(07-29-2015, 04:09 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: They have to be somewhat objective, so look at my evaluations of the Ravens in this thread and comment as to why they're wrong.

Based on your parameters, there is no way Baltimore would be ahead of Dallas and Pittsburgh.  

(07-29-2015, 04:35 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Based on your parameters, there is no way Baltimore would be ahead of Dallas and Pittsburgh.  

Like I said, those aren't the only parameters and they have to be somewhat objective, so explain how any of the points I made about about the Ravens this year are wrong, which I asked you to do in my last post and you ignored.

I have no idea why the Steelers are at 10 because, even if their D does slip with losing Lebeau, Troy, and whoever else, they still have A Bryant and Bell on offense, so I think they can win in a lot of shootouts.

(07-29-2015, 05:29 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Like I said, those aren't the only parameters and they have to be somewhat objective, so explain how any of the points I made about about the Ravens this year are wrong, which I asked you to do in my last post and you ignored.

I have no idea why the Steelers are at 10 because, even if their D does slip with losing Lebeau, Troy, and whoever else, they still have A Bryant and Bell on offense, so I think they can win in a lot of shootouts.

The Steelers and the Cowboys both won their divisions last year, so someone looking to put teams with past success and large followings up high could very legitimately put them above the Ravens.  You can disagree with the Ravens being where they are, but it's not because what you are posing.

(07-29-2015, 05:29 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Like I said, those aren't the only parameters and they have to be somewhat objective, so explain how any of the points I made about about the Ravens this year are wrong, which I asked you to do in my last post and you ignored.

You started off irrational because of a PRE SEASON POLL. Also stating

(07-29-2015, 05:29 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: They don't give a shit about a small market team like the Bengals.

As one of your reasons.
In which many posters have shown you that Baltimore is a small market team also. Thus your point was Wrong.

(07-29-2015, 03:45 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: then how does Forbes have them as the 10th ranked franchise in the NFL in terms of money and how come they make so much more money than the Bengals? (Bengals were 27th on the list.)

(07-29-2015, 03:45 PM)BFritz21 Wrote:


It's not about market size only, it's about popularity and past success, which brings more income and ratings.

Didn't you just answer your own question?

(07-29-2015, 07:46 AM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: no.  he had become more of a liability the last couple of seasons.  such is the case with age.

Whoa. Eerie. Your wife was saying the same thing about you, last night. 

(07-29-2015, 06:07 PM)Bmoreblitz Wrote: You started off irrational because of a PRE SEASON POLL. Also stating  As one of your reasons.  
In which many posters have shown you that Baltimore is a small market team also. Thus your point was Wrong.

What I meant was, even though they're a small market, their fanbase and popularity are much larger, hence more money and a larger following.

(07-29-2015, 11:01 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: What I meant was, even though they're a small market, their fanbase and popularity are much larger, hence more money and a larger following.

So you admit you were wrong?

Could this be.... growth? From Brad?

(07-29-2015, 11:10 PM)MrRager Wrote: So you admit you were wrong?

Could this be.... growth? From Brad?

I admit when I'm wrong, but here was just a misunderstanding.  

Are you ever NOT a troll on anything I post?

What does market size and income have to do with talent ranking in today's NFL?

That extra money does not provide an edge in paying players/drafting players/coaching players.

(07-29-2015, 11:10 PM)MrRager Wrote: So you admit you were wrong?

Could this be.... growth? From Brad?

Apparently not

(07-30-2015, 10:08 AM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: What does market size and income have to do with talent ranking in today's NFL?

That extra money does not provide an edge in paying players/drafting players/coaching players.

Nothing much at all.

Some people can't let the conspiracy theories go though. If the Bengals are ranked #3 (like they were last year early in the season), it's because we have such a talented team. If they're ranked any lower, it's because no one gives a shit about our small market team.

I'd say this theory has more to do with small brains than it does small markets.

(07-29-2015, 11:01 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: What I meant was, even though they're a small market, their fanbase and popularity are much larger, hence more money and a larger following.

Then explain to me why Pitt isn't higher than Baltimore.  They have a bigger following, a more impressive history, and they won the division last year.  Under your theory, why is Baltimore higher?

(07-30-2015, 10:24 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Then explain to me why Pitt isn't higher than Baltimore.  They have a bigger following, a more impressive history, and they won the division last year.  Under your theory, why is Baltimore higher?

Because

(07-30-2015, 10:24 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Then explain to me why Pitt isn't higher than Baltimore.  They have a bigger following, a more impressive history, and they won the division last year.  Under your theory, why is Baltimore higher?

Didn't I say that confused me as to why they're not higher and Baltimore is that high?

Explain how my points about the Ravens and their team outlook for the season is wrong and then come back and explain how Baltimore is that high.

This is at least the third time I've asked you, so please do that so it and prove my theory wrong.

(07-30-2015, 10:08 AM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: What does market size and income have to do with talent ranking in today's NFL?

That extra money does not provide an edge in paying players/drafting players/coaching players.

Wellllllllllll it might a little bit. Coaching, scouting, and other staff positions don't fall under the salary cap. It could help to have more/better people. Better facilities might entice FAs if everything else is equal (JJo). But for the most part, yeah, it does not matter. 

(07-30-2015, 09:59 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: I admit when I'm wrong,

(07-30-2015, 09:59 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: but here was just a misunderstanding.  

Ohhhhh. So I was right. 

(07-30-2015, 01:58 PM)MrRager Wrote:

Ohhhhh. So I was right. 

I'd admit if I was wrong here, but the small local market of the team doesn't mean that they don't have a large following in the country, aren't popular, and don't bring in more money.

Stop being a child and engage in the discussion if I'm wrong.

You'd also have to address how they're that high with all of the losses and changes I mentioned.

(07-30-2015, 01:47 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Didn't I say that confused me as to why they're not higher and Baltimore is that high?

Explain how my points about the Ravens and their team outlook for the season is wrong and then come back and explain how Baltimore is that high.

This is at least the third time I've asked you, so please do that so it and prove my theory wrong.

Since when is insulting a productive, veteran WR and pointing out which players left via trade or free agency a "theory"?

Anyhoo, Steve Smith is still really good, I don't know if you watched football last year or not, but I doubt he's going to magically fall off a cliff after looking fine last season.

Torrey Smith? Didn't they just draft a bigger, faster version of that guy? Problem solved there.
Ngata? Per PFF, Brandon Williams was the Ravens best run defender last year on their entire team. Timmy Jernigan also exists, do you not follow our division rivals at all?
McPhee? This was realistically their biggest loss IMO. I've seen Ravens fans saying Upshaw will take his snaps. Courtney Upshaw is alright, we'll see how that works out.
Daniels? They'll be rolling with just about as much experience as we have at the position. I think Eifert is definitely more talented than Gillmore, but we both have inexperienced groups there.

Overall, they ranked highly on defense with a practice squad secondary last year. They have great ownership and coaches. They have Flacco who can turn it on randomly throughout the year and a disgusting offensive line, along with at least one talented back and some promise at receiver. Everyone says "the game is won in the trenches", and can you name a team with a better front 7 on defense AND offensive line? I probably can't.

Having some sort of objectivity won't kill you. I'm a Bengals fan, and I believe we have a great team right now, but the Ravens aren't nearly as f'd as a lot of people in JN want to believe.

So if I say something completely incorrect, I am allowed to say "i misunderstood" instead of saying I was wrong?

Nice!

Brad, plz disprove my theory.

Or did you misunderstand something again?