Peter King Re: Ravens

**ExiledRaven** · 06-05-2007, 09:14 PM

I wrote a question to Peter King on why he didn't view the Ravens as potentially one of the AFC powers. Basically went through a list of pros and cons and said that I thought there is a good chance the team can compete with the chargers, pats, and colts.

Strangely, I am "Matt of Baltimore" took some interesting parts, but the response is worth reading.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/peter_king/06/05/mmqbte/index.html

At any rate, we'll find about the paper offseason evaluations when the team plays the charges, colts, and pats back to back to back.

**Art-Florida** · 06-05-2007, 09:29 PM

Pete says, "the Ravens gave Indy everything it could handle in the playoff loss."

Huh? I must have been watching a different channel. We got blown out on the field of play and it was not anywhere near as the score would indicate. The times they are a'changing however.

**Khaine** · 06-06-2007, 10:25 AM

I’m still trying to figure out how SD ranks as high as they say with all the coaching changes. Sure they have a lot of talent but am I the only one who thinks coaching plays a huge part in a teams production?

Case in point look at the tumble the Squeelers took last year when the coach just didn’t care anymore.

**highwater** · 06-06-2007, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by Khaine

I’m still trying to figure out how SD ranks as high as they say with all the coaching changes.

You're not the only one wondering that -- they not only lost their head coach, but their OC and their DC! I know they're talented but that's a lot of turnover on the coaching staff. And for all his playoff failures, anyone who thinks Norv Turner is an upgrade over Marty is

**lance1086** · 06-06-2007, 09:59 PM

Originally Posted by Art-Florida

Pete says, "the Ravens gave Indy everything it could handle in the playoff loss."

Huh? I must have been watching a different channel. We got blown out on the field of play and it was not anywhere near as the score would indicate. The times they are a'changing however.

Maybe I was watching a different game then both of you. Our defense dominated indy's O. If not for good field position, our own TO's, & dropped INTs, Indy might score 9 points. Our offense had a bad game, but I'm not sure how you can say were blown out on the field that day.

**Gwaihir** · 06-07-2007, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by TRAP

I agree. King is right, we gave them everything we could handle. Our D kept the best QB in the game off the board. We came to within 1 play of winning, and that was when Ray batted down a ball with Reed behind him. Reed would have INT it and it might have gone for a score which would have been the difference. As a matter of fact there were 2 balls Ray batted down that Reed would have caught.

Not to mention the ball he stripped out of AD's hands after he was in the process of scooping up that Indy fumble and taking off!

Again, Not to rag on Ray, he's the best! It just bugs me when all these people want to rag on him, saying he's lost a step, isn't as good. etc. Well, if that were true we would have Crushed Indy! It was the fact that he was still all over the field and around the ball that may have cost the defense 7-14 points! Not to mention a few less Indy Field Goals!

**tnsmith90** · 06-07-2007, 03:14 PM

What I don't get is how people can put the Chargers in ahead of us. I can maybe understand the superbowl champs the Colts being in there above us, and maybe the Patriots because they're always at the top and they got ALOT better on offense. But what really bugs me is that the Chargers get included with those two ahead of us by nearly every sports analyst out there. Their inseason record was only one game better than ours, we had more impressive big wins throughout the season in my opinion, and WE BEAT THEM HEADS UP! So just going off of last season they should not even be above us. Then when you include that they made no major additions this offseason, and lost their entire top of their coaching staff it really should be no question that they're going to be a step back this year behind the Ravens.

**Losac** · 06-08-2007, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by tnsmith90

What I don't get is how people can put the Chargers in ahead of us. I can maybe understand the superbowl champs the Colts being in there above us, and maybe the Patriots because they're always at the top and they got ALOT better on offense. But what really bugs me is that the Chargers get included with those two ahead of us by nearly every sports analyst out there. Their inseason record was only one game better than ours, we had more impressive big wins throughout the season in my opinion, and WE BEAT THEM HEADS UP! So just going off of last season they should not even be above us. Then when you include that they made no major additions this offseason, and lost their entire top of their coaching staff it really should be no question that they're going to be a step back this year behind the Ravens.

The media is in love with LT, and seem to be developing a hard-on for Rivers.