Reverse Flacco Hysteria

[Galen Sevinne]

I don't glue myself to the local radio programs but do catch a bit of the radio shows with Viviano, Cunningham, Garceau etc. I also read through some blogs throughout the day including this one.

Everytime I have turned on the radio this week inevitably someone calls in supporting Flacco and ranting against "all" of the Ravens fans calling in wanting Flacco to be benched. In fact, several people call in supporting Flacco each time. I have YET to hear someone call in asking for Flacco to be benched. I haven't read anything on this blog about people wanting him benched. Sure people are criticizing him but no one or no herds of people are seriously calling for him to be benched.

What's up with the reverse hysteria as there are more people ranting against this false argument that Baltimore wants him benched than actually people calling for him to benched? I have been very vocal in criticism of Flacco but have never suggested he be benched. In fact, I began my criticism in the preseason when it was clear he hadn't taken much of a step since wher he left off in year 2 and I think that assessment so far as been spot on.

Is it possible to criticize the "annointed one" here in Baltimore and not be accused of standing on the ledge and calling for Flacco to ride the pine? Whats up with the false arguments?

Flacco is the 32 top rated QB in the NFL after week 2. That is worth a healthy dose of criticism. People will come back and say it was against two top defenses on the road so it doesn't mean anything. Well, it does if you consider that is what the postseason is all about and do you want your QB to have a QB rating of 41.2 during the postseason?

No is calling for Flacco to be benched...those being critical are simply saying he sucks right now. Another common retort is thsat is has only been one bad game...well, yeah this year. He had many bad games last year.

It is still his team and still his job and if he wants to win the hearts of disgruntled and pessimistic fans in Baltimore, Flacco needs to work his shit out this week against Cleveland AND THEN go on the road in Pittsburgh and win a game. Laying an egg in Pittsburgh could be the tipping point for Flacco.

As I sit here the third freaking person has called into Cunningham continuiing to complain about people complaining about Flacco...when no one has yet. Its really odd.

[Ravcolt]

Although I think the QB rating system is way overrated, it is an indicator. But the only indicator that matters is wins, and to this point Flacco is not progressing. Why, is anyone's guess. So while the Ravens try and figure it out, lets at least utilize Bulger when Flacco is underperforming. Bulger is not a potted plant.

:patriot:

[Gwaihir]

It hasn't been so much, "Bench Flacco this week!", as it was, why didn't Harbs pull Flacco this past Sunday in the 4th quarter.

I've been listening to the same shows you mentioned and they were deluged with calls criticising Harbs & Cam for leaving Flacco in on Sunday instead of pulling him for Bulger all week. I haven't heard anyone say he shouldn't start this week.

I think the people today are more responding to the, "He should have been pulled last Sunday!", crowd.

[WxKevin]

I love listening to the hysterical fans that call for the QB to be replaced everytime he has a bad game. All cities are like that. It makes me feel better that I am not like that.

Going into the half this past week I was all for putting Bulger in since it appeared that Joe just didn't have it that day. Once he lead the drive coming out of the half though, I dropped that thought.

There is no reason for Joe to NOT be starting on Sunday. If for some reason he turns the ball over 2 times in the first half against the Browns (which I seriously doubt he will), then I will advocate bringing in Bulger. Not starting Joe right now would be more damaging at this point.

[DVGN]

I've heard multiple people on The Fan call for Flacco to be benched, and I've listened to roughly two hours of talk radio since Sunday. Plenty of people (all of whom, I presume, haven't spent much time watching the Rams the last few years) have said they think Bulger gives us a better chance to win.

On this website, I've seen Flacco called "pathetic" and "Boller Lite," and I'm sure if I dug a bit deeper I could find plenty more.

What's the difference between someone saying that Flacco is "horrible," and "Flacco needs to be benched?"

Hell, I'll join the reverse hysteria: Flacco is a great -- yes, great -- quarterback in a league where great quarterbacks are beyond scarce. He may never be Peyton Manning, or even Phillip Rivers, but he's damn good, and after two years and multiple playoff wins, the man should have built up enough goodwill to not have every local loser bitching about him on the internet and the radio.

So, yes, you can criticize the "anointed one," but don't be surprised when someone thinks you're being ridiculous for doing so. Especially when the alternative to the "anointed one" is Marc ":bag:" Bulger.

This is one year -- for which he was injured half the time -- of Marc Bulger (some Boller) lowlights:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiJxhD-uYkc

There's no way you could make anything half as repellant with both years of Flacco's time in Baltimore.

[Galen Sevinne]

What's the difference between someone saying that Flacco is "horrible," and "Flacco needs to be benched?"

Saying he is horrible is criticizing is play. Saying someone should be benched is usually indicating a major shift in the direction of a team when it comes to football. Just look at Philly "benching" Kolb and all of the trade rumors that are popping up over him. We are not even near that point with Flacco but at a rating of just over 40...he is horrible.



Hell, I'll join the reverse hysteria: Flacco is a great -- yes, great -- quarterback in a league where great quarterbacks are beyond scarce. He may never be Peyton Manning, or even Phillip Rivers, but he's damn good, and after two years and multiple playoff wins, the man should have built up enough goodwill to not have every local loser bitching about him on the internet and the radio.

Maybe...but Flacco has been a 50%ile QB so far so if "great quaterbacks" are so "beyond scarce" why are 50% better than your definition of great? :229031_confused2:

[DVGN]

Saying he is horrible is criticizing is play. Saying someone should be benched is usually indicating a major shift in the direction of a team when it comes to football. Just look at Philly "benching" Kolb and all of the trade rumors that are popping up over him. We are not even near that point with Flacco but at a rating of just over 40...he is horrible.

Saying someone is "horrible" is criticizing their play; saying someone "needs to be benched" is criticizing their play. There's no big objective difference here. And in reference to Joe Flacco neither are remotely reasonable things to say.

Honestly, if a player is truly horrible, they should and will be benched. Horrible players don't play long in the NFL.


I take extreme exception to you, in an unqualified manner, saying that Joe Flacco has a "rating of just over 40." You know as well as I do that that rating was the average of two games, one of which was the worst of his career.

His real rating, between 34 games (not including playoffs), is 81.5 -- which is damn good.


...but Flacco has been a 50%ile QB so far so if "great quaterbacks" are so "beyond scarce" why are 50% better than your definition of great? :229031_confused2:

Because if you're in the fiftieth percentile of NFL quarterbacks, that means you play the professional game better than all but about sixteen people on the planet.

And Joe was in the fiftieth percentile of all quarterbacks, not true rookie or second-year quarterbacks. If you compare his first and second year performances to the first and second year performances of the rest of the league, the man rises out of the fiftieth percentile real fast.

He's great. Period. And only after a prolonged streak of badness (a la Galen's "anointed one" Marc Bulger) will he cease to be great.

[Galen Sevinne]

Saying someone is "horrible" is criticizing their play; saying someone "needs to be benched" is criticizing their play. There's no big objective difference here.

Except one includes the ability to continue to play while the other precludes that option. A pretty big difference I think.


I take extreme exception to you, in an unqualified manner, saying that Joe Flacco has a "rating of just over 40." You know as well as I do that that rating was the average of two games, one of which was the worst of his career.

His real rating, between 34 games (not including playoffs), is 81.5 -- which is damn good.

Well I am referring to this year when I say he is horrible and he has been horrible this year. The jets game showed some promise but in looking back on that game, most of what Flacco was able to do was against 1:1 coverage against a blitz with a lot of jump balls tossed up. Outside of the nice pass to Mason against Cincy against a blitz and 1:1 coverage, he was...frankly horrrible. Watch how many times Cleveland blitzes this week and how many times they drop 7.

81.5 ain't bad for Flacco assuming the 84 is also notbad for Bulger. Not advocating for Bulger here... just asking for consistency in thought.


Because if you're in the fiftieth percentile of NFL quarterbacks, that means you play the professional game better than all but about sixteen people on the planet.

Talk about a trip down the rabbit hole of relativity! Dang by your definition, Boller must be great, Ryan Leaf must be great...shit, I might be great because I bet I can throw a football better than 80% of the rest of world.

When you try to keep the argument logical, its hard to avoid having concern for the current progress of one Joey Flaccoh.

The NFL is a week to week phenomenon so if Flacco gets on top of things this week, Baltimore will once again bath in the glory of a franchise QB but I will wait until the road game at Pittsburgh where I expect my franchise guy to win a tough road game for me. Win that one for me Joe and I will believe.

[RAVENOUS52]

The simple answer is that Baltimore is so starved for its next great QB that the mere thought of Flacco not being that guy sends them into overprotective mode, just as it sends some fans into overreact mode in regards to criticism.

Last season's playoff shenanigans were immediately blamed on Joe's injuries by the overprotective fans, but to me it was a red light that his poor performance was more than that, because he played fine in freezing conditions against the Chicago Bears just a few weeks prior.

I remember Boller lead us to a winning record after 6 or 7 games back in 2003 and we faced the Rams in the TWA Dome on Sunday Night Football (ironically, Bulger was STL's starter that night).

Everyone was firmly on the young Boller's bandwagon, even though the team had won a few games in spite of his play. Of course Boller was throwing to guys like Travis Taylor and Patrick Johnson, so his play wasn't entirely his fault.

Midway through that Rams game, Boller gets hurt and in comes Chris Redman. Boller is never the same again and although he has a few bright spots left, for the mostpart his bright future in BMore deteriorates into nothing and fans go so far as to cheer when he gets injured during a home game.

I feel that overprotective Flacco fans are still suffering from Post Traumatic Stress symptoms brought on by the failure of the Boller experiment and want to ensure Joe has every benefit of the doubt before they start down the path we all traveled with Kyle. Part of that is firing pre-emptive strikes at anything they see as negative or threatening towards Flack.

Can't say I blame them, either. I really want to see him do well and have a long, successful career with the Ravens, but at the same time, I'm calling it as I see it.

[CRZA938]

Galen I think you're spot on here. I sit in my car everyday when those callers do their thing and say "who is calling fo him to be benched"?

[Galen Sevinne]

Like I said elsewhere, we have a team with an identity, argueably the greatest NFL player of all time, a Superbowl win but we lack what the football fan really wants....that franchise QB. The QB you trust to win the tough games. Our two most hated teams, the Colts and the Steelers have that guy. Its frustrating that we don't.

I was still in the single digits when Bert Jones was my hero. Although he never won a playoff game, he was a hardened leader. I recently started to think that maybe being so young during his reign I didn't have a realistic opinion of him. I just looked at his career stats and NFL rank. He didn't play much his first year. Second year began to start in week 5 or so and ended up ranked 17th. By his third year - the important year - he ranked 3rd, fourth year ranked 2nd and fifth year ranked 5th.

He was top 5 QB for the three full seasons he played before the injuries set in and he was never the same. He made that third year transition.

[Rayvens52]

Like I said elsewhere, we have a team with an identity, argueably the greatest NFL player of all time, a Superbowl win but we lack what the football fan really wants....that franchise QB. The QB you trust to win the tough games. Our two most hated teams, the Colts and the Steelers have that guy. Its frustrating that we don't.

I was still in the single digits when Bert Jones was my hero. Although he never won a playoff game, he was a hardened leader. I recently started to think that maybe being so young during his reign I didn't have a realistic opinion of him. I just looked at his career stats and NFL rank. He didn't play much his first year. Second year began to start in week 5 or so and ended up ranked 17th. By his third year - the important year - he ranked 3rd, fourth year ranked 2nd and fifth year ranked 5th.

He was top 5 QB for the three full seasons he played before the injuries set in and he was never the same. He made that third year transition.

I'm not sure we do or do not have him yet. All signs point to him being a very capable QB who should be able to get better, I'm not a QB coach but it seems obvious he can play QB in the NFL. Does he have some flaws, absolutely but by everything I read and or hear it is fixable things.

Some fans hate the fact that he is not a Brees type QB who is a very vocal person on the field, but I am happy that he always seems calm an under control.

He may never turn out to be anything but average, but with the type of team we have built here I don't think we need a Manning type QB to win a SB, we need a decent QB who can make smart decisions and not turn over the ball (which Joe has done a lot of recently)

[Stealthbirds80]

The simple answer is that Baltimore is so starved for its next great QB that the mere thought of Flacco not being that guy sends them into overprotective mode, just as it sends some fans into overreact mode in regards to criticism.

Last season's playoff shenanigans were immediately blamed on Joe's injuries by the overprotective fans, but to me it was a red light that his poor performance was more than that, because he played fine in freezing conditions against the Chicago Bears just a few weeks prior.

I remember Boller lead us to a winning record after 6 or 7 games back in 2003 and we faced the Rams in the TWA Dome on Sunday Night Football (ironically, Bulger was STL's starter that night).

Everyone was firmly on the young Boller's bandwagon, even though the team had won a few games in spite of his play. Of course Boller was throwing to guys like Travis Taylor and Patrick Johnson, so his play wasn't entirely his fault.

Midway through that Rams game, Boller gets hurt and in comes Chris Redman. Boller is never the same again and although he has a few bright spots left, for the mostpart his bright future in BMore deteriorates into nothing and fans go so far as to cheer when he gets injured during a home game.

I feel that overprotective Flacco fans are still suffering from Post Traumatic Stress symptoms brought on by the failure of the Boller experiment and want to ensure Joe has every benefit of the doubt before they start down the path we all traveled with Kyle. Part of that is firing pre-emptive strikes at anything they see as negative or threatening towards Flack.

Can't say I blame them, either. I really want to see him do well and have a long, successful career with the Ravens, but at the same time, I'm calling it as I see it.

^ this. Good post.

[mojorob]

Like I said elsewhere, we have a team with an identity, argueably the greatest NFL player of all time, a Superbowl win but we lack what the football fan really wants....that franchise QB. The QB you trust to win the tough games. Our two most hated teams, the Colts and the Steelers have that guy. Its frustrating that we don't.

I was still in the single digits when Bert Jones was my hero. Although he never won a playoff game, he was a hardened leader. I recently started to think that maybe being so young during his reign I didn't have a realistic opinion of him. I just looked at his career stats and NFL rank. He didn't play much his first year. Second year began to start in week 5 or so and ended up ranked 17th. By his third year - the important year - he ranked 3rd, fourth year ranked 2nd and fifth year ranked 5th.

He was top 5 QB for the three full seasons he played before the injuries set in and he was never the same. He made that third year transition.

OK,let me see if I have this right.

Bert Jones: Career playoff wins 0

Joe Flacco: Career playoff wins 3

Duh?

[Mista T]

Is it possible to criticize the "annointed one" here in Baltimore and not be accused of standing on the ledge and calling for Flacco to ride the pine?

It's really not possible. In Baltimore, when it comes to the QB, you must be either for him (worship) , or against him (bench the p.o.s.), with no middle ground.

For a few year starting in 2003, I advocated bringing in a vet to help nursemaid Boller along. Therefore I was a dickhead for not supporting our rookie savior. When the team finally did bring in the vet, I thought it was a big mistake to overpay for the washed up McNair, still wanting a mid-level vet like a Batch, Volek or Schaub. Therefore, I became a hugger, to be beaten up by the haters. No middle ground here: if you knock the QB, you "hate". It really doesn't matter what you really state.

It's been this way at least since Unitas had a few bad games and Cuozzo, then Morrall, became the saviors. I think that the only time the fans got it right was the 2001 playoffs, when everyone not named Billick could see that Randall Cunningham should have been our QB in the playoff game against the Steelers.

[RAVENOUS52]

It's really not possible. In Baltimore, when it comes to the QB, you must be either for him (worship) , or against him (bench the p.o.s.), with no middle ground.

For a few year starting in 2003, I advocated bringing in a vet to help nursemaid Boller along. Therefore I was a dickhead for not supporting our rookie savior. When the team finally did bring in the vet, I thought it was a big mistake to overpay for the washed up McNair, still wanting a mid-level vet like a Batch, Volek or Schaub. Therefore, I became a hugger, to be beaten up by the haters. No middle ground here: if you knock the QB, you "hate". It really doesn't matter what you really state.

It's been this way at least since Unitas had a few bad games and Cuozzo, then Morrall, became the saviors. I think that the only time the fans got it right was the 2001 playoffs, when everyone not named Billick could see that Randall Cunningham should have been our QB in the playoff game against the Steelers.

Right! And if the Greatest QB Ever isn't immune to criticism, nobody is. It is possible to point out Joe's deficiencies without wanting him shipped to the CFL in exchange for two prospects and a plate of Canadian bacon...:eyes:

[usercom]

The simple answer is that Baltimore is so starved for its next great QB that the mere thought of Flacco not being that guy sends them into overprotective mode, just as it sends some fans into overreact mode in regards to criticism.

Last season's playoff shenanigans were immediately blamed on Joe's injuries by the overprotective fans, but to me it was a red light that his poor performance was more than that, because he played fine in freezing conditions against the Chicago Bears just a few weeks prior.

I remember Boller lead us to a winning record after 6 or 7 games back in 2003 and we faced the Rams in the TWA Dome on Sunday Night Football (ironically, Bulger was STL's starter that night).

Everyone was firmly on the young Boller's bandwagon, even though the team had won a few games in spite of his play. Of course Boller was throwing to guys like Travis Taylor and Patrick Johnson, so his play wasn't entirely his fault.

Midway through that Rams game, Boller gets hurt and in comes Chris Redman. Boller is never the same again and although he has a few bright spots left, for the mostpart his bright future in BMore deteriorates into nothing and fans go so far as to cheer when he gets injured during a home game.

I feel that overprotective Flacco fans are still suffering from Post Traumatic Stress symptoms brought on by the failure of the Boller experiment and want to ensure Joe has every benefit of the doubt before they start down the path we all traveled with Kyle. Part of that is firing pre-emptive strikes at anything they see as negative or threatening towards Flack.

Can't say I blame them, either. I really want to see him do well and have a long, successful career with the Ravens, but at the same time, I'm calling it as I see it.

Agree completely!!!. I just rewatched the game today and it is simple, that loss is on Flacco, noone else. Others might not have performed at their peak but if Flacco even just plays an average game, the Ravens win.

I think the problem with Flacco fans is that they believe he is the next Tom Brady/Payton Manning while I feel he is the next Phil Simms type QB. Someone you can win with and someone who can win games for you but not a QB who throws 60-65% the time. Remember, the Giants went to 2 Superbowls with Simms. If Flacco is that type QB for the Ravens, he should be seen as an outstanding success.

[usercom]

Also, the Steelers have won 2 SB's with Big Ben, that is the kind of output I would look for from Flacco.

Someone who can make the big throw if needed but is not going to lose the game.

All the talk about the game is now a passing game is bull in my opinion. Yes the rules make it easier for the passing game but teams win by playing the type of game that suits their personnel. For the ravens that is ball control offense and strong defense.

[Lee Van Cleef]

I think Kyle Boller forever ruined us for QBs.