'm just saying I think Manning had a good case as well.

 

As for how this relates to the impact quarterbacks have on their team's success, I've never denied that the quarterback is the most important player on the team, especially when he's really good. There are exceptions to the rule (2006 Bears, for instance), but the quarterback usually has more of a direct impact on the team than any other individual player. I think it's the most important position in sports, period. And so, it makes sense that quarterbacks get a lot of credit and a lot of blame.

 

But that doesn't mean I have to just blindly accept the argument that a quarterback is solely responsible for a win or a loss. I don't subscribe to the idea that if the team won, the quarterback is above criticism, or that if the team lost, the quarterback should have done more. As important as the quarterback is, this is still the ultimate team game. And it's the only sport where the most important player on the team has no direct impact on half of the game; the quarterback can't play defense.

 

Sometimes, you're going to see a quarterback play really well, and the team still loses. And sometimes, the quarterback is going to play terribly, and the team still wins. I think, as fans, we ought to be sophisticated enough to acknowledge when that happens, rather than just saying "he's the quarterback, he should have done more, he's not a winner." We can do better than saying "this quarterback has a better postseason record than the other, so one is a winner and the other isn't." I just can't endorse that way of thinking.

[funktacious2]

Oh for goodness sake.

 

You were working so hard to make some sort of case for your lack of support for Flacco.

 

And then you had to go and write that??    Really?

 

I'm hoping you're just tired and not thinking clearly.   I know I have those moments late at night.   Wake up the next morning and wonder what was I thinking?

 

The Tony Romo with one career playoff win and a tsunami of 4th quarter meltdowns is better than the guy with 8 career post season wins, at least one in every year, including a Super Bowl win?  

 

I get that coming from Gavin.   I assumed he'd correct himself once I pointed out his inclusion of Romo.   But no.   He still thinks Barrett Jones is one of the top 3 OL in the last draft no matter what.

 

But now you write that you'd take Romo over Flacco 10 times out of 10?    And you expect me to believe that you'll someday change your mind about Flacco?

 

Now who's kidding who??

Joe Flacco's stats last season:

59.7%

3817

22TD

10

87.5

 

Romo's stats last season:

65.6%

4903

28TD

19

90.5

 

Not saying I think for sure that Romo is the better quarterback, but you make it sounds like it's not a decent competition. He certainly seems to need some playoff wins, but if I had to choose between the two to be my qb I wouldn't have my answer immediately. and also your comment about Romo's 4 quarter meltdowns is a bit of a miss because I'm pretty sure he has more 4th quarter comebacks than any QB in probably the last 2-3 years. Also Flacco has one season with 25+ TDs (the number was 25), Romo has 5, one of which included 36TDs. Romo isn't the poster boy for consistency, but Flacco is definitely anything but consistent, I'd know, I had him twice in Fantasy Football. xD (Jk, of course.)

[funktacious2]

Flacco's certainly killing it in not tossing those interceptions though. Also sorry for just now realizing this thread is old.

[Gavin]

Flacco's certainly killing it in not tossing those interceptions though.

Some people think winning a SB makes you a great QB

[The Old Crow]

Here's the bottom line on the subject. Unless you're playing fantasy football, stats are only important in that a quarterback leads his team to victory. Romo and Ryan, as of this time, are great fantasy quarterbacks, but non-winners. Flacco's stats may be a little less than these two fantasy quarterbacks, but he knows how to win. I think more Indy fans would except this argument better if Peyton Manning has 3 Super Bowl titles, and Tom Brady one. Unfortunately, it is reversed, and I think some Colt fans are prickly about how important winning Super Bowls is to a quarterback's legacy, because of some of Manning's failures in post season . As I pointed out earlier, if Super Bowl wins weren't important, Joe Namath would never be in the hall of fame based on his stats. His selection is all about the upset in Super Bowl 3.

[Superman]

Here's the bottom line on the subject. Unless you're playing fantasy football, stats are only important in that a quarterback leads his team to victory. Romo and Ryan, as of this time, are great fantasy quarterbacks, but non-winners. Flacco's stats may be a little less than these two fantasy quarterbacks, but he knows how to win. I think more Indy fans would except this argument better if Peyton Manning has 3 Super Bowl titles, and Tom Brady one. Unfortunately, it is reversed, and I think some Colt fans are prickly about how important winning Super Bowls is to a quarterback's legacy, because of some of Manning's failures in post season . As I pointed out earlier, if Super Bowl wins weren't important, Joe Namath would never be in the hall of fame based on his stats. His selection is all about the upset in Super Bowl 3.

 

Oh please.

 

Using Super Bowls to measure a quarterback's legacy is fine with me. My objections is against using Super Bowls (or postseason wins) as a trump card in measuring a quarterback's legacy. Calling Matt Ryan a non-winner is a perfect example of that. 

 

And I've given Joe Flacco plenty of credit for his postseason play. I just don't think the win/loss record is indicative of how good a player he is or has been in the playoffs. 

 

This isn't about Tom Brady vs. Peyton Manning. I don't really care if people think Brady is better than Manning; they're both great quarterbacks, the best of their generation, and nothing is going to change that now. And Brady deserves that respect just as much as Manning does, given his resume. But his resume is a lot more impressive now than it was eight years ago, and that's how long it's been since he last won a Super Bowl. If you think that Brady's ring advantage is reason enough to consider him a better quarterback, that's fine. But please don't try to tell me that the only reason I argue against the "Super Bowls are all that matters" argument is because Brady has more than Manning.  The reason I argue against it is because it lacks substance.

[mvbighead]

That's nonsense to me. At some point, your teammates have to do their job. If the quarterback throws 5-6 touchdowns and the team still loses, that's not on the quarterback, even if he throws the game-ending interception. Play some defense. 

 

That's an extreme, of course, but going back to Ryan, my point isn't that he couldn't have done more. My point is that just because he didn't make a game-winning play doesn't mean that he didn't do enough to help his team. He did. He practically carried the offense all game, getting virtually nothing out of his running attack. They jumped out to a 17 point lead. The defense gave up 28 points at home, with Kaepernick playing a nearly perfect game. They gave up three rushing touchdowns.

 

Again, Ryan could have done more, but at what point do we acknowledge the fact that his teammates could have done more as well? Particularly on defense? Or does the onus always fall back on the quarterback? "Yeah, your defense gave up the lead with four minutes left, but you still had a chance to score again, so the loss is your fault." I can't go along with that. It's a team sport, and the quarterback has no impact on half of the game. The rest of the team has to do their job.

 

And the flip side of that is that, no matter how ineffective or inconsequential the play of the quarterback is, we're going to give him credit for a win and say "he did what he had to do." No, he just didn't matter because his teammates performed so well.

 

And this goes for every quarterback, not just the ones I have a soft spot for. Peyton Manning played terribly against the Chiefs in the wildcard game in 2006; deserves criticism. He played pretty doggone well in the divisional game against the Chargers in 2007; I don't think he deserves criticism. My analysis of a quarterback goes beyond whether the team won or lost.

 

Again, while I mostly agree, I don't agree with this:  my point isn't that he couldn't have done more

 

The way I saw it, he made the worst possible choice on the last play.  That is far from clutch, and he ruined his team's chance to end the game with a score by throwing well short of the 1st/TD on 4th down with his receiver surrounded.  Again, that's a play that Flacco gives his receiver a chance to win the game.  Ryan did anything but, in that exact scenario, and he had the league's premiere TE in the end zone facing single coverage against a much shorter DB.  Flacco made a play (can't recall the game) that he threw it up and gave Boldin a chance, and Boldin came down with it.

 

I totally agree with your comments, but my biggest catching point is a guy who makes the right call at the end of the game to go out on top.  Andrew Luck had a couple/few this season, one such instance was a scamper to the right side, flipping the ball to Avery who streaked in for a TD.  Had Avery dropped that ball, it would have been on Avery.  But Avery was wide open with all the coverage in the end zone covering deep receivers.  Luck made a good decision and the receiver got in for the score.

 

All these things said, a QB can sabotage a game for 55 minutes, but if he has a chance in the final moments to come out on top, and does, the other 55 minutes tends to become a wash because he finished the game with a W.  He'll most likely acknowledge his terrible play in post game interviews, but by finishing the game, it's moot.  His team either advances or has one more W in the W column that could have his team advance to the playoffs or to the next round of the playoffs.

 

In the end, while I understand what you are getting at, I don't completely agree.  If #18 has thrown for 4TDs, 300yds, and his team is down by 4 points and he has 5 minutes to finish the game, he has to get it done.  Plenty of the blame in that loss falls on his teammates, but if he has the opportunity, he needs to take advantage.  It's something truly great QBs are credited for.  Clutch play is generally the term.  None of the rest of that game matters at that point, because you HAVE to score and you have ample time to do it.  Not only do you have ample time, but you have 4 downs instead of 3 to work with.  Sure, the rest of the team will be at fault, but when you have the opportunity to carry your team, the good QBs take advantage.  Manning has done that many times in his career.  Manning has also made blunders in crucial moments.  Those days he blunders, we generally end up with a L, and the days he doesn't, we eek out a W.  Our W-L record for the past decade was based largely on QB play, and not a whole lot else.  The one season we lose #18 is the first season we lost more than 6 games since 2002.

 

End point being, QBs are paid 20mill/season because they can impact the game that much.  No other position can do what they do in a game.  Sure, Revis can shut down a team's top WR, but a QB still has 4 other options to work with.  A top tier pass rusher can make the QB get rid of the ball that much quicker, but a good game plan can overcome that.

 

I just don't see Ryan being clutch.  He has top tier receiving threats, but he just has to get it done with the game on the line, especially in the playoffs.  However much his team is up or down by is moot, because if he has the opportunity, he has to seize it.  He'd have gotten all of the credit for that win had he done it, and he gets most of the blame when they don't.  It's not 100% fair, but the reality is, he had a chance that he missed.

[amfootball]

Again, while I mostly agree, I don't agree with this:  my point isn't that he couldn't have done more

 

The way I saw it, he made the worst possible choice on the last play.  That is far from clutch, and he ruined his team's chance to end the game with a score by throwing well short of the 1st/TD on 4th down with his receiver surrounded.  Again, that's a play that Flacco gives his receiver a chance to win the game.  Ryan did anything but, in that exact scenario, and he had the league's premiere TE in the end zone facing single coverage against a much shorter DB.  Flacco made a play (can't recall the game) that he threw it up and gave Boldin a chance, and Boldin came down with it.

 

I totally agree with your comments, but my biggest catching point is a guy who makes the right call at the end of the game to go out on top.  Andrew Luck had a couple/few this season, one such instance was a scamper to the right side, flipping the ball to Avery who streaked in for a TD.  Had Avery dropped that ball, it would have been on Avery.  But Avery was wide open with all the coverage in the end zone covering deep receivers.  Luck made a good decision and the receiver got in for the score.

 

All these things said, a QB can sabotage a game for 55 minutes, but if he has a chance in the final moments to come out on top, and does, the other 55 minutes tends to become a wash because he finished the game with a W.  He'll most likely acknowledge his terrible play in post game interviews, but by finishing the game, it's moot.  His team either advances or has one more W in the W column that could have his team advance to the playoffs or to the next round of the playoffs.

 

In the end, while I understand what you are getting at, I don't completely agree.  If #18 has thrown for 4TDs, 300yds, and his team is down by 4 points and he has 5 minutes to finish the game, he has to get it done.  Plenty of the blame in that loss falls on his teammates, but if he has the opportunity, he needs to take advantage.  It's something truly great QBs are credited for.  Clutch play is generally the term.  None of the rest of that game matters at that point, because you HAVE to score and you have ample time to do it.  Not only do you have ample time, but you have 4 downs instead of 3 to work with.  Sure, the rest of the team will be at fault, but when you have the opportunity to carry your team, the good QBs take advantage.  Manning has done that many times in his career.  Manning has also made blunders in crucial moments.  Those days he blunders, we generally end up with a L, and the days he doesn't, we eek out a W.  Our W-L record for the past decade was based largely on QB play, and not a whole lot else.  The one season we lose #18 is the first season we lost more than 6 games since 2002.

 

End point being, QBs are paid 20mill/season because they can impact the game that much.  No other position can do what they do in a game.  Sure, Revis can shut down a team's top WR, but a QB still has 4 other options to work with.  A top tier pass rusher can make the QB get rid of the ball that much quicker, but a good game plan can overcome that.

 

I just don't see Ryan being clutch.  He has top tier receiving threats, but he just has to get it done with the game on the line, especially in the playoffs.  However much his team is up or down by is moot, because if he has the opportunity, he has to seize it.  He'd have gotten all of the credit for that win had he done it, and he gets most of the blame when they don't.  It's not 100% fair, but the reality is, he had a chance that he missed.

His interception in the second half of that game was plain awful. And what about his fumble on the shot gun snap? Right in his hands and he dropped it like the ball had butter on it. Those two TOs kept the niners in the game. Clutch is not just scoring the winning drive but also understanding that loss of concentration TOs are an absolute killer in the playoffs. That is why he got so much blame along with his decisions at the end of the game. And that is also the reason why Manning deserves much of the blame for the playoff loss to the Ravens - his three TOs gave the Ravens 17 points. Otherwise it is a blowout. Like you said QBs are paid $20 mil and they need to play like it in the playoffs.

[Superman]

Again, while I mostly agree, I don't agree with this:  my point isn't that he couldn't have done more

 

The way I saw it, he made the worst possible choice on the last play.  That is far from clutch, and he ruined his team's chance to end the game with a score by throwing well short of the 1st/TD on 4th down with his receiver surrounded.  Again, that's a play that Flacco gives his receiver a chance to win the game.  Ryan did anything but, in that exact scenario, and he had the league's premiere TE in the end zone facing single coverage against a much shorter DB.  Flacco made a play (can't recall the game) that he threw it up and gave Boldin a chance, and Boldin came down with it.

 

I totally agree with your comments, but my biggest catching point is a guy who makes the right call at the end of the game to go out on top.  Andrew Luck had a couple/few this season, one such instance was a scamper to the right side, flipping the ball to Avery who streaked in for a TD.  Had Avery dropped that ball, it would have been on Avery.  But Avery was wide open with all the coverage in the end zone covering deep receivers.  Luck made a good decision and the receiver got in for the score.

 

All these things said, a QB can sabotage a game for 55 minutes, but if he has a chance in the final moments to come out on top, and does, the other 55 minutes tends to become a wash because he finished the game with a W.  He'll most likely acknowledge his terrible play in post game interviews, but by finishing the game, it's moot.  His team either advances or has one more W in the W column that could have his team advance to the playoffs or to the next round of the playoffs.

 

In the end, while I understand what you are getting at, I don't completely agree.  If #18 has thrown for 4TDs, 300yds, and his team is down by 4 points and he has 5 minutes to finish the game, he has to get it done.  Plenty of the blame in that loss falls on his teammates, but if he has the opportunity, he needs to take advantage.  It's something truly great QBs are credited for.  Clutch play is generally the term.  None of the rest of that game matters at that point, because you HAVE to score and you have ample time to do it.  Not only do you have ample time, but you have 4 downs instead of 3 to work with.  Sure, the rest of the team will be at fault, but when you have the opportunity to carry your team, the good QBs take advantage.  Manning has done that many times in his career.  Manning has also made blunders in crucial moments.  Those days he blunders, we generally end up with a L, and the days he doesn't, we eek out a W.  Our W-L record for the past decade was based largely on QB play, and not a whole lot else.  The one season we lose #18 is the first season we lost more than 6 games since 2002.

 

End point being, QBs are paid 20mill/season because they can impact the game that much.  No other position can do what they do in a game.  Sure, Revis can shut down a team's top WR, but a QB still has 4 other options to work with.  A top tier pass rusher can make the QB get rid of the ball that much quicker, but a good game plan can overcome that.

 

I just don't see Ryan being clutch.  He has top tier receiving threats, but he just has to get it done with the game on the line, especially in the playoffs.  However much his team is up or down by is moot, because if he has the opportunity, he has to seize it.  He'd have gotten all of the credit for that win had he done it, and he gets most of the blame when they don't.  It's not 100% fair, but the reality is, he had a chance that he missed.

 

I hear you, and I understand. I bet you feel the same way about my stance.

 

[The Old Crow]

You could well argue that Atlanta's receiving corps is superior to the Ravens. That being said, Flacco has totally outperformed Ryan in the clutch, it's not even close. Flacco's reputation would be further enhanced without the bungling personal foul by Darren Stone against the Steelers in the AFC Championship game, and the Evans/Cundiff foul-ups against the Patriots, in another one. The facts are uncontestable.