FlocksGottaFeed

Warning: I'm drinking the purple koolaid and it's........SWEEEEEEEETTTTTTT!!! I'll take 3-0 ugly, pretty, blindfolded, etc. When we take the field and return to our locker-room victorious and 3-0, I'm glad to be a Ravens Fan (not a Jags, Browns and Bills) fan. Thank you Ravens for providing this great tasting purple drink! Pour me another one next game. GO Ravens!

That's what's UP!!! GO Ravens!

Note: This is not a judgement call on the poster, photographer and/or anyone who disagrees with my professional assessment of these photos that suggest that Coleman's 1st NFL TD was not in bounds (bang-bang play). It's only to give light to how it could be easily seen as possibly photo-shopped. From the Joe Robbins Photographer Profile - "Was chief photographer at The Tribune, a daily newspaper in Seymour, Indiana, home of John Mellencamp. Mainly responsible for photographing news, sports, portraits and features as well as handling various advertising assignments. Extensive use of Photoshop with both Mac and PC computers." This is common practice in sports journalism in photography, because of the speed of the game (aesthetically pleasing only). At 3 main factors call the shots into question: Shadows are from 2 different photo angles are pointing in opposite directions from the goal and goal line white chalk area is inconsistently 'too' white on foot close-up (plus - foot is abnormally cropped too deep). No other NFL, sports media and/or journalism organization with the exception of 'Late for Work' (a mistake not a criticism) and here have referenced any objections to the 'reviewed' call so maybe it's a just mute-point. To add - the photographer himself hasn't proclaimed any objections to the reviewed call. If it's just our wanting to balance the 'Pryor' call with this call - there's no reason. The Pryor call is clearly defined in the rules and even Cleveland is just calling it a 'teachable moment'. We came-back to win that game...period. Great plays by both teams. No added narratives needed. (neg away if so).

lol. We could be related Mili. My mother would say the same thing. GO Ravens!

^^^This.

Coaches Day-to-Day (inactive) Status: http://www.espn.com/nfl/player/_/id/2577253/javorius-allen Agreeing with previous posters. Looks like we're looking at him as an utility player who could be in a fill-in role if our other backs don't return quickly. His 45 receptions from last year is good collateral for the team in that role. If needed, he might be activated to get a running-back flare reception or 2 in this game (who knows?). It'll comedown to scheme and/or situation.

Jags are saying that this is definitely a 'Must Win' and talking coaches job security is at stake. It seems the Ravens 'Watch-ability' factor is going-up slightly for this game. CBS airing zones have almost doubled for the Jaguars market. The 'Yellow, Blue and most of the 'Green' viewing areas didn't exist last week. Big game.

Good point. Jags got the win in 2011, but don't remember the rain. (Had to research) It's saying 60 degrees and no wind in 2011 game. We were 4-1 going into that game and just overlooked them. That's not going to be the narrative this season. That said, there's still no doubt that Joe and Ravens team as a whole have been pretty solid during in-climate weather. That is what was meant 'historically' proven. Although the Jags have been around longer - they don't have that distinction, yet.

Would love to see a 300+ yards receiving game...wait a minute...that's already done with more to come. We're just that deep. Believe that.

When it comes down to who wins or loses is what defines a 'weak team' 2 games into the season, what is the standard? Before the season began many prognosticators had it like this in the rankings: 14th Bills 17th Jags 23rd Ravens 32th Browns http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000682013/article/nfl-preseason-power-rankings-jets-blast-off-steelers-plunge Because we beat 2 teams ranked above and below us doesn't necessarily mean the teams were weak or strong. It simply means that they were wrong about us before the games were played (ranking us so low) and could be just as wrong about the Bills and Browns until they get to play the teams (so-called) stronger than them. That's why we play the game.

Never really got too much into the player prognostication game in the off-season (In Oz I trust.), but Stanley would be my choice currently. LT is the more valued position in today's NFL. Don't know how much that will cost the Ravens going into the future if Stanley gets 'elite' status from his play, but until then I'm satisfied with our DB play in would not risk being without a strong LT in this era.

Agreed. Fortunately Joe has proven that he's one the best 'mudders' in the game and the Ravens historically have gotten it done, as well. Not sure about the Jags.

Thanks. Glad you got that in. Very mysterious how basic human anatomy can be ignored (half a foot and shadows that don't match-up anywhere in the known-universe) just to make conversation. I've taught industry professionals photoshop for years and that's definitely PhotoShopped.

Really like your list. I would only put Barry before Emmit. Plus, Jim Brown seems to be the only one on this list that revolutionize not one, but 2 sports (Football and Lacrosse) in a substantial way. That defines a legendary athlete.

Yep. And throw-in the obvious observation of anyone who visits their forum...they've got be the most visceral fan base on the planet. They hate past, present and future while going at their own fan base like 'wild dogs' (I meant to do that.). No love lost there.

That with a Ravens sweep of the Browns could decide the conference.

Good god...is not strong enough. Yes, it's that bad and the other shows it's anchoring are just as bush-league. I don't know what happened contractually with the NFL, NFL Network Channel (online and app driven) and NFL Network Pregame (All completely different properties). They're completely out of sync and it makes the NFL brand look like it's suffering from 'Multiple Personality Disorder' (like that lady with the 'crazy' facial expressions on GMNFL - want-ta-be Talking Dead canned QVC programming).

He's on a pretty good development track right now and further along than most that sat-out a rookie season from injury. He's getting solid contributions and his confidence really building. He's going to be a beast soon.

We went from 20th to 10th in just 2 games while the Jags went in the total opposite direction. http://heavy.com/sports/2016/09/nfl-power-rankings-top-best-teams-who-what-latest-week-3-steelers-patriots-cardinals-giants-broncos-current-week-2/2/ Power Rankers are very fickle. Not that it matters much, but I like the underdog role for us better. That said, GO Ravens...just because we can.

The Good and Bad: The overwhelming feeling that I've gotten out of this last game is 'uncertainty'. Not sure where we are right now. Based on both of our wins it's hard to tell what our identity is. Are we 'Chaos Merchants', 'Smash Mouth', or 'The Scheme Team'? It's still early in the season, but it's fairly noticeable that we haven't solidified our new culture. That could be a 'Good' thing or a 'Bad' thing'.

You're a Moderator that I truly respect but, I don't agree on the 1st points, but the 'coaches delay' was critical and the play-call (At that point of the game) was just as critical. An estimated 1 minute to 1:30+ clock burn-off resulted. Why be overly aggressive (3rd Quarter) and give up a potential field goal attempt (Browns int) to take the lead prior to our last possession? (A 3pt field (Tucker give-me) goal would have sufficed and changed everything going into the 4th quarter. Why risk an in-completion (4th Quarter) when clock management is absolutely the focus? Browns were down with 1 timeout remaining. Run 3 times and gain nothing - use at least 1 minute 15 seconds off the clock or force them to use their final time-out before the 2 min. warning. Tucker still makes it from that distance. Why not have enough foresight to run the ball and/or not throw the ball out-of-bounds to stop the clock (take a sack if necessary) when the clock is your friend? (Tucker could make that kick with 5+ yards added easily). We would have been better off (clock-wise) if just taking a knee if no one's absolutely open, but why attempt to pass? Why play soft passive coverage and not aggressively rushing the QB (worked most of the game) on the early Browns last possessions (when they are running out of time with an injured QB)? Our 'Situational Awareness' unfortunately does need tweaking (especially during 'crunch-times). The basic game strategies were sound, good coaching scenarios, but our 3rd quarter decisions leading to the Browns int. that secured their lead at the time (too risky when we just need 3) and subsequently our last offensive possession (too aggressive for clock management) and passiveness of last defensive possession in the early downs only... made this a 'nail bitter'. We've had these (Situational Management) issues before like most teams, but it still need tweaking. We still won. I'm happy.

Agreed. That's why Browns fans also believe it was deliberate taunting. Who comes-up with that knowing that if the ball is tossed in the direction of the defender (Torrey Smith in Playoffs against Patriots) that's an automatic taunting. They're calling it a 'coach-able moment'.

Apparently according to Cleveland Browns media the taunting was deliberate. http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=44146&page=28 Pryor wants the coaches to address it, but Browns fan think it was intentional taunting. The refs on the the field apparently put insult with injury from something they saw and/or heard.

Although this doesn't get said a lot regarding the opponents team, but McCown played courageously. MRI expected tomorrow (hope it's a okay). We faced an honorably opponent in came-out victorious. A solid win. I'll take it.

Yet, you fail to mention the last Ravens(confusion) time-out and in-completion that resulted in the Browns not needing to call their last time-out earlier (before the 2 minute warning) in our last possession. That completely changed the dynamics of the game. The what-ifs are great, but 'Situational Awareness' is another thing. In this case, if more offensive conservative play-calling would have been used before we got the lead (leading to Browns interception) and more aggressive play calling and clock-management would have been implored during our last drive to put the game away - our final defensive stance would not have been a nail-bitter. Too much time was left on the clock...period. There's no way to predict outcomes based on the most trusted analytic methods, but how those last 2 offensive and 1 defensive series went only give the opponent a more likely opportunity to win the game. It is what it is. I'm just happy we won (CJ Mosley) in spite of those choices.