Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

SSOG

Staff
  • Content Count

    12,376
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by SSOG

  1. I'm hoping to get a few opinions on Mike Williams. He came into the league in 2010, and fell to the 4th round because of some pretty sketchy behavior at Syracuse. Yet he tore up the Tampa Bay training camp, won the #1 WR position and finished as WR11 with 65/964/11. At that point, he was dismissed by many as a one trick pony. The character concerns came to the forefront in 2011, as the pretty much the whole Tampa team quit about half way through the season. Williams was reportedly one of the problems, and finished 65/771/3 or WR50. Written off by most, he entered 2012 as Tampa's #2 guy behind newly signed VJAX. Reports were that VJAX took Williams under his wings a bit and showed him how to be a pro. Williams finished with 63/996/9 or WR18. Yet at this point, I consistently see him going somewhere between WR36-47 in startups. He's got plenty of speed (4.53) for his size 6'2" 212. He's proven to be a very good red zone threat. (that's good in fantasy football right?) There doesn't seem to be concerns about his route running, or his ability to get off press coverage. Athletically, he tests out as a top notch prospect. My linkSo we've got a 25 year old WR that has seemingly overcome his biggest question mark coming into the NFL. (character). He's got a low end WR1 finish, and a mid WR2 finish in the two years he tried. Yet he's somehow falling into WR4 territory in drafts. What am I missing here?

    I discount him a lot based on my (justified or not) concern that a lot of his value is tied to his high TD totals. I think next year you could very easily be looking at a 60-925-5 year.
    This. I agree Williams is undervalued. I'll admit that every time I look at WR rankings for the past season I'm surprised by just how well he did- he generated practically no buzz. Still, his career high in receptions is 65. His career high in yards is under 1,000 (albeit barely). He's the clear-cut #2 on a passing offense I don't have tons of faith in. I'd rank him close to another perpetually underrated but consistent performer- Lance Moore.
    Thanks for the input guys. A few more thoughts.The Bucs have opened up contract extension talks with Williams a year early. Local speculation has the deal around 5 years 36 million. That should settle any job security issues for a while. Its also confirmation about his abilities and turnaround in character from the team that knows him best. (incidently, its almost double the deal Lance Moore signed in 2011) With his job being relatively secure, lets go with the aforementioned 60-925-5 as his healthy floor going forward. Those are the numbers of your typical low end WR2 or high end WR3.His two good years have averaged 64/980/10. Now lets say you were optimistic about his future, and added 12 catches to that. (using his pace from the two good years) His numbers would be 76/1165/12. That's borderline top 5 any year. How could he get 12 more catches in a season? How about Freeman just becoming more accurate, or Williams actually improving his game, or both....I guess what I'm saying is he doesn't necessarily need a bunch more targets in this offense to put up big numbers.
    Williams will get paid more than Lance Moore because Williams is a better receiver than Lance Moore. Unfortunately for Mike Williams owners, Drew Brees is a better QB than Josh Freeman.
  2. Imagine changing the name NY Yankees to the Bronx Bombers or NY Highlanders..now,how much value would that franchise immediately lose? 50-60%? probably a lot more than that!

    :link:

    That estimate is so far beyond the realms of credibility that it almost doesn't even bear rebutting. Basically, a team's only source of revenue is its fan base- tickets sold to fans, tv rights to broadcast to fans, merchandise marketed to fans, etc. If we assume that the amount fans spend is based on how much the team wins (a reasonable assumption), and the amount a team wins is unrelated to what it's called (also a reasonable assumption: see Lakers), then the only way a team loses 50% of its value is if it loses 50% of its fan base. And to be perfectly honest, I'd be surprised if a team lost FIVE percent of its fan base over a name change.

    Honest question: is there a single Redskins fan in this thread that would stop supporting their team if they changed their name to, say, the Washington Hogs?

    You're wrong on this one.

    I'm a huge Redskins fan. I wouldn't stop being a huge fan. I WOULD stop buying jerseys, hats, and would have less interest in buying tickets to see the Washington Hogs. I'd actually be a little ashamed to tell people I'm a hogs fan. The entire team itself would hold less appeal in my opinion. There's an aspect about tradition and feeling like you're watching the same team you've been watching your entire life. Making a drastic name change, logo change, etc. removes a lot of that nostalgia.

    Agreed that it's not 50%, but it's not 5% either, especially for the Yankees.

    It's not 5% because it's less. A lot less.

    It's easy to talk this game now, but I find it VERY hard to believe that a name change- even a "traditional" "longstanding" name, would have a significant negative impact on a team's bottom line. Mostly because I'm not aware of a single example where it has, and plenty of examples where it hasn't (Wizards, Titans, Angels changing their geographic description without changing location, and so on). Check the attendance numbers, or the franchise valuations. You won't see any negative impact. If you can find the merch sales numbers, check those too. I couldn't find them but I bet the impact was minimal.

    And no offense, but if you think your fandom would be affected by a mascot change, I wonder about the depth of your fandom to begin with. Your mileage may vary- and I guess yours would- but to me, mascot preference is WAY down the list of reasons I'd like a team. Certainly a review of the most popular sports franchises confirms my suspicions. There's some exceedingly stupid nicknames and mascots out there if you stop and think about it. Nobody cares.

    Exactly. Just like the number of people who said they'd move to Canada if Bush was re-elected dramatically outnumbered the number of people who moved to Canada after Bush was re-elected. And the number of companies who said they'd lay off their workforce if Obama was re-elected dramatically outnumbered the number of companies who laid off their work force when Obama was re-elected. There's two factors at play here- first, talk is cheap, and second, people are really bad at predicting their own actions. I mean, seriously, even if the Redskins changed their name to the Washington Buckets or the Washington Sponges, few fans would abandon the team. What are the other options? Root for the Ravens? Stop watching football? I have a hard time seeing Redskins fans doing either.
  3. I'm hoping to get a few opinions on Mike Williams. He came into the league in 2010, and fell to the 4th round because of some pretty sketchy behavior at Syracuse. Yet he tore up the Tampa Bay training camp, won the #1 WR position and finished as WR11 with 65/964/11. At that point, he was dismissed by many as a one trick pony. The character concerns came to the forefront in 2011, as the pretty much the whole Tampa team quit about half way through the season. Williams was reportedly one of the problems, and finished 65/771/3 or WR50. Written off by most, he entered 2012 as Tampa's #2 guy behind newly signed VJAX. Reports were that VJAX took Williams under his wings a bit and showed him how to be a pro. Williams finished with 63/996/9 or WR18. Yet at this point, I consistently see him going somewhere between WR36-47 in startups. He's got plenty of speed (4.53) for his size 6'2" 212. He's proven to be a very good red zone threat. (that's good in fantasy football right?) There doesn't seem to be concerns about his route running, or his ability to get off press coverage. Athletically, he tests out as a top notch prospect. My linkSo we've got a 25 year old WR that has seemingly overcome his biggest question mark coming into the NFL. (character). He's got a low end WR1 finish, and a mid WR2 finish in the two years he tried. Yet he's somehow falling into WR4 territory in drafts. What am I missing here?

    I discount him a lot based on my (justified or not) concern that a lot of his value is tied to his high TD totals. I think next year you could very easily be looking at a 60-925-5 year.
    This. I agree Williams is undervalued. I'll admit that every time I look at WR rankings for the past season I'm surprised by just how well he did- he generated practically no buzz. Still, his career high in receptions is 65. His career high in yards is under 1,000 (albeit barely). He's the clear-cut #2 on a passing offense I don't have tons of faith in. I'd rank him close to another perpetually underrated but consistent performer- Lance Moore.
  4. Also worth pointing out: while it's not as severe as a name change, plenty of teams have dramatically altered the look of their franchise. In the late '90s and early '00s you had the Broncos, Patriots, and Bills all changing out of color schemes that had been tradition for decades, that the team had achieved a lot of success in. Teams change logos all the time. Teams move cities, and often change names in the process. They all seem to survive without their franchises going into a death spiral or fans abandoning the team in droves (well, except for the moving cities thing). And the name "Washington Hogs" wasn't pulled out of thin air. I think a lot of fans fear that they'll lose touch with a team's roots or origins if the name changes, so why not pick a name that pays homage to the team's roots or origins? How could Washington fans lose connection to those SBs when the team was named after the engine behind those SB wins?

  5. Imagine changing the name NY Yankees to the Bronx Bombers or NY Highlanders..now,how much value would that franchise immediately lose? 50-60%? probably a lot more than that!

    :link:

    That estimate is so far beyond the realms of credibility that it almost doesn't even bear rebutting. Basically, a team's only source of revenue is its fan base- tickets sold to fans, tv rights to broadcast to fans, merchandise marketed to fans, etc. If we assume that the amount fans spend is based on how much the team wins (a reasonable assumption), and the amount a team wins is unrelated to what it's called (also a reasonable assumption: see Lakers), then the only way a team loses 50% of its value is if it loses 50% of its fan base. And to be perfectly honest, I'd be surprised if a team lost FIVE percent of its fan base over a name change.

    Honest question: is there a single Redskins fan in this thread that would stop supporting their team if they changed their name to, say, the Washington Hogs?

  6. Redskin######I am neither. I'm not racist. One of those words is harder to type and post than the other. Try it.

    edit.I just typed in a few awful pejoratives for a black person. They got through the language filter just fine. Your point is bad and you should feel bad.
    I could be wrong, but I interpreted his post as saying it felt more awkward and uncomfortable to type one out, not that it was harder to get through the filter.
  7. There was an article published in the Tennessean yesterday about Kenny Britt. My link

    From Randy Moss:

    I can't really speak about it because I have been into trouble off the field myself," Moss said. "But from what I have seen Kenny Britt do, man, if he gets his mind right, Kenny Britt can get up in elite class very quickly. I am a big fan of his.

    "Kenny Britt is a young receiver who can get in that A.J. Green, Julio Jones mix if he wants to, and does the things to make it happen. But his is more mental than it is physical. I hope it works out for him because he is quite a talent. That guy could be special."

    Looking around here, I've seen him ranked anywhere from WR18-54. Personally, I think if you can get him for WR3 prices it could be a total steal. One of the hardest things to acquire in a dynasty league is a young elite WR (Britt is 24). Rarely can you get a talent like him for a price like that. Clearly there is risk there, but we've seen other troubled players suddenly "get it" and turn their careers around. I don't know Kenny Britt on any sort of personal level, but in reading the tea leaves I feel he's a great candidate for just such a turn around. (lots of quotes regarding Britt being a good person, but always getting into trouble when hanging out with his old friends in NJ.)

    I've only got him in one league, but I think I'll be looking to acquire elsewhere.

    I own Rice and Peterson, and another owner offered me Pierce/Gerhart for Britt. I turned him down. I wasn't a fan of Britt the Headcase when he was commanding top-20 prices, but now that his value has dropped through the floor, he's a great buy. I love him as the highest upside wr3/4 you'll ever be able to get your hands in. I like Pierce, and Gerhart is not without value, but I'm deep enough at RB that I don't need to handcuff, so I'd rather use the roster spot on a guy who is, in my opinion, much more likely to become a difference maker (or, at the very least, see a dramatic rise in market value).
  8. Fourteen percent of Indians who called themselves politically liberal said the name was offensive, compared to 9 percent of moderates and 6 percent of conservatives.

    So, I think it would be hard to argue that a better sample would lead to some monstrous change in response percentages. It would be good to know how many are in each group, though.
    Out of curiosity, what percentage of people is it acceptable to offend? How many Native Americans would have to be offended before you'd favor changing the name? I don't know that 0.0000% is a reasonable goal for anything- hell, I'm sure there are some nut jobs out there who are offended by the Broncos' nickname- but here in the most Redskins-friendly survey we still have 9% of the Native American population saying they find the name objectionable. Is that an acceptable level for you? How high would it have to go before it's unacceptable? 25%? 50.1%? 100%?As an aside, I'm automatically skeptical of any survey of the Native American population that refers to them as Indians. In my mind, it's akin to seeing a headline reading "Study: midgets don't mind you calling them shorty" or "Survey: negros cool with when you call them 'bro'". If you're going to be conducting a professional survey of a group, at least refer to them by their preferred name.
  9. And it's not a derogatory slur. It's not a name born of bigotry and racism. And the Irish do not have the history of oppression and racism experienced on the level of the Native Americans in this country, recapitulated by the offensiveness of the "Redskins" name.

    Whether or not you are ok or not ok with the "fighting Irish" moniker (and I assume a lot of this is faux outrage) is a weak attempt to bury one's head in the sand re: the Redskins issue.

    Yes they do. They can't match Native Americans for sheer length of oppression (no group can, not even the African slaves), but in the late 1800s to early 1900s, when the Irish potato famine was driving immigrants to America in droves, they were every bit as reviled as Native Americans, if not more so because the proximity to the population kept tensions raw and at the forefront at all times. Again, the New York Times was running articles blaming all crime and poverty on the Irish immigrants.

    Unfortunately, our country has a rich tapestry of racism and bigotry. Precious few groups have been spared our ire.

    I am well aware of the history of persecution of the Irish in this country. Thankfully, this period was relatively short-lived, and the stature of being Irish has been redeemed in this country, politically, economically, and otherwise, not to mention the fact that "tension" did not include systematic slaughter, torture, put bounties on their heads and skinned them alive, as was the fate of the Native American populations across this country.

    Not sure how these are equivocal in any way.

    I was going to post about how the worst of the oppression of Native Americans came when the government and the Constitution didn't recognize them as citizens and categorized them instead as something akin to foreign nations, making them a rival, even warring, populace rather than an oppressed citizenry. Upon further reflection, I realize that you are right and the distinction is meaningless- either way, it's racism driven by a perceived competition over resources, and the civic standing of the oppressed other doesn't matter.
  10. And it's not a derogatory slur. It's not a name born of bigotry and racism. And the Irish do not have the history of oppression and racism experienced on the level of the Native Americans in this country, recapitulated by the offensiveness of the "Redskins" name.

    Whether or not you are ok or not ok with the "fighting Irish" moniker (and I assume a lot of this is faux outrage) is a weak attempt to bury one's head in the sand re: the Redskins issue.

    Yes they do. They can't match Native Americans for sheer length of oppression (no group can, not even the African slaves), but in the late 1800s to early 1900s, when the Irish potato famine was driving immigrants to America in droves, they were every bit as reviled as Native Americans, if not more so because the proximity to the population kept tensions raw and at the forefront at all times. Again, the New York Times was running articles blaming all crime and poverty on the Irish immigrants.

    Unfortunately, our country has a rich tapestry of racism and bigotry. Precious few groups have been spared our ire.

  11. How come the Chiefs never seem to catch any crap for their nickname? It always seems to be the Redskins.

    Because "Chief" is not a slur, it's a position of respect within the Native American community. It'd be like if Tuskegee University were trying to come up with a name for its football team, and it was deciding between "The Tuskegee Airmen" and "The Tuskegee Coons".

    Now, this isn't to say "Chiefs" couldn't still be offensive if other elements of the team were caricatures or stereotypes, just like "The Tuskegee Airmen" could still be an offensive team name if the mascot was some white dude who danced around in blackface. It's just that the team "chiefs" is not inherently offensive.

    Hmmm...

    Warpaint was a paint Pinto horse who served as the mascot for the Kansas City Chiefs from 1963 until 1989. Warpaint would run the length of the field after a chiefs touchdown with his rider "Chief" in full Indian Chief garb. After the Chiefs won Super Bowl IV, Warpaint led the parade.

    Why do you figure they got rid of ol' Chief?
    Right. But the point is, they did get rid of ol' Chief, because it was offensive. And now what's left is not offensive, racist, stereotypical, or otherwise a caricature.
  12. How come the Chiefs never seem to catch any crap for their nickname? It always seems to be the Redskins.

    Because "Chief" is not a slur, it's a position of respect within the Native American community. It'd be like if Tuskegee University were trying to come up with a name for its football team, and it was deciding between "The Tuskegee Airmen" and "The Tuskegee Coons".

    Now, this isn't to say "Chiefs" couldn't still be offensive if other elements of the team were caricatures or stereotypes, just like "The Tuskegee Airmen" could still be an offensive team name if the mascot was some white dude who danced around in blackface. It's just that the team "chiefs" is not inherently offensive.

  13. Bit of a random tangent, but I just have a few thoughts on Aaron Hernandez. By browsing dynasty-related threads around here, it's pretty clear that people are extremely high on him. This, certainly, is partly due to him as a player, and partly due to the dearth of fantasy talent at the position. He is slotted in at like a 1A tier, or, at the very least, alone in tier 2 behind Graham/Gronk.I think people are a little too high and a little too certain on him.1) First, the most obvious, but probably not the most important thing to point out, but he does seem to have a tendency to get hurt. Even when he doesn't miss games, he always seems to be questionable, limited in practice, etc.2) Injuries aside, he did not have a great year in 2012. After the whole story all pre-season was how he was going to be the "focus" of the offense, he regressed, in my opinion. He developed some dropsies, was alligator-arming some things, and just in general played inconsistently.3) It sounds weird, but I think he gets a little over-rated because he gets paired up with Gronkowski, being on the same team. Hernandez is a very nice player, he's got more mass than a WR, but can move like one, and is dangerous with the ball in his hands...but he is not in the same class as Gronkowski, who is pretty much just an impossible match up no matter what teams try to do with him. He can outrun LB's, out-physical DB's, tower over everyone, and he has hands that Hernandez can only dream about. And this isn't to talk about their blocking, which is not even worth comparing.I feel like I sound more down him than I meant to. I'll repeat that he is a very good player and does create a mismatch problem, but he's not a dominant player by any stretch. I don't think he'll ever outproduce Gronkowski as some were saying he might this past off-season, and if Welker stays, I'm not entirely certain he isn't the #3 option. Now, that's a #3 option on a very good offense, and TE is a light position, but still, people are a little too high on him. I just saw in a thread a well-respected poster saying he wouldn't kill someone for taking Hernandez in the 2nd round of a PPR startup, for example. I think that's pretty insane.Anyway just putting it out there.

    I agree that Hernandez is a clear step back from Gronk, but few players in the league are as dangerous with the ball in their hands. I like him a lot- he's basically a WR that you can start at TE. I wouldn't take him in the second, but I'd be happy to get him in the mid-to-late 3rd.
  14. Snyder has said he's not changing the name. IMO, only two things will change the name while he is owner:1. A legal ruling forcing the change or2. People actually stop using the word when referring to the team, making it a business decision for Snyder.If it's clearly so offensive, why does the NFL not force a change? Why are ESPN, Fox, CBS, and NBC ok with broadcasting their games and saying the word? Why is the Washington Post ok with using the word over and over and over in their work? Why is Prince George's County, Maryland, ok with a stadium with the word "Redskins" on it in their county? Why is Loudoun County, Virginia, ok with a practice facility with the word "Redskins" on it in their county? Why did the city of Richmond recently agree to host Redskins training camps and market it using the word "Redskins"?OK, I guess money answers a lot of these questions. But, why is there money to be made there? If "much of society" says the word is negative, as Greg Russel's posted article says, then why does much of society continue to use the word, leading to there being a market for the team name? Why do people at this message board not call out others for using the word and accuse them of using a racial slur? Better yet, why do all the people in this thread who claim it is clearly an offensive slur continue to type the word on this board and use the word as part of their language?

    Opposition has very slowly been picking up steam, but these things take time. I know several journalists and one entire Washington newspaper have decided to stop using the name.
  15. I guess what I'm wondering is if "redskins" is used negatively, as "jap" is? Are there areas of the country where the higher Native American population lives that use the word as a slur? I would think that if it is a slur, it would be in use. When has our culture ever outlived offensive slurs? The N word and "jap" still exists in use BECAUSE they are a slur. I would think if they weren't offensive, they'd have faded away and wouldn't be used. There are plenty of racists out there to keep slurs alive.But, as with you and "jap", it could just be that I don't have any association with that world and the usage of "redskins". Maybe the use of that word in a racial context exists. That's mostly what I'm wondering.

    Lots of slurs fall out of style, usually because hating that ethnicity falls out of style. During the late 1800s to early 1900s, the Irish and Italian were reviled. Major newspapers published front page stories blaming them for all crime and poverty, and (as bizarre as it is to consider now), both groups were considered "non-white" or "non-Caucasian". Obviously, now both groups have been absorbed into mainstream society, so we don't hear them called Dago, Paddy, Taig, Guinea, or Wop anymore. Other slurs get rendered obsolete by cultural changes (such as Mammy) or by time (Tar Baby, Peckerwood). Still, just being out of common usage doesn't mean they should be fair game. Can you imagine if there was a WNBA team named the Mississippi Mammies?
  16. it doesn't offend me but i am not a native american. i think it's foolish to claim you know what should and should not offend a group of people that you are not a part of.

    I don't have to be Native American to believe that the team name is now and has always been a racist slur. I'm not Chinese or Mexican, either, but that doesn't mean I'd be happy if the NFL featured the San Francisco Chinamen or the San Antonio Wetbacks.

    While I think it's dangerous to fall into a pattern of constantly worrying about "offending" every minority group that comes along, it's just a name. If NATIVE AMERICAN PEOPLE are truly offended, then change it. If it's mostly hooty tooty middle aged white people trying to make a stink (and all too often, they are the driving force behind these types of complaints), then %#^$ them.

    I'm not suggesting we poll every minority to see if they're offended by anything. I'm just proposing an outright ban on any name that was intended as a racial slur. You don't have to poll Chinese people before naming a team the "chinks". And I don't care if the team plays in freaking La Brea, and 80% of black people don't mind, there's no way in hell I'd ever support a team being called the "Tar Babies". I don't care if it's archaic and I've never actually heard it used, the phrase was invented to denigrate and dehumanize a certain ethnic group, so it doesn't belong on a sports team. That's the kind of history that deserves to be recognized, remembered, and corrected, not emblazoned on jerseys and blasted over national tv.
  17. Call it homerism, but the Cowboys only shot to win games, often, was when they decided, "Eff it. Let's go shotgun, abandon the run, hope Tony gets in a groove and can make a lot things happen." Unfortunately for Romo's numbers, and myself as a Cowboys fan, this came only after the team was down - hence the league high 4qt +/-, comeback wins. I'm willing to give him a bit of a break on the Ints this year. Early on he had Bryant running the wrong routes, always had pressure in his face, and was very often in desperation mode. As I said, I do think Romo is the better football player. I can listen to the opposing argument, though. But I find it very hard to believe that Flacco could have done more than Romo did with the 2012 Dallas Cowboys.

    Two things. First off, as a Broncos fan living in the Dallas metro (I.e. seeing a lot of Cowboys games) who is also a fan of Jeopardy (followed immediately by that asinine "fans' sports show" where idiots bloviate about the Cowboys for 30 minutes a day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year), I would say I'm both objective and well-positioned to pass judgment. Romo had some short, brutal stretches, but was otherwise magnificent this year. Much better than Flacco, overall. Second off, you clearly are not suffering from homerism. True homers would be only too happy to tell you how Romo is a prancing choking pretty boy, one of the bottom 5 QBs in the league, and the Cowboys will never win so much as a church raffle with him at QB. Hating Romo is as necessary to Cowboys Homerism as hating McNabb is to Eagles Homerism. If I were comparing Romo Hatred to Oxygen in terms of which was more necessary to Cowboys fans, I'd call it a tie. Maybe push Romo Hatred to 1A and oxygen to 1B, but they're both pretty important.
  18. What's your view regarding Cam Cameron's influence on Flacco? Until recently the only OC Flacco has known, and given the documented tension between the two this year, you think there's any merit to the idea that Cameron was inhibiting Flacco's growth and development, where Caldwell apparently has made some progress in a short period of time?

    It's a bit of a cop out, but I really don't know. The sample is way too small. I do believe it's possible for a coach to hold a QB back- I'm a Denver fan who lived through the Elway/Reeves era, so I've seen it first-hand. At the same time, I know that random is random. Players have good games and bad games. Those games aren't always evenly spaced- sometimes they cluster together into hot or cold "streaks". That wouldn't be a problem, except that the human mind is built to recognize patterns and assign causes. We often see patterns in what's really just random noise. Baltimore is a great example- when they were busy going 1-4 over 5 games, we were convinced they were done. Or look at Matt Ryan. He had some great games and some terrible games. He actually is tops in NFL history in 4th quarter comeback percentage, so he's clutch. Only he lost his first three games in the playoffs, so he's a choker. Until he led a huge clutch comeback in the playoffs, and now he's clutch. Except then he choked away a game against the Niners the next week. So he's either clutch, or he's a choker, or he's both, or he's neither, or neither clutch nor choker really have any meaning and they just represent us trying to assign adjectives to create a narrative to explain away something that's essentially just random chance. So, rambling aside... It's a bit of a cop out, but I don't know what effect losing Cam will have. Maybe losing Cam set Flacco free. Maybe random chance happened to cause Flacco's good play to correspond to Cam's firing, and the two are unrelated. I can see Cam's dismissal being a reason for optimism, but for now, I'm just operating under the assumption that Flacco is who he has shown himself to be over the large 20-game sample of the season, and the much larger sample of his entire career.
  19. 12th sounds like average to me. There's 32 starting QBs on any given week. I'd call average 11-20. The middle 3rd or so, if you will. I'd say Eli's average as well. And I think Stafford's overrated. So the fact that those guys are behind him doesn't surprise me :shrug:

    12 teams make the playoffs :shrug:
    So you're saying Flacco played well enough in the regular season that, if all other talent were equally distributed on all other teams, he would be the worst QB in the playoffs. I don't disagree with this statement- I think Flacco definitely deserves to be ranked in the 10-15 range. I could even see as high as 8, maybe, though I certainly wouldn't put him there. I'm just saying, that's an awfully low bar for "great" or "elite". I'd call Flacco an above-average or even a good QB, but not a great or elite one. Even if he did have arguably the greatest postseason in NFL history.
  20. Your story went from "he played lights out" to "he played great" to "he only needed to make a couple of plays because his defense dominated" in the course of a post and a half.

    Well obviously "lights out" is EBF's quote referring to 2012. Trying to have a conversation not argue semantics. If you want to argue about semantics, point me to the nearest semantics board and we can talk there. He played great in the 4 years he wasn't hurt. If you don't think he was hurt in 2009, I don't know what to tell you. The rest of your post is just more stats meant to convince me he didn't put the ball on the money to Housh one year and Lee Evans the next, so I'll just leave it without a response. Agree to disagree about whether Flacco helped the Ravens win all those playoff games. Maybe they could get Kyle Boller back and not make the playoffs.
    Again, you're all over the map. We've now gone from "lights out" to "great" to "better than Kyle Boller". This argument is like trying to find a needle in a stack of straw men. If you DO think he was hurt in 2009, I don't know what to tell you. He appeared on the injury report 4 times all season. Week 8- probable, ankle. Week 11- probable, knee. Week 13- probable, ankle. Week 14- probable, knee/hip. No injury report appearances in weeks 15, 16, 17, the WC game, or the Divisional game. No snaps taken by his backup during that span. When did he get hurt? How did it affect his performance? If you want to tell me that he suffered from a phantom injury that caused him to neither miss a single snap nor appear on a single injury report, I think the burden of proof is going to fall on you for this one. If you want to tell me that throwing 30 passes for 140 yards and 3 picks was playing great, the burden's on you for that one, too. Personally, all I see is a bunch of revisionist history. Joe Flacco has always been a great playoff QB. We have always been at war with Eastasia.Edit: I see you posted a link to his injury in 2009, so consider that argument withdrawn. The rest stand.
    I stated "played great" a 2nd time. "Great" is obviously better than Boller so making that joke is not intended to supercede the "great" remark a few sentences earlier. He did not play lights out in 2008 or 2009, and I'm sorry if my off the cuff remark to EBF confused you by implying that. 2010 and 2011 was lights out, IMO. He was the best player on the field vs. NE. He played well against HOU but didn't have to do much because they got an early lead. He (ETA: and the defense) beat up on KC, and had a great game (ETA: mainly talking crunch time in the 4q) against PIT with a few mistakes.If I'm confused or "all over the map" or worse because I didn't asterisk my remark by saying he wasn't that great as a rookie in 2008 or when he was injured in 2009, then you're just trying to insult me to win an argument over Joe Flacco on a message board. If that makes you feel better, best of luck.
    2008- bad in playoffs2009- awful in the playoffs2010- mixed results. One very good game against an average defense, one bad game against an elite defense.Yes, his game against Pitt counts as a bad game. No, he did not play "great" in crunch time. He came out of the locker room with a 21-7 lead, then went 1-4 for 5 yards with two sacks, a pick, and a lost fumble in the third quarter as Pittsburgh took a 24-21 lead. In the 4th, he was 3-8 for 38 yards with a game-ending sack (turned 3rd and 10 on Pitt's side of the field to 4th and 18 on Baltimore's). Yes, Housh dropped the ensuing pass, but that doesn't absolve Flacco of responsibility for all that came before. Reading game recaps, you see phrases like dreadful for large, important chunks of the game. After three years in the league, Flacco's playoff performance was atrocious. He had one legitimately good game in 7 tries. People were writing articles about how the only difference between Balt and Pitt was Pitt's QB didn't suck in the playoffs. You can't just magically hand wave that into non-existence because Flacco was superb in the last two postseasons. For 60% of his career, he was an atrocious postseason QB. For 40%, he's a marvelous postseason QB. Taken together, his postseason averages are nearly identical to his regular season averages. That's what I'm taking issue with, here. I'm not arguing that Flacco hasn't been great the last two years in the postseason. He has. But as good as he was recently, that's how bad he was to start his career. And the whole concept of "raising your game in the playoffs" is a meaningless concept, anyway- we have more than enough evidence to reject out of hand the concept that some guys are better playoff QBs than regular season QBs, or some guys are more clutch while others are chokers. Joe Flacco isn't the guy we saw in 4 games to end the season, he's the guy we saw in 20 games through the whole season.
  21. Your story went from "he played lights out" to "he played great" to "he only needed to make a couple of plays because his defense dominated" in the course of a post and a half.

    Well obviously "lights out" is EBF's quote referring to 2012. Trying to have a conversation not argue semantics. If you want to argue about semantics, point me to the nearest semantics board and we can talk there. He played great in the 4 years he wasn't hurt. If you don't think he was hurt in 2009, I don't know what to tell you. The rest of your post is just more stats meant to convince me he didn't put the ball on the money to Housh one year and Lee Evans the next, so I'll just leave it without a response. Agree to disagree about whether Flacco helped the Ravens win all those playoff games. Maybe they could get Kyle Boller back and not make the playoffs.
    Again, you're all over the map. We've now gone from "lights out" to "great" to "better than Kyle Boller". This argument is like trying to find a needle in a stack of straw men. If you DO think he was hurt in 2009, I don't know what to tell you. He appeared on the injury report 4 times all season. Week 8- probable, ankle. Week 11- probable, knee. Week 13- probable, ankle. Week 14- probable, knee/hip. No injury report appearances in weeks 15, 16, 17, the WC game, or the Divisional game. No snaps taken by his backup during that span. When did he get hurt? How did it affect his performance? If you want to tell me that he suffered from a phantom injury that caused him to neither miss a single snap nor appear on a single injury report, I think the burden of proof is going to fall on you for this one. If you want to tell me that throwing 30 passes for 140 yards and 3 picks was playing great, the burden's on you for that one, too. Personally, all I see is a bunch of revisionist history. Joe Flacco has always been a great playoff QB. We have always been at war with Eastasia.Edit: I see you posted a link to his injury in 2009, so consider that argument withdrawn. The rest stand.
×
×
  • Create New...