DMH_in_WA

8 minutes ago, darklight1216 said:

I think I'm going to have to steal that nickname, but I don't know if I can blame it on him. He didn't give up 34 points. 

Of course, the Falcons had a pick 6 so Ryan also can't get credit for anything beyond 21 points...

I can't believe they couldn't get a FG and some of his decisions were mindboggling (how do you take a sack there?) but oh yea, this was a team effort from the Coach's booth to the field.   I might even blame the guy who has to keep track of the jockstraps .. but he has it bad enough.

3 minutes ago, 52520Andrew said:

Yeah there was no resistance at the end there from the defense but a choke job like that is a total team effort.

Yea, but I gotta put more of it on the offense.  Defense put the Pats on lockdown in 1st half and put up 7 of their own.  Offense put them in terrible position all 2nd half when all they needed to do was kick a field goal to solidify this.  Throwing when they did in the 4th instead of running it, eating clock and kicking the FG only confused me slightly less than the Seahawks not handing Marshawn the ball.

And that is why, regardless of what anyone else says, I will call him Matty Melt until the day he dies.  25 points and all the talent in the world around him .. what the hell does it take?  Somewhere Tony Gonzalez is drinking a beer and laughing hysterically.

Whoever thought this was a good idea, they are in danger of being taken off Santa's list ... don't do this again ... please.

thats not subjective at all, Flacco is an unquestionably superior quarterback.

not wishful thinking either, more offensive talent equals more points, only a few of which we've lost each of our games by. This is common sense. you're just selling yourself the idea that playmakers on offense wouldnt make all the difference right now in order to feel better about the losing record, which is fine if that's what you want to do, but dont try to sell that fiction as fact to everyone else.

Q's gamelogs for the last couple of years with SanFran look remarkably similar to his gamelogs with the Ravens in the regular season. If he had remained in Baltimore, it's a pretty good bet that we'd never have picked up Steve Smith Sr. and SSS has outperformed Q in pretty much every statistical measure compared to his time in both Baltimore and SanFran. If you want to sit here and convince yourself that with Q on the team we would be winning despite SSS completely outperforming him now (and in comparison to previous years with SF and Baltimore), that's fine but doesn't mean I'm somehow taking your wishful thinking as fact.

The problem I have with stuff like this is it's a report based on an article that takes nothing else into consideration but the number of missed starts a team has. It doesn't look at the positions lost or the players involved. But even more than that, the ESPN article confusingly ignores Campanaro, Elam, Taliaferro, Will Davis, Pitta, Urban and others when they calculated the games missed. The Ravens are above the Packers at #1 just in season ending games missed. So using that to compare teams and their wins-losses doesn't make much sense to me.

You can look at just the position injuries they have and see why the "#14" Ravens are struggling with their injuries more than the more banged up "#1" Packers. Especially considering most of the Ravens loses are coming down to the defense holding teams late.

Loss to Injury by Position (using ProFootball Reference since they correctly assign Pitta and Urban to the injuries):

Packers:

1x Tight End - 1x Defensive End - 2x Linebacker - 3x Wide Receiver - 2x Safety

Ravens:

4x Tight End - 1x Defensive End - 1x Linebacker - 4x Wide Receiver - 3x Safety - 3x Corner Back - 1x Running Back - 1x Defensive Tackle - 1x Offensive Tackle

Wanna know who is doing the math at ESPN.

You implied he wasn't doing anything.

I didn't imply anything, I stated clearly that he is far from "tearing it up" this season. If you can look at his record this year and put him in the "tearing it up" category, then I think you've got that bar set way too low. He's averaging 55yds/game right now (even with the game against Baltimore) and that's going to go down again this week as he was 3 for 39yds tonight.

At this point, if I had to choose, I'd take SSS over Q for what he can do.

the part youre skipping though, is that Joe is a better quarterback than Kaepernick and both their stats would consequently be better. and fans might still be calling for their heads: but they would be wrong as usual, and we would at least be winning. you're focused on the wrong things.

That's subjective and trying to extrapolate. I'm talking about what is/was. I think Joe is a better QB too, but basing any of this on what I think would happen is just wishful thinking. There is no way you can say, "If we had Boldin right now we'd be winning." Well, you could, but what does that really mean?

He's had a 90 catch, 1000 yard season there.........never topped 1,000 with us. Not tearing it up, but he's a special player still.

Never said he wasn't, but the post I responded to categorized him as "tearing it up" and the stats don't support that. Same with Torrey.

I like Q, but if he was making $7mil on the Ravens right now with the year he was having coming into the last game, are you telling me these forums wouldn't be calling for his head about now?

I could see why Torrey wasn't worth the money to keep here. But I still don't understand for life of me why Boldin was traded for a sixth round draft pick. If age was any of a factor in that decision...you can see he's still tearing it up 3 years removed.

I think you're letting his playoff performance that year cloud your memory.  He was 65 of 112 for 921 yds and 4 TDs with less than ~80yds in half of his games and only 2 over 100yds during the 2012 season.  He was 22 of 36 for 380yds and 4TD in the playoffs - a huge increase over his season performance.  And a pace he has not come close to sustaining since then.

Q is far from "tearing it up" with the 49ers.   They targeted a defender they knew extremely well (they even said so themselves) and exploited his weaknesses and tendencies.  Good for them.

I get so tired of this ... people making up things just to try and emphasize their point. If Torrey and Q were still Ravens right now with the stats they currently have these forums would be calling for their heads.

They both had excellent games against a completely injury depleted secondary. This idea about "injuries don't matter" needs to stop. There are reasons that people are 3rd string, 4th string, on the practice squad or cut by other teams. No, they are not good enough in most cases to play at the level of 1st and 2nd string starters.

If you look at both these guys in the 5 games before their game against the Ravens:

Torrey - 11 of 19 for 127 yards (25.4yds/game) and 1 Touchdown

Q - 23 of 47 for 231 yards (46.2yds/game) and 2 Touchdowns (and 107yds and 1 TD came against the Giants)

To put it another way, Kamar Aiken had more production than they did leading into the game against the Ravens. People need to stop acting like the team that is on the field for the Ravens is the one that the FO envisioned or built.

It's time to send Harbaugh back to college. He didn't lose the game but it's clear we need a new mission statement in Baltimore, or big or, actually get good players in free agency instead of throw aways. Mason, Boldin and Smith has been gems but not too many others.

You'd think history would have shown Baltimore fans the ridiculousness of over-reacting ...... Shula. 

But even if that memory has faded, you only need to look at San Francisco to see the folly of crap like that. 

Then again, what am I thinking .... this is a fanbase where half the people think Tucker should be able to make a 65 yard field goal in a hurricane, with his helmet on backwards in the middle of a 6.0 earthquake.   Nevermind.

Aiken and Brown can never get open, and when Brown does get open, he has hands of stone.

Exactly ... there's a reason these guys were so far down the chain or on practice squad.  Not sure why people talking like any of them is a WR1, WR2 or even WR3.  Half the time they're jogging through their routes.

i thought i saw a hole in the turf lol

Tell me about it... it looked like he stepped in a gopher hole .... not sure why anyone here thinks he should have made that.

Yea, they left points on the field, but how people are eyeballing the offense for this one I don't get.  You put up 384 passing yards, almost 500 yards of total offense and score 33 points against the Raiders, you should win that game.

Defense should be as ashamed, if not more so, than the offense last week.  At least the offense sputtered against arguably the best D currently in the NFL last week.  What's the D's excuse this week?

Back to back passes that -easily- could have/should have been TDs at the end.  And apparently they decided to really hold their flags today because there was so much that could have been called that wasn't including the PI on that last play.  Defender not only never turned to play the ball, he just laid up on the receiver before the ball got there.  

Still, defensive game holding Peyton Manning and the Broncos without a TD in Denver; we'll see how the offense does next week.  It's the first game, how are people already this far gone on the criticism?

Too many conflicting reports ... too many "sources" without names. I'll wait until the NFL releases its report. I do love that Pats fans yell 'bull' on every report that comes out, until one that comes out that they like, then it's genius reporting.

Here's what I do know, though. If you have all these balls and they are just a tick or two below regulation (which btw means nothing since depending on the pressure gauge that can be 0.2 PSI, 0.5PSI or 1.0PSI) why would you require a 3+ week investigation to determine what happened?

If we're talking about a tenth or two PSI difference from regulation on these balls and the NFL dragged this out this long, then we are looking at the NFL perpetrating fraud on the public to garner interest in the SB (probably not the legal definition of fraud, but you know what I mean). And if that's the case, some people need to start being fired within the NFL hierarchy.

Sitting over here in Seattle listening to the conversation about Wilson and Lynch. Pretty much universally thought that if Lynch will stay, they are gonna pay him. And Wilson is a no brainer. Which means at least one larger salary guy has to go and that someone is thought to be CB Byron Maxwell.

What are your guys' thoughts on Maxwell? Where do you think he ends up salary-wise?

Nobody offers the same type of dynamic return abilities on KO (Campanaro seems to be the guy on punts), but I think it's possible a guy falls to us in the draft or undrafted who can possibly provide some of the KRS role, and it's certainly possible Asa Jackson could fill that role for us as well. Asa was used on KO returns, IIRC. So he is a guy we could lean on for KO duties. The problem I foresee for Jacoby is that he is limited as a WR and now is slowing down as a RS, which limits his overall contributions to the team. I think it's a mostly matter of roster spot and not necessarily money.

For just his KO return skills alone I think you bring him back. He was #2 (qualified) in the NFL last year for avg yds/return on KO (30.6 - second only to Adam Jones by 0.7yds) and total return yards (978) while being 6th in total KO return attempts. And of those 5 above him with more attempts, only Hester has more total yards (150 more yards in 13 extra attempts).

That extra field position on KO alone is big. Add to it the possibility he can take it to the house every time he touches it, I think as long as you don't absolutely need the roster spot for a more explosive player, you leave him there until his #'s drop.

If you read my posts you'd know I don't believe any of what you said except that our game wasn't decided by their cheating. Lose the snide remarks

Thanks, but I think I'll keep them. Never know when I'll need them again.

Didn't claim to have advanced knowledge. I refuted your points, no one has brought up plays or examples where your can make even a decent argument to say the under inflated balls resulted play being made when it likely wouldn't have been otherwise

No, you clearly have since you are telling everyone else her with certainty that if they did cheat in the Ravens game it had zero effect on the outcome. As for the rest, you can't make a decent argument one way or the other because, lets say it together, it's an unknowable event.

You can say until you're blue in the face that Edelman was a QB 7 years ago at Kent State and could make that throw and I could remind you that there are starting QBs in the NFL who have made similar throws and missed wide-open receivers this year alone. And that still wouldn't address the question "Could an under-inflated ball have helped him in the pass?"

I would wager that every other person in this thread would be comfortable saying "Knowing what we know about under-inflated balls, it could have helped him in that pass. But then it might not have. You really can't know." Only you seem to think you do know.. 100%.

Edelman was a former qb, and even I possible make that through, it was wide open.

I've seen balls fumble and take weird bounces or no bounces.

Again, you're reaching to make these pseudo scenarios where their cheating helped them to win. If our secondary was worth anything that game and Brady was throwing pin point lasers into tight coverage and that propelled them to victory I'd be tooting a different horn, but their guys were so wide open most of the game that the balls could have been over inflated and they still score that many points.

Reaching? Really? By definition, a cheat for a competitive advantage is one that helps you. I did not say that is why they won. In fact, I can't recall anyone here saying "They cheated and that's the only reason they beat us."

I am saying that you can't say with any certainty, one way or the other, how much it aided them in our game if they did it. You, on the other hand, think that you are somehow qualified to say with 100% certainty that it didn't help them to win. You talk as if we got blown out by 3 touchdowns. They won by the skin of their teeth. A game so close that a single play or two could have shifted that game in either direction.

If the Patriots removed air from the ball, they didn't do it for the giggles. They did it because it was their belief it would give them an advantage towards winning. There is no other reason to do it, period. But hey, maybe you want to give them a call and share your advanced knowledge. Let them know to stop all that foolishness, it doesn't help them at all.

I'm not sure I understand this whole "he only had 90 seconds" or "look how precise the amount of deflation was" counters. 90-seconds is more than enough time. You're not talking about walking in there with an inflation/deflation needle like we had on the hand pumps we used as kids.

I'm certain if they were going to do this, they'd use a gauge with a release valve (like in photo). With one of these, you could probably exactly deflate a ball by 2psi in 3-5 seconds each. And if the bag the balls were in is like what we used in school (large bag with zipper running down length), 90 seconds is probably 45-55 seconds longer than you'd need.

Didn't have any impact on the following:

 

Daniels dropping touchdown catch

 

Flacco throwing an int

 

Secondary being owned in the second half

 

I just feel like it's ok to say the Patriots cheated, as long as we aren't using it an an excuse as to why we lost. And if we can admit we lost not cause of that, then when you sit back and think about it, the whole thing seems very blown out of proportion to me.

There's too much that goes into a game to say whether it did or didn't effect the game. No way to be sure of anything. But by the same token, I don't think it's a stretch to say that IF they were playing with a under-inflated ball, it could have had an impact on the following big plays off the top of my head:

Julian Edelman 51yd TD pass to Amendola (softer ball, easier to grip and throw for smaller hands like Edelman)

Edelman fumble surrounded by Ravens that kind of hit the ground and didn't really bounce anywhere as he dropped straight down to cover it

Football has always been a game of inches and seconds. No way you can honestly say that if the Patriots used an under-inflated ball that's the reason the Ravens lost. But by the same token, you can't say the Ravens would have lost regardless either.

The Patriots never fail to amaze me. Is it impossible for anyone in that organization to answer a "yes or no" question with a "yes or no answer" or to make a definitive statement?

Every time the media asks someone there if they cheated, they answer with a "I don't believe I" or "We don't believe we". That is not an answer to that question. "Belief" answers are for questions with uncertainty.

If I ask you if you cheated on your taxes and you didn't, you would say "No, I didn't cheat on my taxes." You would not say "I don't believe I cheated on my taxes."

But if I said, "Did you make a mistake on your taxes?" You could say, "I don't believe I did." Because maybe you did or maybe you didn't, but there's always a chance for a mistake.

The fact that the Patriots answer every yes or know question with an answer that points to uncertainty tells me a great deal. The fact that Robert Kraft doesn't say, "When the investigation finds out we didn't do this, I want an apology." And instead says, "When you can't prove without a doubt that we did this, I want an apology." That tells me a great deal; one of which is that whatever they did and wherever they did it, they are pretty certain there's no video evidence of it.

I have to agree with Eric Kuselias, they need to change their motto to: "The New England Patriots: Our Balls May Be Deflated, But They Sure Are Large"

The kid is getting big bucks to take the fall and claim Indy payed him to make the pats look bad.   [/speculation]

Who would have thought that SNL would have gotten it right with Dougie Spoons? Man, I thought Belichick was more creative than that.