Well....there is some consolation

I really didn't want to see Baltimore win this whole thing. Congratulations to them, however, on a storybook season.

My consolation is that, though the Ravens are the SB champions, they certainly weren't dominant. They very easily could have (and arguably, should have) lost a couple of games in this playoff run. Honestly, I don't think they were the best team in football this year.

 

They made it to the championship game because Rahim Moore suffered a brain aneurysm on the field. (I know that there are other plays in every game, but come on, it's not every day a safety is in perfect position on a hail mary and then runs to the wrong spot and falls down for no apparent reason).

My consolation is that it is time for them to pay some players, so they will be handcuffed the way we've been in coming years. I don't care where Flacco now ranks among quarterbacks, but I care where he ranks in salary, and I'm happy to say that now it will be toward the very top.

 

That and I dont know who all the ravens free agents are this year, but they will more than likely lose a few of them. A lot of guys get a ring, and then go for the money after the season. Obviously they will sign Flacco or franchise him, but I know CB Cary Williams, OLB Kruger, and Ed Reed are all free agents, and I'm sure a couple will cash in elsewhere.

 

Meh. I'm not so sure we were the best team in the league during our last two titles. A little Kimo-therapy and some fortuitous events (great teams being knocked out: brady to champ bailey '06, top seeds knocked out year cards won it all as colts lost to chargers and giants and eagles were upset, etc) helped us out immensely.

It takes a lot to win the Super Bowl. You need to stay healthy, you need some fortuitous post-season matchups, you need to get hot later in the season rather than earlier: '11 nygiants, '12 houston texans), and you could always use a little luck (jacoby from flacco in mile high city).

 

I've had many people say the same thing to me over the years. Talk about how the Steelers weren't really the best team in the league during their two Superbowl runs. My argument is always the same, the team that wins the Superbowl is the best team in the league, period! It's not even debatable. Baltimore won more games than any other team in the league; therefore, they are the best in the league. Are they the best on paper? Who cares, we don't judge teams on paper, we play the games to decide who is the best. We were the best in 2005 and 2008, the Giants were the best in 2007 and last year, and the Ravens are the best this year.

Sure, they could have lost to Denver and could have lost to SF, but they didn't. We could have lost to Indy in 2005, but we didn't. I don't even understand this argument.

 

Ron Cook has an article in this morning's P-G about the fact that the Ravens FO will have to be paying some players more now, and we may be seeing the end of a
few of them. Well, at least for our division if he's right. Too soon to tell yet, though.

 

Why wouldn't the ravens and players do whatever they could creative, monetarily to repeat next year?
They are actually on a mini dynasty type roll.
They probably should have been in the Super Bowl last year too.
They would be shooting for 3 in a row.
Think about that. 3 in a row.

 

Wait - don't the Ratbirds have a tradition of trading their QB right after they win a SB? Hopefully the trend continues. Although - Afflacco sure had some trouble keeping up with our 2nd and 3rd string QBs this past year and maybe better for that trend to continue (against our 1st stringer of course).

 

they should have gone out in denver , i don't think they are on the roll , good team overall but not dominant at all .they were lucky all year

 

So the San Diego Chargers had a better football team than us in 1994?

The Pittsburgh Steelers weren't the best team in the NFL in 1976? The Chief and Dan both went on record as saying they felt that was the best team in the franchise's history. (we didn't win the Super Bowl that year -- didn't even win the conference -- that whole injury thing I alluded to earlier . . . )

Your "not even debatable" comment is, well . . . highly debatable. In fact, I think it provides an opportunity for strong arguments from both sides.

You can add BILL COWHER to your list of "many people" who think the Steelers weren't the best team in football in 2005.

 

Speaking of the 1976 season and the subject of luck, the Steelers should have been hosting the AFC title game that year against the Patriots: but the Raiders lucked out with a questionable Sugar Ray Hamilton penalty that helped the Raiders continute their game-winning TD drive.

 

2012 Champ: Ravens; Best Team: Patriots
2011 Champ: Giants; Best Team: Packers
2010 Champ: Packers; Best Team: Patriots
2009 Champ: Saints; Best Team: Colts
2008 Champ: Steelers; Best Team: Giants
2007 Champ: Giants; Best Team: Patriots
2006 Champ: Colts; Best Team: Chargers
2005 Champ: Steelers; Best Team: Colts
2004 Champ: Patriots; Best Team: Patriots
2003 Champ: Patriots; Best Team: Patriots
2002 Champ: Bucs; Best Team: Eagles
2001 Champ: Patriots; Best Team: Rams
2000 Champ: Ravens; Best Team: Titans
1999 Champ: Rams; Best Team: Rams
1998 Champ: Broncos; Best Team: Broncos
1997 Champ: Broncos; Best Team: Packers
1996 Champ: Packers; Best Team: Packers

 

Raiders knocked the Pats out with luck and the Pats knocked the Raiders out with 'tuck.'

Two questionable calls changed our playoff fortunes (or misfortunes).

 

But when it mattered most, only one team stepped up and won the game. We use head to head contests to determine who is the best team, we don't label the best team based on their paper roster. As far as I'm concerned, the best team is the one that wins the Superbowl, and it's not debatable whatsoever in my eyes. In sports it always comes down to the championship, nothing else matters. If those other teams were truly the best, they wouldn't have lost when it counted the most.

 

The best refers to 1 and only 1. It is impossible to have more than 1 best team. If you start labeling teams as being the best based on their regular season results and their rosters, you're going to get different replies from different people. Some people might say the Patriots were the best team this year, some might say it was the Broncos, some might say the 49'ers, some might say the Falcons and others will say the Ravens. Who gets to decide? Is there one person out there that gets to decide who is the best? Does 12to88 get to decide who is the best NFL team?

The absolute only way to truly crown a team as the best is to crown the team that won the championship game, otherwise you're going to have more than 1 best team.

 

I know you personally didn't, but that's my point. If the best team isn't necessarily the one that wins the SB, who is the best team? Unless every person in the world agrees on one other team, there's going to be more than one team that people feel is the best. You might say the Patriots were the best this year, but I might say I think the Broncos were better. So then which of those two teams is the best? It can't be both of them. That's why in my eyes since there can only be one best team, and since the world will never unanimously agree on 1 team, the best is always the team that wins the championship game. After all, they did what no other team could do. Otherwise, why not just get rid of the championship game and award a paper trophy based on regular season results?

 

Ravens win the SB. My consolation is that it wasn't the Patriots, Cowboys or; God forbid, the Chargers.

 

Me too! I REFUSE to congratulate those scumbags. And you are EXACTLY right that the team that wins the Super Bowl is not always the best team. I refer you to 2007 to ABSOLUTELY, WITHOUT A DOUBT, CONCLUSIVELY, DECISIVELY, POSITIVELY, PROVE that the best team doesn't always win the Super Bowl. If you can tell me that there was a better team in the NFL than a team that went 18 and ZERO you are so smoking crack it's not even funny. If you can tell me that a team that went 10-6 and beat ONE team with a winning record in the regular season is better than a team that lost ZERO games in the regular season then you need some fresh air and you need it QUICK! That is the end of the debate. PERIOD. But as far as our 05 team don't forget that Ben got hurt and that cost us some games so we might have had a better record if not for that happening. So I would say that our final record is not indicative of the team that we actually were ya know?

 

Here is the only thing that could've made that game a worse scenario for a Steelers fan yesterday. Replace the 9ers with the Cowboys and THEN who would we be rooting for??? Oh man I probably would've just jumped off my roof or something. IF a team was gonna catch us in rings I would MUCH rather it be the 9ers than the Cowgirls. I've always loved the 9ers actually. The thing that made it hard for me to root for was because I like being the only team with 6 but even more so than that is the fact that I can not and never have been able to stand Jim Harbaugh. I still was for the 9ers just because I hate the Ravens so bad and ESPECIALLY Flacco, the murderer, and the gumby looking wife beater.

 

I appreciate your thoughts. I disagree about our last two titles, though. I think we were the best team in '08, and in '05 we might not have been the best but I don't think anyone was better.

just my opinion
/shrug

 

the rats have pick 32 in the draft.

 

Everyone has their opinion. I wish I believed we were the best that year, too. Unfortunately, I don't. I think we REALLY lucked out when San Diego knocked the Colts out. Maybe even fortunate Dungy rested (rusted?) his players up the final weeks of the season. We were also damn fortunate Bernard Pollard did his thing in week one. And it was nice to see a weak Cardinals team roll through the playoffs.

Like I said before, winning the Super Bowl takes health, a hot streak, and some favorable post-season matchups.