Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry, I just got back to you today. I watched that game, because I knew the winner would be going to the super bowl. Ravens are one of the best teams in the playoffs. Every year they're a completely different team come playoff time, so I don't focus much on their stats during the season. They played very well at Pittsburgh the week prior. Also, for some reason Ravens always matchup or play well against the Pats. I don't know if Harbough has them figured out or what it is. Again, Ravens along with Flacco are one of the best come playoff time. My point is, there's no shame or fault in the Pats only winning by a few points. But just because Harbought & the Ravens know how to play against the Patriots, doesn't mean the Seahawks will automatically be able to do it. Teams have been trying for what, decades, to figure out how to beat the Patriots. It rarely happens.
(By the way. Why am I praising the Patriot so much? I can't stand that team. )
tell me what the Ravens have that the Seahawks dont have??? Both play ball control offense by pounding the ball to set the play action pass and play solid physical defense. Seahawks are just better in defense because they have the best secondary in football while the Ravens is one of the worst in the NFL, in the running game Lynch is better than Forsett and QB, Wilson is more dangerous than Flacco because of his athletic gift of scrambling and running to extend plays that Flacco doesn't have the gift for and that confuses defenses. ...the only thing the Ravens have over the Hawks is special teams.
Quote:
Originally Posted by everwinter
I didn't say Patriots are better than the Packers. I don't think they are. Each team has their strengths & weaknesses though. I did say the Patriots have better coaches than the Packers & their greatest strength is Belichick, who is one of the best.
I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by everwinter
One theme to beating Brady & the Pats that I've noticed (& I'm not coach, so could be wrong) is pressuring Brady. Like I already said in the original post, Seahawks had very weak to no pressure on Rodgers. 1 sack all game. Now I now the Packers O line is very good. We'll see though how the Seahawks line matches up with the Patriots line.
but as long that the Hawks make the Pats kick field goals like they did versus the Packers, Hawks will win......Hawks kept the Packers to only 6 points in the second half (just 2 field goals) and the Packers are the highest scoring team in the league....when your defense only lets the opponent score 22 points when your offense coughs up 5 turnovers and your offense couldn't get a 1st down until mid in the second quarter and was putting the defense in bad positions, you know the Pats will need a perfect game and luck to beat the Hawks.....because I don't see Wilson having back to back games with 4 INT's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by everwinter
Some injuries take up to 4 weeks or heal or longer. Strength, sensation, coordination, endurance can all be greatly impacted even with a slight injury. I haven't even read what they were diagnosed with, but it could be an issue, or it might not.
Baltimore beat Pittsburgh because Le'Veon Bell was out? I suppose if Bell had played and Pittsburgh had won, it would be ridiculous to say Pittsburgh won because Jimmy Smith was out? It's a team game.
I don't have a crystal ball but I know for sure it would have been a more competitive game and I would have given the edge to Pittsburgh. Le'veon Bell is a bad ass running back but he is more dangerous as a receiver and Baltimore has nobody in their secondary to cover Bell. With Bell out, Ravens could put double coverage on Antonio Brown and forget about defending the run with 8 defenders in the box. Its the same thing with Dallas and Murray....without Murray, Romo wouldn't have a solid year and the Cowboys don't win the division and make the playoffs.
its a teams game but in a few positions is a player's game.....if that's the case why do the pay QB'S millions of dollars if you say that doesn't make any difference, its a team's game!
you mean to tell me if Rodgers, Brady or Wilson are out with injuries their back up will have the same results because its a teams game?
If Lynch is out in the Super Bowl, you think the Hawks will have the same chances of winnig or score points? ....that might work in the regular season agaisnt average to bad teams but not in the playoffs.
its a team game but PRO Stars make the difference between average teams to great teams.
its a teams game but in a few positions is a player's game.....if that's the case why do the pay QB'S millions of dollars if you say that doesn't make any difference, its a team's game!
Because they're white? Just kidding... because they run the system. Le'Veon Bell is not a QB.
Pittsburgh may have won with Bell. That's not my point. My point is it's ridiculous to start whining about injuries. Do you know how many injuries Baltimore had? They lost Flacco's go-to guy (Pitta) in week 3, they lost Jimmy Smith in the middle of the season, and their entire secondary, 2nd string secondary, and 3rd string secondary was injured all year. They played without Ngata for a month, without Jernigan for some time, etc., etc. When they lost games, I wasn't saying "oh they should have won, but there was no Pitta or Smith."
You know what happens in team games? When Pitta goes down, Flacco starts to develop chemistry with guys like Gillmore and Aiken. That's what good teams do.
Because they're white? Just kidding... because they run the system. Le'Veon Bell is not a QB.
but he is the 2nd best RB in the NFL behind Demarco Murray averaging 4.7 yards per carry and averaging 10.3 yards receiving.......that does affect the offense especially in the Playoffs in cold weather.
Go ask Ben, if not having Bell didn't make a difference.
Pittsburgh may have won with Bell. That's not my point. My point is it's ridiculous to start whining about injuries. Do you know how many injuries Baltimore had? They lost Flacco's go-to guy (Pitta) in week 3, they lost Jimmy Smith in the middle of the season, and their entire secondary, 2nd string secondary, and 3rd string secondary was injured all year. They played without Ngata for a month, without Jernigan for some time, etc., etc. When they lost games, I wasn't saying "oh they should have won, but there was no Pitta or Smith."
You know what happens in team games? When Pitta goes down, Flacco starts to develop chemistry with guys like Gillmore and Aiken. That's what good teams do.
who is whining? Injuries are part of football.........but Ravens weren't expected to go far with that secondary defense which is very awful and was painful to watch against the Pats who not only they couldn't cover but couldn't tackle......I'm surprised they scored 31 points and Forsett rushed for 130 yards on the Pats defense and the Pats could only rush for 17 yards.
This is the second year in a row that Pitta has missed the whole season due to injuries. Maybe the Ravens should start looking for someone else because they need a solid TE but their priority is the pass defense.
My point is when the Steelers (supposedly) lose because of an injury to a key player, people put an asterisk next to the Ravens' victory. But if Pittsburgh had won, you wouldn't be placing an asterisk next to their victory because the Ravens didn't have Smith or Pitta available, would you? Just accept that the Ravens were better this year and move on.
Pitta will likely be back, and they've got some other receivers/TEs they used in his absence. Aiken, Gillmore, Brown, Daniels, etc.
My point is when the Steelers (supposedly) lose because of an injury to a key player, people put an asterisk next to the Ravens' victory. But if Pittsburgh had won, you wouldn't be placing an asterisk next to their victory because the Ravens didn't have Smith or Pitta available, would you? Just accept that the Ravens were better this year and move on.
Pitta will likely be back, and they've got some other receivers/TEs they used in his absence. Aiken, Gillmore, Brown, Daniels, etc.
no asterisk......injuries are part of football.....but when the #2 best RB in the NFL is not playing in the playoffs that has an effect on the running game and passing game of the team.
top 6 running backs in the NFL for 2014 were: Murray, Bell, Mccoy, Lynch, Forsett, Lacy:
Those RB's are a huge part of their offense next to the QB.......if you can't run the ball in the playoffs, you can't win.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,989,150 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999
but he is the 2nd best RB in the NFL behind Demarco Murray averaging 4.7 yards per carry and averaging 10.3 yards receiving.......that does affect the offense especially in the Playoffs in cold weather.
Go ask Ben, if not having Bell didn't make a difference.
Maybe Pitt would be in better shape, and NE would be in worse, if they didn't waive Blount who NE are riding.
Maybe Pitt would be in better shape, and NE would be in worse, if they didn't waive Blount who NE are riding.
Blout couldn't run on the Ravens.....and he won't run on the Hawks.......Indy is soft in the middle, no rough ryders in the Colts defense like in the Ravens and Hawks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
