RavensBaltimore

For a qb, stats are just as much a team achievement as wins. Tom Brady's stats were no better than Flacco's until he got Moss, then Gronk. Drew Brees' stats were no better than Flacco's when his OC was Cam Cameron. Do you really think those qbs suddenly became elite in their 5th and 7th seasons, respectively? No. Their stats got better because of the players around them and the system improved, not because they improved individually. Flacco has never played in an offense that's conducive to big passing stats. Despite that, he has proven over and over again that he can and does put up big numbers when his team needs him to, especially in the postseason, where since entering his prime in 2010, his stats are by far the best in the league. The best qb's do what it takes to WIN. Flacco can manage a game as well as anyone, and he can take over a game as well as anyone. Both stats and wins are highly affected by many variables, so you actually need to watch someone play to determine their ability. Flacco clearly has an elite ability to make all the throws and keep his team poised in clutch situations. His pocket presence and ability to read defenses are very good, if not elite, as well. You can brush Flacco's wins off as "team achievements" all you want, but many other qb's have had good teams around them, and almost none of them have all the winning records Joe has, and the team wasn't winning much in the 6 years before he was drafted, so he must have a lot to do with it.

Timmy Jernigan should not be on this list. He is pretty much a lock to be a starter, and he already played well without Ngata last year. Yeah, he has to play with a little more discipline against the run, but he doesn't "need" a big showing in OTAs.

I hope defenses think like you and blitz away, although I'm not counting on it. That would mean more single coverage for our receivers and mismatches for our TEs. Last year, when our offense struggled with the blitz, our receivers were shut down by single coverage. Despite that, Flacco still had a very respectable 86.5 qb rating against the blitz. http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/splits/_/id/11252/joe-flacco(scrollto bottom) This year, Joe will have some younger, bigger, faster, more athletic weapons to throw to, and if defenses want to leave them in single coverage, I think they're going to regret it. If stopping our offense was as simple as blitzing all the time, I'm sure Belichik and/or Lebeau would have prevented us from scoring 30 in the playoffs. Belichik is the best in the league at exploiting an opponent's weakness, and his defense couldn't seem to find one in our offense. Lebeau is one of the all time great DCs, and he had no answer for us as well, and that was without both starting tackles and before we loaded up our receiving corps in the draft.

Yeah, but I was talking about Perriman's chances to be the #2 receiver, and at this point, Steve Smith is our top receiver, and there isn't an established veteran ahead of Perriman at the #2 spot. When Torrey was a rookie, we had Boldin as our #1 and Evans as our #2. Evans had multiple 1,000 yd seasons, and he was the clear-cut favorite to be the #2 receiver. As far as that starting spot along side Steve Smith goes, Perriman doesn't have anyone to compete with who's ever come close to 1,000 yds in their career, let alone a single season.

There are some major differences. First of all, Perriman doesn't have an established veteran ahead of him like Torrey did. Once Torrey got the chance, he immediately produced and kept his spot as the #2. Perriman, a #1 draft pick, who was apparently in the top 15 on the Ravens' board, will get an opportunity right away to be the #2 receiver. He doesn't need anyone to get injured. Perriman is bigger, faster, and more willing and able to go up and catch passes in traffic than Torrey was/is. That being said, I don't think Perriman is a shoo-in for that #2 spot, either. He will have to earn it, but he has the talent to do so, and I think he is the obvious, clear cut favorite to do it. The same couldn't be said about Torrey at this point in his rookie year.

I like the by-committee approach with the WRs. It worked very well in the playoffs last year, and it makes it hard for defenses to prepare for us. I also like Campanaro getting a lot of snaps in the slot, as that seems like a perfect complement to Perriman's speed on the outside.

Based on what? Campanaro showed the quickness to get open at an NFL level. He made some tough catches, including one in traffic where he got hit, and I heard he routinely made contested catches in practice as well. He converted a couple of big 3rd and longs before he got hurt in Cinci. In his short time on the field, he has shown every trait necessary to be a great slot receiver. Carter has never played an NFL snap.

Is this really what the NFL wants? Instead of the excitement being in real drives, close games are going to be put in the hands of gimmicky shootout type plays. I've never heard anyone complaining about the PAT at all. I've never heard anyone express any desire to have the PAT affect the outcome of more games. There are a lot of rules you could come up with that could make certain plays "more exciting", but they would be bad for the game overall. This is one of them.

I don't see how anyone who understands the Ravens' situation could give them a B- for the offseason. In March, we had some major holes and literally no cap space at all. Now, we have upgraded our biggest weaknesses, which were our secondary and our receiving corps, including TEs, and we have MORE cap space than we did before all that. We went from having major holes and no cap space to no major holes and plenty of cap space. I don't see how it could have been much better.

His doctors say he is fully healed, and that there is no way to give a percentage on the chances of him being able to get through a season. I guess they are unaware that it's simply "common sense", even though they are highly trained medical professionals that have been working with Pitta's specific situation very closely. You should clue them in. Common sense tells me that none of us understand Pitta's situation nearly as well as his doctors.

No, there are not a lot of qb's in this league who are equally or more successful than Joe, unless you are talking about fantasy stats. Since he was drafted, I don't think there is one qb in the league that is more successful than Joe. Or Joe was held back by Cam Cameron and he hadn't hit his prime yet. Just because Tannehill's stats are similar to Flacco's in his first 3 years doesn't mean he's the same type of qb. The Ravens often went extremely conservative and sat on leads, and had a predictable playcaller with a basic, easy to defend passing game. That doesn't mean that Joe was underperforming. He was still making big throws when needed, and he did what he needed to do to win games, which they weren't doing much of before he was drafted. And you're really going to say that because Flacco started dominating in the postseason, it is reasonable to expect Tannehill to do the same, just because his regular season stats are similar? That makes no sense. A lot of qbs have similar regular season stats to Flacco's. Just about none of them have reached Flacco's level of success. Just to show you how flawed stats can be at evaluating qb's, Drew Brees had less than 3,600 yds in all 4 years with Cam, then immediately started putting up monster stats with Sean Payton. Tom Brady put up about 3,500yds, 25tds and 10ints in his sixth year(which was a typical stat line in his first 6 years), and the next year, when he got Moss and Welker, he put up almost 5,000 yds, 50tds and 8ints. According to the stats, Brady suddenly became a far better qb in his 7th year. In reality, he wasn't better at all. He just had a more stat friendly offense, just as Brees did when he left Cam. You keep telling everyone that wins are a team stat, but so are yds and tds. Wins are just more important. Those were his rookie and sophomore seasons, and in his 2nd year, he was badly injured and wasn't himself. You can't criticize a rookie qb for not being able to go on the road, in the postseason, against the top 2 scoring defenses in the league, and put up big numbers. Still, Flacco led the game winning drive, on the road, against the league's 2nd best scoring D, to put the Ravens in the AFC Championship game. He was still winning as he was coming into his own, but since entering his prime in 2010, he has been the best postseason qb by far(24tds, 4ints). No one else is even close. Brady and Manning have had horrible postseason games, even in the primes of their careers. You're talking about Flacco when he was a rookie. Also, since the Ravens were beating good teams in his first 3-5 postseason games, I don't think he would have been benched. It's not about whether you say somebody will or won't be something. It's about whether they have actually shown that they can actually do it, and Tannehill hasn't. You don't just assume a guy will become an all time great winner and postseason player unless he actually shows he can do it. Otherwise, we'd be making that assumption about a lot of qbs, and we'd be wrong 99% of the time. The Lamar Woodley reference was meaningless. He said that because Flacco is a Raven, and they play in the same division. At that point, Flacco had won in the playoffs 3 straight seasons, and it took a couple of fluke plays to keep him out of his 2nd AFC Championship game in 3 years, so there was something to indicate that he could do it. As far as your giant paragraph defending the Dolphin's for giving Tannehill his contract, I have no problem with that. That's actually a good argument for his contract. What I disagreed with was the implication that he is close to Flacco's level because he has similar regular season stats.

Flacco has been making routine throws that other qb's wouldn't even consider trying since his rookie year. He didn't get many attempts in Cam's run heavy offense, but he did show the arm strength and accuracy to complete passes with a high degree of difficulty. He never had a deep threat in his first 3 years, but Tannehill has had Mike Wallace, and we've seen he can't take advantage of that. There's no reason to believe that's suddenly going to change. Flacco had some mental growing pains, as all rookie qbs do, but he NEVER showed any limitations of physical ability. The article compares Flacco's contract(after 5 years) to Tannehill's(after 3 years), so comparing them both after 3 years isn't relevant anyway. Just because we've seen Flacco take huge steps in years 3 and 4(which I think was mostly due to coaching and personell changes) doesn't mean Tannehill will. Doesn't matter, because the Ravens didn't give Flacco a contract after 3 years. He may have been lucky to get a contract like that after 3 years, but he proved he could do much better. Tannehill has never come close to proving he could do that. You seem to think that because Tannehill has similar stats to Flacco's first 3 seasons, then it somehow means his career projection will be similar, or almost as good, but that's extremely unlikely, if not impossible, because he just doesn't have the ability Joe has. That's true for every starting caliber qb in the league. Nobody's overestimating Joe's Value simply because he's won a SB. He helped turn a struggling team into a consistent contender. He has elite ability, and he's played at an elite level in the biggest moments. The Ravens haven't run a pass first offense often, but when they do, Flacco has shown over and over again that he can rise to the occasion and carry his team against anyone, anywhere, and he's done it on a team that invests very little on pass catchers. Tannehill has never come close to doing that, and he's never shown he has the ability to do that. If you're paying players to give your team the best chance to win the SB, Flacco deserves as much as anyone, and Tannehill is not anywhere close to that level. Winning in the playoffs is a team effort, but in today's NFL, teams that consistently compete for and win SBs are teams with qbs that can carry a team through a postseason. The Ravens certainly weren't winning in the playoffs without Flacco, and that was with a Ed and Ray in their primes. I completely agree with this part.

Similar stats is not the same as "largely similar qbs". When you actually watch the two, Tannehill is clearly limited. His stats last year were mostly due to the Dolphins getting him short, easy completions. He struggles with deep-intermediate and deep throws. He couldn't take advantage of Wallace, who put up big numbers and added an important element to the offense in Pittsburgh. Limitations like that make it easier for defenses to gameplan against you, and that makes it pretty much impossible for a qb to carry his team in the postseason, like Flacco has. Tannehill has not even been able to carry his team in big games to get to the postseason. Flacco, on the other hand, can make EVERY THROW at an elite level. He can beat you anywhere on the field and use the strengths of any type of receiver. He also has the leadership, intelligence, and the poise to take over big games. Basically, Flacco has the ability to beat anyone, any way, on any given day, and Tannehill does not. Also, people aren't necessarily "knocking" Tannehill for not winning playoff games, but when comparing his value to Joe's, you have to account for the fact that Flacco has been historically great in the postseason, and Tannehill has never even made the postseason. Even if you think that's not his fault, you still can't discredit the value Flacco adds to the team by dominating in the postseason, and you can't just assume that Tannehill would take over and dominate the way Joe has if he did make the playoffs. Tannehill has never given us any reason to make that assumption, while Flacco has already proven what he can do. Playing historically well and winning consistently in the playoffs significantly increases a qb's value. Never making the postseason, and saying "what if I had a better team", does not. Lastly, why would you even compare the two contracts after year 3 for both players? Flacco didn't get his contract until after year 5 and a SB MVP.

Here are 3 reasons why this rule change is a horrible idea: 1. It's only a matter of time before a historic, memorable TD drive, such as the Mile HIgh Miracle, is rendered meaningless by a missed PAT. 2. Many close game will now be decided by "shootout" type plays, where the ball is automatically spotted somewhere with one shot to score. That takes away from the natural spirit of the game and makes it too gimmicky. 3. This one's not as important as the other 2, but we will never see another fake extra point, 2 point attempt, like we did against the Steelers in 2011.

Pitta does not have what Bo Jackson had. After Jackson dislocated his hip, the blood supply got disrupted, and the ball of his hip literally died, and he needed a hip replacement. Pitta's hip has fully recovered. It may be more vulnerable now than it was before, but it is far from the same as Bo Jackson's situation. If you were being realistic, you would listen to what his doctor's are saying instead of making up your own diagnosis.

Since you seem to be so sure, you should call Pitta's doctors and let them know.

The doctors say he already is 100% healthy, but as long as he's on the field, the hip injuries will always be a concern, and by that, I mean there will always be a better chance of him breaking it again than if it had never been broken. That reality is never going to go away. It's his decision if he wants to take that risk, and I don't think anyone on these boards knows what's best for Pitta more than Pitta himself.

Last year, we were a pass first team(about 55%-45% in favor of pass). In the playoffs, we were even more pass heavy, and the offense was better. And that was despite the fact that we couldn't run 2 TE sets with 2 receiving TEs, even though they are a big part of Kubiak's system. This year, we have more weapons at WR and TE, and we'll be running the same system, but with an OC who has historically been more pass heavy than Kubiak. I think it's important to the FO and coaching staff to have 2 receiving TEs, and I can almost guarantee we will be a pass first team this year. That doesn't mean that they don't care about the TEs being able to block, nor does it mean we will be forgetting about the run game, but with 2 receiving TEs, we will be more versatile and more dangerous.

What??? Ed Dickson played 16 games and had 10 catches last year. Pitta played 2.5 games and had 16 catches. Had Ozzie known Pitta would break his hip again, he obviously wouldn't have given him that contract, but there is absolutely no way that Dickson was going to get a big contract to be our #1 TE, and I doubt Ozzie would have even given him a long term deal to be our #2 TE. Dickson wasn't even as productive as Crockett Gilmore last year.

You're right about that. I got that mixed up with when Vereen lined up in the slot after being ineligible, which was legal, but everything else I said is true. The fact that the refs put a stop to it once they were aware of it strongly suggests that the Patriots weren't giving the defense time to adjust to their substitutions, which is/was illegal.

Nope. It was already not legal for a player to report in the game as ineligible, stay in the game, and become eligible on the very next play, without taking a TO, and that's exactly what Shane Vareen did on one of those plays. Tony Dungy noticed it and pointed it out. The NFL rule book also states that the defense needs to be given time to make adjustments to offensive substitutions. The interpretation of that rule is subjective, and since the refs put a stop to it after Harbaugh pointed it out to them, it's only logical to assume that they were doing something against the rules. The NFL said the substitutions and formations were legal, which they were, but there were other illegal things going on. So, of the plays that are being referenced, the Patriots actually ran ZERO plays that were legal and not subject to debate or interpretation, and one which was definitely illegal.

The Saints, Browns, and Falcons were all penalized, and that's just a handful of teams over the last few years, which isn't going to bring down the league as a whole. There will always be players/teams that try to cheat, and that won't tarnish the entire league, unless it becomes the norm for the majority and the league doesn't do anything about it. When it's just an incident here and there, that's about as little as you can expect. The Rice and Peterson situations were personal situations that had nothing to do with football. I don't see why people would stop watching the NFL because of a few off the field incidents, especially when the league listened to them and created harsher penalties. The league has, what, 1,500 players? You take 1,500 people from any profession, and you're going to have some criminal acts. As far as being an NFL fan is concerned, someone's personal life is not relevant to cheating on the field. And I don't see how just booing means that people aren't outraged. What else are they supposed to do? Again, they're not going to stop rooting for their team and and watching football because of one repeat offender. You're basically saying since there's nothing that people can do about it, then they must be faking their outrage.

In many situations, outrage makes people MORE interested in something, not less. Most people spend money to see their home team play, not the away team, and Pats fans are too far in denial to be outraged. If the home team doesn't sell out games unless there's a big attraction coming into town, the fact that people hate the visitor and want to see them stomped will make people more likely to spend money and potentially see it happen. When it comes to entertainment and competition, if you think outrage makes people more likely to ignore something, you don't understand human nature. If everyone was cheating, or if people were outraged at the league itself, then you may have a point. But that's not the case. People aren't going to stop rooting for their team and being a fan of the league itself because of one team.

It's nothing but a popularity contest. In 2013, the Ravens were coming off a SB win, so there was a little more hype surrounding the team. The Ravens aren't normally one of the more nationally hyped teams, so when the SB hype dies down, our players get overlooked. NFL players apparently get influenced by all that stuff just as much as the fans. The fact that some players can have a far better year and take a huge drop in the rankings show these lists don't mean anything.

Both Brady and the organization are being held accountable. This is directly copied and pasted from Troy Vincent's letter explaining the punishment. "Nonetheless, it remains a fundamental principle that the club is responsible for the actions of club employees. This principle has been applied to many prior cases. Thus, while no discipline should or will be imposed personally on any owner or executive at the Patriots, discipline is appropriately imposed on the club.” As far as Brady not cheating during spygate, if they stole defensive signals illegally, then Brady used those tapes to study the defense and gain an unfair advantage, so he did cheat then, too. If a first time offender gets 4 game for taking adderall, then how is it a steep penalty to give Brady 4 games for breaking a rule that can affect every player that touches the ball, lying about it, then refusing to cooperate with the investigation? It also said in Vincent's letter that the evidence suggests that Jan 18 was not the first and only time it occured, so I don't think Brady is simply a first time offender and nothing more. Based on all that, it seems 4 games it light, not steep. The NFL does care a lot about money, which is why the suspensions for domestic violence became indefinite once the public outrage started after Rice's video, so making any comparison's to the original 2 game suspension(not accusing you of doing this, but it's been done a lot) is irrelevant. Saying that cheating won't cost the NFL money and sponsors is extremely short sighted. This particular event alone may not do that, but if the league only applies a slap on the wrist, we could be seeing more and more of it, and that would definitely damage the credibility of the league, which could have long term consequences. If a popular media outlet started making up stories to get ratings, it would probably help them tremendously in the short term, but as their credibility gradually took hit after hit, people would stop taking them seriously, which would hurt ratings. I really don't think people are playing the self righteous card with Brady, and I don't think it has anything to do with morals. To me, at least, it's much more about the legitimacy of the competition. People get emotionally involved in the game and some spend a lot of money on it, and they want the competition to be real. People like a champion to be crowned. In all sports we want to see who is the best, the fastest, the strongest, etc. When cheating rigs the competition, determining all that is impossible. It would not be possible to determine the world's fastest man if they were all running on different surfaces and some were going uphill. If the game is rigged, there's really no point in seeing who wins and getting emotionally involved, because it's all fraudulent, and people won't take it seriously. That's why they want to protect the integrity of the game, regardless of whether this specific situation deters fans and sponsors.