ravensdfan

Bringing up receiving stats on Jacoby is completely irrelevant. Everybody is calling Jacoby a "playmaker". Lol. Jacoby is a terrible receiver and you wouldn't want him to be a part of your receiving core at all besides being a WR4 or 5 backup. Legitimate chance for him to go all the way for a touchdown every time he has the ball in his hands? Yes, on kickoffs. Not as a receiver. Come on people. People only remember a couple of plays. Not his overall play.You would actually want him to be our third again this year? 

That means Torrey#1, Marlon#2 and Jacoby#3. And everybody complained that the receiving core was abysmal and the passing attack was a nightmare last year. Logic, that would be the same core as last year. He can dance and run. That's it. Don't sugarcoat it.

I'm sure the FO makes more moves, so I'm not too worried. He won't be a #2 nor #3, X player from FA or the draft and Marlon should be in front of him on the depth chart anyways. So it's all good. People should just know that we are paying a returner only this money, not a receiver. And that returner could've been cheaper or found in the draft. This is money that could've been spent on Daryl, Clemons, Brian DLP or whoever. 

I'm out. 

Our receiving corps was abysmal, in large part, because Jones went down, Pitta went down, and we played around with Stokely and Clark (old & slow), did WR by committee, allowing no chemistry to develop.

Once Marlon got into a groove, he was pretty much the #2 guy, though when Jacoby came back they rotated in and out.

I'm acutally alright with Smith, Brown & Jacoby as the top 3. I'm tired of bringing in vets that are pretty much done who always let us down and don't play their contract worth.

Holiday

In his 2 years in Baltimore (being out for 4 or 5 games one of those years) Jacoby put up the following numbers (returns only):

341/237 (punts) 1167/892 (kicks) Averages per: 9.2/12.5 (punts) 30.7/28.8

Holliday put up the following in the last 2 years:

481/271 (punts) 552/775 (kicks) averages per: 10/8.5 (punts) 26/27 (kicks)

TDs last 2 years : 

Holliday 4/ Jones 4

...and you think Holliday is better????

Then, you get to add what Jones brings on the WR side of the ball that Holliday does not:

406/455 with 3 TDs (averaging over 10 yds a reception)

Holliday

17 yards. That's it.

Get real man.

Seriously...this place isnt even fun anymore.

Agreed.

We should take back the boards. Shouldn't have to run to the dump thread for peace.

Used to have intelligent conversations here, even when we disagreed.

Jacoby has made tremendous improvements as a receiver. I saw him get the ball in a way even Torrey.didn't at times.

I know. It's a shame he got hurt because I think he would have proven all these comments wrong.

It's less than a $2M cap hit for crying out loud. Bargain!

I thought the Ravens fanbase was in agreement that JJ is a good piece on our roster, guess I was wrong. Didn't know he had so many 'doubters'.

The "doubters" are merely spouting what came out of Houston fans' mouths after we acquired him. He got hurt the first game of the season so he never had a shot as a #2 WR here. By the time he was back, Marlon had made a mark & they weren't going to take field time away from him.

The man makes things happen. He's a big play guy and the cap hit is reasonable. People are silly.

not the point..We need to make the most of this cap. Jacoby jones isnt going to make us better. We havent addressed FS or Center.

 

We need a difference maker.

Jacoby looked good at WR prior to his injury. You could see the improvement. Once he came back from injury, he even began to catch with his hands instead of making baskets.

The man is a playmaker. Whether it's a return or a catch, he makes things happen. Don't know why you'd be down on that. Especially since his cap hit will be minimal.

Good news! From what I'm reading his 2014 cap hit will be around $1.875 (based off best guestimates of the breakdown of the guaranteed money).

Would have hated to see Jacoby go.

Now, if we could manage to keep D. Smith - not too shabby.

Interesting. All the talk about Hostler or Shannahan and it's Kubiak lol

Like secret spy stuff lol

Browns will have yet another reason to hate us.

This would be so awesome. Please let this become official soon!

This is dragging out too much.

On one hand, nice they are being thorough.

On the other hand, going insane over here lol

Adding another candidate does make me believe that Hostler is out. Someone with a vote must not like the idea of Hostler.

I will not be able to drum up any excitement if they go with Hostler. Sorry, but we all know with Caldwell being new to the OC job that Hostler had a hand in that dismal offensive performance we just had last season. I see absolutely nothing that says he will bring anything to look forward to offensively. As a position coach, he can't even come up with any way for our WRs to gain any separation.

More of the same old, same old. Might as well have brought Cam back at this point if Hostler is the choice.

I have to begin to wonder if this entire organization is afraid of being successful offensively.

Its going to come to surface that Jim Hostler was the one calling the plays in last years playoffs and everyone here is going be like,

"oops, well this makes things awkward..."

Well it would make things awkward for Harbs to keep Caldwell if Hostler was calling the plays for the SB run. Don't think it would make it awkward for any fan here at all.

Hostler is unproven at best and if you count his run at being an OC previously, already proven he can't do the job. My point is that given the resumes of the other people who have interviewed, he certainly does not offer more experience than the competition.

I like the idea of Kirby getting the job... it will bring back our running game and smash mouth football not to forget the fact that most people around the nfl respect him.

Kyle Shanahan seems legit but Scot Linehan seems like he would turn Flacco into what he's capable of being. I think Kyle would bring more schematic flexibility but Linehans aggressiveness bodes well with what we could accomplish having the type of defense we have.

 

My vote is changed to Scot Linehan

With complete honesty, given the four names we have, I'll take any of them over Hostler. I just don't see where Hostler has anything to offer over the other three names. To me, that promotion would only solidify all the Harbs & his buddies talk.

.How about we make a little gentleman's agreement. For the people who would absolutely hate the Hostler(if it even happens) and feel Harbs should be fired because of it, how about you guys boycott the team for a whole year by staying away from the messageboard. Why should you guys have to be subjected to such mediorce and Harbs clear intention to drive this team into the ground. I think you guys would make a loud statement by boycotting this board for a full year. What'ya say?

Note: I'm clearly joking.

I know you're joking but I will absolutely despise that move. We just had the worst offense we've ever fielded and Hostler surely had a hand in that effort. Why would we promote him? What sort of change will that bring? It isn't like he has a resume that says he can do better than what we produced last season. IMO it would be a stupid move by Harbaugh and complete ineptitude from the FO to allow it.

Linehan & Shannahan clearly have better resumes. I know you hate the buddy talk, but I see nothing to support Hostler being promoted other than the buddy system. Consistency can't be a reason because surely we do not want to remain the mediocrity we saw this past season.

I hated Cam for years, could sit on my couch & call 95% of the plays correctly. IMO Hostler will bring more of the same and it is change we need. I just see nothing that points to us seeing any change with Hostler as OC.

It would be yet another experiment and this is not the time for experimenting. We need proven talent, not possible talent.

I definitely get that and agree. We don't know what Hostler would do, but I don't think we should immediately assume that's a bad thing and I know you aren't, I'm just saying.

So many people are saying if he's fired it's a death sentence for Harbs, or implying that the decision wouldn't have been made for the betterment of the team but just for Harbs to keep a friend in good standing. That's flat out stupid and I usually don't like to use that term towards people but a spade is a spade. Now anyone who has followed this thread since Caldwell left can clearly see that I'm not Hostler fan, mainly for the exact reason you gave and I'm even less of a fan for sticking with that same vertical type low percentage offense.

However if Hostler is bringing a system or even just focusing on getting the ball out to WRs quicker and he uses the WRs to their strenghts much like we saw earlier this season then I'm definitely willing to give the guy a shot. Joe is said to have a great relationship with Hos and who knows the WRs better? Flacco has been asking for a more spread, uptempo/ no huddle style of offense for years and of all the OC candidates Hos might be the only one who's actually willing to give Flacco that type of control. Who knows?

I definitely agree that if he's named the OC that a good QB coach should and would be hired. I think we definitely need a QB even if we hire a former QB coach as the OC. QBs need someone who can focus solely on them and not have to worry about the full offense. With all this said, Kyle Shanahan is still my first choice for OC

I understand the personnel issues Hostler faced his last time out. I just want a proven, real, live OC in here for once now that we have our franchise QB. Personally, if we're going down the "unproven" road yet again, I'd rather go with Kirby Wilson.

Exactly. When you factor in terrible field position and the points given up by our offense, the debate surely favors the defense in a major way. I wont even go into detail all the times the defense put the offense in great field position only to come away with either 0 points or 3. Our field goal kicker made the All Pro first team this season...... that tells you a lot right there.

 

 

It's not a lazy argument, that's how football goes. If the O is failing to do their job and constantly putting the D in bad field position, the offense can affect how the defense plays in a major way. That's sports 1 on 1.

I mean seriously -

myth: Flacco supporters make the most excuses.

fact: defense apologists are worse. (see above for proof)

Does the offense get brownie points for every time they started inside their 10?

At what point does the offense get any credit for moving the ball when a FG is kicked? Or are we of the premise that Tuck kicked from our own end zone?

Okay I agree with you that the defense needs to stop blowing fourth quarter leads but when your defense allows an average of 20 points a game and you only go 8-8 the problem is obviously offense. Our defense is above average in points allowed, but our offense is below average in points scored. This isn't even up for debate anymore. 

Naturally - the debate was never about offense versus defense. It was about the defense being better simply because we're ranked higher. That isn't the case and if you see my previous post the stats prove it.

So the defense blew a 4th quarter lead 3 times, two of which we came back and won. And the other we should have won if not for inept offense.

lol yeah because not getting a stop for 3 consecutive GB drives had no bearing on us losing.

Not forcing more than one punt for the entire game in Pitt and allowing 8 and 9 mins drives had no bearing on us losing.

Besides I don't care who you want to credit the losses with - the entire we're better because of our ranking is a myth.

Myth: Because we're ranked higher our defense performed better.

Fact: Though ranked 12th versus 17th last years' defense allowed less points, allowed a lesser QB rating for opponents and only gave up point 2 more yards per carry on the ground.

So you ate just going to ignore the fact that our defense's DVOA improved from 19 to 7?

How many times did our defense lose a 4th quarter lead this season? And how many of those 4th quarter points were given up by the offense? At least 3 TDs and multiple other points off of turnovers.

Chicago they allowed a 4th quarter TD to give Chicago the lead by 3. The offense took it to OT and we lost in OT.

GB we did not have a 4th quarter lead but that was because the offense scored on 3 consecutive drives - FG, TD, TD and the defense couldn't get a stop and allowed GB to run 3 scoring drives and allowed GB to eat the clock in the 4th quarter with a 6 minute drive for a score. We lost by 2 pts..

First Pitt game - offense tied the game - defense allowed the winning score.

Not to mention a blown 17-3 lead in the first Cincy game - we won that one.

And the Viking debacle where the offense & Jacoby won the game more than once and the defense failed.

2nd Cincy game - offense tied the game - defense let them march down the field and score a TD on the very next drive.

Those are all situational - and that is where the defense was by far worse this year than last.

One could make a case for Buffalo & the Browns but I'm more inclined to give those to the offense for obvious reasons.

As I mentioned before, I think it is fact that the D as whole played better in 2013. The point of contention is the 3 or 4 games where they failed at the end of the game when we had a chance to win. I understand what you are saying and no, the offense doesn't get a pass! They are a part of the team as well.

 

This scenario plays out in games in all sports, at every level, every day. Teams/individuals take leads or perform well for most of a game/match/whatever. Sometimes it happens that they fail at the end and lose/fail. They don't finish. It happens and it spells failure no matter how they/their team performed before that. At the end of the day, what matters most and has the greatest effect on success/failure is how you finish.

myth: The defense faced way more top scoring offenses in 2013 than 2012.

Fact: In 2012, we faced 5 offenses in the top 10 for scoring. In 2013, we faced 6 offenses in the top 10 for scoring.

myth: The defense performed much better than 2012 versus top scoring offenses.

Fact: In 2012 our scoring differential (points allowed against the average points per game for those teams) versus top 10 scoring offenses was plus 17. In 2013, versus top 10 scoring offenses our differential was plus 14. A difference of a mere 3 pts.

Note: This accounts for teams we play twice (if they were in the top 10).

Myth: One statistic or ranking is the sole measurement of performance.

Fact: There are many different variables that need to be taken into account.

Rankings do not tell the whole tale - and of course it becomes difficult to go back & see where they were ranked when we played them etc. These are based on end of season rankings.

I only quoted your post because it mentions getting back to facts. These are facts, easily verified. The entire "we ranked higher so we were way better" argument is myth & opinion.

Edit: After double checking the figures we actually performed better in 2012 than in 2013 versus top 10 scoring offenses. We allowed 13 points over the average in 2012 versus 14 points over the average in 2013.

Fact: The Defense faced more high powered offenses than our offense faced more stout defenses....... and our D still played better as a unit than our offense.

 

Go look it up......

Top 10 offenses: Denver, GB, Detroit, NE, Chicago, Cincy for yards. Denver, Chicago, NE, Cincy, GB for points. Not that they were all playing at that level when we faced them.

Top 10 defenses: Cincy, Houston, Cleveland, Buffalo for yards. Cincy, Miami, NE for points.

So in essence - we faced 2 more top 10 offenses than defenses.

If you extend that to top 15 though -

Defenses: Pitt (twice) Detroit, for points.

Offenses: add Houston. (again, for points scored).

Not as lopsided as one might think.

Lets look at this logically. The offense is inept for 3 quarters while the defense plays great, and then the offense finally gets it together at the end, but the defense can't come up with another stop.

 

Which has more impact on the game, 3 quarters or 1 drive?

Well let's see - logically, since we only lost 3 games by more than 1 score, I guess the defense's 4th quarter failings have more impact.

It isn't about this one or that one costing a game here or there - it is about the myth that the defense was so great and so much better than last year - it is a myth.

Their 4th quarter failings - giving up the 3rd most points in the 4th quarter - getting scored on 67% of the time in the red zone -  cost us games this season. Did the offesnse cost us games? Yep. But there is no myth around that they were better than last season or so great.

Well the fact is in most games our defense kept us in it, and our O failed to capitalize. Isn't it easier to play with a lead than having to always play catch up too?

 

I just don't think it's fair to criticize the defense for not making a stop in the 4th quarter, when they have been making stops and getting the ball back throughout the entire game and the offense doesnt do anything with it. The Buffalo and GB games are perfect examples. In Buffalo our defense completely shut down the Bills in the 2nd half but we kept turning the ball over. Against GB, our D locked down Aaron Rodgers who had his worst game of the year, but we didnt have an offense until the 4th quarter, and then it's the defenses fault for not getting 1 stop? I know that last stop could have been the difference in the game, but how many times does the offense get a pass?

 

I'm not trying to say only the offense was to blame for the team's failures, but I dont see how anyone could objectively look at this year's Ravens and say the defense was the problem. I also don't see how anyone can just point to a very small sample of 4th quarter "failures" and ignore the rest of the game where the defense largely played exceptionally well. 

I hate these sort of reasonings because it is perfectly alright to ignore the fact that the offense tied up the game or took the lead therefore, putting the team in a position to win or go into OT.

In GB we held TOP until the defense gave up a 6 minute drive for a score. What is their excuse for suddenly failing when it counted? We're not talking an amazing deep ball by Rodgers that put them inside our 20 and then they scored. We are talking a 6 minute methodical drive where the defense could not muster one single play to get the ball back or force a punt. That is a defensive failure I don't care who did what previously.

The point was never to say the offense was better than the defense - the point was that rankings do not tell the whole story - that the defense did not perform in the 4th quarter which is proven statistically - and that it sometimes cost us games every bit as much as the offense's ineptitude.

You know that we didn't learn because of the moves we haven't made 10 days into the offseason?  And secondly, it shouldn't be a significant surprise to anyone that the offense took a step back when you consider how much focus we put on defense last offseason, plus we traded our best receiver for cap reasons, plus we lost our other very reliable receiver to injury for 12 games.  

 

I didn't hear as much about bad route running when we had Boldin, Mason and Housh.  And if nothing else, Torrey has at least expanded on his route tree.  He caught a lot more short passes this season, and early in the season was a beast after the catch.  

 

It's not like the play calling was flawless this season.  Early on, we used little crossing routes to Torrey for him to catch the ball and get YAC, which actually helped start a lot of our drives.  Why we went away from that as the season went on, I have no idea.  I also thought we threw way too many short passes all year, but maybe that had something to do with a lack of faith in the O lines ability to protect long enough for 10+ yard plays to develop.  We also never figured out how to stop double A gap blitzes all season long, and we had way too many free runners take shots at Flacco, and we kept getting in third and long.  These are are undeniable problems.  But as far as a lack of creativity, we did see stacks/bunches/different route concepts this year, just like we did in the SB run, as well as off and on (at best) during Cam's tenure.

 

These are all correctable without being forced to overhaul the offensive staff because this was the same staff, minus Castillo, that was here when we fielded way better offenses in years prior.  What does that scream?  To me, personnel upgrades!!  Torrey's not a legit number 1, and Jacoby's not a legit number 2.  Marlon, maybe.  

 

And again, I'm pretty sure we ran at least some ZBS when Cam was here.  We definitely ran our share of zone stretch plays.  I'm not going to break down why it's a good scheme because I'm not football smart enough to do so, but it can work.

Well let's break it down - we've released no one (namely Caldwell) which means (because anyone worth anything will be hired by the end of the week) it can be deduced with pretty high accuracy unless he is offered a job elsewhere, we aren't letting him go.

We basically just promoted Castillo.

The RB coach left on his own - probably because of Castillo, and I only say this with the current info that Castillo will be the OL coach next season and because the RB coach has been with us for a while.

Not to mention - the entire "no wholesale changes" quote. Pretty much - we aren't making any coaching changes unless outside forces make it necessary.

I guess you didn't hear about bad route running when Mason was here. Why would you? The man was a consummate route runner. Housh was decent and Boldin was good. All of them were veterans that came here with those skills already in place. Their skills in that area were not learned and/or developed here.

I already said the play calling was an issue but - Caldwell's still here isn't he?

I call bullycock on the creative part. Massive fail in the run game and we did not even attempt to scheme our way out of it. Sure we saw a play here or there, but there was no consistent creative play calling, not even within one game.

No they aren't the same guys.

Hostler - joined in 2008

Caldwell - joined in 2012

Castillo - joined in 2013

Moeller - joined in 2008

Washington - assistant OL coach joined in 2011

The only guy who has been here is Wade, the TE coach. Hostler has been here since 2008 - what WR has developed under him? Torrey - who still cannot run crisp routes and has tracking issues. Something that seems to be issues with all our receivers.

When Castillo ran the scheme in Philly they only had 2 years when the sack totals were under 30. I don't call that "working". They only had 3 years where the run game was in the top 10. Not an impressive resume.

Fact: This was a transition year for the team.

And I'd be fine with that if we'd learned anything and were making necessary coaching changes. We are not.

What we should have learned:

1. Castillo's ZBS system is crap.

2. Eventually Joe will get hurt.

3. Castillo's system destroyed our run game in one off season.

4. While he may not be the best, the Ravens need Pitta.

5. Torrey has not made the transition to a true #1 just yet (WR coaching ???)

6. Rice is not effective injured.

7. You won't know what you've got until you let them play (Marlon Brown)

8. You can't have a functioning offense with a stale playbook.

But, Castillo is sticking around and getting more responsibility. - which is something else Harbs should have learned with Cam - don't hold on so tight to friends.

Caldwell is still here. We've made no coaching changes on offense. Why expect different results?