Skip to main content

Joe Flacco should not get paid as an elite-level quarterback...yet

Baltimore Ravens' Super Bowl-winning quarterback Joe Flacco is currently a free agent and some members of the media are claiming he should be the highest-paid quarterback in the NFL. While I think Baltimore would be wise to hang on to Flacco, especially given his great run in the playoffs this past season, I don't think the guy should be one of the top-paid quarterbacks in the league. Throughout his career to this point, Flacco has been fairly average as far as completion percentage goes and a little above average as far as quarterback rating is concerned. He has shown himself to be a capable starter, but has been aided a great deal by the talent around him: Tailback Ray Rice, fullback Vonta Leach, receivers Anquan Boldin, Jacoby Jones, and Torrey Smith, along with a top-notch defense. He's also been blessed with having a great coach in John Harbaugh. Following his great run through the playoffs and earning the Super Bowl MVP honor, Flacco deserves to receive a nice contract-extension in Baltimore. However, unlike Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, and the like, I have to question the ultimate long-term success of Joe Flacco. The Ravens will be without team leader Ray Lewis in the coming years, and may be without veteran wideout Anquan Boldin as well. The question will be, will Flacco be the elite quarterback we saw in the playoffs, when he posted a QBR of 83.6, the fairly average quarterback he was during the regular season when posted a 46.8 QBR, or somewhere in between? His great post-season is the reason Baltimore is in an awkward spot right now. They likely feel pressured to pay him as one of the league's top quarterbacks due to that 83.6 QBR he displayed en route to a Super Bowl ring. However, chances are his future QBR numbers will be between the 46.8 and 83.6 he showcased during the regular and post-seasons this year, and likely closer to the former than the latter.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/_/id/11252/joe-flacco

Labels

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...
2 comments
Read more

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...
2 comments
Read more