dc.

Guess I meant five minutes. Haha

Time for the Joe and Justin show. Let's eat 6 minutes and get seven.

Melvin turns and that's a pick. Argh

Damn. Run it in boys.

Love that Harvard fullback

Even with the holds, still not sure how no one is open on two consecutive plays with great blocking and great scrambles by Joe... Get open somewhere! I want to see the deep ball - which I never say- because I think it will draw the flag.

I don't know how much you can blame Melvin there... Is he supposed to not bite on the screen?

Who doesn't hate getting beat on crap like that?

I never get the way we blitz there - if you send the house you have to chuck every receiver, period. If you at least have check Gronk at the line, there's a chance to get to Brady. How do we not see this?

I wouldn't have called the taunt on Torrey - close but at first glance and full speed it didn't look like an in your face move anymore than a normal big first down spoke.

So... Yup

So... Yup.

Charges filed today. She had a .22 bac, admitted to texting while driving, and was gone from the scene for nearly an hour... Manslaughter, DUI, texting while driving, fleeing the scene.

"Those familiar with the situation told reporters that if someone were to read the very words written here and be offended by them, it would be reasonable to expect them to be upset and—at worst—write an angry letter to this publication expressing their ire in a relatively calm and composed fashion. Reports further confirmed that to somehow use this article—or indeed any article or any piece of self-expression—as a pretext to violence, let alone deadly violence, is simply impossible to justify and should never, ever transpire in human civilization. Then again, sources added, that’s what actually happened today." http://www.theonion.com/articles/it-sadly-unclear-whether-this-article-will-put,37715/?fb_action_ids=10206097868792841&fb_action_types=og.shares Cartoons mourning the attack and the cartoonists killed - Banksy (23) and Olea (17) are my favorites. http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/heartbreaking-cartoons-from-artists-in-response-to-the-ch?bffb&utm_term=4ldqpgp#.wiJaAlDNq

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.

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.

But the question still remains, "how replaceable?" Rice? I think we've seen on this team and many others, RBs might be the most replaceable part. Suggs? Is argue harder to replace with certainty. Can you find a pass rusher? Sure. But one who can play as complete a game as T? Harder. Yes, we could have traded or not signed these guys and had money for... What exactly? And could we have actually found suitable replacement who would pan out in the draft or else? Not convinced.

Papa, two thoughts linger when you bring up this plan: 1. The Ravens have been on the brink of needing to rebuild for 7+ years now, but the continue to make it happen regardless. Maybe that "rebuild" year is less necessary than you think. 2. Perhaps as an answer to why #1 has been true. I don't disagree that the grow and trade model is needed at times, but sometimes we have to play that econ game again... The trades you always want require trading known commodities for unknowns and potential. What happens when potential misses? Maybe finding a good receiver or defensive tackle is possible with some certainty each year, but not sure what the is are we get a great qb or db. So how frequently can you do it and be successful? In short, sometimes you have to spend money. The Ravens have had some solid success in the recent past figuring out which pieces are hard to replace and which can maybe be found in an undrafted class or on a waiver... So why put up such a fight to what's worked while it's working? As I always say, predicting doom and gloom is easy if your definition of doom is not winning it all. You will be right 31/32 times.

Tornado, leave it alone. Point made. Nothing to gain throwing s at each other.

Not disagreeing, just throwing out any names I could think of that would even be debated. Basic econ: scarcity & opportunity cost.

I was going to do a similar break down with some more depth soon... Since drafting Flacco, how many other QBs have been drafted ( or otherwise came new to the league) that you would take over him? Luck, Wilson,... I struggle much beyond that with anyone I'd say for sure. There are some other names close maybe like Dalton or Kaepernick before the last 1.5 seasons. Maybe a Stafford is close behind? Not sure. The point: separate of money, in the seven years he been here, there are maybe four peers we'd even consider replacing him with if we had a do-over? It speaks simply to the struggle that is finding a decent qb. That leads into the question of: how easily do you give up what you have, imperfect as it may be?

I'm going to ban the next person to use the term "retard" or any variant as an insult in this thread. And every poster after that.

I was probably late to the party on watching ESPN and the like, so I never quite "got" the love for him - just didn't always connect. But seeing the way people talk about his impact has changed that. Regardless of his work, a good guy and an awful story. Eisen and Storm's tribes today were moving. RIP

Haven't listened yet but have read about it. Will let you know. Maybe I'll cue it up for my commute in the coming week or two...

To evaluate the player over a period if time - yes. To evaluate the impact of a play on a game - less so. I'm discussing the latter. I don't think we're that far off.