PDA

View Full Version : Joe Flacco = Big Ben?????


HereWeGoSteelers219
10-05-2008, 03:35 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

STFU ESPN.

klick81
10-05-2008, 04:08 PM
Got a link?

HereWeGoSteelers219
10-05-2008, 04:17 PM
Got a link?

I guess you've never read or heard every ESPN analyst there is comparing Flacco to Ben?

Hapa
10-05-2008, 04:18 PM
Flacco is a chump

steelpride12
10-05-2008, 04:19 PM
Good joke.

Avoid LLoyd1975
10-05-2008, 04:48 PM
Dude the title of this thread made me wanna kick your ass until I opened it and saw your sarcasm. F ESPN. Didn't the entire NFL Nation think that the Ratbirds reached for Flacco in the first? Flacco is the jock strap boy for the NFL.

fansince'76
10-05-2008, 04:50 PM
Ratbirds = 2-2 and fading fast. Ben went 14-0 in the regular season as a rookie. 'Nuff said. Reason #8,157,372 why I don't watch ESPN outside of a Steelers game being broadcast on it.

Avoid LLoyd1975
10-05-2008, 05:01 PM
Ratbirds = 2-2 and fading fast. Ben went 14-0 in the regular season as a rookie. 'Nuff said. Reason #8,157,372 why I don't watch ESPN outside of a Steelers game being broadcast on it.

Didn't see the game out here on the left coast but the score shows that they held their own agianst the over the hill Kerry Collin led Ravens. The only thing I like about the Ravens and Titans....Is nothing. Maybe except for Chris Hope.

lilyoder6
10-05-2008, 05:03 PM
lol.. i laughed at that comparison..

hizmi
10-05-2008, 11:07 PM
Ratbirds = 2-2 and fading fast. Ben went 14-0 in the regular season as a rookie. 'Nuff said. Reason #8,157,372 why I don't watch ESPN outside of a Steelers game being broadcast on it.

Titans are a heckuva team so there's no shame in losing to them by 3 on a short week following a heartbreaking loss to a division rival

We've won 3 games by a total of 12 points and they've lost two games by a total of 6 points...a few breaks here or there and they could be leading the division.

fansince'76
10-05-2008, 11:15 PM
Titans are a heckuva team so there's no shame in losing to them by 3 on a short week following a heartbreaking loss to a division rival

We've won 3 games by a total of 12 points and they've lost two games by a total of 6 points...a few breaks here or there and they could be leading the division.

Yeah, and if my aunt had a johnson she'd be my uncle too. The Ratbirds are not that good a team.

MasterOfPuppets
10-05-2008, 11:16 PM
here's the difference between rookie flacco, and rookie ben.......ben wasn't asked to carry the team on his shoulders.....flacco is.i hope i'm wrong, but i think flacco is gonna be a descent QB for the ratbirds in the future.

hizmi
10-05-2008, 11:22 PM
Yeah, and if my aunt had a johnson she'd be my uncle too. The Ratbirds are not that good a team.

Based on what? They dominated 2 bad teams and nearly beat 2 very good teams, one of them on the road. After 3 weeks, they were statistically the best team in the league (without opponent adjustment).

By every measure we aren't significantly better than them, and if you don't buy the statistical argument, they proved it on the field against us.

fansince'76
10-05-2008, 11:24 PM
Based on what? They dominated 2 bad teams and nearly beat 2 very good teams, one of them on the road. After 3 weeks, they were statistically the best team in the league (without opponent adjustment).

By every measure we aren't significantly better than them, and if you don't buy the statistical argument, they proved it on the field against us.

Oh, that's right - I forgot who I was arguing with - do they have the best success rate and DVOA stats I suppose? :coffee:

hizmi
10-05-2008, 11:30 PM
Oh, that's right - I forgot who I was arguing with - do they have the best success rate and DVOA stats I suppose? :coffee:

As a matter a fact, yes, they were No. 1 in DVOA coming into this week :wave:

Edman
10-05-2008, 11:32 PM
The Ratbirds scared a lot of people by beating up on the the Ohio turd twins.

They played two good teams and faltered. Baltimores "#1 Defense" gave up an 80 yard TD drive that sealed the game for the Titans. I'm sure Ray Lewis and his goons will blame it on the offense, though.

They're a better team than last year, but obviously they're still mediocre.

hizmi
10-05-2008, 11:35 PM
The Ratbirds scared a lot of people by beating up on the the Ohio turd twins.

They played two good teams and faltered. Baltimores "#1 Defense" gave up an 80 yard TD drive. I'm sure Ray Lewis and his goons will blame it on the offense, though.

They're a better team than last year, but obviously they're still mediocre.

Well that drive was kept alive by a dubious roughing the passer penalty (at least thats what olberman said on the highlights).

If you think they're mediocre, then we're mediocre, because our stats our very similar and in truth theirs are slightly better (maybe not after this week and maybe not after opponent adjustments).

fansince'76
10-05-2008, 11:37 PM
If you think they're mediocre, then we're mediocre, because our stats our very similar and in truth theirs are slightly better (maybe not after this week and maybe not after opponent adjustments).

4-1 > 2-2. The only stat that matters.

hizmi
10-05-2008, 11:41 PM
4-1 > 2-2. The only stat that matters.

In the grand scheme of things, yes.

But if you want to predict future performance, DVOA and even a simple stat like point differential have been more accurate than win-loss record.

Our odds of winning the division went up dramatically after this week, because a 1 and 1/2 game lead is significant, but like I've said a few plays here or there and the ravens would be in the driver's seat.

MasterOfPuppets
10-05-2008, 11:54 PM
4-1 > 2-2. The only stat that matters.amen.....good teams find a way to win close games

MasterOfPuppets
10-05-2008, 11:56 PM
In the grand scheme of things, yes.

But if you want to predict future performance, DVOA and even a simple stat like point differential have been more accurate than win-loss record.

Our odds of winning the division went up dramatically after this week, because a 1 and 1/2 game lead is significant, but like I've said a few plays here or there and the ravens would be in the driver's seat.stats are about the past.....past games have nothing to do with future games, if they did, why bother to play them ?

fansince'76
10-06-2008, 12:00 AM
But if you want to predict future performance, DVOA and even a simple stat like point differential have been more accurate than win-loss record.

How'd that theory work out on this past Super Bowl? Like MoP said, that's why they play the games to begin with. Stats don't measure things like will, heart, intestinal fortitude, injuries, or which team is actually playing better at a given point in time. Or is there something in the DVOA that accounts for the Giants' 0-2 start last year before they went on to win it all as a 10-6 5th seed out of the NFC over a supposedly "unbeatable" opponent?

hizmi
10-06-2008, 12:19 AM
How'd that theory work out on this past Super Bowl? Like MoP said, that's why they play the games to begin with. Stats don't measure things like will, heart, intestinal fortitude, injuries, or which team is actually playing better at a given point in time. Or is there something in the DVOA that accounts for the Giants' 0-2 start last year before they went on to win it all as a 10-6 5th seed out of the NFC over a supposedly "unbeatable" opponent?

Of course the Giants bucked the statistical trend...DVOA gave them little chance to win the superbowl, but who in their right mind would have? Whether you took a statistical approach or not, NOBODY gave the Giants a chance, so your point is irrelevant. I don't know why you keep insisting that stats aren't infallible...of course they aren't, that's not what I'm arguing.

You claim that stats don't measure things like will, heart, intestinal fortitude (DVOA actually does take into account injuries)....well no they don't, nor can they. The problem is nobody is arguing that, so I don't really understand your point.

You seem to be arguing that the only measure of a team's performance is win-loss record. Were the Raven's better than us going into last week because they were 2-0 and we were 2-1? Does it not matter WHO you beat, WHO you lose to, HOW you win or lose, and by HOW MUCH you win or lose? Using your logic, a 2-2 team that wins two games by one point and loses two games by 50 points each is equal to a 2-2 team that wins two games by 50 each and loses by 1 twice.

hizmi
10-06-2008, 12:20 AM
stats are about the past.....past games have nothing to do with future games, if they did, why bother to play them ?

Actually past games are indicative of what will happen in the future. Are you saying that we have absolutely no idea how the Rams or Lions will do in their next game?

fansince'76
10-06-2008, 12:25 AM
Of course the Giants bucked the statistical trend...DVOA gave them little chance to win the superbowl, but who in their right mind would have? Whether you took a statistical approach or not, NOBODY gave the Giants a chance, so your point is irrelevant. I don't know why you keep insisting that stats aren't infallible...of course they aren't, that's not what I'm arguing.

Yes, you are arguing that:

But if you want to predict future performance, DVOA and even a simple stat like point differential have been more accurate than win-loss record.

I'm not saying stats aren't completely without merit, but if you take a strictly stat-based approach, you ignore too many other things - player and team psychology (heart, will, intestinal fortitude, team momentum at a given time, etc.) and that is a huge part of the game in itself. Injuries are another.

fansince'76
10-06-2008, 12:28 AM
Actually past games are indicative of what will happen in the future. Are you saying that we have absolutely no idea how the Rams or Lions will do in their next game?

So you predicted the 4-0 Bills getting shellacked by the 2-2 Cardinals today, I suppose?

hizmi
10-06-2008, 12:29 AM
Yes, you are arguing that:


Really? I said that stats are absolutely infallible, regardless of context and methodology? :noidea:

hizmi
10-06-2008, 12:32 AM
So you predicted the 4-0 Bills getting shellacked by the 2-2 Cardinals today, I suppose?

I didn't make a prediction, but again what's your point? That teams with worse statistics can beat statistically superior teams? Really? You sure about that?

fansince'76
10-06-2008, 12:34 AM
Whether you took a statistical approach or not, NOBODY gave the Giants a chance, so your point is irrelevant..

NOBODY gave the Giants a chance?

Giants' grit will overcome Pats' talent in Super Bowl

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/dr_z/01/22/superbowlxlii/index.html

fansince'76
10-06-2008, 12:35 AM
I didn't make a prediction, but again what's your point? That teams with worse statistics can beat statistically superior teams? Really? You sure about that?

Yes. The SB is proof positive of that. They're called "upsets" and they happen on a pretty much weekly basis.

hizmi
10-06-2008, 12:39 AM
NOBODY gave the Giants a chance?



http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/dr_z/01/22/superbowlxlii/index.html

I meant nobody gave them a chance at the beginning of the playoffs. I'm pretty sure DVOA gave the Giants a 25% chance of winning that game, but I could be mistaken. Either way it was a higher probability than I and most others gave them.

hizmi
10-06-2008, 12:40 AM
Yes. The SB is proof positive of that. They're called "upsets" and they happen on a pretty much weekly basis.

Either I just "whooshed" you or you just "whooshed" me....either way it's pretty sad that I can't figure it out.

Steelman16
10-06-2008, 12:44 AM
Either I just "whooshed" you or you just "whooshed" me....either way it's pretty sad that I can't figure it out.

:rolleyes:

Who cares? To heck with DVOA, I'll take a genuine win anyday.

steelwall
10-06-2008, 05:17 AM
Hate to sound so corny ....but...what the helll "Faggo" made a few good plays againts us in the game, in reality thats when the comparisions started to come out.

The next Big Ben.....well... he has king sized shoes to fill to even get close division championships, (super bowl ring?)

As I said in a previous post, we have beaten the pants off of far better QB's than Faggo.

MasterOfPuppets
10-06-2008, 07:19 AM
Hate to sound so corny ....but...what the helll "Faggo" made a few good plays againts us in the game, in reality thats when the comparisions started to come out.

The next Big Ben.....well... he has king sized shoes to fill to even get close division championships, (super bowl ring?)

As I said in a previous post, we have beaten the pants off of far better QB's than Faggo.actually i heard the comparisons back in training camp. i think it was more about physical attributes, and the fact that he comes from a small school. obviously you can't compare carrears and stats considering he's only played 4 games.

Galax Steeler
10-07-2008, 04:14 AM
The comparison is not even close Flacco will never get the numbers that ben has.

Texasteel
10-07-2008, 05:36 AM
here's the difference between rookie flacco, and rookie ben.......ben wasn't asked to carry the team on his shoulders.....flacco is.i hope i'm wrong, but i think flacco is gonna be a descent QB for the ratbirds in the future.

This may cost me my homer card, but I like Flacco. I thought he was a good QB is school and that he was a very good pick to the Rats. Comparing him to Ben is a little ridiculous though.

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-07-2008, 06:17 AM
This may cost me my homer card, but I like Flacco. I thought he was a good QB is school and that he was a very good pick to the Rats. Comparing him to Ben is a little ridiculous though.

I like Flacco also..and agree with you that there is no comparison..

BEN: Ranked #9 in the NFL with a 95.7% passer rating with 63.7% completion rating
FLACCO: ranked #29 in the NFL with a 61.9% passer rating and a 58.5% completion rating.

Discussion complete.

hizmi
10-07-2008, 11:07 AM
I like Flacco also..and agree with you that there is no comparison..

BEN: Ranked #9 in the NFL with a 95.7% passer rating with 63.7% completion rating
FLACCO: ranked #29 in the NFL with a 61.9% passer rating and a 58.5% completion rating.

Discussion complete.

You do have to consider quality of teammates and strength of opponent. Ben had Hines, Plaxico, and the best running game in the league backing him up. Flacco has Mason and a washed up Mcgahee, and he's played against 2 of the best D's in the league the last two weeks.

Both had/have good O-lines and a good defense.

St33lersguy
10-07-2008, 07:01 PM
If the guys on ESPN had brains we would not be making posts for this thread

revefsreleets
10-07-2008, 07:32 PM
I'll be anxious to see what Flacco can do given some time. He's not going to be an elite NFL QB, but he could be a servicable and reliable guy, maybe mid-tier, who manages a game and doesn't win but doesn't lose.

And he DOES have a great arm.

Hard to say...