Is Joe Flacco Becoming a Good QB?

[Wildabeast88]

In most cases, a great FF QB also is a great winning QB (See Brees, Manning, Rodgers, Brady).

 

There is, generally speaking, a positive correlation there.

what does Joe have in common with them all but Brady(cheater) 1 Super Bowl win and Brady has none since spy gate. I just love the perception of how terrible a QB he is on these rankings but what have Romo Cutler and Ryan ever done Joe has as many AFC champ appearances as they have combined playoff wins. How is that for a stat.

[Tenacious Faulker]

Joe's always had the skills, b ut Cam was too measured and conservative and slow to make adjustments.  Caldwell knew nothing of the run game (never has) and Manning required little coaching from him.  Joe is not Manning.  The Ravens were still the winningest team over that stretch.  

 

Now Joe has Kubiak who has fielded great offenses.  We know it works because it worked for Elway and for Matt Schaub who are light years apart, but the teams' won.  The offense is simple with low risk plays opening defenses up a few long plays. 

 

To me it seems that Joe's biggest problem in keeping him from being truly elite is that he follows his coaches unquestioningly.  That unwavering faith hurts when the wrong play is called.  Big Ben, Rogers, Brees, Luck, and Manning call audible most of the game and will improvise on the fly where as Joe typically doesn't do either.  When he did, they won a Super Bowl amidst an OC change.

 

If Joe is extremely confident, but I'm not sure he's been allowed, encouraged or is at all comfortable just taking control and giving audibles like in 2012.  He's a damn good QB and has been form the start.  Greatness depends on whether he he takes the reigns himself.

[Wildabeast88]

Well, from 2009-2013 (five seasons), the Patriots made the playoffs every single season, made 3 AFC Title games, and 1 SB appearance.

 

So the real question is... besides the Ravens, what football team has those credentials in that period of time?

Not arguing that fact it is a feat but i am sure we would have the same record if we played the Bills Dolphins and Jets for 6 games each and every year. We do it in a real division where teams have actually won this century. If you can't tell I think Brady and the Patriots are the most over rated of all time.

[Tiz]

i agree what has Brady done since spy gate nothing and it should have been less we should have beat them in the 11 AFC championship game

Perennial playoff team. Repeatedly going to afccg

Td:int ratio still one of the best.

Yeah They have done nothing since spygate lol.

[rmcjacket23]

what does Joe have in common with them all but Brady(cheater) 1 Super Bowl win and Brady has none since spy gate. I just love the perception of how terrible a QB he is on these rankings but what have Romo Cutler and Ryan ever done Joe has as many AFC champ appearances as they have combined playoff wins. How is that for a stat.

I don't really care about SpyGate... it means nothing to me. Its like fans getting upset about steroid use in the NFL. As a general rule of thumb, if the fans and the media care about something more than the people who are actually in that business care about it (and very, very, very few people in the NFL cared one bit about SpyGate, then I probably shouldn't care about it.

 

All Spygate has been is an excuse for fans/media to justify why a team that is more successful than their own since (and the Patriots are more successful since Spygate than almost all of the teams in the league) isn't as good as people think they are, since they "haven't won anything since Spygate", even though they have.

 

The problem is... some fans (naively so) if now classified "anything" as ONLY a SB title. If you don't want a SB title, you are garbage and haven't "won anything". Fortunately, that's not really how the NFL works.

[The Mom Gene]

Wins/Losses..... and Playoffs

The rest is irrelevant to me..... 

[rmcjacket23]

Not arguing that fact it is a feat but i am sure we would have the same record if we played the Bills Dolphins and Jets for 6 games each and every year. We do it in a real division where teams have actually won this century. If you can't tell I think Brady and the Patriots are the most over rated of all time.

The schedule is what it is. They still have to play 8 other football games against two different divisions and still have to play the two prior year division winners every single season.

 

For what its worth, over the last five seasons, here are the records of the two divisions you are describing...

 

AFC North : 167-153

AFC East: 166-154

 

One game difference.

 

And remember, this is the same AFC North who has a perennial doormat in Cleveland for the last five seasons... combined 23-57 record during that period with double digit losses every single season.

[rmcjacket23]

Wins/Losses..... and Playoffs

The rest is irrelevant to me..... 

And thankfully, coaches and people in the business of talent evaluation see things a large amount differently...

 

Imagine if we made personnel decisions based strictly on W/L...

 

Yikes.

[balfan23]

As if we weren't sick to death of the "elite" argument, what we're looking for now is "good"?

 

Classifying Joe in the nonsensical "elite" debate has always been a matter or definition. For some people, "elite" has meant top 5 and others, they are really just talking about a franchise QB ... so whether he qualified has always hinged on your definition. 

 

But anyone's standard for "good" ... IMO Joe has qualified as that from day 1. He's is now and always has been a franchise QB, meaning, our team doesn't go into each new year wondering if they should draft a QB 1st round to take the helm. It is Joe's job and he's earned it.

 

If you want to know if he's "good", just ask the fans of the franchises that draft a new 1st round QB every 2 or 3 years. 

[The Mom Gene]

And thankfully, coaches and people in the business of talent evaluation see things a large amount differently...

 

Imagine if we made personnel decisions based strictly on W/L...

 

Yikes.

I know, I get it....   but as fans....  Sometimes too much information becomes information overload....  We have seen guys with 125 and 145 QBR's that don't even make it to the playoffs.... As a QB, you gotta be good, but It has a whole lot more to do with TEAM than with being a GREAT QB.

[rmcjacket23]

I know, I get it....   but as fans....  Sometimes too much information becomes information overload....  We have seen guys with 125 and 145 QBR's that don't even make it to the playoffs.... As a QB, you gotta be good, but It has a whole lot more to do with TEAM than with being a GREAT QB.

And thats fine... as long as we only care about the W/L and playoffs with our RBs, WRs, TEs, OL, DL, LB, DB, and our ST as well.

 

They are a part of that team that determines the outcome as well.

[PolishRifle]

Yes Dan is better than multiple super bowl winning Qbs. Super bowl wins is a team thing not an individual thing.

You'd be a damn fool if you considered dilfer or Eli or doug Williams better than Marino.

I'm pretty sure we could add Simms, hostetler, mcnahon, rypien, and brad Johnson to the list too

Stop being foolish and acting like a super bowl win makes a player the best at his position

 

The Superbowl is the only game that matters. It's the whole reason why people play the game to begin with. No, I don't care if Manning can throw a bunch of TDs, when he's playing against the Jaguars throwing the ball to Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne in November (two players, who without a doubt had no impact on his stats). You're trying to tell me Manning was just part of the team, when he threw the interception to Tracy Porter in Super Bowl XLIV for a pick 6? It wasn't his fault and he had no impact on the outcome of the game there? How about his great performance against the Seahawks? I mean we all expected this to be a close game with Peyton leading the way with his historically great offense in the regular season with one of the easiest schedules of that season. But hey, atleast Manning threw the most completions in a Superbowl! A new record for Peyton, while getting destroyed by the Seahawks. Yuppie.

The QB has the most control of any player on the field on the outcome of the game. That's why it's rare, that teams manage to win SBs inspite of their QBs, never manage to repeate that feat and why you need atleast a good QB to be capable of winning and there have always been great regular season stat juggernauts like Peyton or Marino, who had their chances to get it done, had the ball in their hands and then blew it.

[funky141]

I know, I get it....   but as fans....  Sometimes too much information becomes information overload....  We have seen guys with 125 and 145 QBR's that don't even make it to the playoffs.... As a QB, you gotta be good, but It has a whole lot more to do with TEAM than with being a GREAT QB.

Yes agree 100%.  

 

You can be the best at your position but you need a good supporting cast to win the big on.

[Tiz]

The Superbowl is the only game that matters. It's the whole reason why people play the game to begin with. No, I don't care if Manning can throw a bunch of TDs, when he's playing against the Jaguars throwing the ball to Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne in November (two players, who without a doubt had no impact on his stats). You're trying to tell me Manning was just part of the team, when he threw the interception to Tracy Porter in Super Bowl XLIV for a pick 6? It wasn't his fault and he had no impact on the outcome of the game there? How about his great performance against the Seahawks? I mean we all expected this to be a close game with Peyton leading the way with his historically great offense in the regular season with one of the easiest schedules of that season. But hey, atleast Manning threw the most completions in a Superbowl! A new record for Peyton, while getting destroyed by the Seahawks. Yuppie.

The QB has the most control of any player on the field on the outcome of the game. That's why it's rare, that teams manage to win SBs inspite of their QBs, never manage to repeate that feat and why you need atleast a good QB to be capable of winning and there have always been great regular season stat juggernauts like Peyton or Marino, who had their chances to get it done, had the ball in their hands and then blew it.

Careers are longer than one year stop say saying dumb stuff just to try and justify a dumb statement

Marino is a better qb than many many Super Bowl winning qbs. Why? Because it takes a team to win the Super Bowl not an individual. Not a single person here will rank Dilfer, Johnson, et al above Marino..

[rmcjacket23]

The Superbowl is the only game that matters. It's the whole reason why people play the game to begin with. No, I don't care if Manning can throw a bunch of TDs, when he's playing against the Jaguars throwing the ball to Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne in November (two players, who without a doubt had no impact on his stats). You're trying to tell me Manning was just part of the team, when he threw the interception to Tracy Porter in Super Bowl XLIV for a pick 6? It wasn't his fault and he had no impact on the outcome of the game there? How about his great performance against the Seahawks? I mean we all expected this to be a close game with Peyton leading the way with his historically great offense in the regular season with one of the easiest schedules of that season. But hey, atleast Manning threw the most completions in a Superbowl! A new record for Peyton, while getting destroyed by the Seahawks. Yuppie.

The QB has the most control of any player on the field on the outcome of the game. That's why it's rare, that teams manage to win SBs inspite of their QBs, never manage to repeate that feat and why you need atleast a good QB to be capable of winning and there have always been great regular season stat juggernauts like Peyton or Marino, who had their chances to get it done, had the ball in their hands and then blew it.

1. Its the only game that matters... TO FANS. Its NOT the only game that matters to players. That's just a good-feeling type thought that fans have.

 

I can't tell you how many people have come out publicly, whether its on TV, radio, internet, etc. that have stated numerous reasons for playing professional football that have nothing to do with winning a SB. Is it a goal for everybody? Of course. Is it the actual reason they play? Not likely. I've heard countless people who stated that they played almost entirely for the money... it was a job/career to them. They were good at it, and they were compensated well for it. Others have stated that they played primarily because of the teammates and peers they played with. The financial compensation, quite frankly, is the easiest counter-argument in the World, because if the theory that the only reason people play the game is to win a SB, then literally nobody would agree to sign a contract with a bad team and every single player would take less money to play for a perceived great team. As a general rule of thumb in the NFL, he who offers the most guaranteed money typically gets the player, regardless of how good the team is. Chris Carter himself stated that if he had a choice between going to the HOF and winning ONE SB ring, he would choose the HOF. While its fun for fans to think that every NFL player only plays to win the SB, its naive at best. Many, many, many other factors at play there.

 

2. Its extremely rare for teams to repeat as SB champs, regardless of whether they have a mediocre QB or a great QB. That has relatively no effect, because the difficulty and the list of things that have to come together for a team to win ONE SB, let alone two, are huge, and it rarely happens. Doesn't matter who the QB is.

 

3. Peyton Manning has a SB ring, so he didn't blow anything. If you want to knock him for losing SBs, be my guest. Losing a SB is a very, very, very, very GOOD thing to have on your resume. Why? Because its hard to do. In any given season, there's only two QBs (starting QBs at least) that can say they played in the SB.

 

Manning can complete the most passes in SB history and lose. He can also play extremely pedestrian in a SB and win (which he did). Heck, there's a QB in this very town that completed 40% of his passes (he only threw 10) for 34 yards and 1 INT in a road playoff game... and his team won by 19 points.

 

Simply put... it can't all be about the QB. If you think it is, then by all means continue to think that, but its just lazy thinking in my opinion. Its going to end with you being disappointed one way or another.

[funky141]

The Superbowl is the only game that matters. It's the whole reason why people play the game to begin with. No, I don't care if Manning can throw a bunch of TDs, when he's playing against the Jaguars throwing the ball to Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne in November (two players, who without a doubt had no impact on his stats). You're trying to tell me Manning was just part of the team, when he threw the interception to Tracy Porter in Super Bowl XLIV for a pick 6? It wasn't his fault and he had no impact on the outcome of the game there? How about his great performance against the Seahawks? I mean we all expected this to be a close game with Peyton leading the way with his historically great offense in the regular season with one of the easiest schedules of that season. But hey, atleast Manning threw the most completions in a Superbowl! A new record for Peyton, while getting destroyed by the Seahawks. Yuppie.

The QB has the most control of any player on the field on the outcome of the game. That's why it's rare, that teams manage to win SBs inspite of their QBs, never manage to repeate that feat and why you need atleast a good QB to be capable of winning and there have always been great regular season stat juggernauts like Peyton or Marino, who had their chances to get it done, had the ball in their hands and then blew it.

If you only really new what happen on that play!

[PolishRifle]

Careers are longer than one year stop say saying dumb stuff just to try and justify a dumb statement

Marino is a better qb than many many Super Bowl winning qbs. Why? Because it takes a team to win the Super Bowl not an individual. Not a single person here will rank Dilfer, Johnson, et al above Marino..

 

I didn't compare Dilfer to Marino once. I did mention Montana, though. I don't think it's a dumb statement to rank him over Marino.

[funky141]

1. Its the only game that matters... TO FANS. Its NOT the only game that matters to players. That's just a good-feeling type thought that fans have.

 

I can't tell you how many people have come out publicly, whether its on TV, radio, internet, etc. that have stated numerous reasons for playing professional football that have nothing to do with winning a SB. Is it a goal for everybody? Of course. Is it the actual reason they play? Not likely. I've heard countless people who stated that they played almost entirely for the money... it was a job/career to them. They were good at it, and they were compensated well for it. Others have stated that they played primarily because of the teammates and peers they played with. The financial compensation, quite frankly, is the easiest counter-argument in the World, because if the theory that the only reason people play the game is to win a SB, then literally nobody would agree to sign a contract with a bad team and every single player would take less money to play for a perceived great team. As a general rule of thumb in the NFL, he who offers the most guaranteed money typically gets the player, regardless of how good the team is. Chris Carter himself stated that if he had a choice between going to the HOF and winning ONE SB ring, he would choose the HOF. While its fun for fans to think that every NFL player only plays to win the SB, its naive at best. Many, many, many other factors at play there.

 

2. Its extremely rare for teams to repeat as SB champs, regardless of whether they have a mediocre QB or a great QB. That has relatively no effect, because the difficulty and the list of things that have to come together for a team to win ONE SB, let alone two, are huge, and it rarely happens. Doesn't matter who the QB is.

 

3. Peyton Manning has a SB ring, so he didn't blow anything. If you want to knock him for losing SBs, be my guest. Losing a SB is a very, very, very, very GOOD thing to have on your resume. Why? Because its hard to do. In any given season, there's only two QBs (starting QBs at least) that can say they played in the SB.

 

Manning can complete the most passes in SB history and lose. He can also play extremely pedestrian in a SB and win (which he did). Heck, there's a QB in this very town that completed 40% of his passes (he only threw 10) for 34 yards and 1 INT in a road playoff game... and his team won by 19 points.

 

Simply put... it can't all be about the QB. If you think it is, then by all means continue to think that, but its just lazy thinking in my opinion. Its going to end with you being disappointed one way or another.

Nice write up.

[rmcjacket23]

I didn't compare Dilfer to Marino once. I did mention Montana, though. I don't think it's a dumb statement to rank him over Marino.

Nobody is suggesting its a dumb statement. In fact, I agree that Montana, based on his overall body of work (which includes his playoff success) is a better QB than Marino.

 

What they are suggesting is your justification for that choice is somewhat of a dumb statement, as you have already specifically stated that the ONLY reason why NFL players play football is to win a SB, and that essentially everything else is a failure.

 

I can promise you that NFL players, coaches, and probably the majority of FO personnel do NOT think that way. Some do, the majority do not.

[PolishRifle]

Nobody is suggesting its a dumb statement. In fact, I agree that Montana, based on his overall body of work (which includes his playoff success) is a better QB than Marino.

 

What they are suggesting is your justification for that choice is somewhat of a dumb statement, as you have already specifically stated that the ONLY reason why NFL players play football is to win a SB, and that essentially everything else is a failure.

 

I can promise you that NFL players, coaches, and probably the majority of FO personnel do NOT think that way. Some do, the majority do not.

 

Please, if you want to join the conversation, that I'm in, than read some of the previous posts. I posted:

 

Dan has better stats than Joe Montana. I guess he and Peyton are better than Montana, right?

 

and Tiz replied:

 

Yes Dan is better than multiple super bowl winning Qbs. Super bowl wins is a team thing not an individual thing.

You'd be a damn fool if you considered dilfer or Eli or doug Williams better than Marino.

I'm pretty sure we could add Simms, hostetler, mcnahon, rypien, and brad Johnson to the list too

Stop being foolish and acting like a super bowl win makes a player the best at his position

 

As far as the "The Superbowl is the only game that matters."-post goes. Maybe, I formulated it strongly, but I don't think it's dumb to point out, that the championship game of a tournament is important. If the Superbowl doesn't matter and isn't an important part of a QBs carreer, than why play it to begin with. Peyton Manning himself complained early in his carreer, that fantasy football makes people care more about individual stats, than actually winning. So he himself would tell you, that getting that one ring is probably on his biggest achievements.

[rmcjacket23]

Please, if you want to join the conversation, that I'm in, than read some of the previous posts. I posted:

 

 

and Tiz replied:

 

 

As far as the "The Superbowl is the only game that matters."-post goes. Maybe, I formulated it strongly, but I don't think it's dumb to point out, that the championship game of a tournament is important. If the Superbowl doesn't matter and isn't an important part of a QBs carreer, than why play it to begin with. Peyton Manning himself complained early in his carreer, that fantasy football makes people care more about individual stats, than actually winning. So he himself would tell you, that getting that one ring is probably on his biggest achievements.

Again, nobody is suggesting the SB is irrelevant. From what I can tell, my guess would be that when YOU evaluate a QB, whether or not that QB has won a Lombardi probably accounts for 80-90% of your opinion of that QB. My point is... that number is way, way, way high.

 

I used this sample in a previous post (can't remember if it was this thread or not), but it makes my point quite clearly...

 

For a player, making it to the HOF is probably the single greatest accomplishment of their career, because it identifies themselves in a "legacy" manner as one of the very best players to ever play the sport. And yes, for a lot of them, making the HOF is a bigger accomplishment than winning a SB.

 

Using that logic, Dan Marino is in the HOF. He has never won a SB ring, and has limited postseason success. Conversely, in my opinion, Eli Manning is not, at the present time, a likely HOF member. He has two SB rings, and a pretty good resume of postseason success.

 

As such, there must be something that separates the two. If people who vote for the HOF equated a players overall career success as 80-90% about winning a SB, then there's literally no justification for Eli to not get in and Marino to get in. But in my opinion (although we won't know for quite some time), that's exactly whats going to happen.

 

As such, it appears that people who are in the business of analyzing and in essence segregating the elite players in the leagues history (HOF inductees) from the non-elite players, they clearly view statistical performance in high regard, and the number of SB titles in a much lower regard than 80-90%.

 

In my opinion, SB victories and postseason success is a PIECE of the overall pie. Its certainly not the whole pie, and I don't think its even the biggest piece of the pie.

[flynismo]

Peyton would have choked Cam by his 2nd year. game

[Moderator 3]

Holy Moly, people. This thread is about Joe Flacco. Could you at least TRY to stay on topic?

[flynismo]

Yay a Flacco thread

[Gordo52]

Can you guys at least change the title? I can't be the only one who is embarrassed by it

[Moderator 3]

Can you guys at least change the title? I can't be the only one who is embarrassed by it

Suggestion? You won't believe how bad is was before we changed it once already.

[Inqui]

I can't be the only one curious about what the old title was. The current one seems like enough of a troll as it is.

[Ravensfan23]

This is my concern, keeping the system going when Kubiak leaves. If we have to go with something else, that'll push Joe's progress back a few years again. But if we can at least keep the stretch zone/WCO Kubiak runs, no reason Joe can't keep going from strength to strength.

 

I think this "system" is here to stay and it'll be much like the defense. We've run this hybrid type organized chaos defense for years. Each coach puts his particular stamp on it but the defense really stays he same. Any DC coming to coach here understands they are running "The Ravens Defense". Rex was more of a man coverage bring the house type, while Pees likes to mix up his coverages on the back end and ask the front 7 to win. I see the offense being the same moving forward.

 

Whether it's a guy like Kyle Shanny, which I doubt or some young coach who already runs a variation of this offense but with a different style. Ultimately I see Kubes staying for his full 3 year contract.

[Ravensfan23]

Liked this post a lot. I also agree Flacco is better than Cutler, Ryan, and Dalton, ESPECIALLY with postseason success. Until Cutler, Ryan, and/or Dalton can get the job done and win the Super Bowl, they deserve to be placed below Flacco. He's become a solid leader and I have absolute faith in him to lead us to at least 1 more Super Bowl victory.

 

I think he's a great lead and has been since about 2010 when he had to deal with 3 Diva type WRs in Boldin, Mason and Housh. I think the biggest thing about both Flacco and Harbs for that matter when it comes to leadership is that it's hard to be seen within the bright light that is Ray Lewis.

 

When Ray stepped away it opened the door for guys like Suggs to keep the "face of the team" label on the defensive side of the ball but lets be honest, the HC and QB are generally you're main leaders of a team and once they won the SB together it was without a doubt the Harbs and Flacco show in Baltimore.

 

I think one of the best things for Flacco's imagine I'd say is the fact that more and more media outlets are having him on their show and seeing the personality that Flacco has. More and more people are getting stories about Flacco in the locker room and it's showcasing the type of leader he is imo.

[Moderator 3]

It was something that gave no indication of what the thread is about...something like "What are your thoughts".