Jump to content
North Side Baseball

dew1679666265

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    20,547

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

Joomla Posts 1

Chicago Cubs Videos

Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking

News

2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

Guides & Resources

2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

The Chicago Cubs Players Project

2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker

Blogs

Events

Forums

Store

Gallery

Everything posted by dew1679666265

  1. dew1679666265
    Apparently yes, though I could have sworn I'd always seen it as Johnathan. Maybe I was just assuming that 'a' was in there.
  2. dew1679666265
    I PM'd Vanilla Ice.
  3. dew1679666265
    I haven't used FO a ton, but I've liked most of what I've seen. They nail the Titans players pretty well, though there's the occassional questionable ranking (as there is with almost any advanced stat group in any sport).
  4. dew1679666265
    I PM'd Splendid Splinter.
  5. dew1679666265
    That's the biggest reason for optimism with Flacco, but I'd be concerned about dropping that kind of money on a guy based on a 5 (or so) game sample.
  6. dew1679666265
    Thanks, that does make it a bit more palatable. 20% of the cap (if it doesn't increase much in 3 years) is still a pretty big deal, but it is just a one-year thing.
  7. dew1679666265
    Ah, thanks. It wasn't on his player page and I didn't dig around for it. No worries. You probably ignored my post on the previous page where I linked it already. :) Haha, saw that post after I made mine and was working my way back to it. I just responded to the latter part of that post, actually.
  8. dew1679666265
    That's a legitimate argument and one I held to for the first few years of his career (really liked him coming out of college). But what's concerning is that they've added weapons the past couple of years and opened it up for him more and his numbers in 2011/2012 are worse than in 2009/2010.
  9. dew1679666265
    Ah, thanks. It wasn't on his player page and I didn't dig around for it.
  10. dew1679666265
    Now we get to it. Like I said, I really like that they kept him because I have no doubt Ozzie Newsome would have replaced him with somebody about as good for less and made the overall team better. I have no issue admitting players/coaches/administrators on teams I hate are good at what they do - Newsome is the best GM in the NFL and Bill Belichick is the best coach. If I could have either on the Titans I'd take them in a second.
  11. dew1679666265
    I'm not familiar with that site or those rankings, but those are the best I've seen Flacco ranked. I usually use Football Outsiders and they have him ranked 14th (2009), 15th (2010), 19th (2011). They don't have 2012 up yet, but going off traditional stats he was better in 2012 than 2011, but worse than 2010.
  12. dew1679666265
    That's a good question and one I'm not sure what the answer is. My thoughts are that if he's guaranteed money through 2018, the cap hit would go through that season (meaning two years of cap hits and the second being worse than the first). If I'm wrong, though, it makes the contract a bit more palatable, though it doesn't make Flacco any better.
  13. dew1679666265
    It typically means that you're one of the better players at your position in comparison to your peers (i.e. they don't take into account the bottom feeders of QBs who make the league minimum). Based on both traditional and advanced metrics, Flacco is not that. As someone who hates the Ravens, I love that they brought Flacco back because I think it's going to hurt them in future years. And the Titans are in their current wilderness not because of poor QB play (it's not helping), but because Bud Adams is doing his best Al Davis impersonation and our current coaching staff can't coach. We could have Peyton Manning in his prime in Nashville and we'd probably still miss the playoffs.
  14. dew1679666265
    2 problems with this (at least): 1) I'm certainly not advocating cutting him now, so who is out there right now is pretty irrelevant. 2) When did they quit holding the draft? Last I checked there are some QBs in it - it's a down draft, but there's still some real potential in there (especially in the middle rounds).
  15. dew1679666265
    I've never used the term "bad" in reference to Flacco. He's average when it comes to legitimate QBs in the league.
  16. dew1679666265
    $24 million in dead cap space isn't onerous? That's almost 20% of the current cap that they'd be paying for a guy to not play for them... and they'd still have to go find another QB (or pay the one they'd have). The only way I see this contract not being onerous is if something clicked when Jim Caldwell took over and he gets back to at least the 2009/2010 levels of performance or better through the length of the deal.
  17. dew1679666265
    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. Here's my first post that started this discussion. Please point out to me in that post where I said anything at all about the Super Bowl: Any comment I have made about the Super Bowl has been in response to you, sulley, or Banedon saying that he deserves the contract because he won the Super Bowl this year, all the while completely dismissing (or ignoring) the stats I post to show just how average Flacco has been. I will make one change to my argument, based on what Tim said earlier. When I refer to an "average" QB, I'm not including the bottom feeding drecks of players floating around who can't hold a job. I'm talking about starting QBs and some of the backups. I'm not arguing that Flacco should not be a starter in the league (which, if he were the 50th best QB in the NFL, he wouldn't be worth being a starter), simply that among the legitimate QBs out there, he's pretty average and there's nothing particularly special about him.
  18. dew1679666265
    I PM'd cubbyvirus.
  19. dew1679666265
    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.
  20. dew1679666265
    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?
  21. dew1679666265
    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.
  22. dew1679666265
    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.
  23. dew1679666265
    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.
  24. dew1679666265
    Alex Smith played at a very high level in the playoffs. Mark Sanchez did as well. Should the Chiefs and Jets make them two of the highest paid QBs in the NFL too? Or do only Super Bowl rings matter when evaluating QBs? I really don't understand how you determine which QBs are good and which aren't since it's apparently not based on statistics over the course of a career. Alex Smith and Mark Sanchez suck. Flacco does not. You've make it clear you don't understand how to determine a good QB. 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.
  25. dew1679666265
    That is asinine. You have some sort of weird hangup about Flacco. His stats are what they are. I don't have a problem with him.
×
×
  • Create New...