Flacco is Elways "Plan A" this Year so we gotta roll with it.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Flacco
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
In six games the Broncos offense went up against four top 10 defenses in points allowed per game:
#3 Bears - 13.8
#5 Titans - 15.3
#8 Packers - 18.6
#10 Chargers - 19.6
They also played the Jaguars at #13 with 21.8 allowed per game.
Broncos scored:
14 vs Bears
16 vs Titans
16 vs Packers
20 vs Chargers
24 vs Jaguars
In three of four games against top 10 scoring defenses the Broncos offense scored more than the average. The Jags have a good defense and we scored above the average allowed.
By the numbers, strictly speaking the offense is above average relative to the defenses they’ve played. Carry on.....Last edited by Fantaztic7; 10-14-2019, 05:06 PM.
Comment
-
Thank you for that stat on the Defenses . I was trying to point that out earlier but didnt have the numbers in front of me . It's just a dumb argument on what's average and what isnt lol. Theres worse QBs to have come through the league and Better ones as well. Heck I dont care if Flacco only averages 1.5 tds a game if our running avg 2 . I dont care about flashy fantasy football stats . What I care about are wins . Sometimes they're ugly but you get no points for fashion. Heck if we were to win the 2 games we should have people would still be on here complaining about how terrible Flacco is. People like to complain just to do it.
Comment
-
I remember playing the Chargers years ago with low scoring games like 6-3, etc. They were boring defensive struggles, but I was always happy for the win.
I never cared too much about the Style points.
I was in awe the year We were putting up a couple 50 burgers with Manning, that was "twilight zone" for me, that was fun to watch.
Wins are always fun, anyway we can get them.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Peanut View Postmeh. That's the way I see it.
Who said he can't be criticized? Read through several threads. It creeps into everything. --- Peanut the member
Peanut the mod --- The mod notes and cleaning have nothing to do with people's opinions. It has everything to do with how members are treating each other. Just to clarify that in case it's needed.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Amy-Selic View PostYes rastic no one is saying he's great you're right but they ARE saying he is good enough, which he is not. He's just not, how can it be grey when he ranks at the bottom half of the league? How can it be grey when our offense is one of the worst in the NFL? How can it be grey when he hasn't even outperformed the journeymen we have trotted out the last few years? You know what I mean? It's not getting down on others, its just saying our QB play is not average.
Someone said there is no other option and he's the starter, yes correct, but why does that mean people need to blindly say that he's good enough? Why does that mean he can't be criticized? Why does that mean we can't want better? You're right that there is no current solution, that has already been discussed, but there needs to be one at some point in the future because this cannot keep going as it is. Lock probably needs to start at some point and start gaining experience and/or giving us a look at the future.
Football Outsiders ranks Denver's pass protection at 21st in the league (at least prior to yesterday). Obviously, it's difficult "grading" offensive lines without knowing the protection assignments for each player on every play...which is probably just guessed or assumed by the one doing the grading. But, at any rate, according to their DVOA metric, we're basically bottom third in the league at pass protection (they do rank our O-line 5th in run blocking).
Flacco is not mobile...at all. His feet are basically cinder blocks. Without adequate pass protection, this dude will likely struggle. Also, as Rastic states, literally no one is claiming that Flacco is who we want quarterbacking this team. He's nothing more than a bridge to buy Lock development time...nothing more.
If our pass protection could go from bottom third in the league to upper third in the league, I'll wager you dollars to donuts you see Flacco's metrics improve, and our offense becomes noticeably better. But at any rate - he's nothing more than a temporary piece. Also, for the record - with decent pass protection (and better support all around), I would consider him an average to moderately below average quarterback.
I really don't understand the degree of squabbling on this one. Flacco is temporary - Lock is the future of this team. On a scale from 1 to 10, if Flacco is either a 5 or a 3, why argue until people are red in the face? I just hope our pass protection improves, our run game is dominant, and our defense is suffocating. I would also expect Flacco's numbers to proportionally improve...also coinciding with our OC gaining experience.
But in the end - the answer is Lock. I'm sure most of those arguing can agree on at least that.To infinity...and beyond.
Comment
-
Why are people thinking that its about style now? No one said this, its not about style and winning with star wars numbers. Its about winning in the most REALISTIC and CONSISTENT ways that a football team can, which is defense and offense complimenting one another. Without decent to good QB play in today's NFL that puts your chances far lower than a team that has that. We want that if we want to be perennial contenders again.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Lumiere View PostI think you may have missed reading between the lines of Rastic's post. It's not JUST the QB, single-handedly calling the offense, single-handedly making every single play, with no assistance from anyone else.
Football Outsiders ranks Denver's pass protection at 21st in the league (at least prior to yesterday). Obviously, it's difficult "grading" offensive lines without knowing the protection assignments for each player on every play...which is probably just guessed or assumed by the one doing the grading. But, at any rate, according to their DVOA metric, we're basically bottom third in the league at pass protection (they do rank our O-line 5th in run blocking).
Flacco is not mobile...at all. His feet are basically cinder blocks. Without adequate pass protection, this dude will likely struggle. Also, as Rastic states, literally no one is claiming that Flacco is who we want quarterbacking this team. He's nothing more than a bridge to buy Lock development time...nothing more.
If our pass protection could go from bottom third in the league to upper third in the league, I'll wager you dollars to donuts you see Flacco's metrics improve, and our offense becomes noticeably better. But at any rate - he's nothing more than a temporary piece. Also, for the record - with decent pass protection (and better support all around), I would consider him an average to moderately below average quarterback.
I really don't understand the degree of squabbling on this one. Flacco is temporary - Lock is the future of this team. On a scale from 1 to 10, if Flacco is either a 5 or a 3, why argue until people are red in the face? I just hope our pass protection improves, our run game is dominant, and our defense is suffocating. I would also expect Flacco's numbers to proportionally improve...also coinciding with our OC gaining experience.
But in the end - the answer is Lock. I'm sure most of those arguing can agree on at least that.
Anyway im tapping out, ive posted way too much in this topic so others can continueLast edited by Amy-Selic; 10-14-2019, 05:36 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by BeelzeBob View PostThe pass protection is average. The running game is above average. An average QB would probably be getting average or better results with this offense. If a QB needs a great OL to be passable, he’s just bad. That’s the truth.
What are the metrics you're using for
"above average, average, and below-average"?
I'm trying to understand your POV.
Comment
-
Originally posted by orange crush75 View PostThank you for that stat on the Defenses . I was trying to point that out earlier but didnt have the numbers in front of me . It's just a dumb argument on what's average and what isnt lol. Theres worse QBs to have come through the league and Better ones as well. Heck I dont care if Flacco only averages 1.5 tds a game if our running avg 2 . I dont care about flashy fantasy football stats . What I care about are wins . Sometimes they're ugly but you get no points for fashion. Heck if we were to win the 2 games we should have people would still be on here complaining about how terrible Flacco is. People like to complain just to do it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Fantaztic7 View PostIn six games the Broncos offense went up against four top 10 defenses in points allowed per game:
#3 Bears - 13.8
#5 Titans - 15.3
#8 Packers - 18.6
#10 Chargers - 19.6
They also played the Jaguars at #13 with 21.8 allowed per game.
Broncos scored:
14 vs Bears
16 vs Titans
16 vs Packers
20 vs Chargers
24 vs Jaguars
In three of four games against top 10 scoring defenses the Broncos offense scored more than the average. The Jags have a good defense and we scored above the average allowed.
By the numbers, strictly speaking the offense is above average relative to the defenses they’ve played. Carry on.....
Comment
-
Originally posted by Fantaztic7 View PostIn six games the Broncos offense went up against four top 10 defenses in points allowed per game:
#3 Bears - 13.8
#5 Titans - 15.3
#8 Packers - 18.6
#10 Chargers - 19.6
They also played the Jaguars at #13 with 21.8 allowed per game.
Broncos scored:
14 vs Bears
16 vs Titans
16 vs Packers
20 vs Chargers
24 vs Jaguars
In three of four games against top 10 scoring defenses the Broncos offense scored more than the average. The Jags have a good defense and we scored above the average allowed.
By the numbers, strictly speaking the offense is above average relative to the defenses they’ve played. Carry on.....sigpic
Comment
-
Originally posted by mozzerpete View PostWhich average QB would get average or better results with this offense?
What are the metrics you're using for
"above average, average, and below-average"?
Comment
-
Originally posted by JW7 View PostIt's almost like stats need context. Thank you for posting this.
Comment
Comment