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.

  4 hours ago, Black&purple#55 said:

Dean pees must let go man, i cant stand this "PLAYING SCARED" defence

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.

17 minutes ago, JoeyFlex5 said:

You're basically describing(in a very vague sense) the original 46 which is obsolete in today's NFL. Quick release offenses have nullified the pass rush aspect and a cb who you can trust to hold up with today's receivers on quick breaks are rare. Then you have nobody back deep on clean up duty. And you need zone drops from your lbs to make the qb hold the ball a little longer because it clogs throwing lanes.

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.

23 minutes ago, eze17 said:

Yeah, those "good old days" when the owners virtually owned the players, paid them squat while they raked in the dough, and when a player was done, so long and don't let the door hit you in the butt...

Fast forward a few years when these guys started feeling the aches, pain and dementia that was a result of "tape her up and put me in coach" attitude. Any health benefits? Nah. Any insurance? Nah. Any relief at all from the NFL? As little as they could give, which had to be dragged out of the owners by lawsuits, which were appealed and dragged out indefinately.

And as a Colts fan, does the name John Mackey mean anything to you? For you younger fans, look it up and see what a horror story life after "the good old days" could be...and there were literally hundreds just like him.

And lets not forget the blatant racism that was rampant back then, when a minority had better know his place or suffer the consequences. Yeah, those sure were the glory days...

How would you like to go to work for literal change that was based solely on how you performed, have zero imput on job decisions, face being fired for any offense no matter how minor, if you complain about being injured you face immediate termination and in the end your kicked to the curb with no health insurance and a totally sub-standard retirement pension. As an added bonus, due to all the injuries you've wracked up, you can't work anywhere else and are in constant pain.

Yeah, sure long for those days when "men were real men"...

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.

Ever wonder why this particular DC hasn't received a head coaching call? It's because the game has passed him by. His 3-4 scheme, poor game planning and inability to adjust has done him in.

And the Ravens.

Wholesale coaching changes are in store at the conclusion of this season.

Just to be clear, I'm not defending Joe's INT's. However, I haven't seen one person so far mention that he set a franchise record today for throws without an INT. Flacco has 6 picks in 7 games AND set a record for consecutive throws without a pick, 176. How is this possible? Because we're one dimensional and everyone and their grandmother knows it. How hard is it to make a QB look bad when you know he's going to throw and you send 6 guys after him?

(Don't ask Dean Pees that; he won't know.)

Given the constant pressure he's under, I'd say franchise records (he set another earlier this year for straight completions - we forgot about that too, I guess) and no running game add up to more than "it's Joe's fault."

Who's got the guts to say we would've won today, all things being equal except Mallet behind center?

I can't figure out why Flacco's salary is the "reason" he needs to go. Who's paying it? And if he were making half of what he's making, would Coach still be sitting their #1 draft pick? Would 12 rushes for 6 yards and 2 picks by the half-as-rich QB be acceptable? Would we have won today behind Mallet and our running game?

How about the constant surrender on 3rd down when we consistently play cover 2 and get beat for a big gain? Joe's salary?

Running a fumble out of the endzone by a d-lineman? Joe's fault? If Mallet was in the game, would Jernigan not have made that boneheaded mistake?

You give any NFL QB weapons and protection, and he'll perform. You let him get beat up every game and give him... Perriman? You get two picks and a 58 QBR. Regardless of his jersey color, his name, or his salary.

I hope the Ravens put an ad in Craigslist for offensive linemen. 12 rushes -2 by Flacco running for his life- for 6 yards.

6 yards.

18" per rush.

For all the heartbreak over Flacco, where would this team be with this o-line and defensive secondary and Aaron Rogers behind center?

3-3

Wallace dropped balls on two game-ending drives. Think he catches those if Rogers puts the spin on the ball? Or is it Flacco's fault he dropped them. Perriman drops two or three per game. Flacco's fault? If you eliminate the drops, particularly on 3rd down or when the game is one the line, we're 5-1.

And no one is talking about Flacco.

This is not to say drops are the only problem, but you can't overlook them. Just as you can't continue to play from 2nd and 20 and expect the QB to continually bail out the holding calls. 2nd and 20 and the D is chomping at the bit at the snap.

The Giants played 7 in the box all game long. Seems like all of our offensive plays take a long time to develop; 5-step drops and 40 yard bombs can't happen with three defenders in the backfield every play.

It's a myriad of problems. On field talent, sideline coaching, and injuries (toughness?) We're a 5 win team; there's no getting around that.

Nope. That's not it. It's a problem that has plagued this team for three years: the inability to adjust to what the other team is doing. This happens on both sides of the ball. Why can't we close it out? Why can't we put it in the endzone? Stop their fourth and one? Not give up that late scoring drive?

We're predictable.

No, the O-line didn't give Flacco enough time to throw. Not that you can blame them, necessarily; everyone but Zutah was playing out of position. They did do a nice job on some of the running pays, but they can't get outside to block for a screen to save their lives.

Way too many dropped passes. Again. And Flacco having to throw from a three step drop and on his back foot play after play after play, is going to lead to poor timing on routes and some inaccuracies. But drops are a problem. Perriman and Wallace in particular.

Also on D. I guess there's a reason Webby isn't a receiver. Someone else dropped a sure INT as well; can't remember who.

But again, just like last year, no defensive pressure on the QB. Any quarterback in the NFL given 5 step drops and all day to go through his progressions is going to find someone open. The 3-4 has got to go. Dean can take it with him.

At some point, you've got to question the toughness of these players not playing. Dumervil? Maybe it's not the foot but the age. Stanley? Wasn't he drafted as a WR for us last year? SSS seemed fine on that ankle on the runway for his big show early in the week. Hester has a thigh? Unless it's a bullet wound, hard to imagine how a thigh keeps you out of a football game.

The Ravens are soft.

Oh, and Wallace and Perriman can't catch. Dean Pees still doesn't know what a blitz is, and Harbs still isn't convinced after three failed runs from inside the 2 that 3 points matter.

We're 4-12 in the making. Thank goodness for the Browns.

Stating the obvious, we lost in the trenches. O-line was really, really bad. And our D got no pressure on Carr. That's the game right there. Flacco under duress all day and Carr eating up 24.

The Watson injury really hurts.

IMHO, we need to switch to a 4-3 defense. Stop dropping linebackers into zone space and blitzing corners and safeties, which take too long to get to the QB. Four down lineman always going after the quarterback and send an outside linebacker on obvious passing downs for a five-man rush. Disguise blitzing linebackers.

If we continue play this game as though the offenses, quarterbacks, and -just as importantly- the RULES, don't favor a quick release passing game, we'll continue to look at losing seasons, regardless of who's playing linebacker.