NFL.com's David Carr says Flacco is Number 3 overrated QB

[Ravenseconbeast]

On 6/27/2016 at 0:25 AM, LosT_in_TranSlatioN said:

Glorified backup Brock Osweiler just got paid 72 million over four years to be the starting QB in Houston. Sorry, but that contract is far worse than Flacco's, who has actually won big games in his career. 

 

We get it dude, you hate Flacco. But that contract right there shows how difficult it is to find a good QB. Houston has tried for years, and have failed miserably. If anything, Osweiler based off of that contract is the most overrated QB in the NFL other than Cutler. Even if his numbers suck this season, we gotta stick with him and not because of that contract. Flacco isn't elite. But I consider him top ten despite his admittedly maddening inconsistent play because Flacco has the it factor. You'll laugh at that but the dude shows up consistently for big games. The buttfumble has never, EVER, reached Flacco's best play, and never will. 

 

Even if you hate Flacco, to compare him to Sanchez is beyond idiotic. Comparing him to Cutler is foolish, who got a contract that's worth more depsite doing a hell of a lot less. Two seasons ago, Cutler had an offense with Jeffery, an all pro, Marshall, an all pro, Bennett, and Forte, a decent offensive line, and a defense that honestly wasn't the issue, still sucked. Flacco, despite having a hell of a lot less than that, has had far more success. Oh, and let's use another example of a guy who's more overrated. 

 

Over the past two seasons, we'll use 2014 because he was healthy for the postseason for that one, Andy Dalton has had two good RBs, three good WRs, a consistently good oline, and a great defense. And the Bengals still lost to the abysmal defenseless colts, who later got slaughtered by a real QB that same postseason.

 

Conversley, Flacco with 35 year old Steve Smith, a 31 year old Owen Daniels, an injured Torrey Smith, and a journeyman running back who was a product of Kubiak, walked into Gillete Stadium who had a defense with the likes of Revis, an all pro, Browner, who was good that year, and McCourtey, who is great.  With a front 7 that included great players such as Chandler Jones, Jamie Collins, Akeem Ayers, Hightower, and I think Mayo if he was healthy, and he still threw four TDs. You'll probably counter with "but he threw two interceptions", which I will say fine. One of them(the first one, to McCourtey) was his fault, but the second one was a contested ball up to to Torrey Smith which he refused to fight for. Sure, you could argue that "the short pass over the middle was killing them all game, and then we got greedy". But if that's a WR who fights for it, it's at worst an incompletion. 

But this argument is moot. Despite me using logic and reasoning to justify that Flacco is not overrated, you're opinion won't change, and that's fine. But Flacco is a proven commodity and he's won big games. And market value determined that he was worth the money because if he were to hit the market, I wouldn't be surprised if a team like Cleveland, or Houston, or Buffalo ponied up more..  And quite frankly, if those three teams had Flacco they'd probably be playoff caliber. Something that would not happen with Cutler. 

 

But sure, he's overrated. 

Once again, picking the lowest of the denominator.   Let's not mention rest of the highest paid QBs yes? Because that wouldn't be fair for joe

[Ravenseconbeast]

On 6/27/2016 at 6:15 AM, flynismo said:

Well, a little common sense is in order. Flacco rarely underperforms. He did in 2013, and if you want to count last year, then 2015. Which means 6 out of 8 years he did not underperform. Common sense should dictate that if his performance deviates from the established norm, there must be a reason for it, right? Of course, to guys like you who hate him, those reasons are seen as excuses, but that's cool. Your opinion is the vast minority, and is irrelevant since he'll be here five years from now.

How do you measure whether he has underperformed or performed to his worth relative to his pay?  

Who are you measuring and comparing his performances to when you say 6out of 8 years? 

 

Show me the numbers

[Tank 92]

There's no need to compare or measure. When the games/plays count the most there are few I'd rather have under center. 

[Kinda_Dante]

When will people understand that stats don't always tell the story. I really don't care if he ever throws for 4,000 yds or how any TD's he throws for, Matthew Stafford has two 5,000 yard seasons if I'm not mistaken and what does he have to show for it? He does enough for our team to win, he's a team first guy, if they ask him to throw the ball 40 times he will, if they want him to hand it off 30 times he will, whatever it takes to win and that's all you can really ask of your QB.

[LosT_in_TranSlatioN]

13 hours ago, Ravenseconbeast said:

Once again, picking the lowest of the denominator.   Let's not mention rest of the highest paid QBs yes? Because that wouldn't be fair for joe

Romo, Ryan, Stafford, and Dalton all have had much better supporting casts with minimal success. Hell, Romo's deal was so bad it had to get restructured immediately after he got it. And out of all of them the only one I'd put up there with Flacco is Romo. Ryan hasn't done anything, Stafford had a one man wrecking ball to throw to, and Dalton has easily the best offensive personal to throw to in the league but hasn't done crap. 

 

Stats don't matter in some facets. You can put up all the amazing statistics in the world. Doesn't mean crap if you can't win games. Flacco has historically shown up for big games, where as all of the following haven't despite each at one point in their respective careers, having much better supporting casts than Flacco has EVER had. 

 

But sure. Lowest common denominator. 

[ravefan52]

I think most people outside of Baltimore consider Flacco a bad to average QB

[Winchester]

1 hour ago, ravefan52 said:

I think most people outside of Baltimore consider Flacco a bad to average QB

People outside of Baltimore say Joe cool is the best of the average qbs. 

[trevorsteadman]

Joe Flacco isn't considered top 10 outside of Baltimore because he doesn't put up the numbers. It is sad to think that a 36 year old Steve Smith is the best target he has had and that is with having a new offensive coordinator almost every year. 

 

I also don't think any of our running backs have struck fear into defenses since Ray Rice left. There was a good article that I read over the weekend I cannot remember where I saw it but the guy made a great point that many writers put Flacco down because so many bad quarterbacks have won super bowls and that his super bowl MVP means nothing when Flacco threw historic numbers that playoffs. Meanwhile Peyton Manning throws 3 touchdowns and 7 interceptions in the playoffs the Colts won their first Super Bowl with him at quarterback but Manning will go down as one of the best of all time. 

 

If you put Flacco behind a solid O-line, with a great running back, and great stable of receivers, such as Arizona last season, I think Flacco would have put up more yards and touchdowns than Palmer. Yes Palmer had a great season but that has to do a large part with his supporting cast. I think the same with Manning as he has had a very good career but I don't think he is even top 5 when it comes to best quarterbacks of all time because I don't think any quarterback in history has had more of a stable O-line and wide receivers in their career than Manning has.

[JoeyFlex5]

21 hours ago, Ravenseconbeast said:

Once again, picking the lowest of the denominator.   Let's not mention rest of the highest paid QBs yes? Because that wouldn't be fair for joe

Lol ok. Take the rest of the highest paid qbs and compare their success and roster situations. Joe still comes out looking pretty good.  

 

http://overthecap.com/position/quarterback/ 

Look at that... Joe is the highest paid, but of the top 10 he has more playoff success than all but 3(eli, ben, brady) and one can argue that eli has been far less consistent considering he's won 7 less playoff games and appeared considerably less times than Joe and has 4 more seasons to his resume. So you can say of the top 10, Joe is tied for 3rd for overall winning success, and outside of that top 10, it's mostly mediocrity... Coincidence, I think not.

 

The going rate for a franchise qb is enough to cripple your roster, but you're better off with a weak roster and a winning qb than a loaded roster and Mark sanchez, or overpaying for osweiler or fitzpatrick

Edited June 29, 2016 by JoeyFlex5

[JEEPercreepermd]

I laugh when people get up in arms over some NFL network off-season propaganda. 

 These guys are paid big bucks to make incendiary statements about players which turn into ratings and revenue for the NFL. 

 Joe Flacco is an excellent quarterback. But the truth is that the NFL and most fans have fetishized statistics so much that he'll never be recognized as one of the league's top 5 ( which he is) because he doesn't throw for 4500 yards every season. 

 What he DOES do is show up in the biggest of moments, and surprise surprise usually equals or outperforms the "elites" Brady,Ben,Manning ect when we play head to head. 

 Ladies and Gents,don't buy into this nonsense. Flacco is our guy, he's both tough as nails and cool as they come when the pressure is on... In the playoffs in Gilette or Mile High or Pittsburgh ..nobody wants to see January Joe and the Ravens roll into town because they know deep down that we can beat them. Because we have. 

 

 Besides. 

If David Carr calling anybody overrated isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is .

 

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

59 minutes ago, JoeyFlex5 said:

Lol ok. Take the rest of the highest paid qbs and compare their success and roster situations. Joe still comes out looking pretty good.  

 

http://overthecap.com/position/quarterback/ 

Look at that... Joe is the highest paid, but of the top 10 he has more playoff success than all but 3(eli, ben, brady) and one can argue that eli has been far less consistent considering he's won 7 less playoff games and appeared considerably less times than Joe and has 4 more seasons to his resume. So you can say of the top 10, Joe is tied for 3rd for overall winning success, and outside of that top 10, it's mostly mediocrity... Coincidence, I think not.

 

The going rate for a franchise qb is enough to cripple your roster, but you're better off with a weak roster and a winning qb than a loaded roster and Mark sanchez, or overpaying for osweiler or fitzpatrick

Not to mention, the whole "highest paid" thing is almost meaningless. Pretty much every good QB (or player for that matter) that signs a new contract will become the highest paid (at their position if we're talking non-QBs). Flacco was and then was quickly surpassed by Rodgers, Wilson, Cam, Eli, Brees and Ben (extensions for the last 3 I believe) while Kap, Tannehill, and Dalton all got pretty close to Joe money without nearly as much success (Kap had 2 years experience, Tannehills never won and only had 1 decent statistical season, and Daltons deal was before this past season where he was surrounded by one of the best cast of weapons in the NFL).

In the next couple years Luck, Bortles, Carr, Bridgewater, Mariota, and WInston will sign new contracts that blow Flacco's away even if theyre just good enough while Rodgers, Cam and Wilson will get extensions that make his contract look small.

Look at the deals Brock and Bradford got. We're talking about just a couple million less than Flacco.... somewhat insignificant difference when talking about $20m+. If Flacco's deal is too much for you, and you'd prefer to save that couple million per year the caliber of QB you get is FAR inferior.... and it wont be for long that the QBs better than Flacco are making the same money. When Rodgers, Cam and Wilson get their extensions they'll be in the $30m range.

The market will work itself out - as it always does - and Flacco's contract will be perfectly aligned with his play, and probably even a bargain relative to the players who will be making the same. RIght now it seems too much bc Flacco is the most recent franchise QB to ink a new deal, but thats ALWAYS the case.

The team has to look at future - pay what seems to be more now, and in a couple years itll be a bargain.

[rmcjacket23]

23 hours ago, Ravenseconbeast said:

How do you measure whether he has underperformed or performed to his worth relative to his pay?  

Who are you measuring and comparing his performances to when you say 6out of 8 years? 

 

Show me the numbers

Would depend on what numbers you want and how you judge QBs.

If you're looking for individual statistics, you are correct... Joe will not look favorable compared to most of the other highly paid QBs in the league.

Others would tell you that if you're judging a QB by individual statistics, and his team isn't winning football games consistently with those good stats, what's the point of having those good stats? What do they get you? In that regards, there's very few QBs in this league that have the success resume from a winning standpoint that Joe has achieved in the last 8 years.

So what does this all mean? To me, it means neither metric is relevant. It means you shouldn't care about yardage, TD passes, or any of the nonsensical and irrelevant ratings like QBR or Passer rating, because they don't mean anything and they don't correlate positively to wins.

What really matters? Supply and demand, especially when it comes to evaluating players relative to pay.

How likely are you to find an equal or better QB for a significantly cheaper price? Its the only question that matters when it comes to evaluating QBs relative to pay.

In my opinion, the people generally playing this "underperform card", when you actually get down to the dollars and cents, are really haggling over like $2M a year when its all said and done. That's $2M a year on a salary cap of $155M, or 1.2% of the overall salary cap.

So what player/players in this league are going to vault this team to a legit SB contender for that $2M?

[Ravenseconbeast]

2 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Would depend on what numbers you want and how you judge QBs.

If you're looking for individual statistics, you are correct... Joe will not look favorable compared to most of the other highly paid QBs in the league.

Others would tell you that if you're judging a QB by individual statistics, and his team isn't winning football games consistently with those good stats, what's the point of having those good stats? What do they get you? In that regards, there's very few QBs in this league that have the success resume from a winning standpoint that Joe has achieved in the last 8 years.

So what does this all mean? To me, it means neither metric is relevant. It means you shouldn't care about yardage, TD passes, or any of the nonsensical and irrelevant ratings like QBR or Passer rating, because they don't mean anything and they don't correlate positively to wins.

What really matters? Supply and demand, especially when it comes to evaluating players relative to pay.

How likely are you to find an equal or better QB for a significantly cheaper price? Its the only question that matters when it comes to evaluating QBs relative to pay.

In my opinion, the people generally playing this "underperform card", when you actually get down to the dollars and cents, are really haggling over like $2M a year when its all said and done. That's $2M a year on a salary cap of $155M, or 1.2% of the overall salary cap.

So what player/players in this league are going to vault this team to a legit SB contender for that $2M?

Numbers do matter, because they always(almost) correlate how good QB is.   Name me top 5 QBs that has terrible stats and is not overrated because he has the cast around him.   

I could argue, say Russell Wilson has a bad receiving cast, and a horrendous Oline.  But He puts up the numbers.  He figured out a way to connect and make Golden Tate a Golden Tate.  No where else would Tate produce that kind of numbers if he was with another avg QB like Joe.   

The argument people makes here are similar to what people say about struggling *paid* players like Ryan Tannenhill supporters do.  "He is the best QB we've had in a while"  "Who would be your other choice in the FA market right NOW?".    

See the real top talent QBs and see their cast.  Some of them actually has pretty poor cast.   But they figured out a way to put the numbers and help the team and be the true strength of the team.    

[rmcjacket23]

50 minutes ago, Ravenseconbeast said:

Numbers do matter, because they always(almost) correlate how good QB is.   Name me top 5 QBs that has terrible stats and is not overrated because he has the cast around him.   

I could argue, say Russell Wilson has a bad receiving cast, and a horrendous Oline.  But He puts up the numbers.  He figured out a way to connect and make Golden Tate a Golden Tate.  No where else would Tate produce that kind of numbers if he was with another avg QB like Joe.   

The argument people makes here are similar to what people say about struggling *paid* players like Ryan Tannenhill supporters do.  "He is the best QB we've had in a while"  "Who would be your other choice in the FA market right NOW?".    

See the real top talent QBs and see their cast.  Some of them actually has pretty poor cast.   But they figured out a way to put the numbers and help the team and be the true strength of the team.    

1. If you are discussing correlation, correlation occurs between two actual objective measures. Correlating statistics to wins, for example, would be a valid comparison. You can't use correlation as a measurement when you are comparing an objective measure (stats, such as TD passes) to a subjective measure (how good somebody is, because there's no definitive measurement of what "good" is).

2. I don't understand the Golden Tate reference, largely because Golden Tate's numbers got largely better the moment he left Russell Wilson and started playing with Matt Stafford. So either Matt Stafford is vastly underrated, or that argument doesn't hold up.

3. The "best QB we've had in awhile" argument is a poor one, I agree. The latter argument though is legitimately the only argument that matters. In pretty much every possible profession, if you can't find a better replacement (when accounting for the cost of the employee) than the person you currently have, its generally a very poor idea to replace that person.

That's the kind of decision that, if it fails (and there's literally dozens of examples of NFL teams that have done this and failed miserably), basically everybody in the organization gets fired. GM, FO executives, Coaches, Players, etc. Basically everybody but the Owner is no longer employed at that franchise any longer.

So at that point, its a simple risk/reward analysis. 

4. Who are the one's (I want specific names) who have a poor cast? I mean its not like anybody can seriously argue that Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers don't have really talented people to play with. Those theories have been debunked continuously with stats and evidence literally have year.

Some QBs have more weapons than others. Some have better offensive lines, some better defenses, all of which will affect the statistics QBs put up. At the end of the day, all that really matters is whether the QB you have plays well when its most important that he does play well. If you have that guy, your team will generally be good. If you don't, you generally won't. 

Being the strength of the team is great and cute and all, but if you are the strength of a weak team, what exactly is the point of being that strength? 

And again, I go back to my last argument... the people arguing about "overpaid" or "under performed", when they actually quantify that in terms of dollars and cents, the argument comes up looking silly. We know what the floor is for average QBs, and we know that the gap between those guys and the "top tier" QBs isn't really that big in the grand scheme of things. You've got average QBs, both by statistical production and by actual W/L success, that are making $18M a year. That's essentially the floor for a veteran QB who is "average". That's the league setting that price... a simply supply/demand problem.

So knowing that's as low as you can go, you've got to ask yourself whether its worth anybodies time to complain about being $2M a year overpaid on a team that will spend over $150M a year on players.

Edited June 29, 2016 by rmcjacket23

[Tank 92]

2 hours ago, Ravenseconbeast said:

Numbers do matter, because they always(almost) correlate how good QB is.   Name me top 5 QBs that has terrible stats and is not overrated because he has the cast around him.   

I could argue, say Russell Wilson has a bad receiving cast, and a horrendous Oline.  But He puts up the numbers.  He figured out a way to connect and make Golden Tate a Golden Tate.  No where else would Tate produce that kind of numbers if he was with another avg QB like Joe.   

The argument people makes here are similar to what people say about struggling *paid* players like Ryan Tannenhill supporters do.  "He is the best QB we've had in a while"  "Who would be your other choice in the FA market right NOW?".    

See the real top talent QBs and see their cast.  Some of them actually has pretty poor cast.   But they figured out a way to put the numbers and help the team and be the true strength of the team.    

Lol..........Russel Wilson?  What about Doug Baldwin, Jimmy Graham, Jermain Kearse.   'Cmon man!

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

Some added context for the contract stuff....

Luck just signed his extension. 5 years, $75m over the first 3 years, and "slightly less" over the final two according to Ian Rapoport. 

So I'm guessing its something like 5 years, $145m which is an average of $29m/yr.

 

Flacco's $22m aint so bad.

[rmcjacket23]

34 minutes ago, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

Some added context for the contract stuff....

Luck just signed his extension. 5 years, $75m over the first 3 years, and "slightly less" over the final two according to Ian Rapoport. 

So I'm guessing its something like 5 years, $145m which is an average of $29m/yr.

 

Flacco's $22m aint so bad.

I'm thinking its going to be an average of $24-25M a year. I think when they say "slightly less" over the final two, it means slightly less in terms of AAV.

Probably will be a 5 year deal around $120-125M.

I'll never complain about QB pay, but going north of $25M/year is probably a stretch given recent deals and production.

Edit: Updated figure is for 5 years $125M. Already know about the $75M in first three years, so right at the $25M/year AAV mark. Puts him a good $3M above the next closest AAV for the position.

Second edit: The extension excludes this season. So he's under contract for 6 years at just under $140M reportedly. Will average about $23.3M per year over next six years.

Edited June 29, 2016 by rmcjacket23

[Moderator 3]

Details here: 

Colts lock up QB Andrew Luck with record six-year, $140 million deal

http://usat.ly/290UHbZ

[Moderator 3]

Oh, and I don't ever want to hear/read another complaint about Flacco's contract.

[flynismo]

On 6/27/2016 at 11:39 AM, Tank 92 said:

I wasn't going to comment on the banter, but since you did I'll add a tidbit. The horrid offensive performance in 2013 was due to the worst O line and run game in the history of the team. No QB could have performed well under the circumstances.  

Yeah, but that's the "excuses" I was refering to when one's performance deviates from his norm. I was just trying to show that even with the "excuses", he rarely underperforms.

[flynismo]

On 6/28/2016 at 10:31 AM, Ravenseconbeast said:

How do you measure whether he has underperformed or performed to his worth relative to his pay?  

Who are you measuring and comparing his performances to when you say 6out of 8 years? 

 

Show me the numbers

And when I do, the responses will be

A. It is a team sport  

B. Setting team records isn't much of an accomplishment considering our previous QBs (who funny enough, half the people who discredit Flacco makes the exact same arguments for Boller sucking)

C. It was just one postseason

D. What about regular season

E. No matter what argument I make, you will refuse to acknowledge that Flacco is better than nearly all the other QBs making the same money he does

F. Probably will even argue that Luck' contract was a smart one

 

So, I could mention in 2008 that he was 19 yards short from being only the fourth rookie to ever pass for 3k yards, along with the fact that he and Ryan set a new standard and are the reasons teams now expect immediate performance from rookie QBs. I could mention his very solid sophomore campaign in 2009 playing in a run oriented offense with Clayton and 35 year old Mason as starters. I could mention an excellent 2010 season. I could mention how in 2011 Lee Evans and Cundiff likely cost us back to back SBs despite Flacco's stellar play. I could mention 2012 and his historic run and SB MVP. I could mention he has accomplished all he has, with at best, average supporting casts on offense, and no defense for years now. I could remind you how he earned the nickname January Joe. I could remind you that he owns quite a few records.

But for what? He's an overpaid underperformer no matter the facts.

Edited June 30, 2016 by flynismo

[Ravenseconbeast]

7 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

 

2. I don't understand the Golden Tate reference, largely because Golden Tate's numbers got largely better the moment he left Russell Wilson and started playing with Matt Stafford. So either Matt Stafford is vastly underrated, or that argument doesn't hold up.

 

My mistake, I was referring to Doug Baldwin.  Not Golden Tate.   Not sure how I mixed both of them up.  

[Ravenseconbeast]

9 minutes ago, flynismo said:

And when I do, the responses will be

A. It is a team sport  

B. Setting team records isn't much of an accomplishment considering our previous QBs (who funny enough, half the people who discredit Flacco makes the exact same arguments for Boller sucking)

C. It was just one postseason

D. What about regular season

E. No matter what argument I make, you will refuse to acknowledge that Flacco is better than nearly all the other QBs making the same money he does

F. Probably will even argue that Luck' contract was a smart one

 

So, I could mention in 2008 that he was 19 yards short from being only the fourth rookie to ever pass for 3k yards, along with the fact that he and Ryan set a new standard and are the reasons teams now expect immediate performance from rookie QBs. I could mention his very solid sophomore campaign in 2009 playing in a run oriented offense with Clayton and 35 year old Mason as starters. I could mention an excellent 2010 season. I could mention how in 2011 Lee Evans and Cundiff likely cost us back to back SBs despite Flacco's stellar play. I could mention 2012 and his historic run and SB MVP. I could mention he has accomplished all he has, with at best, average supporting casts on offense, and no defense for years now. I could remind you how he earned the nickname January Joe. I could remind you that he owns quite a few records.

But for what? He's an overpaid underperformer no matter the facts.

 

You need to show me where that '6 out 8' reference came out from.   Because the whole conversation you led people to believe(which most people has agreed with you) as fact was baloney.  

[BmoreBird22]

39 minutes ago, Ravenseconbeast said:

My mistake, I was referring to Doug Baldwin.  Not Golden Tate.   Not sure how I mixed both of them up.  

Doug Baldwin is actually a really quality reciever and had a 141.0 rating when targeted by Wilson or some absurd number like that. 

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

2 hours ago, Ravenseconbeast said:

My mistake, I was referring to Doug Baldwin.  Not Golden Tate.   Not sure how I mixed both of them up.  

Doug Baldwins rookie year, before Wilson, was pretty much par for the course with his numbers with Wilson. 

His TD production from that stretch of games in the 2nd half of last season being the only exception. 

You're just seeing the natural progression of a good WR in his own right. Wilson doesn't make him. 

His rookie season was something like 750 yds, 45 catches and 5 TDs. 

 

Btw, Wilson has only thrown for 4K yards once. And it was barely that... He had like 4,015 yds this past year. Aside from that his best was about 3,400. 

Flacco has only thrown less than Wilsons 2nd best twice. His rookie year and last year. 

So how is Russell Wilsons QB play what makes the Seahawks go (ignoring Lynch and their D), but Joe's just.... Meh?

btw only using this arbitrary 4K yardage thing bc you cited it specifically. I think both Wilson and Flacco are far better QBs than several of the guys who regularly put up 4K type numbers. 

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

6 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

I'm thinking its going to be an average of $24-25M a year. I think when they say "slightly less" over the final two, it means slightly less in terms of AAV.

Probably will be a 5 year deal around $120-125M.

I'll never complain about QB pay, but going north of $25M/year is probably a stretch given recent deals and production.

Edit: Updated figure is for 5 years $125M. Already know about the $75M in first three years, so right at the $25M/year AAV mark. Puts him a good $3M above the next closest AAV for the position.

Second edit: The extension excludes this season. So he's under contract for 6 years at just under $140M reportedly. Will average about $23.3M per year over next six years.

Ok yea that makes more sense... But the way it was worded in the original reports indicated otherwise since they didn't say anything about AAV in the first place, combined with reports that talks were nearing $30m/yr, and that these things typically get back loaded where the salary balloons years 4 and 5 with a restructure in mind. 

But thanks for posting the info. 

[LosT_in_TranSlatioN]

$87 million guarenteed... 

I mean, luck is a very, very good QB. I'd rank him ahead of most, Flacco included, but good god

[flynismo]

10 hours ago, Ravenseconbeast said:

 

You need to show me where that '6 out 8' reference came out from.   Because the whole conversation you led people to believe(which most people has agreed with you) as fact was baloney.  

This is exactly what I mean, you guys are so blind and thickheaded. Re-read it, and take note how I listed year after year after year. And I didn't even include 2014. Your inability to read and comprehend does not make my statement baloney, but nice try to deflect anyway.

[flynismo]

7 hours ago, LosT_in_TranSlatioN said:

$87 million guarenteed... 

I mean, luck is a very, very good QB. I'd rank him ahead of most, Flacco included, but good god

I have no clue why anyone would put Luck ahead of Flacco. Luck is obscenely overrated; you'd think the guy has multiple MVPs and a SB or two the way people talk about him. His stats have been very similar to Flacco's, without the accomplishments and records Flacco has achieved.

[trevorsteadman]

55 minutes ago, flynismo said:

I have no clue why anyone would put Luck ahead of Flacco. Luck is obscenely overrated; you'd think the guy has multiple MVPs and a SB or two the way people talk about him. His stats have been very similar to Flacco's, without the accomplishments and records Flacco has achieved.

Luck only put up the numbers because of his strong supporting cast as well. Hilton and Wayne were great compliments and they had two solid tight ends. They also had no running game so they had to throw the ball. Which is why Luck has a bunch of interceptions which is why I agree.

Analysts say Flacco is no longer top 10 because he couldn't get his team into the playoffs 2 of the last 3 years... Then they have always praised Roethlisberger when he had several seasons around .500 without a playoff win a few years ago.

The reason Flacco is not considered elite is because he doesn't put up top 10 fantasy numbers. And that is because in large part because he is not asked to do so. The Ravens want to control the clock for the most part and run as much as they pass. The Ravens trailing as much as they did last season is the reason why Flacco was on pace for 4500 yards which would be his highest by far because they had to throw more to try to come back from behind.