Matty:

When the Ravens won the Super Bowl with what was indeed the best defense in the league that year, their offense didn't give them lots of rest.

When the Bucs won the Super Bowl with what was indeed the best defense in the leauge that year, their offense didn't give them lots of rest.

Great defenses - or ones that are arguably the best in the league - don't allow the opposition to hold the ball for almost all of the final ten minutes of a game when only a TD is needed to tie the game. The offense might not score when the get the ball and the team might still lose, but a defense that is "arguably the best in the league" will not let that happen.

I did not keep a game chart for the Browns' game so I can't go back and calculate what happened in the fourth quarter there. But unless I was hallucinating, it wasn't a case of arguably the best defense in the league rising up to prevent a mediocre offense from getting the winning score...

The Ravens had one of the all-time great defenses that year, to compare them to any D is a bit unfair. And the Ravens that year could at least move the ball on the ground. The Bucs had some offense in their SB year too. Right now, we don't at all and that's the difference.

The defense shouldn't even be a part of the discussion right now.

The Ravens and Bucs at least had potent offense's that could provide them with 10 to 17 points a game. You know how many points our offense provided us last night... 3, and thats being generous cause that was off a turnover too. I agree, I was just trying to praise the defesne, and they arent part of the discussion.

[QUOTE=Gmanc711]The Ravens and Bucs at least had potent offense's that could provide them with 10 to 17 points a game. You know how many points our offense provided us last night... 3, and thats being generous cause that was off a turnover too. I agree, I was just trying to praise the defesne, and they arent part of the discussion.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure I get what you're saying here, haven't we been scoring 10-17 points a game?

Are you talking about points off turnovers, because yeah 3 turnovers yesterday and just 10 points to show for it is sad

Yeah , I'm talking about points off turnovers.

only clueless redskins fans can find positives in a dung covered season like this one

Only a classless human being would be doing what you are doing right now. Go waste your time with your reading and phonics homework.

truth hurts i guess

hey i found a positive for your season, it's more than 25% over with

lol

The D is without Lavar and Daniels, and lost Bowen. They were playing against a very big o-line in Ogden and the left guard. (80% of the runs were over the Raven left side.) And Jamal is a power back. They wore down, and the momentum was going the other way. And they still got the ball back for the o down 7 with over 5 to play. But the skins gave up 14 points on O and special teams. That'll kill you every time. Yeah, the D isn't the Bears in 85 or even the Ravens right now, but they are good, legit top 10, I'd say. Here's the problem, to restate the obvious: it's the offense.

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]I wonder how much better our D would look if the offense could sustain some time consuming drives to let them rest a bit.[/QUOTE]


Absolutly! I also believe that, that is all the more reason to play Ramsey, he will make mistakes, we all know it, he's young, and learning a complicated system, but he will also make play's and sustain drives, with our D playing the way they are we should be able to over come his maturation as a QB.

I will also add this, Ramsey hasen't given up point's this year, Brunell has given up 21 point's, through fumbles and INT's, 2 of those games we lost by 6, and 7, points, if he's still learning the system, then let him learn the rest of it as a backup, right now we are seeing what a lot of us new before we traded for Brunell, [ Matty I now you were on board for this ] Ramsey is better now then Brunell, and will have a tremendous future if he stay's healthy, I am speculating right now, but I wonder if Gibb's evaluated Ramsey, and handed him a lot of the blame for SS's failure? I like to think I am wrong on this one, but the thought has crossed my mind.