ravensdfan

Just now, redrum52 said:

Without looking it up, I'm guessing that Gronk is the highest drafted player on the Pats offense.  The rest of his guys are "castoffs" and Bennett.  The excel because of a great scheme, one of the greatest HC and one of the best qbs of all time.  Blount was in Pit, cut, then won a SB.  Edelman is a good wr, but I don't think he has the same success elsewhere.

They do have a great system - we've seen a couple QBs come in, make a spash, then go elsewhere and disappear. Not saying Brady isn't a great QB, just saying he does benefit from a pretty consistently weak division and the Pats great overall system.

Not really arguing your point exactly, just saying without having those benefits it is difficult to make the comparison.

3 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

I personally don't see the purpose of constantly firing your coordinators and not your HC. Obviously its one thing when one of your coordinators is good enough to be hired elsewhere, but I would even like to know how often it has worked out that a HC fires both of his coordinators after a season, keeps his job, and actually ends up successful.

For me, this offseason, its really all or nothing, or at least in regards to Harbaugh and Pees, because they've been together long enough that they basically vouch for one another. I'm not even convinced firing Marty is a relevant move, but at least he's essentially an "interim" OC, so you could argue he's not Harbaugh's guy.

Don't really see what we are trying to accomplish by firing Pees and letting Harbaugh keep his job.

Why is it all or nothing? Don't get that. Harbs is a special teams coach - he relies more heavily on his coordinators so don't know why it wouldn't make sense to start fresh there.

I think Harbs might be in the mix honestly, just don't think it will happen. If it does, I absolutely get it.  I do believe his seat just got pretty hot and 2017 will determine what happens. So new coordinators to kind of start fresh makes sense.

4 minutes ago, redrum52 said:

I'm willing to bet the complaints here would be about lack of weapons with the same personnel here.  Joe is no Brady, Marty is no Josh and Harbaugh sure as hell ain't no Belicheck.

Well, I'll play. Who are those guys here? When have we ever had them?

1 minute ago, Militant X 1 said:

Yeah!  That's too easy Red!

Or, maybe it's both?

Of course it would cause the excuses just keep on coming!  It is what it is!

Same question! Who are they? I mean it is difficult to actually know when we do not, nor have ever had, those guys.

Just now, rmcjacket23 said:

So if its not a new issue and the issue hasn't been addressed so far, why would you continue to think that it should be or even will be?

I'm not the guy who's demanding all these OC's be fired either. Its not like the offense hasn't had similar issues over the course of a few years also, and coaching changes don't appear to be doing anything for that.

You don't think it should be? After 5 seasons of it? After giving up 2 14 pt leads in 2014 cost us a chance at a SB appearance? After a 21 pt 4th quarter collapse cost us a playoff appearance? After a slew of other games during the regular seasons where it happened? Certainly it should be addressed and should have been long before now.

Why I believe it will is simply the position the team now finds itself in. After the showing the last 2 years, I think there will be changes. I think OC will probably be one of those changes as well.

Honestly, though I don't advocate it, after today's showing Harbaugh could be in the mix as well. The Browns played their hearts out for their coach - and the Ravens? Didn't even show up.

4 minutes ago, Militant X 1 said:

I know this was a sarcastic statement OU, but there may be a little truth to it.  

Brady just seems to know how to get the ball into his playmakers hands in a given situation that allows their abilities to shine forth and for them to be successful.

Or, Brady just has playmakers that, you know, actually make an effort to make plays.

2 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Uh you referenced him being fired for a single 4th quarter collapse.

So did you think your own statement was cute or what? If you thought he should be fired for a collection of issues, then perhaps you should have said that instead of saying he should be fired because his defense had a really bad quarter.

Same issue, for 5 seasons. Please. You are well aware that such a collapse is not a new issue.

2 minutes ago, BmoreBird22 said:

I'm indifferent at this point with him going because I want a whole new coaching staff, but the level of ineptitude between the offense and defense is pretty vast.

I'd agree with that statement - but also add, that the defense's issue has been around for a lot longer.

Personally, given our last two years, I agree as well that it is time to clean house as far as coaching. I don't believe that will include Harbaugh and not sure it should - though if it happens I would understand the reasoning.

20 minutes ago, BmoreBird22 said:

Lackluster offense has been more than a one season issue...

Yeah and guess what? Those coordinators are no longer here.

If you're going to make the announcement that you're playing to win & play your starters - then you better actually play to win!

Pathetic send off for a great one, Ravens. Pathetic.

Thanks for everything Smith SR!

Going to miss this man a lot. Shoot - I still miss Mason!

All the best Steve! Thanks for going all out!

7 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Well you're never going to fire a coordinator based on a defensive collapse in one game. Got no shot of ever being a good HC in this league making decisions like that.

You fire Marty if you weren't happy with what he did when he had the job. Its not like John really had the time to go out and scout other coaching candidates to replace Trestman mid-season... you're always going with an internal coach already on the roster at that point, and Marty was pretty much the only option. Interim coaches (which is basically all he was) are fired after a short period of time annually. Got multiple interim HCs in the league right now who won't be back with their team the next season.

One game lol That's cute.

7 hours ago, BmoreBird22 said:

I know that you're wanting to pin this on the defense, but this is a season long issue. I actually felt the Pittsburgh game was one of the better offensive games of the season. They just failed to finish and that's extremely frustrating. 

However, Marty actually ran the ball LESS, showed marginal to little improvement offensively as a whole, did not help Joe's mechanics improve on a consistent basis, despite being the quarterbacks coach. 

Also, as far as the "his system" idea goes, no one really seems to consider this, but if he used to run a WCO ever before in his career, then none of these plays were new to him. Every single playbook will feature the exact same plays if it's the same offense. It's just a matter of your philosophy on calling them and your idea of how the offense should be run. There was not a single play he hadn't seen before.

Well all OCs run a system, and they all have their own ways they do things as well. All OCs are not equal even if they run the same system, and that's because they all tweak it their way. That's what I meant.

The lackluster offense has been a season long thing - and the failure to finish defense has been a 5 season thing. Like I said, I get the Marty firing, but not over a Pees firing given how we lost that game. Not to mention a chance to advance in 2014 giving up 2 14 pt leads. Not to mention a slew of other games throughout his tenure.

5 hours ago, GrimCoconut said:

I'd really like a better QB coach. Am I alone here? Joe regressed big time under Marty

I'm for that as well.

7 hours ago, K-Dog said:

I think we keep both D.C. and O.C. if I am being honest. 

Unless miracle of all miracles and Kubes is willing to come back. (which ain't gonna happen)

If we keep them, then I don't see us doing anything different than the also rans we've been.

Rumors say Kubes is resigning from the HC position in Denver. Done with football or just doesn't want to be a HC?

12 hours ago, Tank 92 said:

Whole heartedly agree. I proposed canning the pool thing before this season and you'd think I had asked to ditch Santa Claus from Christmas.  lol   

I think ideas for something new were requested and nothing was put forth.

10 hours ago, BmoreBird22 said:

So, in case anyone didn't think it would happen, PFT is reporting Marty is almost a lock to be fired.

I'm not against Marty being fired but you have to admit that firing the OC when the defense collapsed and gave up 21 pts in the 4th is really out there. Especially when the OC didn't even get to implement his own offense. I think we are just making changes to make them & not making the right one.

3 hours ago, Tru11 said:

ever considered that the players we have are not as talented as they players we used to had?

or a wild guess here but the players the opponents have are simply just more talented then the players we have?

its quite interesting to see people outraged that guys like OBJ and Antonio Brown beat the living crap out of any of our CBs not named jimmy smith.

there is not 1 person on this planet that can turn wright and powers into players that will be able to lock down the likes of OBJ/Brown in single man cov like they are prime time or revis.....

offenses get paid to and at some point they will figure out how to beat an defense.
it actually says a lot that the defense manages to stop offense for 3 quarters and then break once its the 4th quarter.
after 3 quarters you pretty much have used up everything you have planned and practiced.....

if our own offense actually managed to do a  something in those 3 quarters then we did not had to worry about the 4th because the game would have been out reach.

however it usually also takes our offense 3 quarters to figure out how to do a something and its the reason why we are in close games going into the 4th.

They had a 2 score lead going into the 4th quarter & then after the defense pissed that away the offense gave them a 3 pt lead yet again. The defense couldn't even manage to hold them to 3 for the tie - noooo - they gave up 7 for the win. How many punts did the defense manage in the 4th? That's right, zero. The defense gave up 21 pts in the 4th quarter. Sorry - this loss is squarely on the defense.

1 hour ago, BmoreBird22 said:

I'm not opposed to firing Pees because I'm not opposed to getting rid of Harbaugh. I think if you get rid of Harbaugh, Pees is a definite goner, too.

However, how do you propose disguising coverages? Most of those coverage disguises come from who drops and who doesn't, playing a press bail in zone, etc, etc. There's not really too many ways to get insanely creative with coverage. What the Patriots did was simply stick to their men like glue. Jimmy is the one that I feel most comfortable with being able to actually stick to his man, and if he doesn't, he sure as hell knows how to make a play on the ball with recovery speed.

It is about more than just who drops and who doesn't. It is about lining up presenting one coverage, and then dropping into another. Showing Cover 3, right at pre-snap shifting to Cover 2 (just an example).

I think Harbs is safe this year. I'm not on the wagon for firing him but I'd see the reasoning behind it. But who would you replace him with?

2 hours ago, BmoreBird22 said:

If you really don't think that people make a multitude of excuses for the offense, then you're really not reading this board or you really love double standards.

Although, you may really like double standards because I remember you praising Patricia for those eight in coverage, but you love to bash Pees for those three man rushes.

I praised the disguised coverages - which is one of my complaints with Pees. Even when he brings different looks - they are decades old looks that any half decent QB will see and immediately adjust. Perhaps that is why those top 5 offenses tore us up. No creativity.

I do admit to hating 3 man rushes as a rule though. I think it is some PTSD from Mattison.

The truth is I have become resigned to Pees. It is apparent with Harbs lack of patience and complete willingness to fire OCs at the drop of a hat - Pees has some dirt on him or something lol However, I also recognize that with Pees brand of defense, one had best be bulking up the offense if there is to be any success.

13 minutes ago, The Raven said:

Stop wasting your time bro she won't ever get it and she doesn't want to get it

Again, stop sideswiping with your garbage. Be a man.

1 hour ago, BmoreBird22 said:

No, you're really just entirely missing the point. 

I'll try my best to break it down for you in a way that you might understand, which is difficult when you refuse to relent on your hate and see logic.

Jimmy was out against the Steelers and the Giants (when they made their comeback). Prior to Jimmy's exit, OBJ was held to 2 catches for 12 yards. Is it really just a coincidence that OBJ all of a sudden finds his groove when Jimmy goes out? No, probably not. We actually broke it down in another thread, but the defense has had a 12 point difference when Jimmy isn't in. That's a big deal. 

If you paid attention to the Patriots game in particular, you can see that when Jimmy is in, you just cannot test him deep. He wasn't allowing anything over the top and made plays on the ball the few times he was tested deep. 

The other point is that people seem to get this idea that offenses aren't supposed to make plays. You know, you've got some of the best offenses in football (Patriots, Raiders, Steelers) in a league that favors the offense and we should expect that they'll never make a play? I mean, shoot, like I said before, you have two top five receivers in Brown and OBJ and two quarterbacks who are top 5 in the MVP race in Carr and Brady. These players are expected to make plays. That's just a simple fact. It doesn't help that you're playing against some of the best offensive players in the league without your top corner. Do you see why this would be an issue?

I do agree that the defense needs to finish, but that's not entirely a Dean Pees situation. Sometimes players simply have to actually go out and make a play.

Sure offenses make plays. But you can't spend all season arguing with those who make the claim the defense is not really that improved it is the caliber of offenses we've played - and then turn around and say they aren't expected to perform against top offenses. Today it is the top corner, other seasons it was other players - it is always some excuse.

To say it is all Pees is incorrect. To say it is not Pees at all is also incorrect. Especially when this one season is not an anomaly. It is the norm since he came here.

If the defense held the Steelers scoreless the entire 2nd half - but the offense failed to score with say, Smith Sr out - or Wallace - those who defend Pees would be calling for the OC's head. Shoot Marty hasn't had a full season and the thread for who our new OC will be has been there for weeks now. lol The hypocrisy is absurd.

18 minutes ago, BmoreBird22 said:

Yeah, logic really doesn't matter with you. I've noticed.

Nothing he said in that presser was untrue...

No logic escapes YOU.

Your excuse is "Jimmy was out". Except that wasn't true for all the collapses and shouldn't affect just the end of the game anyway. So then it was "but those were top 5 offenses". So you moved to another excuse, like the defense is not required to perform if the opposing offense is any good. Your count for games we gave up 4th quarter leads was incorrect. Even without the Patriot game. You are here arguing that they don't collapse.

And then, when Pees comes out and says their problem is not finishing games - you agree. I mean do you not see your own run around?

Yes, yes I know. Five seasons, a myriad of different players and the same issue is not Pees' fault. The only common denominator for those five seasons is not to blame one iota for the defense's continual inability to finish games.

3 hours ago, BmoreBird22 said:

No, never tied it, either...

And anyone who watched the Patriots game knows it wasn't even close. The defense forces two three and outs and the offense responds with... a safety. The defense then forced a punt and the offense responded by... punting. I'm not pinning it on the offense, but it was a horrible game from the entire team, not a defensive collapse. The Ravens were very fortunate for two Patriots turnovers in the red zone or the game wouldn't even be close at all.

I mean, no, not really. It's just that you have two games in which Jimmy was out and in two of those, the defense faced a top 5 WR (OBJ, Brown). Plus, there were two games against a top 5 offense. I don't understand why people don't expect a play maker to make a play. 

It matters little as Pees just came out and said the defenses problem is finishing games! lmbo Of course, in true Pees fashion, he threw every player on defense under the bus and said it was their fault.

On 12/28/2016 at 9:29 AM, rmcjacket23 said:

Yeah you definitely might want to research the 2014 defense quite a bit...

Yep 2014 was the best year regarding the lack of 4th quarter collapses. Know what else was true that year? A fairly potent offense. Which is what I've been saying about Pees forever - better give the offense the love because they'd best be scoring with his 4th quarter D. Still, that is one season out of five.

12 minutes ago, BmoreBird22 said:

The Ravens never held a lead against the Patriots... ever.

And again, two games without Jimmy and two games against top 5 offenses, two offenses with top 5 receivers.

I'm sorry, you're correct. We simply tied the game up and promptly let them march down the field. My mistake but really supports my argument and not yours.

Ah so now we've moved beyond the "Jimmy was out" excuse to include any offense worth anything. Exactly. Which means they are NOT performing.

Three? Yeah, no lol

Oakland

Giants

Patriots

Steelers

We held the lead in all those games in the 4th quarter. And that is just the losses.

Jaguars, we won.

And I guess we're not counting the Eagles' game that if it meant anything at all to them they'd have kicked the EP for the tie.

3 minutes ago, BmoreBird22 said:

Let's say the ToP is at 19:00 for the Ravens and 21:00 for the opponent and the Ravens take a drive for 4:00 and the opponent does for 0:03. Well, now the Ravens are up in ToP. 

Do you see why this isn't exactly a good barometer?

But the statement was that the defense was tired & worn down. If they're on the field for 3 seconds, they still aren't tired and worn down are they?

Perhaps the offense is tired and worn down from watching the defense piss away 4th quarter leads, ever think of that?

14 minutes ago, BmoreBird22 said:

Well, that doesn't tell the whole story. The Ravens can have a three minute drive and get one first down, but punt. The opponent then proceeds to get a first play touchdown. Who has the better ToP?

That has what to do with the worn down, tired excuse? If the other team is getting a one play TD, then the defense is still not worn down and tired are they? Besides, the opposite has been true for the most part. The defense is giving up 7,8,9 minute drives.