Rank Your Nfl Teams!

[Ranger275]

I'm pretty pumped about my purple teams wrecking the NFL this year.

The Ravens are going to smash faces all the way to the Superbowl with physical defense, power running and a maturing and dangerous passing attack.

Minnesota is going to route the NFC behind Purple Jesus, "Lawd have MERCY" Percy Harvin, and a killer defense that will be even stronger against the run than last year's unit.

Yes, and when the superbowl arrives, I'll have blacked out from touching myself.

[Moiles]

[quote name='Ranger275' post='194406' date='May 22 2009, 02:35 AM']I'm pretty pumped about my purple teams wrecking the NFL this year.

The Ravens are going to smash faces all the way to the Superbowl with physical defense, power running and a maturing and dangerous passing attack.

Minnesota is going to route the NFC behind Purple Jesus, "Lawd have MERCY" Percy Harvin, and a killer defense that will be even stronger against the run than last year's unit.

Yes, and when the superbowl arrives, I'll have blacked out from touching myself.[/quote]


I SECOND THAT

[Alexir]

Sorry, Ray Lewis is going to injure Adrian Peterson...Chi Town will win the division

[Ranger275]

[quote name='Alexir' post='194442' date='May 22 2009, 07:50 PM']Sorry, Ray Lewis is going to injure Adrian Peterson...Chi Town will win the division[/quote]

Chi Town will be busy powdering Cutler's hiney and trying to keep him from turf diaper rash after Jared Allen peels the back of his head off of the dome floor.

I just hope we snuff the Steelers. I have a feeling they're going to struggle this year for some reason, and I suspect that our defense is going to be more vicious, particularly against the pass.

[McBurks]

[quote name='Mahatma_Sloth' post='194158' date='May 20 2009, 10:01 PM']I think the Titans are gonna pulla Browns and suck next year[/quote]

Yeah,they are aging on defense and they have only a good running attack.Unless Kenny Britt explodes this year I don't expect them to win the divison.

[Strangebru]

[color="#800080"][size=7][font="Arial Black"]I want the Ravens ranked somewhere around #14.[/font][/size][/color]

Remember the last time they were being picked as the team to go to the Super Bowl after their 13-3 2006 season? Where did they finish the 2007 season?

Keep the Ravens ranked in the middle somewhere and let them prove they deserve to be higher, like last year. I also hope Mike Preston makes an appearence on the Redskins Report and says the Ravens are going to be really bad again, like he did last year during training camp.

[WACKO4FLACC0]

[quote name='ravensfolife' post='194341' date='May 21 2009, 06:18 PM']we were cocky going into that game. We practice and called plays to prevent th pass, thinking they didnt have a big enough set of balls to try and run the ball at us.....our mistake[/quote]
ya okay im sure that was the only reason....If that was the reason we should hv stopped them after the first time they smashed the ball down our throat and scored

[WACKO4FLACC0]

[quote name='btully27' post='194257' date='May 21 2009, 03:08 PM']lost Plax....
n who would u take out in order to move them up[/quote]
plax isnt everything they get Osi back and they drafted Nicks to help fill the WR spot. Also did we forget what made the Giants not plax THE RUNNING GAME WITH A GOOD OFFENSIVE LINE

[InFlaccoWeTrust]

[quote name='MagicianCamille' post='194111' date='May 20 2009, 06:13 PM']Philly in the top 3 is a joke. Oh my God they got a rookie WR who was good in college - clearly they're on their way to glory.

We *crushed* the Eagles last year - no way are they better than us. And don't even begin to play the injury card because we were leading the league in injures I believe, next to Jacksonville.

1. Steelers. The Super Bowl champions should always be at the top of anyone's list, until a game is played that suggests otherwise.
2. Patriots. Tom Brady is a born and bred winner, and seeing how well that team performed without him scares me on how well they'll do with him this year.
3. Giants. Still a very solid team that only got better over the offseason.
4. Ravens. I can't think of any team besides the three above who can beat us.
5. Cardinals. With Larry Fitzgerald and a defense that improved greatly in the postseason, I think they'll be more competitive during the regular season this year.

Don't care to list anyone else.[/quote]

I couldn't agree more. When i saw him say philly should be in the top 3, i actually laughed out loud. Philly in the top 3 is absolutely absurd - both for all the reasons you mentioned, and they lost key players on defense too. I wouldn't even put them in the top 10-12.

[pick-ups]

[quote name='InFlaccoWeTrust' post='194780' date='May 24 2009, 08:05 AM']I couldn't agree more. When i saw him say philly should be in the top 3, i actually laughed out loud. Philly in the top 3 is absolutely absurd - both for all the reasons you mentioned, and they lost key players on defense too. I wouldn't even put them in the top 10-12.[/quote]
Who do you have in top three then?
The Steelers/Pats/Giants?
The Eagles embarrassed the Steelers(no TDs)and did the same to the Giants(twice)
Did the Ravens even beat either one of those teams?
The Eagles were embarrassed by the Ravens,but that was a team that was in a funk(for gods sake they tied the Bengals the week before).
Like I've said before...everyone has a right to their opinion.
Not like these rankings matter.


Outside of this MB,check around and see what others think and you'll see that you are in the minority.

[InFlaccoWeTrust]

[quote name='pick-ups' post='194783' date='May 24 2009, 11:41 AM']Who do you have in top three then?
The Steelers/Pats/Giants?
The Eagles embarrassed the Steelers(no TDs)and did the same to the Giants(twice)
Did the Ravens even beat either one of those teams?
The Eagles were embarrassed by the Ravens,but that was a team that was in a funk(for gods sake they tied the Bengals the week before).
Like I've said before...everyone has a right to their opinion.
Not like these rankings matter.


Outside of this MB,check around and see what others think and you'll see that you are in the minority.[/quote]


Wait, wait, wait. Did we forget to mention losing to the Deadskins, TWICE?
Are we talking about the team who didn't have a receiver that caught more than 3 touchdowns?
The same team that has lost it's best defensive player in Brian Dawkins?

And yeah, i'd put the steelers/pats/and giants in the top 3, followed by the ravens and cardinals, just like W4F said.
When it comes down to it, teams can have good games here and there, but the eagles are a mediocre at best team, or should i say were last year. And i think they'll be worse this year because of the lack of secondary dominance.

[pick-ups]

[quote name='InFlaccoWeTrust' post='194784' date='May 24 2009, 09:09 AM']Wait, wait, wait. Did we forget to mention losing to the Deadskins, TWICE?
Are we talking about the team who didn't have a receiver that caught more than 3 touchdowns?
The same team that has lost it's best defensive player in Brian Dawkins?

And yeah, i'd put the steelers/pats/and giants in the top 3, followed by the ravens and cardinals, just like W4F said.
When it comes down to it, teams can have good games here and there, but the eagles are a mediocre at best team, or should i say were last year. [b] And i think they'll be worse this year because of the lack of secondary dominance.[/b][/quote]
The Eagles lose Dawkins(going into his 14th season)
They acquire Sean Jones(6th season)who is one of 4 current players with 4 INTs or more in the last 4 years(Reed,Woodson,Samuel).

Who is the Ravens RB?
McGahee is all but done.
WR?
Mason is real old and Clayton has been a disappointment unlike DeSean Jackson who scored 4 total TDs and is only going to get better.

The Ravens were up 10-7 over the life less Eagles and thats not impressive considering how bad McNabb played in that 2 week span.
The Ravens have shown that they cannot beat the top-tier teams(unlike the Eagles)who have completely shut down a team who went 3-0 against your Ravens and another in the NYG that completely ran over your Ravens defense.


The Eagles last year were not consistent and had their fair share of problems,but if you think their a middle of the pack team heading into this season then again,you are in the vast majority.

[CustomUserName]

Out of all teams, this is how I'd rank them

1. Philly- I know I'll take flak for this, but I think they have a good thing going. They beat the SB champs last year during the regular season, had a rough patch, and had a great end to the year. They solidified their O-line with Peters which should help their already explosive offense, and only makes a legitimate threat to any team by the name of Westbrook only scarier. McNabb gets a lot of ****, but still has the best TD:INT ratio of all QBs in NFL history, and last time he had a credible threat at WR, they made the Superbowl, and I think Maclin will give the team a more explosive offense. The defense may be suspect with losses of Lito and Dawkins, but with pick ups of Hobbs, Jones, and Macho, I don't know how anyone could be down on them.

2. SD- They may be an easy pick for the top 10, and maybe not realistically this high, but as a Ravens fan, I have to pick them. Rivers is a franchise QB, LT is LT, Gates is to notch, their offense is fine. Defensively is where they suffered last year, and Merriman is to SD what Ray is to Baltimore, so as a Ravens fan who has seen our defense without Ray, I understand what one player can mean to a defense. Combined with a soft division, yeah.

3. Indy- Regardless of the loss of I believe 60 years of coaching experience, future HoF wide out Harrison, and the fact they have trouble playing in January, Peyton manning is still in my opinion the best QB to ever play.

4. NE- I would rank them higher, but the 18-1 team lost key members of their defense including Samuels, Hobbs, Wilson, Randall (censored last name), and Harrison to their secondary alone. Brady still has to return from two ligament tears in his knee. In spite of all this, I couldn't let them fall out of the top five.

5. Ten- They are very physical on defense, great offense, should have beat Baltimore in the divisional round, beat Pitts in the regular season.

6. Pitts- Defending SB champs, but I think a lot of luck played into a good team winning the championship over great teams

7. NYG- losing Plax and the bad december run hurt them, I don't know if they'll be able to return to their Superbowl days, but they still have several no name players, and Osi returning.

8. Arizona- Still two very great wideouts, and Warner is still plays like he's forty.

9. Baltimore- A good team, and Oher should make them much more physical on offense. I don't doubt their defense despite losing Scott, Leonhard, and C-Mac.

10. Atlanta- Let's not kid ourselves, Ryan may have had a very soft season, but 2008 for the Falcons was a rebuilding year, and that's scary considering they went 11-5.

11. Carolina- I don't know why, I have a feeling.

12. Washington- That defense is scary, especially considering those corners (Hall, Smoot, and Rogers) may only have to cover receivers for about 4 seconds with a line like Orakpo and Haynesworth. However, that defense still can't hold up to the fact that beginning every year Washington is always the best team on paper.

13. Chicago- A credible franchise QB was what they needed to beat the Colts in 2006. But I think Cutler may have been too late to really put them in the upper echelon of teams.

14. Minnesota- Losing Birk will hurt the line, but Peterson won't care, that guy reminds me of Barry Sanders with his ability to make a defender miss a tackle, his power, and his break away speed. Then they have a defensive line that I would rank second to Baltimore. The phrase is games are won in the trenches applies directly to the Vikings.

15. Miami- Improving from 1-15 to 11-5 and winning the division can't be overlooked. Pat White will improve that Wildcat. However, Brady is returning, Baltimore proved the Wildcat can be broken, and I'm just not impressed

16. NYJ- I would rank them top 10, but I feel they just did the same thing Oakland, Washington, and Dallas try to do. Hire a bunch of big names (primarily on Defense), that just don't mesh. Sanchez is completely unproven, and (ironically coming from a Bmore fan) rookie QBs typically don't have much success.

17. NO- Brees is the only active 5,000 yard QB. He made chicken salad out of chicken **** wide outs. And he can hit a bullseye more accurately than a world class archer. Too bad that defense doesn't show up, and Bush isn't panning out.

18. Texans- Less than 7 years ago, they were an expansion team, and they have gotten better every year since. They impress me, Sabin is doing some work down south, but since they can't break 8-8, they can't be in the top 15.

19. Dallas- Igor Olshanksy aside, no notable pick ups. Losing TO will hurt (especially considering he's been the best WR over the last 3 years) and Romo chokes in december. Not to mention that rest of the division was better than or progressed passed the boy toys, I think 19 is a tad lenient.

20. Buffalo- Will they do better than 7-9? Not with Dick Jauron.

21. Cincy- They improved at the end of last year and had a great draft. They are in a tough division, but I think they could be a sleeper.

22. SF- I want to rank them higher, in part due to the "curse" that the team that loses the Superbowl fails to make the playoffs the next year. If this remains true, Arizona can't win the division, and SL and Seattle don't impress me. Superstition aside, Crabtree was still the best WR of the draft class, and Singletary really improved that team at the end of last year.

23. Oakland- Cable had a nice run at the end of last year, they have a nice three headed monster, and nice special teams. Davis however F'd up with DHB, because even if DHB is the best wide out of all time, he could have still been picked up by Oakland in the second round, let alone trading further back to get additional draft picks. This lack of judgment on Davis' part permeates through the team.

24. TB- They imploded at the end of the season, lost Gruden and Garcia, and I think Freeman is at best a 2nd round pick. But that could why I am at home and not an NFL coach.

25. Cleve- They imploded last year, but still have a nice core group of guys

KC
Jax
GB
SL
Det
Den
Sea

[lowrider]

[quote name='pick-ups' post='194792' date='May 24 2009, 01:15 PM']The Eagles lose Dawkins(going into his 14th season)
They acquire Sean Jones(6th season)who is one of 4 current players with 4 INTs or more in the last 4 years(Reed,Woodson,Samuel).

Who is the Ravens RB?
McGahee is all but done.
WR?
Mason is real old and Clayton has been a disappointment unlike DeSean Jackson who scored 4 total TDs and is only going to get better.

The Ravens were up 10-7 over the life less Eagles and thats not impressive considering how bad McNabb played in that 2 week span.
The Ravens have shown that they cannot beat the top-tier teams(unlike the Eagles)who have completely shut down a team who went 3-0 against your Ravens and another in the NYG that completely ran over your Ravens defense.


The Eagles last year were not consistent and had their fair share of problems,but if you think their a middle of the pack team heading into this season then again,you are in the vast majority.[/quote]
The ravens and eagles got better. But the difference between the ravens last year and the ravens this year is that the QB position and offensive line got better so we can send Heap for more passes. Now the Eagles offensive line got better with Peters but the Ravens offense is going to be a threat with Flacco maturing. He improved drastically last year towards the end of the year. With Flacco maturing our wide recievers are going to be better. Not saying they are going to be anything special but they are going to be good. And if our weakest position on our team is good then i'm not worried about the rest of the team.

Our secondary was the other weakest position last year and we added depth so we dont get burned at that positon like we did last year. Our secondary is fast and is going to be a big help to our defense. And the ravens defense is always great.

RB is our deepest position. Lets be realistic. McGahee isnt done. He is going to have good weeks and bad weeks but we have McClain and Rice and Peerman taking carries too when McGahee doesnt have the hot hand. McClain is a pro bowler. Rice has a nose for the yellow line when he was healthy and Peerman is solid.

Overall if the Ravens offense is in the top 15 or higher in the NFL our team is going to be dominant. With the top 3 defense every year and our offense clicking. Dont be surprised where the Ravens are going this year.

The Eagles are good, but they didnt improve as much as the Ravens did. The Eagles defense is still inconsisant, Westbrook is still a better reciever than running back, and losing Dawkins could really affect the Eagles. He was a big leader on that team. It would be like losing Ray for the Ravens. The eagles are going to be good. Top ten team all year but they arent better than the Ravens.

[pick-ups]

[quote name='lowrider' post='194796' date='May 24 2009, 11:03 AM']The ravens and eagles got better. But the difference between the ravens last year and the ravens this year is that the QB position and offensive line got better so we can send Heap for more passes. Now the Eagles offensive line got better with Peters but the Ravens offense is going to be a threat with Flacco maturing. He improved drastically last year towards the end of the year. With Flacco maturing our wide recievers are going to be better. Not saying they are going to be anything special but they are going to be good. And if our weakest position on our team is good then i'm not worried about the rest of the team.

Our secondary was the other weakest position last year and we added depth so we dont get burned at that positon like we did last year. Our secondary is fast and is going to be a big help to our defense. And the ravens defense is always great.

RB is our deepest position. Lets be realistic. McGahee isnt done. He is going to have good weeks and bad weeks but we have McClain and Rice and Peerman taking carries too when McGahee doesnt have the hot hand. McClain is a pro bowler. Rice has a nose for the yellow line when he was healthy and Peerman is solid.

Overall if the Ravens offense is in the top 15 or higher in the NFL our team is going to be dominant. With the top 3 defense every year and our offense clicking. Dont be surprised where the Ravens are going this year.

The Eagles are good, but they didnt improve as much as the Ravens did. The Eagles defense is still inconsisant, Westbrook is still a better reciever than running back, and losing Dawkins could really affect the Eagles. He was a big leader on that team. It would be like losing Ray for the Ravens. The eagles are going to be good. Top ten team all year but they arent better than the Ravens.[/quote]
First off Westbrook is better than anyone on the Ravens offense and Desean would easily start on the Ravens.
McNabb is better than Flacco and Flacco has to still become a proven player and finally the Eagles O-line is one of the best in the league.
The Cowboys #1 in sacks(gave up 1 sack in two meetings)
Eagles #2
Giants #3(gave up 0 sacks in three meetings)
The Ravens are good but,they are not going to scare anyone on offense.
The Eagles offense and weapons are w/o a doubt better than what the Ravens are fielding.

[InFlaccoWeTrust]

[quote name='pick-ups' post='194792' date='May 24 2009, 01:15 PM']The Eagles lose Dawkins(going into his 14th season)
They acquire Sean Jones(6th season)who is one of 4 current players with 4 INTs or more in the last 4 years(Reed,Woodson,Samuel).

Who is the Ravens RB?
McGahee is all but done.
WR?
Mason is real old and Clayton has been a disappointment unlike DeSean Jackson who scored 4 total TDs and is only going to get better.

The Ravens were up 10-7 over the life less Eagles and thats not impressive considering how bad McNabb played in that 2 week span.
The Ravens have shown that they cannot beat the top-tier teams(unlike the Eagles)who have completely shut down a team who went 3-0 against your Ravens and another in the NYG that completely ran over your Ravens defense.


The Eagles last year were not consistent and had their fair share of problems,but if you think their a middle of the pack team heading into this season then again,you are in the [b]vast majority[/b].[/quote]


whoa whoa, sean jones? are you serious? do you know anything about football? you're trying to say he can replace you're best defensive player? that's a joke.

Yeah, clayton is real old, and still an incredible hands receiver. You can't even talk about receivers because the eagles receiving core is mediocre at best. 3 touchdowns? westbrook is your best receiver, wideout, and probably quarterback. he's you're only hope.

Oh and thanks for saying i'm in the vast majority!

[InFlaccoWeTrust]

I'm not sure if we just have a lot of eagles fans on this site, or if we have some fans who just like both teams the ravens and eagles?
But this is ridiculous. [size=4]The eagles are not good.[/size] I think this is an absolute travesty.

The eagles, with their glimpse of greatness where they won two games in the playoffs, have now somehow went from a decent team during the season, to, by some peoples opinion "the best team". What?!?!?! You add a rookie WO and lose your best defensive player and you're better? Someone please show me the reasoning.

[darklight1216]

[quote name='pick-ups' post='194792' date='May 24 2009, 01:15 PM']The Eagles lose Dawkins(going into his 14th season)
They acquire Sean Jones(6th season)who is one of 4 current players with 4 INTs or more in the last 4 years(Reed,Woodson,Samuel).

Who is the Ravens RB?
McGahee is all but done.
WR?
Mason is real old and Clayton has been a disappointment unlike DeSean Jackson who scored 4 total TDs and is only going to get better.

The Ravens were up 10-7 over the life less Eagles and thats not impressive considering how bad McNabb played in that 2 week span.
[b]The Ravens have shown that they cannot beat the top-tier teams[/b](unlike the Eagles)who have completely shut down a team who went 3-0 against your Ravens and another in the NYG that completely ran over your Ravens defense.


The Eagles last year were not consistent and had their fair share of problems,but if you think their a middle of the pack team heading into this season then again,you are in the vast majority.[/quote]

So I guess the Eagles aren't top tier? Neither were the number one seeded, winningest team in the NFL, Titans?

You mentioned how the Ravens were only up by three points against the Eagles, but it's not how you start, (which was actually 10-0) it's how you finish (36-7). McNabb did not score a single touchdown nor did he even put his team in the position to score a field goal against the Ravens. I don't think we even need to discuss Kevin Kolb because we all know well that back up did---not nearly as well as the Ravens third string qb. You're right in saying that the Giants were able to shut down Baltimore's defense, but then they got destroyed by a team that the Ravens absolutely manhandled, so what does that really say about the Giants?
If we're going to talk about last year's record, we simply cannot neglect to mention that the Eagles did not beat a team which the Ravens beat twice (Bengals) nor could they stop a 9-7 team, who, until they had the good fortune to meet the Eagles in the playoffs, had not had a single Superbowl appearance, and they could not beat the worst team in their division, the Redskins, even once. To get to the playoffs, the Eagles had to beat perpetual December losers in the Cowboys and they had to count on other teams to lose

Personally, I think that the Eagles should have a good year next season, but we will just have to wait and see.

[ROH522155]

I agree with the eagles guy; Philly will be very good this year

[lowrider]

[quote name='pick-ups' post='194798' date='May 24 2009, 02:14 PM']First off Westbrook is better than anyone on the Ravens offense and Desean would easily start on the Ravens.
McNabb is better than Flacco and Flacco has to still become a proven player and finally the Eagles O-line is one of the best in the league.
The Cowboys #1 in sacks(gave up 1 sack in two meetings)
Eagles #2
Giants #3(gave up 0 sacks in three meetings)
The Ravens are good but,they are not going to scare anyone on offense.
The Eagles offense and weapons are w/o a doubt better than what the Ravens are fielding.[/quote]
If Westbrook is healthy then your right he is better all around player than everyone on the Ravens. But he isnt a better running back than McClain or McGahee when healthy. He is an average player when he runs the ball. Desean would start because the weakest position on the ravens is wide reciever. But if Desean starts for the Eagles and your saying he would start for the Ravens. That would make our reciever corp about even and that would mean your recievers arent that good. So what point are you trying to prove that he would start for the Ravens?

McNabb is better than Flacco for now. Flacco was proving himself at the end of year last year. He is going to improve and this year he is going to be good.

The Ravens offense has never scared anyone. Its their defense that scares teams (or in the Eagles case, Ed Reed returning 107 yard interceptions). But if the Ravens offense becomes good, then the Ravens are unstopable. I'll have to admit I looked up stats on the Eagles defense and they were just behind the Ravens in a lot of categories. But then why didnt their team do better in the regular season? Was it the offense? Because it wasnt their defense. But McNabb is better than Flacco how can that be? Consistancy is something that is very crucial to being a great player and being a great team. I'm not saying Flacco is great and McNabb is not. At least not yet, but I wouldnt crown an inconsistant team.

[pick-ups]

[quote name='darklight1216' post='194812' date='May 24 2009, 12:43 PM']So I guess the Eagles aren't top tier? Neither were the number one seeded, winningest team in the NFL, Titans?

You mentioned how the Ravens were only up by three points against the Eagles, but it's not how you start, (which was actually 10-0) it's how you finish (36-7). McNabb did not score a single touchdown nor did he even put his team in the position to score a field goal against the Ravens. I don't think we even need to discuss Kevin Kolb because we all know well that back up did---not nearly as well as the Ravens third string qb. You're right in saying that the Giants were able to shut down Baltimore's defense, but then they got destroyed by a team that the Ravens absolutely manhandled, so what does that really say about the Giants?
If we're going to talk about last year's record, we simply cannot neglect to mention that the Eagles did not beat a team which the Ravens beat twice (Bengals) nor could they stop a 9-7 team, who, until they had the good fortune to meet the Eagles in the playoffs, had not had a single Superbowl appearance, and they could not beat the worst team in their division, the Redskins, even once. To get to the playoffs, the Eagles had to beat perpetual December losers in the Cowboys and they had to count on other teams to lose

Personally, I think that the Eagles should have a good year next season, but we will just have to wait and see.[/quote]
Check again..it was 10-7 at the half and 12-7 in the 4th qtr.. and the Eagles lost to the Cards just as everyone else did in the playoffs except the Steelers and in all out honesty the Steelers got away with some calls in the SB.(the Cards were seconds away from doing something the Ravens couldn't do in three tries and the Giants and Eagles did rather easily.(beat the Steelers)
The Eagles blew the Cards out on Thanksgiving 48-20 and their defense(Eagles just ran out of gas in the NFCCG).
Yeah the Ravens eeked out a win against the Titans,but everyone knows that the Titans completely dominated that game and lost only because they kept turning the ball over in the red zone.(181 yds and 10:00 mins more TOP)

[pick-ups]

[quote name='lowrider' post='194821' date='May 24 2009, 02:08 PM']If Westbrook is healthy then your right he is better all around player than everyone on the Ravens. But he isnt a better running back than McClain or McGahee when healthy. He is an average player when he runs the ball. Desean would start because the weakest position on the ravens is wide reciever. But if Desean starts for the Eagles and your saying he would start for the Ravens. That would make our reciever corp about even and that would mean your recievers arent that good. So what point are you trying to prove that he would start for the Ravens?

McNabb is better than Flacco for now. Flacco was proving himself at the end of year last year. He is going to improve and this year he is going to be good.

The Ravens offense has never scared anyone. Its their defense that scares teams (or in the Eagles case, Ed Reed returning 107 yard interceptions). But if the Ravens offense becomes good, then the Ravens are unstopable. I'll have to admit I looked up stats on the Eagles defense and they were just behind the Ravens in a lot of categories. But then why didnt their team do better in the regular season? Was it the offense? Because it wasnt their defense. But McNabb is better than Flacco how can that be? Consistancy is something that is very crucial to being a great player and being a great team. I'm not saying Flacco is great and McNabb is not. At least not yet, but I wouldnt crown an inconsistant team.[/quote]
Westbrook and McGahhee aren't even in the same league and McGahee isn't half the player that Westbrook is.
Rice could be a nice player.
I would just as anyone else would take a Westbrook/McCoy backfield over the Ravens.

Flacco....lets see what this kid can do outside of 1 season.
I've seen QBs have good rookie or first years and never really duplicate or exceed them again.
Teams have a year of film on he and Ryan so lets see if they avoid the sophmore slump that so many have hit.
McNabbs one of the top 5 QBs in the league and has been for quite some time so lets not even mention Flacco with McNabb.

[pick-ups]

[quote name='InFlaccoWeTrust' post='194807' date='May 24 2009, 12:06 PM']I'm not sure if we just have a lot of eagles fans on this site, or if we have some fans who just like both teams the ravens and eagles?
But this is ridiculous. [b][size=4]The eagles are not good.[/size] [/b] I think this is an absolute travesty.

The eagles, with their glimpse of greatness where they won two games in the playoffs, have now somehow went from a decent team during the season, to, by some peoples opinion "the best team". What?!?!?! You add a rookie WO and lose your best defensive player and you're better? Someone please show me the reasoning.[/quote]
Why don't you ask the Steelers and Giants about that.(Eagles 3-1)
Two teams that are better and had their way with the Ravens.(Ravens 0-4)

[darklight1216]

[quote name='pick-ups' post='194822' date='May 24 2009, 05:29 PM']Check again..it was 10-7 at the half and 12-7 in the 4th qtr.. and the Eagles lost to the Cards just as everyone else did in the playoffs except the Steelers and in all out honesty the Steelers got away with some calls in the SB.(the Cards were seconds away from doing something the Ravens couldn't do in three tries and the Giants and Eagles did rather easily.(beat the Steelers)
The Eagles blew the Cards out on Thanksgiving 48-20 and their defense(Eagles just ran out of gas in the NFCCG).
Yeah the Ravens eeked out a win against the Titans,but everyone knows that the Titans completely dominated that game and lost only because they kept turning the ball over in the red zone.(181 yds and 10:00 mins more TOP)[/quote]
Check again... the Ravens scored first, and second and, as I said, ended with 36-7.
The Cardinals [i]were[/i] close to beating Pittsburgh, but you could say that the Ravens were seconds from beating the Steelers twice, but almost doesn't count. Good for the Giants and Eagles, they beat the Steelers; too bad Philly couldn't even deal with the Redskins (twice) or the team that lost to the Steelers.
It's nice that the Eagles beat the Cards in the regular season, but when all is said and done they lost to losers in the playoffs, and the Ravens lost to winners.(And really, if you think that the Eagles can be excused for "running out gas" then you'd have to say that the Ravens with their 18th straight game and second most injured team in the NFL deserve a bigger break)
As for the Titans: yeah, they lost because they screwed up the most and scored the least points. That's football for you. "Eeking out" that win was a lot more challenging than hoping for losses from other teams just to be able to enter the playoffs.

[pick-ups]

[quote name='darklight1216' post='194830' date='May 24 2009, 02:46 PM']Check again... the Ravens scored first, and second and, as I said, ended with 36-7.
You could say that the Ravens were seconds from beating the Steelers twice, but almost doesn't count. Good for the Giants and Eagles, they beat the Steelers; too bad Philly couldn't even deal with the Redskins.
It's nice that the Eagles beat the Cards in the regular season, but when all is said and done they lost to losers in the playoffs, but the Ravens lost to winners.(And really, if you think that the Eagles can be excused for "running out gas" then you'd have to say that the Ravens with their 18th straight game and second most injured team in the NFL deserve a bigger break)
As for the Titans: yeah, they lost because they screwed up the most and scored the least points. That's football for you. "Eeking out" that win was a lot more challenging than hoping for losses from other teams just to be able to enter the playoffs.[/quote]
We can go on an on and if you think that I'm just the only one that see's that the Eagles are seen as a better team than check around with objective articles and such and show me where the Ravens are thought of as better than the Eagles because I can show you many more that see the Eagles as the better team.
Who cares about the Redskins as they didn't even make the playoffs and the Eagles mashed the best team(Giants)in their division.
Can your Ravens say the same about the best team in their division.

Its not only what the Eagles and Giant did easily so much as it wasn't what your team couldn't do in three tries.
Like I said before,I'm not saying their world beaters,but they do have a tendency to play down to their level of competition.
But they have shown that they can destroy some of the best teams in the league as well.

[lowrider]

[quote name='pick-ups' post='194825' date='May 24 2009, 05:38 PM']Westbrook and McGahhee aren't even in the same league and McGahee isn't half the player that Westbrook is.
Rice could be a nice player.
I would just as anyone else would take a Westbrook/McCoy backfield over the Ravens.

Flacco....lets see what this kid can do outside of 1 season.
I've seen QBs have good rookie or first years and never really duplicate or exceed them again.
Teams have a year of film on he and Ryan so lets see if they avoid the sophmore slump that so many have hit.
McNabbs one of the top 5 QBs in the league and has been for quite some time so lets not even mention Flacco with McNabb.[/quote]
Well the Ravens backfield is ranked higher than the Eagles backfield. So unless you want a worse backfield then you can go ahead and take Westbrook and McCoy. In 2007, McGahee got 1200 yards and 7 tds. Westbrook got 1330 yards and 7 tds. And McGahee had a injury depleted line with no quarterback. So i guess i would put them in the same league. McGahee was hurt last year so i'm giving him a break. But even with McGahee being deadweight our running game still was exceptional. I guess even Andy Reid knows his running game is sub par. Thats why he throws the ball so much.

Its not like Flacco has to be amazing for the Ravens to win. In the last 11 games of the regular season Flacco threw for 12 td's and 4 interceptions and the Ravens won. Now his offensive line is one year older (except for Oher, who you could argue is better than Willie Anderson) and Flacco is more mature. We dont put pressure on him to win games. Just be consistant and dont lose games. A sophomore slump isnt that big of a deal with Flacco as long as he doesnt get drastically worse. McNabb has to be amazing for the Eagles to win. And he is good, but he isnt amazing enough to keep the Eagles winning. He isnt what he used to be. McNabb is still a really good QB. But the injuries and age are going to catch up to him. And I dont know if i would put him in the top 5 qb's. I'd put him in the top ten though. (QB's in front on McNabb: Warner, Manning, Brady, Brees, Rodgers, Big ben, maybe Rivers, maybe Cutler)

I'm just not convinced that the Eagles are better than the Ravens.

[pick-ups]

[quote name='lowrider' post='194832' date='May 24 2009, 02:58 PM']Well the Ravens backfield is ranked higher than the Eagles backfield. So unless you want a worse backfield then you can go ahead and take Westbrook and McCoy. In 2007, McGahee got 1200 yards and 7 tds. Westbrook got 1330 yards and 7 tds. And McGahee had a injury depleted line with no quarterback. So i guess i would put them in the same league. McGahee was hurt last year so i'm giving him a break. But even with McGahee being deadweight our running game still was exceptional. I guess even Andy Reid knows his running game is sub par. Thats why he throws the ball so much.

Its not like Flacco has to be amazing for the Ravens to win. In the last 11 games of the regular season Flacco threw for 12 td's and 4 interceptions and the Ravens won. Now his offensive line is one year older (except for Oher, who you could argue is better than Willie Anderson) and Flacco is more mature. We dont put pressure on him to win games. Just be consistant and dont lose games. A sophomore slump isnt that big of a deal with Flacco as long as he doesnt get drastically worse. McNabb has to be amazing for the Eagles to win. And he is good, but he isnt amazing enough to keep the Eagles winning. He isnt what he used to be. McNabb is still a really good QB. But the injuries and age are going to catch up to him. And I dont know if i would put him in the top 5 qb's. I'd put him in the top ten though. (QB's in front on McNabb: Warner, Manning, Brady, Brees, Rodgers, Big ben, maybe Rivers, maybe Cutler)

[b]I'm just not convinced that the Eagles are better than the Ravens.[/b][/quote]
In the words of Ron Burghundy"Agree to dis agree"

[darklight1216]

[quote name='pick-ups' post='194831' date='May 24 2009, 05:56 PM']We can go on an on and if you think that I'm just the only one that see's that the Eagles are seen as a better team than check around with objective articles and such and show me where the Ravens are thought of as better than the Eagles because I can show you many more that see the Eagles as the better team.
Who cares about the Redskins as they didn't even make the playoffs and the Eagles mashed the best team(Giants)in their division.
Can your Ravens say the same about the best team in their division.

Its not only what the Eagles and Giant did easily so much as it wasn't what your team couldn't do in three tries.
Like I said before,I'm not saying their world beaters,but they do have a tendency to play down to their level of competition.
But they have shown that they can destroy some of the best teams in the league as well.[/quote]
We could go on and on, but the Ravens will still have beaten the Eagles.
You're right, the Redskins didn't even make the playoffs, which makes it even sadder that Philly lost to them twice.
No, we can't say that about the best in our division; but the best in our division is better than the best in the NFC East, hence the Superbowl win.

What our team couldn't do in three tries... beat the superbowl winners. What your team couldn't do: beat the superbowl losers; what the Giants couldn't do: beat the team that lost to the superbowl losers.

Sure the Eagles have beaten some of the best teams in the league, albeit never in the Superbowl, but they also couldn't beat arguably one of the worst teams: the Bengals. The Ravens, on the other hand, only lost to playoff teams.

Btw, I'm not sure that the fact that the Bengal loving, Cowboys worshipping media thinks that the Eagles are so great is really something to brag about.

[CustomUserName]

[quote name='darklight1216' post='194812' date='May 24 2009, 03:43 PM']So I guess the Eagles aren't top tier? Neither were the number one seeded, winningest team in the NFL, Titans?

You mentioned how the Ravens were only up by three points against the Eagles, but it's not how you start, (which was actually 10-0) it's how you finish (36-7). McNabb did not score a single touchdown nor did he even put his team in the position to score a field goal against the Ravens.[/quote]

Really? You are going to base your whole assumption of the Eagles on a single off game they had against Baltimore? Yeah, Raven's won 36-7, but if Baltimore and Philly won their Championship games, do you think that would be the final score for the Superbowl? I think Ravens would still be a better team in this hypothetical SB43, but the score would be a field goal or two difference.

The way Philly ended last year, and don't include the Skins losses because the most important rule isn't who you play but when you play them (Dallas in December anyone), anyways the way philly ended, showed a great deal of improvement and they very well could have been the best in the NFC.

Then combine their already great team with great improvements this off season, I think they moved into the upper tier with NE and Indy.

[darklight1216]

[quote name='CustomUserName' post='194847' date='May 24 2009, 07:35 PM']Really? You are going to base your whole assumption of the Eagles on a single off game they had against Baltimore? Yeah, Raven's won 36-7, but if Baltimore and Philly won their Championship games, do you think that would be the final score for the Superbowl? I think Ravens would still be a better team in this hypothetical SB43, but the score would be a field goal or two difference.

The way Philly ended last year, and don't include the Skins losses because the most important rule isn't who you play but when you play them (Dallas in December anyone), anyways the way philly ended, showed a great deal of improvement and they very well could have been the best in the NFC.

Then combine their already great team with great improvements this off season, I think they moved into the upper tier with NE and Indy.[/quote]
What "whole assumption of the Eagles?" I never made any rankings. One poster mentioned the one game and I replied about the same game.
If the year had ended differently, then you would have had a Baltimore Ravens team with a greatly improved rookie qb upsetting the number one defense (which probably would give the Ravens the number one D) vs a team who beat the perennially losing Cardinals. I don't know if the differential would have been as great as it was during the regular season, but who cares? It didn't happen.