Ravens get Boldin

Around here, b-more, he is Jesus.

That's what I hear. Basically his stats each game are something like 11-27, 101 yards, either a TD or an INT. Game manager central.

Damn good move, Boldin is a beast, he's a perfect fit for them with the way he plays.

That's what I hear. Basically his stats each game are something like 11-27, 101 yards, either a TD or an INT. Game manager central.
Stats are an incomplete translation of what happens on the field. They don't tell you anything about the team around him, how much the pass is emphasized, how well he reads defenses, his accuracy, arm strength, or that he put his team in a position to win at the last second against the Vikings only to have his kicker choke, etc, etc.

He also averaged 31 attempts per game.

He's just inconsistent. Half the games last year, he had 100+ rating games. In the rest, he had plenty of sub-70 rating games.
Joe Flacco: Game Logs (http://www.nfl.com/players/joeflacco/gamelogs?id=FLA009602)

Ravens got the better of the deal. When healthy ( and that's a big if) Boldin is a beast. And just when the Cards were starting to get it they let Boldin, Dansby and Rolle get away. The Bidwells are clearly not in the football business no win.

Stats are an incomplete translation of what happens on the field. They don't tell you anything about the team around him, how much the pass is emphasized, how well he reads defenses, his accuracy, arm strength, or that he put his team in a position to win at the last second against the Vikings only to have his kicker choke, etc, etc.

He also averaged 31 attempts per game.

He's just inconsistent. Half the games last year, he had 100+ rating games. In the rest, he had plenty of sub-70 rating games.
Joe Flacco: Game Logs (http://www.nfl.com/players/joeflacco/gamelogs?id=FLA009602)

I would say it's the most direct correlation to talent. Just watching him in general, he was never really putting the ball on the money or really making plays on his own.

No, they aren't. Jason Campbell is many times worse than Flacco despite their similar stats.

Stats that take into account factors not accounted in the regular stats, such as those by Football Outsiders, are better indicator, imo, even though the team factor in influence the stat is not completely accounted for; they don't say everything about a QB's play either, but they're more "complete".
FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | QUARTERBACKS 2009 (http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/qb)

Flacco has had a much better cast around him, that counts for quite a bit.

Flacco's production this year was heavily weighted to the earlier part of the season. He was one of the top five or six rated quarterbacks through about seven weeks, and provided basically no value after that.

Trent Edwards' 2008 VOA was pretty much the same deal. Excellent for the first six games, worthless after that.

I think Flacco has more job security than Edwards did because of his draft status, but 2010 is a critical year for him to produce. He's had his team in the playoffs in consecutive years, but it's likely in the future that the defense will be unable to carry the team. If Flacco can carry the team, he'll be firmly entrenched as a franchise QB, based on his prior successes. But it's just as likely that the Ravens could be looking for a replacement in 2011.

But yes, Flacco's 09 was a better season than Campbell's 09 in a vacuum. Which is what the FO stats are saying. Not that Campbell was supposed to do any better without being able to set his feet than Flacco could with a cushy pocket (they both had crappy receivers--but Todd Heap's reemergence was the difference).

Meh, he's 29 going on 30. The Ravens can have him. I'd rather develop D. Thomas and more young WRs than add another old guy to the roster.