How good were the Ravens

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

    Re: How good were the Ravens

    In Response to Re: How good were the Ravens:
    In Response to Re: How good were the Ravens : get a life!  you obviously take yourself far too seriously son.  You seem to have pretty thin skin.  Typical Colts fan! Posted by soxfan33928
    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?
    Posted by underdogg


    Cry  Do you need a hug?  Your skin must be rice paper.  You obviously think yourself an intellectual.  However, I propose that you are nothing more than a mindless robot capable of nothing more than regurgitating what you've read or been told by someone else.  Calling other people ignorant because they disagree with your post is really mature.  Do you always resort to name calling when you are wrong?  It reveals your lack of self confidence and self assurance.  Perhaps you were never told how special you are when you were a kid.  That is sad. 
 
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from wwsf4ever. Show wwsf4ever's posts

    Re: How good were the Ravens

    In Response to Re: How good were the Ravens:
    Never completely satisfied, but unfortunately for the rest of the league things in NE seem to be coming together nicely. The  defense i gaurantee you will be a force as the season goes on. Dog even you being unbiased have to admit the D looks different from the past few years. Im loving the youth, speed and hard hits all day. I thought Merriweather was fantastic as well Guyton stood out to me. The offense seems to be rounding into form minus Maroney cause he's lost. Welker definitely makes the engine go. Brady looks alot sharper and as soon as the deep ball timing gets there look out.
    Posted by HOTBLITZ


    DOG Unbiassed?... LOL  Now that is about as true as Mr Obama not caring whether he gets control over the American people and gives away the shining beacon on a hill.....

    DOG IS A HOMER....  He just has no dog in a game between the Ravens and the Pats- but mind you he desires to bring down both.

    He is an Indy boy.. and well that will come out in spades about 11/7/09... as the week to the match begins.
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Ltown1. Show Ltown1's posts

    Re: How good were the Ravens

    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


    Time will tell I guess.  They seem to be a team in transition.  They're defense is aging and their offense is improving dramatically.  

    I'd say it will take them at least half the season to find their identity which is to say, figure out what it is that they are best at.  

    They are more balanced than they have been in a while. 
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: How good were the Ravens

    I am not going to delve back into this thread except to say that I can't on an objective level look at a schedule of teams that are 4-10 vis-a-vis a schedule of teams that are 9-4 and accept that they are the same level of competition.

    And I didn't say Miami was terrible. They aren't, and weren't, a playoff caliber team. But they can be dangerous in spells, like any team that should end up between 6-10 and 8-8. Not a good team, but average. I think last season they capitalized on a "surprise" wildcat, that netted them a few wins from teams that didn't know what to expect out of the formation. The fins had a very weak schedule down the stretch, and were essentially decapitated in the playoffs.

    Second, Baltimore was great last year, and they look better this season by most accounts. So I have trouble figuring how you think they are weak.

    And Tennessee's 13-3 last season carries zero stock this year. The last seven games last year they were 3-4. This year they are 0-4. Thus, over their last eleven games as a unit, less Haynesworth of course, they are a 3-8 ballclub.

    That is a large enough sample for me to say they stink. Maybe they improve a bit. But that is the difficulty of setting a schedule's strength-- it doesn't take into account how a team is playing when they play the game.

    For instance, the Cowboys were awesome early last season, and then started playing awful-- they got disfunctional and started playing awful, like they are now. An early win when they were executing makes it a better win than picking them off when they were infighting and circling the drain.

    For the same reason, I chide Pats fans who think Denver will be easy. Do I think they are SB contenders? No. But right now they are playing great football, and will be at home. That spells a tough game, even if by season's end they cool off.

    Maybe the Titans catch fire and prove me wrong, but basically I thought the league would catch up to them last season, and they did. Their secondary is weak, and their team is a LOT softer than people made them out to be.

    If NE were playing them this week, especially after how poorly they executed last week, I would be thinking SLAM DUNK!

    All of that said, right now, that is how the schedule looks. We can revisit this stuff, and I am sure someone will, when the season is over and done.

    If I were a Colts fan I would just be stoked to be 4-0, regardless of the competition. Once the playoffs start, everyone is 0-0 and there aren't too many 'easy schedules' there. You know?
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: How good were the Ravens

    In Response to Re: How good were the Ravens:
    In Response to Re: How good were the Ravens : get a life!  you obviously take yourself far too seriously son.  You seem to have pretty thin skin.  Typical Colts fan! Posted by soxfan33928
    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?
    Posted by underdogg

    UD,

    I know we go back and forth on stuff, but I really have the need to correct this. ignorant and stupid are not synonyms and aren't even really close in meaning.

    Ignorant means you lack knowledge, but doesn't speak to one's abilities to actually learn that knowledge. Einstein might be ignorant of the new theories in quantum mechanics, but he is not necessarily unable to learn them. Stupid means you lack a keen mind and are unable to learn. There is a big difference there.

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

    Re: How good were the Ravens

    Guys, are you kidding me? Let's get back to football.
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: How good were the Ravens

    Z - I don't disagree with what you are saying.  

    But I do think it is too early to be suggesting greatness for some and discounting others.  We should be happy for our teams' records and leave it at that.  

    Now some teams may be lost for the year.  Tennessee is better than their record, but not without most of the defensive backfield and not if Collins is going to play crappy football.  Same goes for Seattle.   

    But the jury is still out not only on our teams but most of the other teams in the league. 
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: How good were the Ravens

    In Response to Re: How good were the Ravens:
    In Response to Re: How good were the Ravens : 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? Posted by underdogg
    UD, I know we go back and forth on stuff, but I really have the need to correct this. ignorant and stupid are not synonyms and aren't even really close in meaning. Ignorant means you lack knowledge, but doesn't speak to one's abilities to actually learn that knowledge. Einstein might be ignorant of the new theories in quantum mechanics, but he is not necessarily unable to learn them. Stupid means you lack a keen mind and are unable to learn. There is a big difference there.
    Posted by EnochRoot

    Root, thank you for the correction.  And its ok to expose my own ignorance.  But then again, I don't think anyone here mistakes me for a capable writer, debator, or communicator.  Remember, I am a colts fan from Indiana.
  •  
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: How good were the Ravens

    In Response to Re: How good were the Ravens:
    Guys, are you kidding me? Let's get back to football.
    Posted by Sam-Adams

    Sam, you have to understand that I have taken my lumps on this board, primarily because I have dished it out. 

    Now where the village idiot is concerned, sometimes arguements get petty and unfortunately I am not man enough to stay away from them especially when I am attacked only because the attacker can't or won't attack my posts.
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Paul_K. Show Paul_K's posts

    Re: How good were the Ravens

    They're a good team.  It's really not a mortal sin to be ten points behind the Patriots after three quarters, and then they can be a good team for a little while in the fourth quarter against the prevent, and afterwards they can say their woulda shouldas and cry about the refs and all. But on the field they were good.

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

    Re: How good were the Ravens

    In Response to Re: How good were the Ravens:
    In Response to Re: How good were the Ravens : Sam, you have to understand that I have taken my lumps on this board, primarily because I have dished it out.  Now where the village idiot is concerned, sometimes arguements get petty and unfortunately I am not man enough to stay away from them especially when I am attacked only because the attacker can't or won't attack my posts.
    Posted by underdogg


    All I'm saying is I've seen great posts by both. Believe me when someone comes on like Ravenmad and starts in like he did about bringing his 10,000 to Foxboro I jumped all over him (and others). You guys have too many good arguments and debates to attack each other.


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

    Re: How good were the Ravens

    In Response to Re: How good were the Ravens:
    Z - I don't disagree with what you are saying.   But I do think it is too early to be suggesting greatness for some and discounting others.  We should be happy for our teams' records and leave it at that.   Now some teams may be lost for the year.  Tennessee is better than their record, but not without most of the defensive backfield and not if Collins is going to play crappy football.  Same goes for Seattle.    But the jury is still out not only on our teams but most of the other teams in the league. 
    Posted by underdogg


    Perhaps saying "playoff teams" wasn't the best way to put it. Looking back, even if Tennessee takes off, and wins the Superbowl, and Cincinatti loses every game it plays from here out. The Bengals can't look back and say, "We were better than the Champs,"  because they beat Tennessee when they were playing like garbage.

    I am not deifying anyone. But it only takes common sense to know that if you played Denver last week, and another person played Tennesse last week, regardless of their records at the end of the season, Denver was a tougher match.

    Right now Denver would crucify the Titans. If Tennesse could get on the same page, and Denver could cool a bit, then that might change. But I know what the Vegas odds would look like. Denver -10 or something like that. They could care less that Tenn had a 11-0 record at one point, last season, before injuries and FA losses.

    Tennessee is playing like garbage right now. Denver is hot.

    Are Tennessee going 0-16 and Denver 16-0? No. But it is insubstantial. One has played 4-0 football, the other 0-4.

    That is the caliber opponent you face until their record/quality of play changes. As far as my holistic sense of the schedule, I still think, and the strength rating set by the NFL agrees, the Indy's schedule isn't nearly as tough as NE's. But, that does need to get weeded out by season's end. Until then, I have my predictions.
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: How good were the Ravens

    No doubt that Denver deserves the benefit of the doubt for their 4-0 record and the Parcell's quote to go along with it.  But just as there are many here that want to place, the pats @ 3-1 above the Broncos @ 4-0, so do I.  And the reasons for that are:
    * where and how they ended the year last year.
    * All of the changes they made in the offseason.
    * Can they get all of those changes fully integrated into a new system.
    * All of the turmoil they had in the offseason. 

    So, actually their 4-0 record is remarkable given everything that has happened.  But lets not forget that they needed a 1 in a million bounce to win against cincy, and have played both dysfunctional Oakland and Cleveland and a reeling identity-less Dallas team.  But they have taken care of their business, so hats off to them. 

    Where Tennessee is concerned, whether or not you (or everyone else) predicted that the Haynesworth departure was going to affect the team, no one thought it would go this bad.  Add to that significant defensive injuries and one of the most difficult schedules to date: @Pitt, Hou, @NYJ, Jax, and this team is in a world of hurt.     

    But forgive me if I don't seem them as being crucified by Denver.  Currently denver ranks 19th in points scored (not a ringing endorsement for an undefeated team) while Tennessee lost their first 3 games (@Pitt, Hou, @NYJ) by a total of 13 points.   

    Give Denver credit.  They deserve it.  Don't take them lightly, but I see the pats winning by 18 to 24 points.  If not, then maybe Mike Nolan is that good of a DC.  And if Indy only a 3.5 pt favorite at Tenn, then I'd bet Vegas would call it a pick em if Denver were there.  The national respect for Denver at this time is begrudging and count me as one of those.

    Finally, where the pats/colts schedules are concerned, to date Sagarin's got the colts at strength at 19th and the pats at 21st.  I am sure that will change somewhat as the year plays out, but the colts and pats have 8 common opponents this year - each other's division(6 games),the broncos, the ravens and they play each other.  Not substantially different schedules.  Outside of these games, the pats have playoff potential teams NO and ATL and the colts have playoff potential teams PHO and SF. 
     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share