Ravens Still A Top Tier Nfl Team

[hammer]

The NFL has fast become a "pass protected, offensive league" over the last years, and the league rules committee has finally suceeded in what it wants.

One must understand that we will NEVER AGAIN see the types of dominant defenses we are accustomed to seeing from our beloved Ravens, or even in the league for that matter. The rules committee doesn't allow ANYONE to;

[b](1) rush the passer [/b](excessive holding by o-linemen)
[b](2) hit the quarterback[/b] (brady rules), or
[b](3) defend the downfield pass [/b](no contact rules - even when the ball is not in the air)

With all of this being said, it should be noted that the Ravens are still one of the top tier teams in the NFL, but by reading the board, you can see that we (the fans) are arguably, some of the most spoiled fans in the league when compared to other NFL cities. There is no doubt in my mind that of the 32 NFL cities, fans in at least 20 to 25 of them would theorectically LOVE to trde places with us.

Look at where we actually stand, even in a year where we are calling for everyone to be fired, released, cut or....even waterboarded.

[b]Defensive PPG Allowed[/b]
#1 Colts 13.5
#9 Ravens 19.2/15.1 2008

[b]Defensive YPG Allowed[/b]
#1 Giants 272.3
#12 Ravens 320.6/271.1 2008

[b]Offensive PPG[/b]
#1 Saints 37.9! (Yikes)
#2 Vikings 30.5
#9 Ravens 25.8/23.1 2008

[b]Offensive YPG[/b]
#1 Saints 427.0
#2 Patriots 409.2
#10 Ravens 358.2/310.3 2008

Now as you can see, the new league rules has defenses down across the league, while scoring and offense is thriving. The Ravens are no exception to this rule and reflect the same outcomes for 2009 as the rest of the league.

The ONLY GLARING PHENOMENON for the Ravens in 2009 is for some unexplained reason, their [b]turnover ratio [/b]has been dismal. Look at the stats:

[b]Givaways Per Game[/b]
#1 Patriots 0.9
#2 Cheifs 0.9
#6 Ravens 1.1/1.4 2008

[b]Takaways Per Game[/b](This is the biggest letdown for the Ravens 2009)
#1 Saints 3.0 (totally unfair with that offense too!)
#23 Ravens 1.4/2.3 2008 [b](that's a HUGE difference!)[/b]

But overall, the Ravens are not a bad NFL team in 2009, that's far from the truth. Now Are Our Fans SPOILED? That's another question entirely.

[Ed_Reed20]

Good statistics. I personally think expectations were too high across the board. The offense's success has been a pleasant surprise but non one expected the loss of Bart Scott to be as big at it's been or that Foxworth and Fabian would be as inconsistent as they've been. For all the talk about the defense failing, to me, they've put together back-to-back quality performances the past two weeks. The defenses gave up two long TD drives but they kept the game close the rest of the way but the offense failed.

It'll be interesting to see how they perform against Cleveland.

[Chi_Town_Raven]

Good statistics? Yes. Top tier? HELL NO. In my book, when a kicker can't kick a 38 yarder, both CBs have fallen down at least twice in a game, and when your pass rush ****s, you can't be even [i]considered[/i].


Edit: Didn't know that " " was a swear word. Whatever, "Stinks".

[hammer]

[quote name='Chi_Town_Raven' date='11 November 2009 - 12:11 PM' timestamp='1257955867' post='280170']
Good statistics? Yes. Top tier? HELL NO. In my book, when a kicker can't kick a 38 yarder, both CBs have fallen down at least twice in a game, and when your pass rush ****s, you can't be even [i]considered[/i].


Edit: Didn't know that " " was a swear word. Whatever, "Stinks".
[/quote]

Just imagine if you ever forked over $200.00 bucks to go see the Detroit Lions. I can't imagine ANOTHER level for you to go to. You may want to switch to DECAF or something.

[hammer]

[quote name='Chi_Town_Raven' date='11 November 2009 - 12:11 PM' timestamp='1257955867' post='280170']
Good statistics? Yes. Top tier? HELL NO. In my book, when a kicker can't kick a 38 yarder, both CBs have fallen down at least twice in a game, and when your pass rush ****s, you can't be even [i]considered[/i].


Edit: Didn't know that " " was a swear word. Whatever, "Stinks".
[/quote]

I think your comments are relative to what you are comparing the Ravens to? The 85 Bears? The Purple People Eaters? The Steel Curtain? How About The 2000 RAVENS?

But, I am talking about the 2009 NFL league wide teams that I am comparing these Ravens to. The stats bear out the TRUTH that they rank in the top third teams in the league.

If their turnover ratio was even anything similar to what we normally get from the Ravens????

[theFRANCHISE]

The most telling stat that the Ravens are still a top-tier team? In four losses, Baltimore has only lost by a combined 21 points. That's less than one possession per game.

The fact that they're able to hang with the Patriots, the much-improved Vikings, and the vastly-improved Bengals twice, even after being in a deficit in all four games, is impressive. It speaks to the resiliency of the team; all you can ever really ask is to compete and be able to stay in games. Victory continually being in reach and falling short is much better than being blown out, because at least you have something to build on each week.

[Steelerkillers]

As much as we all know that there are no moral victories around here, Nobody gets credit for losing! Im sure teams still view us as a tuff opponent to face on their schedules...no doubt!! For as long as Cincy hav been losers, the Steelers..along with Ourselves have considered them tuff opponents. However, Tuff & Top are two different things. Theres nothing (Top) about falling to the (Bottom). No-one...except us Raven fans cares about how we hung in there with the best teams even though we lost. Thats just moral acheievements on our part. The fact is- we lost. Stats are cool, but winning is much cooler!

[Andrew Smith]

I doubt we are going to the playoffs but if we could find a way to sweep the Steelers and keep them out of the playoffs I would say no doubt we are a great team. Lets just beat them once at least... if we get sweeped by them again I'm going to have a heart attack.

[SSN]

We are definately NOT a top-tier team in the league. I agree with what Harbaugh said. You're only as good as your record. Those stats are nice to hear and maybe they'll put a smile on our faces in January when we're all at home watching the Steelers and Bengals in the playoffs.

Really all that matters is wins and losses. It's great that we have lost four games by 21 points, but top-tier teams win those games.

Look at Cincinnati. Their offense is ranked #12 in yards (Ravens are #10) and #16 in points (Ravens are #10). Their defense is ranked #14 in yards (Ravens are #12) and #5 in scoring (Ravens are #9).

On paper, we're a much better team. But they have kicked our tail two times. Right now, they are top tier and we are not even though the stats would show otherwise.

[hammer]

The FACTS are that the Ravens rank in the top 10 of all important offensive and defensive stats. There are 32 teams in the league. If you average 10th place out of 32 teams, you are not THEORETICALLY one of the top team, but FACTUALLY.

For those mathmeticians out there, they would know that means the Ravens are statistically better that [b]68.75%[/b] of NFL teams right now.

Many of our fans are inclined to factor in things like dropped passes and missed tackles, and falling down DB's and stuff like that. But they don't realize that this stuff happens in ALL NFL GAMES. Being that they don't actually see ALL NFL GAMES, they inappropriately assign DE-MERITS for the games they do see (ie. Ravens Games) to justify their thinking that the Ravns are not a good team. That's an illogical fallacy.

Remember, that old cliche? [b]"We Always Tend To Hurt The Ones We Love"?[/b] I think we are "figuratively: LOVING OUR RAVENS.... TO DEATH!

[SSN]

[quote name='hammer' date='11 November 2009 - 01:01 PM' timestamp='1257962505' post='280200']
The FACTS are that the Ravens rank in the top 10 of all important offensive and defensive stats. There are 32 teams in the league. If you average 10th place out of 32 teams, you are not THEORETICALLY one of the top team, but FACTUALLY.
[/quote]

They are not FACTUALLY a top team. They are only in the top 10 statistics-wise.

FACTUALLY, they are tied with four other teams for 15th place with a 4-4 record which puts them somewhere between 15-19 in the league. This is FACTUALLY a very average team.

http://www.nfl.com/standings?category=league&season=2009-REG&split=Overall

[Ed_Reed20]

[quote name='SSN' date='11 November 2009 - 01:12 PM' timestamp='1257963163' post='280205']
They are not FACTUALLY a top team. They are only in the top 10 statistics-wise.

FACTUALLY, they are tied with four other teams for 15th place with a 4-4 record which puts them somewhere between 15-19 in the league. This is FACTUALLY a very average team.

http://www.nfl.com/standings?category=league&season=2009-REG&split=Overall
[/quote]

Very true and even more disheartening. I still can't believe we are talking about the same team that looked like they had got their season back on track against the Broncos.

[Chi_Town_Raven]

Okay, first of all, statistics prove [color="#FF0000"][i][b][u]nothing[/u][/b][/i][/color]. But let's just pretend they do:

Statistically better than 68.75% of the league.

Now here's an analogy:

The Ivy League is made up of 8 colleges that are known to be the best in the country. The 8 division winners are part of the Ivy League. They are [i]elite[/i]. Then you have the superb colleges that should be considered elite like Northwestern (my future school ), University of Chicago, Stanford, Columbia University, Cornell University, etc. Those are the teams that win the wildcard. Then you have the teams that were competitive, but couldn't quite get in. They are the Illinois, Purdue, Arizona, Michigan, Utah, etc., of colleges. Very good, but not good enough. Then you have the community colleges, which names are endless. They are the "transitioning teams," those who are going to be good in a couple of years. Then you have the bottom feeders, like the Titans, Buccaneers, and Browns of colleges (don't want to say in case some one attended them j/k). We are in the a team that is either a transitioning team (yes I know...), or the bottom percentage of the Illinois, and Michigan teams.

[SSN]

[quote name='Ed_Reed20' date='11 November 2009 - 01:15 PM' timestamp='1257963312' post='280206']
Very true and even more disheartening. I still can't believe we are talking about the same team that looked like they had got their season back on track against the Broncos.
[/quote]

That's what's so frustrating and demoralizing. I think we all thought that the Ravens had turned a corner after the bye with that crushing win vs the Broncos. I know I did. Then to put out a dud of a performance against Cincinnatti is confusing. Plus, it would be one thing if we played all out and they simply were better. But to me, it just didn't look like the effort was there. They didn't look the same way emotionally as they did at home against Denver.

The overall NFL standings have them tied at 4-4 with the Bears, Packers, Jaguars, and Jets which is probably about right as far as I'm concerned.

[SSN]

[quote name='Chi_Town_Raven' date='11 November 2009 - 01:18 PM' timestamp='1257963524' post='280207']
Okay, first of all, statistics prove [color="#FF0000"][i][b][u]nothing[/u][/b][/i][/color]. But let's just pretend they do:

Statistically better than 68.75% of the league.

Now here's an analogy:

The Ivy League is made up of 8 colleges that are known to be the best in the country. The 8 division winners are part of the Ivy League. They are [i]elite[/i]. Then you have the superb colleges that should be considered elite like Northwestern (my future school ), University of Chicago, Stanford, Columbia University, Cornell University, etc. Those are the teams that win the wildcard. Then you have the teams that were competitive, but couldn't quite get in. They are the Illinois, Purdue, Arizona, Michigan, Utah, etc., of colleges. Very good, but not good enough. Then you have the community colleges, which names are endless. They are the "transitioning teams," those who are going to be good in a couple of years. Then you have the bottom feeders, like the Titans, Buccaneers, and Browns of colleges (don't want to say in case some one attended them j/k). We are in the a team that is either a transitioning team (yes I know...), or the bottom percentage of the Illinois, and Michigan teams.
[/quote]

Wow. You completely lost me. Although I only graduated from a small D3 college so maybe that's the problem!!

[Chi_Town_Raven]

BTW, I was joking with the "future school" thing.

[Chi_Town_Raven]

But think about it: 68.75%. That's a "D". A "D" isn't going to get you top tier.

[TSizzle00]

[quote name='SSN' date='11 November 2009 - 12:48 PM' timestamp='1257961719' post='280198']
We are definately NOT a top-tier team in the league. I agree with what Harbaugh said. You're only as good as your record. Those stats are nice to hear and maybe they'll put a smile on our faces in January when we're all at home watching the Steelers and Bengals in the playoffs.

Really all that matters is wins and losses. It's great that we have lost four games by 21 points, but top-tier teams win those games.

Look at Cincinnati. Their offense is ranked #12 in yards (Ravens are #10) and #16 in points (Ravens are #10). Their defense is ranked #14 in yards (Ravens are #12) and #5 in scoring (Ravens are #9).

On paper, we're a much better team. But they have kicked our tail two times. Right now, they are top tier and we are not even though the stats would show otherwise.
[/quote]

Yea we are only as good as out record and right now its 4-4. On paper is just that paper. Last year the Cowboys were the most talented team on paper....they didn't even make the playoffs and lost their last game 6-44

[hammer]

[quote name='Chi_Town_Raven' date='11 November 2009 - 02:29 PM' timestamp='1257964194' post='280213']
But think about it: 68.75%. That's a "D". A "D" isn't going to get you top tier.
[/quote]

See, this is what you get when you cross a school teacher with a football fan. You get someone who is thinking A,B.C,D and trying to apply it so football sense.

My point is this - 50% is the middle of the pack - this is average, not school teacher average, but rest of the free world average. 60% is above average, because there is only an absolute margin of 40% remaining. 69% is ABOVE AVERAGE PERFORMANCE. If you had a 69% chance of winning anything, you should see the glass as 3/4% FULL. But NOOOO, not our Ravens Fans. They are SOOOO EMOTIONALLY CHARGED, they can only see the glass as 1/4% EMPTY. And for this, they want BLOOD of every first born child of management.

Now for those people who say the world is either black or white, as in either wins or losses, here's how silly that notion is.

Someone take a swing at your girlfriend while attending the Ravens Game. No problem, because she ducked just in time and he missed. What great luck you have! You can just pick up the popcorn she dropped and continue watching the game. Thats a black and white (simply wins and loses) world where nothing else matters. What a GREAT father and husband you are gonna make.

The point is - if you only care about the won/loss record, then why even watch the game? What are you looking at for the 60 minutes in between the win or loss? You can get the final score on ESPN.

Of course we know what wins and loses mean, but I respect how much "fight is in the dog too"! And I know NFL opponents do as well.

[SSN]

[quote name='hammer' date='11 November 2009 - 01:58 PM' timestamp='1257965910' post='280229']
See, this is what you get when you cross a school teacher with a football fan. You get someone who is thinking A,B.C,D and trying to apply it so football sense.

My point is this - 50% is the middle of the pack - this is average, not school teacher average, but rest of the free world average. 60% is above average, because there is only an absolute margin of 40% remaining. 69% is ABOVE AVERAGE PERFORMANCE. If you had a 69% chance of winning anything, you should see the glass as 3/4% FULL. But NOOOO, not our Ravens Fans. They are SOOOO EMOTIONALLY CHARGED, they can only see the glass as 1/4% EMPTY. And for this, they want BLOOD of every first born child of management.

Now for those people who say the world is either black or white, as in either wins or losses, here's how silly that notion is.

Someone take a swing at your girlfriend while attending the Ravens Game. No problem, because she ducked just in time and he missed. What great luck you have! You can just pick up the popcorn she dropped and continue watching the game. Thats a black and white (simply wins and loses) world where nothing else matters. What a GREAT father and husband you are gonna make.

The point is - if you only care about the won/loss record, then why even watch the game? What are you looking at for the 60 minutes in between the win or loss? You can get the final score on ESPN.

Of course we know what wins and loses mean, but I respect how much "fight is in the dog too"! And I know NFL opponents do as well.
[/quote]


But now you're comparing a real-world situation with sports. Your analogy is off. In sports, how can anything other than wins and losses matter. So are you saying that you would be satisfied if this team went 0-16 but tried their hardest and ended up pretty good statistically? I would rather have terrible stats and a bunch of wins.

Nobody is looking at it with an unrealistic negative viewpoint. You seem to be hung up on this statistic-thing and trying to find a silver lining and basically complicating this thing way too much. 99% of fans would rather our record be better than our stats. You seem, to me, to be that 1% that is stuck on the stat thing and attempting to rationalize that stats are a better indicator than record of how good a team is.

I just don't see it the same way that you do but it has nothing to do with me being negative.

[kidrock]

[quote name='hammer' date='11 November 2009 - 11:59 AM' timestamp='1257955183' post='280166']
"some of the most spoiled fans in the league when compared to other NFL cities. There is no doubt in my mind that of the 32 NFL cities, fans in at least 20 to 25 of them would theorectically LOVE to trde places with us.

[/quote]


Bro, I have been a die hard Orioles fan for over 20 years. Not so sure I'm spoiled...

[hammer]

[quote name='kidrock' date='11 November 2009 - 03:21 PM' timestamp='1257967305' post='280235']
Bro, I have been a die hard Orioles fan for over 20 years. Not so sure I'm spoiled...
[/quote]

You have been a DIE HARD ORIOLES FAN! For over 20 YEARS? Ok dude, you get a pass on this. Your "cut-card" is in the mail with an apology for any inconvienience you may have suffered.

[hammer]

[quote name='SSN' date='11 November 2009 - 03:18 PM' timestamp='1257967131' post='280234']
But now you're comparing a real-world situation with sports. Your analogy is off. In sports, how can anything other than wins and losses matter. So are you saying that you would be satisfied if this team went 0-16 but tried their hardest and ended up pretty good statistically? I would rather have terrible stats and a bunch of wins.

Nobody is looking at it with an unrealistic negative viewpoint. You seem to be hung up on this statistic-thing and trying to find a silver lining and basically complicating this thing way too much. 99% of fans would rather our record be better than our stats. You seem, to me, to be that 1% that is stuck on the stat thing and attempting to rationalize that stats are a better indicator than record of how good a team is.

I just don't see it the same way that you do but it has nothing to do with me being negative.
[/quote]

1. But now you're comparing a real-world situation with sports.

[b]Reply: No, I am not comparing a real-world situation to sports. What I am saying is that a real world appreciation is relevant in both scenarios.[/b]

2. In sports, how can anything other than wins and losses matter.

[b]Reply: If ONLY wins and losses matter, then why are you actually watching the 60 minutes in between. Wins and losses reflect the outer boundaries of "what REALLY matters in between the 60 minutes of the game." The stats don't completely fill the information void in betrween the wins and losses boundaries, but it is a more reliable barometer than,,,,,let's say,,,,your emotions?[/b]

3. I just don't see it the same way that you do but it has nothing to do with me being negative.

[b]Reply: In all honesty, I NEVER said you were negative. I said you were spoiled by past Ravens defensive greatness. After reading your response, I stand by the charge.[/b]

Finally, you shouldn't use "dillusional statements" as premises to your argument (a team with a 0-16 record having good stats) unless you have relationships with people named "THE BOOGIEMAN" and the likes,

[SSN]

Am I crazy??? Am I not saying it right??? Can anybody else around here help me out???

I understand hammer's approach, just don't agree with it or see how it has ANY relevance on how good the team is.

[SSN]

[quote name='hammer' date='11 November 2009 - 02:42 PM' timestamp='1257968527' post='280247']
1. But now you're comparing a real-world situation with sports.

[b]Reply: No, I am not comparing a real-world situation to sports. What I am saying is that a real world appreciation is relevant in both scenarios.[/b]

2. In sports, how can anything other than wins and losses matter.

[b]Reply: If ONLY wins and losses matter, then why are you actually watching the 60 minutes in between. Wins and losses reflect the outer boundaries of "what REALLY matters in between the 60 minutes of the game." The stats don't completely fill the information void in betrween the wins and losses boundaries, but it is a more reliable barometer than,,,,,let's say,,,,your emotions?[/b]

3. I just don't see it the same way that you do but it has nothing to do with me being negative.

[b]Reply: In all honesty, I NEVER said you were negative. I said you were spoiled by past Ravens defensive greatness. After reading your response, I stand by the charge.[/b]

Finally, you shouldn't use "dillusional statements" as premises to your argument (a team with a 0-16 record having good stats) unless you have relationships with people named "THE BOOGIEMAN" and the likes,
[/quote]


I have two questions.

Scenerio: The Ravens played a game in which they had 500 yards of offense but could only score 13 points and our defense only gave up 200 yards of offense but gave up 21 points.

1. Who is the better team?
2. Are you satisfied with the loss considering our stats heavily outweighed theirs?

[hammer]

[quote name='SSN' date='11 November 2009 - 03:51 PM' timestamp='1257969067' post='280252']
Am I crazy??? Am I not saying it right??? Can anybody else around here help me out???

I understand hammer's approach, just don't agree with it or see how it has ANY relevance on how good the team is.
[/quote]

Keep in mind guy, that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG with disagreeing with Hammer. I have been wrong enough times in my life to know that I am not always right.

Actually, I was [b]proven wrong [/b]one time last year. It was a case where I thought I was wrong, but it turned out that I was right. See? I hope you get a laugh out of this.... I did. Here's to you dude!

[SSN]

[quote name='hammer' date='11 November 2009 - 02:57 PM' timestamp='1257969466' post='280255']
Keep in mind guy, that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG with disagreeing with Hammer. I have been wrong enough times in my life to know that I am not always right.

Actually, I was [b]proven wrong [/b]one time last year. It was a case where I thought I was wrong, but it turned out that I was right. See? I hope you get a laugh out of this.... I did. Here's to you dude!
[/quote]

OK. I'm just going to assume you're just screwing with me on this thread. I'm leaving (to take my crazy pills) and not coming back. Oh look, there are some oompa-loompas.

[hammer]

[quote name='SSN' date='11 November 2009 - 04:06 PM' timestamp='1257969986' post='280257']
OK. I'm just going to assume you're just screwing with me on this thread. I'm leaving (to take my crazy pills) and not coming back. Oh look, there are some oompa-loompas.
[/quote]

You got it dude. Disagreeing is not a crime. It's not that deep and I respect your right to your opinion.

[Ed_Reed_Pick_Six]

[quote name='hammer' date='12 November 2009 - 07:42 AM' timestamp='1257968527' post='280247']
1. But now you're comparing a real-world situation with sports.

[b]Reply: No, I am not comparing a real-world situation to sports. What I am saying is that a real world appreciation is relevant in both scenarios.[/b]

2. In sports, how can anything other than wins and losses matter.

[b]Reply: If ONLY wins and losses matter, then why are you actually watching the 60 minutes in between. Wins and losses reflect the outer boundaries of "what REALLY matters in between the 60 minutes of the game." The stats don't completely fill the information void in betrween the wins and losses boundaries, but it is a more reliable barometer than,,,,,let's say,,,,your emotions?[/b]

3. I just don't see it the same way that you do but it has nothing to do with me being negative.

[b]Reply: In all honesty, I NEVER said you were negative. I said you were spoiled by past Ravens defensive greatness. After reading your response, I stand by the charge.[/b]

Finally, you shouldn't use "dillusional statements" as premises to your argument (a team with a 0-16 record having good stats) unless you have relationships with people named "THE BOOGIEMAN" and the likes,
[/quote]
Hammer, to say wins and losses reflect the 'outer boundary' of what matters is a little non-sensical. [u]We live and die on all the big plays because they affect whether we win or lose the game[/u]. As the original poster said, I couldn't care less about statistics if we find a way to win.

Because, as has been said, that is all that matters at the end of the day. [b]A win is a win, and speaks for itself[/b]. A loss can be justified or downplayed via statistics to console fans etc., but let's face it - does that make us feel any better about losing the game? No. Sure, it might make people feel optimistic about what can be achieved in future games - but unless glamourous statistics are translated into a W, they might as well not have been accumulated.

[Jamal]

I was never a big stats person. Just look at 2000. We had one of the best defenses of all time, yet we weren't even number 1 that year.
Who still talks about that Titans defense? Exactly.