2 replies to this topic

[Mr. Oriole]

If the pundits and casual NFL fans hadn't jumped on the Raven's bandwagon, they were already on the Bears. In an ESPN poll, 71% of responders expected the Bears go into Lambeau field and beat the Packers. Why? Because they seemed to finally have the tools on offense to match a good defense - even with a recovering Brian Urlacher. They were confident and the Packers were coming off a loss at home that was not nearly as close as the final score indicated.

Who does that sound like? The Baltimore Ravens. The Ravens have some holes that good teams will exploit - and despite what the Eagles did last week against the lowly Browns, they are a good team.

In year's past these same Ravens have leaped out of the gate - last year against the Steelers - only to lay a big one - last year versus the Titans, a game that I was at.

Let's hope they can keep the momentum going this year.

[ravens8589]

The Bears are a lot less complete of a team though. They are not nearly as good on defense and they really don't have that many weapons outside of Marshall and Hester and Forte. Going into the year, I wasn't that high on the Bears.

With that said, here is the big difference between the Ravens and Bears; Joe Flacco. It's not like I'm just jumping on board with him, I've always had confidence in him. Flacco does not turn the ball over nearly as much as Cutler. Our offensive line is also not nearly as poor as the Bears. While the Ravens have holes that can be exploited, they are not nearly as gaping as the Bears. You have to really earn a win against Baltimore while I believe Green Bay got gift wrapped that victory against Chicago. Green Bay was not all that impressive either. If Green Bay had played that way against Baltimore, Pittsburgh, New England, etc., they would have lost.

I don't take much stock in what analysts have to say about Baltimore honestly. Some analysts have made a living over the last few years bashing Baltimore and not giving them credit, which is fine with me. So, why should it change now that analysts finally have faith in them? This team doesn't pay attention to that stuff, they just take it one day at a time. I'm not saying a victory is guaranteed, because as you said, Philly is a good team, but I have more faith in Baltimore going into Philly than Chicago going into Lambeau.

[Mr. Oriole]

The Bears are a lot less complete of a team though. They are not nearly as good on defense and they really don't have that many weapons outside of Marshall and Hester and Forte. Going into the year, I wasn't that high on the Bears.

With that said, here is the big difference between the Ravens and Bears; Joe Flacco. It's not like I'm just jumping on board with him, I've always had confidence in him. Flacco does not turn the ball over nearly as much as Cutler. Our offensive line is also not nearly as poor as the Bears. While the Ravens have holes that can be exploited, they are not nearly as gaping as the Bears. You have to really earn a win against Baltimore while I believe Green Bay got gift wrapped that victory against Chicago. Green Bay was not all that impressive either. If Green Bay had played that way against Baltimore, Pittsburgh, New England, etc., they would have lost.

I don't take much stock in what analysts have to say about Baltimore honestly. Some analysts have made a living over the last few years bashing Baltimore and not giving them credit, which is fine with me. So, why should it change now that analysts finally have faith in them? This team doesn't pay attention to that stuff, they just take it one day at a time. I'm not saying a victory is guaranteed, because as you said, Philly is a good team, but I have more faith in Baltimore going into Philly than Chicago going into Lambeau.

Sorry... But this comes across as an extreme case of homerism. I'll stand by what I said, even before our current struggles vs. the Eagles.