Options
Joe Flacco is paid like an elite QB, but is he?
CNote
Posts: 2,070 ✭
in Sports Talk
I'm aware the Ravens beat the 49ers and are the current champions. But does Joe Flacco deserved to be mentioned with Manning, Brady, Brees, and Rodgers unless we are talking about Super Bowl winning QBs? His contract looks to be $20 mil per year, and unless I'm mistaken, it has the potential to cripple the Ravens over the next 6 years and greatly limit their ability to return to the Super Bowl due to limitations of acquiring/improving the roster via free agency.
Maybe they could sign Randy Moss for cheap?
Maybe they could sign Randy Moss for cheap?
0
Comments
<< <i>Brady is a cheating sheat. Brees supports hard core illegal clipping. Rodgers has nothing against him. Flacco though. no on any of them. >>
Congratulations!!!!
You have just been awarded the prize for the dumbest post ever concerning NFL talk!
Oh to answer the OP's question, it dont matter if Flacco is "elite" or not he is NOT however he stepped it up in the playoffs with an incredible run and pretty much single handedly brought the Trophy home for Baltimore. That being said he will get a huge payday case closed have a nice day.
<< <i>Brady is a cheating sheat. Brees supports hard core illegal clipping. Rodgers has nothing against him. Flacco though. no on any of them. >>
From the guy who thought NASCAR conspired to give Danica the top spot in qualifying, nothing this guy says should be considered surprising.
Flacco is cashing in at the right time, but no, he definitely doesn't deserve to be paid like a top 5 QB, because, simply, he's not. However, he's the best QB the Ravens can and will be able to get, so he's getting paid. In a few years, when he can't measure up to the ridiculous sums of money he gets paid, he will be drummed out of Baltimore.
<< <i>
<< <i>Brady is a cheating sheat. Brees supports hard core illegal clipping. Rodgers has nothing against him. Flacco though. no on any of them. >>
Congratulations!!!!
You have just been awarded the prize for the dumbest post ever concerning NFL talk!
Oh to answer the OP's question, it dont matter if Flacco is "elite" or not he is NOT however he stepped it up in the playoffs with an incredible run and pretty much single handedly brought the Trophy home for Baltimore. That being said he will get a huge payday case closed have a nice day. >>
Another Patriots fan that won't ever admit the cheating I gather ?
<< <i>Brady is a cheating sheat. Brees supports hard core illegal clipping. Rodgers has nothing against him. Flacco though. no on any of them. >>
Some valid points here. Brady is a darn good QB but before I rate him with the best I'd like to see him win after spygate. The bounty scandal does take some luster off the Saints win as well.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
Good for him, though - he capitalized on his opportunity at the perfect time.
<< <i>The Ravens in just 16 years of playing have won 2 super bowls, that one every 8 years...the only other team in pro football that tops that is Pittsburgh with a super bowl winning percentage of a trophy every 7.83 years. The pats average one every 15+ years, but they do have one of the best percentages of losing super bowls at losing one every 9.4 years! Ranks up there with my raiders lol >>
Please dont mention the Raiders in the same sentence as the Patriots, the Raiders are an absolute joke of a franchise.
<< <i>
<< <i>Brady is a cheating sheat. Brees supports hard core illegal clipping. Rodgers has nothing against him. Flacco though. no on any of them. >>
Some valid points here. Brady is a darn good QB but before I rate him with the best I'd like to see him win after spygate. The bounty scandal does take some luster off the Saints win as well. >>
Ok maybe with your third grade NFL knowledge it might make sense but for most of us that sentence makes zero sense, none whatsoever.
I mean really what the F does this even mean "Brady is a cheating sheat. Brees supports hard core illegal clipping. Rodgers has nothing against him. Flacco though. no on any of them" HUH???????????
Both of you are morons
<< <i>Us being morons is not possible.. neither of us are Patriots fans so we're totally cool people just for that fact. >>
YAWN
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
<< <i>Moron huh? I'll have you know I almost graduated high school. >>
And Im very suprised to hear that
<< <i>There is no chance there aren't anger management issues with some of these red sox fans. >>
I will give you that, however the fact remains the same that your opening post was as stupid as they come.
I understand your jealous of the Super Bowl wins by the Pats and your team/s suck but please try and bring something more to the table than your moronic drivel.
<< <i>There is no chance there aren't anger management issues with some of these red sox fans. >>
Kind of ironic coming from a guy who claims to HATE a particular female driver simply for having the audacity to want to race NASCAR.
Dave
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Brady is a cheating sheat. Brees supports hard core illegal clipping. Rodgers has nothing against him. Flacco though. no on any of them. >>
Some valid points here. Brady is a darn good QB but before I rate him with the best I'd like to see him win after spygate. The bounty scandal does take some luster off the Saints win as well. >>
Ok maybe with your third grade NFL knowledge it might make sense but for most of us that sentence makes zero sense, none whatsoever.
I mean really what the F does this even mean "Brady is a cheating sheat. Brees supports hard core illegal clipping. Rodgers has nothing against him. Flacco though. no on any of them" HUH???????????
Both of you are morons >>
Good god o mighty, morons indeed. I think 4 Division Championships, 2 AFC championships and 1 other AFC championship appearance constitutes "winning after spygate".
Super Bowl XX (1-26-86) -- Chicago 46, New England 10.
Super Bowl XXXI (1-26-97) -- Green Bay 35, New England 21.
Super Bowl XLII (2-3-08) -- New York Giants 17, New England 14.
Super Bowl XLVI (2-5-12) -- New York Giants 21, New England 17
Any other team that lame besides my Bills with their four in a row ? Flacco though, I would NOT put him above Brady. Brady learned a lot from having those illegal practiice films.
<< <i>The New England Patriots have lost four of their seven Super Bowl appearances:
Super Bowl XX (1-26-86) -- Chicago 46, New England 10.
Super Bowl XXXI (1-26-97) -- Green Bay 35, New England 21.
Super Bowl XLII (2-3-08) -- New York Giants 17, New England 14.
Super Bowl XLVI (2-5-12) -- New York Giants 21, New England 17
Any other team that lame besides my Bills with their four in a row ? Flacco though, I would NOT put him above Brady. Brady learned a lot from having those illegal practiice films. >>
Now I get it! Your jealous of the Patriots kicking your Bills around year after year! Oh and its gotta suck losing those 4SB's in a row, only a pathetic organization like the Buffalo Bills could do that
It's fun turning Patriots men in to little sensitive name calling psychos. Very easy to do so. I bet you work at a job where you can be all big and mean to people.
I've written enough on the merits of Brady on this boards. No need to rehash...it is all up there already. If one can't recognize that Brady deserves the highest praise for his ability as a QB, and that he is among the best of the best all time, then that person isn't worth more than a few sentences, if that.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
Ok, were back to judging the QB's based on their big game ability. Aside from the fact that there are a million variables that are completely out of the QB's control that will determine whether they actually will win a Super Bowl, and as a result, it really is foolish to judge an individual based on that TEAM accomplishment...we also have in question what exactly is a big game.
I guess winning an AFC championship game is not a big game based on what people are saying on here. First, Brady and the Patriots did win Three Super Bowls. Those are simply being dismissed. Ok, lets dismiss them for a moment.
We know based on common sense that there are a million variables out of the QB's control that will determine whether or not they will or will not win a Super Bowl. But, I want to talk about those supposed 'big game' ability players.
Everyone in the world 'knows' that Joe Montana is a big game QB, and they use his 4-0 Super BOwl record as evidence. THat is a wonderful accomplishment for the 49ers. However, does that mean Montana is a 'big game' player? Does he have some ability that he draws upon to use when it matters most? Does he just rise to the occasion when it matters most? That is what the big game advocates claim. Or the reverse, if a guy isn't able to go 4-0 in Super Bowls then he is not big game, nor doesn't have big game ability.
If Montana does have that ability, then there are two burning questions;
1)Why on earth doesn't he just use that ability all the time and basically go undefeated every season, or at least 15-1 to account for bad luck? Is he stupid? Since the guys who judge QB's based on SUper BOwl records have already dismissed the variables that go into winning a Super Bowl, then those variables should also be dismissed for Montana when he fails to draw on his big game ability and go 16-0 every season. Doesn't Montana realize that going 16-0 gives them home field and a bye? Why not play big game every game?
Oh, I know exactly what people are going to say. They will say that it isn't possible to go full tilt through a whole season like that, and that it is only possible to draw upon those emotions during big games, hence not being able to go 16-0. Ok, so that would make him lazy and not giving 100%. I recall another thread degrading Randy Moss for not giving 100% all the time, and he was ripped hard for that! SO, either Montana is not giving 100% to go 16-0 every year, or he is lazy....or going 4-0 in the Super Bowl doesn't tell you squat on whether he is a big game player, and that the variables simply fell in the right direction for a great QB. You choose.
2)For those who will dance around that first question(and they will dance because the only outcome is that he is lazy or the 4-0 Super Bowl record does not show squat that he is a big game player...and neither of those are outcomes the 'big game' backers are willing to accept). THey would rather live in fairy tale land, so they will dance around it.
But for those who will dance around that first question, I have to ask you, if Montana was such a big game player by evidence of his 4-0 Super Bowl record, then why did he only summon enough strength and courage to only go 4-3 in league championship series? Did he view those games as unimportant? Did he not realize that winning a league championship game puts them in the Super Bowl and give him a chance to 'add to his 4-0 Super Bowl record'? Or, more on topic for the player in question, why did Flacco only summon enough strength and courage to only go 1-2 in Conference championship games?
The big game pro player is just rubbish to feed into the hero worship need fans need...kind of the same reason why Batman and Spiderman movies are so popular
That would be my objective view on this.
<< <i>Objectivity, can't you just let some dudes battle about who's team sucks more verse jumping in and ruining things with all this 'objective studious dorkoid I look at all angles of things in order to protect you from being wrong and my thinking is always right nonsense blabber. Possibly join the shut your pie hole club.
That would be my objective view on this. >>
Look at who is getting sensitive, Objectivity has more knowledge than most and types it out so even YOU can understand him. If you cant stand the heat of a sportstalk message board then dont bother typing your rubbish in.
As far as my job is concerned it has nothing to do with anything here, your either a big boy and can handle the banter or your not.
I dont mind you digging deep into your thoughts to try and figure out a good comeback or find some way to rag on me but try a bit better next time and dont talk out of your a$$.
I get it You hate Brady and the Patriots but if you could trade the history between my Pats and your Bills you would do so in a heartbeat. Case Closed on that..
<< <i>'Patriots suck' That just came out of my *ss. It just happens. >>
Yep and while you were wiping you were wishing that your hapless Bills could get just ONE Super Bowl win!
<< <i>Objectivity,
You ask why Montana didn't win repeatedly as some sort of argument on this board against people who think he is the best or DOES have that "big game" ability. We all know that's a silly question on it's face so I would kindly ask that you give it a rest. If "big game" ability didn't exist, then we're saying that Brady is no better than Romo or Rivers, as they've put up almost as good numbers with clearly inferior teams and coaching. As I've said repeatedly, Montana clearly out-shined his QB competition, on the playing field, and in the numbers. There's no debating that. It was materially in excess of what Brady did. Even more important, his rating in the playoffs was even higher against the best competition. Brady, on the other hand, has a materially lower QB rating in the playoffs, one that makes him look very much like...well...Joe Flacco, who I certainly don't think of as an elite QB. >>
You love Joe Montana, totally respectable but show me why it was materially in excess of Brady.
Here are the stats.
REGULAR SEASON
Brady Games 175, Pass % 63.7, Yards 44806, TD 334, INT 123
Montana 192 63.2 40551 273 139
PLAYOFFS
Brady Games 24, Pass % 62.3, Yards 5949, TD 42, INT 22
Montana 23 62.7 5772 45 21
They both have equal playoff win/loss records @ 16-7
Its a matter of opinion, I think Brady is better but I wont call anyone out for saying they think Montana was better but nobody has the right to say its not even close when comparing them.
Unfortunately for the 'big game' myth believers, I will not give those questions a rest, because it gets to the heart of the foolishness of the myth of the big game player among athletes who are already achieved at the elite level.
Why didn't Montana use his big game ability, his coolness under pressure, his ability to play at his best and lead his team to victory when most needed; and why did he not just 'know how to win' during the League Championship games where he went an average 4-3? Did he not view those game as big enough?
If 4-0 in the Super Bowl is such a strong indicator to show his ability in 'big games' is above and beyond what other elite NFL Qb's have done in the Super Bowl, then why didn't he use that ability all the time? Is he lazy?
However, you brought a new topic to the mix:
As for the stats you posted, we are back to that. Unfortunately, your numbers don't take into account the lesser surrounding offensive cast that Brady had to work with for his career compared to Montana. That is MORE than enough to make up the difference in those numbers, and probably even swing it enough to put Brady ahead.
But of course, in your mind you don't think it is possible to determine who had better RB and WR...yet ironically you think it is very easy to determine the better QB. Because of this either you are not being genuine, or you simply don't know enough about all the players in question, which would make your opinion in the whole matter meaningless. Don't forget, Brady had to go in the playoffs without a weapon like Gronkowski. Brady finally gets a true weapon at his disposal but he has been hobbled most of his short career, and during the playoffs. Lets not forget about that when posting your numbers.
On another note, is it possible that the West Coast offense and 49er's style of offense, was more conducive to achieving a higher QB rating, and since not many others at the time were employing it, that this is one of the reasons why Montana's Qb rate state is higher than his peers?
Sorry buddy, you didn't come close to answering those questions in any way that would support the notion of Montana being a 'big game' player over what other similar elite QB's who don't have that tag. He may be big game to a guy who never made the NFL with a cannon arm and slick feet(those are the people who are weeded out before they face the daily NFL pressure every game, the guys who may not be good under pressure)...but not compared to the other elite QB's who showed similar abilities in the countless reps during their NFL career...many of which are big game(even if it is just Monday Night Football). Those guys have already passed any pressure test, including guys like Marino who never won a SB. Had Montana truly had that pressure trait, he would have used it in the league championship series to get wins like he did in the Super Bowl. Is he stupid for not using that trait? Or is he lazy?
You have no problem citing variables to explain why Montana only went 4-3 in League Champinoships... but you ignore the variables when using his 4-0 in the Super Bowl to support your claims. Can't be both ways, sorry buddy...nice try though.
In the NFL, a players performance has a ton to do with his teammates ability or lack therof. We went over the teammate issue before, and you couldn't even bring yourself to say that Roger Craig was better than Brady's RB's during his Super Bowl years. You said something along the lines of "we will never know." If you can't see that Craig was better than all those guys, then you have no business stating Montana was better than Brady. If your position is, "I can't tell who is better, Brady or Montana," then I would lay off. However, if you continue to say you can't tell that Craig was better than those RB's, or that RIce was leap years better than Brady's WR's...and then still say that Montana WAS better than Brady, then you really have no business to continue the debate because you are either not be truthful or you are too ignorant on the subject to make any claims.
PS Have you ever considered that Romo throws more passes during garbage time or prevent defense time than Brady does...and how that can influence their passer ratings?
I only reply here because I think anyone that joins a message board with a 'objective' name is wrong right there. A person that 'needs to keep their mind busy', and advertises that fact, is indeed more focused on proving to themselves their own brain is intact, verse being sane. Sanity should be considered here. There is a difference between doofus, and genious.
<< <i>Object, sorry, you took too long to answer his response. If you were on my team at work you would be considered a 'problem'. Please recognize your objectivity views exist in your mind and you mind only. You are wasting others time and in this day and age people like you get tossed. Move and think quick or else get tossed.
I only reply here because I think anyone that joins a message board with a 'objective' name is wrong right there. A person that 'needs to keep their mind busy', and advertises that fact, is indeed more focused on proving to themselves their own brain is intact, verse being sane. Sanity should be considered here. There is a difference between doofus, and genious. >>
LMAO AGAIN at you! You talk about Objectivity getting tossed? This coming from the loser who already got banned and is posting under a new handle
In this corner 'BASEBALL' !! Come on Brother !!!! OUtwit and Make a fool of Object my man !!
Perkdog, no offense but, what ?
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
<< <i>Its a matter of opinion, I think Brady is better but I wont call anyone out for saying they think Montana was better but nobody has the right to say its not even close when comparing them. >>
Agreed. If it were not for a lucky helmet catch (or an "in the grasp" QB sack not called) and a Welker drop (that he does not drop 19 times out of 20) Brady would have 5 SB rings and would probably be considered the best QB of all time.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Its a matter of opinion, I think Brady is better but I wont call anyone out for saying they think Montana was better but nobody has the right to say its not even close when comparing them. >>
Agreed. If it were not for a lucky helmet catch (or an "in the grasp" QB sack not called) and a Welker drop (that he does not drop 19 times out of 20) Brady would have 5 SB rings and would probably be considered the best QB of all time. >>
We could also say that if an erroneous tuck call wasn't made, they arguably wouldn't have any titles. It goes both ways. There's no ifs and buts with any of the 49er titles (and I say that as someone who hates them more than any other team). >>
Saw that coming a mile away. The call was not "erroneous", it was the proper call given the rule. Perhaps the rule sucks, but it is what it is. That being said, yes, Brady was fortunate he got that call. He was also fortunate to have Adam Viniteri kicking at the end of SB 36 instead of Scott Norwood.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>i'll say one thing about Brady--he has not performed nearly as well in more recent playoff games and Super Bowls as he did when they won their three titles. Maybe it's due to the personnel around him, maybe it's due to Bill not making the same effective halftime adjustments he once did, or maybe he was bound to regress a bit, but he hasn't looked as impressive (in my eyes) as he once did. >>
Tim, you wont get one teeny bit of an argument out of me on any of your points made here.
Im thankful and proud for the 3 we won regardless of anything anyone can say about them.