Peter King :It's time to make room for Flacco in upper echelon of QBs

[TruthSeeker]

I just read the article and am less than impressed.

Peter King spends essentially the entire article on a Hail Mary type throw that clearly was horribly mis-defended - and this is his basis for concurring with Flacco's self-proclaimed status as elite?

 

[Double TE]

Flacco is like 3 Hall of Fame quarterbacks? A QB who:
- doesn't throw well to his left
- is overly dependent on throwing the long ball to move the team downfield
- struggles if his first receiver isn't open (according to London Fletcher on Colin Cowherd yesterday)

Flacco's good but let's not say he's a Hall of Fame type QB. He's been in a system with (up until now) a great defense, a great running back and a very good offensive line and at times has led the team to victory, but he's also (at times) been very dependent on those around him.

He's above average. He has potential to be great which is just that - potential - until he overcomes some of these flaws noted above. Mark Sanchez was touted as a really good QB as well when he had all the ingredients around him. Not so say that Flacco and Sanchez are all that comparable; Flacco is much better. But it's easy to be overhyped when you are on a really good team.

As far as the post that noted that the Ravens didn't do well in the playoffs until Flacco got there, I'd definitely agree. Flacco is an important piece in being a playoff team. But I think he was the player that put them over the top - not the player that defined the team. Flacco is relying on all the other pieces of the team to be there in order to get them as far as he has. That's what an above average QB can do. But he's not taking them to the next level because he's not quite good enough.

d%#*[email protected] first part of the sentence is a cut and paste from the Raven's fan. You basically made my point...with a much longer sentence.

 

[RobertWeathers]

...and there is Phil Sims who blames the offensive system as the reason why Flacco's stats aren't as glamerous as other QBs. Gimme a break.

I'm on record on this board saying that Flacco is an above-average QB. Flacco's issue is consistiency game-in, game-out.

With Flacco, you will get a 60% passer 3600yds, 21TDs, 10 INTs every year.

Is that uper-eschelon? No. But he is better than 2/3rds of the starting QBs out there and has produced big games in the playoffs. He does deserve some credit.

 

[Deus Irae]

Eli has won two Super Bowls. That you would even suggest that Ryan Fitzpatrick is in the same class as him is crazy.

The Super Bowls thing is where you go to break down the all-timers. It's not where you go to decide who's better in general. Dan Marino was certainly a much better QB than Trent Dilfer, despite the fact that it's Dilfer, not Marino, with a Super Bowl victory.

While I don't think Eli's down with the Fitzpatricks of the world, he's not a top level QB, either, and his career demonstrates that. He's an inconsistent, above average QB who can get very hot for stretches at a time, but is just as capable of stinking out the joint.

 

[Deus Irae]

You are right and thats my point though. What other QB gets so much flak as Flacco. Not even Romo. And why, because he thinks he's elite? I think I'm the best Madden player in Baltimore, even thought I know there are players that could and have beat me.

What the hell are you talking about? Flacco doesn't get flak. For the most part, Flacco gets ignored. The notion that he takes more flak than Romo is absurd.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I have a problem with the Headline writer, but not with the article. King's not arguing that Flacco is Elite, but that he deserves more respect. King supports his view with facts on Flacco's performance over the last few seasons, including his completions over 20 yards.

I doubt that anybody who has ever laced 'em up and stepped between the lines during an NFL game would speak lightly of the throw he made to win on Saturday, no matter how "poorly defended" it might have been. He still had to put the ball on the money way down field in the air over the arms of a rusher with no time outs if he took a sack and in sub zero conditions. He did outplay TB last January but got lost the game on a couple of breaks at the end; he also led his team to two scores from behind in the fourth quarter to beat us this year.

I have no doubt that Brady will re-establish the "proper order" of the NFL universe on Sunday, but that doesn't mean I have to take anything away from what Joe Flacco has done. Elite? No way. "Upper Echelon?" Not if it includes Brady. Better than we credit him? Yeah, probably.

 

[Dscola]

Flacco is like 3 Hall of Fame quarterbacks? A QB who:
- doesn't throw well to his left
- is overly dependent on throwing the long ball to move the team downfield
- struggles if his first receiver isn't open (according to London Fletcher on Colin Cowherd yesterday)

Flacco's good but let's not say he's a Hall of Fame type QB. He's been in a system with (up until now) a great defense, a great running back and a very good offensive line and at times has led the team to victory, but he's also (at times) been very dependent on those around him.

He's above average. He has potential to be great which is just that - potential - until he overcomes some of these flaws noted above. Mark Sanchez was touted as a really good QB as well when he had all the ingredients around him. Not so say that Flacco and Sanchez are all that comparable; Flacco is much better. But it's easy to be overhyped when you are on a really good team.

As far as the post that noted that the Ravens didn't do well in the playoffs until Flacco got there, I'd definitely agree. Flacco is an important piece in being a playoff team. But I think he was the player that put them over the top - not the player that defined the team. Flacco is relying on all the other pieces of the team to be there in order to get them as far as he has. That's what an above average QB can do. But he's not taking them to the next level because he's not quite good enough.

So I ask this; Was Bradshaw, Simms, or Aikman able to carry the team without those around him? No one is comparing him to Brady, or Montana.

No matter how bad the defense plays, if the Ravens win they get most of the credit.

Consequently, if they played say, the 49ers who can make any team look bad and he throws a pick, the whole week is spent talking about how he's a bad QB.

He's in a no-win situation. No matter how well he plays it's Ray's team. I can recall when the Pats were defense first and Ty Law was thought to be more responsible for their success than Brady. But hey, who am I kidding. Brady was the best from day one.

 

[Dscola]

I have a problem with the Headline writer, but not with the article. King's not arguing that Flacco is Elite, but that he deserves more respect. King supports his view with facts on Flacco's performance over the last few seasons, including his completions over 20 yards.

I doubt that anybody who has ever laced 'em up and stepped between the lines during an NFL game would speak lightly of the throw he made to win on Saturday, no matter how "poorly defended" it might have been. He still had to put the ball on the money way down field in the air over the arms of a rusher with no time outs if he took a sack and in sub zero conditions. He did outplay TB last January but got lost the game on a couple of breaks at the end; he also led his team to two scores from behind in the fourth quarter to beat us this year.

I have no doubt that Brady will re-establish the "proper order" of the NFL universe on Sunday, but that doesn't mean I have to take anything away from what Joe Flacco has done. Elite? No way. "Upper Echelon?" Not if it includes Brady. Better than we credit him? Yeah, probably.

With all of my posts, this is all I'm saying. I believe Upper Echelon to mean top 10 not Rodgers, Brady, Manning.

 

[Nikolai]

Yea this guy.

Rank the QBs in the NFL, and if you're actually using objective measures, your list won't be that much different. But objectivity and taking time to actually do analysis, rather than regurgitate talking points doesn't seem to be your strong suit.

Eh...:confused2:

 

[Dscola]

Rank the QBs in the NFL, and if you're actually using objective measures, your list won't be that much different. But objectivity and taking time to actually do analysis, rather than regurgitate talking points doesn't seem to be your strong suit.

Eh...:confused2:

1st of all, I've been nothing but respectful to you and your fellow board members. I know my place as a visiting fan. So the fact that you are attempting to attack my intelligence, shows more on your lack of it.

Secondly, I ranked my QBs and where I thought Flacco ranked. Because you obviously didn't see it, I''ll post it again.

Brady
Rodgers
Manning
Brees
Rothilisberger
Ryan
Eli
Flacco

 

[Deus Irae]

1st of all, I've been nothing but respectful to you and your fellow board members. I know my place as a visiting fan. So the fact that you are attempting to attack my intelligence, shows more on your lack of it.

Secondly, I ranked my QBs and where I thought Flacco ranked. Because you obviously didn't see it, I''ll post it again.

Brady
Rodgers
Manning
Brees
Rothilisberger
Ryan
Eli
Flacco

Using your list and just looking for 3 players to knock Flacco out of the top 10, which was your cutoff line:

Wilson and RG3 were both better than Flacco this season, as was the Smith/Kaepernick duo, so if you're going by this season only, Flacco's out of the top 10. Romo and Rivers have historically been better than Flacco, and Stafford had become so prior to this season, so if you're using the entire body of work approach, Flacco's out of the top 10.

Flacco's not a top 10 QB. He's in the 11-15 range

 

[Dscola]

Using your list and just looking for 3 players to knock Flacco out of the top 10, which was your cutoff line:

Wilson and RG3 were both better than Flacco this season, as was the Smith/Kaepernick duo, so if you're going by this season only, Flacco's out of the top 10. Romo and Rivers have historically been better than Flacco, and Stafford had become so prior to this season, so if you're using the entire body of work approach, Flacco's out of the top 10.

Flacco's not a top 10 QB. He's in the 11-15 range

I would never put Rivers, Stafford, and Romo above Flacco. They are the type of QBs who will be 24-36 for 400 yards 3tds and 2ints. The tds are in the first half while the game is still young and the ints are in the fourth quarter of a tie game while they're in field goal range.
As for the younger guys. I agree that they may be the top of the heap for the next 10 years but I need to see more of them to put them up in the top 10

 

[Deus Irae]

I would never put Rivers, Stafford, and Romo above Flacco.

That's the homer in you. All three have clearly been better than Flacco.

As for the younger guys. I agree that they may be the top of the heap for the next 10 years but I need to see more of them to put them up in the top 10

Again, if you're judging based on this season, they were better than Flacco, without question. If you're not just using one season, you've got no business putting Flacco ahead of the 3 from above. Either way, Flacco's outside the top 10.

 

[kennyb]

flacco is a little whacko with those long balls. But other times he's a little mentally vacant, IMO, makes mistakes.

This would be the perfect time to have him throw a 4 int day and get blown out. Perfect timing for our author.

 

[Dscola]

That's the homer in you. All three have clearly been better than Flacco.



Again, if you're judging based on this season, they were better than Flacco, without question. If you're not just using one season, you've got no business putting Flacco ahead of the 3 from above. Either way, Flacco's outside the top 10.

I'm going by career accomplishments'

The three QBs named have done nothing but choke their whole careers. Everytime they get into a big game, they choke. Stafford vs the Pack, Rivers vs the Broncos, and Romo every freaking game. Flacco may not throw for 5000 yds but he also won't throw crucial picks to lose the game either. He is amongst the best in the league for his career in protecting the ball.

As for the young guys. I agree they were definitly better this year but I'd have to see how they do going forward before I place them ahead of the vets.

 

[ivanvamp]

The Super Bowls thing is where you go to break down the all-timers. It's not where you go to decide who's better in general. Dan Marino was certainly a much better QB than Trent Dilfer, despite the fact that it's Dilfer, not Marino, with a Super Bowl victory.

While I don't think Eli's down with the Fitzpatricks of the world, he's not a top level QB, either, and his career demonstrates that. He's an inconsistent, above average QB who can get very hot for stretches at a time, but is just as capable of stinking out the joint.

I agree with you 100% on this, Deus. You may now pick yourself up off the floor.

My point was simply that Eli has proven to be a good NFL quarterback that has led his team to two SB titles and it's ludicrous to put him in the same class as Fitzpatrick. I wouldn't put him with Brady, Brees, Rodgers, or Peyton either, of course.

 

[BSR]

1st of all, I've been nothing but respectful to you and your fellow board members. I know my place as a visiting fan. So the fact that you are attempting to attack my intelligence, shows more on your lack of it.

Secondly, I ranked my QBs and where I thought Flacco ranked. Because you obviously didn't see it, I''ll post it again.

Brady
Rodgers
Manning
Brees
Rothilisberger
Ryan
Eli
Flacco

This is my problem with your list. The difference between the top 4 and the next four is very big. The difference from that later group and the next group of four, whomever they are, isn't so big. Those top 4 are really in a class by themselves and then the next big group can be moved around depending on the argument. If someone calls a QB elite or upper echelon I really think of that top group, and I am not ready to put Flacco there.

 

[YearbookCurfew]

Ugh, someone get Peter King a diaper, he's got crap coming out his mouth again.

 

[Dscola]

This is my problem with your list. The difference between the top 4 and the next four is very big. The difference from that later group and the next group of four, whomever they are, isn't so big. Those top 4 are really in a class by themselves and then the next big group can be moved around depending on the argument. If someone calls a QB elite or upper echelon I really think of that top group, and I am not ready to put Flacco there.

I see your point and I agree. Maybe our disagreement is in the phrase, "upper echelon."

There is no way those top four guys are being touched anytime soon. They are truley "Elite"

I take upper Echelon to mean the top 10 in the league and those who win on a consistent basis. This is where I think Flacco belongs. In that next 4-8 qbs. I think he's in the top half of the next tier of qbs. Just my opinion.

I accept your argument and respecfully agree with your point.

 

[goheels22002]

Using your list and just looking for 3 players to knock Flacco out of the top 10, which was your cutoff line:

Wilson and RG3 were both better than Flacco this season, as was the Smith/Kaepernick duo, so if you're going by this season only, Flacco's out of the top 10. Romo and Rivers have historically been better than Flacco, and Stafford had become so prior to this season, so if you're using the entire body of work approach, Flacco's out of the top 10.

Flacco's not a top 10 QB. He's in the 11-15 range

This is a nice parlor game while we watch the seconds tick by until game time. My current top ten definitely includes the 4 guys left standing as a starting point, so I'd go:

Brady
Rodgers
Peyton Manning
Brees
Roethlisberger (if healthy)
Eli Manning
Matt Ryan
Joe Flacco
Matt Stafford
Colin Kaepernick (only because he stepped up huge against the Packers).

Stafford is the guy who would be a top-five NFL quarterback if he was playing for a team with a good offensive line and a team with a few more skill players. He's being asked to pull a rabbit out of his hat every week. Let's put it this way, if Matt Stafford were the QB of the Ravens, we'd be freaking out right now.

Andrew Luck is my #10A - he's got the goods and will be a top 10 when the geezers get out of the way. Russell Wilson is 10B. Both guys need to do it for more than one year.

Romo is prolific but has shown no ability to handle the important games, or even the almost important games. He's the Dan Quayle of NFL quarterbacks.

RG3 doesn't have the survival skills to make my top 10. That has to be a highly developed skill.

Funny that Matt Schaub and Phillip Rivers didn't enter my mind as a top 10 option. Rivers doesn't have the work ethic to do the job and cost his coach his job, and Schaub just found out how far he has to go.