Aaron Rodgers (2011) 122.5 Lost in divisional round
Peyton Manning (2004) 121.1 Lost in divisional round
Tom Brady (2007) 117.2 Lost in the Super Bowl
Steve Young (1994) 112.8 Super Bowl champions
Tom Brady (2010) 111.0 Lost in the divisional round
Daunte Culpepper (2004) 110.9 Lost in the divisional round
Drew Brees (2011) 110.6 Lost in the divisional round
Drew Brees (2009) 109.6 Super Bowl champions
Kurt Warner (1999) 109.2 Super Bowl champions
Dan Marino (1984) 108.9 Lost in Super Bowl
Here is better data to support his point:
Over the last 25 years, SB winning QBs, and their QB rating rank for the year:
2011 E. Manning (7)
2010 Rodgers (3)
2009 Brees (1)
2008 Roethlisberger (24)
2007 E.Manning (25)
2006 P.Manning (1)
2005 Roethlisberger (3)
2004 Brady (9)
2003 Brady (10)
2002 Johnson (3)
2001 Brady (6)
2000 Dilfer (20)
1999 Warner (1)
1998 Elway (5)
1997 Elway (7)
1996 Favre (2)
1995 Aikman (3)
1994 Young (1)
1993 Aikman (2)
1992 Aikman (3)
1991 Rypien (2)
1990 Simms* (4)
1989 Montana (1)
1988 Montana (6)
As you can see, out of 24 winners, only 3 are ranked outside the top 10, including Dilfer.
* - Hostetler finished season and played in playoffs and SB.
Looking at it another way, here is the season QB rating of the SB winning QB's
2012 Eli Manning 92.9
2011 Aaron Rodgers 101.2
2010 Drew Brees 109.6
2009 Ben R. 80.1
2008 Eli Manning 86.5
2007 P. Manning 101.0
2005 Tom Brady 92.6
2004 Tom Brady 85.9
2003 Brad Johnson 92.9
2002 Tom Brady 86.5
So if Joe Flacco and his present 87 rating were to win the Super Bowl he would have a higher rating than 4 of the past 10 winners.
Interesting two of those would be a young Tom Brady... who although a superior rated QB has had difficulty getting back to the Super Bowl... perhaps because he now commands a large % of his teams cap and the NE talent (especially on defense) in no where near what it was 10 years ago?
2008 82.8 16th
2009 87.4 13th
2010 93.6 6th
2011 81.7 15th
He's as likely to be rated 15-20 as he is to be rated higher. And 15-20 to me implies "below average", if even slightly; and that is not the case.
Personally I think he's worth about what Eli got. I really don't see Eli as any better than Flacco. Both can take over when handed the reigns and it's critical time, both have alot of bad games. Eli is in a much more pass happy O. Eli caught lucky breaks and has 2 rings that Flacco doesn't, but than again Joe was let down twice that could've led to SB berths.
The other years are:
2010 - 93.6 - 7th
2009 - 88.9 - 13th
2008 - 80.3 - 22nd
But I agree that Joe is not consistently limited to 15-20th by any stretch. But I also think he would have been better served (by the numbers) to say 10-20th, as the data still holds; really top 10 is a better "divider" according to the limited data. And of course winning the SB with a 15+ or even 20+ rating rank is not impossible as history shows.
I hope that Ozzie knows what he's doing. IMO, we should have at least made it appear like we had a legitimate back-up ready to come in if signing Flacco wasn't a possibility. Take a real QB in the later rounds of the draft (sorry Taylor, somebody that can stand in the pocket and throw) or kept a wash-out former starter in the wings (like a Brady Quinn/Derek Anderson/Vince Young). We need to have some leverage, or Joe can pretty much ask for anything.
It doesn't matter if he is infact a top 5 QB or not. The minute that we sit around and start talking about him being irreplaceable and can't imagine our future without him is the minute that we need to face that facts that he's going to get a top 5 contract.
Rankings are for losers. Use your eyes. If Joe were in a WC offense, he'd have higher ratings.
Except it was just shown that rankings are for the winners (of the SB).
And check Alex Smith's rating. Rating measures efficiency, not just raw output. Which is why Joe's 2010 year was a good one.
If Joe were on a worse team, WC offense or not he would have less wins, then you would have to choose another cliche. As for his stats in that case, who knows? Being asked to do more doesn't always help your rating, even if it might help your yards and TDs.
The implication that some may be drawing here is that high QB ratings cause Super Bowl wins. The data does not illustrate this, as it doesn't exclude the possibility that the inverse is possible--Super Bowl winning teams cause high QB ratings.
Maybe if you modified it like Green Bay has, but he doesn't seem to have Rodgers's ability to run around and evade the pass rush. He's not a statue, but he's not the scrambler Rodgers is (or at least hasn't demonstrated it).
I don't have a problem with the Coryell as a base offense. The Chargers had prolific offenses with it even after Tomlinson left and Gates wasn't a dominant tight end anymore. This year is a down year, but it's not like the NFL has changed that much over the last five years. Cameron and company just need to upgrade to the Coryell 21st Century Edition....
Teams win rings.
What is top 5 money now won't be in the out years. I trust Ozzie will cut a deal with Joe that won't break the team and will keep him happily in the fold.
Joe played his ass off in the AFCC game last year, and did everything that a great QB does to win big games like that. He outplayed the great Tom Brady for 4 qtrs. If not for a dropped pass in the EZ and a missed kick, the Ravens may be current champions.