Jump to content
Mancunian Raven

Are the Ravens still a superior organisation in the NFL?

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Darth Pees said:

But how is it cherry picked? When you examine the 10-year arc of Harbaugh/Flacco, there's very clearly 2 sections. The first 5 years, and the last 5 years. Cherry picking would exclude 2014. It's not cherry picking to examine a recent 5 year run of a team.

I fundamentally disagree with this as well. If we are talking about the organization, like the title of this thread says, the head coach, much of the front office, and organizational infrastructure are the same as 2008, so a 10 year window makes sense. If we are talking about strength of the current roster, then 3 years ago is irrelevant with roster changing and aging, let alone 5 years ago. The roster from 2013 isn't like today's so why choose to include that?

You haven't explained why 5 years is NOT cherry picked. 5 is literally just the number of limbs sticking out of one hand of most humans. Half the number we have on two hands, which is the only reason we round up a digit in our numbering system at 10. It's not a very mathematically significant number beyond that. 

Please explain why 5 is the window you use other than 6 for a reason other then it letting you exclude the most significant achievement in the sport. 

Edited by wackywabbit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, wackywabbit said:

I fundamentally disagree with this as well. If we are talking about the organization, like the title of this thread says, the head coach, much of the front office, and organizational infrastructure are the same as 2008, so a 10 year window makes sense. If we are talking about strength of the current roster, then 3 years ago is irrelevant with roster changing and aging, let alone 5 years ago. The roster from 2013 isn't like today's so why choose to include that?

 

Okay then. The Ravens went 9-7 this year, missed the playoffs and are picking at #16. They're mediocre. As we don't need to look at previous years, because they're irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, wackywabbit said:

I fundamentally disagree with this as well. If we are talking about the organization, like the title of this thread says, the head coach, much of the front office, and organizational infrastructure are the same as 2008, so a 10 year window makes sense. If we are talking about strength of the current roster, than 3 years ago is very irrelevant with roster changing and aging, let alone 5 years ago. The roster from 2013 isn't like today's so why choose to include that?

You haven't explained why 5 years is NOT cherry picked. 5 is literally just the number of limbs sticking out of one hand of most humans. Half the number we have on two hands, which is the only reason we round up a digit in our numbering system at 10. It's not a very mathematically significant number beyond that. 

Please explain why 5 is the window you use other than 6 for a reason other than it letting you exclude the most significant achievement in the sport. 

When you're asking the question: "Are the Ravens still a superior organization in the NFL?", what does our accomplishments 5+ years ago have anything to do with that, when all but 2 players on that roster are now gone, and we've clearly transitioned as a team since then?

I chose 5 because it's literally half of the 10 years we've had Harbaugh/Flacco. Also, I chose 5 because whether you like it or not, after we won the Superbowl, this team transitioned into Harbaugh's team - not Ray Lewis's team and not Ed Reed's team.

If I'm asking whether or not any other organization is still a superior organization, I am not looking back 5+ years to say "Yep, they're still good because in 2012....". Hell, if you really wanna go there, let's just examine 2015-2017, the last 3 year, we're 22-26. That's 19th in the NFL over that span. Now instead of just average we're below average. So again, what evidence is there that right now we're a superior organization in the NFL? Even if you just consider the past year, where we finished 9-7, we're still picking #16 - dead middle of the pack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 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. 

Exactly. It’s outrageous to cherry pick a 5-year span of a franchise to put forth a narrative of it not being good and then to assume it can’t turn it around because it’s not good. It’s a horrible string of circular logic.

 

7 minutes ago, Darth Pees said:

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.

So how does this logic explain a player like TO going to Dallas as a top tier free agent when they weren’t having much success?

Sure no one is looking 20 years in the rears, but 10 years is only logical. Ten years means this player was in high school or college looking up to the impact players on those winning teams. That means something to players.

And this isn’t just about Jarvis Landry, this is about free agents as a whole. I don’t believe the Ravens will even target Landry because of both price and his DV situation.

But a player like Jimmy Graham? Another top tier FA target? Your narrative is that regular season wins is everything. But it’s not. It ignores playoff wins and successful player transitions.

Because a track record of free agents having success is also a part of recruiting. Who wants to go from a top option to being less than so?

Even a guy like Mike Wallace went from many questioning what he had left and excelled with the Ravens. This is the track record the Ravens bring to the table. And this is a track record that has excelled even during the time period of the Ravens having less than stellar recent regular season success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mancunian Raven said:

Okay then. The Ravens went 9-7 this year, missed the playoffs and are picking at #16. They're mediocre. As we don't need to look at previous years, because they're irrelevant.

Then we aren't talking about the "organization". Thanks for clarifying the point of discussion. 

Like I said before we were 7th in DVOA and 8th in Pythagorean wins. I believe those are much better indicators/predictors of team strength than win/loss. Hence, I conclude we are clearly better than mediocre. 

Edited by wackywabbit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mancunian Raven said:

Okay then. The Ravens went 9-7 this year, missed the playoffs and are picking at #16. They're mediocre. As we don't need to look at previous years, because they're irrelevant.

They went 9-7 and tied with a lot of teams that also went 9-7. We’re picking 16th because of optimal tie breakers in our favor. But we could just as easily be picking 20th.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, wackywabbit said:

Then we aren't talking about the "organization". Thanks for clarifying the point of discussion. 

Like I said before we were 7th in DVOA and 8th in Pythagorean wins. I believe those are much better indicators/predictors of team strength than win/loss. Hence, I conclude we are clearly better than mediocre. 

The team is the organisation. Just because the same people have been behind the scenes for all that time, doesn't mean we should judge the current organisation on what it achieved over its lifespan. The owner hires and keeps the GM, together they hire the head coach. The GM and head coach hire the coaching and scouting staff, and all together they choose the players who are going to play. And when the end results are mediocre, why would you pick an arbitrary cut off point in the chain of command that excuses the nebulous "organisation" from any culpability?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Darth Pees said:

When you're asking the question: "Are the Ravens still a superior organization in the NFL?", what does our accomplishments 5+ years ago have anything to do with that, when all but 2 players on that roster are now gone, and we've clearly transitioned as a team since then?

I chose 5 because it's literally half of the 10 years we've had Harbaugh/Flacco. Also, I chose 5 because whether you like it or not, after we won the Superbowl, this team transitioned into Harbaugh's team - not Ray Lewis's team and not Ed Reed's team.

If I'm asking whether or not any other organization is still a superior organization, I am not looking back 5+ years to say "Yep, they're still good because in 2012....". Hell, if you really wanna go there, let's just examine 2015-2017, the last 3 year, we're 22-26. That's 19th in the NFL over that span. Now instead of just average we're below average. So again, what evidence is there that right now we're a superior organization in the NFL? Even if you just consider the past year, where we finished 9-7, we're still picking #16 - dead middle of the pack.

Like I said 5 years is too long to measure team/roster state. 5 years is too short to evaluate the FO and their ability to change the roster state, when we have so much more data available.

You want evidence for why I think this is an above average team "right now", I just stated why I think that.

Now again, you view the Jaguars and Titans as close because the Titans only won 1 less game and swept the head to head. I viewed the Titans as much much worse and supported that with the same metrics I used to say why the Ravens weren't a mediocre team (in addition to what I saw watching them play.. Titans, Jags, Ravens...). So we just fundamentally evaluate teams differently. If you think Titans=Jaguars, then you won't buy my reasoning on the Ravens. 

Edited by wackywabbit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Darth Pees said:

When you're asking the question: "Are the Ravens still a superior organization in the NFL?", what does our accomplishments 5+ years ago have anything to do with that, when all but 2 players on that roster are now gone, and we've clearly transitioned as a team since then?

I chose 5 because it's literally half of the 10 years we've had Harbaugh/Flacco. Also, I chose 5 because whether you like it or not, after we won the Superbowl, this team transitioned into Harbaugh's team - not Ray Lewis's team and not Ed Reed's team.

If I'm asking whether or not any other organization is still a superior organization, I am not looking back 5+ years to say "Yep, they're still good because in 2012....". Hell, if you really wanna go there, let's just examine 2015-2017, the last 3 year, we're 22-26. That's 19th in the NFL over that span. Now instead of just average we're below average. So again, what evidence is there that right now we're a superior organization in the NFL? Even if you just consider the past year, where we finished 9-7, we're still picking #16 - dead middle of the pack.

Or you can take just the last season into account and we were 9-7. Above .500 and missed the playoffs due to a relatively young (outside of Weddle) secondary having a breakdown. You could choose to say that with experience such players will be in a better position the following season. You could look at the talent of those young players on the roster and say we are just some offensive talent away from making the playoffs.

Again, 5 years is cherry picking. Like you said you’re choosing only to pick the last five seasons of Harbaugh’s tenure because it’s where he had to adjust from two HOF players retiring/leaving the same year. You’re choosing to ignore before then.

Youre also choosing to ignore the talent and young players on this team that have been accumulating over the past two seasons. Guys like Tavon Young, Maurice Canady, Marlon Humphrey, Tyus Bowser, Matt Judon... and the rest we’ll have to wait and see with. This team looks completely different than it did five years ago.

So yes, using that is an arbitrary number and cherry picking to a time that left us trying to replace leadership and skill from two of the greatest to ever play their position. The most recent 2-3 years would be the best sample size. And the draft 3 years ago was one of the worst in franchise history. Thus it doesn’t really speak to the caliber of talent has been collected in the past couple seasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Mancunian Raven said:

The team is the organisation. Just because the same people have been behind the scenes for all that time, doesn't mean we should judge the current organisation on what it achieved over its lifespan. The owner hires and keeps the GM, together they hire the head coach. The GM and head coach hire the coaching and scouting staff, and all together they choose the players who are going to play. And when the end results are mediocre, why would you pick an arbitrary cut off point in the chain of command that excuses the nebulous "organisation" from any culpability?

Actually you are picking an arbitrary cut off point. Whether you pick five years than you purposefully choose to ignore the Super Bowl win from 6 years ago. Or you pick just the past season and choose to ignore that the offense ended the final 7 games of the season ranked as the third best offense in the NFL with minimal offensive talent.

Edited by diamondbull424

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, diamondbull424 said:

Or you can take just the last season into account and we were 9-7. Above .500 and missed the playoffs due to a relatively young (outside of Weddle) secondary having a breakdown. You could choose to say that with experience such players will be in a better position the following season. You could look at the talent of those young players on the roster and say we are just some offensive talent away from making the playoffs.

We've been "just some offensive talent away from the making the playoffs" 3 straight years now, haven't we? We went into the draft last year knowing we needed offensive talent, and completely ignored it. We finished, with tie-breakers giving us a favorable position, 16th in the draft. Even at 9-7, which is above .500 for the record, we were still average. It also just so happens that a .500 record over 5 years places us 16th in the NFL - average.

Again, 5 years is cherry picking. Like you said you’re choosing only to pick the last five seasons of Harbaugh’s tenure because it’s where he had to adjust from two HOF players retiring/leaving the same year. You’re choosing to ignore before then.

Because everything that happened before then is irrelevant. It's not that it doesn't fit this narrative, it's just irrelevant.

Youre also choosing to ignore the talent and young players on this team that have been accumulating over the past two seasons. Guys like Tavon Young, Maurice Canady, Marlon Humphrey, Tyus Bowser, Matt Judon... and the rest we’ll have to wait and see with. This team looks completely different than it did five years ago.

Which is why I'm not using anything over 5 years ago? The fact we don't have many players even from 5 years ago on the roster still also makes my point for me.

So yes, using that is an arbitrary number and cherry picking to a time that left us trying to replace leadership and skill from two of the greatest to ever play their position. The most recent 2-3 years would be the best sample size. And the draft 3 years ago was one of the worst in franchise history. Thus it doesn’t really speak to the caliber of talent has been collected in the past couple seasons.

It's not an arbitrary cutoff, it's both statistically the middle of Harbaugh's tenure as coach, and the logical separation point between the first 5 years of this team and the most recent. You're trying to include the first 5 years because it makes us look better than we are right now. If you choose to believe we're the 4th best team right now in the NFL, go ahead.

Responses in bold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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. 

Danes value fat guys a lot, we are very fond of the guys in the trenches. Among danes the Jaguars was mentioned as a super bowl contender on equal footing with the Patriots because we thought they would be able to win up front. The Jaguars was built like our FO tried, only our QB has a higher ceiling than Bortles (who outplayed himself in the playoffs).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With how bad we played the past two seasons, we were still good enough to be 1 play within playoff range. If we should believe anything about this team, it is they tend to perform in the playoffs - maybe due to some culture, Flaccos light goes on etc.

If we add 1 play in 2016 and 2017, and we win each year, everything look vastly different. Of course it could also go the other way around, and we would look worse. So far, we are very much in between but also right where everyone could argue, that we are not a fun team to meet in the playoffs.

I could easily understand players in free agency looking elsewhere, but I could also see why and how especially veterans could look at us and see, that we are less hampered by injuries, the chances of being a contender is there compared to may other teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we're a good organization that has gotten really, really complacent and has failed to react to the ways in which the league and game has changed. 

Someone can argue any time stamp in the world is arbitrary but 5 years worth of .500 football is a pretty damn big sample size. In a parity-driven leaugue, 1 playoff berth in 5 years is not the sign of a successful organization. All but 7 teams in the league have made the playoffs since we last made it to the dance. So okay, we're not the Browns. But for an organization that talks about themselves like they're the peers of the Pats or Steelers... we're not even close. 

 And 5 years is not all that arbitrary considering the Super Bowl year was also the year that Ed Reed and Ray Lewis left. We've had a chance to prove that 'The Raven Way' is what drove our sustained success rather than being primarily the byproduct of stumbling upon two all-time great players and leaders. What do we still do that is that much better than the rest of the league? Outside of our special teams unit, a good but not great defense that crumbles in big moments is basically still the best thing this team has come up with in several years. 

But we still talk about 'playing like a Raven' or being some sort of gold standard team that everyone else is still afraid of even though we need to face 10 backup QB's a year just to squeak out a winning record. 

Edited by BaltimoreTerp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, BaltimoreTerp said:

But for an organization that talks about themselves like they're the peers of the Pats or Steelers... we're not even close. 

Yea, I don't agree with this either. Pats? Yes, they are a couple steps above everyone. But the Steelers? I view us as close to them for sure. Below them, but close. 

Back to the window size equaling the number of limbs on an average human's hand: We were both equally mediocre in 2013. 2014 we knock them out in the playoffs. 2015 of course was the one losing season in the Harbuagh era, but we randomly swept them. And then we have two years were we JUST miss the season changing win at their place that would have put us in the playoffs. The Steelers haven't done anything that special in the playoffs. They won half the games they were favored to win. 

I don't see how we are not close when 2 of those 3 critical late season matchups were decided by one play and the other we won.

Maybe it is overly optimistic, but I view us as a couple smart moves or incidents of game/injury fortune from being at the level of teams like the Steelers or where the Jaguars/Vikings are now. That respectable contender level. I see a clear difference between that and teams like the Titans, Bills, Washington, or even Detroit, who I view as having to make a lot more changes to get up to that level. 

Edited by wackywabbit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×