Dynasty Rankings (6 Viewers)

[joey]

109 and a TD.

I'd say he's now in the conversation as a WR1. Showed amazing hands and hustle in this game, and most of the year.

He's probably worth a mention by a few folks in that other dynasty thread about "who did I give up on too soon".

Whew. Good thing we had this one game where he put up stats. If he hadn't been huge in this one game it would have totally left him out of said conversation.

Well it's one game everyone watched. Assuming people who play dynasty didn't watch NE/SF. Well, okay the 2nd game everyone watched.It wasn't really a wow performance, and I don't think it changed that much considering he already had hype and possible overvalue. Probably Vernon Davis' stock was helped as much. People who don't follow SF closely saw oh yeah he's still heavily involved in the pass game, when most weeks probably he's not.

Boldin and Jacoby Jones got a bump too. Boldin will get drafted as a WR3 even though at his age he was barely that this year. Jones will get a sympathy pick late.

Thanks for posting this. Exactly what I was going to say. Yes, for FF nerds like us on a message board year round, this one game doesn't matter so much. But market value amongst all other owners out there just went up because of this one game on the big stage. Like Coop said, he won't be on many of my teams since I don't view him as high as others probably do. That list that I posted earlier has at least 15 guys that I like better than him.

 

[Black]

Kaep should get a bump for his performance this game. He was not perfect, but very good. But, I think Dynasty rankers were already putting him as a top 6/8 Dynasty QB before yesterday.Not sure what to think about RRice and Ber Pierce moving forward.SF seems likely to go after a big WR. That was a huge shortcoming for them this game. That would make Crab a good 1b, but might not be enough stats in the SF offense to keep him a top 15 Fantasy WR.

 

[Concept Coop]

Not sure what to think about RRice and Ber Pierce moving forward.

Pierce needs to be on as many of our rosters as possible. He doesn't bring as many things to the table as Rice, and a lot of this is due to him being fresher, at this point in the season, but he looked like the more explosive back. I think he eventually takes over for Rice and he is only 21YO IIRC.

 

[thriftyrocker]

Flacco is the same type of guy. Talented, but doesn't have that extra something of a Rodgers/Brees/Warner.

We can't fault him for TJ Houshmandzadeh and Lee Evans. He has put his team into position to win.

No, but we can fault him for being in the league five years and not improving at all during that time. He's basically the exact same guy he was as a rookie. He doesn't seem to have whatever it takes between the ears to be a legitimate Pro Bowl type of QB.

sig worthy

 

[menobrown]

Not sure what to think about RRice and Ber Pierce moving forward.

Pierce needs to be on as many of our rosters as possible. He doesn't bring as many things to the table as Rice, and a lot of this is due to him being fresher, at this point in the season, but he looked like the more explosive back. I think he eventually takes over for Rice and he is only 21YO IIRC.

I think Pierce needs to be moved into a Bryce Brown kind of tier, if not a small step above. Very similar in that both showed some talent, both are very young and both are locked into what appear to be caddy situations for the foreseeable future. Pierce comes without the warts of Brown and Rice is a tad older and has a lot more mileage than McCoy so edge to Pierce in those regars. Brown has at least displayed a few massive whole games and the offense is intriguing in that it might have room for a RB2 to be able to be like a Ben Tate 2011 type, which I'm not ruling out for Pierce either. I can see cases for preferring one or the other, just feel that in general they are on about the same tier.

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

Not sure what to think about RRice and Ber Pierce moving forward.

Pierce needs to be on as many of our rosters as possible. He doesn't bring as many things to the table as Rice, and a lot of this is due to him being fresher, at this point in the season, but he looked like the more explosive back. I think he eventually takes over for Rice and he is only 21YO IIRC.

Pierce is 22, and will be 23 in May. He reminds me a bit of Arian Foster. Doesn't look like he's moving that fast, but he is consistently fast enough to get to the corner. I think he's one of the best 15 RBs in the league already.

 

[EBF]

Flacco is the same type of guy. Talented, but doesn't have that extra something of a Rodgers/Brees/Warner.

We can't fault him for TJ Houshmandzadeh and Lee Evans. He has put his team into position to win.

No, but we can fault him for being in the league five years and not improving at all during that time. He's basically the exact same guy he was as a rookie. He doesn't seem to have whatever it takes between the ears to be a legitimate Pro Bowl type of QB.

sig worthy

Hardly. Flacco played lights out in the playoffs, but is still basically the same guy he has always been. Regular season stats:QB Rating - 87.7Completion % - 59.7%TD:INT Ratio - 2.2:1Yards/Attempt - 7.19That's a pretty typical Flacco season. 2010 was actually his best year. In terms of where he slots in among all of the NFL QBs, I don't think he's a top 10 guy. You can make a good case for 10-15 guys ahead of him.And he's still never made the Pro Bowl.

 

[thriftyrocker]

Hardly. Flacco played lights out in the playoffs, but is still basically the same guy he has always been. Regular season stats:

QB Rating - 87.7

Completion % - 59.7%

TD:INT Ratio - 2.2:1

Yards/Attempt - 7.19

That's a pretty typical Flacco season. 2010 was actually his best year.

In terms of where he slots in among all of the NFL QBs, I don't think he's a top 10 guy. You can make a good case for 10-15 guys ahead of him.

And he's still never made the Pro Bowl.

Didn't expect you to be any less stubborn. The bolded is funny because, yes, he's always been lights out in the playoffs. Just this year Boldin caught the critical ball. Which was the whole point of the original discussion. LOL (literally).Stats in full games since Caldwell became OC: 284 yd 2.7 TD(15pass+1rush) 0.5 TO = 26.8 FP/gm

Would love to see your list of 10 QBs you'd rather have from an NFL/non-fantasy perspective. To cut to the chase: How can you rate Ryan ahead of him at this point?

 

[EBF]

Would love to see your list of 10 QBs you'd rather have from an NFL/non-fantasy perspective.

Lots of guys have a case based on regular season performance. These guys are clearly better:Tom BradyDrew BreesAaron RodgersPeyton ManningThese guys are probably better on the balance of their careers:Ben RoethlisbergerTony RomoEli ManningPhilip Rivers (although he kinda sucks now)Matt RyanAnd you can make a good case for these younger guys surpassing him, if they haven't already:Cam NewtonRussell WilsonRobert GriffinAndrew LuckMatt StaffordColin KaepernickSo I think you can pretty easily find 10 guys to take ahead of him. You can argue that he's more clutch than guys like Romo and Ryan. I wouldn't dispute that. On the other hand, they've been better in the regular season. Playoff wins are important. They're what people remember. But they're also only one part of the equation, as a guy like Mark Sanchez can tell you. Flacco will be a hot name right now because of what he and his team just accomplished, but in terms of overall performance he doesn't stack up with the best in the league. I'd probably rank him in Eli/Romo/Ryan/Stafford territory as an NFL QB. A fringe top 10 guy. Very good, and capable of playing great over short stretches of time, but still not consistently excellent.

 

[thriftyrocker]

Would love to see your list of 10 QBs you'd rather have from an NFL/non-fantasy perspective.

Lots of guys have a case based on regular season performance. These guys are clearly better:Tom Brady

Drew Brees

Aaron Rodgers

Peyton Manning

These guys are probably better on the balance of their careers:

Ben Roethlisberger

Tony Romo

Eli Manning

Philip Rivers (although he kinda sucks now)

Matt Ryan

And you can make a good case for these younger guys surpassing him, if they haven't already:

Cam Newton

Russell Wilson

Robert Griffin

Andrew Luck

Matt Stafford

Colin Kaepernick

So I think you can pretty easily find 10 guys to take ahead of him. You can argue that he's more clutch than guys like Romo and Ryan. I wouldn't dispute that. On the other hand, they've been better in the regular season. Playoff wins are important. They're what people remember. But they're also only one part of the equation, as a guy like Mark Sanchez can tell you. Flacco will be a hot name right now because of what he and his team just accomplished, but in terms of overall performance he doesn't stack up with the best in the league. I'd probably rank him in Eli/Romo/Ryan/Stafford territory as an NFL QB. A fringe top 10 guy. Very good, and capable of playing great over short stretches of time, but still not consistently excellent.

You're implying Flacco doesn't win regular season games when he has made the playoffs every year of his career and has a 67.5 career winning percentage which if maintained would put him above people like Brett Favre, Jim Kelly, Dan Marino. Maybe we need a definition of better? You mean strictly from Y/A better, or do you mean NFL better. Really you gave me a list of 4 names that are definitely better and I already have a problem with 2 of them. Flacco probably signs a 5 or 6 year contract so let's look at it from that sort of window. You will lucky to get half of that out of Manning. Actually I'm surprised your list isn't inverted. I could see NFL people making the same decision fantasy people do and saying someone like Kap, Wilson or Luck is just as good now and can be better. If you put Kap or Luck in the definitely category I would have no problem with it.

But compared to Ryan, both have won reg season games at a ridiculous rate whereas one always delivered in the playoffs and the other mostly has not. To put Rivers on that list is ridiculous IMO. I mean, I liked him as much as anyone 2 or 3 years ago but the decline is obvious even to NFL FOs.

 

[SSOG]

Hardly. Flacco played lights out in the playoffs, but is still basically the same guy he has always been. Regular season stats:

QB Rating - 87.7

Completion % - 59.7%

TD:INT Ratio - 2.2:1

Yards/Attempt - 7.19

That's a pretty typical Flacco season. 2010 was actually his best year.

In terms of where he slots in among all of the NFL QBs, I don't think he's a top 10 guy. You can make a good case for 10-15 guys ahead of him.

And he's still never made the Pro Bowl.

Didn't expect you to be any less stubborn. The bolded is funny because, yes, he's always been lights out in the playoffs. Just this year Boldin caught the critical ball. Which was the whole point of the original discussion. LOL (literally).Stats in full games since Caldwell became OC: 284 yd 2.7 TD(15pass+1rush) 0.5 TO = 26.8 FP/gm

Would love to see your list of 10 QBs you'd rather have from an NFL/non-fantasy perspective. To cut to the chase: How can you rate Ryan ahead of him at this point?

By "lights out in the playoffs", do you mean he played as if someone turned off the lights, or that his play was so awful you wanted to turn the lights off and hide? Because here were his first 3 trips to the playoffs...9/23 for 135/0/0

11/22 for 161/1/0

13/30 for 141/0/3

4/10 for 34/0/1

20/35 for 189/0/2

25/34 for 265/2/0

16/30 for 125/1/1

Total: 98/184 (53%) for 1050 (150 ypg, 5.7 YPA) with 4 TDs and 7 INTs (61.6 rating), and another 28 carries for 27 yards and a TD.

Edit: I'd daresay those numbers are downright Skeltonesque. And they represent 60% of his career, in terms of playoff appearances. Even counting this year, which was one of the greatest postseasons by any QB in history, his postseason passer rating of 87 and YPA of 7.2 are virtually indistinguishable from his career regular season marks.

 

[SSOG]

But compared to Ryan, both have won reg season games at a ridiculous rate whereas one always delivered in the playoffs and the other mostly has not. To put Rivers on that list is ridiculous IMO. I mean, I liked him as much as anyone 2 or 3 years ago but the decline is obvious even to NFL FOs.

That word you keep using... I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

OMG ... are we really going to have to listen to Brad Johnson Trent Dilfer Eli Manning Joe Flacco is elite now that he won a Super Bowl?

 

[EBF]

You're implying Flacco doesn't win regular season games when he has made the playoffs every year of his career and has a 67.5 career winning percentage which if maintained would put him above people like Brett Favre, Jim Kelly, Dan Marino. Maybe we need a definition of better? You mean strictly from Y/A better, or do you mean NFL better.

The quarterback is the most important player on the team, but ultimately he's just one piece of the puzzle. Part of the reason why guys like Rodgers, Eli, and Flacco have won Super Bowls in recent years is because of the players around them. That's not to say that those guys aren't good QBs. They are. However, it's important to point out that they're also good QBs on good teams. So when you start using things like wins to argue one QB over another, I think it's a bit misguided. The supporting cast is a huge factor. In Flacco's case, the fact that he plays on a Ravens team that always drafts well and always has a really tough defense goes a long way towards explaining why he has appeared in the playoffs so frequently. It's not like he's been carrying bad teams on his back. I would be saying the same things today about Kaepernick if his team had won. He made some great plays throughout the postseason. On the other hand, he's not the entire team. Frank Gore, Vernon Davis, Michael Crabtree, Patrick Willis, Justin Smith, Aldon Smith, Navorro Bowman, Donte Whitner, and others are a big part of the reason why San Francisco has been a tough team in recent seasons. Stick Kaepernick on the Ken Dorsey 9ers with Brandon Lloyd and Cedric Wilson as his top two receivers and an inept coaching staff and front office calling the shots, and he probably doesn't even make the playoffs this year.

I'm pretty consistent when it comes to how I evaluate QBs. Whether the topic is Ryan, Roethlisberger, Wilson, Newton, Flacco, or Stafford, I typically point to the same stats. I look at completion percentage, YPA, TD:INT ratio, and QB rating (which is basically just a measure of those other stats). These are the things that I've emphasized for years. If a player is weak in these categories, it's pretty unlikely that I'll consider him a great NFL QB. You can call that stubborness, but it's completely transparent and consistent. It has very little to do with bias against specific players. It's just a reflection of which stats I happen to value. And the players that I value will be an extension of that.

Flacco played great in the postseason. In that regard, he proved me wrong. I never thought he would be a big game QB. However, in terms of his overall performance, he's not really in the discussion as an elite pro at the moment. If you want to compare him to other NFL QBs, the way I would approach that question would be to ask myself who I would want if I had to win a game tomorrow with a generic supporting cast. I'd definitely take Peyton, Brees, Rodgers, and Brady over Flacco. I'd probably take a healthy Roethlisberger over him. I think he's a coin flip with Stafford, Eli, and Ryan. I think Kaepernick, Wilson, Luck, Newton, and a 100% healthy RGIII would give you a similar chance to win right now. I foresee a couple of those guys clearly surpassing Flacco in the next year or two. So he probably checks in somewhere around QB8-QB12 in my rankings of current NFL QBs. Solid, but definitely a notch below the elite. And until he sustains elite performance over a complete season, there's little reason to adjust that thinking.

Overall, I don't think you're looking at this from the right perspective. The question isn't "Can Joe Flacco win games with the Ravens?" We know the answer is yes. The question you should be asking is, "Could Matt Stafford win games with the Ravens?" And "Could Cam Newton win games with the Ravens?" And "Could Aaron Rodgers win games with the Ravens?" And so on. Because when you rank a player in terms of his real life NFL ability, you're supposed to separate him from the context and ask yourself how he compares to his peers on a level playing field. And when you look at things from that standpoint, you'll start to see why I have Flacco as a top 8-15 guy and not a top 5 guy. He's solid, but lots of QBs would win in the same situation.

 

[thriftyrocker]

Because here were his first 3 trips to the playoffs...

(Edit by TR: 2008 2-1)

9/23 for 135/0/0

11/22 for 161/1/0

13/30 for 141/0/3

(Edit by TR: 2009 Hurt)

4/10 for 34/0/1

(Edit by TR: 2010 2-1)

20/35 for 189/0/2

25/34 for 265/2/0

16/30 for 125/1/1

Total: 98/184 (53%) for 1050 (150 ypg, 5.7 YPA) with 4 TDs and 7 INTs (61.6 rating), and another 28 carries for 27 yards and a TD.

He played great in 2008, 2010, 2011, and 2012, and was hurt in 2009. He made multiple plays that either won his team games, or put the team into position to win. If you want to say differently please say so instead of cherry picking stats to make a bad point.Even in the 2010 Steelers game, yes he only had 125 yards and had an INT, but he put the team in position to win the game. Housh dropped an easy pass on the numbers and the drive ended.

His passing stats as a rookie in the playoffs are negligible, but he made the passes needed to win 2 games in defensive-led victories.

If you don't watch the games and only follow stats, that's fine, but it will severely limit this discussion.

 

[thriftyrocker]

OMG ... are we really going to have to listen to Brad Johnson Trent Dilfer Eli Manning Joe Flacco is elite now that he won a Super Bowl?

Thing is we discussed it 2 months ago.

 

[thriftyrocker]

I typically point to the same stats. I look at completion percentage, YPA, TD:INT ratio, and QB rating (which is basically just a measure of those other stats).

Which all goes back to the original discussion, right? Is W-L another stat to look at. IMO yes. Flacco has done it long enough his win % is a valid measure. He may do it with the threat of long passes to open up runs (which is hard to quantify, or may include PI penalties you're not considering) or low turnover rate (which may be neutralized by TDs going to RB or low scoring games). His QB rating is great. Not elite, but great.

Overall, I don't think you're looking at this from the right perspective. The question isn't "Can Joe Flacco win games with the Ravens?" We know the answer is yes. The question you should be asking is, "Could Matt Stafford win games with the Ravens?" And "Could Cam Newton win games with the Ravens?" And "Could Aaron Rodgers win games with the Ravens?"

Stafford and Cam would have the same limitations they have now, IMO. Which defense is better now DEN or BAL? NE or BAL? SF or BAL? BAL may be the worst of the 4. Flacco makes the Ravens hard to defend. I think Flacco is a great "game manager" QB. Hard not to appreciate how he slowed down the game in the 4Q to (almost..) finish it. Compared to your quote above about not having enough "between the ears."I understand Flacco is hard to love, and it's an opportune time to support him, but I do think he's been undervalued from both an NFL and fantasy standpoint. Although this week is not the best time to buy obviously.

 

[Concept Coop]

I understand Flacco is hard to love, and it's an opportune time to support him, but I do think he's been undervalued from both an NFL and fantasy standpoint.

Where do you rank him in both places?

 

[SSOG]

Because here were his first 3 trips to the playoffs...

(Edit by TR: 2008 2-1)

9/23 for 135/0/0

11/22 for 161/1/0

13/30 for 141/0/3

(Edit by TR: 2009 Hurt)

4/10 for 34/0/1

(Edit by TR: 2010 2-1)

20/35 for 189/0/2

25/34 for 265/2/0

16/30 for 125/1/1

Total: 98/184 (53%) for 1050 (150 ypg, 5.7 YPA) with 4 TDs and 7 INTs (61.6 rating), and another 28 carries for 27 yards and a TD.

He played great in 2008, 2010, 2011, and 2012, and was hurt in 2009. He made multiple plays that either won his team games, or put the team into position to win. If you want to say differently please say so instead of cherry picking stats to make a bad point.Even in the 2010 Steelers game, yes he only had 125 yards and had an INT, but he put the team in position to win the game. Housh dropped an easy pass on the numbers and the drive ended.

His passing stats as a rookie in the playoffs are negligible, but he made the passes needed to win 2 games in defensive-led victories.

If you don't watch the games and only follow stats, that's fine, but it will severely limit this discussion.

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. Look, I'm not cherry-picking stats. I'm doing the opposite- I'm giving you ALL OF HIS STATS from his first three years. You claimed he always played lights out, and to disprove an "always" statement I really only need one counter example, but I gave you three entire years worth of counter examples, instead. Joe Flacco played like death warmed over his first three seasons. There is NO WAY WHATSOEVER to spin a 61 QB rating over a 7 game sample into "lights out play". He was atrocious, but luckily he had a top 3 defense in all of those seasons that dragged his reeking carcass to a couple of woefully undeserved wins. I mean, he was BRUTAL in some of those games, but luckily, his defense gave up 9, 10, 14, and 7 points in four games, so he managed to luck into some wins.

If you'd prefer some advanced stats... here are Baltimore's EPA (estimated points added) by their passing game in those 7 games: 1.91, 2.48, -16.85, -3.73, -7.21, 13.17, -8.34.

Look, it's been a while since someone accused me of just reading stats and not watching the games. I was hoping we were past that by now. I post stats because they're objective, because discussions would be really freaking stupid if they all devolved into "lol I watched him and he was terrible" "no lol I watched him and he was lights out" "lol do u even watch the games". I watched the games. I don't think the stats were particularly unfair to Flacco, but if you do and you think they'd benefit from some context, feel free to provide it. I warn you that you'll need a whole shipload of context to explain away those stats, though. Because they were PUTRID.

Joe Flacco is a guy who has been paired with a top-3 defense in each of his four seasons. Joe Flacco is a guy who has won a lot of games. The preceding two sentences are not anywhere near as unrelated as you seem to think they are.

Edit: just noticed the edits you added to my original post. Games 4 and 5 both came in his second postseason. Flacco was not hurt- he played every snap for his team in both games, and had all but 9 of his team's pass attempts during the regular season, including all of them from week 15 on. He wasn't hurt, although I can see why you thought he was, because the mind boggles at the thought of an NFL QB playing an entire game and only accumulating 34 yards. Luckily, his team still scored 33 points because they had 4 takeaways and 234 rushing yards. And, of course, the lights out play of Joe Flacco, making the plays he had to make to win that game- which in this case, was "absolutely nothing".

 

[BeTheMatch]

I wonder if all those claiming Flacco is suddenly elite would still think so if all those jump balls he threw up for grabs in the playoffs were picked off instead?

 

[thriftyrocker]

I understand Flacco is hard to love, and it's an opportune time to support him, but I do think he's been undervalued from both an NFL and fantasy standpoint.

Where do you rank him in both places?

Well part of the discussion 2 mos ago was Flacco vs. Dalton, with you taking the Dalton side. How high to value Flacco in fantasy is dependent on that absurd FP/gm since Caldwell took over. Obviously it's a high number, and within earshot making him very valuable, but I acknowledge you can't trust it yet. Rodgers Luck RG3 Newton Kap Wilson Ryan Brees Brady Peyton Stafford Eli Flacco Ben RomoDalton Rivers Cutler Vick TannehillIf he comes out in 2013 and continues to do well, he could jump a tier pretty quick (for me).From an NFL standpoint, I would move Ryan, Peyton, Stafford, and Newton below him, and several others would be close/same tier. Assuming a 5 year window based on his expected contract length.Rodgers Luck Kap Brady BreesFlacco Wilson Eli Ben Peyton RG3 Ryan Stafford Romo Newton RG3 is pretty tricky because of the injury issues (both recovery and durability) and the talent pool is diluted by a factor of 32/12 (that much harder to find another one). If he was bulletproof he would probably be QB1.

 

[SSOG]

Edit: just noticed the edits you added to my original post. Games 4 and 5 both came in his second postseason. Flacco was not hurt- he played every snap for his team in both games, and had all but 9 of his team's pass attempts during the regular season, including all of them from week 15 on. He wasn't hurt, although I can see why you thought he was, because the mind boggles at the thought of an NFL QB playing an entire game and only accumulating 34 yards. Luckily, his team still scored 33 points because they had 4 takeaways and 234 rushing yards. And, of course, the lights out play of Joe Flacco, making the plays he had to make to win that game- which in this case, was "absolutely nothing".

Expanding on that New England game, here are Baltimore's drives for the day:83 yards, TD17 yards, TD-1 yards, punt25 yards, TD0 yards, FG10 yards, int1 yard, punt22 yards, end of half8 yards, punt18 yards, FG52 yards, TD31 yards, puntThat 83 yard "drive" was one play long- a Ray Rice run. Then Baltimore didn't have another drive over 25 yards until the 4th quarter, by which time they had put 27 points on the board because the defense kept giving them the ball in great field position. Flacco had 9 passing yards and 0 rushing yards at the beginning of the 4th quarter, yet his team had 27 points. And he gets credited with a "win" for that game, while Russell Wilson had 385 passing, 60 rushing, and 3 TDs against Atlanta but gets the "loss" because his defense couldn't stop a FG. Which perfectly illustrates why wins and losses are the stupidest, most asinine QB stats in NFL history.Edit: the Jets gave Sanchez that idiotic extension because he was one of 5 QBs with 30 wins in his first 3 years. Again- QB wins. I really cannot overemphasize just how stupid of a stat it is, especially when used to evaluate QBs who have been paired with exceptionally good or exceptionally bad defenses.

 

[thriftyrocker]

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.

 

[thriftyrocker]

He was hurt in 2009

 

[thriftyrocker]

I wonder if all those claiming Flacco is suddenly elite would still think so if all those jump balls he threw up for grabs in the playoffs were picked off instead?

I'm the only one arguing for him, so I'll respond and say I don't know. If his (ETA: recent) career TD:INT ratio was worse, my opinion of him would change. If he had 3 interceptions yesterday and the team lost by 10, I'd still like him but would be more "ho hum, maybe it's not in the cards for him." If the ball to Boldin was actually jumped by a DB and returned for a TD (or 1 other sole play went the other way), my opinion would be the same, because he would still have a solid career TD:INT ratio and a great 2012 playoffs.

 

[SSOG]

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.

 

[thriftyrocker]

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.

 

[Instinctive]

Joe Flacco has always been a great playoff QB. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

This deserves more appreciation. Nice reference.My two cents: Flacco is totally benefitting from the Sanchize Effect. He plays on a great team. Measuring a QB by wins is moronic. Measuring him by his passing stats...he looks to me like an average QB with a great team around him. Not really seeing the other arguments.

 

[SSOG]

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.

 

[lbouchard]

Joe Flacco has always been a great playoff QB. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

This deserves more appreciation. Nice reference.My two cents: Flacco is totally benefitting from the Sanchize Effect. He plays on a great team. Measuring a QB by wins is moronic. Measuring him by his passing stats...he looks to me like an average QB with a great team around him. Not really seeing the other arguments.

Do you think the Ravens, or more specifically their defense, were great this year?

 

[thriftyrocker]

My two cents: Flacco is totally benefitting from the Sanchize Effect. He plays on a great team.

Only thing great about the Ravens 2012 was the OL and Flacco performance down the stretch. If you feel otherwise, please enumerate.

Measuring a QB by wins is moronic. Measuring him by his passing stats...he looks to me like an average QB with a great team around him. Not really seeing the other arguments.

Judging by QBR he's the 12th best QB in the NFL in 2012, and has been as high as 7th. For 2012, better than Eli, Luck (obv y1 for him), and Stafford. Sanchez has never been higher than 23. Calling it the Sanchez Effect is too harsh to be taken seriously, IMO.The argument is not to use W-L as a bare metric, but to elevate QBs who W before the fantasy stats catch up. To downgrade QBs who put up stats but can't manage to W when putting up stats. I am not saying Matt Cassel was at 10-5 a good investment or that Cam Newton at 13-19 is a bad investment, just that W-L tells you something about a QB that sometimes metrics do not.

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.

I acknowledge it was up and down and both defenses played great. If I'm guilty of hyperbole, that's fine, but he converted TDs, put his team in position to win not just the Housh pass but also the prior drive that could have put them up 4, and some key plays in the 1h.

 

[ConnSKINS26]

Anyone else trying to deal for Fitz before AZ does anything with their QB problem?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Anyone else trying to deal for Fitz before AZ does anything with their QB problem?

Yes, but the problem is that the people smart enough to own Fitz in the first place are smart enough not to sell him low.

 

[ConnSKINS26]

Anyone else trying to deal for Fitz before AZ does anything with their QB problem?

Yes, but the problem is that the people smart enough to own Fitz in the first place are smart enough not to sell him low.

You're probably right. I think the best chance at him is if a rebuilding team owns him and you have a high-end, young WR2 to add to in order to get him. The WR position is an interesting one right now because the first few tiers are so young and so deep. It's easy to say that Fitz is one of the most talented WR's in the NFL who should bounce back to being a top-5 option with a better QB, but no one out there is trading one of their younger top-15 WR's for him straight up. There aren't any people out there willing to move Calvin, Green Julio, Dez, Harvin, DT, Marshall, Cruz, Nicks, Crabtree, or Cobb for him, most likely. That leaves the Decker, Nelson, Wallace, Bowe, Jennings, Blackmon, Welker, White, Andre, Colston, VJackson, Garçon grouping, in no particular order at all. And the Nelson/Bowe/Andre/VJ owners might not have much incentive to do it. Welker either if he stays in NE.So unless you're moving picks, or players at other positions, it's hard to see where you're going to get a deal for Fitz done.Obviously there are tons of deals being done out there for other positions and picks.But sometimes the easiest trade to sell a rebuilding team on is a younger player at the same position + for an older player like Fitz.

 

[EBF]

I am thinking about finally putting together my own bare bones FF website with dynasty rankings and prospect evaluations. Here's my first crack at a current set of WR rankings:Calvin JohnsonAJ GreenJulio JonesDez BryantDemaryius Thomas------------------------Brandon MarshallPercy HarvinVictor CruzMichael CrabtreeJustin BlackmonLarry Fitzgerald-------------------------Randall CobbCecil ShortsHakeem Nicks--------------------------Dwayne BoweMike WallaceVincent JacksonRoddy WhiteAndre JohnsonGreg JenningsWes Welker--------------------------Josh GordonKendall WrightMichael FloydMike WilliamsPierre GarconTorrey SmithEric DeckerAntonio BrownJordy NelsonDeSean JacksonMarques ColstonSantonio HolmesMiles AustinChris GivensRueben Randle-------------------------Sidney RiceReggie WayneKenny BrittJon BaldwinJames JonesAndre RobertsTY HiltonAnquan Boldin-----------------------Alshon JefferyStephen HillGolden TateDanario AlexanderDenarius MooreSteve Smith (CAR)TJ GrahamVincent BrownAJ Jenkins-------------------Joseph MorganBrian QuickMohamed SanuMarvin JonesDwayne HarrisDevon WylieTitus YoungThe top 5 is easy and I think the next two tiers are fairly cut-and-dried for me. Where things get interesting is where you have to start weighing unproven high-ceiling prospects like Gordon and Wright against established WR2 types like Decker, Brown, Torrey, DeSean, and Nelson. If you can make the right evaluations, you can make a big profit buying guys like Gordon, Givens, and Floyd right now. But if you're wrong...you get Robert Meachem or Braylon Edwards.

 

[jonboltz]

Love the top two tiers. Outside of that, only two people seemed to jump out as being placed far from where I'd have them -- 1) Jennings, who I think is a bit too high for my tastes due his age and unknown situation, and 2) Nelson, who I have in the 10-12 range, and expect to be the top dynasty WR in GB for the next 2-3 years, and pick up right where he left off in 2011 and 2012 (pre-injury).

 

[Dez]

You really taking Shorts over all those WR's below him ? Can't see it.

 

[Instinctive]

Measuring a QB by wins is moronic. Measuring him by his passing stats...he looks to me like an average QB with a great team around him. Not really seeing the other arguments.

Judging by QBR he's the 12th best QB in the NFL in 2012, and has been as high as 7th. For 2012, better than Eli, Luck (obv y1 for him), and Stafford. Sanchez has never been higher than 23. Calling it the Sanchez Effect is too harsh to be taken seriously, IMO.The argument is not to use W-L as a bare metric, but to elevate QBs who W before the fantasy stats catch up. To downgrade QBs who put up stats but can't manage to W when putting up stats. I am not saying Matt Cassel was at 10-5 a good investment or that Cam Newton at 13-19 is a bad investment, just that W-L tells you something about a QB that sometimes metrics do not.

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

 

[EBF]

You really taking Shorts over all those WR's below him ? Can't see it.

IMO, there aren't that many guys who are younger and better. I should probably bump him down one spot behind Nicks, but he scored on par with just about anyone last season after becoming a starter and seemingly has a lot more left in the tank than the likes of VJax/Roddy/Welker. I might have him a little bit too high, but I think he's underrated in general. I think last season was a genuine reflection of his talent and not an aberration, as lot of people seem to believe.

 

[thriftyrocker]

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

12 teams make the playoffs

 

[Instinctive]

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

12 teams make the playoffs

I fail to see the correlation. Are you saying only elite/above average teams make the playoffs? Cuz I'l go to war with that view. It may take me a week or two (I've got the LSAT this Saturday) but it won't take too long, I imagine, to find data that shreds that statement.

 

[thriftyrocker]

You really taking Shorts over all those WR's below him ? Can't see it.

IMO, there aren't that many guys who are younger and better.

It seems the only player you are abnormally high on is Shorts (and looking deeper Floyd and Givens). There are more players you are abnormally low on, like Nelson, Britt, Garcon, Decker, Jeffery, could go on. Do you think that's accurate?

 

[EBF]

You really taking Shorts over all those WR's below him ? Can't see it.

IMO, there aren't that many guys who are younger and better.

It seems the only player you are abnormally high on is Shorts (and looking deeper Floyd and Givens). There are more players you are abnormally low on, like Nelson, Britt, Garcon, Decker, Jeffery, could go on. Do you think that's accurate?

You'd have to tell me. The rankings are right there for you to see.I don't have anything to compare them to and I don't know what the ADP picture looks like right now.

 

[Enraged Nerfball]

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.

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?

 

[Tau837]

You really taking Shorts over all those WR's below him ? Can't see it.

IMO, there aren't that many guys who are younger and better. I should probably bump him down one spot behind Nicks, but he scored on par with just about anyone last season after becoming a starter and seemingly has a lot more left in the tank than the likes of VJax/Roddy/Welker. I might have him a little bit too high, but I think he's underrated in general. I think last season was a genuine reflection of his talent and not an aberration, as lot of people seem to believe.

It's just kind of hard to get on board with 2 JAX WRs being in the top 13...

 

[menobrown]

You really taking Shorts over all those WR's below him ? Can't see it.

IMO, there aren't that many guys who are younger and better.

It seems the only player you are abnormally high on is Shorts (and looking deeper Floyd and Givens). There are more players you are abnormally low on, like Nelson, Britt, Garcon, Decker, Jeffery, could go on. Do you think that's accurate?

Steve Johnson did not even make the rankings.

 

[SSOG]

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

12 teams make the playoffs

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.

 

[SSOG]

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.

 

[thriftyrocker]

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

12 teams make the playoffs

I fail to see the correlation. Are you saying only elite/above average teams make the playoffs? Cuz I'l go to war with that view. It may take me a week or two (I've got the LSAT this Saturday) but it won't take too long, I imagine, to find data that shreds that statement.

I'm sure that would be a very interesting discussion but I'll pass if it's okay with you. Some years there are not 12 good teams. Some years there are not 12 good QBs. This year there were at least 12 good QBs and Flacco was one of them. 12 out of 32 is an arbitrary cutoff but no less so than 10 out of 32 (which you made). He was closer to QB10 in regular season play than he was QB20, both IMO and statistically.

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.

Statistically he was the 12th best QB in 2012 according to QBR. That's not opinion, just offering evidence to dispel "average" at least by my definition of the word. He is 18th in NFL history in career QBR (granted older players are hugely shortchanged here). If the season ended week 17, he might have been the 9th or 10th best QB of 2012. Hard for me to accept Rivers or Ben had better years. Schaub had a similar regular season (far from elite, but they lose the division to IND if they play Yates all year). One of EBF's retorts was "he still didn't make the pro bowl" but did he really have a worse year than 2 of the 3 that represented the AFC (Schaub and Luck). Similar, as good, didn't get the votes, so what (he will next year).He is not a 1st tier QB in NFL or dynasty terms. He is not elite. He has elite upside but is not there yet and probably won't get there. He is good. He has helped the Ravens win games with regularity both in the regular season and playoffs. He has been great at times. He was undervalued in both NFL and dynasty terms as recently as two weeks ago and maybe still if people view him as the same guy he was as a rookie. From a NFL GM perspective, there are several QB with better QBR I would take him over due to the other guy's 1) age, 2) injury, 3) risk of not repeating one good year, 4) history of falling short in the playoffs and only beating mediocre teams, and/or 5) recent precipitous decline in play and ability to win games. He is not better than Peyton Manning but I would rather start a franchise with him than Manning, and I realize if Raheem Moore didn't fall asleep that statement would be harder to believe.

 

[dewmass]

I am thinking about finally putting together my own bare bones FF website with dynasty rankings and prospect evaluations.

I think this is a great idea. At the risk of sounding like a ball washer, I've not seen many other sites with the kind of analysis and passion you put into your evaluations you put on here.