Originally Posted by Bearcat (Post 17362167)

Yeah, that's why it's so strange ya'll are here trying so hard to convince us the Ravens are amazing because of regular season MVPs and DVOA.... I would have guessed the bar was set higher for the franchise.

I get it for say Bengals fans, who went from one of the worst franchises ever to being in AFCCG/SBs, or Bills fans who spent 20 years looking up at Brady..... you go from 5-win seasons to the playoffs and you think the hard part is over and all playoff teams are basically the same.

Hell, we did it as Chiefs fans for decades.... "just get into the playoffs and anything can happen!"... and then demanding respect because they finally won a WC game.

I'd think a franchise who's had the full range of great regular season/one and done, Super Bowl victories, etc; wouldn't so loudly count their eggs before they're hatched. :shrug:

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 17362197)

The Ravens let Lamar go try to get a deal elsewhere.

Yeah, they'd trade him for Josh Allen. In a second.

Originally Posted by OneWinningDrive (Post 17362204)

If you asked 100 Ravens fans if they would trade Lamar for Josh Allen they would say no. 100/100.

Originally Posted by OneWinningDrive (Post 17362181)

None of the evals you did here are unreasonable. But the problem with this back-of-the-napkin roster comparison is it doesn't take into consideration the degree of "better than" or "worse than." I would argue there are a few position groups here where the Ravens are significantly better than the Chiefs (LB and S) but not vice versa. And also, how/why are we saying the Chiefs are better at QB even though the Ravens have the MVP QB? Better at RB even though the Ravens have a higher Y/A and the highest yards per game in the NFL?

As you can tell from that analysis, you can argue this endlessly. Which is where something like DVOA would come in, because it's standardizing its evals and adjusting them based on situation. That gets laughed at here, but I'm not sure how else to try to be objective. I would mention PFF grades, but I imagine that will get an even more raucous response.

As to the Chiefs D, I think it's fair to point out that it's the best defense the Chiefs have fielded in the Mahomes era. But my question would be, is it a difference making defense?

You say the Ravens haven't played a tougher defense, but they played the Browns twice. And yet, when push came to shove in the playoffs, the Browns defense couldn't make a difference in their game against the Texans. I think it's worth nothing that the Ravens also play their own defense every single day.

I think the Chiefs' D has been competent all year. But without the benefit of a home crowd rattling the opposing offense, and when the other team is throwing the kitchen sink out on offense, is the Chiefs D a difference maker? Genuine question. Because as a Ravens fan, I've seen many "good" defenses. But there's a difference between ones that make a difference and can get a stop when needed and ones that look good on paper but don't rise to the occasion given the natural bias toward offenses.

Originally Posted by OneWinningDrive (Post 17362204)

If you asked 100 Ravens fans if they would trade Lamar for Josh Allen they would say no. 100/100.

Originally Posted by OneWinningDrive (Post 17362181)

None of the evals you did here are unreasonable. But the problem with this back-of-the-napkin roster comparison is it doesn't take into consideration the degree of "better than" or "worse than." I would argue there are a few position groups here where the Ravens are significantly better than the Chiefs (LB and S) but not vice versa. And also, how/why are we saying the Chiefs are better at QB even though the Ravens have the MVP QB? Better at RB even though the Ravens have a higher Y/A and the highest yards per game in the NFL?

As you can tell from that analysis, you can argue this endlessly. Which is where something like DVOA would come in, because it's standardizing its evals and adjusting them based on situation. That gets laughed at here, but I'm not sure how else to try to be objective. I would mention PFF grades, but I imagine that will get an even more raucous response.

As to the Chiefs D, I think it's fair to point out that it's the best defense the Chiefs have fielded in the Mahomes era. But my question would be, is it a difference making defense?

You say the Ravens haven't played a tougher defense, but they played the Browns twice. And yet, when push came to shove in the playoffs, the Browns defense couldn't make a difference in their game against the Texans. I think it's worth nothing that the Ravens also play their own defense every single day.

I think the Chiefs' D has been competent all year. But without the benefit of a home crowd rattling the opposing offense, and when the other team is throwing the kitchen sink out on offense, is the Chiefs D a difference maker? Genuine question. Because as a Ravens fan, I've seen many "good" defenses. But there's a difference between ones that make a difference and can get a stop when needed and ones that look good on paper but don't rise to the occasion given the natural bias toward offenses.

Originally Posted by Coochie liquor (Post 17362196)

If we’re being honest. Burrow/Cinci are our only true rivals. Since Brady is gone they’re the only team that’s dropped an L on us in the playoffs.

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho (Post 17361904)

Your numbers are, well, wrong.

Kelce had 93 receptions for 984 and 5 TDs in 15 games.

Andrews did indeed have the numbers you quote.

If you pace those rates, Kelce averaged more catches and yards per game than Andrews.Andrews did have more touchdowns, though, so, congrats I guess?

Originally Posted by OneWinningDrive (Post 17362204)

If you asked 100 Ravens fans if they would trade Lamar for Josh Allen they would say no. 100/100.

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 17362205)

Sure. Fans are dumb.

Originally Posted by OneWinningDrive (Post 17362188)

I think I understand what you're saying, but I don't think you need to bias the numbers to see how successful the Ravens have been.

They have the fourth most wins in the NFL since they've come into existence in 1996. Second most road playoff wins in NFL history after only the Cowboys/Packers who are tied. Two Super Bowls. 5 AFCCG appearances. These are numbers that hold up in absolute terms and not just based on percentages.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 17362201)

But he had more TDs this year than Kelce had in 17 games. So he's definitely better.

Originally Posted by OneWinningDrive (Post 17362224)

You think the coach and GM who built their entire offense around a guy for the past five years would dispose of him for a guy who is worse by almost every statistic? Based on what, exactly? Your eye test?

These hypothetical are ridiculous in the first place.