2015 Ravens: Achilles 4, Suggs 0, Karma 7

Rudy's Curve

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2006
1,714
The Ravens are now 18-16 since the start of 2013, missed the playoffs in 2013, only made it last year because the Chargers couldn't beat Chase Daniel in Week 17 and likely only won a game because they got a very lucky draw getting to play the Steelers without Bell. When is the bloom going to come off the rose that they're not an elite organization anymore?
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
Rudy's Curve said:
The Ravens are now 18-16 since the start of 2013, missed the playoffs in 2013, only made it last year because the Chargers couldn't beat Chase Daniel in Week 17 and likely only won a game because they got a very lucky draw getting to play the Steelers without Bell. When is the bloom going to come off the rose that they're not an elite organization anymore?
 
I like the feisty Rudy's Curve! I would say two consecutive playoff-less years is what drops a team coasting on reputation from the top tier. Their high profile loss last year props up the illusion of the Ravens for another year and half. 
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
11,505
New York City
Rudy's Curve said:
The Ravens are now 18-16 since the start of 2013, missed the playoffs in 2013, only made it last year because the Chargers couldn't beat Chase Daniel in Week 17 and likely only won a game because they got a very lucky draw getting to play the Steelers without Bell. When is the bloom going to come off the rose that they're not an elite organization anymore?
 
I don't mean this as a criticism of the Ravens but I think the fact is that the Ravens had a great streak because they were fortunate enough to pick four pro bowl to Hall of Fame draft picks in about a decade (Lewis, Reed, Suggs, and the criminally underrated Ngata).  In each case they took just about the best player in the draft with a mid to late first round pick.  That's remarkable drafting and it formed the base of a terrific team, but you're not going to draft multiple hall of famers in the 20s all that frequently.  Now that those players are gone things are going to get tougher, just like they'll get tougher here when Brady is gone.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
They have to use tons of cap space on an average to just above quarterback. Ozzie and company are still very good at what they do, but they aren't New England or anything like that when it comes to finding, coaching up, and scheming to cover up depth when injuries hit so they really need injury luck to seriously contend. They'll likely right the ship and go 9-7 or whatever, but they aren't likely to be perennial contenders again unless Flacco can become the guy he's paid to be.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
23,352
Hingham, MA
9-7 is going to be a tall order
 
vs. Cincy
@ Pitt
vs. Clev
@ SF
@ Ari
vs. SD
vs. Jax
vs. St. Louis
@ Clev
@ Mia
vs. Sea
vs. KC
vs. Pitt
@ Cincy
 
They do have all 8 home games left, but those games include Cincy, SD, St. Louis, Seattle, KC, and Pitt - that is a really hard home slate. And they still have road games left at Pitt, Cincy, and Arizona (not to mention SF).
 
I would be really impressed if they went 9-5 over their last 14. I think 5-9 is more likely in all honesty.
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
13,859
Stitch01 said:
They have to use tons of cap space on an average to just above quarterback. Ozzie and company are still very good at what they do, but they aren't New England or anything like that when it comes to finding, coaching up, and scheming to cover up depth when injuries hit so they really need injury luck to seriously contend. They'll likely right the ship and go 9-7 or whatever, but they aren't likely to be perennial contenders again unless Flacco can become the guy he's paid to be.
 
He's the 8th highest paid QB in the league, and he's probably playing around that level. Looks at the contracts of similar value in order Eli, Rivers, Newton, Ryan, Flacco, Brees, Tannehill, Kaepernick, Cutler, Romo, Stafford, Alex Smith.
 
He fits right into that crew.
 

loshjott

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2004
8,620
Silver Spring, MD
Shelterdog said:
 
I don't mean this as a criticism of the Ravens but I think the fact is that the Ravens had a great streak because they were fortunate enough to pick four pro bowl to Hall of Fame draft picks in about a decade (Lewis, Reed, Suggs, and the criminally underrated Ngata).  In each case they took just about the best player in the draft with a mid to late first round pick.  That's remarkable drafting and it formed the base of a terrific team, but you're not going to draft multiple hall of famers in the 20s all that frequently.  Now that those players are gone things are going to get tougher, just like they'll get tougher here when Brady is gone.
 
And Ogden.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
11,505
New York City
loshjott said:
 
And Ogden.
 
Yes although Ogden is a little less flukish.  He's a really good pick at fourth in the draft but that's a high pick and a team should get a very valuable contributor if you're picking there.  Of course some people draft AJ Green and others get Matt Kalil.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
4,597
02130
Shelterdog said:
 
I don't mean this as a criticism of the Ravens but I think the fact is that the Ravens had a great streak because they were fortunate enough to pick four pro bowl to Hall of Fame draft picks in about a decade (Lewis, Reed, Suggs, and the criminally underrated Ngata).  In each case they took just about the best player in the draft with a mid to late first round pick.  That's remarkable drafting and it formed the base of a terrific team, but you're not going to draft multiple hall of famers in the 20s all that frequently.  Now that those players are gone things are going to get tougher, just like they'll get tougher here when Brady is gone.
Yeah, I agree with this. They also got 4 years of near-HOF-level Matt Birk for dirt cheap.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
NortheasternPJ said:
 
He's the 8th highest paid QB in the league, and he's probably playing around that level. Looks at the contracts of similar value in order Eli, Rivers, Newton, Ryan, Flacco, Brees, Tannehill, Kaepernick, Cutler, Romo, Stafford, Alex Smith.
 
He fits right into that crew.
He was fringe top ten last year, but wasnt close 2013 and doesnt look like he will be this year.
 
I think most of those teams are in similar situations. Some better (Cowboys when Romo is healthy, but often he's not) some worse (Cutler), but basically where they have to give huge dollars because they QB is too good to lose but not really good enough to carry the team on their own so they're sort of locked into fringe playoff contention and hope to get hot/fortunate every year. Its not really a failure of the Ravens or anything to end up in that situation, better that than Brownsville, but hard to be a legit contender season after season with a QB in that talent/contract zip code.  I mean its probably stating the obvious, but to be a real top team in the NFL for multiple seasons you really need either a HOF level quarterback or a rookie to be very good right away so you have multiple years of production for small salary.  
 
They also have to renegotiate Flacco after this season when his cap number is almost certainly heading up.  
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
11,505
New York City
Toe Nash said:
Yeah, I agree with this. They also got 4 years of near-HOF-level Matt Birk for dirt cheap.
 
True although that strikes me as just good savvy work by Newsome--they thought Birk had something left at age 33 and they turned out to be right. 
 
I think Baltimore generally does a pretty good job of doing things but being consistently pretty good isn't enough to be a consistent superbowl contender--you need exceptional luck somewhere along the lines in player acquisition to be a consistent superbowl contender.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
12,598
Mansfield MA
Stitch01 said:
He was fringe top ten last year, but wasnt close 2013 and doesnt look like he will be this year.
 
I think most of those teams are in similar situations. Some better (Cowboys when Romo is healthy, but often he's not) some worse (Cutler), but basically where they have to give huge dollars because they QB is too good to lose but not really good enough to carry the team on their own so they're sort of locked into fringe playoff contention and hope to get hot/fortunate every year. Its not really a failure of the Ravens or anything to end up in that situation, better that than Brownsville, but hard to be a legit contender season after season with a QB in that talent/contract zip code.  I mean its probably stating the obvious, but to be a real top team in the NFL for multiple seasons you really need either a HOF level quarterback or a rookie to be very good right away so you have multiple years of production for small salary.  
I wrote about this phenomenon for ITP: http://insidethepylon.com/nfl/long-form-editorial/2015/08/28/the-nfl-qb-merry-go-round/
 
It's a tough deal with these second-tier guys; they basically get paid like the elite QBs, but the only guys who hit free agency are dudes like Ryan Fitzpatrick and Brian Hoyer. It becomes a cycle where because no good QBs become available, teams have to re-sign their guys, and because they sign their guys, no good QBs become available. There aren't 32 competent passers to go around, so it's like a game of musical chairs where the Browns lose every time.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
17,294
Philadelphia
Stitch01 said:
He was fringe top ten last year, but wasnt close 2013 and doesnt look like he will be this year.
 
I think most of those teams are in similar situations. Some better (Cowboys when Romo is healthy, but often he's not) some worse (Cutler), but basically where they have to give huge dollars because they QB is too good to lose but not really good enough to carry the team on their own so they're sort of locked into fringe playoff contention and hope to get hot/fortunate every year. Its not really a failure of the Ravens or anything to end up in that situation, better that than Brownsville, but hard to be a legit contender season after season with a QB in that talent/contract zip code.  I mean its probably stating the obvious, but to be a real top team in the NFL for multiple seasons you really need either a HOF level quarterback or a rookie to be very good right away so you have multiple years of production for small salary.  
 
They also have to renegotiate Flacco after this season when his cap number is almost certainly heading up.  
 
The funny thing about this whole discussion is that Flacco's cap numbers have actually been pretty reasonable the last few years - 6.8M, 14.8M, 14.5M.  That is a perfectly reasonable cost for the production he has given them.  Their bigger problem from a cap perspective has been dead money (21M this year) and losing high priced players to injury.
 
But going forward, the Flacco issue is going to bite them in the ass big time.  If anything, they've been stealing from Peter (Flacco) to pay Paul (the rest of the team) the last few seasons and now that bill is going to come due.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
23,352
Hingham, MA
The NFL passed a rule Wednesday that makes it illegal for an offensive player wearing an eligible number -- between 1 and 49, or 80 to 89 -- to report as ineligible and line up outside the tackle box. Now, if a player is declared ineligible yet lines up outside the tackle box, the offense will be penalized for illegal substitution.

illegal
 

Zedia

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
3,936
Pasadena, CA
Isn't the near WR covering up the TE, making him ineligible? Or is the RT on the line of scrimmage (even though he looks a yard behind the far receiver)?
 

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
8,271
Washington, DC
Zedia said:
Isn't the near WR covering up the TE, making him ineligible? Or is the RT on the line of scrimmage (even though he looks a yard behind the far receiver)?
The TE is indeed ineligible but he seems clearly in the tackle box. The rule change just said that you can't line up someone who's wearing an eligible number, declare him ineligible, and have him outside the box. If you want to use a TE as an O-Lineman that's legit I think.
 

Spelunker

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
6,427
GeorgeCostanza said:
From the reddit:
 

 
I didn't realize that about Willie
That's actually pretty nuts: I had no idea he was number #1. 4.5 were against Jacksonville in '05: he also had the record for most in a single playoff game.
 

dbn

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 10, 2007
7,781
La Mancha.

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
23,352
Hingham, MA
tims4wins said:
The NFL passed a rule Wednesday that makes it illegal for an offensive player wearing an eligible number -- between 1 and 49, or 80 to 89 -- to report as ineligible and line up outside the tackle box. Now, if a player is declared ineligible yet lines up outside the tackle box, the offense will be penalized for illegal substitution.

illegal
 
Ok so the rule states that if a player is declared ineligible and lines up outside the tackle box, the offense will be penalized. Since the TE lined up at LT and went out on a route, that means the other 4 OL in the tackle box were obviously ineligible. So there had to be a 5th ineligible in the formation. That means either the RT or the RB were ineligible, and both lined up outside the tackle box. So wasn't the play illegal?
 

JohnnyK

Member
SoSH Member
May 8, 2007
1,742
Wolfern, Austria
The Ravens didn't declare anyone ineligible, they just lined up the right tackle outside the tackle box and an eligible guy inside it.
 
What the rule makes illegal is what the Pats did last year by lining up Vereen (who has an eligible number) outside tackle box and declaring him ineligible.
 

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
8,271
Washington, DC
Zedia said:
But the TE caught a TD on that. Anyway, looks like he wasn't covered up by the WR, so he's eligible. But the RT and WR do not seem to be lined up on the the same line of scrimmage. "Clearly deception" by Harbaugh and co. (Not serious, but fuck him anyway).

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2015092010/2015/REG2/ravens@raiders#menu=gameinfo%7CcontentId%3A0ap3000000534727&tab=videos
Ah I see I misunderstood what was going on. Seems like a legit formation then, if you assume the RT is on the line of scrimmage as appears to be the case to my eye. All that's happened seems to be that the usual C is in a G position, and the RT is very far away but no one who's usually eligible is now ineligible or vice versa.

More teams should use O line trickeration. Should be how Harbaugh responded in the first place.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
23,352
Hingham, MA
JohnnyK said:
 
The Ravens didn't declare anyone ineligible, they just lined up the right tackle outside the tackle box and an eligible guy inside it.
 
What the rule makes illegal is what the Pats did last year by lining up Vereen (who has an eligible number) outside tackle box and declaring him ineligible.
 
 
Got it - so it only applies when you declare someone ineligible who is usually eligible.
 

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
8,271
Washington, DC
tims4wins said:
 
Ok so the rule states that if a player is declared ineligible and lines up outside the tackle box, the offense will be penalized. Since the TE lined up at LT and went out on a route, that means the other 4 OL in the tackle box were obviously ineligible. So there had to be a 5th ineligible in the formation. That means either the RT or the RB were ineligible, and both lined up outside the tackle box. So wasn't the play illegal?
The rule states that if a player who is normally eligible is declared ineligible and lines up outside the tackle box, the offense will be penalized. Since the RT is not normally eligible, there's no declaration, and it's a legal play.
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
Nice to see Harbaugh using plays that high schools have been using and defending for ages versus whining about it.

Still annoyed that professional athletes and coaches had to have the game dumbed down below high school level rules in order for them to understand it.
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
2,771
edmunddantes said:
Still annoyed that professional athletes and coaches had to have the game dumbed down below high school level rules in order for them to understand it.
Same here. I can't believe they actually changed the rule. Teams and coaches are so scared of something different. Pathetic.


I do wonder if it was another team that used it. Would they have still changed the rule? Would it have been discussed like the Wildcat debating whether it is more of a gimmick or legit.
 

Gunfighter 09

wants to be caribou ken
Staff member
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2005
7,486
KPWT
Stitch01 said:
They have to use tons of cap space on an average to just above quarterback. Ozzie and company are still very good at what they do, but they aren't New England or anything like that when it comes to finding, coaching up, and scheming to cover up depth when injuries hit so they really need injury luck to seriously contend. They'll likely right the ship and go 9-7 or whatever, but they aren't likely to be perennial contenders again unless Flacco can become the guy he's paid to be.
 
 
I don't think this is true, Ozzie is amazingly good at his job and they have been one of the top three or four teams in the league over the last seven years. You can only make an argument that NE, GB, and Pittsburgh have been as good during the Harbaugh / Flacco era (since they came in together in 2008) and they all have the same number of Superbowl wins. The Ravens also play in a much tougher division than the Pats, with the NFC North producing 8 Wild Cards compared to the AFC East's 2 over that time frame.
 
Ravens over that time frame 2008-2014:
72-40 regular season and 10-5 in the playoffs with three Conference championship games and a Superbowl win
 
Pats over that time frame:
84-28 in a much, much easier division and 7-5 in the playoffs with four Conference championship games and a Super win and loss. 
 
The Steelers over that time frame: 
72-40 regular season and 5-3 in the playoffs with two one Super Bowl titles
 
Green Bay over that time frame
74-38 regular season and 6-5 in the playoffs with a Superbowl. 
 
Considering that the Ravens are the only one of these teams succeeding like this without a first ballot HoF quarterback (rapist exceptions included) says quite a bit about Ozzie and the lesser Harbaugh's skills. Pats fans should also consider that their easy division (relative to the North) has also bought them home field advantage three of the four times they have played the Ravens in the playoffs during that time frame. Finally, only two coaches have beat BB's Pats twice in the playoffs, Harbaugh and Coughlin, and Harbaugh certainly didn't need any missed calls or miracle catches to do it. I don't like them, but Baltimore is a model franchise. They will be fine in the long term even this is a down year. 
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
I think Ozzie is very good, but Im talking about record since they had to pay Flacco, and its not a Ravens flaw its just the structure of the NFL under the salary cap.  Since paying Flacco after their Super Bowl the Ravens are 19-17 including playoffs with one missed playoff, one divisional round appearance.  They haven't taken the full Flacco cap hit yet.  I don't think they are as good at maximizing talent as the Pats, but no one is, that's not a demerit or anything, and they certainly are relatively handicapped at quarterback.  If they could still pay Flacco a rookie salary I expect theyd put together a real strong team every year.
 
Pats easy division stuff is overblown, but that's not really on topic.
 

loshjott

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2004
8,620
Silver Spring, MD
Gunfighter 09 said:
 
 
I don't think this is true, Ozzie is amazingly good at his job and they have been one of the top three or four teams in the league over the last seven years. You can only make an argument that NE, GB, and Pittsburgh have been as good during the Harbaugh / Flacco era (since they came in together in 2008) and they all have the same number of Superbowl wins. The Ravens also play in a much tougher division than the Pats, with the NFC North producing 8 Wild Cards compared to the AFC East's 2 over that time frame.
 
Ravens over that time frame 2008-2014:
72-40 regular season and 10-5 in the playoffs with three Conference championship games and a Superbowl win
 
Pats over that time frame:
84-28 in a much, much easier division and 7-5 in the playoffs with four Conference championship games and a Super win and loss. 
 
The Steelers over that time frame: 
72-40 regular season and 5-3 in the playoffs with two Super Bowl titles
 
Green Bay over that time frame
74-38 regular season and 6-5 in the playoffs with a Superbowl. 
 
Considering that the Ravens are the only one of these teams succeeding like this without a first ballot HoF quarterback (rapist exceptions included) says quite a bit about Ozzie and the lesser Harbaugh's skills. Pats fans should also consider that their easy division (relative to the North) has also bought them home field advantage three of the four times they have played the Ravens in the playoffs during that time frame. Finally, only two coaches have beat BB's Pats twice in the playoffs, Harbaugh and Coughlin, and Harbaugh certainly didn't need any missed calls or miracle catches to do it. I don't like them, but Baltimore is a model franchise. They will be fine in the long term even this is a down year. 
 
Who asked for well-reasoned analysis and logic here?
 
A minor correction, Steelers 1-1 in SBs during this time frame, not 2-0.
 
And Peyton Manning is 0-2.
 

Gunfighter 09

wants to be caribou ken
Staff member
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2005
7,486
KPWT
Stitch01 said:
I think Ozzie is very good, but Im talking about record since they had to pay Flacco, and its not a Ravens flaw its just the structure of the NFL under the salary cap.  Since paying Flacco after their Super Bowl the Ravens are 19-17 including playoffs with one missed playoff, one divisional round appearance.  They haven't taken the full Flacco cap hit yet.  I don't think they are as good at maximizing talent as the Pats, but no one is, that's not a demerit or anything, and they certainly are relatively handicapped at quarterback.  If they could still pay Flacco a rookie salary I expect theyd put together a real strong team every year.
 
Pats easy division stuff is overblown, but that's not really on topic.
 
The Flacco salary impact is a really good point, and we have yet to see it play out, fully. I think Ozzie is just as good, if not better than the BB and the Pats front office at talent evaluation and acquisition for their system. I think the (very small) difference in the success the two teams have had is due to BB being the best in game coach in history (though Harbaugh is really good) and Brady being the best QB ever. They are not dead, and even if this year is a bit of a re-set for them, they should really change nothing in their approach going forward. I say all of this as someone who thinks Harbaugh's Rat / whining over the last twelve months was fucking shameful, was disgusted by the Ray Rice incident and hates Ray Lewis. They will be fine and if we are watching them in the AFC championship game next year, I will not be the least bit surprised. 
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
GF is right. You have to separate performance from loathesome personalities. These days Harbaugh tops my list.

If Art Modell had not erred and had realized BB faced an impossible situation that last year in Cleveland, he would have taken BB with Ozzie with him to Baltimore in 1996. They'd probably bith still be there, and God knows how many Lombardis the Ravens would have won.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
Gunfighter 09 said:
 
The Flacco salary impact is a really good point, and we have yet to see it play out, fully. I think Ozzie is just as good, if not better than the BB and the Pats front office at talent evaluation and acquisition for their system. I think the (very small) difference in the success the two teams have had is due to BB being the best in game coach in history (though Harbaugh is really good) and Brady being the best QB ever. They are not dead, and even if this year is a bit of a re-set for them, they should really change nothing in their approach going forward. I say all of this as someone who thinks Harbaugh's Rat / whining over the last twelve months was fucking shameful, was disgusted by the Ray Rice incident and hates Ray Lewis. They will be fine and if we are watching them in the AFC championship game next year, I will not be the least bit surprised. 
 
They shouldnt change much in their approach, its just exceedingly unlikely to lead to deep playoff runs every year because they have to pay their QB a lot of money and they arent going to get real elite performance from the QB position so when Suggs gets hurt or draft picks whiff there isnt margin for error. 
 
My comment about coaching up, finding talent, and covering when injuries hit was meant to be focused particularly on team depth and working around injuries.  So thing like being able to plug Troy Brown or Julian Edelman in the secondary or (more mundane) being able to plug in David Andrews at center or getting credible performance from Matt Cassell for a season or acquiring Akeem Ayers and Alan Branch midseason and revamping the defense  One of the biggest killers to even well designed teams in the NFL is getting a stack of injuries at the same position, and that problem gets exacerbated when you have to pay big money to a quarterback and cant keep depth further down the roster. I dont think anyone has done a better job than the Patriots at finding and coaching up players when those sort of injuries hit.  So I dont disagree Harbaugh is a good coach or that Ozzie has been as good as anyone at building an acquiring players through the draft and deciding who to pay and cut bait with and all of that.  I just think in a situation where like 3 cornerbacks go down or both offensive tackles get injured or the TE's the offense were built around get injured/incarcerated or w/e the Pats have been the class of the league at finding someone to fill the position cheaply/coaching them up/changing scheme around it effectively.  Pats have really never had a season where injuries have destroyed them over the last 15 years, and they have had their fair share or more of injuries by most every metric Ive looked at, and that's not just from having a HOF quarterback (see Green Bay without Rodgers).  
 
Patriots have been more than a small bit more successful than the Ravens, but that's been rehashed on here and probably best for another thread.  Theyve been sort of close for the last seven seasons, but 2000-2007 happened.
 
I hate this franchise with the fire of 1000 suns, but Id never say they arent a well run team.  They're just going to be capped performance wise because of their QB situation.  
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
dcmissle said:
GF is right. You have to separate performance from loathesome personalities. These days Harbaugh tops my list.

If Art Modell had not erred and had realized BB faced an impossible situation that last year in Cleveland, he would have taken BB with Ozzie with him to Baltimore in 1996. They'd probably bith still be there, and God knows how many Lombardis the Ravens would have won.
If Belichick had been looking for a QB in 2000, and gotten his man, the 2001-present Ravens would have won 7 or 8. That defense was championship quality undermined by Grbac and Banks and Boller for an entire decade. 
 

coremiller

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
4,393
soxfan121 said:
If Belichick had been looking for a QB in 2000, and gotten his man, the 2001-present Ravens would have won 7 or 8. That defense was championship quality undermined by Grbac and Banks and Boller for an entire decade. 
 
Not just a great defense -- the early 00 Ravens also had a HoF LT in Jonathan Ogden, an all-pro tailback in Jamal Lewis, and a pro-bowl TE in Todd Heap. That team was pretty loaded outside the QB/WR spots.
 

TheWinkleman

lurker
Jan 8, 2012
43
Gunfighter 09 said:
Ravens over that time frame 2008-2014:
72-40 regular season and 10-5 in the playoffs with three Conference championship games and a Superbowl win
 
Pats over that time frame:
84-28 in a much, much easier division and 7-5 in the playoffs with four Conference championship games and a Super win and loss. 
 
I'm hopefully not going off on too much of a tangent here and I agree with your overall point, but the "much, much easier division" part is overblown as Stitch said.
 
Using your 2008-2014 time frame...
 
The Ravens were 27-15 (64.3%) versus the AFC North.
The Ravens were 45-25 (64.3%) versus everyone else.
The Steelers, Bengals, and Browns combined to go 164-170-2 (49.1%) overall.
 
The Patriots were 32-10 (76.2%) versus the AFC East.
The Patriots were 52-18 (74.3%) versus everyone else.
The Jets, Dolphins, and Bills combined to go 153-183 (45.5%) overall.
 
The North was a bit tougher as a division in that span, but both teams won at basically the same clip inside their divisions as they did outside of them. While the Patriots haven't had a team as consistently good as the Steelers in their division (who had the same 72-40 overall record as the Ravens), it's worth noting that they also haven't had a team as consistently bad as the Browns in their division (who had a 33-78 overall record). I don't think this diminishes your point that the Ravens have been one of the few consistently strong franchises over the last decade due to their management. But attributing the Patriots' significantly better winning percentage to playing in an easier division isn't accurate.
 

Gunfighter 09

wants to be caribou ken
Staff member
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2005
7,486
KPWT
While we are on Ravens real fantasy scenarios, I do sometimes wonder how different the last 14 seasons would have been if the AFC divisions made more geographic sense and Baltimore and Buffalo switched divisions.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
My guess is actually not very much.  The Pats probably dont win the division 12 times, maybe '01 and '11 end up a little differently, maybe the Ravens miss the playoffs in '12, but on balance both teams are in the playoffs and it is mostly Ravens at Pats.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
12,598
Mansfield MA
Gunfighter 09 said:
While we are on Ravens real fantasy scenarios, I do sometimes wonder how different the last 14 seasons would have been if the AFC divisions made more geographic sense and Baltimore and Buffalo switched divisions.
Wouldn't the sensible thing to be to move Baltimore to the east, Miami to the south, and Indianapolis to the north?