Jump to content

Are the Ravens still a superior organisation in the NFL?


Mancunian Raven

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Darth Pees said:

In your opinion, what is "Superbowl Contender status"? Does it mean making the playoffs, or what? 

Make the playoffs and be able to realistically compete with any team there. Normally, a team that wins a playoff game could win the super bowl. But teams like the Titans last year, or if the Bills hypothetically stole the game from the Jags on the last drive, or the Tebow Broncos, were not super bowl contenders (by my interpretation) because they were/would be easy mismatches for other playoff teams. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, wackywabbit said:

Make the playoffs and be able to realistically compete with any team there. Normally, a team that wins a playoff game could win the super bowl. But teams like the Titans last year, or if the Bills hypothetically stole the game from the Jags on the last drive, or the Tebow Broncos, were not super bowl contenders (by my interpretation) because they were/would be easy mismatches for other playoff teams. 

I mean, most people (myself included) didn't think the Jaguars were Superbowl contenders, but then they took the Patriots down to the last series of the game and almost went to the Superbowl...does that make them Superbowl contenders? On that same line of thought, the Titans were close to being there as well. I think we all know that once you make the playoffs, all bets are off. Sure, some teams are weaker than others (Bills, for example, and the Tebow Broncos), but for the most part every team that makes it is a Superbowl contender. Couple that with the fact that the Titans made beating us look easy, and it's hard for me to say we're better than they are, considering they have a young franchise QB and a lot of young pieces to build around and are getting better.

We are really an anomaly of a team, because it's pretty established that no matter what our roster looks like, if we make the playoffs, we know we're a Superbowl contender because of the weird phenomenon that is Joe Flacco and his ability to "transform" in the playoffs to a competent NFL QB. It's something no other team is capable of, or has shown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Darth Pees said:

I mean, most people (myself included) didn't think the Jaguars were Superbowl contenders, but then they took the Patriots down to the last series of the game and almost went to the Superbowl...does that make them Superbowl contenders?

I DEFINITELY thought the Jaguars were super bowl contenders. Before and after the playoffs started. A lot of people did. 

In fact, I'd esitmate "most people" who closely follow the game, did. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, wackywabbit said:

I DEFINITELY thought the Jaguars were super bowl contenders. Before and after the playoffs started. A lot of people did. 

In fact, I'd esitmate "most people" who closely follow the game, did. 

idk, from what I saw it was mostly Jags fans. Everyone else knew they'd have to rely on Blake Bortles and that's why nobody had faith in them. Both the Jaguars and Titans relied on their defense to win them games. Jags obviously had a better defense, but the Titans had a better offense. Why wouldn't the Titans be a Superbowl contender but the Jaguars would, especially considering what happened in the Titans/Jags games anyways (Titans swept the Jags this year)?

I'm probably just nitpicking at semantics at this point, but the bottom line is that these teams are making the playoffs - and I certainly don't think the Titans fit into the bucket of the Bills or Tebow-Broncos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Darth Pees

You said, you were clearly talking about the past five seasons. However, in my post, I clearly mention scenario a and scenario b.

Not only did you ignore the question, but you proceed to go back to your narrative that when signing free agents the only track record that matters is the past five seasons.

You said successful franchise. When speaking towards “franchises” we’re talking about legacy as well as recent history. The Ravens are a new franchise, but in it’s short history it has a proven track record of producing winners and playoff contenders (teams that not only make the playoffs, but win when they get there.)

Which is the point. You mention the Vikings and Chiefs. Both have long storied franchises. But their recent successes and their past legacies amount to a combined Super Bowl win total (1) of less than the Ravens (2). Both have proven to be organizations that never quite get the job done. That’s mediocre. The Ravens have had up and down years throughout the franchise, even with Ray Lewis and Ed Reed led teams.

But they’ve always proven to comeback with a vengeance and win. Even without Lewis they’re 1-1 in the playoffs and have had as much playoff success as the Chiefs and Vikings combined playoff appearances... though they only made it once in the past five seasons.

What good is making the playoffs and continuously seeing first round exit after exit? What good is never winning a Super Bowl or having your last Super Bowl win being 48 years ago (Chiefs)?

So when talking FRANCHISES and you remove everything EXCEPT for the last five seasons, which one of us is truly attempting to change the narrative?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, wackywabbit said:

It is still a given that we are a playoff contender going in to every single season. We have been in or just outside (within one game result) of the playoffs in literally 90% of the Harbaugh/Flacco seasons. That is NOT mediocre. 

At least half the league are playoff contenders, going into every season. But if you're a team that just misses out on the playoffs, year after year, you're mediocre. There's no other way to slice it.

Since 2014, the Ravens have picked at #17, #26, #6, #16 and will pick again at #16 this year. If that's not mediocre, then what is? It's not terrible, and no one said the Ravens were terrible. It's pedestrian, and highlights just what we've been talking about. This is a team that has put up similar stats and win/loss records every year since 2013, and more often than not, it isn't good enough to make the playoffs. They've gone 40-40 since winning the Super Bowl. Again, right smack bang in the middle of the road. Not great, not terrible, just mediocre.

Blame injuries, blame bad contracts, blame coaches, it doesn't matter. The reasons produce the results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Darth Pees said:

idk, from what I saw it was mostly Jags fans. Everyone else knew they'd have to rely on Blake Bortles and that's why nobody had faith in them. Both the Jaguars and Titans relied on their defense to win them games. Jags obviously had a better defense, but the Titans had a better offense. Why wouldn't the Titans be a Superbowl contender but the Jaguars would, especially considering what happened in the Titans/Jags games anyways (Titans swept the Jags this year)?

I'm probably just nitpicking at semantics at this point, but the bottom line is that these teams are making the playoffs - and I certainly don't think the Titans fit into the bucket of the Bills or Tebow-Broncos.

I don't think this a semantic difference; I think there is a ginormous difference between the Jaguars and the Titans. Yes, the Titans got the head2head wins and beat us. They also had a -22 point differential in the regular season with nearly the same schedule that the Jaguars got a +149 point differential. That factors in the h2h games you selected. Both teams relied on their defense to win them games - Sure. But one of those defenses was great and the other was very average. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mancunian Raven said:

At least half the league are playoff contenders, going into every season. But if you're a team that just misses out on the playoffs, year after year, you're mediocre. There's no other way to slice it.

Since 2014, the Ravens have picked at #17, #26, #6, #16 and will pick again at #16 this year. If that's not mediocre, then what is? It's not terrible, and no one said the Ravens were terrible. It's pedestrian, and highlights just what we've been talking about. This is a team that has put up similar stats and win/loss records every year since 2013, and more often than not, it isn't good enough to make the playoffs. They've gone 40-40 since winning the Super Bowl. Again, right smack bang in the middle of the road. Not great, not terrible, just mediocre.

Blame injuries, blame bad contracts, blame coaches, it doesn't matter. The reasons produce the results.

Having a mediocre record and being a mediocre franchise are not one in the same. Arguing that recent trends show a downturn and things need to be done to fix it isn’t analogous to arguing that the Ravens can’t sign free agent talent because they are a mediocre franchise.

This might not be YOUR argument, but that is HIS argument. The Ravens have a track record of free agents coming in and succeeding with the team and being huge contributors in the turnaround of some less than stellar teams.

So going into such a pivotal offseason, it makes no sense to assume, like some, that the Ravens haven’t much of a chance to attract solid free agent talents because they are a mediocre “franchise”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, diamondbull424 said:

@Darth Pees

You said, you were clearly talking about the past five seasons. However, in my post, I clearly mention scenario a and scenario b.

Not only did you ignore the question, but you proceed to go back to your narrative that when signing free agents the only track record that matters is the past five seasons.

You said successful franchise. When speaking towards “franchises” we’re talking about legacy as well as recent history. The Ravens are a new franchise, but in it’s short history it has a proven track record of producing winners and playoff contenders (teams that not only make the playoffs, but win when they get there.)

Which is the point. You mention the Vikings and Chiefs. Both have long storied franchises. But their recent successes and their past legacies amount to a combined Super Bowl win total (1) of less than the Ravens (2). Both have proven to be organizations that never quite get the job done. That’s mediocre. The Ravens have had up and down years throughout the franchise, even with Ray Lewis and Ed Reed led teams.

But they’ve always proven to comeback with a vengeance and win. Even without Lewis they’re 1-1 in the playoffs and have had as much playoff success as the Chiefs and Vikings combined playoff appearances... though they only made it once in the past five seasons.

What good is making the playoffs and continuously seeing first round exit after exit? What good is never winning a Super Bowl or having your last Super Bowl win bring 48 years ago (Chiefs)?

So when talking FRANCHISES and you remove everything EXCEPT for the last five seasons, which one of us is truly attempting to change the narrative?

When I say franchise, I'm talking about organization from top to bottom. I'm not talking about historical precedent or anything like that. You're clinging to the past, and keep repeating that somehow our accomplishments 5+ years ago should factor into why people should join our team now. With that same logic, why would any FA not want to play for the Packers or Steelers or Cowboys? Why would any FA want to play for the Seahawks? The former are all very storied franchises, but the Cowboys haven't had much recent success (like us), and neither really have the Packers or Steelers. Conversely, the Seahawks have largely had a terrible history, but over the past 5 years they've been arguably the most successful NFL team aside from the Patriots - yet with your logic, nobody should want to play for them because 5+ years ago they were terrible.

You cannot, CANNOT ignore recent struggles, especially when those struggles span a pretty consistent 5 year span. What we did prior to 2013 has no bearing on right now, that's largely the point. There is a clear separation between the first 5 years of Harbaugh/Flacco and the last 5 years of Harbaugh/Flacco. You cannot tell me that you can recruit people here saying "Look at what we did from 2008-2012. It was great. We were great!" while ignoring everything since.

So just to reiterate, when I'm talking about franchises, I do not mean historical franchises, I mean the organization as a whole, from top to bottom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mancunian Raven said:

At least half the league are playoff contenders, going into every season. But if you're a team that just misses out on the playoffs, year after year, you're mediocre. There's no other way to slice it.

Since 2014, the Ravens have picked at #17, #26, #6, #16 and will pick again at #16 this year. If that's not mediocre, then what is? It's not terrible, and no one said the Ravens were terrible. It's pedestrian, and highlights just what we've been talking about. This is a team that has put up similar stats and win/loss records every year since 2013, and more often than not, it isn't good enough to make the playoffs. They've gone 40-40 since winning the Super Bowl. Again, right smack bang in the middle of the road. Not great, not terrible, just mediocre.

Blame injuries, blame bad contracts, blame coaches, it doesn't matter. The reasons produce the results.

Yes the outcomes over this cherry-picked 5 year window have been definitively mediocre. 

I am talking about my confidence in this team/organization going forward and basically being closer to a SB than most of the league. The indicators I put more credence into than win/loss show that the current roster is already stronger than average, and the overall (non-cherry picked) record of the front office and head coach are very good. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Darth Pees said:

When I say franchise, I'm talking about organization from top to bottom. I'm not talking about historical precedent or anything like that. You're clinging to the past, and keep repeating that somehow our accomplishments 5+ years ago should factor into why people should join our team now. With that same logic, why would any FA not want to play for the Packers or Steelers or Cowboys? Why would any FA want to play for the Seahawks? The former are all very storied franchises, but the Cowboys haven't had much recent success (like us), and neither really have the Packers or Steelers. Conversely, the Seahawks have largely had a terrible history, but over the past 5 years they've been arguably the most successful NFL team aside from the Patriots - yet with your logic, nobody should want to play for them because 5+ years ago they were terrible.

You cannot, CANNOT ignore recent struggles, especially when those struggles span a pretty consistent 5 year span. What we did prior to 2013 has no bearing on right now, that's largely the point. There is a clear separation between the first 5 years of Harbaugh/Flacco and the last 5 years of Harbaugh/Flacco. You cannot tell me that you can recruit people here saying "Look at what we did from 2008-2012. It was great. We were great!" while ignoring everything since.

So just to reiterate, when I'm talking about franchises, I do not mean historical franchises, I mean the organization as a whole, from top to bottom.

Go play a video game and see whether the franchise mode stops after five seasons and get back to me.

What’s more your logic is flawed. Because free agents do find playing for the Steelers, Patriots, Cowboys, Packers, etc to be much more attractive landing spots than the Ravens for those very reasons.

However most of the top franchises are generally not plush with cap space. Thus they still lose out on free agents, not due to preference, but due to the fact that money still talks. Few players go to the Browns to win, they go there to make money. They then go to a contender at the tail end of their career to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, wackywabbit said:

Yes the outcomes over this cherry-picked 5 year window have been definitively mediocre. 

I am talking about my confidence in this team/organization going forward and basically being closer to a SB than most of the league. The indicators I put more credence into than win/loss show that the current roster is already stronger than average, and the overall (non-cherry picked) record of the front office and head coach are very good. 

Cherry picked five year window? It's the last five years. It's not excluding anything that has happened since the Ravens won the Super Bowl. Sure, I could throw in 2007 as well, if I wanted to make them look worse. But I didn't. Because that was eleven years ago. Players have been drafted and retired since then. Hell, some players drafted the year after the Ravens won the Super Bowl are long gone from the league.

 

13 minutes ago, diamondbull424 said:

Having a mediocre record and being a mediocre franchise are not one in the same. Arguing that recent trends show a downturn and things need to be done to fix it isn’t analogous to arguing that the Ravens can’t sign free agent talent because they are a mediocre franchise.

This might not be YOUR argument, but that is HIS argument. The Ravens have a track record of free agents coming in and succeeding with the team and being huge contributors in the turnaround of some less than stellar teams.

So going into such a pivotal offseason, it makes no sense to assume, like some, that the Ravens haven’t much of a chance to attract solid free agent talents because they are a mediocre “franchise”.

This is true. But when your mediocre record lasts for half a decade, it's not very convincing to still lay claim to being one of the league's premier franchises. And I never said the Ravens couldn't sign FA talent, I just said that there are plenty of teams out there that will be more attractive to a lot of players. Whether that's for monetary reasons or because they think those other teams will put them in better situations to win, and to build their reputations. 

And this started with me saying I believe Jarvis Landry might view the 49ers or the Colts or the Bears as better destinations. Both because they can pay him more, and because they are teams with intriguing new coaching and/or quarterback situations, which could be more attractive to a WR than the Baltimore Ravens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, diamondbull424 said:

What’s more your logic is flawed. Because free agents do find playing for the Steelers, Patriots, Cowboys, Packers, etc to be much more attractive landing spots than the Ravens for those very reasons.

However most of the top franchises are generally not plush with cap space. Thus they still lose out on free agents, not due to preference, but due to the fact that money still talks. Few players go to the Browns to win, they go there to make money. They then go to a contender at the tail end of their career to win.

Not really - do you think people sign with the patriots because of their franchise history 20-30 years ago, or because they think they can win a championship right now? Same with Pittsburgh, Green Bay, and Dallas? I haven't see any players sign with Dallas because they thought Troy Aikman was great so they would be great, too.

So ultimately, when we're talking about a landing spot for Jarvis Landry, this isn't a player on the tail end of his career. He's either going to a team who will offer him much over the market value, or to a team who offers him market value and is a team that can win right now. We are neither.

When we're talking about if we're still a top franchise, the proof is in the pudding, so to speak. Everything about this franchise statistically over the past 5 years (recent history) shows we're mediocre. There's just no argument any other way. If it was 2015 right now and we were coming off of one losing season and one Divisional Round appearance, things might be different, but we're coming off of 3 straight seasons of missing the playoffs and have a .500 record over the past 5 years. I mean, I don't know what else to say - at this point we're just a mediocre franchise. Though, to our credit, we probably have the ability to transcend mediocrity and get back into the top 10 quicker than any other team, but that's a very large if when you consider our recent history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...