Honest Debate Positions

[hammer]

No crying or emotions. What issues are you passionate about? Prove it!

[Ed_Reed20]

Players > scheme

Explanation: Hundreds of great defensive players have transcended the scheme they're in and all the notable defenses in league history had a mix of good-to-great defensive players.

[Bltravens]

[quote name='Ed_Reed20' timestamp='1290841572' post='551539']
Players > scheme

Explanation: Hundreds of great defensive players have transcended the scheme they're in and all the notable defenses in league history had a mix of good-to-great defensive players.
[/quote]
Add in with extreme athleticism and cerebral players as well.

[Jabara]

[quote name='hammer' timestamp='1290839044' post='551535']
No crying or emotions. What issues are you passionate about? Prove it!
[/quote]
Dude, this doesn't make any sense.
And it appears to belong in the off-topic section.
"What issues are you passionate about?"
Passion, without emotion?
I'm lost.
It says honest debate, does that mean an honest debate with ourselves, whether passion requires emotion, or the other way around?
Is this football related issues, or in general?

[i]"what's the score here"[/i]

[Jabara]

I like wiz on my cheesesteak, I'm passionate about that, but since I can't give any evidence since it's subjective, like any other observation, with regards to that requires "evidence" to "prove" it's not like we are solving a homicide here, I like wiz.
I could explain, but that isn't evidence, as in something you know to be true as well, because of the process it goes through, to reach a conclusion scientifically, or whatever is going on here...

This vague post is a psychological nightmare.

[hammer]

[quote name='Jabara' timestamp='1290842408' post='551541']
Dude, this doesn't make any sense.
And it appears to belong in the off-topic section.
"What issues are you passionate about?"
Passion, without emotion?
I'm lost.
It says honest debate, does that mean an honest debate with ourselves, whether passion requires emotion, or the other way around?
Is this football related issues, or in general?

[i]"what's the score here"[/i]
[/quote]

1. Do we need to fire the Offensive Coordinator? Prove it with evidence, not emotion.
2. Do we need to fire the Defensive coordinator? Prove it with evidence, not emotion.
3. Is Joe Flacco an elite QB? Prove it with evidence, not emotion.
4. Is Harbaugh a bad coach? Prove it with evidence, not emotion.
5. Is Suggs a great pass rusher? Prove it with evidence, not emotion.
6. Do we need to play Krueger more? Prove it with evidence, not emotion.
7. Is Cody a bust? Prove it with evidence, not emotion.
8. Is Ozzie a good GM? Prove it with evidence, not emotion.

What I am intereseted in is not the fan emotions. We have a lot of informed fans and they are really capable of presenting proof of their positions. This is what I, presonally enjoy about the board, but sometimes I just hear emotional responses only.

How about some proof? Thats all.

[ravensdfan]

I am not of the "fire Cam" crowd. I think there are things that Cam needs to do better and that he is holding this offense back and he needs to be made to relinquish some control. Proof? I've provided this evidence before.

It is the OC's job to adjust on the fly. Be the problem player production or a change in defensive schemes by the opponent. He fails to do this time and time again.

Cincy. Joe is clearly struggling and Rice is having success on the ground. Yet Cam stays with the passing game.

NE. Cam goes to Rice almost exclusively in the 4th. We fail to make first downs. Yet Cam remains with plays designed to go to Rice. In the entire 4th and OT we make exactly one attempt downfield. These are designed plays. Our receivers never ran deep routes and were never more than 5 yds off of scrimmage.

Atlanta. After a successful drive for a TD where we mixed it up well. Taking shots downfield which made the defense play back, allowing the running game to have some success we come back on the next series with a completely different attack. And fail.

Cam has good game plans. When those initial game plans fail though, he does not adjust at all or makes an adjustment too late in the game.

As for his control of the offense, anyone can see when we are in the hurry up offense or 2 min. drive where Joe has more control over play calling, we are more productive and successful than when Cam is in charge. Our offense lacks intensity when Cam is holding tight to the reins.

[flynismo]

How do we provide proof? We just spent half of another thread talking about how stats are basically meaningless, so how do we prove anything?

[ravensdfan]

[quote name='flynismo' timestamp='1290847743' post='551549']
How do we provide proof? We just spent half of another thread talking about how stats are basically meaningless, so how do we prove anything?
[/quote]

Not only that. As we've already seen, I have my opinion of why we failed in those games and others lay it solely at the feet of the players. It is pretty much subjective.

[wayne]

[quote name='Ed_Reed20' timestamp='1290841572' post='551539']
[B] Players > scheme [/B]

Explanation: Hundreds of great defensive players have transcended the scheme they're in and all the notable defenses in league history had a mix of good-to-great defensive players.
[/quote]
He said to also prove it which the statement you typed in fail to do so. You also used a key word which was " Great ". Of course great players > scheme but what about your average player which is the majority on all teams in the league ? Look at the players that played great here and when they left, they were below average to average players at best ( Adalious Thomas comes first in mind ). Will wait for you to respond b4 I go any further with this.

[flynismo]

[quote name='Jabara' timestamp='1290842408' post='551541']Passion, without emotion?[/quote]

that was my first thought too, lmao, but he's asking to give an unemotional response regarding a topic that we feel strongly about. A subtle, but big, difference.

[flynismo]

[quote name='wayne' timestamp='1290848165' post='551552']<br />He said to also prove it which the statement you typed in fail to do so. You also used a key word which was &quot; Great &quot;. Of course great players &gt; scheme but what about your average player which is the majority on all teams in the league ? Look at the players that played great here and when they left, they were below average to average players at best ( Adalious Thomas comes first in mind ). Will wait for you to respond b4 I go any further with this.<br />[/quote]


(no offense hammer!)
but this is exactly why this thread is kind of pointless. When you dismiss the only source of objective data we have (stats), this is exactly what results .... One opinion of what qualifies as evidence vs another.

Stats may have their limitations, but its the best we've got.

[Jabara]

[quote name='hammer' timestamp='1290846453' post='551547']
1. Do we need to fire the Offensive Coordinator? Prove it with evidence, not emotion.
2. Do we need to fire the Defensive coordinator? Prove it with evidence, not emotion.
3. Is Joe Flacco an elite QB? Prove it with evidence, not emotion.
4. Is Harbaugh a bad coach? Prove it with evidence, not emotion.
5. Is Suggs a great pass rusher? Prove it with evidence, not emotion.
6. Do we need to play Krueger more? Prove it with evidence, not emotion.
7. Is Cody a bust? Prove it with evidence, not emotion.
8. Is Ozzie a good GM? Prove it with evidence, not emotion.

What I am intereseted in is not the fan emotions. We have a lot of informed fans and they are really capable of presenting proof of their positions. This is what I, presonally enjoy about the board, but sometimes I just hear emotional responses only.

How about some proof? Thats all.
[/quote]
Ok, now we are getting somewhere.
But by proof, what do you mean, are you asking for stats that uphold an opinion, or are you asking for stats that disprove the ability of a player, coach, etc?
What you are asking for is impossible.
And it actually makes no sense.
What sort of proof are you looking for, since in order to have proof, you need an absolute opposite.

For instance, you ask as your number one question, which should have been in your original post, to make sense of the original weird wording...

"1. Do we need to fire the Offensive Coordinator? Prove it with evidence, not emotion."

What sort of evidence are you looking for, stats, wins, plays called that have resulted in stats or wins?

This makes no sense what so ever, and you have provided questions to fans, that are not involved in the team meetings, to provide proof.

[size="6"][size="6"]What?[/size][/size]

You are asking questions, based on your feelings, emotions and thoughts, and are asking others to reply in a sense of "proof" disregarding the idea of your subjective questions being answered by others subjective thoughts and emotions, while saying that isn't allowed, due to the fact you want proof, of something that is so highly subjective, and can only be answered by opinion, driven by emotion, which you don't allow.
It's insane.
Fans don't have proof. Stats aren't even proof.

"2. Do we need to fire the Defensive coordinator? Prove it with evidence, not emotion."

Where is the proof that we need to fire our DC?
Because we're in first place?
What sort of proof is there that makes you think that, or question it, and if you can answer that without emotion and only evidence, we'll talk.
But there is no evidence in football, such in those terms is there?

You are asking emotion based questions that are subjective and rely on everything you ask not to be mentioned or used in the fans response to the crazy questions.

"3. Is Joe Flacco an elite QB?"

What is the proof that makes a QB elite?
Why don't you answer that since you asked it.
Yet, give only proof, since stats aren't proof, and wins and losses aren't proof, tell me what it is you are looking for?

You need to define your idea of "proof" before you go throwing around questions, that are only subjectively answered while expecting objective truth.
If that even exists.
There is empirical truth, truth that you and I can experience, but not within football.
I can tell you and show you that water is wet and the sky is blue, and while we may agree that is proof, we can't explain football in truths.

How would you go about finding truth that, "Harbaugh (is) a bad coach?"

All of these things you are asking are subjective and will be answered by an emotional response.
Anyone can give you stats, but they are relative.

You keep asking for others to answer with evidence. What evidence is there in football?
That is my question to you.
What is proof in football, that is my question to you.

It doesn't make sense.
Football is a game, their is no evidence, unless it's a certain camera angle of whether the player got two feet in bounds on a catch during a replay.

Is Cody a bust?
There is no empirical evidence, and [size="4"]no[/size] I don't think he is, can I explain it with proof, [size="4"]no[/size] but in no way do I see him being a bust, and there is no proof or evidence, only a game to be played.
These are your own emotional questions best answered by yourself in your own time.

Hopefully this thread is a bust, can I prove it will be, no, is their evidence, no, but that is just my emotional response gathered from empirical knowledge from past threads.
Will others respond, most likely, will they respond with stats and emotion, yes, is that what you have asked for, no...

[flynismo]

Jerry Rice is the consensus best wide reciever of all time. What is this collective opinion based on?

[ravenanchors]

I believe most of these questions have been discussed to death in other threads.

[BloodRaven]

[quote name='Jabara' timestamp='1290842408' post='551541']
Dude, this doesn't make any sense.
And it appears to belong in the off-topic section.
"What issues are you passionate about?"
Passion, without emotion?
[b]I'm lost.
[/b]It says honest debate, does that mean an honest debate with ourselves, whether passion requires emotion, or the other way around?
Is this football related issues, or in general?

[i]"what's the score here"[/i]
[/quote]

If the rest of us can go into a thread with a typo or accidental paradox without asking a million stupid questions with no sense of cognitive empathy towards the spirit of the discussion... maybe you should too.

[theFRANCHISE]

The position I will defend up and down is the progression of Joe Flacco, largely because the city of Baltimore hasn't known a quality, homegrown QB since Bert Jones and Johnny Unitas. Because of that, there's a level of impatience that exists in the fanbase, yet all evidence indicates that Flacco is where he should be at this stage in his career.

Part of that impatience I also attribute to this inferiority complex when measured against other NFL cities that have had the luxury of a good QB. This QB envy was countered for over a decade by a monstrous defense that took over games in its prime almost as often as any elite QB. In turn, Ray Lewis became a surrogate for Johnny Unitas.

Now that the city has a genuine QB to develop and has actually made headway, his progression is seemingly in the way of the veterans' championship window. However, I believe that perception is false, as there is no logic in football that dictates a team (especially a winning team) will sacrifice their championship aspirations strictly to allow for their young QB's development. In the case of the Ravens, if the coaching staff didn't believe Flacco was capable of winning games and possibly a championship, they would not have given him such a loaded supporting cast to begin with.

[RoflDogs]

Players might be > Scheme, but the scheme can be used to disguise weaknesses and make your defense better

Ex. Rex Ryan.

[CapoRocky]

I know that we all have been guilty of criticizing the coaches and players at times this season. Let's stick with the positives. We are on-track to make the playoffs. It would help if we can win all 6 of the remaining games, but I'll be satisfied with 4 of 6. Wildcard is a very tough way to make the SB. I think that we definitely need to beat the Steelers. It's not going to be easy to face them, the Jets, and the Patriots in the postseason. Let's just hope that we don't have to play the Colts in Indy. They always come up with a way to beat us. Meanwhile, we can just sit back and enjoy the ride.

[Alexir]

Mattison's weakness is that he has ran a 4-3 as a defensive coordinator his whole career. Why do you think that Gators D was effective? He doesn't know where to bring the blitzes in a 3-4. As for our secondary, we just dont have the talent for a number 1 shut down corner. We have a bunch of rag tag number 2's and 3's filling in as a 1 and 2. That blame goes to Ozzie.

[theFRANCHISE]

[quote name='Alexir' timestamp='1290875991' post='551594']
Mattison's weakness is that he has ran a 4-3 as a defensive coordinator his whole career. Why do you think that Gators D was effective? He doesn't know where to bring the blitzes in a 3-4. As for our secondary, we just dont have the talent for a number 1 shut down corner. We have a bunch of rag tag number 2's and 3's filling in as a 1 and 2. That blame goes to Ozzie.
[/quote]
My only counter-argument would be that, if you define a #1 cornerback as being a shutdown corner, there's not very many teams with corners that fit that qualification. There's not many teams who even have a quality #1 cornerback, period.

Nnamdi Asomugha, Darrelle Revis, and Charles Woodson are the only names that a majority could comfortably label as shutdown corners, with Asante Samuel, Deangelo Hall, Rashean Mathis, and Ronde Barber getting honorable mention. Champ Bailey, once the frontrunner in the conversation, has lost a step. Meanwhile, the argument against Hall is that he faces inferior competition, Barber has slowed down a bit with age, Samuel is inconsistent against top QBs, and Mathis has disappeared in games.

Cortland Finnegan would get consideration if he were more disciplined in his play, as he's drawn penalties almost as consistently as he bats down passes. Corey Webster is under the radar but isn't in that top-tier yet. Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie has the disadvantage of being on a team with an offense that doesn't buy the defense time to rest, but Asomugha has the same problem and plays well in spite of it. Leon Hall was good until he started getting burned by deep threats.

If you do the math, that's 12 starters named out of 32 NFL defenses which teams are comfortable with starting, accounting for 37.5% of teams in the league -- but only three of them are comfortably labeled shutdown corners, which makes up a little less than 10% of the league. If you'd like to skew those numbers a bit (as I will do here), that means that roughly 90% of the league does not possess a true shutdown cornerback. Therefore, it's difficult to fault Ozzie Newsome for not finding a shutdown cornerback, as the other 87% of the league has failed at this venture.

However, it [i]would[/i] be accurate to fault Ozzie Newsome for failing to find a comfortable #1 cornerback, although Domonique Foxworth had the potential to live up to his contract this year until he was injured. Chris Carr has played extremely well this year, but few people would confuse him for a #1 corner. Fabian Washington had a great early stretch but has struggled with consistency since his horrid game against Buffalo.

I will also agree that Mattison's weakness is attempting to adjust himself to a scheme that doesn't suit his own strength, just for the sake of adjusting to existing personnel on the team. That said, if this is the worst he gets, I won't complain, as yielding a top-ten defense instead of a top-three defense is far better than being in the bottom tier of the league.

[hammer]

[quote name='flynismo' timestamp='1290848348' post='551553']
that was my first thought too, lmao, but he's asking to give an unemotional response regarding a topic that we feel strongly about. A subtle, but big, difference.
[/quote]

Very true. thx.

[hammer]

[quote name='flynismo' timestamp='1290847743' post='551549']
How do we provide proof? We just spent half of another thread talking about how stats are basically meaningless, so how do we prove anything?
[/quote]

I never really said stats were meaningless. My position is that stats should be used to support the argument - not prove it or even worse - replace it. Stats do have valid merit - just not as much merit as many think.

[scrock]

[quote name='hammer' timestamp='1290846453' post='551547']
1. Do we need to fire the Offensive Coordinator? Prove it with evidence, not emotion.
2. Do we need to fire the Defensive coordinator? Prove it with evidence, not emotion.
3. Is Joe Flacco an elite QB? Prove it with evidence, not emotion.
4. Is Harbaugh a bad coach? Prove it with evidence, not emotion.
5. Is Suggs a great pass rusher? Prove it with evidence, not emotion.
6. Do we need to play Krueger more? Prove it with evidence, not emotion.
7. Is Cody a bust? Prove it with evidence, not emotion.
8. Is Ozzie a good GM? Prove it with evidence, not emotion.

What I am intereseted in is not the fan emotions. We have a lot of informed fans and they are really capable of presenting proof of their positions. This is what I, presonally enjoy about the board, but sometimes I just hear emotional responses only.

How about some proof? Thats all.
[/quote]

How can anyone think Harbaugh is a bad coach? haha, how can Cody be a bust already? he's not even through his rookie year, he hasn't even gotten his chance to play yet. Ozzie a good GM? holy crap!!!

Don't create a topic just for the sake of creating a topic!

[scrock]

[quote name='hammer' timestamp='1290879085' post='551610']
I never really said stats were meaningless. My position is that stats should be used to support the argument - not prove it or even worse - replace it. Stats do have valid merit - just not as much merit as many think.
[/quote]

Stats are used to measure a players production on the field. They are one of the main things used in evaluating players. Stats are going to be a big part of any argument.

[gabefergy]

first I would just like to say that Scarlet Johannson is the hottest woman in the world. I feel passionately about that fact, and no matter what anyone says my opinion will not be swayed.

Now, for the Ravens. I largely agree with you Franchise about our secondary, Mattison is doing the best he can with what he's got. One thing that has bothered me has been the "hot hand" mentality that he has used with our CBs. CBs must have confidence in themselves and their own ability, and if they are constantly being shuffled in and out of the starting line-up that can't help. I hope by now we have set starters, but rotating CBs based solely on one or two games performance cannot be helpful in the long run. I am not saying we should start Fabian, but we need to have a clear depth chart at the position.

[AsianRice]

To me, pass rush is far more important than a shutdown CB. Three average CB can beat out anyone with the support of an group of elite pass rush. Our zone coverage is weak. 4-5 men rush seems to be better option for us now.

I hope Ozzi will focus on drafting OLB next year.

[hammer]

[b]"1. Do we need to fire the Offensive Coordinator? Prove it with evidence, not emotion." What sort of evidence are you looking for, stats, wins, plays called that have resulted in stats or wins? This makes no sense what so ever, and you have provided questions to fans, that are not involved in the team meetings, to provide proof. [/b]

I actually read "fire Cam" comments all day. I read "fire Mattison" or Harbaugh is a bad coach. There are others who say (correctly) that Flacco and Rice are on pace to Pro Bowl seasons, but they also post "fire Cam" in other threads too. I cant understand how one can do that. But your comments actually proved my point of the thread. There are some "radical" positions on the board and it appears - the more radical - the less informed the position.

[b]Here's my opinion - Stats + Analysis + Knowledge or Experience + Common Sense = Professional Argument.[/b] Now most fans might not have access to all of those components (and thats ok), but the basis of the argument should contain any combination of them.

Conclusion - its still an opinion, but a "well informed" one. And it provides the basis for an honest debate. Thats all I am saying.

[ravenwildman]

Win the Super Bowl.....what else is there?

GO RAVENS!

[Bltravens]

[quote name='wayne' timestamp='1290848165' post='551552']
He said to also prove it which the statement you typed in fail to do so. You also used a key word which was " Great ". Of course great players > scheme but what about your average player which is the majority on all teams in the league ? Look at the players that played great here and when they left, they were below average to average players at best ( Adalious Thomas comes first in mind ). Will wait for you to respond b4 I go any further with this.
[/quote]
Ya but you took "great" out of a sentence that said "a mixture of good to great players". ROFL said it best, a scheme can mask deficiencies and hide below average players for awhile and will utilize their talents. But in the end if the player is good or not is not based on a scheme. Hell Ray Ray has been all pro in 4 different schemes and two different types of base defenses.