Jump to content
ExtremeRavens: The Sanctuary

Flacco-Rasta


Tornado700

Recommended Posts

 

Wait, you can't use Zona... they aren't your model. They had a little success one year as they rifled through QBs due to injury... but where's that "killer instinct?"

 

I assume that NE is your model of how to franchise, or at least the closest thing to it that exists. My question is: how would they fare for a year without Brady? (Hint: we know the answer from history and from logic)

 

All I'm saying is that theory is great, but reality messes with theory in all kinds of funny ways that aren't always so pleasant. You want the Ravens or some team to have that "killer instinct" and be on top of the pile 9 out of 10 seasons. I would argue the Ravens are pretty much there. You can grumble about not actually making the Super Bowl or winning it - but no team has really had the level of success you want or discuss. In the end, if you're consistent in your approach, the Patriots system has failed every year since their last SB victory (05?). Despite "dominance" in so many ways and so consistently, they underperform in the big ones.

 

So what do you want? And how many teams can actually be that good that long? If every team followed your rules, every team would be that good - which means every team would also be that bad. So there's not really an out here.

That is two different arguments. I am just saying that Zona didn't flat out collapse when Palmer went down. They went to the 3rd stringer and kept winning. Indy went to their 2nd stringer from the start of the season and they tripped all over themselves. I think they had 2 wins that yr. I propose they didn't want to win at that point wanting Peyton's replacement for the next yr. They knew they were not making a real run so why try to do anything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have two simple questions. What team has been more successful than the Ravens since 2008 (when Harbaugh and Flacco came in)?

 

Why on earth would Bisciotti want to change one god damn thing about this organization's philosophy???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This team could have 3-5 SB titles right now had they had a different org philosophy. If you have the killer instinct to exploit your opponent you will be more successful than your opponent.

 

So what you are saying is no organization in the NFL even comes close to having a "killer instinct".

 

You are living in fantasy land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is entirely to much group think in th eNFL. I am starting to think Seattle has that killer instinct. When a plan doesn't work they cut ties. We will see what they do as their young talent gets to FA.

 

Well...they only have 1 SB thus far, and according to your plan it's time for them to cut ties with Wilson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This team could have 3-5 SB titles right now had they had a different org philosophy. If you have the killer instinct to exploit your opponent you will be more successful than your opponent.

Lmao, if they used your philosophy they wouldn't have any parts left to win 1 Super Bowl let alone 3-5. You would have traded all the key parts away.

 

That is two different arguments. I am just saying that Zona didn't flat out collapse when Palmer went down. They went to the 3rd stringer and kept winning. Indy went to their 2nd stringer from the start of the season and they tripped all over themselves. I think they had 2 wins that yr. I propose they didn't want to win at that point wanting Peyton's replacement for the next yr. They knew they were not making a real run so why try to do anything?

Again if the philosophy was to suck for luck wouldn't the head coach have been complicit in the understanding he wouldn't lose his job. Your argument is illogical. They sucked because they were a poor team without PM, pure and simple and JC lost his job and they started over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well...they only have 1 SB thus far, and according to your plan it's time for them to cut ties with Wilson.

Where did I ever say that? Wilson is a keeper. I have him as a top 3 QB in the league. You don't let everyone walk. Just the ones who are expendable especially if others see them as being valuable.

 

 

Lmao, if they used your philosophy they wouldn't have any parts left to win 1 Super Bowl let alone 3-5. You would have traded all the key parts away.

 

 

Again if the philosophy was to suck for luck wouldn't the head coach have been complicit in the understanding he wouldn't lose his job. Your argument is illogical. They sucked because they were a poor team without PM, pure and simple and JC lost his job and they started over.

Not at all. Again there are some you ID to keep. Positions that take a lot of abuse you looks to trade at the height of value. Others you look at see flaws beginning in their game that others may miss and you maximize their value. So the whole team just was suddenly bad without PM? And suddenly with Luck they are good again like magic? They had a bunch of talent on that team and they went down with it. You couldn't see Irsay double crossing a coach?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you think the Panthers have a real shot. OK. I will give you odds on them winning the SB.

 

I'm sorry. Whaaaat????

 

So when Peyton went down and they weren't sure he could play you don't think they didn't put their players in a position not to succeed that season. They were awful that yr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This team could have 3-5 SB titles right now had they had a different org philosophy. If you have the killer instinct to exploit your opponent you will be more successful than your opponent.

 

Isn't the proof of this statement's falsehood that no one else has reached that mark in the last decade?

 

I'm not even disagreeing with the strategy. I'm disagreeing with your absurd "promises" about what it would lead to. Even if we did operate according to your plan, we'd likely be New England or Indy or Seattle or whoever... quite able to win a division and hit the playoffs, but you still run into the same gambles and 50/50s in the biggest of big games. And then also simply questioning that, at some point, if everyone (or even a decent contingent of teams) pursue the same strategy, there is a lock-out of sorts. You could run your team perfectly and wind up losing many games if everyone else plays the game perfectly too...

 

To sum up: in the last 7 years, the Ravens have 6 playoff appearances (tied for most?), more wins in the playoffs than any other team and a Super Bowl ring (no team has two). And your complaint is that we are less successful than we should be and that our front office is pursuing a flawed strategy? I could acknowledge that to an extent, but not the extent you promise. For every contract you replace to win some extra game you think we shouldn't have lost, you assume you are definitely going to end up in the same place or better - which is a big if, because the reality is no one has actually done better - in sum - in the same time period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't the proof of this statement's falsehood that no one else has reached that mark in the last decade?

 

I'm not even disagreeing with the strategy. I'm disagreeing with your absurd "promises" about what it would lead to. Even if we did operate according to your plan, we'd likely be New England or Indy or Seattle or whoever... quite able to win a division and hit the playoffs, but you still run into the same gambles and 50/50s in the biggest of big games. And then also simply questioning that, at some point, if everyone (or even a decent contingent of teams) pursue the same strategy, there is a lock-out of sorts. You could run your team perfectly and wind up losing many games if everyone else plays the game perfectly too...

 

To sum up: in the last 7 years, the Ravens have 6 playoff appearances (tied for most?), more wins in the playoffs than any other team and a Super Bowl ring (no team has two). And your complaint is that we are less successful than we should be and that our front office is pursuing a flawed strategy? I could acknowledge that to an extent, but not the extent you promise. For every contract you replace to win some extra game you think we shouldn't have lost, you assume you are definitely going to end up in the same place or better - which is a big if, because the reality is no one has actually done better - in sum - in the same time period.

But if some team would just run itself like Papa would then you would all see!

 

Think how hard the players would play for him knowing that most of them would never get a big payday from the team not matter what they helped the team achieve! Think how the players would feel motivated when some tragedy befalls one of them and owner Papa lets them know he doesn't care about them off the field. What a desirable place to play!

Coaching changes every year! Wonder if he would be a fan of his own team?

 

Oh this would be so fun to watch. Just not here please.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if some team would just run itself like Papa would then you would all see!

 

Think how hard the players would play for him knowing that most of them would never get a big payday from the team not matter what they helped the team achieve! Think how the players would feel motivated when some tragedy befalls one of them and owner Papa lets them know he doesn't care about them off the field. What a desirable place to play!

Coaching changes every year! Wonder if he would be a fan of his own team?

 

Oh this would be so fun to watch. Just not here please.

So I guess players are not ever playing to show the next team they are worth bringing onto their roster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone post a link to Papa's strategy post, because I'm not getting it. So far I have surmised that his strategy is getting rid of players before they get paydays, but not all players...some you target to keep. What am I missing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to pick the guys you want as long term keepers. I said to sign Torrey long term before the season. After next yr I would ink Williams long term. He is be a perenial PB. He has heart and I do not see paycheck player written on him.

 

Like what they did with Webb?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They waited with Webb. I believe after his 4 yr. One thing I will say about him. I have no idea why Harbs trots him out to run punts back. He did it a couple of weeks ago. You would think John would have learned after he blew his knee out this first time. It makes no sense.

 

They signed Webb long term with one year left on his rookie deal. I assume they will do the same with J. Smith (as long as they feel good about his health).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...