Passing Game Huge Early In The Season

[ravensfan2430]

I am a huge fan of the run-first mentality, however passing a lot earlier in the season( and winning games doing it), gives us 2 advantages going into the later part of the season. 1 flacco gaines more experience early in the season (as opposed to last year when he came alive late) 2. Our running backs will be really fresh and able to wear defenses down late in the game.


Oh and we have a legit bye week this year.

[hammer]

[quote name='ravensfan2430' date='05 October 2009 - 10:48 PM' timestamp='1254797297' post='250427']
I am a huge fan of the run-first mentality, however passing a lot earlier in the season( and winning games doing it), gives us 2 advantages going into the later part of the season. 1 flacco gaines more experience early in the season (as opposed to last year when he came alive late) 2. Our running backs will be really fresh and able to wear defenses down late in the game.


Oh and we have a legit bye week this year.
[/quote]

I think you have just ID'd the 20th century strategy to winning in the NFL. Those folks arguing for the old dominant running game sounds to me like people who prefer the fax machine to email. Something is wrong there, but I am gonna stay humble about it.

[XxSizzleXx]

The negative of passing a lot is it can wear the endurance on your quarterback, Flacco`s arm could tire throughout the season which is why it is best to stay balanced.

[rlh445]

[quote name='hammer' date='05 October 2009 - 10:57 PM' timestamp='1254797830' post='250436']
I think you have just ID'd the 20th century strategy to winning in the NFL. Those folks arguing for the old dominant running game sounds to me like people who prefer the fax machine to email. Something is wrong there, but I am gonna stay humble about it.
[/quote]

Look, the dominant running game isn't 'old' at all..last year we were ranked number four in the rush attack. It's not that we want to switch from the fax to email, but that sometimes email just works better. If anything, our rushing attack has only gotten better. It's like we're trying to unscrew something with our fingernails when we have three good screwdrivers to use whenever we want! We have a back for every situation you'll face in a football game. We've got a shifty, Westbrook-esque back in Rice, we've got a back who can hit holes and speed through in Willis, and a freakin' Mack truck in McClain. So why would you even question why people want to see Ray and Willis (and Le'Ron) get more then 11 and 5 touches respectively during a game in which the run game was almost unopposed?

[Ed_Reed_Pick_Six]

I can't see why 25-30 rushing attempts aren't still in order. Balance, we don't want to wear down Flacco either.

[D-Rey]

It could really go either way, I'm just really excited to see we have a great passing attack to go along with our running game.

[Ed_Reed_Pick_Six]

At least we are strong at both, and can focus our attack more towards the pass or run depending on opposition weaknesses.

[Bosanac]

I agree that being strong at both positions is a BIG positive for our team, however, when your rbs are gaining 9 yards a carry, why stray away from that for a 27/47 passing attempt. Maybe we need to revert back to the run first mentality, before we end up like the 8-8 saints.

[Ed_Reed_Pick_Six]

[quote name='Bosanac' date='06 October 2009 - 07:00 PM' timestamp='1254812413' post='250509']
I agree that being strong at both positions is a BIG positive for our team, however, when your rbs are gaining 9 yards a carry, why stray away from that for a 27/47 passing attempt. Maybe we need to revert back to the run first mentality, before we end up like the 8-8 saints.
[/quote]
I think we should have had far more attempts, control the clock better. Wear down that Patriots defense, this was a big game and we should never try out-pass the Patriots...

[hammer]

[quote name='rlh445' date='06 October 2009 - 02:44 AM' timestamp='1254811462' post='250501']
Look, the dominant running game isn't 'old' at all..last year we were ranked number four in the rush attack. It's not that we want to switch from the fax to email, but that sometimes email just works better. If anything, our rushing attack has only gotten better. It's like we're trying to unscrew something with our fingernails when we have three good screwdrivers to use whenever we want! We have a back for every situation you'll face in a football game. We've got a shifty, Westbrook-esque back in Rice, we've got a back who can hit holes and speed through in Willis, and a freakin' Mack truck in McClain. So why would you even question why people want to see Ray and Willis (and Le'Ron) get more then 11 and 5 touches respectively during a game in which the run game was almost unopposed?
[/quote]

Here's what the issue is. If you run the ball mor ethan you pass, then the defense will shift to stop it and the net result will lead to a lot of third and longs (most bad things that happen in football usually happen on third and long). The passing game opens up running lanes for the little shifty backs like a Westbrook, Marshall Faulk or even a Darren Sproles, but the key is you can't run it too much or the defense just adjusts to stop it. Bottom line is that a running game can be stopped with just putting more men up close to the line, but a passing game can't be stopped, even if you tried. The reliable formula to winning consistently is pass 65% to run 35%. If you are efficient in the passing part, then you can be assured of being effective running too. It doesn't work the other way around though.

[JEEPercreepermd]

[quote name='hammer' date='06 October 2009 - 01:44 PM' timestamp='1254851061' post='250669']
Here's what the issue is. If you run the ball mor ethan you pass, then the defense will shift to stop it and the net result will lead to a lot of third and longs (most bad things that happen in football usually happen on third and long). The passing game opens up running lanes for the little shifty backs like a Westbrook, Marshall Faulk or even a Darren Sproles, but the key is you can't run it too much or the defense just adjusts to stop it. Bottom line is that a running game can be stopped with just putting more men up close to the line, but a passing game can't be stopped, even if you tried. The reliable formula to winning consistently is pass 65% to run 35%. If you are efficient in the passing part, then you can be assured of being effective running too. It doesn't work the other way around though.
[/quote]
When Billick was here (and even a few times last year) we saw that teams just loaded up the line of scrimmage to stop the run against us, and It also took away our short passing game, forcing us to try and beat them deep and we just couldn't do it. Now teams are having to rely on stopping the run without sacrificing coverage downfield because now we CAN beat them deep. Oh BTW Rice carried for over 100yds on sunday because the passing game opened up the run.

[ravensfan2430]

When I posted this I was just saying that if we look a possible positive from passing alot recently, it would be that our rb's will be fresh going into the later part of the season.

I would have acutally perfered we ran the ball at least 5 more time rach with Willis and Rice.

[hammer]

[quote name='ravensfan2430' date='06 October 2009 - 05:23 PM' timestamp='1254864189' post='250806']
When I posted this I was just saying that if we look a possible positive from passing alot recently, it would be that our rb's will be fresh going into the later part of the season.

I would have acutally perfered we ran the ball at least 5 more time rach with Willis and Rice.
[/quote]

That sounds reasonable to me. of those five extra runs, I don't see where that would have hurt the scheme. Just Cams choice I guess. I can even see the logic of the criticism that Cam should have had McClain running the ball on 3rd and 4th downs for the one yard we couldn't get. McClain is a good reciever too, so I don't think they would have blown their diguise by having him in the game for those plays. But overall, Cam is the best in the business right now.

[mhead66]

I strongly disagree with the premise of this thread.

1. The reason the Ravens lost to NE was Cam Cameron. The RBs averaged over 7 yds/carry, and Rice over 9 yds/carry - yet Cam ran 25% of the time, and passed 75% of the time. Hence, NE had the ball 35 minutes, and Flacco's pass yds/attempt was 5 yds, almost half of Rice's yds/attempt.

2. Last year, the top 7 rushing teams made the playoffs. 5 of the top 9 passing teams did not. This year, 6 of the top 10 passing teams are .500 and below.

3. Flacco is 3rd in the NFL in passing attempts this year. He's on pace for 604 pass attempts, which would have made his 3rd in the NFL last year. And, every time you go back to pass, you risk injury to the one Raven that is irreplaceable.

4. When you can successfully run - like the #4 rushing Ravens last year - you can assert your will on the other team. Nothing is so physically intimidating as being able to run, with the other team knowing they can't stop you. If you complete a 70 yard TD pass on a corner, everyone says, "We'll get it back, one fluke pass." If you run the ball, 10 straight times for 7 yds/rush, you wear out the Defense, and you convince your opponent that you can kick their butt, anytime you want...

It's great to have the quickly developing star, Joe Flacco, available to utilize. However, QBs with great stats - without a running game - didn't prosper last year. New Orleans, Denver and Houston were in the top 4 in passing, and all 3 watched the playoffs.

[hammer]

[quote name='mhead66' date='06 October 2009 - 07:01 PM' timestamp='1254870060' post='250876']
I strongly disagree with the premise of this thread.

1. The reason the Ravens lost to NE was Cam Cameron. The RBs averaged over 7 yds/carry, and Rice over 9 yds/carry - yet Cam ran 25% of the time, and passed 75% of the time. Hence, NE had the ball 35 minutes, and Flacco's pass yds/attempt was 5 yds, almost half of Rice's yds/attempt.

2. Last year, the top 7 rushing teams made the playoffs. 5 of the top 9 passing teams did not. This year, 6 of the top 10 passing teams are .500 and below.

3. Flacco is 3rd in the NFL in passing attempts this year. He's on pace for 604 pass attempts, which would have made his 3rd in the NFL last year. And, every time you go back to pass, you risk injury to the one Raven that is irreplaceable.

4. When you can successfully run - like the #4 rushing Ravens last year - you can assert your will on the other team. Nothing is so physically intimidating as being able to run, with the other team knowing they can't stop you. If you complete a 70 yard TD pass on a corner, everyone says, "We'll get it back, one fluke pass." If you run the ball, 10 straight times for 7 yds/rush, you wear out the Defense, and you convince your opponent that you can kick their butt, anytime you want...

It's great to have the quickly developing star, Joe Flacco, available to utilize. However, QBs with great stats - without a running game - didn't prosper last year. New Orleans, Denver and Houston were in the top 4 in passing, and all 3 watched the playoffs.
[/quote]

The reason the ravens lost was not CC. The running lanes were open BECAUSE OF, not inspite of, the passing game. Playing so far off the line of scrimage to defend the pass, opens up running lanes for the RB's. Also, NE's time of posession had nothing to do with the passing game. Their time of posession advantage had more to do with the refs extending drives due to stupid penalties after the ravens had stopped them cold. Those RTP penalties added collectively about 9 minutes to NE's time of posession - not to mention an additional 14 points on the scoreboard. Keep in mind that w/o the penalties, the Ravens would have dominated them on the scoreboard and time of possesion. None of this had anything to do with CC's game plan. As a matter of fact, if Clayton catches that ball, the ravens would have had first and goal at about the four yard line. They would have still beaten this team...evenn in Foxborough. That's quite remarable. Cam's the least of our worries.

[ravensfan2430]

[quote name='mhead66' date='06 October 2009 - 07:01 PM' timestamp='1254870060' post='250876']
I strongly disagree with the premise of this thread.

1. The reason the Ravens lost to NE was Cam Cameron. The RBs averaged over 7 yds/carry, and Rice over 9 yds/carry - yet Cam ran 25% of the time, and passed 75% of the time. Hence, NE had the ball 35 minutes, and Flacco's pass yds/attempt was 5 yds, almost half of Rice's yds/attempt.

2. Last year, the top 7 rushing teams made the playoffs. 5 of the top 9 passing teams did not. This year, 6 of the top 10 passing teams are .500 and below.

3. Flacco is 3rd in the NFL in passing attempts this year. He's on pace for 604 pass attempts, which would have made his 3rd in the NFL last year. And, every time you go back to pass, you risk injury to the one Raven that is irreplaceable.

4. When you can successfully run - like the #4 rushing Ravens last year - you can assert your will on the other team. Nothing is so physically intimidating as being able to run, with the other team knowing they can't stop you. If you complete a 70 yard TD pass on a corner, everyone says, "We'll get it back, one fluke pass." If you run the ball, 10 straight times for 7 yds/rush, you wear out the Defense, and you convince your opponent that you can kick their butt, anytime you want...

It's great to have the quickly developing star, Joe Flacco, available to utilize. However, QBs with great stats - without a running game - didn't prosper last year. New Orleans, Denver and Houston were in the top 4 in passing, and all 3 watched the playoffs.
[/quote]


??? my point was that I think we will have fresher legs in the later part of the season from our running backs.

and on point #3 EVERY time there is a snap in the NFL regardless if it is a pss or run there is a chance someone will get hurt

[mhead66]

[quote name='ravensfan2430' date='06 October 2009 - 08:30 PM' timestamp='1254875412' post='250928']
??? my point was that I think we will have fresher legs in the later part of the season from our running backs.

and on point #3 EVERY time there is a snap in the NFL regardless if it is a pss or run there is a chance someone will get hurt
[/quote]
Well, if Cam's motive is to save the RBs for later in the season... you may have something. But if you believe that the running game is, potentially, your most powerful offensive weapon, why save them for upcoming games with Oakland, Detroit and Cleveland, and underuse them against New England and San Diego?

A win is a win, in week 1 or week 17. But, seriously, if that's Cam's motive, I can understand your point. I just don't think it is his motive - I just think he really likes the passing game.

And, considering "point 3", just like with most teams, losing Joe Flacco would cripple the Ravens more than losing Ray Rice... or anyone else, for that matter. Do you think the Colts would be 4-0 with Jim Sorgi at QB, or the Saints 4-0 with Mark Brunell?

[ravensfan2430]

[quote name='mhead66' date='06 October 2009 - 08:41 PM' timestamp='1254876102' post='250937']
Well, if Cam's motive is to save the RBs for later in the season... you may have something. But if you believe that the running game is, potentially, your most powerful offensive weapon, why save them for upcoming games with Oakland, Detroit and Cleveland, and underuse them against New England and San Diego?

A win is a win, in week 1 or week 17. But, seriously, if that's Cam's motive, I can understand your point. I just don't think it is his motive - I just think he really likes the passing game.

And, considering "point 3", just like with most teams, losing Joe Flacco would cripple the Ravens more than losing Ray Rice... or anyone else, for that matter. Do you think the Colts would be 4-0 with Jim Sorgi at QB, or the Saints 4-0 with Mark Brunell?
[/quote]


I do not think it was his motive as well. I just am trying to rationalize it myself, how we can have the one of the best running attacks and not use it.
However, since we have not used it, I do like the fact that our Rb's, especially Willis is not all banged up at this point in the season.

Good point about losing flacco compared to a RB.

[rlh445]

[quote name='hammer' date='06 October 2009 - 01:44 PM' timestamp='1254851061' post='250669']
Here's what the issue is. [b]If you run the ball mor ethan you pass, then the defense will shift to stop it [/b]and the net result will lead to a lot of third and longs (most bad things that happen in football usually happen on third and long). The passing game opens up running lanes for the little shifty backs like a Westbrook, Marshall Faulk or even a Darren Sproles, but the key is you can't run it too much or the defense just adjusts to stop it. Bottom line is that a running game can be stopped with just putting more men up close to the line, but a passing game can't be stopped, even if you tried. The reliable formula to winning consistently is pass 65% to run 35%. If you are efficient in the passing part, then you can be assured of being effective running too. It doesn't work the other way around though.
[/quote]

That bolded part, friend, is the entire reason teams run..when the defense shifts to stop the run, Joe audibles a screen and Rice gashes them. Your argument might have held more weight when we didn't have Rice, but he is an absolute beast in space and it's the exact reason we should be running more.

I disagree. Look at the Vikings. They run to set up the pass. No, the Ravens don't have a guy like All Day..but, we do have three backs who combined are just as good at hitting lanes, pounding the rock, etc. Honestly, what do you think our offenses strongest attack is at this point, the run or the pass? Obviously, it's the run. As someone else said, look at the Saints last year. Brees was lighting it up as usual, but it really didn't open up the running game at all..because let's be honest, it's a lot harder to run the ball then toss it up. Which is why it is still good to open up some lanes, make players come up to the line in anticipation of the run instead of just throwing it all over the place.

Joe is great, and our recievers are average, so our passing game looks better then it is because of Joe. But to ask any second year man to 'Manning' it all game is just not the right way to secure things. The Ravens took a lot of games last year that they shouldn't have because of the time of possession. They got such high TOP each game because of the rush attack, proven by the fact that they finished fourth last year in that particular area. We keep the defense fresh, we keep the opposing offense off the field, and in some games, we don't even need to pass. Can you show me a game where you don't need to run? No, you can't.....unless the QB you're referring to is Peyton.

[hammer]

[quote name='rlh445' date='07 October 2009 - 02:42 AM' timestamp='1254897774' post='251094']
That bolded part, friend, is the entire reason teams run..when the defense shifts to stop the run, Joe audibles a screen and Rice gashes them. Your argument might have held more weight when we didn't have Rice, but he is an absolute beast in space and it's the exact reason we should be running more.

I disagree. Look at the Vikings. They run to set up the pass. No, the Ravens don't have a guy like All Day..but, we do have three backs who combined are just as good at hitting lanes, pounding the rock, etc. Honestly, what do you think our offenses strongest attack is at this point, the run or the pass? Obviously, it's the run. As someone else said, look at the Saints last year. Brees was lighting it up as usual, but it really didn't open up the running game at all..because let's be honest, it's a lot harder to run the ball then toss it up. Which is why it is still good to open up some lanes, make players come up to the line in anticipation of the run instead of just throwing it all over the place.

Joe is great, and our recievers are average, so our passing game looks better then it is because of Joe. But to ask any second year man to 'Manning' it all game is just not the right way to secure things. The Ravens took a lot of games last year that they shouldn't have because of the time of possession. They got such high TOP each game because of the rush attack, proven by the fact that they finished fourth last year in that particular area. We keep the defense fresh, we keep the opposing offense off the field, and in some games, we don't even need to pass. Can you show me a game where you don't need to run? No, you can't.....unless the QB you're referring to is Peyton.
[/quote]

All I am saying is this. With the Ravens personnel I don't see them as being an unstoppable running team if they didn't have the superior passing attack. I don't think the Ravens have the ability to dictate a game with it's running as the first option. I believe that it is the passing attack that makes the ravens APPEAR to be an unstoppable running team. Throw the yards per carry stat out the window, because it is not that simple. Just look at the 3rd and 4th down plays when they couldn't get one yard. Without the threat of a pass, we can't dictate terms with the run. I don't believe the Ravens running game is unstoppable, but the passing game is. In any event, I think the Ravens have the best of both worlds.... but only because they are unstoppable at passing. Not the other way around.

[rlh445]

[quote name='hammer' date='07 October 2009 - 03:03 AM' timestamp='1254898994' post='251098']
[b]All I am saying is this. With the Ravens personnel I don't see them as being an unstoppable running team if they didn't have the superior passing attack. [/b] I don't think the Ravens have the ability to dictate a game with it's running as the first option. I believe that it is the passing attack that makes the ravens APPEAR to be an unstoppable running team. Throw the yards per carry stat out the window, because it is not that simple. Just look at the 3rd and 4th down plays when they couldn't get one yard. Without the threat of a pass, we can't dictate terms with the run. I don't believe the Ravens running game is unstoppable, but the passing game is. In any event, I think the Ravens have the best of both worlds.... but only because they are unstoppable at passing. Not the other way around.
[/quote]


Once again, the facts and stats from last year disagree with your argument. While we were fourth last year in the rush attack, we were 28th (28th!!!!) in the passing attack. Where did we end up? In the AFC Championship. We held the third most superior TOP which is why we kept winning despite eeeeeeeverything bad that had happened to us last year. I'm not saying we shouldn't pass, and that Joe shouldn't light it up when appropriate. But to throw for 47 times and only hit 27 of the passes..that's not gonna win ball games, man..it's just not. We don't have a Saints like team, we don't have a Colts like team, we've got a team that bar none is more solid in the run then the pass, and we should be utilizing that. When teams get sick of having to stop Ray, Willis, and to a lesser extent, Le'Ron, then Joe can show them why he's the real deal.

[hammer]

[quote name='rlh445' date='07 October 2009 - 03:16 AM' timestamp='1254899792' post='251101']
Once again, the facts and stats from last year disagree with your argument. While we were fourth last year in the rush attack, we were 28th (28th!!!!) in the passing attack. Where did we end up? In the AFC Championship. We held the third most superior TOP which is why we kept winning despite eeeeeeeverything bad that had happened to us last year. I'm not saying we shouldn't pass, and that Joe shouldn't light it up when appropriate. But to throw for 47 times and only hit 27 of the passes..that's not gonna win ball games, man..it's just not. We don't have a Saints like team, we don't have a Colts like team, we've got a team that bar none is more solid in the run then the pass, and we should be utilizing that. When teams get sick of having to stop Ray, Willis, and to a lesser extent, Le'Ron, then Joe can show them why he's the real deal.
[/quote]

See, you just made my point. We were fourth in rushing last year and 28th in passing. I am willing to bet you that we will finish the year very close to fourth in rushing again this year too. But for different reasons and with different personnel, and with a different strategy. The reason is because the passing attack is not going to be 28th, but around 4th or 5th! I knew for certain that the Ravens would not win the Super Bowl last year. Because, plain and simple... they weren't going to score enough points. They got very lucky to beat the Titans in the playoffs.

But this year with the increased passing, and hardly no slip in the running efficiency too? I know now that we have an above average defense (8th), a very good running game (5th?), and on top of that, a killer passing game (5th?). The Ravens ARE the most balanced team in the league. This team can beat anyone on any day and anywhere. I couldn't say that last year.