dc.

And I just agreed with you?

I would argue we own many of the results of the last decade and we should own up to it as much as anyone else. I had to laugh at a great article - maybe by Slate? - matching up current US politicians calling France our greatest ally with their comments from 2003 when France denounced the war in Iraq. Remember "Freedom Fries?" As for the "standing in the way..," you're still not seeing/recognizing my point about the political/economic consequences. How does the US (global) economy survive however long it takes to sort out that war without access to those oil supplies? Shipping lanes? What does Europe do about refugees and migrants - not just in the Middle East, but coming from Africa? What do any of us do when Turkey is involved? Or Israel? India? "The Muslim World" having this battle is going to get so much larger than just the heart of the Middle East... but apparently we can all go about our merry ways as if nothing is happening? And again, I say that both economically and morally.

First sentence - of course. Later sentences - I just think you exaggerate a bit. I know and agree 100% with the idea of the Ravens historically playing down to some opponents. I think part of that is perception - a defensive team, as this always has been, is never going to be blowing out opponents. But the Ravens of past would win games by 7-10 points regularly, and sometimes have bigger leads that may fade towards game end in the classic "not as close as it looked." As has been noted, it's practically unheard of for a team to have had every game decided by one possession ... That alone tells you this year's Ravens are even worse than usual at 'playing close'

100% disagree on any assertion of ISIS and Saudi link. In the end, you're still missing my point. I'm by no means saying I want to be involved or that we can fix the problems - I am simply saying the world is not made up of "regions" that can so easily be isolated from each other. Removing ourselves would certainly lessen the chances that these groups target western nations, sure. But there would still be a significant economic cost to simply "leaving them alone." As an aside - I am unsure of my own moral willingness to watch mass atrocities occur. I am disgusted by politicians (but anyone, really) who says the US must get involved in the name of politics or defense or economics, but not in the name of humanitarianism. The fact that Obama's request to allow as few as 10,000 refugees from the region into the US is controversial... that's sad. Beyond sad. It's infuriating.

Don't entirely disagree - but there's a difference between the "closeness" of games in an era of extreme parity and the closeness of games we've seen this year. Not sure how often you can find a team with EVERY game - through 9 weeks - decided on the final possession.

Right. That's what I'm saying is difficult. We can't fix it by any means - though much of the fighting is not just Sunni Shiite. But also, we cannot really afford -given current conditions- to pretend it doesn't affect us.

But also that our entire nation friend in that oil stock and so there is an inherent interest in its availability. I'm not saying I like it, I just think we're past the point of "just leave them alone" because the world simply didn't function like that anymore. And morally maybe it shouldn't

That's the bottom line. Good teams don't play close to everyone, especially teams like the Jags.

There goes Joe, getting the lead with more than four minutes left... Oaf

Your claim was that his words were unprovoked an intentionally malicious... Which the quote was not. Your claim was that there was a quote separate of what I already provided... Which it was not. In mirroring your words to Crav: learn to read.

Love blaming him for the first one. Still waiting for that quote from Joe Linta... or rather your admission of error.

Wasn't a defense of Joe - just an evaluation of what was going on. He has his targets. I think some of that right now is certianly his lack of other targets. But a lot of it is also Joe's comfort and preference.

Shows Joe's over-preference/comfort with his TEs is really what it is... Joe should have known better. But we know with that play how he feels when it comes time to throw to someone else with the something important on the line... he thinks CG can make more of that toss than another receiver could, potentially open and past the LOS. Meanwhile - TD to Gilmore, so... that's good.

It's on them both... here's what's really on the coaching (and Joe and receivers): why is anyone even running that route on that play? Would it really be impossible to run it 3 steps further up?

Is the drought over?!

Unfortunately, the reality of globalized lives, economies and politics means we're past that point.

I think, this season the question returns to: what is Tom Brady's record in games when his defense gives up 30 points? Better than most? Absolutely. As good as normal for him? Probably not nearly.

So Joe's the first average QB in history to have good parts around him for a sustained time?

Consistently for a long period of time? Find me one, other than Flacco, knowing that's where you'd aim first. I can't think of any, really. How many can claim the second most wins over a seven year period while still being average?

"Won some games" ... Consistently? Few "average" QBs win consistently. Meanwhile, still waiting. New source or magic words?

Haha... interesting question. I am betting they got more than that. Quick Google search shows they are still touring... across the atlantic. I am curious... how do royalties work on an ad like that? It's one thing if you just want to borrow/play a song. But the band played the song. Do they have to pay a royalty for everytime they air the ad? Maybe Europe said we'll do it for free if you pay royalties. Lastly - I remember a killer review of the band that pretty much said, "You know what you're watching when the opening song, closing song and encore... are all the same song."

I just added the necessary quotes to my post above. The USA Today article was May 27. The article you posted says, outright, that they were asking him about those quotes and getting more context on it. It's all the same story, source, quotes.

That article is from the day after the other I posted... it's referencing the USA Today quotes. Just a local spin on it. "Joe said the USA Today called him about a story on agents, and it segued to a conversation about how Joe was doing. Joe said that he was responding to comments that Flacco was greedy and was the reason the Ravens roster had been dismantled. Joe said it’s not news to the Ravens he had already told them that. playJoe Linta105.7 The Fan 00Bob asked Joe what he thought about seeing the headlines. Joe said his first thought was it must have been a slow news weekend where news outlets needed something to talk about it."

Find it. And find the context. And if he truly went out of his way to much the team fine. I'll say, wow you were right. But those words, "oh sorry, I was wrong" can be a suitable replacement at any time.

It was a rhetorical question. Injuries hurt every team, to decide which do and don't matter is incredibly subjective