Joe Flacco called overrated on NFL.com

[GrimCoconut]

Callahan this is a long winded approach to use to demonstrate what i already know. if you are arguing the last two seasons and using that as your benchmark to judge Flacco's future,then i say (yes) i can agree. He is really good as of right now.

However the topic is about Flacco being overrated and if you take all four of his postseasons prior to this past year, then you can clearly see why that make this claim.

All the numbers you throw out there you should have been in that movie moneyball. None have anything to do with what i asked you.

So ill try again, What was Flacco's postseason numbers prior to this past year? Meaning -do not include any stats from his Super Bowl run.

Now can you see why they call him Overrated?

Now i am dropping the Mic! Homers feel free to try and help here. I doubt you can argue the truth.

I just don't get it. I just don't. Here's what I don't understand.

So you say Flacco had two good years but we can't ignore his history when determining if he's overrated for a 2013 top 100 list that rates him based off of 2012? How does that make sense? Seriously. Upon your own admission he had a great year overall yet you keep harping that he's overrated because of the other years he played poorly. It makes no sense.

Honestly you're sounding like a Steelers fan who's stuck in the past referencing your 6 Super Bowl rings. Come on man. You're better than this. Are you just playing devil's advocate?

[SteelersProphet]

I just don't get it. I just don't. Here's what I don't understand.

So you say Flacco had two good years but we can't ignore his history when determining if he's overrated for a 2013 top 100 list that rates him based off of 2012? How does that make sense? Seriously. Upon your own admission he had a great year overall yet you keep harping that he's overrated because of the other years he played poorly. It makes no sense.

Honestly you're sounding like a Steelers fan who's stuck in the past referencing your 6 Super Bowl rings. Come on man. You're better than this. Are you just playing devil's advocate?

 

Ouch that's harsh there's no need for name calling lol

 

being called a steelers fan should be given the profanity deleted treatment

[GrimCoconut]

Ouch that's harsh there's no need for name calling lol

being called a steelers fan should be given the profanity deleted treatment

Lol. Being a Steelers fan could be considered an insult but in specifically referencing those fans who are stuck on victories years ago. It's always said to be a "what have you done for me lately" league yet people conveniently neglect that perception at times to fit their own arguments.

[SteelersProphet]

Lol. Being a Steelers fan could be considered an insult but in specifically referencing those fans who are stuck on victories years ago. It's always said to be a "what have you done for me lately" league yet people conveniently neglect that perception at times to fit their own arguments.

 

yea but that's all Steelers fans...its hard not to be proud of the fact that your team has claim to the best dynasty in NFL history

 

and its not like the dolphins who were great but haven't been in awhile...we have had consistent success since that time.....so that's brag worthy

[GrimCoconut]

yea but that's all Steelers fans...its hard not to be proud of the fact that your team has claim to the best dynasty in NFL history

and its not like the dolphins who were great but haven't been in awhile...we have had consistent success since that time.....so that's brag worthy

I don't care about the bragging. Some use it as a basis for why their team will win games when it is irrelevant. Super Bowl titles and matches historically won are no indication of future success. Just like if I was to say Flacco sucks because of his first three years being just average. It doesn't matter what happened his first three years because all that matters is now and going forward.

You can make the same argument about Ed Reed. He was the best FS in the NFL period. Now he's not so much. Are we to say he's the best at his position because of his history? No. I think Ed Reed is overrated due to his performance last year.

Same thing goes for Ray Lewis. He must be the best MLB in the game based upon his play right now because of what he's done up to this point. The truth is he wasn't the best MLB on the team last year let alone the league. It makes no sense to judge a player based on 2013 using the argument of his other seasons.

As far as I know this 2013 top 100 uses the player's 2012-2013 season performance.

[hawkprey]

Who remembers this atrocity?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/jim_trotter/12/07/quarterback.ratings/1.html

[Tiz]

I just don't get it. I just don't. Here's what I don't understand.

So you say Flacco had two good years but we can't ignore his history when determining if he's overrated for a 2013 top 100 list that rates him based off of 2012? How does that make sense? Seriously. Upon your own admission he had a great year overall yet you keep harping that he's overrated because of the other years he played poorly. It makes no sense.

Honestly you're sounding like a Steelers fan who's stuck in the past referencing your 6 Super Bowl rings. Come on man. You're better than this. Are you just playing devil's advocate?

Thats what's so hilarious about his posting. Everything is negated by his rookie year but other qbs dont have negativity spouted about them despite being true for them too.

This is why I don't see how he is overrated. rookie numbers same as Matt Ryan but Matt Ryan gets praised.

Peyton Manning had 28ints and every so often pm implodes. Pm for all his greatness in the regular season has career postseason numbers that do not blow flacco out the water.
Pm is without a doubt hofer.
Flacco is referred to as middle of the road yet flacco is overrated lol

[ratedr]

You obviously haven't read the whole thread. Do your homework before typing my name.  

Your agenda is the same every thread, so a quick perusal was all that was necessary.

[berad]

Who remembers this atrocity?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/jim_trotter/12/07/quarterback.ratings/1.html

 

my eyes!

[cursona pirate]

Flacco is overrated. We should trade him to the Chiefs or Jaguars. Get Gabbert he needs some weapons and we got them for him. Flacco got lucky.

[Cville-Raven]

Flacco is overrated. We should trade him to the Chiefs or Jaguars. Get Gabbert he needs some weapons and we got them for him. Flacco got lucky.

lol probably the greatest sarcastic comment Ive ever read on here

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

Thats what's so hilarious about his posting. Everything is negated by his rookie year but other qbs dont have negativity spouted about them despite being true for them too.

This is why I don't see how he is overrated. rookie numbers same as Matt Ryan but Matt Ryan gets praised.

Peyton Manning had 28ints and every so often pm implodes. Pm for all his greatness in the regular season has career postseason numbers that do not blow flacco out the water.
Pm is without a doubt hofer.
Flacco is referred to as middle of the road yet flacco is overrated lol

 

 

This is the problem with the whole "overrated" vs "underrated" argument. Its all subjective and depends on what your criteria for rating a player is based on.

 

If you're judging his entire career and comparing to all other QB's during the same stretch of their careers AND:

 

If it's playing in and winning games then Flacco is unarguably a top 3 QB.

 

If it's winning when it matters, ie postseason Flacco is the best ever during this stretch of his young career.

 

If it's Super Bowls then he's par for being elite, Top 5 or so.

 

If it's regular season passing stats, yds, QB rating, completion %, ect... then hes on par or slightly behind the elites.

 

IF you're only judging based on recent year(s):

 

And all of the above you cant argue him not being in the top 5 or so QB's.

 

The only way you can make an argument otherwise is if you completely ignore games won, and only look at stats over his career and compare it to the other QBs entire careers even if they've been in the league twice as long. Then you can certainly argue that Joe Flacco is average.

 

And that's the problem. If you like Joe you focus on the things that support him being a great QB. If you don't like Joe, you formulate your argument around the data that supports your opinion.

 

THE FACT IS, THE DUDE WINS, AND WINS BIG GAMES. Put him where you want on any list, I'll take him. He doesn't care about his credit, and I don't care if he gets it. When we've got another 1 or 2 of those trophies, and Detrioit, San Fran, Denver, New England, and Atlanta and all those other teams with ELITE qbs are still waiting for their next one, I will be glad my QB wasn't elite.

[beasy2487]

This is the problem with the whole "overrated" vs "underrated" argument. Its all subjective and depends on what your criteria for rating a player is based on.

If you're judging his entire career and comparing to all other QB's during the same stretch of their careers AND:

If it's playing in and winning games then Flacco is unarguably a top 3 QB.

If it's winning when it matters, ie postseason Flacco is the best ever during this stretch of his young career.

If it's Super Bowls then he's par for being elite, Top 5 or so.

If it's regular season passing stats, yds, QB rating, completion %, ect... then hes on par or slightly behind the elites.

IF you're only judging based on recent year(s):

And all of the above you cant argue him not being in the top 5 or so QB's.

The only way you can make an argument otherwise is if you completely ignore games won, and only look at stats over his career and compare it to the other QBs entire careers even if they've been in the league twice as long. Then you can certainly argue that Joe Flacco is average.

And that's the problem. If you like Joe you focus on the things that support him being a great QB. If you don't like Joe, you formulate your argument around the data that supports your opinion.

THE FACT IS, THE DUDE WINS, AND WINS BIG GAMES. Put him where you want on any list, I'll take him. He doesn't care about his credit, and I don't care if he gets it. When we've got another 1 or 2 of those trophies, and Detrioit, San Fran, Denver, New England, and Atlanta and all those other teams with ELITE qbs are still waiting for their next one, I will be glad my QB wasn't elite.

Ah my friend you've made one grave error in your judgements...you involved logic.

[ellicottraven]

Flacco is overrated. We should trade him to the Chiefs or Jaguars. Get Gabbert he needs some weapons and we got them for him. Flacco got lucky.

I'll go one further. Trade him to the Chiefs for Matt Cassell and we'll still win the SB! End Sarcasm...

[JohnJohnson]

yea but that's all Steelers fans...its hard not to be proud of the fact that your team has claim to the best dynasty in NFL history

 

and its not like the dolphins who were great but haven't been in awhile...we have had consistent success since that time.....so that's brag worthy

 

What makes the Steelers' dynasty better than the Packer's dynasty or the 49ers' dynasty? Nothing. You have claim to a 'roided up defensive dynasty, not the best in NFL history.

[Tank 92]

What makes the Steelers' dynasty better than the Packer's dynasty or the 49ers' dynasty? Nothing. You have claim to a 'roided up defensive dynasty, not the best in NFL history.

'roided up squealers! LOL!!! Truth.

Makes me think of Brady Anderson......ugh.

[Tank 92]

This is the problem with the whole "overrated" vs "underrated" argument. Its all subjective and depends on what your criteria for rating a player is based on.
 
If you're judging his entire career and comparing to all other QB's during the same stretch of their careers AND:
 
If it's playing in and winning games then Flacco is unarguably a top 3 QB.
 
If it's winning when it matters, ie postseason Flacco is the best ever during this stretch of his young career.
 
If it's Super Bowls then he's par for being elite, Top 5 or so.
 
If it's regular season passing stats, yds, QB rating, completion %, ect... then hes on par or slightly behind the elites.
 
IF you're only judging based on recent year(s):
 
And all of the above you cant argue him not being in the top 5 or so QB's.
 
The only way you can make an argument otherwise is if you completely ignore games won, and only look at stats over his career and compare it to the other QBs entire careers even if they've been in the league twice as long. Then you can certainly argue that Joe Flacco is average.
 
And that's the problem. If you like Joe you focus on the things that support him being a great QB. If you don't like Joe, you formulate your argument around the data that supports your opinion.
 
THE FACT IS, THE DUDE WINS, AND WINS BIG GAMES. Put him where you want on any list, I'll take him. He doesn't care about his credit, and I don't care if he gets it. When we've got another 1 or 2 of those trophies, and Detrioit, San Fran, Denver, New England, and Atlanta and all those other teams with ELITE qbs are still waiting for their next one, I will be glad my QB wasn't elite.

this.......

[SteelersProphet]

What makes the Steelers' dynasty better than the Packer's dynasty or the 49ers' dynasty? Nothing. You have claim to a 'roided up defensive dynasty, not the best in NFL history.

 

Packers were great before the Superbowl era but they only had two Superbowls

 

49ERS

1981, 1984, 1988, 1989 = 4 Superbowls 9 years

 

STEELERS

1974, 1975, 1978, 1979 = 4 Superbowls 6 years(back to back twice)

 

that is what makes it the best....plus the consensus of the NFL and  the Media

[SteelersProphet]

'roided up squealers! LOL!!! Truth.

Makes me think of Brady Anderson......ugh.

 

and steroids were used by everyone back then

[flynismo]

 

Packers were great before the Superbowl era but they only had two Superbowls

 

49ERS

1981, 1984, 1988, 1989 = 4 Superbowls 9 years

 

STEELERS

1974, 1975, 1978, 1979 = 4 Superbowls 6 years(back to back twice)

 

that is what makes it the best....plus the consensus of the NFL and  the Media

 

 

I think he was referring to the entire franchise history, not just stuff that happened almost 40 years ago...

at any rate, I always thought the 49ers were the consensus "greatest dynasty"

[SteelersProphet]

I think he was referring to the entire franchise history, not just stuff that happened almost 40 years ago...

at any rate, I always thought the 49ers were the consensus "greatest dynasty"

well franchise history its a slam dunk Steelers we have more Superbowls period

 

and a "DYNASTY" is the term used for a team with more or less the same pieces winning a series of superbowls over a period of time usually ten years

 

and he asked what made ours better...so I answered

 

and NFL actually has a list they made for the NFLtop ten list show they have....and the Steelers were number one(that's just one example off the top of my head)

[flynismo]

I gave everyone the stats, look it up for yourself! I have no idea what Callahan is talking about.   Obviously he keeps mentioning this season and  last ( I think).  

 

I never mentioned this season.  Why all the numbers.  He reminds me of Richard Gere in the movie Chicago.  "Give the old Rassle Dazzle"!!!!!  To dance around the truth and all of you are eating it up>>>>>SMH 

 

 

Truth -- what definition are you using?

This one?

"conformity of the mind to what is real"

 

It must be, because the above definition indicates that human error may occur when evaluating what is real. That is clearly what is happening when you make claims such as Flacco's first three years were terrible. It's true .... in your world. Has nothing to do with reality.

[RAVEN63]

I clicked on this to read about flacco being overrated and guess what?

A steeler fan talking about how great his team is what im reading ...ok,

What?Oh just a steeler fan being a steeler fan on a ravens forum... 

[SteelersProphet]

I clicked on this to read about flacco being overrated and guess what?

A steeler fan talking about how great his team is what im reading ...ok,

What?Oh just a steeler fan being a steeler fan on a ravens forum... 

 

I only respond.....I don't bring it up but I will respond.....I was asked direct questions

[easternshore97]

well franchise history its a slam dunk Steelers we have more Superbowls period

 

and a "DYNASTY" is the term used for a team with more or less the same pieces winning a series of superbowls over a period of time usually ten years

 

and he asked what made ours better...so I answered

 

and NFL actually has a list they made for the NFLtop ten list show they have....and the Steelers were number one(that's just one example off the top of my head)

LOL dude. I bet 300 of your 2006 posts came on this thread alone.

 

Imagine if Super Bowl XLVIII happens to be the same teams as Super Bowl XLVII. You'll be stuck rooting for the Ravens probably for a 2nd year in a row I'm guessing. Haaaaaa!!

[SteelersProphet]

LOL dude. I bet 300 of your 2006 posts came on this thread alone.

 

Imagine if Super Bowl XLVIII happens to be the same teams as Super Bowl XLVII. You'll be stuck rooting for the Ravens probably for a 2nd year in a row I'm guessing. Haaaaaa!!

first of all you would lose that bet

 

second of all that wont be the reason I would root for the Ravens in the Superbowl.....the reason would be my wife would make me(like she did last year) lol

 

she made me agree some years ago that if one of our teams were out of it we would root for the others team

 

but I do like the Steelers being the only team with 6 rings....so that would be a bonus reason I guess

[The Raven]

If I read "6 rings" one more freaking time, so help me God...

[The Oakland Cathedral]

If I read "6 rings" one more freaking time, so help me God...

What if its 4 years from now when the ravens have six rings?

[The Raven]

What if its 4 years from now when the ravens have six rings?

 

That's different. It's not coming from an annoying Steelers fan

[arnie_uk]

Even pats fans dont talk about their rings from 10 years ago as much and they were alive when it happened.