BKeyser

What round do we draft Nick Saban?

Personally, I like Harbaugh. I think he's a player's coach. And if he sets the right tone for the team going forward, we may not need wholesale coaching changes. Clearly these guys aren't dummies, but they seem to lack confidence in... something. Maybe it's the players. Maybe Dean Pees plays prevent because he doesn't trust his corners in one-on-one. Then again, he plays one-on-one for most of the first 28 minutes of each half, so I don't think that's it. Said it in the forums last week: Why not 6-2-3? Six down linemen, 340lbs, 300lbs and 270lbs from the middle out, two 250lb linebackers and three 200lb defensive backs. If you rush six, they've got to keep seven on the line on offense. With the QB, that leaves only 3 in the pattern and 5 LB's/DB's in coverage. With six rushing, QB's have to get rid of it fast, so no more 40 yard go patterns. And running backs become obsolete - probably replaced by blocking TE's. If you're defensive-minded, this would seem to cut the scoring down and wreck havoc on QBR's. Pressure means turnovers. You just need a good-tackling back five. And I'd rather get get beat on the occasional missed tackle than giving pro quarterbacks 8 seconds and 5 options against a zone D. I could also stand 2-14 every year if we beat the Steelers twice, so, you know.

Pees blitzed almost every play in the final drive. How could you even watch that game and blame the coaches? The players on defense choked, period. Where were Suggs, Doom, Judon, Jernigan on that final drive? No, he didn't blitz almost every play. This has been going on for so long, when these situations come up I say out loud on every play how many guys are in the rush. Once or twice I said "5". And sending a safety at Big Ben isn't going to do anything but leave another LB in space.

This is just another in a series of cultural defeats. By that, I mean that the culture of this organization is: play soft with a lead. It's been going on for years. I'm quick to blame Dean Pees, who I think is as awful a coach as there is in the NFL, but this lack of killer instinct may originate higher up. We won the Super Bowl, barely, on the backs of Joe Flacco and Anquan Boldin and the emotion of Ray Lewis' last season. Since then, we've probably blown more leads and given up more points in the last two minutes of a half than any team in football. That's not individual players, that's a mentality. That's a culture. Yes, we need a pass rush. And shut-down corners who can stay healthy. I'm all about #BringBackRex. Rushing 3 or 4 against 5 or 6, giving pro quarterbacks all day to survey the field and playing linebackers in space is a recipe for quick opposing scoring drives and teams prove it over and over again in this league, yet there are some coaches (Dean Pees) who simply know no other way to game plan. It has to end. So Ozzie should look at his scouts and head coach, and Harbaugh should look at his coordinators, but if we're not going to put up 35 points a game, then we need to learn how to keep up the pressure when we have a lead, and we'll never get there under the current culture. "Play Like A Raven" has come to mean "fold when it counts."

Harbs: "All time worst call ever" on the interception. He took the blame, but Marty called it.

This is as poorly a coached team as there is in the NFL. Both sides of the ball. It's hard to imagine us scoring in Pittsburgh next week, or holding the Steelers to under 30. We'll be 10 point dogs heading into that game.

Except, in practicality, that's not happening. The longer the QB holds the ball, the more likely a completion, if not a big gainer. We play a version of man, cover 2, or prevent on virtually every down and [almost] only when we get pressure on the QB, do we have success. I guess I'm from the Wade Phillips school of defensive scheming. Or Rex Ryan's. I loathe soft D's reacting rather than dictating. Of course, when you're number one most of the year, it's hard to argue for change.

Looking for comments... Trying to figure out the current thinking regarding defensive game-planning in a pass-happy NFL. I'm no football coach and never played in an organized league, so I understand that smarter people than me are making these decisions. But hear me out. Why 3-4? Seems to me that a few things have been trending for some time: Receivers are getting bigger and running backs, with few exceptions, are becoming obsolete. Quarterbacks are bigger and quicker on the release, and every NFL quarterback can carve up a zone D on a 7-step drop and 5 or 6 seconds to survey the field. Why not 6-2-3? Six down linemen, 340 lbs, 300 lbs, and 270lbs from middle out, two 220-250 lbs linebackers, and three 200 pounders in the secondary. The linebackers would be of the hybrid style that can play run or pass, and there are six guys going for the QB on every play. This means the offense has to keep at least six guys in to block, plus the running back. That's 7 behind the line and up to four running patterns against 5 in the secondary. The quarterback gets three seconds to throw, routes are shorter, and no one gets beat deep. A good tackling team should theoretically hold completions to short gains and the D-line will rack up the sacks. A poor tackling team might get beat on YAC though. Of course OC's will work up something to defeat this. Maybe the run game, but with disciplined DE's setting the edge, smallish running backs will struggle running into a 12-man line. Screens to TE's maybe, but screens usually take a while to develop and the idea behind two extra guys on the d-line should prevent that. And there's one consistent reality with Quarterbacks: if you make them react faster, they turn the ball over more. I'm tired of watching our D get sliced up by QB's like Tom Brady when a 3 and 4-man rush never gets close to him. These guys are too good, and the secondary is at a huge disadvantage. I don't know. Maybe this makes no sense at all.

I was surprised they took the DOG penalty there with 2 timeouts in the bag. I suppose moving 5 yards closer to the endzone was part of the calculus though; if so, they really thought that thing out! Fun way to seal the game.

Kept watching the two backs get a good burst, 2, 3 yards, and then two or three Bengals converging to end the run there. At the hand off I kept thinking, "this one's gonna break for 10 or 12 yards" then the opening would close. Credit to the Bengal linebackers for that; they run well. But I would think there should be something in the play that accounts for those guys. There weren't enough replays to tell, so I don't know if it was WR/TE's not getting blocks or if the line wasn't getting downfield. Typical Ravens 4th quarter though, huh? Our games are always in doubt.

You're right. Put 'em in bubble wrap. That'll be fun to watch. The notion that the league is investing in safety is a false one. They're protecting quarterbacks (some, but not all, and not all equally as Tom Brady has been untouchable for years while Cam Newton is treated like a running back) and receivers (though again, almost directly in correlation to salary vs. jersey number). Running backs and linebackers take the brunt of the big hits, and lineman on both sides are the most physical yet it's QB's and WR's who get all the protection. Further, it's not an either/or condition. 'Either we tolerate players sitting out for muscle pulls, or we shoot them up with tranquilizers before each half and bury them at 40', are not the only two choices. Dumervil has been dealing with a sore foot all season. Can't play. Suggs tears a bicep; plays. Does one have a higher pain threshold than the other? Maybe. Does one rely on pushing off a foot to do his job more than the other his bicep? Maybe that's part of the equation too. But Dumervil has been drawing a paycheck and eating up a roster spot all year while dealing with an "undisclosed" sore "foot area" injury from last year. Suck it up and play, or go on IR. Some of this is coaching too, I'm sure. Holding guys out in an era when lawsuits are driving the NFL to play tort defense. And double the number of pages in the rule book. It's a tough man's game. You can be a part of it as it's meant to be played, or at the periphery as a marginal has been, unable to "stay healthy." When you reach that point, maybe retirement is the answer instead of cheating the fans and the integrity of the game. Regarding the straw man union argument - it doesn't play with me. Unions are the bane of corporate success. Unions promote lethargy and under-performance. The game was better before the NFLPA and will continue to decline as it seeks enrichment over entertainment.

If the NFL wants to save this sport from moving to Mexico and England -exclusively- the next NFLPA agreement needs to base salaries on actual games suited up. The league has become so much about "safety" that there's little incentive for a lot of these players to get on the field. We once saw Goose go off on a stretcher in a neck brace, only to see him return during the second half. Nowadays, players can post Instagram photos of them clubbin' it during the week, only to be wearing a sweatshirt on the sideline during the game. Definite lack of heart among some of these guys.

I've seen several articles today on how the Steelers ran out of time. I guess they did, but it would have never come down to that if we hadn't stopped doing what had worked all game. It's absolutely amazing that anyone in the NFL even employs "the prevent D" given it's awful success rate. And no, winning on a botched onside kick is not success. With the momentum they had gained, overtime would've been at worst even money had they executed the kick. The Ravens have no killer instinct. That's either on the players, or the coaching staff; you can decide for yourselves who you think embodies that weakness.

The good: Ravens defense was outstanding for 3 quarters. The bad: Penalties, once again killing drives, changing field position. The ugly: Anything from Tampa, especially the Tampa 2.

Harbs clearly not upbeat today.