DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Browns Sign QB Joe Flacco

The old man came through for us again. At 38, he is the BEST QB we have ever had since Bernie. That includes Watson.

Watson's last 3 starts minus the Colts game where he only played 2 series and realized he was still injured.

Vs Tennessee 27 of 33 for 289 yards 2 TD's 0 Int's rating of 123.4 Had 4 carries for 16 yards. Would have been over 300 yards if ref did not call Cooper out of bounds and replay showed he did not go out of bounds.

Vs Arizona 19 of 30 for 219 yards 2 TD's 0 INT's rating of 107.5. Had 3 carries for 22 yards. Did not finish game because of large lead.

Vs Baltimore 20 of 34 for 213 yards 1 TD and 1 INT rating of 74.8. Had 8 carries for 37 yards. Watson has never lost a game college or pro against Lamar Jackson.

His last 3 games he was balling out 5 TD's to 1 pick and most importantly 3 wins to 0 losses. I think he looked elite in those 3 starts.

But his experience and size makes him a must keep. Of course he’ll probably be a back up. A damn good one.

The way Watson plays so recklessly, we NEED Flacco as backup!

IMO, the only way that statement can become true is if Flacco can clean up the turnovers. It's also no coincidence that if he were to do that and the team can retain what overall health they still have, we could end up doing some damage in the playoffs.

Oh, the irony.

I’m not concerned about next year. I’m worried about this one.

Watson will be our expected starter in 2024, if Joe still wants to play he will go to a team that wants him as a starter. I don’t think he’d want to hold a clipboard but maybe I’m wrong.

I’m just enjoying “the now”. the old curmudgeon being our QB, the grizzled veteran, the wily old man tossing the rock around the lawn and leading us to wins.

it can be argued that 5-1 is consistent winning. I think people don't like him (which is fine) so they are rooting for him to fail. I get the sentiment, but blame berry for putting the fans in the position of choosing between morality and rooting for a winning team.

Have you seen DW play? He takes a ton of hits. Flacco knows that too. And I can’t stand Watson the man, but I’m not rooting for him to fail because I want the team to win. I think your man-crush has your eyes clouded.

I guess Joe Cool could be applied to Flacco.

He can read a defense and make some beautiful throws. Nice. He will also misfire and miss an open receiver.

So far so good, with the difference being the team has rallied around him.

Best year since 2020.

I think Flacco’s contributions have been as important and surprising to him as they are to fans. This is why he didn’t want to look at the other offers while on our PS. Dude knows we’re a QB away most days and would love to go out on top. Who wouldn’t?

I don’t have a man-crush, nor are my eyes clouded.

I've been Flacco flag waver since it was rumored we interesting in signing him, i just wish we would have done it and made him the backup all year..With a vet like that, and the kind of success he's had, especially how he gets better in the playoffs, we have a punchers chance Alot of the turnovers are just rapport with receivers and him throwing to a spot and they aren't there.. I trust Flacco more than I do the likes of Tillman to know what the play was supposed to be. That being said, I see zero reason not to bring him back next year as a back up if he's willing. He's at the age I think he wants another ring, a healthy browns team next year would be a really good chance.

The weird thing (I said this somewhere else too) is that us NOT signing Flacco until so late might actually be good in the long run. He's not worn down by training camp, multiple more games, etc.

It could also be argued that the stated 5-1 is rather misleading, however, because several of that 5 was this team winning DESPITE him, not due to him.

Leatherwood is dealing with an injury according to Stefanski last week.

Wylper got time at centre, replacing Harris and Pojic.

It's CentER.

Darn Canadians.

While true, we don't beat the Bears without our D playing lights out. 2 ints gave the Bears 14 of their 17 points. It goes for both QBs.

Absolutely no doubt about that, but we weren't talking about Flacco or his less than stellar performance at protecting the ball thus far. We were talking about Watson's performances thus far and how, with very few exceptions - way too few, we have won games despite him, not because of him. The "rust" excuse will probably get trotted out next August, too.

it could be argued, but found to be wrong.. he has better stats than any QB we have trotted out this year so if we are winning despite him , same would be true for all of them. Mind you, I'm a flacco fan and I'm glad we got him, mostly because the other options don't include Watson at this point.

Pretty sure my comment pointed out that the defense had more to do with our win last Sunday than Joe. The thread is titled "Browns acquire Joe Flacco" so bringing up DW being 5-1 crediting the D, is exactly what I pointed out. I didn't realize your comments were just exclusively DW.

Holding a team to 3 points from the offense makes Joe's 4th Q comeback a bit easier. If you say the Browns won in spite of Watson, in a Joe Flacco thread, to diminish one QBs play, the standard should be the same. Without 2 of Joe's 3 ints, we only need 2 FGs to win.

I love what Joe is doing for the team and I don't understand the instance to bring DW into the conversation. Reminds me of the constant reminders of Baker Mayfield references.

Yeah, three scoring drives and over 200 passing yards in the fourth quarter was what some might call "a bit easier".

That 200 yards in the 4th quarter was awesome. The 2 Int's that lead directly to 14 points is what he was pointing out. The defense held the Bears to 3 points. The defense playing as they did made it easier for the offense and Flacco to come back. If the defense would have allowed a couple TD's the comeback would have been much harder.

Actually it would have been, if in addition to the 14 points gifted to the Bears by TOs, our D gave up 2 others, we would have been down 31-7, which was a great deal harder.

No, it wouldn't be wrong, and whomever else may have been QB doesn't matter. What matters is that the performances given were sufficiently inadequate and flawed to point where we actually got the 'W' in those games DESPITE what he did.
And Flacco pulling off that insane 4th Qtr barely keeps him out of that category for this game, but because of his 1st through 3rd quarter performances, he's setting up camp in that territory as well.

Flat out, our offense has been generally abysmal this year when you look at turnovers and efficiencies. I feel we're getting more efficient, and we've cut down on the number of fumbles, but we're still giving opponents plenty of short fields just as we've done all season long, even in games we've managed to win. Yes, we've won games, but we NEED TO GET BETTER. It is true with Flacco now, and it was 1000% true with Watson, too. He literally started two separate games against division rivals this year with first-pass Pick 6's. We got blown out in one and managed to win one ... despite him.

It's misleading in the fact that it should really be 4-1 because that other win came against Indy when he was out after 5 pass attempts or something like that. Yes, he started, but shouldn't be rewarded as the starter for the W. Especially with the back-n-forth that ensued in the second half.

That said....what other win did we get DESPITE him? What game did he play so poorly that some other element of the Browns' performance allowed us to win?

Because the wins against Cincy, Tennessee, Arizona, and certainly Baltimore (particularly his 2nd half performance) don't indicate that, whatsoever.

I'm glad we have Joe Flacco now but let's not get carried away and start revisionist history either. Here are Flacco's stats vs Watsons stats this year.

Joe Flacco 3 games 77 completions in 133 attempts 57.9 completion% for 939 yards 7.1 yards an attempt 7 Touchdowns to 5 int's rating of 81.6 a QBR of 33.5. Rushing 5 carries for -2 yards 0 touchdowns. 2 Wins and 1 loss.

Deshaun Watson 6 games 105 completions in 171 attempts 61.4 completion % for 1,115 yards 6.5 yards an attempt 7 Touchdowns to 4 Int's rating of 84.3 QBR 43.5. Rushing 26 times for 142 yards and 1 Touchdown. 5 wins 1 loss.

Don't forget to add in Watson's 5 Fumbles (in only 6 games) to go with the 4 INT. (totals of 12 games played for us with 9 INT and 6 Fumbles and 37 sacks (the sack rate seems insanely high))

Aside from that, despite what some may think, it isn't a comparison between Flacco and Watson when people point out that Watson was... less than stellar (and certainly not worth what he is being paid).
Flacco also isn't the future in any way, and almost definitely will not be on this roster next year at age 39. Heck, he may just prefer to leverage this season into another starting gig next year, or perhaps he'll be ready to hang it up and officially retire.
Either way, I'd be shocked if we paid the man a real salary to stay on.

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but he was god-awful in the Cincy game (it was bad weather and Burrow was also not good).

That offense was responsible for 24 points. He passed for a TD and rushed for a TD. Again, what win did we have DESPITE Watson's performance? (again, excluding the Indy game of only 5 pass attempts)

He was 16/29 for an average of 5+ yards. He also threw a pick in that game. He was not good.

Chubb had 18 carries for a tad over 100 yards (almost 6 yards/carry). Chubb had more yards/carry than Watson had per completion. The other running backs chipped in another hundred yards. Beyond the numbers, I think you're forgetting how bad he looked (bouncing passes to receivers), as well. The Bengals got 3 points, and IIRC they didn't get a first down in like a whole half or something crazy like that.

If you were to make a ranked list of people that got us the win, I would have Watson very low. He was directly responsible for both TDs, but it was largely the D and run game that got him in a position to make that 3-yard pass and 13-yard run.

Again, it was a bad weather day and QB stats were not going to look impressive. See Joe Burrow's stat line. Watson looked much better than Burrow did that day. He also had a rushing TD in that game. The only stat that really matters in any game is a win or a loss. He was the QB, and the team won. Would you have liked it better if Watson threw for over 300 and the team lost?

When the team gets a decent lead, and their defense is playing well they will lean on the running game and start shortening the game. See wins vs Tennessee and Arizona. Watson had good stat lines, but not great QB stat lines and main reason is the team was up big and leaned on the run game. Now when teams fall behind like last week and have to throw to catch up QB's tend to throw for over 300 yards but usually don't win. Thank you Flacco for doing both vs the Bears. In games where it is a shootout like the Ravens game QB's will put up their best numbers and that is exactly what Watson did that day. On another note, Watson has never lost to Lamar Jackson college or Pro.

So how the team won means nothing. Only who the QB was means something?

That was a bad weather day. Our QB played better than the Bengals QB and got the win. Who by the way is the league's highest paid QB.

So we excuse QB play every time the weather is bad? In Cleveland and the AFC North? Since Burrow had a bad day it must mean something. I've sat in the stands in Cleveland when snow was blowing sideways and you couldn't feel your hands and seen better QB performances than that.

When it fits an argument. I recall a three game stretch of "poor QB" play by Baker that was long ridiculed and weather was not allowed to be part of the explanation for it.


The reality is that weather does matter.

It does matter. To what extent it matters is up for debate. Also just how bad the weather conditions are play into just how bad you can excuse a QB for playing. I remember people who are on the board who attended that game saying the conditions weren't all that bad. So at least partially my comments are based on people that were actually at that game. I have to give that more validity than people simply buying into a narrative.

In this case it's a fair argument, IMO. Burrow also struggled that game (though it's not clear to me if it was the weather or his calf).

I was starting to forget what exactly it was we were arguing over so I had to go back and re-read.
-poster states Flacco is best since Bernie, including Watson
-reply was an argument, cited 5-1 record of Watson
-response was record was inflated, and then someone asked for another instance where we won in spite of Watson


IMO, and given the context of the conversation, I maintain that the Cinci game is a fair argument. There's probably a difference in definition of "winning in spite of", and after re-reading I'll acknowledge I'm being a little too devil's advocate when criticizing a (at the time) statement win vs a division rival. What stuck out to me were all the short-hop throws to wide open receivers.