Bengals vs Ravens post game discussion

[ShulaSteakhouse]

And as for TJ, I have a great deal of respect for him as a competitor and he was part of the group that helped bring this team out of the trash heap and made them relevant once again. However, he chose to make career move out of here and he should hold no bitterness towards the team. Maybe he felt like he got low-balled but this team kept him in 2003 even though he was injured. I believe the resigned him after the 2004(?) season when they could have let him walk. So I'm not sure why he says he hates the organization. I think they did pretty good by him.

The Patriots do to players what the Bengals did to TJ, all the time - let players go when they feel they are declining and are too expensive to keep. If only the Bengals did that more often and had replacements in-line (something they've gotten better at under Marvin) - bad examples are Levi and Willie. But again they are getting better at it.

Moss is whining about it now, TJ does the same. That's life, those guys got paid, move on already.

[Sea Ray]

Levi's decline caught them by surprise due to nagging injuries. We can't blame them there

[jjakq27]

I don't see the similarity with the J Smith call. Justin actually sacked the QB while he had the ball and the ref didn't like how the QB hit the ground. In this case Carson released the ball and was hit. When you sack a guy, hitting the ground is kinda part of the deal...

My point was that to the naked eye or us laymen it appeared that there was nothing out of the ordinary with the hit or in the case of Justin Smith with his tackle. However the referees thought otherwise.

Here are the comments from NFL offical Gene Steratore as posted on bengals.com. I assume he was the guy that made the call.

About the roughing the passer call on Terrell Suggs?

"The roughing the passer as I defined it in my opinion on that play is the defender who has driven his body weight onto the quarterback as he's tackling him. He's applying his body weight on there. It's a judgment call and in my opinion I felt like he had driven himself into the ground with the quarterback."

Extra effort then to bring him down?

"Yes."

It was the body weight and not steps?

"The step aspect is not part of that judgment. It's another category but to apply your body weight on the quarterback as you drive him into the ground is a judgment call and that's the way that I looked at it."

[redsbengalsbucks]

Ray-ray's postgame comments on how the Ravens lost. Whaaa...fkn...whaaa!!!!!

It looks like all of your macho-bully BS has bitten you and your team in the ass once again. You reap what you sow MFer. You still haven't learned a thing.

"I don't think I want to be politically correct right here. I want to be honest," Lewis said. "Honest is you put six points on the [darn]board by people doing their jobs. We laugh about it so much [about] quarterbacks getting all of this protection. I get tired of whining about quarterbacks. [but] Terrell can't stop in midair and pull up on Carson after he still has the ball."

Lewis added, "You always try to be careful because the league always tries to fine you. But there are so many rules that take away from the game. I get blocked into the player and you tell me that I tripped this man, but this man fell over my feet. There's too much crying from them. You already make the big money. Keep your big money. But don't cry when you step on the football field. That's war out there. If you want to go at it, go at it hard. But don't disrespect the game like that."

/>http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/ravens/bs-sp-ravens-ray-lewis-0920-20100919,0,2129276.story

I dont have a problem with them complaining about the Suggs personal foul, I didnt see anything wrong with that hit.

But, Ray obviously was tripping on purpose and he can complain all he wants.

[derekshank]

Ray complains about penalties a lot. He did it last year with the Chad penalty too.

I agree that it wasn't roughing, but Ray goes far out of his way to intimidate by playing an excessively violent style of football. It works well... but when that's your goal, you can expect the refs to be on the lookout for anything they see as excessive.

The Bengals have been on the wrong end of that too... so yes, it sucks. But the Bengals won by more than a FG. What killed the Ravens was the Scott kickoff return and the interceptions... not the 15-20 penalty yards.

[BengalByTheBay]

I dont have a problem with them complaining about the Suggs personal foul, I didnt see anything wrong with that hit.

But, Ray obviously was tripping on purpose and he can complain all he wants.

Couldn't agree more. It's Suggs who should complain - Ray, Ray should shut his f'ing mouth - the tripping call was obvious and obviously intentional.

[HairOnFire]

I am fine with the balance. Derek, I think you (and soon to be Hair) are simply wrong in decrying some shift in philosophy.

Here's what I think. I think Derek's first two posts in this thread rank amongst the best anyone has written. Furthermore, I think he's wasting his time debating this issue with Hoosier, not because Hoosier knows what he's talking about, but rather...because Hoosier isn't interested in ANY defense of the running game, especially one that starts with a very critical look at a still miserable passing game.

They can't win long-term running it in a 60-40 split, their offense shriveled last year as the year went on doing that.

If they want to be a passing team then let them do it when they're capable of being a passing team. And there's the rub because this team has a much better chance of winning NEXT week by emphasizing the things that allowed them to qualify for the playoffs last season despite having...(wait for it)...one of the most inept passing games in the NFL. Which they still sorta have even though they now have the pieces needed to fix things.

I thought they stuck a nice balance yesterday in the approach.

I thought they were better, and I think it showed in the results. Because Job #1 is not getting blown out before the buying public has had a chance to order a 3rd beer. But yeah, I'm still seeing a shift in philosophy. And so are others, as the reaction to the Raven game proves. Isn't this mornings theme about a return to what worked last year? And wasn't last weeks lesson learned about how you can't forget who you were....and probably still should be? And yet, from the start of the Raven game through the 3rd quarter the Bengals overwhelmingly attempted to throw the ball on 1st down rather than run. Simply put, Hoosier's 1st down run/pass stats are crap that don't take into account the late game shift away from a passing game that wasn't producing, the Bengals late game need to run the ball to protect a 2 point and then 5 point lead, and their overwhelming desire to kill the clock after taking the lead. Furthermore, I'm guessing Hoosier's crap stats don't take into account how often the Bengals drew a penalty while attempting to pass on 1st down....not to mention a fumbled snap in each game played so far. In short, the Bengals passing game is currently ALMOST as inpet on 1st down as it is on 3rd down, and the very posters who support the idea of less rushing do so while bemoaning Palmer's mediocre play, the lack of timing with outside WR's, and most importantly....the crushing number of presnap, motion, and illeagal formation penalties that so often result in down and distance situations that dictate even more passing situations.

That said, they simply need to find a way to throw it more effectively when they do throw it.

They sure do because it's pretty obvious they really really want to be a throwing team. But I can't stress this enough, they don't have to be a passing team right out of the box because a grinding running game and sound aggressive defense will do the trick against most teams.

[ArmyBengal]

There was another article I read today and Ray was quoted as saying, "I get tired of whining about the quarterbacks".

Well Ray, so do we, so how about you just shut the f*ck up already ??

Agree or disagree with the call, that was not the deciding factor in that game.

**Paging Mr. Flacco**

[HairOnFire]

As for the roughing the passer, it looked similar to the play four years ago against TB when Justin Smith was called for the same thing. The ref said that it appeared that Suggs added his weight or drove Carson down which is why he got flagged.

I bet alot of Bengal fans immediately thought of that play. I know I did. Funny, but they used to teach us to exactly that. Perfect technique? Hit with the shoulder, drive through the point of contact, and then lift your legs and become dead weight. They'd even tell you that you'd often deliver more force by falling on the ballcarrier than you did with the initial strike.

Again, if they want to intimidate people, they need to expect that the refs are going to be ultra-sensitive to it.

Members of the Raven defense bellyaching about the refs costing them a game has become commonplace. Last year was the same.

[alleycat]

Two quotes from Marvin's post-game presser that seem to suggest he's got some of the same anxiety about Brat getting too fancy that most of us run-the-ball-dammit supporters have. It's not as clear as it came off on the video, but here are the words:

"We had a lot of opportunities, and we’re moving in a lot of pieces (in terms of personnel.) We’ve got to take a look at how we might be killing our own rhythm with a lot of the moving parts we’ve got going on now. I think guys will get better with it as we go, but it can be a little bit unnerving, to me at least, and I’m sure everyone else."

...

What kind of moving parts bothered you?

“We’re changing a lot of personnel, and we’ve got some young guys. But I know why we’re doing it and we’ll keep getting better at it.”

That to me says: "We're trying to get too fancy and not sticking with what works when it is working." Which is exactly how I felt about our abandonment of a running game which was working pretty well early on.

[HoosierCat]

And yet, from the start of the Raven game through the 3rd quarter the Bengals overwhelmingly attempted to throw the ball on 1st down rather than run. Simply put, Hoosier's 1st down run/pass stats are crap that don't take into account the late game shift away from a passing game that wasn't producing, the Bengals late game need to run the ball to protect a 2 point and then 5 point lead, and their overwhelming desire to kill the clock after taking the lead. Furthermore, I'm guessing Hoosier's crap stats don't take into account how often the Bengals drew a penalty while attempting to pass on 1st down....not to mention a fumbled snap in each game played so far.

Well, first let the record show that I wasn't the one who brought up the whole issue of the Bengals' performance on 1st down, the guy who you claim wrote two of the "best posts ever written" did.

Second, you should really lay off the scotch during Bengals games because it's clearly interfering with your ability to actually watch the game.

No, the Bengals did not overwhelmingly attempt to throw on first down for the first three quarters. In the first quarter, the ran four times and passed four times on first down. In the second, they ran three times, passed twice. In the third, passed five times, ran three times. That totals 11 passes, 10 runs.

In the fourth quarter, they passed twice and ran four times before the final drive, which featured two Benson runs to kill the clock.

As to the number of penalties committed by the Bengals while attempting to pass on first down, that would be zero.

[HairOnFire]

Well, first let the record show that I wasn't the one who brought up the whole issue of the Bengals' performance on 1st down, the guy who you claim wrote two of the "best posts ever written" did.

Jealous much? Regardless, by all means try to prove him wrong. Defend the passing games performance on any down if you can.

No, the Bengals did not overwhelmingly attempt to throw on first down for the first three quarters. In the first quarter, the ran four times and passed four times on first down. In the second, they ran three times, passed twice. In the third, passed five times, ran three times. That totals 11 passes, 10 runs.

Fair enough for now. I didn't record the game and I haven't seen a game log yet. But since you clearly have then let me ask you how many of those 11 first down pass attempts were successful?

In the third, passed five times, ran three times. That totals 11 passes, 10 runs. >< In the fourth quarter, they passed twice and ran four times before the final drive, which featured two Benson runs to kill the clock.

So my claim of "overwhelming" is proven a reach. I won't fight it much. Because your numbers prove through 3 quarters the Bengals did throw more often than they ran and they did change strategies after taking the lead dictated a boilerplate clock killing strategy. Thats close enough for now. (Let me check the gamelog for something.)

As to the number of penalties committed by the Bengals while attempting to pass on first down, that would be zero.

Wow, I think I just swallowed my gum. What are the odds so many presnap penalties, seemingly all committed on passing downs, only happening on other downs? I was counting on at least one.

Second, you should really lay off the scotch during Bengals games because it's clearly interfering with your ability to actually watch the game.

Sorry, it's your turn to be wrong. Because I was cold sober unless you count the bong hits...which I didn't bother to do.

[jonahdsage]

A few thoughts as general response to other comments.

First, the Ravens act of complaining after getting it handed to them is so, so, so tired. I would like to remind the Ravens that if 1 throw is another foot to the left (chad in the endzone), the refs don't miss a BLATANT PI call (TO in the endzone) and JJoe doesn't get burnt on one play, this game is more like 26-3. The Ravens were dominated during the game.

Second, if the call on Suggs hadn't been made, the bengals could have punted, could have gone for it on 4th down, could have gotten another interception/fumble etc etc. With the way our D was playing (or their O, I suppose) it's really hard to say that the call changed ANYTHING about the game.

Third, and I know this is a bit repetitive, but there were plenty of no-calls that hurt the bengals (i.e. took points off the board) that Ray doesn't seem to be too bothered about. If the flag had been thrown on TO we at least get another field goal out of it.

So enough already, ray. It's like the steelers never actually getting beat by the other team but always saying "we beat ourselves today." Blah blah blah. The scoreboard (like the NE game, to be fair) shows a game that looked much closer than it actually was. Ray's just a sore, sore loser and that trait looks simply awful on a man his age.

[HairOnFire]

No, the Bengals did not overwhelmingly attempt to throw on first down for the first three quarters. In the first quarter, the ran four times and passed four times on first down. In the second, they ran three times, passed twice. In the third, passed five times, ran three times. That totals 11 passes, 10 runs.

So yeah, I looked at a game log this morning. Here's what I found.

The Bengals opened the game by running on each of their first three 1st down opportunities, averaging a full 6 yards per play. Despite the success they quickly abandoned that strategy midway through the 1st quarter by attempting to pass on 6 out of the next 9 opportunities, averaging just 4.3 yards per pass attempt....and just 6.5 yards per completion. Finally, the Bengals closed out the first half with a 3 yard run by Scott on the last play, a throwaway down that skews the stats unfairly and probably shouldn't be counted. But what the heck, let's keep it in.

The Bengals then open the 3rd quarter by throwing for the seventh time in their last eleven 1st down opportunities. Toss away the throwaway run at the end of the half and it's a prolonged stretch where the Bengals threw on 1st down 70% of the time for very marginal production. And as Hoosier's own stats show the Bengals continued to throw slightly more often on 1st down until the 4th quarter, just as I previously stated.

So decide for yourself if that 70% ratio can be accurately described as overwhelming. But after looking at the game log I'm pretty satisfied it more accurately depicts what was actually going on than Hoosier's attempts to portray the run/pass balance on 1st down as roughly 50/50 throughout the game. (Crap stats.)

Just saying.

[bwillycuse]

As for the roughing the passer, it looked similar to the play four years ago against TB when Justin Smith was called for the same thing. The ref said that it appeared that Suggs added his weight or drove Carson down which is why he got flagged.

I bet alot of Bengal fans immediately thought of that play. I know I did. Funny, but they used to teach us to exactly that. Perfect technique? Hit with the shoulder, drive through the point of contact, and then lift your legs and become dead weight. They'd even tell you that you'd often deliver more force by falling on the ballcarrier than you did with the initial strike.

Again, if they want to intimidate people, they need to expect that the refs are going to be ultra-sensitive to it.

Members of the Raven defense bellyaching about the refs costing them a game has become commonplace. Last year was the same.

I think the bellyaching also gets the ire of the refs.

[HoosierCat]

Well, first let the record show that I wasn't the one who brought up the whole issue of the Bengals' performance on 1st down, the guy who you claim wrote two of the "best posts ever written" did.

Jealous much?

Not at all. Just pointing out that the alleged "crap stats" weren't my idea.

Toss away the throwaway run at the end of the half and it's a prolonged stretch where the Bengals threw on 1st down 70% of the time for very marginal production.

Well, yes, if you decide to cherry-pick one slice of the game (while ignoring the parts that don't fit your thesis) you can certainly tailor the numbers to your liking. Of course, some might accuse you of producing "crap stats." They might point out that this "prolonged stretch" actually amounted to about 24 minutes of game time, during which the Bengals held the ball for about 12 minutes out of their 34 total minutes of possession. Even subtracting their 8 minutes of possession in the fourth quarter, this amount to less than half their time on the field. They might point out that the rest of the time the Bengals were on the field they were running on first down more often than not, even ignoring the end of the fourth.

Not, of course, me. But some might point that out.

[HairOnFire]

Just pointing out that the alleged "crap stats" weren't my idea.

I've never accused you of inventing crap stats. You just show a greater fondness for using them than anyone else I've ever known.

Well, yes, if you decide to cherry-pick one slice of the game (while ignoring the parts that don't fit your thesis) you can certainly tailor the numbers to your liking.

Absolutely. Just like you do when you use stats that actually disguise what's happening in games. For example, you went to the game log first and researched all of the plays that were called on 1st down, right? And when doing so you had to stumble across the very same period I did, from mid 1st quarter to mid 3rd quarter, where the Bengals chose to throw on 1st down 70% of the time. But did you mention that in your post? No, because doing so would have confirmed much of what I had claimed. Rather, you keep that little nugget to yourself, then laughingly claimed I must be drunk, and then finsihed by offering up a series of crap stats that made it appear the Bengals playcalling was almost perfectly balanced from start to near finish. But of course you knew better because you had actually seen the stats before I did. And because you decided to be dishonest you practically forced me into finding a game log to look for the shift in playcalling that I knew had to be there. And of course there it was, to the tune of 70%.

They might point out that this "prolonged stretch" actually amounted to about 24 minutes of game time...

Fair enough. Let the permanent record now show that you were only being deliberatly dishonest when speaking about roughly one half of a football game. Let the record also show that you would have gotten away with it had I not already been very familiar with your fondness for crap stats and ruses intended to disguise a truth you'd rather not confront.

Not, of course, me. But some might point that out.

I say, good luck with that.

[HoosierCat]

Absolutely. Just like you do when you use stats that actually disguise what's happening in games. For example, you went to the game log first and researched all of the plays that were called on 1st down, right? And when doing so you had to stumble across the very same period I did, from mid 1st quarter to mid 3rd quarter, where the Bengals chose to throw on 1st down 70% of the time. But did you mention that in your post? No, because doing so would have confirmed much of what I had claimed. Rather, you keep that little nugget to yourself, then laughingly claimed I must be drunk, and then finsihed by offering up a series of crap stats that made it appear the Bengals playcalling was almost perfectly balanced from start to near finish. But of course you knew better because you had actually seen the stats before I did. And because you decided to be dishonest you practically forced me into finding a game log to look for the shift in playcalling that I knew had to be there. And of course there it was, to the tune of 70%.

Wow. I'm tellin' you man, you have seriously got to lay off the scotch. Or dope. Or whatever. It's rotting your mind.

Let's start from the beginning. No, I wasn't trying to use stats to disguise what happened in the game. In fact, it was exactly the opposite. When I read Derek's first post, I was struck how absolutely opposite it was to my impression of the game I just watched. Now, although I was taking notes (CJ's a bit shorthanded and I might have needed to toss up a postgame thread) I did have to step away here and there and I had had a few drinks, so I figured I would check the play-by-play on nfl.com to see who I should believe -- derek or my lyin' eyes.

(And on that note, I'm sorry I "practically forced" you to find a game log. The play-by-play for every game is available on the NFl's site...starting during the game...thought everyone knew that.)

Anyhow, my "research" consisted of scrolling down the play-by-play log and eyeballing the first play of each drive. Hell, in my first response, my numbers weren't even right, because I wasn't looking at firsts picked up during drives! (Really, go back, look!) Yeah, there I am, doing my evil plotting in anticipation of an epic flame war with you.

(Sorry to disappoint.)

Anyhow, I didn't bother to look at things again until you made an issue of it, whereupon I gave you the requested quarter-by-quarter breakdown and how many penalties they got passing on first down number. Now, if you had asked me for a look at the Bengals' first down plays between 6:06 left in Q1 and the end of their first play in the third quarter, I would have given you that, too. But all I was doing was scribbling down "R" or "P" under the headings "Q1/Q2/Q3/Q4" on a post-it note.

Then I come back tonight to find myself the author of a grand conspiracy -- no, wait, make that a Grand Conspiracy -- to...well, I'm not sure exactly what. But it seems you're taking this all a bit too personally.

As to the chunk of the game you cite, the the thing that strikes me most is right at the beginning: that very first throw on first down after those first three Benson first down runs marks the start of the Bengals' most successful offensive series of the night.

[Stripes]

[HairOnFire]

Wow. I'm tellin' you man, you have seriously got to lay off the scotch. Or dope. Or whatever. It's rotting your mind.

So you keep saying. So should I respond in kind by making fun of the normal substandard state of your own wetware?

Let's start from the beginning. No, I wasn't trying to use stats to disguise what happened in the game. In fact, it was exactly the opposite. When I read Derek's first post, I was struck how absolutely opposite it was to my impression of the game I just watched. Now, although I was taking notes (CJ's a bit shorthanded and I might have needed to toss up a postgame thread) I did have to step away here and there and I had had a few drinks, so I figured I would check the play-by-play on nfl.com to see who I should believe -- derek or my lyin' eyes.

So lets recap. You're the guy who admits he's so drunk that he can't understand how he could walk away with a completely different impression of the game than Derek, who I'm guessing wasn't drunk at all. And like I said earlier, I was pleasantly buzzed but stone cold sober. But you "had a few drinks"....(hic).....so it's off to the stats page for you. So I ask, what were you looking for? Confirmation of Derek's claims? Or confirmation of your own pre-existing opinion?

Anyhow, my "research" consisted of scrolling down the play-by-play log and eyeballing the first play of each drive. Hell, in my first response, my numbers weren't even right, because I wasn't looking at firsts picked up during drives! (Really, go back, look!)

I beleive you. In fact, posting crap stats is exactly what I'm accusing you of. Besides, you were drunk, right?

Anyhow, I didn't bother to look at things again until you made an issue of it, whereupon I gave you the requested quarter-by-quarter breakdown and how many penalties they got passing on first down number.

But I didn't request a quarter-by-quarter breakdown. Rather, that's how you chose to respond to my claim that the Bengals "overwhelmingly" chose to pass on 1st down through the first 3 quarters. And a quarter-by-quarter breakdown that lists only the totals isn't much of a breakdown at all, is it? In fact, it's a very poor way to judge shifts in playcalling precisely because it disguises patterns like the Bengals opening with 3 straight very successfull running plays or how they shifted immediately to the pass by throwing on first down 70% of the time on their next 11 opportunites, a period that lasted into the 3rd quarter. And forgive me for saying, but that sounds much closer to the things I claimed than the 50/50 balance your drunken crap stats implied.

Now, if you had asked me for a look at the Bengals' first down plays between 6:06 left in Q1 and the end of their first play in the third quarter, I would have given you that, too.

Why not simplify matters by posting whatever observations you can glean by breaking down a game log rather than posting numbers that have no meaning? Or are you seriously telling me that when looking for confirmation of my "overwhelming" claim that you didn't NOTICE the shift from the run to the pass? And if you somehow managed that trick then doesn't that say something damning about your breakdown?

And on that note, I'm sorry I "practically forced" you to find a game log. The play-by-play for every game is available on the NFl's site...starting during the game...thought everyone knew that.

Everybody probably does know that. I certainly did. But you responded to both Derek and me with crap stats, and I'm old enough to know that the only suitable method for countering a crap stat rant is by finding better stats. And that means I have to find evidence that supports what I've already seen, confirms what I already know, and backs up what I've already claimed. And that's bothersome. Time consuming too. Besides, it was only a week or so ago I wrote about my disdain for stat based debates...precisely because they can be used to support any preconceived opinion. Or in this example, your slightly drunken rant.

Then I come back tonight to find myself the author of a grand conspiracy -- no, wait, make that a Grand Conspiracy -- to...well, I'm not sure exactly what. But it seems you're taking this all a bit too personally.

Relax, I'm far too high to get upset by any of this. But I am disappointed when I think about how easily this type of thing can be avoided. For starters, no more crap stats next time. And if you do stumble over something that actually supports the OTHER guys position, well....you've got to post it. Even if you're drunk.

Sorry to disappoint.

Impossible.

[Arizona]

I came here expecting to be conciliatory, but some of you have got me a little riled up.

1. The two penalties in question are absolute garbage. Absolute garbage. I've got the game highlights on my computer (thanks iTunes) and I just watched the Ray "tripping" play several times. Answer this: You just run full speed at an O lineman, then got thrown to the ground and are spinning at several revolutions per second. What are you supposed to do? Ray couldn't see Palmer much less trip him. He probably just saw green and blue whizzing by. While watching Sunday, my initial thought in the moments between Palmer falling and the flag showing up was that Ray got lucky with a gimme sack considering Palmer tripped over Ray's feet. [Note: I am using the word tripping in it's common english usage and not in reference to the NFL rule of the same name]

To membengal, it can't be a strict liability offense. The issue isn't one of contact between the legs of a defender and the ball carrier alone. If a D lineman is on the ground and a RB tripped over his feet, would that be tripping? There has to be an element of intent.

The Suggs call...I don't even feel the need to address that one.

2. The Ravens were not dominated. How can you say you dominated a team and had how many yards of offense? scored how many touchdowns? The first half of your game against the Patriots was a demonstration of domination. Our game was two teams playing within a very narrow margin.

3. The Ravens lost b/c Zimmer ate Cam's lunch and Flacco played the worst game I've seen out of him. I'll agree it wasn't the penalties. If the Ravens did their jobs it wouldn't have come down to those penalties making any difference on the outcome of the game. Ray's complaint is not that the Ravens lost b/c of those penalties, he'd probably agree that there were plenty of mistakes on the Ravens part. Ray's complaint is that calling things the way they were called damages the game itself. The next time you see someone flagged for touching Brady or Manning's skirts, tell me you disagree with that idea.

Furthermore, I agree with those of you who say that the Ravens bring the scrutiny on themselves. I imagine a team without the defensive reputation of this one would get away with a lot more. Obviously, the number of non Ravens games I watch in a season is limited, but I don't remember other defenses getting these kinds of calls. If the Jets or the Steelers get these awful calls that will be some evidence to support my theory.

As a Ravens fan, the thing I saw that most worried me was that the Ravens didn't beat one of the three teams that "owns" them. I thought they had come further than this. Until I see evidence to the contrary, I will be assuming Ravens losses to the Bengals, Steelers and Colts going forward.

Yuck.

[derekshank]

1. The two penalties in question are absolute garbage. Absolute garbage.

Any time there are penalties like these, I do my best to imagine the situation was reversed. Here goes:

Had Maualuga been flagged for tripping, I would have been upset but not outraged.

Had Michael Johnson been flagged for roughing the passer, I would have been livid.

Had Jonathan Joseph avoided a flag in the endzone despite clearly interfering with a TD pass... I would have felt lucky.

Just sayin'.

2. The Ravens were not dominated. How can you say you dominated a team and had how many yards of offense? scored how many touchdowns? The first half of your game against the Patriots was a demonstration of domination. Our game was two teams playing within a very narrow margin.

Agreed. And unless I missed another claim, only one person here used the word "dominate" to describe the game.

The truth is, both the Bengals and the Ravens were dominated by the opposing defenses. Both Palmer and Flacco played s**tty football against very good defenses. It ain't a coincidence.

3. The next time you see someone flagged for touching Brady or Manning's skirts, tell me you disagree with that idea.

I won't argue with you there. But consider the fact that you are talking to a fanbase who saw their once god-like QB become very average after having his knee shredded. And the only logical conclusion for many is that he no longer "feels safe" when throwing the ball with proper mechanics. I wouldn't expect most fans to understand... but when it happens to your guy, you tend to see things a little differently.

As a Ravens fan, the thing I saw that most worried me was that the Ravens didn't beat one of the three teams that "owns" them. I thought they had come further than this. Until I see evidence to the contrary, I will be assuming Ravens losses to the Bengals, Steelers and Colts going forward.

It makes me feel warm and fuzzy to hear you say that... because despite the 3 game win streak, I don't feel good about the Bengals winning the next Ravens game. At least not with a gameplan that relies on Flacco handing them the W.

As for the other losses you are assuming... I consider buying a Ray Lewis jersey every time the Ravens play the Steelers. Both because I hate the Steelers, and because it's hard to dislike a guy who covers up the stench of dead bodies with Old Spice Deodorant.

[derekshank]

Let's start from the beginning. No, I wasn't trying to use stats to disguise what happened in the game. In fact, it was exactly the opposite. When I read Derek's first post, I was struck how absolutely opposite it was to my impression of the game I just watched. Now, although I was taking notes (CJ's a bit shorthanded and I might have needed to toss up a postgame thread) I did have to step away here and there and I had had a few drinks, so I figured I would check the play-by-play on nfl.com to see who I should believe -- derek or my lyin' eyes.

So lets recap. You're the guy who admits he's so drunk that he can't understand how he could walk away with a completely different impression of the game than Derek, who I'm guessing wasn't drunk at all. And like I said earlier, I was pleasantly buzzed but stone cold sober. But you "had a few drinks"....(hic).....so it's off to the stats page for you. So I ask, what were you looking for? Confirmation of Derek's claims? Or confirmation of your own pre-existing opinion?

The narcissist in me loves the fact that I am at the center of one of your debates. I haven't visited the site much at all today... so I'm relieved to learn of a logical explanation for my Q-tips bursting into flames while doing my nightly ear hygiene ritual.

That said... i find it all humorous and a bit beside the point. Game logs don't tell the story I was complaining about. I had a single solitary sentence saying "I want to run the ball on 1st down more often than not" (A comment I stand behind). Aside from that, the majority of my ranting was regarding personnel on the field more than the playcalling itself. I was regularly frustrated regarding pass attempts on 1st down... but not nearly as upset as I was with the 3WR formations that the Bengals regularly chose to run the ball out of.

But by all means... continue debating a topic, that despite the numerous references, I have very little to do with.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

1. The two penalties in question are absolute garbage. Absolute garbage.

Ray was damn well trying to trip. It's exactly the sort of thing he does now that he's getting slow of foot. Sure he didn't actually get Carson with the leg he was trying to trip with, but he was trying to trip and got flagged, so instant karma in my book.

And the roughing call will get flagged probably half the time. Suggs did put extra juice into slamming the QB into the ground. You can not like that all you want, but Suggs had to know that Carson no longer had the ball. He had the opportunity to let up and didn't. After all the whining about how Brady gets to wear a skirt, can you honestly say that call was a surprise? Blame Suggs for being a moron.

Ray's complaint is that calling things the way they were called damages the game itself. The next time you see someone flagged for touching Brady or Manning's skirts, tell me you disagree with that idea.

Thus proving that the flag shouldn't have been a surprise. How about this - how is it that of all the bitching about refs, the Ravens seem to be at the middle of all of it? It ain't a coincidence. It's a lack of discipline, an overabundance of whiners, and an inability to recognize that your skill players have been depleted. In short, your team just isn't as good as it used to be, and blaming the refs lets the Ravens stay in denial.

Oh and by the way, the main problem with the "blame the refs" thing is that it's inherently a "heads I win, tails don't count" effect. In other words, if you're going to take a look at some of the calls, take a look at all the calls. Do you think you were the only ones victimized by the refs? That crew sucked. We got nailed by missed (and blatant) PI and the holding calls might just have been applied more in one direction than the other. But that crap happens.

In the end, if they get all the calls right, the Bengals have a TD and you lose. If they get some calls wrong like they did, you still lose. Take your medicine and move on. You'll get another chance at us.

[wpeldios]

I came here expecting to be conciliatory, but some of you have got me a little riled up.

1. The two penalties in question are absolute garbage. Absolute garbage. I've got the game highlights on my computer (thanks iTunes) and I just watched the Ray "tripping" play several times. Answer this: You just run full speed at an O lineman, then got thrown to the ground and are spinning at several revolutions per second. What are you supposed to do? Ray couldn't see Palmer much less trip him. He probably just saw green and blue whizzing by. While watching Sunday, my initial thought in the moments between Palmer falling and the flag showing up was that Ray got lucky with a gimme sack considering Palmer tripped over Ray's feet. [Note: I am using the word tripping in it's common english usage and not in reference to the NFL rule of the same name]

To membengal, it can't be a strict liability offense. The issue isn't one of contact between the legs of a defender and the ball carrier alone. If a D lineman is on the ground and a RB tripped over his feet, would that be tripping? There has to be an element of intent.

The Suggs call...I don't even feel the need to address that one.

The nfl rule of tripping is worded that any time a player is on the ground and his leg is extended and trips a player of the other team it is a penalty. There is nothing wrote in the rule about intent. As I stated earlier it is similar to the facemask call. There does not need to be intent for it to be a penalty. I have seen the same call made on blockers who fell to the ground before. It is not a common call but it is a correct one by league definition.

The Suggs call, I don't think you will find a single bengals fan who says it was the right call. As a matter of fact, it was terrible. Absolutely terrible.