Flacco's year? Quite Dilfer-esque

I'm taking a break in the currently scheduled broadcast of all things Super Bowl to take a look at what would be written about if the Baltimore Ravens, instead of the Pittsburgh Steelers, had won the AFC Championship.

Heaps and bounds of credit were poured on Baltimore quarterback Joe Flacco, a rookie from Delaware who became one of the few first-year signal-callers to lead his team to the postseason. At the same time, Trent Dilfer, who led the Ravens to a Super Bowl victory in 2000, is still considered the worst quarterback to win a Super Bowl.

The problem is, it's not hard to believe that Dilfer had a better season than Flacco.

I am admittedly speculating that the media would continue fawning over Flacco if he won the Super Bowl, but I have no reason to believe they would suddenly change their tune. Quite frankly, the media was unduly swayed by the fact -- and it is a fact -- that Flacco had a good season for a rookie quarterback.

But in the grand scheme of things? Flacco = Dilfer.

If you actually look at their seasons, Flacco's and Dilfer's statistical outputs -- and the team surrounding them -- are almost identical. If Dilfer gets blamed (as he probably doesn't deserve) for being a bad quarterback, why isn't Flacco also just a game manager? If Flacco gets praised (as he probably doesn't deserve) for being a good quarterback, why isn't Dilfer also deified?

First things first. Dilfer wasn't even the leading passer on the 2000 Ravens. Tony Banks passed for a team-high 1,578 yards that season, but was benched for inconsistent play four games into a famous five-game stretch in which Baltimore scored zero offensive touchdowns (they won twice).

Dilfer replaced Banks in Week 8, and started the rest of the season. After an initial loss, he led the Ravens to 11 consecutive wins, including a Super Bowl victory.

Yes, the Ravens' defense in 2000 was one of the best in NFL history, allowing the fewest points (165) ever in a 16-game season. Including the playoffs, they allowed 10 or fewer points in 15 out of 20 games and posted four shutouts.

But therein lies the point -- the 2008 Ravens were similarly constructed.

The current iteration of Baltimore's defense was not nearly as historically dominant -- they allowed 244 points -- but they finished third in the league in points allowed and second in yards allowed. (The 2000 Ravens defense finished first in points allowed and second in yards allowed).

And this season, the Ravens relied even more on the running game than in 2000. The 2008 Ravens ran for 2,376 yards on 592 carries and attempted only 433 passes, while the 2000 Ravens racked up 2,199 yards on 511 carries and attempted 504 passes.

When all is said and done, Dilfer had more weight put upon his shoulders offensively (although he played in half as many games) yet produced similar numbers to Flacco. Dilfer went 134-for-226 (59.3%) for 1,502 yards, 12 TDs and 11 INTs to receive a 76.6 passer rating. Flacco went 257-for-428 (60.0%) for 2,971 yards, 14 TDs and 12 INTs to receive an 80.3 passer rating. When you include their playoff performances, Dilfer has the better overall passer rating.

Let's not be naive. Flacco played well for a rookie, but no better than Dilfer.

Nota bene:

- Although passer rating is by no means a perfect judge, and is skewed positively toward the modern game, it's worth noting that Dilfer's regular season passer rating was better than nine other Super Bowl winning quarterbacks: Eli Manning (73.9), Phil Simms (74.6), Jim Plunkett (72.9), Terry Bradshaw (55.2), Bob Griese (71.6), Johnny Unitas (65.1), Len Dawson (69.9), Joe Namath (72.1) and Bart Starr (64.4).

- Bradshaw's first Super Bowl victory with the Steelers is an astounding parallel to Dilfer. He didn't start until midway through the season and finished with average statistics -- 67-for-148 (45.3%), 785 yards, 7 TDs and 8 INTs for a 55.2 passer rating. I guess Dilfer needs to come out of retirement and win three more Super Bowls to have his season purged from our collective memories.