NFL Offseason/Coaching Carousel/non-playoff talk

[Guest]

Can someone let me know what Flacco's playoff record was coming into 2012? I am not sure I believe that Flacco can "turn it up" or whatever once the playoffs start.

 

 

It is so hard to evaluate players in football. Was it the change in game planning when Caldwell came on that switched the lightbulb for Flacco? Or was it just a hot streak? I ask because while he clearly led the team to victory this past playoff season, he has been a thoroughly average starting QB during his career. As with any sport, I'd tend to evaluate players based on the larger body of work than what they did in a limited sample.

 

From a PR perspective, the Ravens pretty much had to re-sign Flacco coming off the super bowl victory. But I tend to agree with Dew that they are going to seriously regret that contract in coming years.

[jersey cubs fan]

 

I was using the evaluation method you support - they won games in the playoffs. I don't evaluate that way, so I don't think Sanchez and Smith are as good as Flacco.

 

Now you are just being an idiot for the sake of being an idiot.

[jersey cubs fan]

It is so hard to evaluate players in football.

 

This isn't baseball.

 

You can't judge individual stats alone because guys aren't facing one on one battles with the same competition as the rest of the league.

 

Dew thinks quarterbacks are like starting pitchers.

[jersey cubs fan]

From a PR perspective, the Ravens pretty much had to re-sign Flacco coming off the super bowl victory. But I tend to agree with Dew that they are going to seriously regret that contract in coming years.

 

I doubt it.

 

The presence of a QB like Flacco will allow the team to at least remain decent in the coming years, and the fact that this is the NFL and not MLB means they can just release him years before it actually expires if they want to.

[Banedon]

Part of this is the CBA. Part of what they were trying to accomplish with the rookie payscale is to reward players that have had success vs rewarding rookies. This hurts the RG3's, Wilson's and Kaepernicks of the world, but average to above average QB's that hit free agency at the right time are going to reap the rewards of the team having more money to spend on vets instead of spending $39mil in guaranteed money over 3 years to the Jamarcuss Russell's of the world.

 

Flacco might be at or near the highest paid QB's at the moment, but wait a year or two....guys like Aaron Rodgers are gonna start getting paid, and the "average" QB price is going to move....and suddenly Flacco won't look like he's as overpaid anymore

[dew1679666265]

I'm done with this argument. It's veered into the ridiculous.

 

I'm not intentionally trying to be ridiculous, I'm simply pointing out the flaws that come with trying to evaluate QBs based on how much their team wins. They play a significant role, but just because a team won a lot of games, went deep in the playoffs and maybe even won a Super Bowl, it doesn't automatically make their QB a great (or even good) player.

[Banedon]

I'm done with this argument. It's veered into the ridiculous.

 

I'm not intentionally trying to be ridiculous, I'm simply pointing out the flaws that come with trying to evaluate QBs based on how much their team wins. They play a significant role, but just because a team won a lot of games, went deep in the playoffs and maybe even won a Super Bowl, it doesn't automatically make their QB a great (or even good) player.

 

It makes them worth a lot of money, especially if they are a free agent immediately following a Super Bowl win. I'm sorry if you don't understand that.

[dew1679666265]

It is so hard to evaluate players in football.

 

This isn't baseball.

 

You can't judge individual stats alone because guys aren't facing one on one battles with the same competition as the rest of the league.

 

Dew thinks quarterbacks are like starting pitchers.

 

I don't think they're like pitchers, but I do think the core of evaluation should always be a player's individual performance. Other things should be taken into account, but the root of the evaluation should always be individual performance.

[dew1679666265]

I'm done with this argument. It's veered into the ridiculous.

 

I'm not intentionally trying to be ridiculous, I'm simply pointing out the flaws that come with trying to evaluate QBs based on how much their team wins. They play a significant role, but just because a team won a lot of games, went deep in the playoffs and maybe even won a Super Bowl, it doesn't automatically make their QB a great (or even good) player.

 

It makes them worth a lot of money, especially if they are a free agent immediately following a Super Bowl win. I'm sorry if you don't understand that.

 

I do understand that his demands went up after the Super Bowl win and somebody would have paid that. But that doesn't make it the right decision for the Ravens to make.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm done with this argument. It's veered into the ridiculous.

 

I'm not intentionally trying to be ridiculous, I'm simply pointing out the flaws that come with trying to evaluate QBs based on how much their team wins. They play a significant role, but just because a team won a lot of games, went deep in the playoffs and maybe even won a Super Bowl, it doesn't automatically make their QB a great (or even good) player.

 

It makes them worth a lot of money, especially if they are a free agent immediately following a Super Bowl win. I'm sorry if you don't understand that.

 

I do understand that his demands went up after the Super Bowl win and somebody would have paid that. But that doesn't make it the right decision for the Ravens to make.

 

So your stance remains they should have let him walk and traded for Colt McCoy.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm done with this argument. It's veered into the ridiculous.

 

I'm not intentionally trying to be ridiculous, I'm simply pointing out the flaws that come with trying to evaluate QBs based on how much their team wins. They play a significant role, but just because a team won a lot of games, went deep in the playoffs and maybe even won a Super Bowl, it doesn't automatically make their QB a great (or even good) player.

 

Nobody is trying to evaluate a QB based on how much their team wins, except for you.

[dew1679666265]

I'm done with this argument. It's veered into the ridiculous.

 

I'm not intentionally trying to be ridiculous, I'm simply pointing out the flaws that come with trying to evaluate QBs based on how much their team wins. They play a significant role, but just because a team won a lot of games, went deep in the playoffs and maybe even won a Super Bowl, it doesn't automatically make their QB a great (or even good) player.

 

It makes them worth a lot of money, especially if they are a free agent immediately following a Super Bowl win. I'm sorry if you don't understand that.

 

I do understand that his demands went up after the Super Bowl win and somebody would have paid that. But that doesn't make it the right decision for the Ravens to make.

 

So your stance remains they should have let him walk and traded for Colt McCoy.

 

Since when are those the only 2 options?

[dew1679666265]

I'm done with this argument. It's veered into the ridiculous.

 

I'm not intentionally trying to be ridiculous, I'm simply pointing out the flaws that come with trying to evaluate QBs based on how much their team wins. They play a significant role, but just because a team won a lot of games, went deep in the playoffs and maybe even won a Super Bowl, it doesn't automatically make their QB a great (or even good) player.

 

Nobody is trying to evaluate a QB based on how much their team wins, except for you.

 

I'm not the one who keeps bringing up that Flacco won a Super Bowl.

[Banedon]

I'm done with this argument. It's veered into the ridiculous.

 

I'm not intentionally trying to be ridiculous, I'm simply pointing out the flaws that come with trying to evaluate QBs based on how much their team wins. They play a significant role, but just because a team won a lot of games, went deep in the playoffs and maybe even won a Super Bowl, it doesn't automatically make their QB a great (or even good) player.

 

Nobody is trying to evaluate a QB based on how much their team wins, except for you.

 

I'm not the one who keeps bringing up that Flacco won a Super Bowl.

 

Ok, but nobody is saying that's the sole factor for determining whether or not he's worth his contract. Which is the basis of your Smith/Sanchez arguments.

[Guest]

I'm done with this argument. It's veered into the ridiculous.

 

I'm not intentionally trying to be ridiculous, I'm simply pointing out the flaws that come with trying to evaluate QBs based on how much their team wins. They play a significant role, but just because a team won a lot of games, went deep in the playoffs and maybe even won a Super Bowl, it doesn't automatically make their QB a great (or even good) player.

 

Nobody is trying to evaluate a QB based on how much their team wins, except for you.

 

I'm not the one who keeps bringing up that Flacco won a Super Bowl.

 

Ok, but nobody is saying that's the sole factor for determining whether or not he's worth his contract. Which is the basis of your Smith/Sanchez arguments.

Let's not get overly focused on what was pretty much a one-time statement in response to others such as sulley talking about how only teams with elite or near-elite QB's can win these days.

 

Dew has presented plenty of reasons for why he thinks Flacco is not the type of QB you give a huge contract.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm not the one who keeps bringing up that Flacco won a Super Bowl.

 

Yes, you are the one who keeps bringing up the notion that Flacco is average and is only getting paid because he won. You keep saying it. Most everybody else understands the reality of the NFL, the CBA and the implications for quality starting quarterbacks.

 

You keep ignoring that he's probably in the top 15 of the 100 or so NFL quarterbacks, well above average, and that he's done more than win the super bowl. You compare him to Sanchez, who freaking sucks balls, and Smith, who was replaced by a rookie because everybody who has a clue knows he's not any good.

[jersey cubs fan]

Dew has presented plenty of reasons for why he thinks Flacco is not the type of QB you give a huge contract.

 

He has not.

 

He's provided one, his misguided notion that Flacco is some replacable average starting pitcher.

[jersey cubs fan]

Since when are those the only 2 options?

 

Since every better option is already signed by their team and unavailable in trade.

[Banedon]

Dew has presented plenty of reasons for why he thinks Flacco is not the type of QB you give a huge contract.

 

Sorry Tim, but they're not good enough reasons.

[Magnetic Curses]

Newsome doesn't make many bad decisions, but paying a declining QB who's never shown the ability to post great numbers as much as the best QBs in the league is a bad decision.

 

because you're the highest paid doesn't mean you're the best, that's just silly. you're framing the argument as if situations remain static and quarterbacks are slotted based on statistical performance.

 

flacco is a good quarterback, which is a rare bird. maybe the ravens should have taken the plunge and gone out into that wilderness the titans are in? while i'm sure you'd appreciate that, it shouldn't happen. letting good quarterbacks get away without a good replacement is the worst thing anyone can do to a team.

[Magnetic Curses]

Let's not get overly focused on what was pretty much a one-time statement in response to others such as sulley talking about how only teams with elite or near-elite QB's can win these days.

 

what is untrue about my statement? forget about winning with any consistency.

 

Dew has presented plenty of reasons for why he thinks Flacco is not the type of QB you give a huge contract.

 

lol

[Magnetic Curses]

Can someone let me know what Flacco's playoff record was coming into 2012? I am not sure I believe that Flacco can "turn it up" or whatever once the playoffs start.

 

why before 2012? his record is 9-4 in the playoffs right now. i'm not saying he can "turn it up", but he's a quarterback that has had postseason success, a lot of it.

[sneakypower]

slightly tangential, but what's really sad (to me)

 

cap hits (source: http://www.spotrac.com/nfl)

 

Matthew Stafford: $20M, $19M, $17M, (FA)

Joe Flacco: $7M, $15M, $15M, $29M, $31M

 

Stafford has $41M guaranteed, and Flacco has $29M; i don't know if he'll make it past 2015 as a Raven

 

but Flacco actually earned a Super Bowl to get paid like he did, Stafford just got a Brinks truck of cash simply for having potential

 

FFFFFUUUUUUU old CBA

[Banedon]

slightly tangential, but what's really sad (to me)

 

cap hits (source: http://www.spotrac.com/nfl)

 

Matthew Stafford: $20M, $19M, $17M, (FA)

Joe Flacco: $7M, $15M, $15M, $29M, $31M

 

Stafford has $41M guaranteed, and Flacco has $29M; i don't know if he'll make it past 2015 as a Raven

 

but Flacco actually earned a Super Bowl to get paid like he did, Stafford just got a Brinks truck of cash simply for having potential

 

FFFFFUUUUUUU old CBA

 

lol, yep. We can talk about Flacco's contract in overall dollars, but truth is that those last couple of years are unlikely to be paid out as-is.

[sneakypower]

you want to talk about hindering your ability to put a complete roster out there?

 

cap hits, next 3 years combined

Flacco: $37M

Suh: $45M