4-3 V.s. 3-4

[rastaman831226]

[quote name='theFRANCHISE' date='11 April 2010 - 09:18 PM' timestamp='1271035084' post='389636']
There are no sites that have the information readily handy, that information was culled via independent research using sources such as NFL.com where game logs are presented.

Or would you like the research done again?
[/quote]

Unecessary if you'd searched the correct parameters. But feel free to do so, I'm sure you'll have to come to the obvious conclusion. 2009 TEAM was healthier than 2008 TEAM.

[rastaman831226]

[quote name='theFRANCHISE' date='11 April 2010 - 09:32 PM' timestamp='1271035928' post='389638']
But starters are the portion of the team that sees the most playing time and, therefore, have the most significant effect on the outcome of each game. Would you like the figures culled again to account for [i]all[/i] players that missed time due to injury, including practice squad players and backups that were hurt in preseason?
[/quote]


Irrelevant. That;s qualitative thinking and avoidance. The answer is obvious, you have to come down over my side of the fence.. The 2009 TEAM was healthier than the 2008 TEAM. You cannot refute this.

[Ed_Reed20]

This is getting comical.

[rastaman831226]

[quote name='bennyb357' date='11 April 2010 - 09:41 PM' timestamp='1271036463' post='389643']
lol this is so awesomely ridiculous guys, thanks for the entertainment.
[/quote]

I'm liking this too.

[theFRANCHISE]

[quote name='rastaman831226' date='11 April 2010 - 09:43 PM' timestamp='1271036609' post='389644']
Irrelevant. That;s qualitative thinking and avoidance. The answer is obvious, you have to come down over my side of the fence.. The 2009 TEAM was healthier than the 2008 TEAM. You cannot refute this.
[/quote]
I'm doing research now. I'll post the results later.

I'm limiting the list to only the players who were made active on gameday and played at least 4 games in either 2008 or 2009, for the sake of comparison. Practice squad players who DID NOT see time in the regular season will NOT be included.

[Guest maryland1]

[i]"The 2009 TEAM was healthier than the 2008 TEAM."[/i]

And we're still arguing this point because??? What difference does it matter? Both were ranked #3 at the end of their respective seasons. It's now 2010. Let's please move on!

[rastaman831226]

[quote name='theFRANCHISE' date='11 April 2010 - 09:47 PM' timestamp='1271036830' post='389647']
I'm doing research now. I'll post the results later.

I'm limiting the list to only the players who were made active on gameday and played at least 4 games in either 2008 or 2009, for the sake of comparison. Practice squad players who DID NOT see time in the regular season will NOT be included.
[/quote]


You did it again. The word is TEAM. The parameters for your research are crystal clear. TEAM as in personnel from game 1 through 18, in the case of the 2008 TEAM and 1 through 17 of the 2009 TEAM and TEAM as in including practice squad. Anything less would be fudging the data. And fudging the data would be unethical and dishonest- credibility is at stake here.

[theFRANCHISE]

[quote name='rastaman831226' date='11 April 2010 - 10:53 PM' timestamp='1271040808' post='389663']
You did it again. The word is TEAM. The parameters for your research are crystal clear. TEAM as in personnel from game 1 through 18, in the case of the 2008 TEAM and 1 through 17 of the 2009 TEAM and TEAM as in including practice squad. Anything less would be fudging the data. And fudging the data would be unethical and dishonest- credibility is at stake here.
[/quote]
There is no data available for practice squad players, as the NFL does not chart their injury status. Additionally, the NFL does not officially recognize players as having had a significant contribution to the TEAM if they did not play in 4 or more games.

I'm going by NFL guidelines because your guidelines of including practice squad players are literally impossible to research, and adding players who played in less than 4 games means you're skewing the numbers because most of those types of players are signed midseason as injury replacements on special teams and then released immediately thereafter.

[rastaman831226]

[quote name='maryland1' date='11 April 2010 - 10:30 PM' timestamp='1271039435' post='389655']
[i]"The 2009 TEAM was healthier than the 2008 TEAM."[/i]

And we're still arguing this point because??? What difference does it matter? Both were ranked #3 at the end of their respective seasons. It's now 2010. Let's please move on!
[/quote]

It;s all a part of a much greater discussion about past Ravens' defensive performances and how they may or may not directly ainfluence team prospects for 2010. 3/4 or 4/3? Blitz or no blitz? Mayonnaise D vs. Organized Chaos? Gregg Mattison vs. Gregg Mattison etc. Have you read the thread? It's become one of the more fiery in this dull offseason. Join in.

[flynismo]

This is going in circles. If you want to talk about history, then history dictates that our defense will be elite no matter who the DC is, or what scheme is run. I could run this defense and have it finish in the top 5. Thats because that is how talented our players are.

[Ed_Reed20]

[quote name='flynismo' date='11 April 2010 - 11:39 PM' timestamp='1271043565' post='389675']
[b]This is going in circles.[/b] If you want to talk about history, then history dictates that our defense will be elite no matter who the DC is, or what scheme is run. I could run this defense and have it finish in the top 5. Thats because that is how talented our players are.
[/quote]

The argument has gone in circles simply because of one member's outright refusal to acknowledge or accept a lot of his views are wrong or based entirely in opinion.

[theFRANCHISE]

[img]http://i44.tinypic.com/2je5req.jpg[/img]
For those who have disabled images, here's a link to the JPEG file: [url="http://i44.tinypic.com/2je5req.jpg"]LINK[/url]

Criteria: All players on the 2008 or 2009 season that played 4 games or more; 4 games is the minimum criteria that the NFL sets for having made any contribution to the team. This criteria also one of the first in deciding who receives a Super Bowl ring (although teams may decide to purchase more beyond the 53-man roster, if needed or desired.) Additionally, suspensions were not included in the case of Fabian Washington and Derrick Martin. Practice squad players were [i]not[/i] included, as the majority (if not all of them) did not play in the regular season or playoffs. Preseason tryout players were not included as well, as many of those players DID NOT remain on the roster beyond the preseason.

Note that the total in red is for DEFENSIVE starters, as this is a discussion about DEFENSE. If you factor in OFFENSIVE starters, then the 2009 team [i]is[/i] healthier than the 2008 team. However, the debate has largely been that the 2009 DEFENSE was [i]not[/i] healthier than the 2008 DEFENSE. The findings prove berad's data to be true.

SOURCES:
[url="http://www.pro-football-reference.com/"]Pro-Football-Reference.com[/url]
[url="http://www.nfl.com/"]NFL.com[/url]
[url="http://www.baltimoreravens.com/"]BaltimoreRavens.com[/url]

[flynismo]

[quote name='Ed_Reed20' date='11 April 2010 - 11:44 PM' timestamp='1271043886' post='389678']
The argument has gone in circles simply because of one member's outright refusal to acknowledge or accept a lot of his views are wrong or based entirely in opinion.
[/quote]


I love how said member refuses to acknowledge, much less formulate a retort, the fact that our conservative, vanilla bubbleheaded coach took our defense to a #3 ranking.

Wonder why that could be? <evil laughter>

[flynismo]

[quote name='theFRANCHISE' date='12 April 2010 - 12:06 AM' timestamp='1271045202' post='389698']
For those who have disabled images, here's a link to the JPEG file: [url="http://i44.tinypic.com/2je5req.jpg"]LINK[/url]

Criteria: All players on the 2008 or 2009 season that played 4 games or more; 4 games is the minimum criteria that the NFL sets for having made any contribution to the team. This criteria also one of the first in deciding who receives a Super Bowl ring (although teams may decide to purchase more beyond the 53-man roster, if needed or desired.) Additionally, suspensions were not included in the case of Fabian Washington and Derrick Martin. Practice squad players were [i]not[/i] included, as the majority (if not all of them) did not play in the regular season or playoffs. Preseason tryout players were not included as well, as many of those players DID NOT remain on the roster beyond the preseason.

Note that the total in red is for DEFENSIVE starters, as this is a discussion about DEFENSE. If you factor in OFFENSIVE starters, then the 2009 team [i]is[/i] healthier than the 2008 team. However, the debate has largely been that the 2009 DEFENSE was [i]not[/i] healthier than the 2008 DEFENSE. The findings prove berad's data to be true.
[/quote]


In addition to that, what that list does not factor in is that we no longer had Cmac, Scott or Leohnard on our team any longer, which are three significant players to lose. Mattison got equivalent results with LESS weapons at his disposal...
That Matty sure has no clue, eh?? Just another little tidbit that I'm sure will be ignored for the sake of keeping this laughable debate alive.

[flynismo]

I do want to say this..
I hope that all you guys who were busting Mattison's balls since the day he was named Ryan's replacement feel appropriately guilty for the rash criticism. Reading those comments sure look silly in hindsight..

[beasy2487]

[quote name='flynismo' date='12 April 2010 - 12:20 AM' timestamp='1271046052' post='389714']
I do want to say this..
I hope that all you guys who were busting Mattison's balls since the day he was named Ryan's replacement feel appropriately guilty for the rash criticism. Reading those comments sure look silly in hindsight..
[/quote]

I agree with all your points so far except this one; only because this is Baltimore and the one thing we have a right to is pride in our defense.

We did see a tremendous drop-off early in the season from our 2008 defensive performance and, as fans, naturally pointed to the major change that we saw as a possible reason for the lackluster results. Then, as [b]great[/b] coaches do, Mattison proved us wrong. I love that he did and I'm excited to see the Ravens defense of the future really start to come together when next season hits. I think it's gona bring smiles to all our faces... except soon-to-be Captain Crow-eater who shall remain nameless.

[flynismo]

[quote name='beasy2487' date='12 April 2010 - 12:50 AM' timestamp='1271047804' post='389726']
I agree with all your points so far except this one; only because this is Baltimore and the one thing we have a right to is pride in our defense.

We did see a tremendous drop-off early in the season from our 2008 defensive performance and, as fans, naturally pointed to the major change that we saw as a possible reason for the lackluster results. Then, as [b]great[/b] coaches do, Mattison proved us wrong. I love that he did and I'm excited to see the Ravens defense of the future really start to come together when next season hits. I think it's gona bring smiles to all our faces... except soon-to-be Captain Crow-eater who shall remain nameless.
[/quote]


As anyone who has talked to me about Clayton, boller or chris Chester can tell you, I have no problem getting on a guy's case when he doesn't pull his weight; and above all else I definitely understand what the expectations are regarding our D.

but we literally had people calling for his head after the SD game, two weeks into the season! And dont even get me started on the game threads...but anyway, those are the people I was refering to. It's part of being a fan to voice our displeasure, but some people were just overboard..

[rastaman831226]

[quote name='theFRANCHISE' date='12 April 2010 - 12:06 AM' timestamp='1271045202' post='389698']
[img]http://i44.tinypic.com/2je5req.jpg[/img]
For those who have disabled images, here's a link to the JPEG file: [url="http://i44.tinypic.com/2je5req.jpg"]LINK[/url]

Criteria: All players on the 2008 or 2009 season that played 4 games or more; 4 games is the minimum criteria that the NFL sets for having made any contribution to the team. This criteria also one of the first in deciding who receives a Super Bowl ring (although teams may decide to purchase more beyond the 53-man roster, if needed or desired.) Additionally, suspensions were not included in the case of Fabian Washington and Derrick Martin. Practice squad players were [i]not[/i] included, as the majority (if not all of them) did not play in the regular season or playoffs. Preseason tryout players were not included as well, as many of those players DID NOT remain on the roster beyond the preseason.

Note that the total in red is for DEFENSIVE starters, as this is a discussion about DEFENSE. If you factor in OFFENSIVE starters, then the 2009 team [i]is[/i] healthier than the 2008 team. However, the debate has largely been that the 2009 DEFENSE was [i]not[/i] healthier than the 2008 DEFENSE. The findings prove berad's data to be true.

SOURCES:
[url="http://www.pro-football-reference.com/"]Pro-Football-Reference.com[/url]
[url="http://www.nfl.com/"]NFL.com[/url]
[url="http://www.baltimoreravens.com/"]BaltimoreRavens.com[/url]
[/quote]
Thank you Franchise. Great research. But as expected, fudged interpretation, fudged conclusion. Your research concludes the 2009 TEAM was healthier than the 2008 TEAM. Berad fudged the truth in his research and now you've clearly fudged the interpretation.. Credibility was at stake here. I'm disappointed you've fallen short.

[beasy2487]

[quote name='rastaman831226' date='12 April 2010 - 10:11 AM' timestamp='1271081515' post='389789']
Thank you Franchise. Great research. But as expected, fudged interpretation, fudged conclusion. [b]Your research concludes the 2009 TEAM was healthier than the 2008 TEAM. Berad fudged the truth in his research and now you've clearly fudged the interpretation[/b].. Credibility was at stake here. I'm disappointed you've fallen short.
[/quote]

Hey rastaman831226, fact master, can you provide me with your data, an interpretation, a conclusion, and a link supporting that information? In all your posts I'm yet to find anything other than opinion... enlighten me please. Otherwise... you've got some fudge on your face buddy.

Here are a few specific claims you've made that it would be wonderful if you'd verify:

80% of the time the winner of TOP wins games.

75% of the Ravens plays are from a base 3-4.

In 2008 the Ravens defense finished a 'strong' 2nd whereas the 2009 D finished a 'weak' 3rd.
(2 part question, what exactly is the distinction between a "weak" 3 and a "strong" 2, and what statistics support these judgments?)

If what you say is true, and if, as you say, all this information is readily available, link.

Berad and Franchise stepped up, your turn. [b]Credibility is at stake here[/b], don't disappoint.

Edit: I will also not accept "common knowledge" as a response. If it's common knowledge, a link should be even easier to find. Thanks pal.

[Ed_Reed20]

[quote name='beasy2487' date='12 April 2010 - 10:23 AM' timestamp='1271082209' post='389792']
Hey rastaman831226, fact master, can you provide me with your data, an interpretation, a conclusion, and a link supporting that information? In all your posts I'm yet to find anything other than opinion... enlighten me please. Otherwise... you've got some fudge on your face buddy.

[b]Here are a few specific claims you've made that it would be wonderful if you'd verify:

80% of the time the winner of TOP wins games.

75% of the Ravens plays are from a base 3-4.

In 2008 the Ravens defense finished a 'strong' 2nd whereas the 2009 D finished a 'weak' 3rd.
(2 part question, what exactly is the distinction between a "weak" 3 and a "strong" 2, and what statistics support these judgments?)[/b]

If what you say is true, and if, as you say, all this information is readily available, link.

Berad and Franchise stepped up, your turn. [b]Credibility is at stake here[/b], don't disappoint.

Edit: I will also not accept "common knowledge" as a response. If it's common knowledge, a link should be even easier to find. Thanks pal.
[/quote]

Here are a few other claims he's made with nothing to back them up:

- The 2009 D was just as talented as previous Ravens defenses

- Rex took a "decent" bunch of players and molded them into the #1 D in the league.

- Mattison is in over his head.

[rastaman831226]

[quote name='rastaman831226' date='11 April 2010 - 07:00 PM' timestamp='1271026809' post='389599']
Ed just reminded me of two more things that cannot be refuted:
( I ) 2009 team was healthier than 2008 team yet underperformed
( J ) Ravens did not play the Colts every game of the 2009 season.
[/quote]
Added to the kist:
( K. ) 2008 team missed more games than 2009 team by a significant margin 184 to 163.

These are points that cannot be refuted. If you must resist, Feel free to make your case, you will fail Resistance is futile.

[MKdave]

This thread is a little disappointing. I thought it was going to be more of an X's and O's thread, as opposed to a 12 page debate which could have been summed up in half a page about something that is easily researched and verified (the comparative health of the teams). How it stretched to 12 pages is beyond me.

[PuRock]

[quote name='MKdave' date='12 April 2010 - 12:32 PM' timestamp='1271089946' post='389848']
This thread is a little disappointing. I thought it was going to be more of an [b]X's and O's thread[/b], as opposed to a 12 page debate which could have been summed up in half a page about something that is easily researched and verified (the comparative health of the teams). How it stretched to 12 pages is beyond me.
[/quote]

Only you would want to talk about Kisses and Hugs in a football forum.

[MKdave]

[quote name='PuRock' date='12 April 2010 - 05:38 PM' timestamp='1271090290' post='389851']
Only you would want to talk about Kisses and Hugs in a football forum.
[/quote]

Lol. Nicely done. Missed you PuBear XOXO

[beasy2487]

[quote name='rastaman831226' date='12 April 2010 - 12:21 PM' timestamp='1271089283' post='389839']
Added to the kist:
( K. ) 2008 team missed more games than 2009 team by a significant margin 184 to 163.

These are points that cannot be refuted. If you must resist, Feel free to make your case, you will fail Resistance is futile.
[/quote]

Links?

Credibility = 0.

[FerrariFan87]

This thread is getting very close to being locked.... considering no one has any credibility left

[Ed_Reed20]

[quote name='FerrariFan87' date='12 April 2010 - 01:42 PM' timestamp='1271094175' post='389882']
This thread is getting very close to being locked.... considering no one has any credibility left
[/quote]

Doesn't Rasta have credibility for days?

[theFRANCHISE]

[quote name='Ed_Reed20' date='12 April 2010 - 01:52 PM' timestamp='1271094765' post='389890']
Doesn't Rasta have credibility for days?
[/quote]
I didn't even know I had credibility to lose. I guess I'm at negative credibility now.

[codizzle]

gotta love the offseason

[PuRock]

[quote name='beasy2487' date='12 April 2010 - 01:19 PM' timestamp='1271092776' post='389878']
Links?

Credibility = 0.
[/quote]

[quote name='FerrariFan87' date='12 April 2010 - 01:42 PM' timestamp='1271094175' post='389882']
This thread is getting very close to being locked.... considering no one has any credibility left
[/quote]

[quote name='Ed_Reed20' date='12 April 2010 - 01:52 PM' timestamp='1271094765' post='389890']
Doesn't Rasta have credibility for days?
[/quote]

[quote name='theFRANCHISE' date='12 April 2010 - 01:56 PM' timestamp='1271094967' post='389894']
I didn't even know I had credibility to lose. I guess I'm at negative credibility now.
[/quote]

I heard the only way you are going to get credibility in this joint, is if [i]<inappropriate> [/i]

Now, where's my shank?