frozen joe flacco fan

6 hours ago, Steve0x said:

The Same reason why Peter Angelos don't want to fire Buck Showalter.. Because Harbaugh and Showalter are puppets to both owners

Now, you've gone too far! If you're trying to compare Bisciotti and Angelos, that's totally unfair. Afterall, Angelos' team made the playoffs this year. Steve said in his presser that the only thing bad he's heard from the fans about himself is that he's more concerned about continuity than winning. I would agree, Steve, but you should be more concerned about winning. A 31-33 regular season record since our Super Bowl glory days in the 2012-13 season is nothing to hang your hat on. Why that's not even average!!!!! 

2 minutes ago, BmoreBird22 said:

Dan Bailey playing in a dome is actually a disadvantage. Having no wind is a big deal for a kicker. That's why Tucker's 61 yard kick in Detroit is an NFL record.

You're going to have to explain how playing in a dome is a disadvantage for a kicker! I'm waiting. I guess you're going to say that its the same disadvantage that Prater has in Detroit because he set the NFL record in Denver with a 64 yarder. Yep, the air is thinner in Denver! Try explaining it to Chris Boswell of Pittsburgh or Justin Tucker who has missed more FGs in his home stadium than anywhere else. C'mon BmoreBird22!????????????

7 hours ago, JonnyBaltimore said:

If you look at Boldin's stats prior to and after his departure from the Ravens, you would see that his numbers actually regressed during his time in Baltimore:

http://www.nfl.com/player/anquanboldin/2505587/careerstats

Prior to arrival in Baltimore, Boldin had 2 years over 1000 yards in Arizona

In Baltimore, Boldin had 3 years sub 1000 yards

After departure from Baltimore, Boldin had 2 years over 1000 yards in San Francisco

So, what's your point? At one time, Anquan's career stats were better than Larry Fitzgerald's, his ole Arizona teammate. I'm not sure that's still the case but, putting it mildly, Boldin was and is a baller. I heard Owner Bisciotti's lame dissertation about not paying Anquan but I'm not drinking his cool aid. We let one of our best weapons, targets, receivers or ballers go and were able to bring in Darryl Smith and Elvis Doomerville. Last I heard, Boldin's still playing and we may be looking to release Elvis. Boldin would do something that so many of our receivers, other than SSS could not do and you know what that is, don't you?   

7 hours ago, Tank 92 said:

I'm not into a debate about this, but have to say that's a subjectively judged assessment.  I would say every one of our WRs had some sort of issue whether it be dropsies, alligator arms, poor route running or just being way old. Thinking his guys could at least catch the ball, which most of our guys had problems with at one point or another. And just having a guy like Julio on the field opens up things for others. Not sure how you would compare.  

Again, I like Matt Ryan, but let's not crown him as King Rapa Scrappa just yet.   lol

Well put! Comparing a QB who plays in a dome at least 8 times a year with a QB who plays in inclement weather is ridiculous. Its similar to comparing Justin Tucker to Dan Bailey. This is not meant to diminish Ryan's great career year but it isn't a fair comparison unless they play in Atlanta with the fire sprinklers on, artificial snow and windblowers.

26 minutes ago, redrum52 said:

Ed hasn't said anything since leaving, but when he called him out after the Texans game he got backlash from fans here.  

 

They always be made until he's either consistently bad or consistently bad.  Until then, most of the criticism/praise is earned because you never know which guy you'll get.  I remember a former player... want to say Daniel Wilcox said Cam was holding him back in the past, so I don't think it's really anything new.  Haven't heard anyone who has left say anything negative except Ray.

26 minutes ago, redrum52 said:

Ed hasn't said anything since leaving, but when he called him out after the Texans game he got backlash from fans here.  

 

They always be made until he's either consistently bad or consistently bad.  Until then, most of the criticism/praise is earned because you never know which guy you'll get.  I remember a former player... want to say Daniel Wilcox said Cam was holding him back in the past, so I don't think it's really anything new.  Haven't heard anyone who has left say anything negative except Ray.

I don't have a problem with people with different opinions, but you seem to attack others for differing with yours, which is quite funny.  With the State of the Ravens finally over, might take a break to ignore people like you, so, see you next Tuesday, boss!

Great quote! So, which is it? Consistently bad or consistently bad??? smh AND nice use of the King's language! I don't want to beat a dead horse but I don't have a problem with people with differing opinions either --- just yours. I can't wait til next Tuesday! Good night, you Flacco lover you!!!!  

5 minutes ago, bscott57 said:

You disagree? Are you in the locker room with Joe? 

 

Joe is very flappable, that is the biggest crock about Joe Flacco. Guy sees a few free blitzes and starts hearing footsteps and looks like he wants to go hide in a closet. 

 

Guess I should take your comment with a grain of salt though since I always forget Joe should be in like 5 Super Bowls if not for his teammates. Sound theory. 

Yep, I disagree with what Ray Lewis had to say. Is that OK or did I jest violate the law? Like I said, that's why they make vanilla and chocolate ice cream. Nobody said Joe should have been in 5 SBs. I said he coulda been in 3 but I apologize for my indiscretion. I should have said if he could catch his own perfectly thrown passes in the endzone, kick his own chip FGs in the AFC Championship Game against the Patsies and play both ways when he directed his team to two 14 point leads in a playoff game in 2014, he coulda been in three SBs. What part of that sound theory don't you understand?????     

1 hour ago, redrum52 said:

No dog in the fight, just want the team to play better, but why is when Ed and Ray say something, they have no idea what they're talking about?  Or their statements should be ignored?

Perfect lead in for somebody who enjoys beating a dead horse! I must have missed what Ed had to say. I heard what Ray had to say 'bout Joe and I respectfully disagree with him. It would be hard to match the intensity or passion that Steve Smith and Ray Lewis have both demonstrated unless you are Tom Brady, I guess. Personally, I like Joe's unflappable calm under pressure but that's just me. That's why they make different flavors of ice cream, doughnuts and cupcakes. Everybody doesn't think alike and that's OK. Far be it from me to disagree with you, but at the risk of being labeled a cupcake, chill out, boss! 

5 minutes ago, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

He was agreeing with you.

You pointed out Sr missed games. He's saying, why would you expect Wallace to be great? He was nothing in Minn/Mia... so if anything his increased production is a testament to Joe, not his lack of production being a knock on Joe.

Because, Wallace isnt suddenly an Odell or Brown type guy whose QB should be expected to easily complete 75 balls for 1,400 yds to.

Thank you for stating it better than I did!

10 minutes ago, usmccharles said:

I honestly don't know what your trying to say

You were responding to an earlier quote from someone else who was criticizing Joe for having two great weapons in Wallace and Smith. I was just reinforcing your position that the earlier quote did not tell the whole story. While good, Steve and Wallace are not anywhere close to being the players they were in their prime. That's all. I hope that adds clarity.

57 minutes ago, usmccharles said:

Yea except SSr missed half the season.....

Its hilarious how some people think you cant support Joe and criticize his bad play at the same time.  Its the same posters every time here, if your not asking for him to take a pay-cut, be traded, or just flat out cut, then your a homer or apologists.  No one has said this year that Joe played great, we all criticized through out the year...some people just like to ignore actual facts and just tend to make things up. 

Yeah, well, facts are stubborn things! And, how many catches did Mike Wallace have in Minnesota? I know Odell Beckham and Antonio Brown and Mike Wallace is neither. 

On 1/9/2017 at 6:00 PM, JonnyBaltimore said:

Ten years = 0 Pro Bowls. And now in his 11th year, we are expecting him to play to the level of a Pro Bowler that can carry the team.

My point is Flacco needs MORE good players than other QBs that we are expecting him to play to. The reality is at some point, Flacco supporters need to call a spade a spade and stop expecting him to be THAT type of QB.

We need to surround the team to compensate for his weaknesses. And to mention him in the same breath as Rodgers especially in the regular season is a joke.

Here's my question then, why does he play so well in the big games as opposed to the less meaningful regular season games? Is it because he has better players surrounding him in the playoffs? 

The player's surrounding him are the exact SAME.

You deserve a Pulitzer Prize for writing, but your Nobel Prize for Science will have to wait. The answer to your question can be quite simply summed up as follows: Joe raises the level of his play in the playoffs as one would expect a Franchise QB to do. In other words, he ratchets up his intensity and his focus as most great players do. Unfortunately, all players do not. Billy Cundiff and Lee Evans are classic examples of the latter type. I'm sure there are other examples we could cite from the 2014 team when we should have beaten the Patsies in the playoffs. You're probably too young to remember the year we were 13-3 in the regular season and lost in the first round of the playoffs when Steve McNair laid a goose egg on the field in front of our home fans. Or, maybe you remember the time we made the playoffs and lost to the Tennessee Titans 'cause we couldn't score a TD. I was there! The point is Joe coulda, shoulda and woulda played in three SBs, not two like everyone is quoting, were it not for some lackadaisical play and pathetic coaching from some of his co-workers & employer.

Joe's playoff performance and SB performance has been a lot better than several of the prima donas you guys seem to drool over. Let's see, what's Matt Ryan's record in the playoffs and the SB? Let's see, how many straight playoff games has Detroit now lost? Who's at the helm of that battleship? Oh that's right! Its another Matty, huh? Joe Flacco deserves better than to play on a team where half of our "loyal" fans hate him. When this team and its fanbase quit making excuses for the FO and the HC and realize what the real problems that we face are, then you'll see Joe soar like an Eagle (I mean Raven of course) and play like the elite QB he is during the regular season. Isn't it rich that a lot of the same people, who consistently defend Harbaugh b/c of his overall record as a head coach, want to attack Joe even though his overall record as a Pro would be considered as exceptional by many in his vocation. Isn't it rich that there is not a single former Raven player on our sideline on the coaching staff despite the fact that some of our former players are future HOF members? Maybe John Hardbaugh is insecure!?!?? AND, BTW, if U want to go to the Pro Bowl, there are seats available for that debacle @ $47 a pop.   

7 hours ago, Tank 92 said:

Not going to debate this, but just say that you should watch the playoffs and then see if you still have the same opinion on the relevance of needing "weapons".  ALL of the playoff teams have playmakers in addition to a franchise QB. 

You're right on the mark! If Joe were Tom Brady, Drew Brees or Aaron Rodgers, the supposed expectations that he should not need to be surrounded by "weapons" would be realistic. I think we have pretty well established he is not. One has only to view the ongoing playoff games to realize that our current crop of receivers are not on par with the marquee teams. Our guys give up on balls instead of fighting for them, they drop wide open passes and they get practically zero separation. We need playmakers. Is it any surprise Joe has had to complete so many checkdown passes to RBs and short passes to Dennis Pitta? No! Joe is not Harry Houdini. He cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

On ‎1‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 1:18 PM, January J said:

Flacco and pitta had nothing to do with it.. Their comments had no bearing on the decision whatsoever...

And if you think that Ozzie and bisciotti didn't have just as much of a say in the decision as harbaugh then you haven't watched them do business over the last 8 or 9 years. This is a tight knit group that doesn't make decisions unless everybody's on board. There weren't many other options- certainly none that were any better, and yet ANOTHER change and ANOTHER mindset coming in could have been even more detrimental to the team. So that had to be weighed with the option of letting the guy who already has a relationship with his players actually get a full off season to do his thing.

As far as the decision to keep Dean- I mean its hard to argue against somebody who had a top 5 unit in that many different categories. This is a smart guy who's been around for a lonnng time. He knows what needs to be done- and we need to get him some pass rush to work with.  He has gotten the most out of some very mediocre groups and made lemonade when given lemons. Hes been put in some very tough situations and had to game plan for some of the biggest games without our #1 corner. Lets get him some real depth to work with.  I wouldn't have been surprised or opposed to a change at either of these positions... But at some point  its on the players to execute and produce.

Or how about a commitment to continuity? Nothing wrong with being loyal and trusting your guys to get things right. I'd rather carry on with the same group who knows the mistakes they made and know what they need to improve as opposed to hitting the reset button and taking a chance on the unknown. We obviously aren't far away as we missed the playoffs by 1 game , nearly won the north and almost all the games we lost were only by one score or less. We're a player or two away.. Commit to pass rushing and having a more balanced offense and we're right there.

I am sorry but this is undeniably delusional. Denial isn't just a river in Egypt. The organization needs to change its culture if we are to return to the promised land. If we're only a player or two away, why did we allow a 3rd string RB to run roughshod through our defense in Cincinnati? This team needs a S, CB, OLB, C, RT, 2WRs, TE and a thoroughbred RB (U know like a horse) to get back into the foxhunt. Otherwise, we will have to be content with mediocrity again. Our regular season record since the Super Bowl is 31-33 but it is getting worse, not better. In the last two seasons under Harry Houdini Harbaugh - not, our regular season record is 13-19. I may have overstated our personnel needs because Campanaro and Waller or Maxx could fill two of the above needs but you have grossly understated our needs. This team is undisciplined and complacent and that's a coaching problem. What good is a commitment to continuity when we are continuously mediocre? Bring in Matt Patricia, Steve!

"Culture eats strategy for breakfast." - Peter Druecker  

On ‎1‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 8:24 PM, RayRayRaven said:

nah can't support that any longer.  joe is the prototype one hit wonder.  we need to get some value for him for the tear down that is comin

Wrong thread! Wrong conclusion!! Harry Houdini couldn't turn some of our mediocre WRs into stud WRs like Beckham, Brown, Fitzgerald et cetera. He could make them disappear though. Would you rather have Cap'n Kirk? I hear he's goin to get a big paycheck soon. Maybe we could do a swap or maybe we can get The Red Rifle in a bargain-basement deal with Cincy. Who knows? Maybe they'd consider a two for two deal and we could swap Harbaugh for Hue Jackson too!!! Get real, Ra Ra!!!

Let X = Points Scored & let Y = Points Allowed

Now when X > Y, we won 8 times and when X < Y we lost 8 times.

Seriously, it was a tale of two offenses and a tale of two defenses. Neither unit was consistently good or consistently bad. To the contrary, both units were inconsistent all year. 

We scored 343 total points this year and allowed our opponents to score 321 total points. An elementary school student would probably understand that our margin of error to win games was very slim. On the average, the O scored ~ 21.5 ppg and the D allowed 20 ppg. The O scored 21 points or more in 9 games and we won 62.5% of them. The D allowed 21 or more points in 8 games and we lost 87.5% of them. Good teams with great defenses generally win when they allow their opponent fewer than 21 points. There is a high correlation between points allowed and winning. Our record was 7-1 in the games we allowed fewer than 21 points. We were 1-7 in the games when we allowed our opponent to score more than 20 points. Liars may figure but figures don't lie. The logical conclusion is that great defenses consistently hold their opponents to fewer than 21 points. Our D did so in 8 of our 16 games. While high-octane offenses sell tickets and are exciting to watch, the truth is offenses do not have to score a ton of points to win. The correlation between points scored and winning is typically not as high as the former correlation. Three of the highest scoring teams in the NFL this year were Arizona, New Orleans and Atlanta. It will be interesting to see how the Dirty Birds fare in the playoffs although I don't know much about their defense. 

In summary, we are who our record says we are --- an average team. Depending on one's perspective that can either be good or bad or neither. For instance, the "average" American is overweight. Is that good? IMO, average is mediocrity and mediocrity is bad. So, IDK the answer to the excellent, thought provoking question posted by OLD SCHOOL SMASH BALL but I have a good hunch it starts with rebuilding the D but that's just another "Old School" guy talking.

6 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Couple of problems I have with this...

1. I have no issue not using a high draft pick on a corner recently. For starters, if there's one thing we know about that position specifically, its basically a coin toss in the draft. You've got 1st rounders who are studs and 1st rounders who are absolutely terrible drafted in the same year. There's more than one way to get good corners. Developing mid-rounders into good players is one way, which is something we've done, and being able to spend decent money in FA on one is another. I'm not even saying you have to spend top dollar for an "elite" corner, but willing to spend more than $2-3M a year on a FA corner would help.

2. I think fans view some of these draft picks as "replacements" for older players isn't really accurate often. For example, Matt Elam was never drafted to replace Ed Reed, largely because they don't even have the same skill sets or would have been asked to fill the same role. Elam was always more of a "box" safety, playing more of the Bernard Pollard role. If people recall, we lost our entire safety group after 2012, not just Ed Reed. So we didn't just need one safety, we needed two. We drafted Elam, and he didn't pan out, just like Huff didn't pan out.

3. I definitely don't think reaching a quality hierarchy of needs is an issue, because fans rarely complain about the positions we actually address with our high draft picks. The issue is with the execution of the draft picks, the talent evaluation, and in many ways, just some of the poor quality of college players coming out at certain positions.

Just adjusting the hierarchy doesn't change anything if you're not getting a quality player. We could have taken 3 corners in the 1st round in the last 5 years, but if one or two of them suck, what are we accomplishing?

I have no problems with what you said.

We have major problems on both sides of the line but I would say our hierarchy of needs starts with shoring up the defense. We need a CB who can play on an island. We need another S who can take over for Webb who is a stopgap solution at best and an OLB who can pass rush to replace Elvis who has left the house. After that, the offense needs a facelift with a speed-burning WR to replace SSS, a possession-type WR to replace Aiken who is afraid of his own shadow, a new C, another O-lineman, a wide-bodied TE who can catch and block (if possible a former Hoops player), and a bruising RB. 

Our first priority should be rebuilding the defense thru the draft 'cause our defense is very thin at all of the key positions. As a 2nd priority, revamping the offense is also crucial but we will have to do it through a combination of the draft and FA. We scored enough points in most of our games to win in 2016. With a great defense, a good team should win most if not all of its games when it scores 21 ppg. In the 1st SB year, we allowed 165 points. 21 x 16 = 336. Where I went to school, that's a 2:1 ratio. Like you are fond of saying, its not rocket science.

My approach to resolving the team's woes should appeal to some of Joe's most ardent detractors, who feel that its time for him to sink or swim, i.e., fish or cut bait. This would force him to do just that.

Since this thread has to do with the state of John's seat, I'd be remiss if I didn't say a word about him. I just wonder if the Wizard and John Harbaugh have ever read Steve Belichick's book on Scouting. Just a thought!

4 minutes ago, usmccharles said:

Yea im with you, ive been a supporter of his.  People like to bend facts to fit their own narrative.  In 9 years he has 10 playoff wins and a record of 85-59....

What is his regular season record for the last 4 years?

4 minutes ago, Sherly_Tebow said:

It's all about perspective. 6 or 9 isn't bad. Plus each of those 6, we won at least 1 playoff game. And we're a few plays away from appearing in more than 1 superbowl. Sure we haven't played to what we should, but I believe in Harbaugh as our couch moving forward.

LOL. You believe in Harbaugh as our couch(sp) moving forward. Was that a Freudian slip or just a faux pas? 6 out of 9 isn't bad. You're right about that but 8 out of 8 is better. That's what Green Bay and NE have now done

1 hour ago, redrum52 said:

You're right.   Stupid you.   All good though.

Thanks for the kind words and, BTW, I still like your moniker! Beating dead horses seems to be your greatest asset!!

On ‎1‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 9:28 AM, rmcjacket23 said:

I don't think you really understand what BPA is though and how we use it...

In reality, we use a BPA strategy based on a draft board that is assembled to reflect positions that we would like to upgrade. If we were using a true "BPA" strategy, then if the best player on our board in round 1 is a QB, we would take that player, regardless of whether we need a QB, which we don't. It would be the equivalent of us taking the best LT in the draft next year in round 1. 

You assemble a draft board to address multiple positions that you would like to address, and then you take the highest rated player on your board among those positions. In almost every season, the position list is quite lengthy, so we have maybe 4-5 positions or more that we could draft a player at.

Its also funny that when people knock the BPA strategy they do so ONLY by selectively choosing picks they didn't like or didn't work out. 

If Art Brown was a "need pick", then CJ Mosley was also. How do we know this? Well MLB was certainly a position we needed when we drafted him. In fact, the FO told us in the offseason prior to the draft that they would be upgrading the MLB position that offseason. So are you saying that Mosley was BPA and Brown was a "need"?

I mean this isn't rocket science guys. By the time the draft comes around, I and everybody else on these boards will likely be able to tell you the 4-5 positions that our first round pick will come from. It won't be a QB and it won't be a LT. Last year the positions everybody thought our first round pick would come from was LT, Corner, WR or pass rusher. We pretty much knew that going in. And guess what... we drafted one of those players.

The problem I think fans have is that they don't understand that taking the BPA doesn't mean you're taking a good player everytime. Every single NFL team rates a player highly on draft day and whiffs on that player on an annual basis. Every single one of them, every single year.

Fan logic when it comes to the draft:

Good pick = we used BPA

Bad pick = we reached for need

The reality is that you can make a BPA pick that doesn't pan out.

 

I agree with your take on how the BPA approach to the Draft is intended to work. Obviously, it would not make sense to use it as a strategy by itself without first establishing a hierarchy of needs for the team. Overall, the Ravens track record in the draft has been moderately successful over the long haul. However, the reality is that our most recent drafts have been less successful than they have been in the past. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. My problem with our draft strategy is that it seems that we are bypassing a lot of BPA players b/c the FO and the coaching staff apparently cannot agree on the hierarchy of needs. For instance, we are now four years removed from the Super Bowl and we have not drafted a top-notch CB to complement Jimmy Smith. Will it be Tavon Young? I doubt it. We haven't drafted a suitable replacement for Ed Reed either. Is it Matt Elam? Nope! Some of the O-linemen we have drafted are absolutely terrible. James Hurst was recently rated as the worst O-lineman in the NFL. No matter how it is intended to work, there is further evidence that our BPA strategy is not working as intended. Many of our draft picks who have become free agents have not panned out for their new teams. I hear many Ravens fans comment on that repeatedly on this blog. So, were they successful draft picks for the Ravens? Also, if one takes an objective look at our roster lately, one must conclude that several of our better players have come to us by way of FA. In summary, one could also conclude that the track record of "The Great and Powerful Wizard of Oz" is not as stellar as it should be, given his awesome reputation in the draft. 

However, I do take exception to your last sentence and here's why. The reality is that if the BPA pick doesn't pan out, he may not really be the BPA, assuming he's not injured like BP was. In other words, we cannot afford to miss on draft picks that are so important to the lifeblood of the team. Hindsight is always 20-20. I get it, but I think the real problem lies in the effectiveness of our college scouting, including the combine, and the organization's apparent inability to reach a consensus on the hierarchy of needs. Is Harbaugh on the hot seat yet? IDK but if he's not a part of the solution then he's part of the problem.

20 hours ago, redrum52 said:

Maybe your vet qb shouldnt be throwing ints right into defenders hands.  The qb almost always has a choice to change the play from what he sees.

Please excuse my ignorance, redrum52! I completely forgot that this was the Joe Flacco: Tough Talk thread. I meant to post this on the other thread about Harbaugh's seat. And after all Joe is the only reason we didn't make it to the playoffs. Stupid me!

15 hours ago, Edgar said:

" we need our quarterback to be playing at a level that changes the game in positive ways and makes a big difference for us"

-John Harbaugh 

OR he could have said "I need to be coaching at a level that changes the game in positive ways and makes a big difference for us." Who is the genius that called a pass play on 1st down and goal to go at the end of the first half of the game against the Bungles? If it was Joe, shame on him. If it was Marty, shame on both John and him. It was stupid. I doubt that Joe audibled on the play since he's been calling for us to run the ball more. Its one thing for the head coach to say we need to have a better running game. Its another thing to actually make it happen. In other words, I judge coaches and players more by their actions than their words. Talk is cheap but it won't buy cars. Scoring a TD in that situation instead of having the ball intercepted would have changed the game in a positive way and made a big difference for us. It was the same stupid playcall that was made two weeks earlier in the Eagles game and it had the same result. There seems to be a pattern. Say what you want about the execution. The decision-making which led to the same result in a similar situation was insane to the most casual observer. If a HC honestly wants to establish a running game, it makes sense to attempt to run the ball in that situation, that is, unless the OC and/or the HC has no confidence in his O-line and his running backs. AND if that is the problem, then we need to address it in the off-season by bringing in a workhorse RB like Henry, Gurley or Elliott. It ain't rocket science. What we're doing is clearly not working. On that point, I hope we can all agree.    

What a great Wide Out! Steve definitely played with a chip on his shoulder and embodied what it means to "Play Like A Raven." He exemplified the Old School toughness that is quickly disappearing in the new NFL. If everyone had played with his intensity and passion this year, we'd be n the playoffs instead of the Steelers. Hopefully, his example will serve as an inspiration for our younger players who will try to follow in his footsteps. Nobody will fill his shoes! Have a great retirement, Steve, and thanks for all the great memories!! Hope to see you in the HOF!!!  

24 minutes ago, rossihunter2 said:

I'd suggest maybe even the third tier - I think there's maybe only 2 or 3 upper eschelon qbs and then another shelf of qbs who are more consistently good than flacco and he sits right in the group from maybe 8-15 of starting qbs

Your point is well taken. I guess it really depends on how one defines the tiers. I tend to define the tiers in groups of ten. By that definition, there would be about three different tiers of starting QBs and additional tiers, including the backups. So, you may have included him in a higher group of QBs than I did. I have him in the second grouping of 11-20 based on his play this year. Having said that, I realize his stats may not bear that out but I also know that statistics can be very misleading and don't always tell the entire story.

3 hours ago, usmccharles said:

I never understand when people try to make points like this, it normally goes to fit one persons narrative.  He hasnt been a coach since after the superbowl, hes been a coach since 08.  Its like saying: yea he carried the ball for 104 yards on 11 carries but one carry went for 85, so he actually had a bad day because he rushed for 19 yards on 10 carries. 

Thank you for making my point better than I could have said it! You're exactly right. Without realizing it, you hit the nail on the head --- John hasn't been a coach since after the Super Bowl; he's been a spectator. Quite frankly, he must have found it hard to be a spectator at the game in Cincy from the sidelines 'cause his team jest went thru the motions and tried not to get hurt. It was a classic example of folding it up and mailing it in. His team didn't play for him. Some of us have said repeatedly and predicted this right after the Super Bowl and Ray's retirement. Coach Harbaugh would have to coach for the first time since he was appointed by Mr. Bisciotti. That game was a total embarrassment to all the organization has stood for since its inception. Any head coach worth his or her salt could not have been happy with the effort not to mention the result.

Before the season started, I predicted this team would most likely go 9-7. So, they failed to meet my expectations. After watching every game, I must conclude that I sold them short. They should have wound up with a much better record than 8-8. If you're satisfied with mediocrity, then be happy 'cause mediocrity is what we have. A mediocre employee is one who does everything he or she is told to do and nothing more. An outstanding employee is one who goes the extra mile and then keeps on going. I have to question the amount of preparation that went into the Cincy game based on the result. Was the Cincy team that led Pittsburgh at halftime and laid down in the 2nd half the same team we played against or did we just not show up to play?