FalcFans Forums

Sealed what win? I was not aware that the win over Miami (which you must be referring to because that's the only game in which Flacco was responsible for any points in 2008) needed sealing. Last I checked, when Flacco scored that pivotal TD, the Ravens were already up 20-9 with 4 minutes left in the game. I did not know that the Ravens were in danger at that point of losing the game.

And I'm the one that is digging...

Look I'm not saying Flacco is a P.o.S. I like Joe Flacco. Part of it may be our shared Pitt connection (I recall bumping into him one day when I was visiting a friend of mine because he lived in the apt. underneath him, and for the record he's just as goofy and awkward in person as he seems on TV), part of it may be because unlike most Falcon fans, I'm not biased against him just because of some perceived imaginary rivalry between him and Matt Ryan.

But if your argument is that Flacco > Ryan because of his postseason success, then I'm going to call BS and say you're not comparing Flacco and Ryan, you're comparing the Ravens and the Falcons. And the reason why the Ravens were successful in the postseason over the past 4 seasons has little to do with Flacco, and mostly to do with their defense. Does that mean he had nothing to do with it? Of course not, he had to have something to do with it since he touched the ball on every snap. In many of those games, he still was able to make some nice plays and nice throws. But the part of it that is him, is a very small factor in the greater scheme of things. If you were to insert a Hasselbeck, Palmer, Pennington-esque QB into his shoes for those games, and assume that Ray Rice, Willis McGahee, Ray Lewis, Ed Reed, Haloti Ngata, Terrell Suggs, etc. all have the same performances, then I don't think it affects the results of the game by a bit.

He clearly was not the guy driving the bus, and when you actually look at the games it's very clear to see. And I think Mr. Barnwell's analysis with his junk stat, summarizes that perfectly without spending 7000 words summarizing all 73 games he's played.

If you want to say Matt Ryan stunk vs. the Giants, then I'm not going to really argue that point. I don't think you can say the same for his games vs. ARI and GB. I think Ryan had some very good moments and some bad moments in both games. But I think the worst you can say is that he was average to above average in both, and thus I don't think you can say he's the reason why we lost either game. I think everyone here agrees that the defense did not even show up vs. GB, and that was why we lost that game. And I certainly don't think anybody thinks the defense pulled their weight vs. Arizona, when Larry Fitzgerald and Q ran wild all over our secondary.

That's something Flacco never dealt with in Baltimore, and I think if you could magically transport one into the other's shoes, I don't think the results of either of their games change for better or for worse. And thus in my eyes, if you're going to use postseason success as the litmus test for who is the better QB, then I think it's actually a wash despite the fact that Flacco is 5-4 and Ryan is 0-3.

But that's just my crazy ass that instead of simply examining the results of the games and making assinine assumptions about them, I'm looking at the games themselves.



I'm also aware that there is nothing I could say or anybody else could say that is going to change your opinion on this issue. You've already made up your mind. And I know my aggressive argument style tends to make people more defensive of their previously conceived opinions as opposed to open to new ideas.

And again, if you believe Flacco is better than Ryan, then so be it. There are plenty of smart people that do. But again, if the primary reason you believe that is because of their postseason records, then IMO the gap that you perceive to exist between them as far as their postseason performances go, really doesn't exist.

You can certainly say that the Flacco's performance vs. NE trumps anything Ryan has done in the playoffs, and I would agree with you. But at the end of the day it's only 1 game, and thus if there is a gap between Ryan and Flacco, then it's 1 game's worth. And thus if you were to ask me, Ryan's regular season success and the fact that he's had to drive the bus more during that time either trumps that 1-game postseason advantage or makes it practically a wash.

Robert Wrote"

I understand how you could feel that way; but Mularky IMO would have been let go anyway. Julio & Roddy & Tony G. could not fit with Mularkey.

Getting a young exciting receiver was important to Ryan to give him more options;
a fast player they can double or not and then get a double dose of Roddy if they double Julio.

In year Three & Four the team and "Matt" did not have the personal for Matt to throw it 50 times. That's why I loved the Julio trade. Anyway be happy for what we have as a 5th year starter. If we don't win a playoff game they'll put it all on Ryan anyway; because we still can't get far behind because our defense can give up points too easily; and don't tackle well enough.

I think that Matt did have the personnel. Again, look at how Douglas filled in when Jones was out last year. People were surprised with how well Douglas played. Once Jones was back, Douglas promptly disappeared again, because he either wasn't on the field, or Mularkey wasn't drawing up plays for him. I'm not saying that Douglas is as good as Jones, Jones obviously has a lot more talent than Douglas. I'm saying that Ryan, if given the opportunity to run an offense where he is the featured player, will make the offense work with whatever receivers he has to throw to.

We went out and got Jones for Ryan, but all we needed to do was to get a receiver that could take the top off of a defense. (Douglas isn't that guy, and Jenkins couldn't catch the deep balls for whatever reason.) Look at what's happening this year, Roddy, Gonzo, and Douglas are being asked to handle the short to mid range stuff. Jones is being asked to make the big plays. There are plenty of guys in the NFL who we could have gotten to do that for a lot less than it cost us to get Jones. There were all kinds of WR's available in Free agency in 2011. (Vincent Jackson, Braylon Edwards, Malcom Floyd, Jacoby Jones) We could have signed one of them, and perhaps drafted a LT and TE (so we wouldn't have to throw to a center) in 2011, and drafted a DE with our 1st pick in 2012.

Regardless, based on everything that I've seen, Ryan is plenty capable of leading an offense without needing pro-bowl talent at the other skill positions. He needed a coach to draw up a scheme that took advantage of what Matt Ryan can do. With the pro bowl talent, and with the scheme, Matt Ryan is capable of getting 3 receivers to 1000+ yards. How many other QBs have done that? (White, Jones, and Gonzo are all on pace for 1000+)

Somewhere Grady Jackson is opening his fourth bag of popcorn and laughing his large a$$ off

Pudge: STOP DIGGING!

Joe Flacco sealed the win in his first playoff game. It is unarguable ( except for junk stat sites). You mean to say had he NOT scored, with 4 and a half minutes left, an NFL team cant overcome 11 points? Cant come from behind at home to win? Be honest. Joe Flacco scored the game sealing TD. No one else did that. Joe Flacco 'built that'. You can say otherwise, but you would be wrong.

Then, he became the first rookie EVER to win his second playoff game.

There are three ways to look at this:judge by his postseason wins, his regular season wins, or a combination of the both ( which I what I do. )

By his postseason wins, year one, there is no contest here. Flacco> Ryan.

Regular season? Well, in his rookie season I could say that Ryan>Flacco, even with Flacco winning AFC Offensive Player of the Week, NFL Rookie of the week, the NFLPA Rookie of the week, and NFL Rookie of the Month for November. But, of course, cutestats.com will argue otherwise, and then go to thier next article: who would win shark vs bear ( while saying the bear wins outright without saying the fight is not in the water)..

BUt a combination of both ( which is clearly the most objective way to compare) shows Flacco> Ryan.

That's the problem here. Junk stats dont tell the whole story, only that ones that you want to hear. And since were on a Falcons board, the confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance reigns supreme.

I now leave you to your shovel. Maybe you can clean up after Mr. Barnwell's droppinngs

Oh yeah, it's always confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance this and confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance that on this board. How many times a day do we have to hear that expression here? Confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance....Whatever happened to "noodle arm" or "dogs are better than people?"

Pissin' contest!

well played, sir.

no doubt Ryan. Although Flacco's long ball this year looks waaaay more intimidating.

Im not a Flacco-lyte, but I try to be fair. Fair says Flacco> Ryan due to his 4 postseason appearances.

But to me, this article is one of those sad things where using stats alone you try to justify an unjustifyable position. Like saying 'Dan Marino never WON a Superbowl, but Tom Brady won 3 so Marino>Brady'. That doesnt tell the whole story. It only focus' on ONE aspect of thier game, in this case who won more SB's. It doesnt tell the story of how they got there. And what happened when they got there. Right?

Drew Brees can break all the records in the world, but that aint gonna get them to January, at least not this year.

You gotta look at the big picture: this article basically postulates that if you put Ryan in Flacco's shoes, he would perform at least the same if not 'better'. I cant make that logical jump. Did Flacco have an advantage due to the Ravens Defense? In His rookie season? Did Big Ben get 'lucky' in his rookie season? If you put 08 Flacco on the 04 Steelers team, does he win?


That's how you end up with statements such as these: "Like Flacco, Ryan had a reputation as the guy who handed the ball off to a successful running game during his rookie season, but he appears to have grown into a more complete quarterback than Flacco by now, playoff performance (and win totals) aside"

Aside? Cmon now. That's why the guy calls his stat 'junk' and admits to some 'smoothing' in his prognostications.

Plus, what consitutes a 'complete QB'? For me: not getting booted out of the playoffs is part of the package. If we go13-3 this season, rack up tons of junk stats and get boosted out of the playoffs AGAIN, are we going to be talking about Matt Ryan's 300 yd game or the fact that this 'complete QB' lost 4 playoff games? I think we all knw the answer to that.

I dont like these kind or arguments, because it really doesn't matter how 'great' you play or how 'lucky' you may be to be with a certain group of players/coaches once you get to January. The postseason apperances and results simply must be factored in. And, it really doesn't help guys like Matt Ryan,or Joe Flacco, or Blaine Gabbert, or even guys like Rex Grossman.

But I wouldn't trade Ryan for Flacco at anytime...

I don't think you dismiss any info gus.

I think the point is, if your D is going to be so good that you only need to mount one full distance drive a game, MOST QBs are able to do that. While if your D is so bad you'll need to mount 4 full TD drives a game, most QBs can't do that.

If you're just giving credit to the first guy for getting his one drive in, while shitting on the 2nd guy for getting 3 drives when he needed 4, you may need to reassess how you're evaluating.

umm, it matters more if 'you only need to mount one full distance drive a game' and that is at the end of the game, and wins it. THATS how you evaluate that. Does it really matter if QB A can rack up stats without wins while QB B racks up wins without stats? That to me, is tanamount to the 'bad win/good loss' myth. The author thinks that QB's that can pull off 4 full drives by some irrelavant metric while losing is somehow 'more complete'. I disagree.

Thats my point: has been the whole time. Doesnt really matter if Ryan has a 68% completion rate while Flacco has a 48% rate if Ryan is watching the second round from the comfort of his couch. What matters is getting to the postseason: and then doing something once you get there. MOST QB's cant do that.

I guess I have to piss on that fence too.

The way I see it, if Matt Ryan had that Ravens defense here, he would have won some playoff games. No doubt in my mind.

If Flacco had the Falcons defense, we wouldn't be having this conversation because I don't think they make the playoffs.

Just my opinion. Piss on boys, piss on!

Really? You think giving the Ravens Defense to Brian Van Gorder was going to rocket Ryan to a playoff win?

It's a consideration, for sure. But this is all 'conjecture'. If a frog had wings, wouldnt' bump it's a$$ a-hoppin!

No. What I meant to say was if Ryan was with that Raven team and coaches and Flacco was here.

You're so wrong, it's ridiculous.

Yes, an NFL team can overcome 11 points in 4 minutes against another NFL team. In a vacuum, it is certainly possible.

But against the Ravens defense, it was impossible. Especially when you consider how the Dolphins played that day. They hadn't converted a single 3rd down all game long passing, except a single one thanks to a pass interference call on Fabian Washington. They would have had to generate 100+ yards of offense in order to get their 2 scores in the final 4 minutes of the game. And they had only averaged 4.5 yards per play that day, which if you're not aware is bottom-rung NFL offensive production.

The chances the Dolphins would have been able to score twice on the Ravens in 4 minutes in a game where they didn't score their first TD until 47 minutes into the game is about as much a chance as Blaine Gabbert has of throwing the winning touchdown pass in this year's Super Bowl.

And what you're not aware of is that the only reason why Flacco was in position to score that touchdown was because of a 48-yard run by Willis McGahee 3 plays early which put the ball done at the 5 yard line. Then after a stuffed run by McGahee, incomplete pass by Flacco, on 3rd & goal from the 5, he ran it in on a QB draw.

Flacco sealed the win? C'mon, it was McGahee's run that sealed the win. Because regardless of the outcome of that 3rd down play, the Ravens were definitely going to score on that drive. And a FG woud have put them up 14 with 4 minutes, meaning the Dolphins would need to score 2 TDs (generate 130+ yds of offense now). Was there a chance that Matt Stover would have missed that 22-yd FG that could have followed? Yeah, a 2% chance given his career success rate on FGS inside 30 yards.

That 2% chance coupled with the miniscule chance that the Dolphins drive the field (twice) meant that at the moment he took the snap on that 3rd & goal and scored that TD, the Ravens already had a locked up the game. Before that snap, their odds of winning the game over 99%. After Flacco scored the TD, it went up to 99.9999%.

It's not cute stats, it's just looking at the game itself and really understanding how the win came together. You dismiss it as cute stats because it doesn't fit with your FALSE perception that since the Ravens won those games, Flacco must have been good, must have done some "extra" that made them successful.

But the reality and anybody that actually looks at the games would know this, is that Flacco was a mediocre QB at best in the 2008 and 2009 playoffs. The Ravens didn't win those games because of him, they won because of their ground attack and mostly their defense, which was as good as it gets.

You are obviously aware of the fact that the playoffs are a different animal, and thus you need something "extra" to win games in January. The suggestion that Flacco provided that "extra" in 2008 and 2009 is a complete joke. I'm not saying he was terrible. I'm saying he was just an average QB. In terms of moving the needle, he didn't move the needle.

What did move the needle, overwhelmingly so was the fact that they had OUTSTANDING defensive performances in EVERY GAME, even their losses. In 2 of their 3 wins (including that Dolphins win), they DOMINATED the opponent with their ground game.

What we have here is you overestimating Flacco's importance in the Ravens early playoff success, and underestimating the other 52 players importance.

see? you just made my point.

so much goes into a 'complete QB'. more then just a quality defense, which is the misbegotten approach that the author took... If you recall last January I gave BVG props because his defense kept the Falcons in the Giant Fiasco(tm) for a half,and scored the only points: but you take that Ravens D and give it to BVG, and he would not get the same results.

same thing with Ryan/Flacco. Who's to say Flacco doesn't respond to Smitty like Ryan did? Or what happens when Flacco comes here in 2008 instead of the AFC North, with a buncha mediocre teams save for the Steelers? Does Flacco do better, or worse? With BVG's defense?

At the end of the day, it's a combination of things. Coaching, personell, playcalling, execution, injuries, the list goes on and on. But simply put: these kind of ridiculous speculations are perfect message board pissing topics. But to me it's similar to 'who wins, a greco roman wrestler or a muy thai boxer'? The only tangible proof you get is who is left lying on the floor when all is said and done.

"The chances of medicore Tim Tebow going into Pittsburgh, and securing a win against that team is about the same as me getting a date with Beyonce" ~ Pudge January 7th.

Tebow threw for a career high 316 yards and two touchdowns, including an 80 yard TD to Demaryius Thomas on the first play of overtime, as the Broncos won 29–23. Tebow completed 10 of 21 passes in the contest, setting the franchise record for quarterback rating in a playoff game and an NFL record for yards per completion in a playoff game~ January 8th.

your still wrong.

chances.

stats.

anything can happen. You say the Fins couldn't have pulled off 2 TD's so Flacco's TD didn't mean anything. I disagree. You know for a fact you didn't ( or me or anyone else for that matter ) gave Tebow a shot in hell to do what he did. Yet, there it is. Tebow won his game, and so did Flacco. When it mattered, Flacco delivered. Flacco didn't bobble the hand-off to Mgahee. Flacco didn't pull a Vick and drop the ball on the goal line. Flacco ran it in on 3rd and goal to seal the win. Im not comparing Tebow's play in that one game with Flacco's game: but the RESULTS were the same. In the end, his team moved on, we did not. Period.



*Fantasy Frink approves of this post! *

But that's not what this exercise really is. It's taking what Flacco does relative to his team and measuring that against what Ryan does relative to his team. And comparing the two.

And when you look at what Flacco was to the Ravens, vs. what Ryan is to the Falcons, Ryan wins, particularly when it came to the early portion of Flacco's career because he's had an elite defense.

If you're asking Would BVG get the same out of the Ravens defensive players as Rex Ryan, Bryan Mattison, and Chuck Pagano did? No, probably not. But would he have a top 10 or Top 5 defense with multiple Pro Bowlers and future HOFers? Absolutely.

It's not about swapping coordinators. It's about swapping QBs. And if you put Ryan on those Ravens teams and asked him to basically hand off to Ray Rice and Willis McGahee, throw to Anquan Boldin and Todd Heap, and manage the game with an elite defense, then he would have done that as well if not better than Flacco.

And if you put FLacco on the Falcons, asked him to hand off to Turner, play with an average defense, and have to drive the ball a dozen or more times in and come from behind to win games, then I'm not convinced that Flacco would do that as well as Ryan.

And the idea that Flacco's postseason performances is evidence that he could is a joke. Maybe he could, but the real only reason to think he could is because of his stronger arm, and basically believe that his bigger arm would have somehow would have made Michael Jenkins more effective than he was with Ryan.


WRONG AGAIN, fun gus.

From January 4:
viewtopic.php?p=106148#p106148



Really, now are you really saying that because Flacco didn't botch a handoff, something that might happen 1 time in 1000 handoffs, he "delivered?"


Exactly, the TEAM moved on. With MINIMAL help from Joe Flacco. The Falcons did not move on, but they got a lot more from Ryan than the Ravens got from Flacco in the playoffs.

Props on the Tebow prediciton.

But, it's not 'just' Flacco 'not botching a handoff'..It's the coordinators scheming to get the most out of Flacco. It's the playcalling. It's the defense. It's the adjustments. It's how the QB interacts with his 'team'...It's too many factors to say with any certainty ( which is why the author clarified his positions with 'leaving out postseason victories') that you could switch Ryan and Flacco and get similar or different results. For example, in the Giant Fiasco(tm) what did Matt Ryan do to pump up his 'team'? Where was the 'GTFO My Field' passion that I saw in 2008, but was missing this year? So Flacco played 'mediocre' in your ( and the opinion of the author) assessment: but at no time did his 'team' give up like ours did last January. Tim Tebow had just as much capacity to be 'mediocre', yet it's undeniable the effect he had on his 'team'. Things like that cant be 'quantified'. So at the end of the day, if Im looking at Ryan and Im looking at Flacco, and someone asks me at this point who is 'better', I still say Flacco. But: I think Ryan AND Flacco will make the 'next step' in the next few years barring injuries...

Let's revisit this in January and see what happens. Ryan and Flacco are more then likely going to be in the postseason. But I aint gonna ever agree Ryan>Flacco until we get past the first round of the playoffs.

Again, fun gus I don't really have a problem if you think Flacco is better than Ryan. IMO, the gap between the two isn't big. I gave Ryan a 7.53 grade in my ratings, and Flacco a 7.24. Not a huge difference.

There are plenty of reasons why I don't think someone is crazy to think that Flacco is better. Two of the main reasons I think people think that is (1) Flacco's arm is significantly better many think it's the best in the league, while Ryan would barely be in the Top 20 on most lists and (2) because of that bigger arm, Flacco plays with a larger set of cajones than Ryan does. Meaning he's much more willing to make the tough throws into the smaller windows, making him much more capable to generate the big plays.

Did he showcase those skills in those playoff games? Yep. Despite only completing a total of 20 passes vs. Miami and Tennessee in his first 2 playoff games, 5 of those passes were completions of 20+ yards. Did those plays help the Ravens win? Yeah.

Compared to Ryan, who has completed a total of 70 passes in his 3 playoff losses, the same amount were 20+ yard completions.

Let's make this a completely unfair comparison. Let's only compare Flacco's performance in the 3 playoff games he won (vs. MIA & TEN in '08, & NE in '09) vs. Ryan's 3 losses. Combined numbers are:

Flacco - 24 of 55 (43.6%) for 330 yards (6.0 avg), 1 TD, 1 INT, 61.9 rating
Ryan - 70 of 110 (63.6%) for 584 yards (5.3 avg), 3 TDs, 4 INT, 71.2 rating

Forget the yards, TDs, and INTs that people always focus on. There's only 1 stat that should jump out at you: the attempts.

Flacco threw the ball half as much as Ryan did. Why? Very simply, because he didn't have to throw the ball as much to make the Ravens win those games. Remember in 2008-09, your average NFL offense threw the ball around 32 or 33 times a game. Flacco averaged 18 attempts in those 3 wins. That is about 60% of the NFL average in those years.

Basically what that means is that the supporting cast around Flacco is so good that he has to do 60% less than what your average QB would be required to do in a typical NFL game. And in the playoffs where the competition is higher than your typical NFL game, we should expect that a QB would have to do more than your average guy.

So did Flacco help the Ravens? Sure. Maybe his success throwing the long ball relative to your average NFL QB, was perhaps a 5-10% boost to their chances of winning. But their running game and defense on the other hand gave them like a 80 or 90% boost. So the idea that Flacco was pivotal to helping the Ravens win in the playoffs is a bunch of BS.

Because when I look at the Ravens in the playoffs, in the games where they needed him to come through and play at a high level (vs. Steelers & Colts), he pooped the bed, just like many would say Ryan did in most/all of his playoff performances. And IMO in the games where the Ravens actually won, they didn't need him to come through and play at a high level. They just needed him not to screw up.

It's the same stigma slapped on Dilfer when he was in Baltimore. Hand the ball off to Jamal Lewis, make a couple of key throws, don't make any mistakes, and let our defense handle the rest. This time it was just McGahee/Rice instead of Lewis.

That is basically what any run of the mill starting QB in the NFL is/should be capable of doing, and thus Flacco's performances in those games IMHO are decidedly unspectacular.

So the idea that Flacco > Ryan because of his postseason success is a joke because IMO given those same parameters any semi-competent NFL starter could have had the same success if backed by McGahee/Rice's play in those games and that elite defense.

I think Ryan is better because he's smarter, more accurate, more efficient, takes less sacks, makes better decisions, and despite the lack of postseason success is more proven in the clutch than Flacco. Because Ryan has had more opportunities and more success digging the Falcons out of the hole late in games and pulling Ws from his caboose.

The problem is that Ryan is (or was) not so good that he could dig the Falcons out of those holes in the playoffs against top opponents. The Falcons have an average defense, and thus against AZ & GB they got behind early in those games, and thus their running game was completely neutralized.

Flacco never had to deal with that. Even in the games where their ground attack was stalled (vs. TEN), they still ran the ball on 60% of their plays. In all the Falcons losses, the Falcons had to abandon their running game much earlier than they wanted to and shift the entire burden onto Ryan's shoulders (never had a run share greater than 35%).

The difference between the Ravens winning and the Falcons losing is not measured by the play of the QBs. Frankly, I think Ryan gave much more to teh Falcons than Flacco did to the Ravens when measuring what they were asked to do and what they actually did.

The difference is that the Ravens had a strong ground attack that could compete and contribute for all 4 quarters and an elite defense that could get stops and create a ton of turnovers, and the Falcons had a ground attack (its strength is unknown given that they were taken out of the games by halftime) and a defense that rarely got stops and never created turnovers.

So the idea that Flacco > Ryan because of the playoffs really means Flacco > Ryan because he has Ray Lewis & Ed Reed rather than Curtis Lofton & Thomas DeCoud.

And Bill Barnwell's point is that the notion that the Phil Simms of the world spew: "Flacco is good because he is a winner" is a myth. Flacco might be good, but the main reason he wins has little to do with how good he is, but mostly to do with how good the guys on defense are.

So how's this looking now?