rmcjacket23

  23 minutes ago, bioLarzen said:

That top-5 list of teams with most guaranteed money for the D clearly show that it doesn't mean a thing in itself. #1 is the lowly Jags, #2 is the Patriots...

Giving a lot of guaranteed money is a good move if you give it to players who will contribute and you can keep on your roster for their entire contracts, and bad if you give it to players you won't be happy with and/or cut before their contracts expire...

You can do it wisely and foolishly.

Well, since the Jaguars, Ravens and Patriots were the 6th, 7th and 8th defenses in the league (based on points), your opinion is not exactly accurate.
(http://www.footballdb.com/stats/teamstat.html?group=D&cat=T)

PPG isn't the greatest metric to measure a defense by either. Has many flaws.

29 catches for a 4th target WR. 33 catches for our #1 Pick. Hmmmmmmm

LOL nice try. Aiken was the 5th target, and he's been in the league 5 years, and he's getting outplayed by a rookie... to the tune of almost 4 yards/catch. That's how you end up with 170 yards less... with just four less catches. Yikes... that's bad.

And that's why he signs a one year deal in FA in a bad WR market.

You're gonna have to come up with something better than catches bud. This ain't a PPR fantasy league.

  1 hour ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Ray Rice isn't playing because most teams don't think he would be any good.

I wish I could see your straight face when you make such a claim......

See 2013.

Name a single skill set that Ray Rice brings based on recent game film that a standard 3rd or 4th round RB doesn't have?

Literally any skill.

If Ray Rice can't play because of what he did then I don't think AP should have a job either, beating a helpless child is an even more heinous offense imo.

Ray Rice isn't playing because most teams don't think he would be any good.

  9 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

  10 hours ago, whobilly said:

  11 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

  13 hours ago, whobilly said:

Hope we told Boldin that we'd like to have him back this season. Would love to have his toughness and attitude back.......not to mention the 65 catches, great blocking, and 6 TD's.

And you can stop wasting your time by posting this everyday... he's not signing anywhere until at least July.

I did you a favor.

Putting the back and forth aside, would you be ok with signing Boldin for a one year deal like Detroit got him for last year? 2 mill is small money.

No. I don't see the upside.

I don't care about 2017. The 2017 Ravens aren't going to be SB contenders, and Boldin doesn't have the capability to change that.

I care about building a team that in 2018 and beyond is a contender, and there's no reasonable scenario where Boldin is involved in that.

I also find all of this moot, considering there is precisely zero indication that he has interest whatsoever in playing in Baltimore.

Why don't you think the Ravens are a play-off team? We got significantly better on defense & we play a much EASIER schedule this year (No Pats, No NFC East) - Bears, Vikings, Texans, Browns x2, Jags & Titans are all winnable games. Cincy lost most of their o-line. Colts, Dolphins, Squealers & Lions are a toss-up. Only really hard games are Green Bay & Oakland.

1. I said nothing about being a playoff team. I said SB contenders. Very big difference there. 40% of the conference makes the playoffs. Not overly impressive.

2. You have absolutely no idea what our schedule will be like. Way too little information. Every year we look improved on paper. Every year there are stacks of winnable games, and recently, we've lost quite a few of them. Not like the AFC East or NFC East was so sort of juggernaut last season, and we still 5 times in those games.

Heck, we lose a game or two every year that we shouldn't when we actually are contenders.

3. If you want to talk paper, let's talk paper. We look better on defense, which was a unit we already were quite good at. And what about offensively? Lost a possession receiver, two starters on the Oline, and our starting Rb for 4 games.

Granted, it's March, so all this discussion about rosters and scheduling is a joke at this point, but nobody thinks we're better on offense right now.

  28 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

1. The small sample size would be a combination of being unable to evaluate Dixon at all, meaning you can't say that it "hasn't worked out", and the lack of playing time of the other guys.

2. I inferred the latter, because they almost certainly wouldn't cut West if they signed Blount. I'm not even sure why people think they would. It would mean Taliaferro certainly doesn't make the team, which he likely won't anyway, and Allen likely wouldn't either. They're gonna carry 4 backs on the 53 man, and then it becomes a game of whether West or Blount would be active on gamedays once Dixon returns.

3. Us failing on 1st and goal doesn't change by bringing in Blount. Again, its a myth that he's this great short yardage back. If its 1st and goal from the 1, sure, he'll get in, along with any other back on our roster. If its 1st and goal from the 8, he's probably not getting in at all, along with any other back on our roster.

4. The reason why I don't care about TDs unless they're guaranteed is because if he's not scoring, what good is he doing? We've already acknowledged he's not a great back in terms of getting actual yardage, so if he's not scoring, what value is he bringing? He doesn't pass protect well, he doesn't play ST well, so what's he doing here?

5. I answered your question already genius. I answered it very clearly. I will quote it again in case you missed it..."I would take West over Blount for 2017".

1 and 2 I'm talking apple and your seeing orange so we'll keep it at that

3- so it's a myth that he's good at short yardage and it's a myth that he's a good runner. Then how did he get 18 TDs? You can't have it both ways

4- Who's we? Your the one that insists Blount can't carry the ball or score on short yardage. 

and no you didn't answer my question. You said who you'd prefer and then wrote a book to justify your opinion which I respect. but it's still not answering the question "genius". Quite frankly, I'd prefer west solely because I like the guy and he's more reliable off field. We're talking player on the field for the same price here.

Is West an upgrade over Blount for 2017? If you say yes then your out of your mind. You can always say no but..... Then bring up all the other factors that would tempt you chose west over Blount 

Im done here, you can have last word 😉

Yes, West is an upgrade over Blount. All the reasons I listed are the reasons for that. I don't think I could have made that any more clear.

How did he get 18 TDs? Pretty simple... he plays in a spread offense and he fell forward a bunch of times. The Patriots had in unsustainable number of pass attempts fall just short of the goal line. When those catches turn into TDs (and they usually do), you see a dramatic decline in TDs.

We know that the YPC average had very little to do with the fact that he's "only" used as a short yardage runner, because he had 300 carries. Guys with 300 carries aren't short yardage backs, because you don't have 18-20 carries a game in short yardage situations. You could theoretically argue that his TDs are higher because of the volume increase (which he obviously won't get 300 carries here or anywhere else, including NE, again), but even then they would normalize in the 10-12 range, assuming the same output, which is unlikely.

Again, this is where going to the box score, looking at last years stats (ignoring everything before that) and saying "well gee he can do that again" doesn't work.

Especially when you take the exact same statistics and it hurts your argument, not helps it.

  24 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

I would take West over Blount for 2017. I don't care about TD numbers from RBs, because I understand that they deviate on an annual basis greatly and are far too erratic to count on. So unless I'm getting double digit TDs guaranteed from Blount (which nobody can say with any remote certainty), I think West is a better RB, so I'd take him.

If the goal is to field the best team with the resources we have, then my money wouldn't be best spend on a RB.

And its obviously very presumptuous to think that West would be gone if we signed Blount, given that you'd still only effectively have 2 RBs on the roster.

All of this again is meaningless to me, because I think this article is click bait. I don't think we're even remotely interested in any FA RB right now, nor should we be. If we look to add a back, it will be in the draft.

I would also point out that going the 3rd/4th round route has mostly worked for us, because a lot of our better players are coming from the mid-round these days. If you're talking RBs exclusively, its far too small of a sample size and not good enough of an offensive line to notice.

Yes I'm talking about RB specifically of course! And how is 3 RBs in taken in the 3rd and 4th rounds in 3 consecutive years a small sample?

I agree, I don't think we are in the hunt for a RB but I'm just weighing the options of west (1.7mil zero guaranteed vs other options) sorry I didn't write the article. If it was so meaningless then why are you fighting for your life over it lol

and it's fair to assume we let go of west since we're assuming that were signing someone in the first place. Your also assuming that we keep both when no one inferred the latter.

and we do have more than 2 RBs. (Tallifaro and Allen can compete for #3 and 4 on the depth charts) your also assuming we don't draft any RB. Now look who's assuming.

and based on last year, Blounts chances of getting 10 TDs are higher than the latter because we failed drastically when it was 1st and goal. Wait you just said you don't care about TDs then followed your statement by saying unless someone guarantees 10 TDs... Which one is it?

and once again. I'm comparing the 1.7 mil tendered for west vs Blount if he was signed. No one is saying hey lets get yet another RB

and last but not least. Please answer the question. Is Blount for the price of west an upgrade for 2017 or a downgrade? 

1. The small sample size would be a combination of being unable to evaluate Dixon at all, meaning you can't say that it "hasn't worked out", and the lack of playing time of the other guys.

2. I inferred the latter, because they almost certainly wouldn't cut West if they signed Blount. I'm not even sure why people think they would. It would mean Taliaferro certainly doesn't make the team, which he likely won't anyway, and Allen likely wouldn't either. They're gonna carry 4 backs on the 53 man, and then it becomes a game of whether West or Blount would be active on gamedays once Dixon returns.

3. Us failing on 1st and goal doesn't change by bringing in Blount. Again, its a myth that he's this great short yardage back. If its 1st and goal from the 1, sure, he'll get in, along with any other back on our roster. If its 1st and goal from the 8, he's probably not getting in at all, along with any other back on our roster.

4. The reason why I don't care about TDs unless they're guaranteed is because if he's not scoring, what good is he doing? We've already acknowledged he's not a great back in terms of getting actual yardage, so if he's not scoring, what value is he bringing? He doesn't pass protect well, he doesn't play ST well, so what's he doing here?

5. I answered your question already genius. I answered it very clearly. I will quote it again in case you missed it..."I would take West over Blount for 2017".

  38 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

1. Correct, those are special players. I thought that was kind of the goal was it not... playmakers? Or are we just looking for another plodder who averages 4.0 YPC? I mean if you think that's good enough, so be it. I see a mountain full of 3rd and 4th round picks in this draft that I think can do that in their sleep, so why would I pay $2M for that?

2. LOL, I didn't choose one statistic. I chose many statistics. My other post listed about 5 different statistical reasons why he's a declining RB. That's not something you did. You picked the most recent year and assumed that because he did it last year, he would do it again this year. I don't think I have to explain the gigantic fallacy in that.

3. No, I'd rather have West. I want a guy who has the potential to break a run more than 5 yards, and can actually get a bit more than what is blocked for him.

Its sort of a pointless question though, because I'm not interested in signing a RB for a single season. That accomplishes very little for us.

1- I wish a fournette fell to us and yes the goal is to have the best players in the NFL  on the field but when you have limited resources then you do what you can to field the best team with the resources you have until you get that player. We have been trying the 3rd or 4th round route for 3 years and that hasn't worked...

theoretically, if we do sign Blount then I'm hoping Dixon comes back and beats him out. Untill then, at least I know we have a proven guy.

2- as you said "you chose your statistics" that you believe prove your point while completely ignoring any other statistic that proves otherwise. You and I both know that any case can be made when you pick and chose your statistics.

3- you still havnt answered my question.... If you have Blount for the price of west for 2017 is that an upgrade or a downgrade? 

And now it's gonna sound like I'm unappreciative of west when I really like the kid but here goes. you'd prefer west over Blount because he breaks tackles and the possibility of him hitting big gains? But that's not what west is good at or fair of you to expect him to hit big runs. He's doesn't have "getaway speed" nor is he an elusive guy.

lemme ask again. Blount for the price of west and the same duration of contract (2017)Upgrade or downgrade?

 

pe:- I miss u RMC. We havnt had one of these rallies in a while lol

I would take West over Blount for 2017. I don't care about TD numbers from RBs, because I understand that they deviate on an annual basis greatly and are far too erratic to count on. So unless I'm getting double digit TDs guaranteed from Blount (which nobody can say with any remote certainty), I think West is a better RB, so I'd take him.

If the goal is to field the best team with the resources we have, then my money wouldn't be best spend on a RB.

And its obviously very presumptuous to think that West would be gone if we signed Blount, given that you'd still only effectively have 2 RBs on the roster.

All of this again is meaningless to me, because I think this article is click bait. I don't think we're even remotely interested in any FA RB right now, nor should we be. If we look to add a back, it will be in the draft.

I would also point out that going the 3rd/4th round route has mostly worked for us, because a lot of our better players are coming from the mid-round these days. If you're talking RBs exclusively, its far too small of a sample size and not good enough of an offensive line to notice.

  27 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

You're also forgetting that if you drop West and add Blount, Blount is your bellcow RB for the first 4 weeks of the year. That's not short yardage RB... that's 15-20 carries a game, expected to get 5+ yards per carry, because that's what you expect of those RBs.

3.9 YPC is something you yawn at... you want to cut West, who is a 3.9 YPC back. Its fringe NFL starter caliber, preferably backup caliber.

Guys who average that over an extended period of time find themselves unemployed very quickly.
 

5+ yards per carry are pro bowl callibar players. If a player averages over 5 yards a carry in his career then we start talking HOF not splitting carries. We're talking about someone you pay 2 mil for.

i chose 2016 because it's the most rescwnt year

and if you insist, Blount averaged 4.4 yards a carry throughout his career. As I mentioned earlier. 3.9 was a product of so many short runs by design. 

im not gonna talk statistics with you because you will chose the one statistic that you think proves your point and hold on to it for dear life.

instead il ask you a question with the hope that you answer. If you had Blount for the price of west in 2017, is that an upgrade over west or a downgrade? 

1. Correct, those are special players. I thought that was kind of the goal was it not... playmakers? Or are we just looking for another plodder who averages 4.0 YPC? I mean if you think that's good enough, so be it. I see a mountain full of 3rd and 4th round picks in this draft that I think can do that in their sleep, so why would I pay $2M for that?

2. LOL, I didn't choose one statistic. I chose many statistics. My other post listed about 5 different statistical reasons why he's a declining RB. That's not something you did. You picked the most recent year and assumed that because he did it last year, he would do it again this year. I don't think I have to explain the gigantic fallacy in that.

3. No, I'd rather have West. I want a guy who has the potential to break a run more than 5 yards, and can actually get a bit more than what is blocked for him.

Its sort of a pointless question though, because I'm not interested in signing a RB for a single season. That accomplishes very little for us.

  1 hour ago, billiejean said:

West isn't a FA. He is a RFA and we tendered him. He doesn't have a choice. Regardless of that, letting him go because we pick up A Peterson or L. Blount wouldn't be a good idea (chances are very slim that we pick of either of them). I wouldn't count on either of those to guys to step up and be the feature back. Peterson is no spring chicken and hes only been healthy for 20 games in the last three years which would make signing him a huge risk. I don't see us taking Blount either. He had a career year in 2016 based on yards gained, but he only averaged 3.9 yards a carry. I also don't think John would even consider bring him in because of his attitude. When he played for the Steelers in 2014 the guy went into the locker room before a MNF game had ended because he didn't get any carries during the game. And because of that the Steelers let him go.

I agree, Peterson is not a great fit in terms of how we'd utilize him but you can't say Peterson is injury prone when we just signed Woodhead who's just as injury prone. Blount is probably not someone Harbs would entertain signing because of his off field mess. But 3.9 yards and 18 TDs is not something you sneeze at. Especially considering so many of those runs were goal line or 3rd and 1 where really he's not expected to gain 10 yards anyways lol. My point was that if we are planning on signing a RB then retract the tender from west now and let him be a FA. It's not fair to the player if we wait until May when no one will sign him for more than the minimum.

You're also forgetting that if you drop West and add Blount, Blount is your bellcow RB for the first 4 weeks of the year. That's not short yardage RB... that's 15-20 carries a game, expected to get 5+ yards per carry, because that's what you expect of those RBs.

3.9 YPC is something you yawn at... you want to cut West, who is a 3.9 YPC back. Its fringe NFL starter caliber, preferably backup caliber.

Guys who average that over an extended period of time find themselves unemployed very quickly.

  1 hour ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Moot point of course, because we aren't going to pursue either of those guys, nor am I certain they'd want to play for us anyway.

But neither really does much for us. One year stop gap fillers at a position where we don't need a stop gap filler.

I also still don't understand why people think Blount is a good RB...

Maybe because he had 1161 yards,18 TDs and did great in short yard situations. No one is claiming he's the next Jamal Lewis but he'd def help as we often failed to convert on 3rd and 1 or 1st and goal.

i honestly don't understand why you won't even call him a "good" player?

if the tender is retracted from west and we add half a mil to it then we probably land a power back like Blount. Blount carrying the load on short yardage and Woodhead on 3rd downs and slot would be a prity nice one two punch.

Exactly how I wanted you to respond...

I noticed you only referenced 2016 statistics... any particular reason for this? I mean with good players, you'd expect to see some consistency over an extended period of time.

So why did he only have 6 TDs in 2015? Or 5 in 2014? Or why did he have 18 TDs TOTAL over a three year period of 13-15?

Why has his YPC dropped every single season since 2013? Is that an indication of a good RB? How about his 3.9 YPC in 2016? Is that good or bad? What if I told you that ranked 30th in the NFL for RBs, and it was basically the same as Terrence West's?

What, did he all of the sudden "peak" as a RB at 30 years old?

Or how about this... why don't the Patriots want him back? The guy had 18 TDs last year and the Patriots, with plenty of cap space, don't appear to be interested at all?

Probably because they know what everybody else knows... he's a plodder. You hand the ball to him and he falls forward for 2-3 yards. And in fact, if you actually looked at his "short yardage" numbers, he's not nearly as good at converting as you think he is.

Anybody can be an effective short yardage back with a quality Oline. Justin Forsett was a very good short yardage back when he was here, and nobody even noticed. He was better than Taliaferro, who is much more of a "big bruiser".

  18 hours ago, bigcatfrank1 said:

Thank you for reading, if dont agree and it appears you do not, that is fine. Some may not be looking at it the same way.

What is very evident in my opinion is that the Ravens have a good returning class of Rookies. All the negative comments about poor selections can be quite dismantling. I think positive as much as I can.

ps, I only used All pro in regards to Pierce and Pro Bowl for Lewis.
So who is homerish

Being this is a BALTIMORE board, is it bad to be homerish,even if Baltimore area is your home?

 

Depends on what kind of a fan you want to be...

Withdraw the tender offered to West so the poor chap can find a good landing place if you are considering adding RB either in the draft or getting AP. Its the right thing to do.

1. We're always looking to add competition at any position, and you don't just cut the guys on your roster just to be nice. I seriously doubt that addition comes in FA though, so it makes no sense to cut West until May at the earliest.

2. Lets not kid ourselves. West isn't going to start for barely anybody. The amount of money he's getting paid by the Ravens this year would almost certainly exceed anything he would get on the open market, because he's simply not a hot commodity. Most teams in the league already have a back with similar or better skill sets than him.

So lets not pretend like he's being hamstrung by anything here.

no its not crazy to pursue A.Peterson or L.Blount. But it's crazy to hold t.west hostage until we figure it out. Teams are filling up their rosters and west deserves to make a few visits before he makes up his mind. Just my humble opinion.

Moot point of course, because we aren't going to pursue either of those guys, nor am I certain they'd want to play for us anyway.

But neither really does much for us. One year stop gap fillers at a position where we don't need a stop gap filler.

I also still don't understand why people think Blount is a good RB...

  43 minutes ago, OUravensfan said:

That awkward moment for Aiken when he slowly begins to realize his role may be biggest on the team he chastised for limiting his role the previous year. 

Id take him but he is not the answer, id also take Boldin but he is not the answer either. Mike Williams is the answer IMO

Aiken or Boldin would work if you can get them to come back for small money. It will be interesting to see what Aiken will get. Boldin on the other hand will likely sign with a team that will offer him the same deal the Lions did last year. One year 2 million.

Again,

1. He made $3.25M last year.

2. He's not going to just go sign with anybody. He will likely stay in Detroit or play somewhere close to home... or for a contender. None of those things gives off "Ravens" in any way.

  1 hour ago, rmcjacket23 said:

  3 hours ago, whobilly said:

Hope we told Boldin that we'd like to have him back this season. Would love to have his toughness and attitude back.......not to mention the 65 catches, great blocking, and 6 TD's.

And you can stop wasting your time by posting this everyday... he's not signing anywhere until at least July.

I did you a favor.

Putting the back and forth aside, would you be ok with signing Boldin for a one year deal like Detroit got him for last year? 2 mill is small money.

Also, he earned $3.25M from Detroit last season, not $2M. He had several roster escalators where he earned another $1M roughly.

  1 hour ago, rmcjacket23 said:

  3 hours ago, whobilly said:

Hope we told Boldin that we'd like to have him back this season. Would love to have his toughness and attitude back.......not to mention the 65 catches, great blocking, and 6 TD's.

And you can stop wasting your time by posting this everyday... he's not signing anywhere until at least July.

I did you a favor.

Putting the back and forth aside, would you be ok with signing Boldin for a one year deal like Detroit got him for last year? 2 mill is small money.

No. I don't see the upside.

I don't care about 2017. The 2017 Ravens aren't going to be SB contenders, and Boldin doesn't have the capability to change that.

I care about building a team that in 2018 and beyond is a contender, and there's no reasonable scenario where Boldin is involved in that.

I also find all of this moot, considering there is precisely zero indication that he has interest whatsoever in playing in Baltimore.

  1 hour ago, rmcjacket23 said:

  1 hour ago, whobilly said:

  2 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

  3 hours ago, whobilly said:

Hope we told Boldin that we'd like to have him back this season. Would love to have his toughness and attitude back.......not to mention the 65 catches, great blocking, and 6 TD's.

Keep letting those box scores tell lies to you...

I guess you can't wait for Chris Moore to "Light It Up".

So you admit Boldin is at Chris Moore's level?

I mean you referenced Moore instead of Perriman or Wallace or Pitta. Sounds like an admission to me.

Translated.....We need receivers. Guess you didn't get the humor with the Moore reference.

Yup, we need YOUNG receivers with multi faceted skill sets.

  10 hours ago, bigcatfrank1 said:

heck just switching them every year is enough to throw things off. Its pretty obvious.
I would suspect that having the same OC for a second year is bound to help. So your opinion of Mornhinweg ( spell) will have to be taken as premature at this point in time.

It really is time we see an improvement in the offense. So we will have to see how it goes. I think Flacco will come back stronger and better which should improve the O all round, WR should get a boost, O line should be better once finalized, TE will be fine, Its the Running Game I am concerned with.

Just add Beastmode and call it a day.

He's retired and also isn't a FA yet if he were to un-retire.

Also he's not very good at this point.

  11 hours ago, bigcatfrank1 said:

  12 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

  13 hours ago, GENE2407 said:

What Ozzie needs to do is nailing his 1st three rounds in the draft again. Since Flacco and Rice in 2008, we've struck out for 8 years-- no top shelf talent in any of those (sorry I'm not counting Jimmy Smith's 7 game seasons as top shelf). Get back to basics Ozzie.

KO would certainly be considered top shelf talent at a minimum.

You could argue based on the size of some of the contracts these guys have gotten that there are plenty more.

Stanley? Moseley? Jernigan? Williams? Perriman? Carl Davis?
I would say they all are top shelf talent.

plus Upshaw and KO? who are not on the Team anymore.

At #4 - Juice, Urban, Za Smith, Tavon Young - again pretty high in their positions.

I think that injuries have hurt the Ravens a bit more than Draft. You have to remember that the Ravens have only picked in the top 10 once in that time and that was last year. The returning Rookie class is probably one of the strongest in the NFL.

None of those guys are top shelf, sorry. Most have not made even a single pro bowl (which is not the be-all of awards, but it's something). Perriman and Davis are a joke..........all hype and absolutely nothing out of them so far. There's a huge difference between a starter and a star. Bart Scott was a starter...........Ray Lewis was a star. We got a team full of 4th and 5th round starters and it shows in our record every year now.

Well KO is certainly top shelf by definition... that much is not debatable.

The rest is just arguing over whether somebody like a Pro Bowl actually matters (hint... it doesn't) or what actually constitutes "top shelf".

If you're singling out "top shelf" players as like current or future HOFers, then most teams are lucky to have one.

Would also point out the obvious fact that there are many teams that have 2-4 "top shelf" players on their team, and those teams really struggle to win 8 games every year.

What Ozzie needs to do is nailing his 1st three rounds in the draft again. Since Flacco and Rice in 2008, we've struck out for 8 years-- no top shelf talent in any of those (sorry I'm not counting Jimmy Smith's 7 game seasons as top shelf). Get back to basics Ozzie.

KO would certainly be considered top shelf talent at a minimum.

You could argue based on the size of some of the contracts these guys have gotten that there are plenty more.

And has anyone considered our off coord sucks? This is probably at least 50% of the problem on offense. Once we have a good coordinator, then we can assess what weaknesses we have. I guess we'll ruin the first 8 games this season waiting for Morninwhig to fall on his face.

Coaches coach and players play...

  14 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

LOL, nice try kid.

I guess you didn't read the reasons why they closed it at all.

But hey, your infatuation with me is nothing to be ashamed of. Its certainly not creepy at all, no matter what anybody says.
 

'I'll send you a therapy dog as we get closer to the closing of this board. 

I know you are gonna need it . 

 

 

Now you're spending money on me?

OK, I lied. Now its creepy.

  16 hours ago, sizzlingdoom said:

  21 hours ago, Crusader said:

Finally, some civil informative posts.

I'll be interested to get your take on Jefferson and Carr once we're into the season. I smell a 180 in the future

180 from what? I watched Jefferson before he'll be fine. Just not a fan of getting NFC secondary guys. NE got 4 of 6 free agents from AFC opponents. Untill I see the second game I'm sticking with 8-8. Just too much turnover.

Still waiting for literally any sort of proof that players changing conferences has any impact on performance whatsoever.

Maybe one day this will have some actual substance behind it.

  On 3/17/2017 at 10:23 AM, rmcjacket23 said:

Does it look like I am?

I'm on suspension from the forum until the end of the month, but clearly you couldn't live without me though...

You are very possibly a factor in the closing of the boards you live for!  How ironic! It would not surprise me. 

If I were the Ravens I would close it with your stupendous arrogance. 

 

LOL, nice try kid.

I guess you didn't read the reasons why they closed it at all.

But hey, your infatuation with me is nothing to be ashamed of. Its certainly not creepy at all, no matter what anybody says.