How good were the Ravens

  1. 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. 
     
  2. 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 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