1. You have chosen to ignore posts from BubbaInHawaii. Show BubbaInHawaii's posts

    Re: How good were the Ravens

    posted at 10/4/2009 7:38 PM EDT

    In Response to How good were the Ravens:
    looks like a couple of turnovers hurt them for scores.  Also, without the "a win is a win" response, were pats fans satisfied with the team's play?
    Posted by underdogg


    red zone d still having some problems, benefitted from a drop at the very end of the game.  Punter did a lousy job pinning Ravens in their end.

    Offensive play calling better than the first 3 games, but there were some head scratchers at the end of the game when we were trying to score at least 3 points to put the game away.

    we face Denver next week...woohoo!
     

  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: How good were the Ravens

    posted at 10/4/2009 7:40 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: How good were the Ravens:
    Well my hats off to you for your predictions. 
    Posted by underdogg


    Keep hats firmly in place until the end of the season.

    Watch them both catch fire, then I get laughed at at the bar.
     

  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from prairiemike. Show prairiemike's posts

    Re: How good were the Ravens

    posted at 10/4/2009 7:48 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: How good were the Ravens:
    In Response to How good were the Ravens : red zone d still having some problems, benefitted from a drop at the very end of the game.  Punter did a lousy job pinning Ravens in their end. Offensive play calling better than the first 3 games, but there were some head scratchers at the end of the game when we were trying to score at least 3 points to put the game away. we face Denver next week...woohoo!
    Posted by BubbaInHawaii


    The punting was atrocious.
     

  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sam-Adams. Show Sam-Adams's posts

    Re: How good were the Ravens

    posted at 10/4/2009 8:03 PM EDT

    Just getting home from the game and I would have to say a win is a win. 

    Kidding, I'm upset they didn't put it away when they had the chance. You get a huge boost from the D with 7:10 left and can't take advantage of it. The Ravens are a good team and we have a ton of film to review to look for improvements for next week but we can do it on a W. I hope Bronco trolls are better than Raven.

    Anyone know the status of the injured Raven (couldn't even see who it was from my seats) I hope he's alright.
     

  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Davedsone. Show Davedsone's posts

    Re: How good were the Ravens

    posted at 10/4/2009 8:24 PM EDT

    Hey.. Rodney Harrison just said that the first 3 games the defense was in all vanilla coverages due to so many new people.  And that this game the playbook was opened up.  Im not too sure if he knows it all, but pretty sure he knows what the defensive playbook looks like, so if he says it, ok.  Really happy with the Defensive play today.  Some breakdowns, but they got pressure and coverage was ok except in a few spots.  Need to do better on 3rd and long, thats an old story though.  Offense looked O.K. but i think it is time to STOP playing Moroney and not sure about Aiken as a number 2.  Love Taylor and the crew, but why are the mixing it up so much with the running backs?  Whatever.  I'll take it, and welcome back, Wes!  Now we need some new plays to face Josh McD with.  Hate being in Denver.  I lived there for 2 years, the altitude really does mess you up.  Oh, well.  Go Pats!
     

  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from kman2004. Show kman2004's posts

    Re: How good were the Ravens

    posted at 10/4/2009 8:50 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: How good were the Ravens:
    http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/nfl/news/story?id=4531578


    Funny how the Raven's seem to complain about the refs every time they lose to the Patriots. There may be some classy players on their team, but Ed Reed and Ray Lewis are not the leagues classiest players.

    Can you imagine Tom Brady or Wes Welker complaining about the refs after the game?
     

  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from patpscyho. Show patpscyho's posts

    Re: How good were the Ravens

    posted at 10/4/2009 8:51 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: How good were the Ravens:
    In Response to How good were the Ravens : Not as good as people said they were, and a few power rankings had them #1. But not as bad as some will say they are now. Basically, you just don't look at the first few games to crown a champ. Through four games last season the SB winners were Buffalo and Tennessee. Through eight it was NY and Tennesse. The bottom line is that some teams play well until the NFL catches up to their new wrinkles, and then they either adjust, or do not adjust. Look at the scoreboard now in the Jets/Saints game. According to many this is the Superbowl, so the Pats, Colts, Steelers, Gints and Falcons should just hang it up. How much you want to bet that by week twelve, the Saints cool off, and the league figures out the Jets defense, and they are both exposed for the 1-dimensional teams they are (no defense, no offense respectively)? The Ravens have some talent, but not enough to go all the way. I don't care if they started out raking bad defenses over the coals. The bottom line is they could only get 14 on the board. How do I feel about NE? Their defense is nasty, and can hit. Meriweather is a star, and controlled the game the way a safety should. Bodden is a stud, and I hope they can hang on to him. Offensively, they are looking more in-synch every week, which is bad for the league. They ran for two TDs today, but passed the ball all day long against a very good defense.
    Posted by zbellino

    IMO the Ravens Offense is starting to look like the real deal. They will be a legit threat.

     

  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from crono420. Show crono420's posts

    Re: How good were the Ravens

    posted at 10/4/2009 9:09 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: How good were the Ravens:
    Blitz - didn't see the game.  Had the colts game here, who were absolutely surgical - up 34-3 before giving up 2 late TDs that were meaningless.  sorry for the diversion.  I've only seen the pats play in the first game and was more focused on the offensive play.  Maybe I will see them in the next 3 weeks as they do not play at the same time as the colts. 
    Posted by underdogg



    give me a break, you are so full of BS. Any game the pats play in, they have a great chance to win. The same goes for the colts.
     

  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: How good were the Ravens

    posted at 10/4/2009 9:43 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: How good were the Ravens:
    In Response to Re: How good were the Ravens : I believe it. From a handicapping perspective, I would rather the Pats be 3-1 against three playoff teams and one decent team with some flaws than be 4-0 against really bad teams. At least you know where you stand against the guys you will be seeing in the playoffs. Even if they were that good, you have this uneasy feeling about it while it is happening because they haven't started banging around with the bigboys yet. And you just don't know until the rubber hits the road.
    Posted by zbellino

    I've got to respond more to this.  My fandom demands it. 

    So the pats are 3-1 against 3 playoff teams and a decent one with some flaws.  Lets see: 
    *Jets (yep good, but as shown today, their rookie QB is going to lose them a few);
    *Ravens (well they beat KC and Clev and were fortunate to get a win against SD - while 3-0 at the time, not a ringing endorsement);
    *Atlanta (they've beaten a dolphins team you don't think is good and a Carolina team that isn't good)
    * Buffalo - (They've beaten only TB, possibly the worst team in the NFL)

    So the possibility exists that the pats wins aren't all that great. 

    On the flip side, I give the colts some credit:

    *dolphins (I happen to think that they are better than you give them credit for and in doing so makes the pats wins more impressive.)   
    *Jacksonville, has just shown some moxie winning their last 2 games.  We'll see if they can sustain anything. 
    *Arizona - their offensive line is a problem and will cause them to not win the division this year, but SF is better than previously advertised. 
    * Seattle - they are bad without Hasselback, but really it was their D that was bad.  Wallace can do things with his feet that other QB's cant. 

    Maybe I am trying to convince myself here, but if I am, then I really other than the Jets, the pats competition has not been great. 
     

  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: How good were the Ravens

    posted at 10/4/2009 10:02 PM EDT

    One other note: the colts and pats have 8 common opponents this year and play each other.  the differences:

    NE:
    Jets, Bills, Fins  twice (3)
    Atlanta, Tampa, New Orleans, Carolina

    Indy:
    Jax, Houston, Tennessee twice (3)
    Phoenix, SF, St. Louis, Seattle

    From a stength of schedule perspective, I don't think the pats and colts are dramatically different. 
     

  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: How good were the Ravens

    posted at 10/4/2009 10:03 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: How good were the Ravens:
    In Response to Re: How good were the Ravens : give me a break, you are so full of BS. Any game the pats play in, they have a great chance to win. The same goes for the colts.
    Posted by crono420

    What in my post that you responded to caused you to post this?
     

  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: How good were the Ravens

    posted at 10/5/2009 8:27 AM EDT

    In Response to Re: How good were the Ravens:
    In Response to Re: How good were the Ravens : Yes!  If the Pats win the division this year, it will mean more than when we destroyed our division in 2007.  The Jets are a tough opponent who will test them.  The Dolphins are still tough to beat at home.  Buffalo has some incredibly talented skill position players. As for the Ravens, I'd be worried I couldn't do more against the Patriots defense when the Pats didn't have Jerod Mayo.  It's like they handicapped themselves by passing instead of handing it to Rice.  I'd also be worried about the Ravens' lack of a #2 receiver.  Mason is good, but not quite a top-flight number 1.  Clayton had all three of the final passes hit his hands.  Starting receivers need to make those catches.  Their defense is undoubtedly worse off this year.  There's no way they allow 258 yards through the air (with 67% completion rate) a few years ago.  They have good safeties, but losing Bart Scott cost them.  I also think they don't have very good corners - Fabian Washington is not a #1 corner (although a #1 talent).  With Ray Lewis and Ed Reed both on the wrong side of 30, they have a small window to build around those two before having to rebuild.  They're also in a tough division.  Tonight's game between San Diego and Pittsburgh will say a lot about whether the Ravens have two challengers in the division or just one (Cincinatti).
    Posted by NickC1188

    I feel like the ravens could be in transistion.  Lewis and Reed are not getting younger, and while still effective maybe not SPECIAL.  Additionally, they are the kind of players who with the right players around them, become so much more effective.  The Ravens have lost a few of those defensive players over the last few years. 

    The offense is starting to step up, but they may need some more skill players as mentioned above.
     

  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from soxfan33928. Show soxfan33928's posts

    Re: How good were the Ravens

    posted at 10/7/2009 10:02 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: How good were the Ravens:
    In Response to Re: How good were the Ravens : I've got to respond more to this.  My fandom demands it.(oh my how pretentious are we?)  So the pats are 3-1 against 3 playoff teams and a decent one with some flaws.  Lets see:  *Jets (yep good, but as shown today, their rookie QB is going to lose them a few); *Ravens (well they beat KC and Clev and were fortunate to get a win against SD - while 3-0 at the time, not a ringing endorsement); *Atlanta (they've beaten a dolphins team you don't think is good and a Carolina team that isn't good) * Buffalo - (They've beaten only TB, possibly the worst team in the NFL) So the possibility exists that the pats wins aren't all that great.  On the flip side, I give the colts some credit: *dolphins (I happen to think that they are better than you give them credit for and in doing so makes the pats wins more impressive.)    *Jacksonville, has just shown some moxie winning their last 2 games.  We'll see if they can sustain anything.  *Arizona - their offensive line is a problem and will cause them to not win the division this year, but SF is better than previously advertised.  * Seattle - they are bad without Hasselback, but really it was their D that was bad.  Wallace can do things with his feet that other QB's cant.  Maybe I am trying to convince myself here, but if I am, then I really other than the Jets, the pats competition has not been great. 
    Posted by underdogg


    Perhaps your judgement is clouded by your allegiance to your home team?  Or perhaps you're just not a football guy.  In any case, the Pats schedule has been far more difficult than what the Colts have faced thus far.  Stop trying to make it seem as thouogh the Colts previous opponents are the second coming of the 86 Bears.  As Mr. Parcells would say, "you are whatcha are."  
     

  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: How good were the Ravens

    posted at 10/8/2009 10:18 AM EDT

    In Response to Re: How good were the Ravens:
    In Response to Re: How good were the Ravens : Perhaps your judgement is clouded by your allegiance to your home team?  Or perhaps you're just not a football guy.  In any case, the Pats schedule has been far more difficult than what the Colts have faced thus far.  Stop trying to make it seem as thouogh the Colts previous opponents are the second coming of the 86 Bears.  As Mr. Parcells would say, "you are whatcha are."  
    Posted by soxfan33928


    Perhaps. 

    Or perhaps my opinions are spot on since you chose to question me as opposed to my comments. 

    Z suggested that the pats have beaten 3 playoff teams and one other good one with flaws.  Clearly he was projecting because of the teams the pats have played only 2 were in the playoffs last year.  

    This is actually no different than the colts schedule to date.  

    Both the pats and colts have played and beaten 1st round losers (ATL and MIA respectively).  

    Both the pats and colts have played and beaten playoff teams that went deep (Balt-AFC Champ; AZ-Superbowl)

    Now the colts beat both of their playoff teams on the road while the pat beat theirs at home. 

    Finally, I would say that Buffalo is no better than Seattle, but I would say that the Jets are better than the Jags. 

    But that said, the pats schedule has not really been significantly more difficult than the colts to date and the colts in playing the phins and cards traveled to both games which were only 6 days apart. 

    Now question if you choose, but please question the content before you question the writer.
     

  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sam-Adams. Show Sam-Adams's posts

    Re: How good were the Ravens

    posted at 10/8/2009 10:47 AM EDT

    I think Z was projecting. The Pats have played the Jets, Atlanta and Baltimore. I think you can say there's a good chance all three will make the playoffs this year. 

    Indy has played teams that made the playoffs last year but how would you project those four teams this year?

    You're dancing between last years results and what's actually happening this year.


     

  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: How good were the Ravens

    posted at 10/8/2009 11:27 AM EDT

    Sam - agreed,

    But does Miami not make the playoffs because they are worse or because their schedule is more difficult? 

    AZ can still project as a potential playoff team (without looking at their sched).  Certainly SF is better.  No one really knows what to expect from Seattle because of injuries.  StL is pathetic.  If AZ does not make it, then it is due to their Oline.

    Jax - don't count them out.  Houston and Tennessee are better than their records and they got both of those games.  That said, I think it will be difficult for them to make the playoffs. 

    by the same token -

    Does Atlanta make the playoffs because they play in a weak division (TB, Car) or because they are that good?  Their D is suspect.

    The Ravens will really start to define their season this weekend with their game against Cincy.  If the Ravens lose does that make them not as good as we thought or is Cincy really that good? 

    The Jets, I believe are good, unless Sanchez starts to unravel as a rookie. 

    The Bills are pathetic.
     

  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sam-Adams. Show Sam-Adams's posts

    Re: How good were the Ravens

    posted at 10/8/2009 12:10 PM EDT

    I'm just making the observation that the way everything is shaking out with who both teams have played to date I think the Pats have had the tougher go of it.
    We caught three tough teams in a row, that's not saying Indy had cake walks but three of them didn't play to last years form at all.

    I think Miami roughed up but their on top of the strength of schedule so it's a combo. They only made it last year because of the Pats divisional record.
    Arizona's 1-2 with both losses coming against good teams. They were 2-2 last year. If Warner can settle down they can make it but with the one exception they haven't played close to last year.
    I don't see Jax making it. 
    Seattle can't do anything without our BC boy tossing and he can't stay healthy.

    Atlanta's gonna settle down and play the balanced ball they played last year and get in. 
    The Ravens are a good football and win or lose this week they get in. After last week the last person I'd want to be this week is Palmer. 
    or maybe anyone pulling for the Buc's this week
    I'm not convinced with Sanchez yet. I saw the D give him a lot of gifts the first three weeks and nobody really jumped out first against them. I want to see him bring his team back to win a tough one before I start thinking like everyone else. Overall the team has too much talent and the D gets them in.
    Buffalo has a nasty disease seeping into the core of the foundation. If they don't get rid of it they may be in trouble.

    Again, we need 3-4 more weeks to let the phased separation happen. By then we'll see the sludge teams sitting on the bottom.
     

  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from unclealfie. Show unclealfie's posts

    Re: How good were the Ravens

    posted at 10/8/2009 12:18 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: How good were the Ravens:
    Blitz - didn't see the game.  Had the colts game here, who were absolutely surgical - up 34-3 before giving up 2 late TDs that were meaningless.  sorry for the diversion.  I've only seen the pats play in the first game and was more focused on the offensive play.  Maybe I will see them in the next 3 weeks as they do not play at the same time as the colts. 
    Posted by underdogg

    Impressive score but, again, look at the competition. Seattle is a wretched franchise, near the bottom of any NFL power ranking. Likewise, I'd like the chance to see colts play before 11/15 but sadly lcan't get directTV.
     

  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from unclealfie. Show unclealfie's posts

    Re: How good were the Ravens

    posted at 10/8/2009 12:27 PM EDT

    Have to say that I was very unimpressed by the ravens' play. As stated elsewhere, mason disappeared after that hit in the end zone and how does a so-called "power running" team get stopped twice on 4th and one? 

    Pats were able to pick up effective yards on the ground when needed and only the fumble/TD made the game close. Once again, ravens had numerous chances and failed to convert vs pats' hugely improved D. This is the calling card of an also-ran team but they have a very weak schedule to they'll probably be in the playoffs.

    Wouldn't bother me to see them come to foxboro again. I'm sure the thug brothers would be so worked up on steroid rages, they'd overplay everything.
     

  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPKilla2009. Show MVPKilla2009's posts

    Re: How good were the Ravens

    posted at 10/8/2009 12:32 PM EDT

    A win is a win....s uck on that lol
     

  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Diesel12. Show Diesel12's posts

    Re: How good were the Ravens

    posted at 10/8/2009 12:38 PM EDT

    The Ravens were a good team, no doubt about it. that game shouldn't even have been that close if not for Light letting Suggs walk into the backfield and strip sack Brady. The Ravens are a lot better at whining than they are at winning.
     

  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Diesel12. Show Diesel12's posts

    Re: How good were the Ravens

    posted at 10/8/2009 12:52 PM EDT

    Why is every team great until the Patriots beat them and then once they lose, they are overrated and on the downside? For the last 2 weeks, all I heard about was how Matty Ryan was the second coming of Tom Brady and the Ravens are the best team in all of football. Noe the Pats beat them and one is in a weak division and the other is in a transition year. For some reason, people are afraid to admit the Pats are good and I'm assuming it is because they looked so bad in the first 2 games. Those first 2 games were clearly an offense trying to get in sync and a defense trying to find its identity. Well they have done more than that against some solid teams and really have a realistic shot at finishing the first half of the season 7-1. I don't see the Pats losing a division game again this year. Maybe Miami because it's always tough to play there for some reason.
     

  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from soxfan33928. Show soxfan33928's posts

    Re: How good were the Ravens

    posted at 10/8/2009 1:43 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: How good were the Ravens:
    [QUOTE Now question if you choose, but please question the content before you question the writer.
    Posted by underdogg[/QUOTE]

    get a life!  you obviously take yourself far too seriously son.  You seem to have pretty thin skin.  Typical Colts fan!
     

  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: How good were the Ravens

    posted at 10/8/2009 4:19 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: How good were the Ravens:
    In Response to Re: How good were the Ravens : [QUOTE Now question if you choose, but please question the content before you question the writer. Posted by underdogg
    get a life!  you obviously take yourself far too seriously son.  You seem to have pretty thin skin.  Typical Colts fan!
    Posted by soxfan33928[/QUOTE]
    I, of the thin skin, and yet not one exclamation point.  You on the other hand, well...(see above). 

    Hey, if you don't want to talk football, that's fine.  But the ad hominem attacks just make you look ignorant (that mean's stupid, Forest).  

    Now did you want to debate my points or can I just expect a few more "Typical Colts Fan" exclamations?
     

  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from jbolted. Show jbolted's posts

    Re: How good were the Ravens

    posted at 10/8/2009 4:31 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: How good were the Ravens:
    In Response to How good were the Ravens : Not as good as people said they were, and a few power rankings had them #1. But not as bad as some will say they are now. Basically, you just don't look at the first few games to crown a champ. Through four games last season the SB winners were Buffalo and Tennessee. Through eight it was NY and Tennesse. Through 16 it was Indy. The bottom line is that some teams play well until the NFL catches up to their new wrinkles, and then they either adjust, or do not adjust. Look at the scoreboard now in the Jets/Saints game. According to many this is the Superbowl, so the Pats, Colts, Steelers, Gints and Falcons should just hang it up. How much you want to bet that by week twelve, the Saints cool off, and the league figures out the Jets defense, and they are both exposed for the 1-dimensional teams they are (no defense, no offense respectively)? The Ravens have some talent, but not enough to go all the way. I don't care if they started out raking bad defenses over the coals. The bottom line is they could only get 14 on the board. How do I feel about NE? Their defense is nasty, and can hit. Meriweather is a star, and controlled the game the way a safety should. Bodden is a stud, and I hope they can hang on to him. Offensively, they are looking more in-synch every week, which is bad for the league. They ran for two TDs today, but passed the ball all day long against a very good defense.
    Posted by zbellino