Tru11

if your 4 rushers cant beat their 5 blockers , you are in trouble.

if their 3 rushers can beat your 5 blockers , you are also in trouble.

you can scheme all you want, in the end its the players who need to get it done.

9 hours ago, January J said:

Making the eagles use a timeout would've been a good thing as well obviously. If that had happened and the same thing played out except weddle makes that tackle on Wentz with 4 seconds left then its game over. This all ties into clock management- which is something we have struggled with for quite some time now.

the quickest way to end the game would be to score a TD and make it a 3 score game.
that is why they decided to pass on 1st down rather then run the ball and burn the clock.

with a TD it would have been a 17 point difference which means the eagles would need 3 scoring drives with at least 2 being a TD with less then 6 minutes left.
you will find very little cases of teams that where able to pull it off...

also if you want to score a TD then the worst thing you can do in that situation besides turning the ball over , is taking a sack.

the odds of the ravens scoring a TD when its 2nd and 17 are not that high.
they have a better chance when its 2nd and 10.

situational football when the game plan is to score a TD......

1 minute ago, Tank 92 said:

Regardless of the circumstances, if the Ravens can't be confident of a win with a two score lead and 4 minutes left in a game then there are huge issues.

the defense has not been clutch for a while in those situations and they where missing their top corner so huge issues in an understatement lol

4 hours ago, rossihunter2 said:

but those options arent mutually exlcusive - it was a first down play - you can take the sack on first down, run the clock and then also live to go for it two more times at least

they made an aggressive call but i imagine that if it had been an incompletion they might have run the next play to get the clock going and see if they could shorten the yardage - they were virtually guaranteed a field goal at that point

and the timeout had little to do with burning the clock - they'd burned all the clock they could - im pretty sure they called the timeout because they were running out of playclock

obviously this is all kind of moot because joe did neither of the two things you're arguing about - he threw a pick towards a receiver who was well covered anyway even if the linebacker hadnt been there

and you have to think situationally - when there are only 6 minutes left on the clock - 35 seconds becomes way more important than 7 points - at a minimum if you take that sack and then run twice - you take out probably nearly two minutes of clock and still can put a field goal through which is big because it forces two touchdowns rather than a touchdown and a field goal which was nearly our undoing...

a FG would have kept it at being a 2 score game making it a 13 point difference and leaves them with 4 minutes and 35 seconds to score 2 TD to win it.
a TD made it a 3 score game which is a 17 point difference which leaves them with a little over 5 minutes left to score 2 TD and a FG to tie and or 3 TD to win it.

if you take the sack on 1st down its 2nd and 17 which pretty much guarantees its going to be a FG.
if you throw it away its 2nd and 10 which still gives you a shot at a TD.

you have a bigger chance on getting a first down when its 2 and 10 then when its 2nd and 17.
you also have a bigger chance to win the game with a 3 score lead then a 2 score lead.

3 minutes ago, BmoreBird22 said:

The thing is, I don't think people would even bat an eye at a missed letter or give you grief, but you came with this better than him attitude and kept saying he made a mistake when it was clearly you.

I mean, shoot, I think the entire argument is extremely stupid. I think throwing it away or dropping for a sack would have been world's better than what happened and I think we can all agree on that.

agreed to that.

either is better then a pick lol.

however what im suggesting is based on the ravens intentions and actions.
better yet when i say he should have thrown it away its based on the fact that they used a TO to stop the clock and where trying to throw it into the endzone.

ravens basicially had 2 options:

option 1 be aggresive and go for the win by making it a 3 score game

option 2 be conservative and run the clock and hoping a 2 score lead will be enough.

its clear they tried to be aggressive.
they wanted the TD and not to burn the clock.
that is a fact nobody can dispute. 

if you want the td then throwing it away would have been the better option as it would have been 2nd and 10.
if you want to burn the clock then taking a sack would have been the better option as it would have been 2nd and 17.

however if you want to burn the clock why would you call a TO and then try to pass it into the endzone in the first place.
makes no sense what so ever tbh....

50 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Or you could have just realized the same thing everybody else realized, which was that we were referencing incompletions, not interceptions. If you notice, literally no other post even made reference to interceptions.

I think if you asked around to your fellow posters on the subject, I don't think you'd get on agreement with you on who the "butt" was, particularly given that you couldn't even get a single agreement on your position anyway.

Good luck with that.

Or if you mean INC you say INC rather then INT.

its probably a to radical concept for you to grasp.

17 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Nope. It means I did something I do often... miskeyed a word or even several words. Difference here is I usually go back and proofread afterwards and correct, which I did not in this case. If you saw my posts before I re-read and edit them, this would not be surprising to you.

Try doing it on a small tablet device and see how close you think any letter is to another...

Well have you learned your lesson?

When using a small tablet its always good to re read every time!!!

Especially when you can mistake a T for C!!!

Always a good idea when you are going to accuse someone else for saying something they did not.

Also a good tip is to also go back to check it again when the person you are accusing keeps telling you that you made a mistake in what you wrote.
If you did that the first time, it would have saved me some time trying to ask to provide the quote your mistake was based on.
It would also save you for making an butt out of yourself by sticking to the mistake you made.

it was a pain using my iphone6 to go back and search for where i said what you accused me off.
 

8 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

And apparently NFL teams would disagree with you, as QBs are often criticized for just the decisions you advocate. Remember, its not up to you to decide when he "does or doesn't have to". That's not a decision you can objectively make. Its about determining what's best for the team at that time, and you don't get to make that call.

I saw zero concern from this coaching staff about his well being based on the play calling they made yesterday or all season long.

QBs are more criticized for throwing picks and taking sacks then they are from throwing the ball away if nobody is open.

Any NFL team will take an incomplete pass over a sack and certainly over a INT.

Quite curious which NFL teams rather take a sack then an incomplete pass TBH.

1 minute ago, rmcjacket23 said:

INC stands for incompletions. As in when you referenced that throwing an incompletion did no harm... kind of the point of the last like 20 posts by literally anybody.

I don't think I have to try much harder. You don't seem to really have anybody agreeing with your position, so what do I really need to try harder at? Should I go track down your o so smart Pee Wee coach and ask him what he thinks? Does that constitute as trying harder?

Somehow I suspect he's going to tell me stories of a lot of hits to the head...

pretty sure its a abbreviation for incorporated.

never the less i cant remember you ever using INC in a reply as far as i know.
matter of fact i cant remember anyone on this site every using it in that way.
heck i cant find any site that uses it in this way.

also the C and T are not that close to each other so it still does not explain how you made that mistake in the first place.

Seems to me you are just trying to make stuff up yet again tbh.
 

4 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

All hindsight analysis though (which ironically is all this conversation is). You don't get the luxury in real time of seeing what will happen when you make a decision. You have to make the best decision with the information you have.

The collective decision in total was horrendous and the execution was worse. But taking a sack is a better outcome for the team than throwing it away. All decisions are risky.

i rather have my 120 mil QB throw the ball away then take a sack when he does not have to.

unless im playing madden where i want him to get a career ender so i can build the team  with much needed cap space in my online league.

3 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

I wrote INT instead of INC, the original comment was about why Joe should just throw it away, and my point is that he shouldn't just throw it away.

But you already knew that.

the C and T are miles apart.

also cant remember you ever using INC in your replies ever.

at least not arguing with me.

so try again buddy.....

2 minutes ago, BmoreBird22 said:

I just find it amusing that he's talking to you about backpedaling and changing the narrative, but all you did was point out that he incorrectly quoted you. And now he's trying to make it as if your entire argument this whole time had been about the incompletion, not the INT comment.

Irony at its finest.

yup.

still waiting on his proof of what i said.

Just now, rmcjacket23 said:

What guarantees do you have that Joe won't get strip sacked when he drops back to pass? What guarantees do you have that he won't tear his achilles dropping back to pass? What guarantees do you have he doesn't get struck by lightning?

I'm not even sure why he's even in the game at this point based on the fears you have... he should just be on the sidelines collecting a paycheck and working on his beard. 

he did not get stip sacked when he threw the pick.
he did not get injured throwing the pick.
he did not get struck by lighting when he threw the pick.

changing the destination of the pass he threw will not alter reality orso

all he had to do was aim the ball a lil bit higher and it would gone out of the back of then endzone.

my suggestion would have changed very little other then the outcome of the play tbh

3 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

You said that there's no harm in throwing an INT there. That statement is incorrect. 

You can move the goal posts as far away from that statement as you want. It doesn't matter. Your agreement or disagreement is irrelevant, because your statement was wrong. Its not up to interpretation.

where did i say this?

im looking forward to see the quote where i said this.....

1 minute ago, rmcjacket23 said:

1. This would be the quote... the one I've quoted you on several times already... " no harm in throwing it out of the back of the endzone if nobody is open. " The one that is blatantly false because it can do significant harm. Good chance you missed owning how wrong it was while you were tripping over yourself as you backpedaled away from it. No worries though... I don't suspect you'll take any ownership of it anytime soon. Will most likely just dance around it or move the goal posts a bit more. I've seen it all.

2. LOL. The kid still thinks its about 40 seconds, as if that 40 seconds isn't everything in a must win game. Let me guess... next you'll say "its only a couple yards", as if a couple yards isn't the difference between playoffs and non playoffs. Except, it is. 

3. Actually, the 40 seconds burns whether they take the timeout or not. Its just a question of when it burns. Because once they are out of timeouts, they can no longer stop the clock. And if they stop it now, they won't be able to stop it later. That's kind of the whole point of running the ball there... it achieves every possible objective. It keeps the clock running, it forces the Eagles to make decisions that will impact the rest of the game, its less riskier, and it can achieve the same rewards as throwing will. And while the Ravens clearly either didn't think about that then or didn't care, they obviously did afterwards, when John called it "one of the stupidest calls he'd seen". Those facts aren't contradicting anything.

4. You keep talking about guarantees as if you offer any of your own. Like I said, you clearly have some sort of fear of a football player getting hurt. News flash... QBs don't actually get injured that often. They get hit dozens of times a season, and most of them never get hurt at all. The percentage of times a QB gets sacked and is actually injured is very, very, very small. If it were as common as you make it seem, I'd expect 32 NFL QBs to be on IR by the end of the year. Clearly, that doesn't happen. 

The reality is the least guaranteed part of this whole discussion is you claiming our o so delicate QB is going to get a boo boo again. 

Since you're so convinced that the coaching staff doesn't share my line of thinking, its pretty clear they don't share yours either. Why? Because they sent their high priced QB back to pass in a condensed space in a situation where running the ball protects him and the team. So clearly, they're not nearly as concerned about losing him to injury as you are, which would also be evidence by the number of passing attempts he's had on the season.

So you can play the "scared to get my QB hurt on a standard play" game all day long, but clearly the coaching staff doesn't share your view on that.

And if your football coach in pop warner told you to ALWAYS throw the ball away instead of taking a sack, then he was a bad coach. Plenty of circumstances where its better for the TEAM for you not to throw it away, and this was one of them. Not always about you. Its about the team.

My coach taught me to understand situational football, not just do what was in my personal best interest. And I wasn't even being paid for that coaching either.

you quoted nothing buddy.

try again pls.

8 minutes ago, rmw10 said:

It's called situational football.  If he's smart, he absolutely takes a sack and lets the clock run or makes the Eagles take a TO.  Whether or not he would be smart enough to make that decision is an entirely different argument.

no comment on the last part lol.

i have yet to see him ever just go sit down and take a sack.
i have seen him try to throw the ball away with at times mixed results

1 minute ago, JoeyFlex5 said:

Contact happens on EVERY play. Why even field your team if you think taking hits are too risky? 

The reason the ravens drafted Stanley was because they dont want their high priced investment at the QB position getting hit lol

No team wants their QB to take unnecessary hits.

Hilarious that you guys are now all of a sudden fine with flacco taking a hit when he does not have to.....

Just now, rmw10 said:

Take a sack doesn't mean he has to stand in the pocket and get blasted.  He can tuck the ball and fall.

you mean like he did on the previous sacks in this game?

Just now, January J said:

I don't see why not? I'd much rather have flacco take a sack than throw the ball away IN THAT SITUATION. We're iin feild goal range regardless- and 40 seconds could've been the difference in victory and defeat- as we've seen ( and just saw ) countless times. And you act like he'd be getting bulldozed from the blind side ..he could have basically just sat down in that situation and it would've been smarter. 

what guarantees do you have that the eagles dont use a TO or the ravens dont use 1?

also you seriously think flacco would just sit down in that situation?

the only way he goes down is if he falls or gets brought down.

if he gets brought down what guarantees do you have he does not fumble or does not get injured or even worse both?

seems a lot of risk when he can just throw the ball away .....

50 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Well that's because I'm not one of the clueless who thinks everytime a QB gets sacked they tear their ACL. This is the real world. He's been sacked 28 times this year and 285 times in his career and got up from all of them, and that's excluding the numbers of times he's been hit or even knocked down. And not all of them provided as much value as being able to use clock time as what he could have provided in this instance.

So yes, I'm willing to try my QB getting sacked for less clock time in a must win game. Frankly, I'd question the intelligence of fans who don't think this way, because I don't think you really understand what's going on and what's trying to be accomplished. Not every sack involves the QB getting blindside pummeled or has a defender diving at his knee. Again, this the real world. There is overwhelming data that QBs get sacked and do, in fact, get up and continue playing and playing well. Certainly not a foregone conclusion that they're out 12 months from getting hit once.

I'm not in the business of playing the lame, lazy game of "well it could happen". I focus on what's most likely to happen. I'm not interesting in what happens when lightning strikes or when pigs fly. What logically is likely to occur based on a decision. The most likely outcome of Joe taking a sack in that instance is, by far, he takes a sack, he gets back up, and either the Eagles take a timeout or we run 40 seconds off the clock, both of which is a benefit for the Ravens and a detriment to an opponent who is down 10 points.

 

Dont you even see how ridiculous this crap is that you are saying?

No sane person would instruct his high priced QB to willing take a freaking hit for the sake of 40 seconds.

Flacco is 31 coming off a season ending injury a year ago and just got a new 3 year 66.4 mil contract
No sane person would suggest him to take a sack and thus a hit just for the sake of 40 seconds when he can throw the ball away without being touched.

The investment and his worth to this team is worth a lot more then 40 seconds of game time which easily could have stopped anyways since both teams had plenty of TO left.

There is 0 guarantees that 40 seconds would have been burned.
Without any guaranteed of those 40 seconds being burned why on earth would you risk your QB taking a sack.

You are risking an injury and/or a TO for something that is not guaranteed.

Makes no sense whatsoever.

Lets not even get into the fact that the ravens themselves stopped the clock from running by calling a TO and then came out with a pass play intended to score a TD rather then burning the clock.
Not to mention the eagles having 3 TO while the ravens had 2 left.

If the ravens wanted to run the clock they would not have wasted a TO and they certainly would not have gone with a pass play.
That is a fact 

Your whole running the clock crap did not cross their mind at that point on that particular play.
The facts contradict your line of thinking.

Doubt you ever player football but QBs are being taught since little league that its better to throw the ball away rather then take a hit.
They need to protect the ball and themselves.

Standing there and willingly taking a hit falls under neither of those instructions.

Im actually quite curious where you learned that a QB should take a hit even when its totally unnecessary.

PS: where is this quote you said you was going to show?


 

41 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

1. Well I can't be wrong about something that I quoted YOU for saying. If I'm quoting you about something, and now you say its wrong, by definition, that makes you wrong. That's kind of how quotes work.

2. The risk of fumbling is the same as the risk of him attempting to throw a ball away and not being successful at it. By asking him to throw it away, you too are putting him at risk. You are putting him at risk for injury which you already alluded to, as well as putting him at risk of not being able to throw the ball away, i.e. getting hit while attempting to throw it away or getting stripped while doing so. Both can and do happen, since we are playing the hypothetical game to the max.

3. Losing 5 yards is an easy trade off to get another 40 seconds run off the clock OR force the Eagles to use a timeout, which they have a finite amount of. Its unlikely they would start using their TOs with 6 minutes left anyway, and if they did, then great. We run the ball, kick a FG, and they're down two scores with no time outs left, making it extremely difficult to even get the ball twice.

4. Throwing it away on 1st down also makes it less attractive or likely to run it on 2nd down, because you now have less downs to work with. So if the Eagles don't take a timeout, you might run 2-3 plays, convert nothing, and the Eagles didn't have to burn a timeout OR take off meaningful clock time.

Doesn't seem like you've really thought this through...

looking foward to see that quote.

i rather have flacco throw it away and  stop the clock and not burn 40 seconds rather then have flacco take a hit with a kinds of consequences that may occur.

the fact that you rather have flacco take a hit for the sake of 40 seconds even though the eagles have 3 TO in the pocket, tells me you havent thought this through.

other then the flacco haters you wont find anyone who would want him take a hit just for the sake of 40 seconds.

im pretty sure majority would have picked for him to throw it away rather then take the sack.....
 

7 minutes ago, OUravensfan said:

I'll say this, you two have made the airport very entertaining for me lol

YW lol

26 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

You said that there's no harm in throwing an INT there. That statement is incorrect. 

You can move the goal posts as far away from that statement as you want. It doesn't matter. Your agreement or disagreement is irrelevant, because your statement was wrong. Its not up to interpretation.

guess you are not going to admit how wrong you where for this none sense ?

7 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

And there is harm. As I already showed you. 

Taking a sack is better than throwing it out of the endzone there. One keeps the clock running, one doesn't. 

If the clock stops running without us scoring a TD, harm has been created. Again, not a debatable concept.

No its not.
with a sack you risk fumbling the ball which we have seen in this game what it can lead to.( 8 points for the eagles)
you loose yards which is never a good thing.
your QB takes a hit which you dont want cause in the worse case he is out for the season.

compared to this there is no harm in throwing it out of the back of the endzone period.

it was first down anyways and we already stopped the clock using a TO.
throwing it out the back of the endzone had no harm compared to the INT or your suggestion of taking a sack.
2 more down to make clock start running again, not to mention the eagles still had all 3 of their TO so they could have stopped the clock if they wanted to anyways...

6 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

You said that there's no harm in throwing an INT there. That statement is incorrect. 

You can move the goal posts as far away from that statement as you want. It doesn't matter. Your agreement or disagreement is irrelevant, because your statement was wrong. Its not up to interpretation.

I said there is no harm in throwing it out the end of the endZone if nobody is open....

practice what you preach buddy

26 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Which was said by absolutely nobody. Couldn't even vaguely be construed as anybody saying anything even close to that. Reading comprehension really is a lost art isn't it? Are you even trying at this point or are you just all aboard the troll train this morning?

And the most ironic post of the day comment goes to...

"no harm in throwing it out of the back of the endzone if nobody is open."

And yet, there very clearly is significant in harm to just throwing it out of the back of the endzone, as common sense has already shown.

Is it the biggest harm? No, but we weren't discussing what was worse. We were discussing harm. It harms the football team to throw an incomplete pass there, and in more ways than just your standard incompletion.

Try harder.

maybe you should practice what you preach.

when the ball is snap and the QB is standing in the pocket there is no harm in throwing it out of the back of the endzone.

an int is the worst possible outcome other then flacco going on IR after getting sacked or trying to make the tackle after the int.

fact is that the play resulted in an turnover.

an incomplete pass would have been a better option then the result of the play.

either you agree or you don't