I like Matt Ryan. I think he's a good quarterback. In fact, I think if you look at it objectively, you have to concede he's been better than Joe Flacco the four years they've both been in the league. The difference is, we hear a lot about how Ryan is thiiiiiiiis close to being an elite quarterback (especially from the national broadcast media). The truth is, they're closer than people think, and Flacco plays against tougher defenses consistently, and he plays outdoors. Ryan once again got bounced from the playoffs with an uninspired performance, dropping his postseason record to 0-3, while Flacco has gone 4-3 over that same span. Quarterbacks certainly don't win games on their own. (One of Flacco's "wins" came in a game where he went 4-of-10 for 34 yards.) But I'm starting to think Flacco has more upside than Ryan. If you watched the Giants game, you couldn't help but see the obvious: Ryan can't make the throws Flacco can (especially outdoors) because he doesn't have a strong enough arm. If you play defenses where he has to hit passes on the outside deep third of the field, he'll just throw underneath check-downs. He reads coverages well, and he calls a lot of his own offense at the line, but he looked a lot a rich man's version of Chad Pennington Saturday against New York.
Copyright © 2017, Los Angeles Times