Elite or not elite?

That was the question that surrounded Joe Flacco following his dominant postseason run in 2012. The question was quickly answered in the subsequent seasons as the quarterback's play never reached those heights again, and the coupling of "Flacco" and "elite" quickly turned into an overused joke.

While the near-unanimous consensus would be that Flacco is far from the level of the likes of Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady, the Baltimore Ravens' veteran pivot has, more often than not, escaped criticism for never taking the next step in his development in the four seasons since he morphed into Joe Montana for four playoff games and won a Super Bowl.

Flacco has coasted on that run for far too long, and at 32 years old, he's highly unlikely to improve as a player. Flacco isn't elite. In fact, he's one of the worst long-term starting quarterbacks in the NFL.

First, let's take a look at Flacco's raw numbers and his startling lack of progression from a statistical perspective.

Year Comp % Yards YPA TDs INTs Passer Rating 2016 64.9 4317 6.4 20 15 83.5 2015 64.4 2791 6.8 14 12 83.1* 2014 62.1 3986 7.2 27 12 91.0 2013 59.0 3912 6.4 19 22 73.1 2012 59.7 3817 7.2 22 10 87.7 2011 57.6 3610 6.7 20 12 80.9 2010 62.6 3622 7.4 25 10 93.6 2009 63.1 3613 7.2 21 12 88.9 2008 60.0 2971 6.9 14 12 80.3

*Flacco started 10 games in 2015, the only time he's missed a start in his career.

It's pretty remarkable that a quarterback who's played for nine seasons in the NFL's most pass-happy era has managed not to consistently put up any above-average stats, in any single category.

Flacco has thrown for more than 4,000 yards once, never exceeded the 30-touchdown mark, and had a yards-per-attempt average of less than seven in five of his nine seasons.

Now, we hear your response already. "Flacco has mostly played in a run-first offense that complemented a great defense. He was never going to have Rodgers-like numbers."

That's fair. Russell Wilson's raw passing stats aren't the most impressive and, seen in a vacuum, they don't fully illustrate his high level of play. Also, passer rating is a flawed stat that better represents the play of the offense as a whole rather than the quarterback alone.

Well, that's what advanced stats and analytics are for; to delve deeper into the performances of players and more accurately represent their abilities. Wilson is an advanced metric darling, so how does Flacco fare there?

We'll look at three of the main advanced stat metrics, Pro Football Focus' 0-100 rating system, ESPN's QBR, and Football Outsiders' DVOA, a system that rates a player on "value, per play, over an average quarterback in the same game situations," with the percentage representation of that.

Year QBR Rank DVOA Rank PFF rating Rank 2016 58.4 19 -13.9% 29 71.4 25 2015 54.2 25 -10.5 26 72.7 N/A 2014 72.1 7 14.9 8 83.0 N/A 2013 51.2 22 -16.9 28 73.2 N/A 2012 55.0 17 -1.3% 17 81.5 N/A 2011 68.1 10 0.0% 18 75.6 N/A 2010 61.9 12 9.5% 15 79.8 N/A 2009 61.6 16 8.4% 17 85.6 N/A 2008 49.1 24 -3.0% 22 77.3 N/A

Apart from a consensus above-average year in 2014, Flacco has fluctuated from solid to terrible throughout his career, and he's been much more the latter over the past two seasons.

PFF's rankings weren't available, but in its system, 70-79.9 is considered average, so Flacco has only produced an above average grade three times.

Similarly, based on DVOA, he's played at a level above an average quarterback in the same situation only three times, though the seasons differ. And in 2011 he was the definition of average, scoring 0.0.

(Photo courtesy: Action Images)

"But ... but Joe Flacco has a huge arm and he's one of the league's best deep passers."

That may have been true several years ago, but it certainly isn't now. Flacco ranked 36th out of 38 qualifiers in big-time throws and 31st in deep-ball adjusted completion percentage, according to Pro Football Focus.

Flacco's struggles throwing downfield was also highlighted in Jonathan Kinsley's Deep Ball Project. In 2015, Flacco graded out as slightly below average on throws of 16 or more air yards, with a 45.8 percent of his deep throws considered accurate and three touchdowns to five interceptions. For comparison, 63.8 percent of Carson Palmer's throws were marked as accurate and Wilson threw 17 touchdowns to just four picks.

In 2016, Flacco was a mess. His accuracy percentage was 36 percent on 16-plus throws and just 26.3 on throws of 20 or more air yards. The veteran quarterback, again, found opposing defenders more than he did the end zone, throwing eight scores and 10 picks overall. Kinsley highlighted Flacco's poor mechanics and pocket manipulation as the primary reasons for his struggles.

So, if Flacco is no longer a good deep thrower, almost always has mediocre production, and is seen a below-par player in advanced metrics which usually highlight players like him who defer to their defense and running game, what is he actually good at?

Outside of citing his magical 2012 playoff run, what statistical or film-backed argument is there for Flacco being good? Seriously, we couldn't find one.

And Flacco isn't even paid like he's good, he's paid like he's Rodgers. In fact, Flacco's deal averages $22,133,333 a season while Rodgers' averages $22 million, according to Spotrac.

Yes, it was leveraged from that Super Bowl run, but there's a solid argument to make that Flacco's contract is the worst in the NFL. He's paid like a guy who can elevate players around him, but outside of one or two games, he's unable to consistently carry a team.

Is it a coincidence the Ravens have missed the playoffs three of the four years since Flacco signed his then-record-setting contract? There were certainly other factors, like the competitiveness of the AFC North and the retooling of the defense, but it's hard to argue against the theory that Baltimore has struggled to remain competitive in part because its quarterback's play doesn't line up with his bank account.

For all his flaws, Matt Ryan - to whom Flacco will endlessly be linked due to the two being drafted in the same year - has become a very good player. His weapons are better, no doubt, but his accuracy, pocket presence, and ability against the blitz have all improved as he's gotten older. Few would argue he didn't deserve to win MVP last season.

Put aside Super Bowl rings and wins for a moment (and the latter doesn't even favor Flacco that much, as he's won 153 regular-season games to Ryan's 150). Those are team achievements. In every individual category, Ryan has left Flacco in his dust and serves as a constant reminder of how little the Ravens' signal-caller has progressed as a player since 2012.

There are excuses for Flacco: a revolving door at offensive coordinator, uninspiring receivers, and an ACL and MCL injury in 2015 that some think still affected him in 2016. But every franchise quarterback is faced with adversity during their careers, especially after they've given a big-money contract that their team then must navigate around.

The good ones endure, the great ones triumph and make their teammates better, and the bad ones struggle and highlight why they shouldn't actually be a team's focal point.

We all know which category into which Flacco falls.

At the conclusion of the 2016 season, Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti said the team needs "to get more out of" Flacco in order to fix the struggles on the offensive side of the ball. Bisciotti mixed this comment in with the usual optimistic talk about Flacco's future, but this was as close as you'll get to an owner calling out his franchise quarterback.

The Ravens know they can't win with this version of Flacco.

Early-career Flacco looked like a solid starter, and 2012 postseason Flacco looked like a star. But neither of those guys have shown his face in quite some time - and it's likely he never will again.