[News] Eisenberg: 5 Takeaways From Ravens Schedule Release

[ludy51]

20 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Yeah I hope this is a joke, because no reasonable person that watches football thought we had a better team than the Steelers or Bengals overall last season.

And no, beating the Steelers twice doesn't mean we were a better team overall than them, especially when we pretty much couldn't beat anybody else.

How exactly do you say we prove who the better team is other than who wins when pitted against each other?

[rmcjacket23]

5 minutes ago, ludy51 said:

How exactly do you say we prove who the better team is other than who wins when pitted against each other?

That would be by overall record.... which is a much better representation of consistency and OVERALL team production, not just how they performed on a given day.

If you were to compare two teams with similar or identical records against each other, then yes, H2H would be relevant. Comparing a 10-11 team to a 5 win team by saying the 5 win team is better because they beat the 10-11 team makes no sense.

You do realize that inferior teams beat us on an annual basis right?

Saying the Ravens were better than the Steelers last season is like saying that the Eagles were better than the Ravens in 2012. Wow, they beat us, here's your pat on the back.

 

Edited April 18, 2016 by rmcjacket23

[ludy51]

Just now, rmcjacket23 said:

That would be by overall record.... which is a much better representation of consistency and OVERALL team production, not just how they performed on a given day.

If you were to compare two teams with similar or identical records against each other, then yes, H2H would be relevant. Comparing a 10-11 team to a 5 win team by saying the 5 win team is better because they beat the 10-11 team makes no sense.

You do realize that inferior teams beat us on an annual basis right?

Saying the Ravens were better than the Steelers last season is like saying that the Eagles were better than the Ravens in 2012. Wow, they beat us, here's your pat on the back.

 

They had two chances to take us down, one with our fourth string QB and the other at their own stadium. Overall record means nothing if you hand your hated rivel two of their five wins. If they were really better by 5-6 wins, than it should've been a cakewalk last year. But they failed, twice. 

 

And what do you mean "Inferior teams"? If we lost to them, they were the better team, (excluding Jaguars) Especially with the way last year went with all the injuries and such. No excuse for dropping a game to an inferior team

[rmcjacket23]

1 hour ago, ludy51 said:

They had two chances to take us down, one with our fourth string QB and the other at their own stadium. Overall record means nothing if you hand your hated rivel two of their five wins. If they were really better by 5-6 wins, than it should've been a cakewalk last year. But they failed, twice. 

 

And what do you mean "Inferior teams"? If we lost to them, they were the better team, (excluding Jaguars) Especially with the way last year went with all the injuries and such. No excuse for dropping a game to an inferior team

Well, they were better than us by 6 wins, because they won 6 more games than us. That's not a debatable subject matter, because its objective, not subjective.

Nobody cares if its a cakewalk or not. I assure you the Steelers don't, because they were playing January football and we weren't. That's all they care about. I'd gladly lose both games to the Steelers every year if we made the playoffs and they didn't, because that means my team had the better season. Beating the Steelers twice when your team isn't in contention is sweet, but it will never in a million years eclipse the feeling of being competitive in the playoffs.

If we lost to them, it means they were the better team THAT DAY. Inferior teams beat superior teams on a weekly basis in this league... nobody cares. Nobody even remembers.

Its the teams that play the best for 16 weeks that get rewarded, not the 5 win team that beats a 11 win team twice. The only thing they get rewarded with is watching the 11 win team continue to play longer.

Edited April 18, 2016 by MTRavensFan
insult removed

[ludy51]

4 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Well, they were better than us by 6 wins, because they won 6 more games than us. That's not a debatable subject matter, because its objective, not subjective.

Nobody cares if its a cakewalk or not. I assure you the Steelers don't, because they were playing January football and we weren't. That's all they care about. The rivalry pom pom waving stuff is great and cute and all, but I'd gladly lose both games to the Steelers every year if we made the playoffs and they didn't, because that means my team had the better season. Beating the Steelers twice when your team isn't in contention is sweet, but it will never in a million years eclipse the feeling of being competitive in the playoffs.

If we lost to them, it means they were the better team THAT DAY. Inferior teams beat superior teams on a weekly basis in this league... nobody cares. Nobody even remembers.

Its the teams that play the best for 16 weeks that get rewarded, not the 5 win team that beats a 11 win team twice. The only thing they get rewarded with is watching the 11 win team continue to play longer.

But if they were the better team to the point where it was a joke to even suggest otherwise, than it should've been easy.

[rmcjacket23]

Just now, ludy51 said:

But if they were the better team to the point where it was a joke to even suggest otherwise, than it should've been easy.

Its the NFL. Nothing is easy. Historically great teams struggle to beat poor teams every single season. This isn't the NFL vs High school teams.

The reason they were clearly the better team was because they beat good teams consistently and they won significantly more games than we did. 

We were better than them for probably 2 of about 17 weeks.  

[ludy51]

6 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Its the NFL. Nothing is easy. Historically great teams struggle to beat poor teams every single season. This isn't the NFL vs High school teams.

The reason they were clearly the better team was because they beat good teams consistently and they won significantly more games than we did. 

We were better than them for probably 2 of about 17 weeks.  

Where exactly did they beat good teams consistently?

[usmccharles]

2 minutes ago, ludy51 said:

Where exactly did they beat good teams consistently?

I don't think you have much of an argument here.  Sadly, Steelers were a better team last year, only way I could there being a argument would be if they made the playoffs and we didn't because of tie-breakers or something.  there were about 26 teams better than us....

[rmcjacket23]

1 minute ago, ludy51 said:

Where exactly did they beat good teams consistently?

Arizona, Cincinnati (twice), Denver. One home loss to a playoff team the entire season.

What's really going to kill your argument is the fact that you are comparing two teams who practically played identical schedules. So its not even a case of a significantly softer schedule.

[ludy51]

5 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Arizona, Cincinnati (twice), Denver. One home loss to a playoff team the entire season.

What's really going to kill your argument is the fact that you are comparing two teams who practically played identical schedules. So its not even a case of a significantly softer schedule.

Cincinnati is hardly a great team. Good yes, talented, but hardly great. Denver beat them later on. Arizona I will give you.

 

If the series went 1-1 this year I would give you this but it was 2-0

Edited April 18, 2016 by ludy51

[rmcjacket23]

Just now, ludy51 said:

Cincinnati is hardly a great team. Good yes, talented, but hardly great. Denver beat them later on. Arizona I will give you.

LOL, they won 12 games and won their division. That's something that the Ravens haven't done very often in their entire history.

Good vs. great is a useless and irrelevant argument. They won their division and we a credible threat in the playoffs.

This wasn't some 7 win Carolina team winning their division by default.

[ludy51]

Just now, rmcjacket23 said:

LOL, they won 12 games and won their division. That's something that the Ravens haven't done very often in their entire history.

Good vs. great is a useless and irrelevant argument. They won their division and we a credible threat in the playoffs.

This wasn't some 7 win Carolina team winning their division by default.

They went 10-6 LOL.

And considering they've had an 83 year history compared to our 20....yeah.

They were never a credible threat. 

[rmcjacket23]

Just now, ludy51 said:

They went 10-6 LOL.

And considering they've had an 83 year history compared to our 20....yeah.

They were never a credible threat. 

I was referencing Cincinnati (since you said they were a good but not great team, which doesn't matter), not Pittsburgh.

And yes, they were a credible threat. No realistic fan thinks the Steelers had no shot of going to the SB. Very, very, very naive.

[cec327]

This is a good schedule compared to last year with the West Coast games. The NFL isn't Pop Warner--all teams are tough. The Ravens W's & L's will be determined, among other things, by injuries as in the past--same for their opponents. Want to be a champ? Go beat the other guy , whoever and where ever you play. End of story. Looking forward to this season since this is the " wait until next time".

[ludy51]

Just now, rmcjacket23 said:

I was referencing Cincinnati (since you said they were a good but not great team, which doesn't matter), not Pittsburgh.

And yes, they were a credible threat. No realistic fan thinks the Steelers had no shot of going to the SB. Very, very, very naive.

Really, after they barely squeeked by Cincy you still considered them to be credible with no Brown or Bell? Very very naive.

And yes, there is a gap between good and great

Undefeated Dolphins:Great

2013-2014 Ravens:good

[rmcjacket23]

1 minute ago, ludy51 said:

Really, after they barely squeeked by Cincy you still considered them to be credible with no Brown or Bell? Very very naive.

And yes, there is a gap between good and great

Undefeated Dolphins:Great

2013-2014 Ravens:good

1. I have no idea where the word "great' even came into play... I didn't use it. Makes no sense why its in this conversation. Not helping yourself there.

2. After they lost Brown IN THE PLAYOFFS? No, I didn't. Going into the playoffs? Of course I did. I certainly wasn't alone. And barley squeaking by a team that won 12 games and won their division ON THE ROAD in the playoffs isn't a knock... its almost like you think playoff games are routinely blow outs or something.

While I did write off the Steelers after the Brown injury, that was also probably premature on my part, considering they led the World Champs in their building for about 3rd quarters or more.

In your world, Denver shown have blown them out of that game.

[ludy51]

7 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

1. I have no idea where the word "great' even came into play... I didn't use it. Makes no sense why its in this conversation. Not helping yourself there.

2. After they lost Brown IN THE PLAYOFFS? No, I didn't. Going into the playoffs? Of course I did. I certainly wasn't alone. And barley squeaking by a team that won 12 games and won their division ON THE ROAD in the playoffs isn't a knock... its almost like you think playoff games are routinely blow outs or something.

While I did write off the Steelers after the Brown injury, that was also probably premature on my part, considering they led the World Champs in their building for about 3rd quarters or more.

In your world, Denver shown have blown them out of that game.

1. You might's well've, the way you were framing it.

 

2. They beat the Bengals in the playoffs. That doesn't count. And whether you get blown out or not doesn't matter a loss is a loss. It's great to lead but leading for 59:59 of a game doesn't matter if you give it up at the last 00:01

[rmcjacket23]

8 minutes ago, ludy51 said:

1. You might's well've, the way you were framing it.

 

2. They beat the Bengals in the playoffs. That doesn't count. And whether you get blown out or not doesn't matter a loss is a loss. It's great to lead but leading for 59:59 of a game doesn't matter if you give it up at the last 00:01

They also beat the Bengals in the regular season as well.

I'd strongly encourage you to remember your little "a loss is a loss" notion when we reference the Baltimore Ravens, who lost 11 times last season. Remember, doesn't matter if it was by an inch or a mile.

[ludy51]

3 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

They also beat the Bengals in the regular season as well.

I'd strongly encourage you to remember your little "a loss is a loss" notion when we reference the Baltimore Ravens, who lost 11 times last season. Remember, doesn't matter if it was by an inch or a mile.

Really only lost 9. Two were bogus. Still a 7-9 record but only 1 away from .500

[rmcjacket23]

21 minutes ago, ludy51 said:

Really only lost 9. Two were bogus. Still a 7-9 record but only 1 away from .500

Yeah, they weren't bogus. The whole notion of us losing to the Raiders because of the refs was debunked long ago. 

160 plays in a game. Expecting the refs to be perfect is as laughable as expecting the players to be perfect.

Or you could just not grab the face mask...

 

[ludy51]

3 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Yeah, they weren't bogus. The whole notion of us losing to the Raiders because of the refs was debunked long ago. 

160 plays in a game. Expecting the refs to be perfect is as laughable as expecting the players to be perfect.

Or you could just not grab the face mask...

 

When did I bring up the raiders? 

[rmcjacket23]

Just now, ludy51 said:

When did I bring up the raiders? 

Is there any other possible option for which of the two games you suggested were bogus losses?

 

[ludy51]

Just now, rmcjacket23 said:

Is there any other possible option for which of the two games you suggested were bogus losses?

 

Jax and Miami

[rmcjacket23]

Just now, ludy51 said:

Jax and Miami

LOL seriously? Miami was a bogus loss?

If by bogus you mean we played like hot garbage the entire day and should have lost by 40 to a better team, then I guess that's bogus.

This is a joke right? I mean there's no way a rational person thinks officials cost us the Miami game. 

[ludy51]

Just now, rmcjacket23 said:

LOL seriously? Miami was a bogus loss?

If by bogus you mean we played like hot garbage the entire day and should have lost by 40 to a better team, then I guess that's bogus.

This is a joke right? I mean there's no way a rational person thinks officials cost us the Miami game. 

Daniel Browns TD. Would've won by 5

[rmcjacket23]

1 minute ago, ludy51 said:

Daniel Browns TD. Would've won by 5

Except it wasn't a TD. What, you seriously think that a fully extended arm that creates tons of space in a league that spent the entire offseason emphasizing that they were going to make that call wouldn't make that call?

I mean at least the Jacksonville argument has some objective merit (though not particularly great merit). This is just head on pillow stuff.

[ludy51]

Just now, rmcjacket23 said:

Except it wasn't a TD. What, you seriously think that a fully extended arm that creates tons of space in a league that spent the entire offseason emphasizing that they were going to make that call wouldn't make that call?

I mean at least the Jacksonville argument has some objective merit (though not particularly great merit). This is just head on pillow stuff.

Huh? You do realize that if the player with the ball gets into the end zone, that's a TD right? This is basic stuff. The arm didn't even touch the defender. He flopped and the officials bought it.

[rmcjacket23]

Just now, ludy51 said:

Huh? You do realize that if the player with the ball gets into the end zone, that's a TD right? This is basic stuff. The arm didn't even touch the defender. He flopped and the officials bought it.

And you do realize that if the player with the ball gets into the end zone and the ref calls a penalty on him before that that it's not a TD right?

And the funniest part for me... it was in the 1st quarter. I suppose next you'll tell me that every play that occurred after that happens in the exact same fashion if there's no penalty and he scores a TD right?

I suppose Miami wouldn't have done a single thing differently the whole game right? Neither would the Ravens right? A first quarter TD has no impact on what other teams might do later in the game?

Can you at least try a little harder with the subjective opinions?

[ludy51]

Just now, rmcjacket23 said:

And you do realize that if the player with the ball gets into the end zone and the ref calls a penalty on him before that that it's not a TD right?

And the funniest part for me... it was in the 1st quarter. I suppose next you'll tell me that every play that occurred after that happens in the exact same fashion if there's no penalty and he scores a TD right?

I suppose Miami wouldn't have done a single thing differently the whole game right? Neither would the Ravens right? A first quarter TD has no impact on what other teams might do later in the game?

Can you at least try a little harder with the subjective opinions?

Considering they were trying to score the whole game and it took a ridicules catch and a Schaub pick 6 AND a missed JT field goal for them to not only win, but reach double digits to win by 2, than yes, I don't care what Q it was. Maybe you need to rewatch the game.

And I think you forgot the point I was making, it was an officials blunder that made the biggest impact. You proved that with your first point so thanks I guess. 

 

 

[rmcjacket23]

6 minutes ago, ludy51 said:

Considering they were trying to score the whole game and it took a ridicules catch and a Schaub pick 6 AND a missed JT field goal for them to not only win, but reach double digits to win by 2, than yes, I don't care what Q it was. Maybe you need to rewatch the game.

And I think you forgot the point I was making, it was an officials blunder that made the biggest impact. You proved that with your first point so thanks I guess. 

 

 

Its a ludicrous line of thinking to think that if you change one play in a game that every single play that happens after it is completely unaltered. I honestly don't even see how any reasonable human being can think that's logical, but I can't help that. We lost because Miami outplayed us on the football field... people that watched the game came to the exact same conclusion.

Ironically, the Ravens were also trying all game to score, and botched that many, many times. So the fact that we weren't able to win because we were so inept offensively that we couldn't overcome a 1st quarter non-TD kind of stamps the whole argument right there. 

The Jacksonville game is the only game where that argument even mildly holds up, just because the particular play was one of the last plays, so the events after it are much more difficult to alter, since there aren't so many. Obviously, one could use the exact same logic against, such as the fact that Dumervil could have easily just not grabbed the face mask, and we probably win.

As I said earlier, just way more convenient for fans to blame refs for screwing up than it is to blame players for screwing up, even though the latter happens exponentially more often. In this case, ironically, both happened on the exact same play.

 

Edited April 18, 2016 by rmcjacket23