- Joined
- Oct 10, 2006
- Messages
- 76,883
- Reaction score
- 66,866
You took the words right out of my mouth.
On top of that, I'd love to go back to the late spring/summer and see all of the so-called "experts" that repeatedly argued with me about the horrid state of the Ravens defense after "record setting" personnel losses in which they'd never be able to compete again. If anything, their defense is tougher than it ever was last year, and they had the capacity last year to turn it on when they wanted.
It's amazing how quickly some fans automatically scoff at some opponents due to what they read in the newspaper. I never claimed for them to be some great team, but I think they're exactly what they've been any other year--which is a gigantic pain in the ass. Nothing has really changed in my opinion.
Let's just try and make it back to the big game one more time during the Brady years. That would be more than enough for me, and I couldn't care less who they played.
At this point no win vs the NYG is going to erase the past anyway, so I'd rather just try and move ahead, give credit (and good fortune) to the opponent, and put it in the past where it belongs. The thought of losing 3 times would be a risk that I would not want to take anyway.
At the pro level, it's folly to want to play the best opponents in a seeded playoff, especially one that's a one-and-done scenario. As a professional team, the goal is to win the title, not to face your toughest opponents. People don't think less of the '98 Broncos because they didn't face the 15-1 Vikings. The 1996 Packers SB isn't tainted because they faced the 11-5 Patriots instead of the 13-3 Broncos, and the next person I hear say that the '85 Bears shouldn't be champs because they didn't have to face either Miami or the Raiders in the Super Bowl will be the first.