Over or Underachievers??

[JEEPercreepermd]

I read an article on BR earlier which made me think. Most of us are of the assumption that the Ravens we underachievers this season. That they didn't play to the level that they are capable of given the current makeup of the roster, opponents ect.. 

 

But what if 8-8 was actually better than they should have done? 

 I mean, they lost to the JETS for petes sake! They almost blew one against the Jags and Eagles..then there was the time when they were down 20-2 to the Browns before winning by less than a touchdown. 

If they those three... which COULD have happened, it's a 5-11 record. 

The flip side is that you could argue

that the losses to NYJ, NYG, Skins, Raiders, and the second steelere game should have been wins. By that measure, it's an 11-5 record. 

I cant really speak to the week 17 loss vs Cindy because the team just didn't even attempt to win that game, they were done. Had they beaten Pittsburgh and with the division on the line, they may have forth at least an effort. 

That said, what do you think? Is this a below average team who eeked out a few more wins than it should have? Or is it a slightly above average team that just is a fe peices here and there from contending again? 

 

My my opinion is that they have regress

to being just another team at this point. They aren't bad...really the only team that dominated them was the Patriots (regardless of how close the score was) but they aren't good either. The Ravens of 08-12 would have lost one..maybe two of those "should have won games"  

Are they a few players away talent wise? Partially. The results may have been different had the current players executed as well. 

 

 

[JoeyFlex5]

Id say overachievers considering our qb was coming off a torn acl and his OL played horrible for most of the year, and then we changed coordinators. That's a recipe for disaster and I believe if the OL was playing well all year we would be in the playoffs.

[rossihunter2]

teams that repeatedly play close games are inherently average because in close games the probability of winning approaches 50% no matter where you started - and inherently average teams tend towards 8-8 records so I'd say that the old adage that you are what your record says you are really does apply to the ravens this year - yes we played well but any team that plays that many close games is going to be an average team with one or two outliers - this year the outlier is the lions and they pretty much regressed to the mean by losing essentially 4 straight to finish the season (they essentially went 9-8)

the difference this year is that the overall quality of teams seemed average at best - and so there were a lot of murky average teams lurking around the playoffs (and some of them made it in) which gives the impression that we were closer than we actually were to being a competitive team - in actuality we did play better in stretches than our record suggests but are way too inconsistent

as far as underachieving/overachieving i think taking into account the close games this year is almost unnecessary - we are a team in the middle of a restock with a qb who tore his acl, the original starting rb not even on the team, and with the no 1 receiver on the team about to retire - and all of this coming off a season with a 5-11 record

we won 3 more games than we did last year with major (unexpected?) contributions from the rookie class which suggests overachieving to me - now i still wasnt satisfied with that as a result of the season because i want the ravens in the playoffs every year but if the progress we made this season is anything to go by and it continues into next season then im happy to wait and even suggest that we overachieved this season (in isolation)

[LosT_in_TranSlatioN]

We've achieved anything??

[allblackraven]

Neither, I reckon. Mediocre, just as our record shows.

[rmcjacket23]

All a matter of perspective and expectations.

I would say that, typically, a team that wins 5 games would be happy to win 8 games the next season, because its pretty hard to go from being a 5 win team to being a 10-12 win team in a single offseason.

However, that's mostly based on preseason expectations. Based on what we saw on the field throughout the year, we definitely left something to be desired. Too many games that we lost where we had a great opportunity to win, especially against teams that I didn't feel were as good as us (namely Redskins and Jets).

In the end, we beat some other average to below average teams, but struggled against the better teams in the league. 

So if you take the season in a vacuum compared to last season, some significant improvements in some much needed improvement areas, and obviously a better record. But we could have been better, given our personnel. We were never SB level, but in a down year for the AFC, we could have won a playoff game or maybe two.

[The Raven]

I'd say nonachievers. 

Joking aside, I think we were underachievers, and I say that because I think we have a lot of players -- Judon, ZDS, Jernigan, Campanaro, etc -- who have unfulfilled potential and just failed to meet expectations.

[Militant X 1]

Definitely underachievers in my view.  

[redrum52]

5 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

All a matter of perspective and expectations.

I would say that, typically, a team that wins 5 games would be happy to win 8 games the next season, because its pretty hard to go from being a 5 win team to being a 10-12 win team in a single offseason.

However, that's mostly based on preseason expectations. Based on what we saw on the field throughout the year, we definitely left something to be desired. Too many games that we lost where we had a great opportunity to win, especially against teams that I didn't feel were as good as us (namely Redskins and Jets).

In the end, we beat some other average to below average teams, but struggled against the better teams in the league. 

So if you take the season in a vacuum compared to last season, some significant improvements in some much needed improvement areas, and obviously a better record. But we could have been better, given our personnel. We were never SB level, but in a down year for the AFC, we could have won a playoff game or maybe two.

This is one of the few times I think I've seen you give your actual opinion on something.

 

I think we under achieved.  Bad coaching, bad play and execution at some of the worst times.  I think this team had the tealent to make playoffs, but what do I know.

Edited January 10 by redrum52

[omar586]

coaches are horrible.

[Swift 1]

IMO At least two mediocre teams made the playoffs. We could of made it three.

[rmcjacket23]

1 hour ago, redrum52 said:

This is one of the few times I think I've seen you give your actual opinion on something.

 

I think we under achieved.  Bad coaching, bad play and execution at some of the worst times.  I think this team had the tealent to make playoffs, but what do I know.

Sure, I think we had a playoff caliber team. I just don't think it was a competitive playoff type team. I think we could have beaten Miami easily, and I think we would have given KC a game but ultimately lost.

If the Raiders had a healthy Derek Carr, I think we were maybe the 5th or 6th best team in the AFC. I think New England, Oakland and KC are clearly more talented and better than us, and I think we were only slightly behind a team like Pittsburgh, due to the talent deficit on offense. I think we were on par with a team like Denver... a really poor offense with a very good defense.

In that sense, I guess we underachieved. But at the end of the day, I don't really think much of teams that make the playoffs that I feel have no shot of really going anywhere. To me, teams like Houston, Detroit and Miami are just kind of there. They're happy to be there, but they never really had any prayer of winning more than a game, and clearly aren't on par with the better teams in their conferences. 

If I'm getting into the playoffs, it would nice to think that my team has at least somewhat of a shot of going to a Title game or the SB. If we made it, I wouldn't have felt like we did.

[nextgen_RavensFan]

I agree that we have a play-off caliber team that just lost focus and after thinking about it. A coach that at first glance made but mistakes but could be seen as just a passion to win. I think it could also be said that with a group as young as a lot of our player are on the Defense focus is hard to maintain and the need to make the big play had them over shoot some plays.

So i would say under achievers because if they can maintain focus and drop off on penalties they could be a true Solid Defense. The Offense is what it has always been, which is a mystery but i know they can play so much better.

[RayRayRaven]

the team we saw is the team we are.  we are a team whose kicker is clearly the best player. we lack superstars and playmakers. we have a few reliable downside of career former stars.  we have some decent players but nothing to say 'we nailed that draft". we lack depth and we lack character and we lack motivators. harball aint a motivator his tee shirts are trite we also have an owner that is not really a football mind

Edited January 11 by RayRayRaven

[rossihunter2]

8 minutes ago, RayRayRaven said:

the team we saw is the team we are.  we are a team whose kicker is clearly the best player. we lack superstars and playmakers. we have a few reliable downside of career former stars.  we have some decent players but nothing to say 'we nailed that draft". we lack depth and we lack character and we lack motivators. harball aint a motivator his tee shirts are trite we also have an owner that is not really a football mind

So you're saying 8-8 is overachieving then...

and by the way, if getting a franchise left tackle, a starting cornerback, a starting running back, a starting left guard, a rotational defensive tackle, an effective rotational pass rusher and a special Tralee who can score touchdowns (and this is all just year 1) - if getting all those pieces in 1 draft isn't "nailing it" then I don't know what is

[RayRayRaven]

2 minutes ago, rossihunter2 said:

So you're saying 8-8 is overachieving then...

and by the way, if getting a franchise left tackle, a starting cornerback, a starting running back, a starting left guard, a rotational defensive tackle, an effective rotational pass rusher and a special Tralee who can score touchdowns (and this is all just year 1) - if getting all those pieces in 1 draft isn't "nailing it" then I don't know what is

if I ever get in big big trouble or do something really really stupid, I definitely want you on my side

[January J]

On 1/9/2017 at 3:10 PM, The Raven said:

I'd say nonachievers. 

Joking aside, I think we were underachievers, and I say that because I think we have a lot of players -- Judon, ZDS, Jernigan, Campanaro, etc -- who have unfulfilled potential and just failed to meet expectations.

Not sure why Judons on that list. ZDS and Shareece wright had to be the biggest disappointments.

[The Raven]

57 minutes ago, January J said:

Not sure why Judons on that list. ZDS and Shareece wright had to be the biggest disappointments.

I guess I included him just because he hadn't yet reached his potential and had streaky play. Unfair to say he didn't meet expectations.

[Sherly_Tebow]

I expected us to make the playoffs, and despite finishing 8-8, the Ravens were a few plays from making it in. Mosleys fumble and ABs reach both come to mind. There's a lot of reasons that they came up short, but there's a lot to take from this season. The Ravens are a playoff caliber team, and a few quality additions can make them serious contenders. They aren't at that point now, but they very well could be next season. I know I won't count them out, that's for sure.

[Steve0x]

On January 9, 2017 at 7:17 PM, omar586 said:

coaches are horrible.

Yes they are! 

[frozen joe flacco fan]

On ‎1‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 6:54 PM, redrum52 said:

This is one of the few times I think I've seen you give your actual opinion on something.

 

I think we under achieved.  Bad coaching, bad play and execution at some of the worst times.  I think this team had the tealent to make playoffs, but what do I know.

And this is one of the few times I agree with you on something. We were definitely under achievers. There's no doubt about it!

[RavensDieHard21]

On January 11, 2017 at 6:43 PM, rossihunter2 said:

So you're saying 8-8 is overachieving then...

and by the way, if getting a franchise left tackle, a starting cornerback, a starting running back, a starting left guard, a rotational defensive tackle, an effective rotational pass rusher and a special Tralee who can score touchdowns (and this is all just year 1) - if getting all those pieces in 1 draft isn't "nailing it" then I don't know what is

I think the 2016 draft was a really good one for us but KC didn't look spectacular at Boise State and he still doesn't now. I like that we got extra picks and all but Ozzie passed on a top of the round pick for a guy that played decent ball in the pac 12. Coming out he had a motor and was a high character guy, but he had no legit pass rushing technique or qualities. 

I hope I am wrong but we sometimes need to quit overlooking talent in our own back yard--West, Sean Davis, Diggs, and Ngakoue