Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Why are the Raven so much better than the Steelers?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Baltimore Ravens
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
SteelProven


Moderator
Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 11661
Location: Ramstein, Germany
PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2005 10:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

raven5255 wrote:
Kendrell Bell hasnt done anything since 2001 or whenever he won the rookie year, so him not being healthy shouldnt be a factor.
The true list of the ravens starters that were either out or heavily beaten up to the point that they need to constantly sub-out are
Jon Ogden- 7 time probowler
Mike Flynn-starting center
Orlando Brown- starting RT
Peter Boulware-Starting OLB (4 time probowler)
Ray Lewis starting MLB- No explanation needed
Deon Sanders Nickelback- Best CB of all time
Todd Heap- Ravens only offensive weapon
Jamal Lewis- 2000 yard rusher


That 8 guys that had huge rolls for the Ravens. Steelers didnt lose anything close to that. Maybe you need to use your head before you to tell me to use mine huh?


I understand that there was some key injuries but half those guys played the majority of the season. The guys I name played less than half. How can you say that the steelers injuries weren't as significant as the ravens? Just because they maybe better doesn't make there injuries any more drastic. Half the steelers team were all 2nd or 3rd stringers (Big Ben, J.Bettis, K. Vincent who now plays for the Ravens, O. Ross, C. Hoke, W. Williams, A. Randle El, J. Tuman, L. Foote) and they still ended up 15-1. So why was the Ravens 9-7?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
raven5255


Moderator

Most Valuable Poster (6th Ballot)

Joined: 06 Jan 2005
Posts: 13634
PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2005 12:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

wait wait your saying even though the Ravens lost better players, that doesnt make it more drastic?? So Peyton Manning going down for 10 weeks is just as drastic as say Joey Harrington going down for 10 weeks?
No, losing Manning is a much bigger loss then lossing Harrington. Lossing Manning for 4 weeks would be a bigger loss the Harrington being lost for an entire season. It DOES matter if better players are injured.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SteelProven


Moderator
Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 11661
Location: Ramstein, Germany
PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2005 2:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The steelers are just like the patriots minus the titles of course. They built from within so when a player goes down he just as valuable as a superstar player. So yes i did mean it like that. Ben is just as important to the steelers as Peyton is to the colts. He goes down and the whole game plan goes down.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BaltimoreTerp


Most Valuable Poster (4th Ballot)

Joined: 13 Feb 2005
Posts: 27608
Location: Washington, DC
PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2005 4:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SteelProven wrote:
The steelers are just like the patriots minus the titles of course. They built from within so when a player goes down he just as valuable as a superstar player. So yes i did mean it like that. Ben is just as important to the steelers as Peyton is to the colts. He goes down and the whole game plan goes down.



i severely doubt it.
big ben was a product of the great running game, not the other way around.
_________________
"The really important kind of freedom involves attention, and awareness, and discipline, and effort, and being able truly to care about other people and to sacrifice for them, over and over, in myriad petty little unsexy ways, every day.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ravensd20


Joined: 22 Mar 2005
Posts: 54
Location: Sykesville MD
PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2005 6:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree, to say that Ben is as important as peyton to their respective offenses is rediculous. Alot of qaurterbacks could have done what ben did, he was carried by a great supporting cast. But peyton is his team, the colts would have lost more than half the games they won without him.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
SteelProven


Moderator
Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 11661
Location: Ramstein, Germany
PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2005 11:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ben won every game they asked him, the dallas game, jacksonville, bengals, the ravens. That's not true about anybody could have done it with our running game. What about T. Maddox he could do it. K. Boller had J. Lewis he couldn't do it. So it is the QB that determines the out come of the game. That's why a QB was chosen #1 overall the past 5 years.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
raven5255


Moderator

Most Valuable Poster (6th Ballot)

Joined: 06 Jan 2005
Posts: 13634
PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 12:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jamal Lewis was not the same this season. He missed 5 games completly from injury/suspension and basically hardly played in 2 others. He was bothered by a nagging ankle injury all season not to mention a bad court case on something that happened almost 6 years ago when he has at Tennessee so that had to have taken a huge toll on him.

Big Ben had Burress, Ward, Randle El, excellent running game, excellent Oline, and the #1 defense

Boller had Travis Taylor and a bunch of rookies at WR, a beaten up and constantly injured Oline, a running game that was far from what it was in 2003 and the #6 defense

You tell me who had the better supporting cast. Ben is great QB and had a phenominal rookie season, but with that team around him, even i could win a few games at QB.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sp6488


Joined: 14 Mar 2005
Posts: 8178
Location: MD
PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 11:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rmember, while our D may have been #6 in total yardage, it was better than #6. All those TOs and points generated, plus holding many high powered offenses to low point totals.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
raven5255


Moderator

Most Valuable Poster (6th Ballot)

Joined: 06 Jan 2005
Posts: 13634
PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 11:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

my point is that last year, the steelers were better in just about every aspect of the game last year.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SteelProven


Moderator
Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 11661
Location: Ramstein, Germany
PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 1:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Supporting cast means absolutely nothing. There are a few teams that have good supporting cast and still are subpar for instance. Rams, Seahawks, Jaguars, Bengals, Vikings, Bills, and Saints. All these teams have experienced QB's with good runnings backs. So why weren't they 15-1 last year?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
raven5255


Moderator

Most Valuable Poster (6th Ballot)

Joined: 06 Jan 2005
Posts: 13634
PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 2:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A running back and a quarterback do not make up a team. I cant belive you just said supporting cast means nothing, that might be the worst statement ive ever seen; it means everything. Even your examples are bad.

Rams: Yes they have Bulger and while Jackson looked good for a rookie, he switched playing time with faulk which lead to instability in the runnin game.

Seahawks: Yes Alexander is stud, but Hasselbeck was far from his 2003 probowl performance and the WRs caught more colds then footballs.

Jaguars: Leftwhich is solid but hes no probowler, Fred Taylor has seen a steady decrease of production as well.

Bengals: Again, Palmer was just in his first starting season with a very young team, hardly a top QB yet.

Vikings: Culpepper is amazing, and they have 3 good RBs, but they dont have a clear starter.

Bills: Drew Bledsoe is hardly a good QB and McGahee didnt start till week 5 or 6.

Saints: Agian, Brooks is not that great of a QB and Duece McAllister was injured for a bunch of games and really didnt play well to his standards.

And whats one more thing that these teams have in common? NO DEFENSE! (with the exception of Buffalo(8th) and Jacksonville(12th) who made strong playoff runs)

Seahawks:23rd
Bengals: 26th
Vikings: 21st
Saints:30th

Are you still gonna tell me a supporting cast means nothing??? Thats one of worst statements ive ever seen.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ThunderDawg27


Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 481
PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 2:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Because none of those teams u named, except for maybe the Jags and Bills, has a decent defense...

And i wouldn't go as far as saying supporting cast means absolutely nothing... Sure, QB is probably the most important thing for your offense, but u eventually need SOME help in order to win a championship. Sure McNabb made it to 3 NFC title games 3 straight years even without T.O., but what happened? He ran into 3 great teams, and 2 of those teams had great defenses. He ran into another good defense in the Patriots in the SB, and even with a good game from T.O., it still wasn't enough. A QB by himself can help u win games, but eventually u need some sort of help, but at the same time, the QB needs to keep doing what he's done best and not just rely on the help he seems to be getting.

-ThunderDawg27
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SteelProven


Moderator
Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 11661
Location: Ramstein, Germany
PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 9:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

raven5255 wrote:
A running back and a quarterback do not make up a team. I cant belive you just said supporting cast means nothing, that might be the worst statement ive ever seen; it means everything. Even your examples are bad.

Rams: Yes they have Bulger and while Jackson looked good for a rookie, he switched playing time with faulk which lead to instability in the runnin game.

Seahawks: Yes Alexander is stud, but Hasselbeck was far from his 2003 probowl performance and the WRs caught more colds then footballs.

Jaguars: Leftwhich is solid but hes no probowler, Fred Taylor has seen a steady decrease of production as well.

Bengals: Again, Palmer was just in his first starting season with a very young team, hardly a top QB yet.

Vikings: Culpepper is amazing, and they have 3 good RBs, but they dont have a clear starter.

Bills: Drew Bledsoe is hardly a good QB and McGahee didnt start till week 5 or 6.

Saints: Agian, Brooks is not that great of a QB and Duece McAllister was injured for a bunch of games and really didnt play well to his standards.

And whats one more thing that these teams have in common? NO DEFENSE! (with the exception of Buffalo(8th) and Jacksonville(12th) who made strong playoff runs)

Seahawks:23rd
Bengals: 26th
Vikings: 21st
Saints:30th

Are you still gonna tell me a supporting cast means nothing??? Thats one of worst statements ive ever seen.


Supporting cast in my book is over rated. Last time I remembered i'm entitled to my opinion right? That's what this forums about being different everybody opinion differs. My argument is this everybody claims Ben had Burress. How many game winning touchdowns did Burress have? Ward received 35% of Big Bens passes that's the highest in the NFL. So when people say ben had burress that's well overrated Burress only had 35 catches 196 completions thats less 20%. While Randle El had 43 catches so when people said Ben had Burress that's well overrated. Ben was the main reason they had that record along with D. LeBeau. But T. Maddox had the same supporting cast and barely did anything. Supporting cast is over-rated if used improperly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
raven5255


Moderator

Most Valuable Poster (6th Ballot)

Joined: 06 Jan 2005
Posts: 13634
PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sorry, im just completly baffled by your argument. Let me ask you this question, if Big Ben was on the Giants and Eli was on the steelers and both started at the same time, would the steelers still have gone 15-1 and would the Giants still have gone 6-10? I think even Peyton Manning would have had trouble with the Giants.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SteelProven


Moderator
Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 11661
Location: Ramstein, Germany
PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 9:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ben is a good feild general those are untaught intangibles. Every NFL broadcaster said about Ben he just has it. Eli has it but it's taken a little time for it to be seen. I think the Giants would of had a winning record and Ben would of still won rookie of the year. While Eli would lead the steelers to a 8-8 record.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Baltimore Ravens All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group