Ravens: No apologies
John Harbaugh and his team made one thing clear after the game. They didn't want to hear about how they won because the Pittsburgh Steelers were without superstar quarterback Ben Roethlisberger and defensive star Troy Polamalu.
"First of all, what a game,'' Harbaugh said. "We've had a few of these this year. We've had a few where we've walked in here, been in this kind of football game, and they're not perfect, and they don't lay out exactly the way you might plan them, and we come up on the short end. I was proud of them in those other situations when we didn't win, and I'm proud of them in in this situation when we did win. Maybe just a little bit more, I'm proud, to be honest with you."
There's probably someone out there who could make the case that this should have been a much easier win for a quality contending team, considering what Harbaugh and Company didn't want to consider about the relative strength of the Steelers. Ray Lewis didn't want to hear that either.
"I think it's huge,'' he said. "This is a team that beat us three times last year. We were close but we didn't get it done...When it came down to the end, every conversation was about "Let's finish," and we did that."
The game ebbed and flowed in the final minutes of regulation and in overtime, and there were a number of occasions when the Ravens were well aware that their playoff hopes were hanging over a precipice.
"We understood the situation,'' said receiver Mark Clayton. "We know what it is. Right now, it'a one play at a time and one game at a time. We needed a play and thank God we got one and were able to capitalize on it."
Sun photo by Kenneth K. Lam
> 
Comments
So what Ben Queerburger did not play? The Ravens did not have tape on this Dixon dude. That's why it was more challenging in my opinion.
If this guy is a quarterback for the defending champions, he must be NFL ready. Wasn't Steve Young a backup to Joe Montana?
Posted by: Purple Koolaid | November 30, 2009 2:14 AM
Thats NO excuse though! For the past year Steeler fans bashed me all across message boards after I said the Ravens only lost the AFC Championship Game because our DB's were hurt! They all told me"Good teams, still win despite injuries" Well Guess What Pittsburgh, I guess this makes YOU a Bad team! Its 2:40 am, Im staying up all night to celebrate! I waited a whole year for this revenge game! Tonight Pittsburgh is crying, they aint getting No KLEENEX from me lol! Boo Hoo Pittsburgh!
Posted by: Tim Lumber | November 30, 2009 2:40 AM
What I find interesting is that Pittsburgh fans like to appeal to 6 rings. I am not sure what is their logic in this. Are they trying to say that their football history is superior to others?
I think it is very convenient of them to forget all of the history that took place prior to the Super Bowls. If the entire history of the NFL is considered, then Pittsburgh only has the 3rd best history in its own division.
I admire the football history that Baltimore has. They won the NFL championship in 1958, 1959, 1968, 1970, and 2000. In addition, the city has hosted football champions in 3 other leagues.
When you look at Pittsburgh's history of championships, you see two periods where they won frequently in a short amount of time. As a franchise, their winning percentage is only slightly better than .500 (and basically equal to the Raven's franchise's winning percentage).
Just food for thought if someone should mention "6 rings" this week.
Posted by: European Prof | November 30, 2009 5:23 AM
Hey Purple Koolaid, did you just compare Dennis Dixon to Steve Young?
Really?
You mean the Steve Young who played in the USFL and for Tampa Bay before joining SF as Montana's backup? That Steve Young?
You think Dixon had the same experience, the same pedigree, as Steve Young?
I hope you're not allowed to breed.
Posted by: Moron Detector | November 30, 2009 7:02 AM
Seems to me the Ravens did their best to level the playing field by running idiotic defensive schemes, such as the series of failed blitzes that ultimately resulted in Dixon's TD run.
And what was the deal with the 3 consecutive pass plays in the first OT possession? Of all times to roll out a spread offense I do not believe that is it.
Glad the Ravens won but they really need to minimize the coaching blunders if they are going to make the playoffs.
Posted by: Dan | November 30, 2009 8:36 AM
I was at the stadium last night. I heard all the Squealer fans saying we won only b/c of injuries. Screw them -- they only won the AFC Championship b/c Derek Mason and Samari Rolle were banged up. Pointless argument.
Posted by: HP | November 30, 2009 9:35 AM
A win is a win is a win, and a blowout doesn't get you any higher in the standings then a 20-17 nailbiter in overtime. Having stated that, it's hard to feel a lot of optimism after last night. The Ravens seem to play at whatever level their opponent is. They get fired up and play well against the good teams and then let down and barely squeak by the bad ones, but every game seems to be a down-to-the-wire affair full of stupid costly penalties and missed opportunities. The Ravens had better figure out how to score TDs instead of FGs when they have first and goal situations, or even if they do manage to sneak into the playoffs they're looking to be one-and-done.
Posted by: Roy | November 30, 2009 10:04 AM
yeah, the steelers lost to a 3rd string rookie DE and 4th string rookie CB.
and Frank Walker... saw his ugly mug out there.
Posted by: SHAMROCK | November 30, 2009 10:25 AM
No doubt a nice win for Baltimore. But I'm a little confused when you cite the "illustrious" history of the of the Ravens franchise. When scrambling for comparisons to the Steelers' six Lombardi Trophies, are you throwing in Cleveland football championships too?
Posted by: Ed Costello | November 30, 2009 11:09 AM
To those of you who like to blast Mike Preston's report cards and call him a racist for saying it RIGHT and being brutally honest about the team's play, perhaps you would rather he be a homer like the clown at the Pittsburgh paper who grades the Steelers games:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09334/1017346-66.stm?cmpid=steelers.xml
Posted by: Reality Check | November 30, 2009 11:34 AM
Ed -
"European Prof" was talking about Baltimore's football history, not the history of the Browns/Ravens franchise.
Posted by: not brooks | November 30, 2009 11:35 AM
So what Ben Queerburger did not play? The Ravens did not have tape on this Dixon dude. That's why it was more challenging in my opinion.
If this guy is a quarterback for the defending champions, he must be NFL ready. Wasn't Steve Young a backup to Joe Montana?
Posted by: Purple Koolaid | November 30, 2009 2:14 AM
_______________________
Your childish juvenile use of a pejorative when writing about Ben Roethlisberger shows your boorish true self as a moron. If Roethlisberger played, he would have torn the Ravens "secondary" to shreads. No ifs, ands or buts. Perhaps if you weren't such a child your comments would be taken with a little bit of seriousness. Grow up little boy.
Posted by: Idiot Finder | November 30, 2009 11:39 AM
Reality Check -
What's with the font they use for the grades? And the background? Is it Christmas in the comics section?
Posted by: not brooks | November 30, 2009 11:40 AM
____________________
not brooks,
Wondered that too.
It's Pittsburgh....that explains it all I guess.
Posted by: Reality Check | November 30, 2009 11:43 AM
Hey Idiot Finder.....About your quote: "If Roethlisberger played, he would have torn the Ravens "secondary" to shreads. No ifs, ands or buts."
Check out your first word! Back to grammar class to review the difference between subjective and objective case.
Are you considered an intellectual in Pissburgh?
Posted by: Anonymous | November 30, 2009 11:52 AM
Explain to me how in the world Roethlisberger would of tore the Ravens secondary up? Where were the recievers then?
That's giving a lot of credit to one player.
.............................................................................................
Pete's reply: Ben has had his way with the Ravens many times, so I think they were fortunate to miss him.
Posted by: dave | November 30, 2009 12:25 PM
It is impossible to state for certain what outcomes would change if a player or players were able to play in a game.
In the case of Ben Rothliesberger, even as a Ravens fan I think it is fair to say that if he were 100% healthy he would have given the Steelers a better opportunity to generate more offense.
That being said, he was not 100% and down through the years quarterbacks coming off concussions have not fared well. I rememeber specific games when Troy Aikman and Joe Montana performed poorly coming off concussions, as did Steve Young.
So in my opinion it is just as fair to say that if Rothliesberger had played he may have actually hurt the Steelers through turnovers and poor decisions as a result of the concussion related symptoms he was experiencing.
I do find it interesting that the Steelers have problems in the the locker room according to Ron Cook who covers the team for the Pittsburgh Post Gazette.
Among other things Cook asserts that Rothliesberger is known to his teammates to be a drama queeen when it comes to injuries real or imagined, and that fact may have caused Hines Ward to call him out on national TV.
Posted by: Gil | November 30, 2009 1:13 PM
hey idiot finder! is that how you spell shreds in Pitt?g
Posted by: fersus | November 30, 2009 6:01 PM
B - Linebackers
Their failure to tackle Rice after a fourth-down dump pass that gained 44 yards led to the FG that forced overtime.
What dump off pass??? he was lined up in the slot, didnt come out of the back field and catch a check down pass. that guy is a homer...
Posted by: SHAMROCK | December 1, 2009 11:06 PM