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

[OUravensfan]

Take away 3 specific drops in 2014, there's 30TDs and 4,000 yards. If he starts  the entire bengals game in 2012, there's 4,000 yards if you're assuming he hits his average YPG. If he starts all last year and doesn't get hurt, there's another 4,000 yards.

This argument is a joke and it makes me so angry becasue it exemplifies the difference in looking at stats and actually watching a game.

Would that really make everyone's perception more positive?

Edited June 30, 2016 by OUravensfan

[rmcjacket23]

13 hours ago, Ravenseconbeast said:

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

I mean, that's fine if you mixed them up, but it still makes your argument look bad.

If you are saying that Wilson is the type of QB who greatly elevates his WRs (and I don't even necessarily disagree with this), then how do you explain Golden Tate? 

The truth is that there isn't a single good, great, elite, etc. QB in this league who is out there throwing to garbage players. Not one. Some have better weapons than others, but none of them are making high school players look good.

[rmcjacket23]

10 hours ago, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

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. 

Ironically, most of these contracts are both backloaded AND frontloaded, it just matters which perspective you look at it.

Its generally backloaded from a salary cap standpoint to allow NFL teams to make more moves in the short term AND knowing that the cap is likely to continue to increase well into the future.

But, at the same time, its generally frontloaded in terms of cash paid to the player. Much like Joe's initial contract, there's typically a large signing bonus and possibly more than one bonus. Joe, for example, made $51M of his $120.6M contract he signed in 2013 in the first two years. That's 42% of a 6 year deal paid out in the first two years.

Luck's is pretty similar... he's making $57M in the next two years. That's 41% of a six year deal in the first two years.

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

56 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Ironically, most of these contracts are both backloaded AND frontloaded, it just matters which perspective you look at it.

Its generally backloaded from a salary cap standpoint to allow NFL teams to make more moves in the short term AND knowing that the cap is likely to continue to increase well into the future.

But, at the same time, its generally frontloaded in terms of cash paid to the player. Much like Joe's initial contract, there's typically a large signing bonus and possibly more than one bonus. Joe, for example, made $51M of his $120.6M contract he signed in 2013 in the first two years. That's 42% of a 6 year deal paid out in the first two years.

Luck's is pretty similar... he's making $57M in the next two years. That's 41% of a six year deal in the first two years.

Absolutely correct.

By ballooning i was speaking about the salary/year figures, since its usually non-guaranteed and can be re-worked either by converting some to bonus and spreading across more years, or restructure. Kind of like we saw with Joe's 1st contract where his projected cap hits and salary were around $10-14m the 1st two years, then jumped to $18m and then $26m or something like that. But, like you said, a large portion of the actual cash he received was up front in the bonus and guaranteed money.

So it wasnt entirely out of the realm of possibilities to see Lucks contract go from ~$20m up to then ~$30m in the final 2 years.... which it may still do (i havent seen the exact lay out in terms of bonus prorations, salary in each year, etc...). But yes, most of the guaranteed money they try to front load bc it can be spread across all 6 evenly, and it allows them a clearer picture of cap space available in the here and now knowing what current team needs are. Then the higher, un-guaranteed salaries are typically backloaded bc of the expected cap spikes and bc they know they have plenty of time where things can change drastically (injuries, diminished play, increased play) to then manipulate the contract so it works better for them.

 

Typically, the pieces of info i care about when it comes to a contract are the years, guaranteed money, what the cap hits are in the 1st three years, and then what the dead money is in every year should the player have to be cut. The rest is mostly filler.

[rmcjacket23]

Just now, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

Absolutely correct.

By ballooning i was speaking about the salary/year figures, since its usually non-guaranteed and can be re-worked either by converting some to bonus and spreading across more years, or restructure. Kind of like we saw with Joe's 1st contract where his projected cap hits and salary were around $10-14m the 1st two years, then jumped to $18m and then $26m or something like that. But, like you said, a large portion of the actual cash he received was up front in the bonus and guaranteed money.

So it wasnt entirely out of the realm of possibilities to see Lucks contract go from ~$20m up to then ~$30m in the final 2 years.... which it may still do (i havent seen the exact lay out in terms of bonus prorations, salary in each year, etc...). But yes, most of the guaranteed money they try to front load bc it can be spread across all 6 evenly, and it allows them a clearer picture of cap space available in the here and now knowing what current team needs are. Then the higher, un-guaranteed salaries are typically backloaded bc of the expected cap spikes and bc they know they have plenty of time where things can change drastically (injuries, diminished play, increased play) to then manipulate the contract so it works better for them.

 

Typically, the pieces of info i care about when it comes to a contract are the years, guaranteed money, what the cap hits are in the 1st three years, and then what the dead money is in every year should the player have to be cut. The rest is mostly filler.

Cap hits: 

2016: $18.4M

2017: $19.4M

2018: $24.4M

2019: $27.5M

2020: $28.4M

2021: $21M

Cash impact (what Luck gets paid):

2016: $30M

2017: $27M

2018: $18M

2019: $21.1M

2020: $22M

2021: $21M

Overall, cap structure looks pretty good. Very manageable figures for next two years, biggest "balloon" year over year is a $5M jump from 2017 to 2018. 

Will probably never get to that point, but he would likely be a bargain at a $21M cap number six years from now. You could easily see QBs carrying $30M cap numbers at that point.

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

3 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Cap hits: 

2016: $18.4M

2017: $19.4M

2018: $24.4M

2019: $27.5M

2020: $28.4M

2021: $21M

Cash impact (what Luck gets paid):

2016: $30M

2017: $27M

2018: $18M

2019: $21.1M

2020: $22M

2021: $21M

Overall, cap structure looks pretty good. Very manageable figures for next two years, biggest "balloon" year over year is a $5M jump from 2017 to 2018. 

Will probably never get to that point, but he would likely be a bargain at a $21M cap number six years from now. You could easily see QBs carrying $30M cap numbers at that point.

Yea i was just gonna say - thats not bad at all. No huge jumps, at least not relative to what the cap is expected to do. 

If needed they could easily ride the contract out without having to restructure or extend.... although I expect Luck to play well enough to warrant an extension in year 3 or 4. Good deal for both sides really.

[LosT_in_TranSlatioN]

5 hours 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.

Here's why. He's got T.Y Hilton and Dwayne Allen but outside of him the rest of the offense is kind of hot garbage. Literally their entire team is "give the ball to Andrew Luck and cross your fingers". He has no defense, and very minimal offensive help. Yet he still manages to do fourth quarter comebacks as frequently as Flacco could. 

Here's the difference between Luck, who's actually a very good QB, and Dalton, a QB who's obscenely overrated. You have them switch teams. Put Andrew Luck on a team with a great defense and supporting cast, Cinci probably wins a super bowl within the next five years. Put Dalton on the Colts? They're in contention for a top draft pick in all likelihood. 

[redrum52]

1 hour ago, LosT_in_TranSlatioN said:

Here's why. He's got T.Y Hilton and Dwayne Allen but outside of him the rest of the offense is kind of hot garbage. Literally their entire team is "give the ball to Andrew Luck and cross your fingers". He has no defense, and very minimal offensive help. Yet he still manages to do fourth quarter comebacks as frequently as Flacco could. 

Here's the difference between Luck, who's actually a very good QB, and Dalton, a QB who's obscenely overrated. You have them switch teams. Put Andrew Luck on a team with a great defense and supporting cast, Cinci probably wins a super bowl within the next five years. Put Dalton on the Colts? They're in contention for a top draft pick in all likelihood. 

Exactly.  If Luck was in Flacco or Dalton situation, he'd be looked at much differently, I think.  His spot is awful.  OL is trash, defense bad to mediocre, run game seems non existent and his GM should've been fired 2 years ago.  He's basically been asked to carry that team since he got there.

[redrum52]

6 hours ago, OUravensfan said:

Take away 3 specific drops in 2014, there's 30TDs and 4,000 yards. If he starts  the entire bengals game in 2012, there's 4,000 yards if you're assuming he hits his average YPG. If he starts all last year and doesn't get hurt, there's another 4,000 yards.

This argument is a joke and it makes me so angry becasue it exemplifies the difference in looking at stats and actually watching a game.

Would that really make everyone's perception more positive?

You also add dropped picks and his numbers look worse.  You can't play that what if game.  If they call PI in the divisional vs Den(pick 6) and Rahim Moore plays even half decent coverage a lot of things change.

[flynismo]

2 hours ago, LosT_in_TranSlatioN said:

Here's why. He's got T.Y Hilton and Dwayne Allen but outside of him the rest of the offense is kind of hot garbage. Literally their entire team is "give the ball to Andrew Luck and cross your fingers". He has no defense, and very minimal offensive help. Yet he still manages to do fourth quarter comebacks as frequently as Flacco could. 

Here's the difference between Luck, who's actually a very good QB, and Dalton, a QB who's obscenely overrated. You have them switch teams. Put Andrew Luck on a team with a great defense and supporting cast, Cinci probably wins a super bowl within the next five years. Put Dalton on the Colts? They're in contention for a top draft pick in all likelihood. 

I can accept that argument, I agree with everything you said. At the same time, replace the name Luck with Flacco, and it would still hold true. The difference between those two is that one of them has already accomplished great things, and we are still just talking about the other's potential to do so.

[ellicottraven]

8 minutes ago, flynismo said:

I can accept that argument, I agree with everything you said. At the same time, replace the name Luck with Flacco, and it would still hold true. The difference between those two is that one of them has already accomplished great things, and we are still just talking about the other's potential to do so.

I personally believe Luck is more of a gun slinger in the Favre mold and is a better running QB than Flacco. Otherwise, Flacco imo is a better QB than Luck is. Both lack weapons but Flacco has done a lot more in his career than Luck has thus far. Maybe when we drill down to individual stats, Luck looks better on paper, but where franchise winning or losing is concerned Flacco is just as good if not better than Luck is right now.

[LosT_in_TranSlatioN]

28 minutes ago, flynismo said:

I can accept that argument, I agree with everything you said. At the same time, replace the name Luck with Flacco, and it would still hold true. The difference between those two is that one of them has already accomplished great things, and we are still just talking about the other's potential to do so.

Luck is the only QB in the NFL that has it worse than Flacco in terms of offensive personel. And even then he proves out. Flacco has had a good defense for most of his career but has never had a great #1 WR he can grow with (like Hilton is now for Luck) and Flacco for most of his career has had to put up with below average to average olines and since its young will probably have to do so this year too.

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

32 minutes ago, flynismo said:

I can accept that argument, I agree with everything you said. At the same time, replace the name Luck with Flacco, and it would still hold true. The difference between those two is that one of them has already accomplished great things, and we are still just talking about the other's potential to do so.

Luck also took a 2-14 team to the playoffs his first year, and then a game further each successive year until reaching the AFCCG... without that cast improving much, if at all. And that was with literally no defense, no run game, no offensive line, and a couple weapons.

While Flacco reached similar heights early in his career, at that time (his first couple years) the Ravens D was still pretty dominant, the run game was good-to-great, the O-line was very good (aside from from 2012 regular season, but got corrected on the SB run with McKinnie coming in), and he had decent weapons (Mason, Boldin, Torrey, Heap, Pitta, Rice) at different points.

We've been witnessing a changing of the tides, where the defense has slipped, the run game hasnt been consistent, and the oline has been spotty - to where our success or lack there of has been more and more dependent on Flacco. 2014 is a perfect example of Flacco taking us very far, mainly on the merits of his arm. 

While I agree - in terms of physical tools Flacco and Luck could be similar players. But we havent seen Flacco put an entire team on his back routinely aside from the 2012 playoff run, whereas any success the Colts have had has been a result of Luck almost entirely by himself.

 

And, I think since we've seen very few QBs, especially early in their career, be able to carry a team to playoff success.... his accomplishments get blown up more.

Edited June 30, 2016 by BOLDnPurPnBlacK

[Ravenseconbeast]

16 hours ago, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

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. 

Lynch wasn't even much of a contributor last year and their D got alot more worse last year, yet you can clearly point out Russell was one of the main strength of that team last year.   If I remember they were rotating backup RBs until Rawls came out of the spotlight in the later season. 

And russell's passing stats shouldn't be on par or exceed flacco's passing stats, since Flacco is a traditional QB and Russell is still a hybrid QB that uses his run much more often than traditional QBs.   
 

[rmcjacket23]

8 minutes ago, Ravenseconbeast said:

Lynch wasn't even much of a contributor last year and their D got alot more worse last year, yet you can clearly point out Russell was one of the main strength of that team last year.   If I remember they were rotating backup RBs until Rawls came out of the spotlight in the later season. 

And russell's passing stats shouldn't be on par or exceed flacco's passing stats, since Flacco is a traditional QB and Russell is still a hybrid QB that uses his run much more often than traditional QBs.   
 

So you realize you just made a very valid argument for why statistics aren't necessarily a good measurement of QB performance?

You literally just debated with yourself... and lost.

[Ravenseconbeast]

5 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

I mean, that's fine if you mixed them up, but it still makes your argument look bad.

If you are saying that Wilson is the type of QB who greatly elevates his WRs (and I don't even necessarily disagree with this), then how do you explain Golden Tate? 

The truth is that there isn't a single good, great, elite, etc. QB in this league who is out there throwing to garbage players. Not one. Some have better weapons than others, but none of them are making high school players look good.

I think Russell made Golden Tate and now Doug Balwin to elevate their game to another level.  

I dont remember looking at Baldwin before 2015 and said "yeah he is one of the best WR out there right now"   Nope.   Soon as Tate left, Russell found a way to make a rapport with Baldwin and his production got immensely better.

Baldwin's TD from 2014 to 2015 went from 3 TDs to 14TD in 2015.   Fourteen.   

[rmcjacket23]

16 minutes ago, Ravenseconbeast said:

I think Russell made Golden Tate and now Doug Balwin to elevate their game to another level.  

I dont remember looking at Baldwin before 2015 and said "yeah he is one of the best WR out there right now"   Nope.   Soon as Tate left, Russell found a way to make a rapport with Baldwin and his production got immensely better.

Baldwin's TD from 2014 to 2015 went from 3 TDs to 14TD in 2015.   Fourteen.   

1. Obviously TDs aren't a good measurement of a WR, because they fluctuate dramatically with no real cause. Calvin Johnson's best year of his career by far, 2012, he had 5 TDs. He had 28 in the two years prior to that, and caught 12 the season after that with like 40 less catches and 2 less games. How do you explain how a player who averages 14 a season for the prior two years drops all the way down to 5, while simultaneously catching more passes and getting significantly more yardage? We are talking about a historically great season... and just 5 TD catches.

Frankly, look at most of the really good WRs in this league historically, and look at their TD numbers. Larry Fitzgerald dropped from 13 to 6 one year with no noticeable drop in receptions or yardage. 

A guy like Andre Johnson had ZERO double digit TD seasons in his career, and that's with 5 seasons of over 100 catches and four seasons with over 1,400 yards. Here's a fun fact... in 2013, Andre Johnson caught 109 passes for just over 1,400 yards. A monster season for literally any WR to ever play. He had LESS TD catches than Marlon Brown that year, who had less than half as many catches and had roughly a third of the yardage. I enjoy this stat the most on these boards in particular, because of how many people legitimately thought Marlon Brown was a future stud and that he was a "lock" for double digit TDs in 2014. Two years and 38 catches later, goose egg. Not a single one. And now he gone. And I never got a "boy did I whiff on that one" out of any of those guys.

Does anybody really still think that TD receptions is an accurate measurement of success from a WR? There might not be a single statistic that WRs have less control over than TD receptions.

2. Russell Wilson was also significantly more efficient last year than he ever has been. He threw the ball more often, raised his completion percentage by 5% up to 68% (highly efficient) and was 4th in the league in yards/attempt. And, of course, the Seahawks were far less effective running the ball.

If I were a betting man, I'd be taking the under on 10 TD receptions for Doug Baldwin in 2016, and I'd bet the rest of his production (receptions/yardage) remains relatively stable.

Edited June 30, 2016 by rmcjacket23

[LosT_in_TranSlatioN]

34 minutes ago, Ravenseconbeast said:

I think Russell made Golden Tate and now Doug Balwin to elevate their game to another level.  

I dont remember looking at Baldwin before 2015 and said "yeah he is one of the best WR out there right now"   Nope.   Soon as Tate left, Russell found a way to make a rapport with Baldwin and his production got immensely better.

Baldwin's TD from 2014 to 2015 went from 3 TDs to 14TD in 2015.   Fourteen.   

Marshall Lynch lead the entire Seahawks roster in recieving TDs in 2014 with 4... FOUR. 

 

[Ravenseconbeast]

7 minutes ago, LosT_in_TranSlatioN said:

Marshall Lynch lead the entire Seahawks roster in recieving TDs in 2014 with 4... FOUR. 

 

I dont think you got the point.  But go ahead.

[JoeyFlex5]

49 minutes ago, Ravenseconbeast said:

I think Russell made Golden Tate and now Doug Balwin to elevate their game to another level.  

I dont remember looking at Baldwin before 2015 and said "yeah he is one of the best WR out there right now"   Nope.   Soon as Tate left, Russell found a way to make a rapport with Baldwin and his production got immensely better.

Baldwin's TD from 2014 to 2015 went from 3 TDs to 14TD in 2015.   Fourteen.   

Tds are the absolute worst measurement for a wr. Marlon Brown was top 10 his rookie year wasn't he? Torrey Smith was 2nd in the league one season ago and was absolutely horrible in SF. 

 

Seriously. Don't use tds alone to judge a wr.

[LosT_in_TranSlatioN]

4 minutes ago, Ravenseconbeast said:

I dont think you got the point.  But go ahead.

You failed actually to get the point actually. By your logic, WR TDs are incredibly important, in which rmcjacket23 disproved you on. But to further disprove your claims if he actually made his WRs better as you think(despite the fact that Baldwin has developed into a very good route runner with good hands), then why didn't a WR lead his team in recieving TDs? Lynch was proven during his prime to be a beast, and was a much better RB than Rice was. Despite this, and having a bad oline, Lynch was still very good the season before, in fact the offense had run through Lynch far more than it ever ran through Rice here. So much so, that had the Seahawks had not idiotically decided to throw it at the one, everyone knows that they would have one. 

 

 

As jacket has stated, this season there was Rawls, who played well, but they had to run the ball a lot less. Wilson played well, but that doesn't mean he "made" Baldwin. Baldwin has developed into a good WR and if he went elsewhere he'd still do a good job. TDs aren't the best measurement for this. By your logic Torrey Smith is a #1 WR(he's not), and Andre Johnson wasn't a good WR. 

 

Oh, also by your logic, Flacco made Marlon Brown since Brown had a lot of TDs his rookie season as a UDFA despite the fact that he's been proven to be a pretty bad WR. 

 

Seriously, the "QBs make the WRs" argument is full of crap. QBs can undoubtedly help them improve their statistics but QBs cannot magically make them better route runners or give them better hands.

[OUravensfan]

4 hours ago, LosT_in_TranSlatioN said:

Here's why. He's got T.Y Hilton and Dwayne Allen but outside of him the rest of the offense is kind of hot garbage. Literally their entire team is "give the ball to Andrew Luck and cross your fingers". He has no defense, and very minimal offensive help. Yet he still manages to do fourth quarter comebacks as frequently as Flacco could. 

Here's the difference between Luck, who's actually a very good QB, and Dalton, a QB who's obscenely overrated. You have them switch teams. Put Andrew Luck on a team with a great defense and supporting cast, Cinci probably wins a super bowl within the next five years. Put Dalton on the Colts? They're in contention for a top draft pick in all likelihood. 

Nailed it with the Dalton comparison, what that guy plays with around him is a total joke....In terms of how can you not look good

[OUravensfan]

2 hours ago, redrum52 said:

You also add dropped picks and his numbers look worse.  You can't play that what if game.  If they call PI in the divisional vs Den(pick 6) and Rahim Moore plays even half decent coverage a lot of things change.

No you can't, but two of those dropped TDs led to INTs the next play.

I'm definitely not saying you are, but the Rahim Moore argument to diminish his accomplishment always annoys me because it's ridiculous, sorry a football play happened. What if Ray Lewis tackles Thomas and they never score a go ahead TD, what if Holiday doesn't score twice, what if Brady isn't bailed out with the tuck rule, what if the refs call holding on James Harrison's run back, what if the refs don't call phantom holds on Seattle vs Pittsburgh....

So I pretty much proved your point on the what if game. My favorite what if is what if Flacco had an AJ Green to throw to?

[Ravenseconbeast]

1 hour ago, JoeyFlex5 said:

Tds are the absolute worst measurement for a wr. Marlon Brown was top 10 his rookie year wasn't he? Torrey Smith was 2nd in the league one season ago and was absolutely horrible in SF. 

 

Seriously. Don't use tds alone to judge a wr.

I can't believe no one is reading what I'm writing.  

 

I was putting stock on Russell Wilson.  RUSSELL elevated golden and Baldwin.  Not the other way around.   

 

I was trying to explain that Russell is a 'good QB' BC he knows how to  rapport with whomever wr he has, whether that be Tate or Baldwin.

Not just TDs btw, all category of stats.

Flacco did elevate Marlon's game BC yes he made a rapport with marlon, but it was more of a anamoly since it was for 1year and not on consistent basis.

Edited June 30, 2016 by Ravenseconbeast

[redrum52]

1 hour ago, OUravensfan said:

No you can't, but two of those dropped TDs led to INTs the next play.

I'm definitely not saying you are, but the Rahim Moore argument to diminish his accomplishment always annoys me because it's ridiculous, sorry a football play happened. What if Ray Lewis tackles Thomas and they never score a go ahead TD, what if Holiday doesn't score twice, what if Brady isn't bailed out with the tuck rule, what if the refs call holding on James Harrison's run back, what if the refs don't call phantom holds on Seattle vs Pittsburgh....

So I pretty much proved your point on the what if game. My favorite what if is what if Flacco had an AJ Green to throw to?

As much as I'd love to have a "#1" wr, someone brought up a good point.  How many teams with a true #1, take over the game wr, have been very successful lately?  When they reach that point, usually it's after they've been signed and the amount of money to keep them is insane.  The best way to to do it, I think, is by committee.

 

Just realized how far off topic I got.

Edited June 30, 2016 by redrum52

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

1 hour ago, Ravenseconbeast said:

I can't believe no one is reading what I'm writing.  

 

I was putting stock on Russell Wilson.  RUSSELL elevated golden and Baldwin.  Not the other way around.   

 

I was trying to explain that Russell is a 'good QB' BC he knows how to  rapport with whomever wr he has, whether that be Tate or Baldwin.

Not just TDs btw, all category of stats.

Flacco did elevate Marlon's game BC yes he made a rapport with marlon, but it was more of a anamoly since it was for 1year and not on consistent basis.

I don't think you're reading the responses. 

Everyone agrees Wilson is a good QB. 

BUT - Tate improved in Detroit. Was his rapport with Wilson the reason he had a career year in Detroit with Stafford?

Baldwin had a career year last year (barely 1k yds) but that was mainly due to volume. Every year prior, including his rookie year when Wilson wasn't there, his stats are nearly identical. 700-900 yds, 4-6 TDs. His worst season came with Wilson at QB. Was it the rapport with Wilson that hadn't even developed yet, that made him almost the exact same player his rookie year??

Baldwin and Tate are good WRs by themselves. The fact that you didn't notice Baldwin was putting up the same stats that you just happen to be noticing now, doesn't make him a better player all the sudden. 

He doesn't make the WRs and they don't make him. It's a reciprocal relationship. Flacco helped Torrey to a better statistical season than Baldwin had last year in 2013. He helped SSS rebound to being an ELITE WR. His production was near tops in the league two season in a row prior to injuries. Aiken became a household name last year with Joe throwing the ball. 

All those guys are good in their own right. Wilsons not doing anything more for his receivers than Joe is doing for his. If anything Joe took less talented guys like Marlon and Aiken and got similar production to what Wilson got out of Baldwin and Tate. 

I think we know who anyone would rather have in that group. 

[trevorsteadman]

48 minutes ago, redrum52 said:

As much as I'd love to have a "#1" wr, someone brought up a good point.  How many teams with a true #1, take over the game wr, have been very successful lately?  When they reach that point, usually it's after they've been signed and the amount of money to keep them is insane.  The best way to to do it, I think, is by committee.

 

Just realized how far off topic I got.

I think the last 3 super bowl winning teams have had #1 receivers. Demaryius Thomas, Rob Gronkowski/Julian Edelman (both can really be), and Golden Tate when on the Seahawks all are considered #1 options. 

To be honest though Steve Smith is in my opinion at least last season a #1 receiver. He was on pace for 1500 yards with a missed game. I just wish the team had a younger option that can be relied upon. 

[ravensdan]

34 minutes ago, trevorsteadman said:

I think the last 3 super bowl winning teams have had #1 receivers. Demaryius Thomas, Rob Gronkowski/Julian Edelman (both can really be), and Golden Tate when on the Seahawks all are considered #1 options. 

To be honest though Steve Smith is in my opinion at least last season a #1 receiver. He was on pace for 1500 yards with a missed game. I just wish the team had a younger option that can be relied upon. 

Other than Gronk 2015 Smith was better than all of those guys. Question is can he and Joe return to that level right away. That's the difference weather this team is a contender or not. 

[flynismo]

3 hours ago, ravensdan said:

Question is can he and Joe return to that level right away. That's the difference weather this team is a contender or not. 

I think that's the least of our worries...the addition of Wallace and Watson is going to take a big load off of SSS, and the rest of the guys as well. I don't think any one guy will have a particularly impressive season the way SSS was on pace for last year. And if Perriman actually sees the field this year, things will get very interesting indeed.

[JoeyFlex5]

5 hours ago, Ravenseconbeast said:

I can't believe no one is reading what I'm writing.  

 

I was putting stock on Russell Wilson.  RUSSELL elevated golden and Baldwin.  Not the other way around.   

 

I was trying to explain that Russell is a 'good QB' BC he knows how to  rapport with whomever wr he has, whether that be Tate or Baldwin.

Not just TDs btw, all category of stats.

Flacco did elevate Marlon's game BC yes he made a rapport with marlon, but it was more of a anamoly since it was for 1year and not on consistent basis.

How did Russell elevate them when one has been far better elsewhere and the other has produced the same average numbers in steady reliable fashion with him and still did as a youngin before him.. Makes no sense. Baldwin's rookie season prior to wilson was wayyyy better than the first year Wilson came, and that rookie year matched all but this outlier in 2015.

As far as flacco to marlon, he elevated Marlon because he's a good qb. We had no run game and a horrible line and wr corps and a TE group consisting of Dallas Clark and Dallas Clark.. He was flinging spoonfuls into closed mouths and they still got fed. As God awful as we were that year, do you forget that we were still a game out of a playoff spot and we may have made it had flacco not been seriously injured.. 

 

Flacco, as inconsistent as he's been at times, always has been and always will be the sole reason we are competitive. We were in nearly every game we lost this year until the last second, it was literally a historic feat, one different play per game could've had us at 13-3 And that was largely because of flacco And his ability to slowly and steadily bring us back from an early deficit and lead late game drives. We choked in the red zone when he depended on his guys and they failed him, but he still made the throws necessary to win a lot of games and we were let down for other reasons. 

 

You're flacco bashing has become memeworthy at this point.