Espn Power Rankings And Season Previews

[William Murderface]

[quote name='dpatrickguy' date='08 September 2009 - 08:11 PM' timestamp='1252458680' post='231071']
these are despicable

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/12175294
[/quote]

12. Wow that is awful. Some already went through the teams (cards, pack, saints) and why they shouldnt be ahead of us and i completely agree. The cards arent a bad team but they got hot at the right time and walked through the awful NFC in the playoffs.

I honestly just dont understand how our team can consistently be ranked so low. The Eagles are consistently around 5 or 6. They lost in championship game (like us) and really wont be much better this season like the Ravens are (Plus our regular season was a lot better than theirs last year). Just having a full year experience under Flacco's belt will make a world of difference to the Raven's O and even if their D falls off like some "experts" think it wont fall off as much as our offense will gain.

[NorthShoreChicago]

Honestly, more than likely the reason Ravens are at #10 is they have not had great winning history. With only 2 conference championships, and one superbowl win.. Its actually pretty impressive that the Ravens have scored up that high with (lets face it) one good year last year.

Do we all not remember 5-11 2 years ago? Or 6-10 two years prior?

Or the fact that we were third or last in our conference 7 out of the last 12 years?

There is no stability here yet, once we can actually have more than ONE winning season in a row, maybe people will take the Ravens more seriously. Thus far only 2000 and 2001 were consistent years, and we STILL came in second in the division those years... LOL

[William Murderface]

[quote name='NorthShoreChicago' date='09 September 2009 - 07:53 AM' timestamp='1252500813' post='231184']
Honestly, more than likely the reason Ravens are at #10 is they have not had great winning history. With only 2 conference championships, and one superbowl win.. Its actually pretty impressive that the Ravens have scored up that high with (lets face it) one good year last year.

Do we all not remember 5-11 2 years ago? Or 6-10 two years prior?

Or the fact that we were third or last in our conference 7 out of the last 12 years?

There is no stability here yet, once we can actually have more than ONE winning season in a row, maybe people will take the Ravens more seriously. Thus far only 2000 and 2001 were consistent years, and we STILL came in second in the division those years... LOL
[/quote]

Dont be such a negative nancy. (that was a joke by the way)

i get what you are saying though. However, with Cam and Flacco we do finally have stability that is the point. We had stability somewhat with Mcnair and we saw what we did then. Our Offense is a lot better now than then and our Defense is always good and this year will be no different.

At the end of the year last year the Ravens were number 3 in the power rankings and since then we have consistently fell in each power rankings released which i dont understand that. I dont understand why people are thinking we are regressing which the fall from 3 to 10 means. I can't wait for the games to start

[FerrariFan87]

[quote name='NorthShoreChicago' date='09 September 2009 - 08:53 AM' timestamp='1252500813' post='231184']
Honestly, more than likely the reason Ravens are at #10 is they have not had great winning history. With only 2 conference championships, and one superbowl win.. Its actually pretty impressive that the Ravens have scored up that high with (lets face it) one good year last year.

Do we all not remember 5-11 2 years ago? Or 6-10 two years prior?

Or the fact that we were third or last in our conference 7 out of the last 12 years?

There is no stability here yet, once we can actually have more than ONE winning season in a row, maybe people will take the Ravens more seriously. Thus far only 2000 and 2001 were consistent years, and we STILL came in second in the division those years... LOL
[/quote]

Considering we've only been in the league since 1996, you can't help but be impressed with what this franchise has already accomplished and how valuable (literally) the Ravens have become..

[JEEPercreepermd]

[quote name='NorthShoreChicago' date='09 September 2009 - 08:53 AM' timestamp='1252500813' post='231184']
Honestly, more than likely the reason Ravens are at #10 is they have not had great winning history."

The New Orleans Saints are ranked higher than us, and you are telling me that THEY have a winning history? The Atlanta Falcons, Arizona Cardinals? Come on now! BTW, Baltimore's defense is going to "slide" because we lost Rex Ryan but New Orleans has a new DC too and that supposedly is going to make their D better? I'm Sorry but the Ravens are better than New Orleans, Arizona,Atlanta,Green Bay,Tennessee, and arguably Philadelphia, New York,and San Diego.

[NorthShoreChicago]

The fact of the matter is, the question here is why are the Ravens #10.

The answer is pretty simple. As I said, #10 is pretty damn impressive with a team of a total of 14 years of history. 7-9 of those years were pretty dismal.

So, to achieve #10 power ranking with only 4-5 years of success, is amazing, and we should be pretty happy with it.

[McBoller]

Is John Clayton okay???

yes, he rated us the highest out of the four voters, but he voted the Chargers 2, and the Vikings 4.

[Runnin Raven]

This is as silly as preseason college rankings. Keep up the disrespect, its good for our guys. And feels that much sweeter in the end.

[funky141]

[quote]I'm Sorry but the Ravens are better than New Orleans, Arizona,Atlanta,Green Bay,Tennessee, and arguably Philadelphia, New York,and San Diego. [/quote]

New Orleans, Arizona, Atlanta, Green Bay yes
Tennessee, Philadelphia, New York,and San Diego it needs to be settled on the field.

[JEEPercreepermd]

[quote name='NorthShoreChicago' date='09 September 2009 - 09:56 AM' timestamp='1252504588' post='231200']
The fact of the matter is, the question here is why are the Ravens #10.

The answer is pretty simple. As I said, #10 is pretty damn impressive with a team of a total of 14 years of history. 7-9 of those years were pretty dismal.

So, to achieve #10 power ranking with only 4-5 years of success, is amazing, and we should be pretty happy with it.
[/quote]

History has nothing to do with power rankings, remember this is the what have you done for me lately league. And just last season the Ravens went all the way to the AFC Championship game, beating the 13-3 Titans on the road to get there. Why should we be happy with being #10? I'd be happy with #6 at the very least

[NorthShoreChicago]

The reason is, we've (but one year) never had good repeating seasons in our history.

So, take that, and add the fact that we've lost our d-line coordinator, and some players.

Once again, these other teams have longevity of have concurrent winning seasons.
Our concurrent history is 3 years of last place in our division from 96-2000

[NorthShoreChicago]

BTW - Just trying to be the realist of the group..

[JEEPercreepermd]

[quote name='NorthShoreChicago' date='09 September 2009 - 10:32 AM' timestamp='1252506744' post='231215']
The reason is, we've (but one year) never had good repeating seasons in our history.

So, take that, and add the fact that we've lost our d-line coordinator, and some players.

Once again, these other teams have longevity of have concurrent winning seasons.
Our concurrent history is 3 years of last place in our division from 96-2000
[/quote]
If you want to rank overall success of a franchise then I can see your point, but this is a poll of how these teams rank RIGHT NOW, and I'm saying that putting teams like New Orleans,Arizona,Atlanta,and Green Bay ahead of us is a joke. The fact is that the Ravens are just better than those teams

[darklight1216]

[quote name='funky141' date='09 September 2009 - 10:18 AM' timestamp='1252505922' post='231209']
New Orleans, Arizona, Atlanta, Green Bay yes
[b][u]Tennessee, Philadelphia,[/u] New York,and San Diego it needs to be settled on the field.[/b]
[/quote]
Been there, done that.

[flynismo]

[quote name='JEEPercreepermd' date='09 September 2009 - 11:14 AM' timestamp='1252509248' post='231229']
If you want to rank overall success of a franchise then I can see your point, but this is a poll of how these teams rank RIGHT NOW, and I'm saying that putting teams like New Orleans,Arizona,Atlanta,and Green Bay ahead of us is a joke. The fact is that the Ravens are just better than those teams
[/quote]

Other than GB, you cant even use the "overall success" of a franchise argument either (but I know you were just trying to be diplomatic) for those teams. It is a joke that they are ahead of us.

[PIG 20]

Thats fine. I'd rather not have the spotlight on our back. We were a dominant football team in 2006.

Then in 2007 we had a major QB issue along with some nagging injuries to our secondary which was picked apart by passing games. But all in all it was our offense that was the downfall of the team this year. Had we had a healthy McNair like we did in 2006, then I really feel that the 2007 would have been a lot different. Leaving it up to Kyle Boller to bring forth a winning season is a lose/lose situation. Especially in a Brian Billick offense.

In 2008 we had the second most players on IR, started a rookie QB, rookie head coach, and we mustered an 11-5 season and a birth in the AFC Championship game.

In 2009 our QB is no longer a rookie with 19 NFL games under his belt. A defense that lost "one" starter in Bart Scott. I liked Jim Leonhard but mind you had Landry not suffered his injury, Jim would have never been on the playing field that much. Landry is an upgrade! And how many defensive coordinators have we lost? And we still have dominant defenses! And not to mention the addition of Kelly Gregg. We are 10 times healthier than we were at this time last season.

Its fine. Rank us low. The year we won the Super Bowl, we weren't even a "blip" on the radar screen.

[William Murderface]

[quote name='NorthShoreChicago' date='09 September 2009 - 09:32 AM' timestamp='1252506744' post='231215']
The reason is, we've (but one year) never had good repeating seasons in our history.

So, take that, and add the fact that we've lost our d-line coordinator, and some players.

Once again, these other teams have longevity of have concurrent winning seasons.
Our concurrent history is 3 years of last place in our division from 96-2000
[/quote]

Like some else pointed out it has nothing to do with history. And to counter your point that we usually have a good year followed by a bad year i honestly dont think these "experts" could pick up on that. They obviously dont pay that close attention to trends or they would stop harping on this DC thing, we have been through DC before and it never affects us yet now they are predictly the Ravens D to drop off.

Due to injuries and FA there are no more dynastys in the NFL really who win year in and year out (not like there used to be). NO ahead of us made the playoffs in 1992, 2000, 2006. So according to those numbers they shouldnt be in the playoffs until an average of 7 years after their last appearence or 2013.

same deal with Atlanta, GB almost every team.

[NorthShoreChicago]

I think it does have alot to do with history and inconsistencies. Regardless of what you think, it must. All of the other teams mentioned have some form of "winning record" from year to year. The Ravens do not. They have a losing year after every winning year, except for one. So, that's really saying something...

Do I think Ravens have a great shot at finally breaking that streak this year? Yes.

Do I think we have our work cut out for ourselves? Yes.

Do I care about any of these rankings ? Nope.

[PIG 20]

[quote name='NorthShoreChicago' date='09 September 2009 - 10:32 AM' timestamp='1252506744' post='231215']
The reason is, we've (but one year) never had good repeating seasons in our history.

So, take that, and add the fact that we've lost our d-line coordinator, and some players.

Once again, these other teams have longevity of have concurrent winning seasons.
Our concurrent history is 3 years of last place in our division from 96-2000
[/quote]

Actually, it was the first two seasons not three. 1996 and 1997.

[NorthShoreChicago]

[quote name='PIG 20' date='09 September 2009 - 11:49 AM' timestamp='1252511393' post='231241']
Thats fine. I'd rather not have the spotlight on our back. We were a dominant football team in 2006.


Its fine. Rank us low. The year we won the Super Bowl, we weren't even a "blip" on the radar screen.
[/quote]


Yes, but the following year in 2007, we went 5-11. So, what the hell happened?

[NorthShoreChicago]

[quote name='PIG 20' date='09 September 2009 - 12:06 PM' timestamp='1252512418' post='231246']
Actually, it was the first two seasons not three. 1996 and 1997.
[/quote]

Incorrect

1996 4-12 4th in division
1997 6-9-1 4th in division
1998 6-10 4th in division
1999 8-8 3rd in division

I know my stats!

[PIG 20]

[quote name='NorthShoreChicago' date='09 September 2009 - 12:06 PM' timestamp='1252512413' post='231245']
I think it does have alot to do with history and inconsistencies. Regardless of what you think, it must. All of the other teams mentioned have some form of "winning record" from year to year. The Ravens do not. [b]They have a losing year after every winning year, except for one. So, that's really saying something..[/b].

Do I think Ravens have a great shot at finally breaking that streak this year? Yes.

Do I think we have our work cut out for ourselves? Yes.

Do I care about any of these rankings ? Nope.
[/quote]

I don't know why people keep saying this. That is a very FALSE statement. Yes it has happened but it doesn't happen every time we have a winning season.

[PIG 20]

[quote name='NorthShoreChicago' date='09 September 2009 - 12:10 PM' timestamp='1252512613' post='231250']
Incorrect

1996 4-12 4th in division
1997 6-9-1 4th in division
1998 6-10 4th in division
1999 8-8 3rd in division

I know my stats!
[/quote]

You said and I quote, "The Ravens have finished dead last three years in a row".

NOT

The Ravens have finished with a losing record three years in a row. We did not finish dead last 1998. We finished 4th ahead of the Bengals who finished 5th.

[NorthShoreChicago]

[quote name='PIG 20' date='09 September 2009 - 12:11 PM' timestamp='1252512716' post='231251']
I don't know why people keep saying this. That is a very FALSE statement. Yes it has happened but it doesn't happen every time we have a winning season.
[/quote]


Its because its true..

The Ravens best season was 2000, with a 12-4 record, 2nd in division
2001 was a 10-6, 2nd in division
(This was our best 2 years)
2002 7-9
2003 10-6
2004 9-7
2005 6-10
2006 13-3
2007 5-11
2008 11-5

Then our first 4 years were one year at .50, and the rest sucked.

[NorthShoreChicago]

[quote name='PIG 20' date='09 September 2009 - 12:14 PM' timestamp='1252512894' post='231253']
You said and I quote, "The Ravens have finished dead last three years in a row".

NOT

The Ravens have finished with a losing record three years in a row. We did not finish dead last 1998. We finished 4th ahead of the Bengals who finished 5th.
[/quote]

I have never anywhere in here said we finished DEAD LAST? Please show me?

We finish LAST in our division for three years.. Just look up, its right there...

[PIG 20]

[quote name='NorthShoreChicago' date='09 September 2009 - 12:18 PM' timestamp='1252513116' post='231255']
I have never anywhere in here said we finished DEAD LAST? Please show me?

We finish LAST in our division for three years.. Just look up, its right there...
[/quote]

Please, "last" means "last". You are reaching now.

[NorthShoreChicago]

[quote name='PIG 20' date='09 September 2009 - 12:06 PM' timestamp='1252512418' post='231246']
Actually, it was the first two seasons not three. 1996 and 1997.
[/quote]

[NorthShoreChicago]

[quote name='PIG 20' date='09 September 2009 - 12:20 PM' timestamp='1252513256' post='231256']
Please, "last" means "last". You are reaching now.
[/quote]

You're eyesight must be bad, it says LAST IN OUR DIVISION FOR THREE YEARS...


This is what I said

Once again, these other teams have longevity of have concurrent winning seasons.
Our concurrent history is 3 years of last place in our division from 96-2000

[PIG 20]

[quote name='NorthShoreChicago' date='09 September 2009 - 12:17 PM' timestamp='1252513051' post='231254']
Its because its true..

The Ravens best season was 2000, with a 12-4 record, 2nd in division
2001 was a 10-6, 2nd in division
(This was our best 2 years)
2002 7-9
2003 10-6
2004 9-7
2005 6-10
2006 13-3
2007 5-11
2008 11-5

Then our first 4 years were one year at .50, and the rest sucked.
[/quote]

Thats great. Every time someone calls you out, you manipulate your post.

If you want to know the real reason why we aren't ranked higher is because we lost to the Steelers three times. And this year we have to face New England, San Diego, Pittsburgh twice, Green Bay and Minnesota.

We have to prove that we can beat "better" teams this year. Not just beat up on above average to below average teams this season.

Until we prove that, this is where we get ranked.

Keep putting up your stats, but I highly doubt that the reason we are ranked where we are at is because the so called experts think we are "due" for a losing season. Thats retarded.

[NorthShoreChicago]

[quote name='PIG 20' date='09 September 2009 - 12:28 PM' timestamp='1252513728' post='231259']
Thats great. Every time someone calls you out, you manipulate your post.

If you want to know the real reason why we aren't ranked higher is because we lost to the Steelers three times. And this year we have to face New England, San Diego, Pittsburgh twice, Green Bay and Minnesota.

We have to prove that we can beat "better" teams this year. Not just beat up on above average to below average teams this season.

Until we prove that, this is where we get ranked.

Keep putting up your stats, but I highly doubt that the reason we are ranked where we are at is because the so called experts think we are "due" for a losing season. Thats retarded.
[/quote]

My original post is at the top of this page, you are WELCOME to see it has not been edited its message #41.