Need A Gameplan To Beat Teams, Not Survive Them

[hawkprey]

Last night the Chargers had the exact right gameplan to beat us. That made me think. I can't remember the last time we had a gameplan that could exploit a team's weakness. It's always the other team gameplanning to beat us.

This is mostly on the offense. The only conceivable plan I've seen out of Cam Cameron is "today we're running" or "today we're passing". We all saw how San Diego used motion to call out our defense, and how their defense adapted to the lead to force checkdowns all day. There's no ability for this offense to take advantage of a team's weakness. You know it's bad when our defense has to convince Cam to use Ray Rice more, or our offensive starters have to convince Cam to use 2-TE sets in the second half of the Arizona game, or a zone-blocking scheme against Houston. It wasn't until two minutes left in the game that Cam actually called a play that worked - a crossing route to Torrey that opened the middle of the field. but by then it was too late. We didn't create a scheme that could take advantage of San Diego's corners, or get our receivers open down the field. And I blame that on Cam. Anyone can call run or pass. Cam's job should entail getting our receivers open, creating mis-matches, and exploiting a defense.

Our defense also had a bad gameplan. Sorry, Pagano, but you should've known San Diego's strength was their receivers. Yet we continue to leave our corners in one-on-one situations when they're getting picked on? That's exactly what the Chargers wanted. Our gameplan can't revolve around what we do well (rushing the passer) all the time, it also has to revolve around what Sad Diego does poorly (checkdowns) and take away what they do well (deep passes on play-action).

[Moderator 3]

Uh, the Steelers games? Maybe that's the only team they planned for, though.

[Ed_Reed20]

Pretty easy to say the team doesn't game-plan with no knowledge of what goes in the meetings.

There are times when you simply don't match up well with the opposition and no amount of scheming can make up for that. We saw Hasselbeck get the ball out quickly to neutralize the pass rush. Rivers was even better at that and has better weapons at his disposal, which made the results even more damaging.

Personnel flaws are always a factor too. To me, schemes had nothing to do with the CBs biting on play-fakes, Ed guessing wrong on a number of occasions, Joe missing crucial passes or the Chargers d-line dominating up front.

[hawkprey]

[quote name='Ed_Reed20' timestamp='1324323602' post='913726']
Pretty easy to say the team doesn't game-plan with no knowledge of what goes in the meetings.

There are times when you simply don't match up well with the opposition and no amount of scheming can make up for that. We saw Hasselbeck get the ball out quickly to neutralize the pass rush. Rivers was even better at that and has better weapons at his disposal, which made the results even more damaging.

Personnel flaws are always a factor too. To me, schemes had nothing to do with the CBs biting on play-fakes, Ed guessing wrong on a number of occasions, Joe missing crucial passes or the Chargers d-line dominating up front.
[/quote]
It's not just a few mental mistakes. Jimmy wasn't getting help over the top where he should have. The receivers weren't getting open because they routes we call don't allow them to get open, and that would make the Chargers D-line look a lot worse. They mostly got coverage sacks on us. Our pass rush could've gotten to Rivers but the coverage was terrible and he could throw it up any time. I saw no change on either side of the ball the entire game and it wasn't pretty to begin with. We were definitely out-planned and out-coached.

[Yatagarasu]

I saw a bunch formation and guess what it gave us? A freaken 33 yard gain.

Need more BUNCH FORMATION! Use Lee Evans, Anquan Boldin, and Torrey Smith in Bunches to get those mismatches!

NO MORE DUMP-OFFS, It's too predictable!

Also, How come we never use TEs to give a quick block and release on LBs like Harrison just enough to get our Tackles in position. That gameplan worked so perfectly against Sizzle.

Also, for defense.... Press Coverage with Safety help over the top. I know that these WRs are big and strong, but still. Look at how Nnamdi Asomugha can press Vincent Jackson, Brandon Marshall, and Dwyane Bowe, and stay with them during his time in the West. You will never know if you never try.

We were giving big yards anyways with those island covers getting abused by Vincent Jackson and Malcolm Floyd.

The only way to stop Antonio Gates is to attack him at the line of scrimmage. We should've used Suggs to cover Antonio Gates, cause he was getting too focused with double, or even triple blocked. Heck, Sizzle started to slow down that I saw McMichaels blocked him one on one.. He's a complete player for goodness sake! If he's not getting sacks, then start making him cover!

Rivers killed us with those motions to find out what coverage we were using. And if I can recall couple years back, Aaron Rodgers torched us using the same tactic. Elite QBs motion their players to see the coverage. Our Defense should be elite enough to change coverages and adjust on the fly! We let Rivers dictate our defense, not the other way around.

[Ed_Reed20]

[quote name='hawkprey' timestamp='1324324030' post='913733']
It's not just a few mental mistakes. Jimmy wasn't getting help over the top where he should have. The receivers weren't getting open because they routes we call don't allow them to get open, and that would make the Chargers D-line look a lot worse. They mostly got coverage sacks on us. Our pass rush could've gotten to Rivers but the coverage was terrible and he could throw it up any time. I saw no change on either side of the ball the entire game and it wasn't pretty to begin with. We were definitely out-planned and out-coached.
[/quote]

It's much easier said than done. You say Jimmy wasn't getting help over the top. I clearly remember Ed being late coming over the top on Floyd's TD grab. I can't imagine that was the only time in the game he shaded his coverage to Jimmy's side of the field. But regardless, even if Jimmy had been getting consistent help, Rivers would more than likely have picked on Cary. He certainly did on V-Jax's long grab. Ed could have actually prevented that play, but guessed wrong.

Saying the routes the WRs run don't allow them to get open is a joke to me. Q and Torrey were open on their two 30+ yard grabs. Are you saying Cam called two plays to get them open all night?

As for the coverage sacks, at times, those are on the QB. Flacco trusted Dickson when the threw a dart to him in the end-zone. How many other times last night did Joe try and fit a pass in a tight window or attempt to throw a WR open?

I can't deny the team got out-coached, but execution is just as important and that was a huge issue last night and in previous losses.

[admartian]

^Agreed. It seems that the Chargers executed the chip-TE block on our rushers last night.

We don't seem to do anything special on offense and tedn to lean too heavily on expecting our players to make plays EVERY play rather than scheming.

It just seems all too vanilla.

[Bltravens]

[quote name='Ed_Reed20' timestamp='1324323602' post='913726']
Pretty easy to say the team doesn't game-plan with no knowledge of what goes in the meetings.

There are times when you simply don't match up well with the opposition and no amount of scheming can make up for that. We saw Hasselbeck get the ball out quickly to neutralize the pass rush. Rivers was even better at that and has better weapons at his disposal, which made the results even more damaging.

Personnel flaws are always a factor too. To me, schemes had nothing to do with the CBs biting on play-fakes, Ed guessing wrong on a number of occasions, Joe missing crucial passes or the Chargers d-line dominating up front.
[/quote]
Its not exactly easy to accomplish but in the Titans game all you really had to do is play a man-zone combination on the outside. Press coverage on the receivers with the LBs in shell zones in the middle to dare the WRs to come into the middle of the field on quick slants. That will force Hasselbeck to hold the ball longer, and really we shouldnt have needed to send more than 5 that game to get SOME kind of pressure. Hasselbeck folds big time with guys around him.

[hawkprey]

[quote name='Ed_Reed20' timestamp='1324325483' post='913774']

It's much easier said than done. You say Jimmy wasn't getting help over the top. I clearly remember Ed being late coming over the top on Floyd's TD grab. I can't imagine that was the only time in the game he shaded his coverage to Jimmy's side of the field. But regardless, even if Jimmy had been getting consistent help, Rivers would more than likely have picked on Cary. He certainly did on V-Jax's long grab. Ed could have actually prevented that play, but guessed wrong.

Saying the routes the WRs run don't allow them to get open is a joke to me. Q and Torrey were open on their two 30+ yard grabs. Are you saying Cam called two plays to get them open all night?

As for the coverage sacks, at times, those are on the QB. Flacco trusted Dickson when the threw a dart to him in the end-zone. How many other times last night did Joe try and fit a pass in a tight window or attempt to throw a WR open?

I can't deny the team got out-coached, [b]but execution is just as important and that was a huge issue last night and in previous losses.[/b]
[/quote]
It's up to the coaches to call plays that have a better chance of being executed well. How often to we call overlapping routes in a bunch formation? A route tree that's designed to keep the defender from shadowing at least one of our defenders? What about getting Boldin in a one-on-one in the slot? And what happened to our TEs over the middle? You can't tell me they all just didn't "execute" when they didn't have a chance to catch the ball in the second half.

Here's an example. If San Diego wants to force us into a checkdown, why don't we go empty backfield and call a quick slant? Why not have 4 receivers on the field going deep? You can't force a team to a checkdown if there's no checkdown option and too many guys to cover in the secondary.

[RedFire]

[quote name='hawkprey' timestamp='1324327264' post='913822']

It's up to the coaches to call plays that have a better chance of being executed well. How often to we call overlapping routes in a bunch formation? A route tree that's designed to keep the defender from shadowing at least one of our defenders? What about getting Boldin in a one-on-one in the slot? And what happened to our TEs over the middle? You can't tell me they all just didn't "execute" when they didn't have a chance to catch the ball in the second half.

Here's an example. If San Diego wants to force us into a checkdown, why don't we go empty backfield and call a quick slant? Why not have 4 receivers on the field going deep? You can't force a team to a checkdown if there's no checkdown option and too many guys to cover in the secondary.
[/quote]

This ain't madden...we don't have the offensive line to run every set. This is da same cam that took out 7 step drops cause mckennie can't handle speed rushers.

[Yatagarasu]

Then get a TE to block and release Antwan Barnes so McKinnie can get himself set up.

I saw Dennis Pitta hold on his own against Antwan Barnes.

[marylandmike12]

my science teacher (steeler fan) said we look at the steelers so high and onlly care about beating them

kind of makes sense

[Marc2k6]

San Diego's game plan on offense was simple, 3 -4 step drop ball out offense! It counters the pass rush of the Ravens and this was the same game plan used by the Titian's. When Rivers was on his last step the ball was coming out and that is why there was basically no Ravens pass rush!

[Ed_Reed20]

[quote name='Bltravens' timestamp='1324327127' post='913819']
Its not exactly easy to accomplish but in the Titans game all you really had to do is play a man-zone combination on the outside. Press coverage on the receivers with the LBs in shell zones in the middle to dare the WRs to come into the middle of the field on quick slants. That will force Hasselbeck to hold the ball longer, and really we shouldnt have needed to send more than 5 that game to get SOME kind of pressure. Hasselbeck folds big time with guys around him.
[/quote]

Good plan. Not that it would have happened every play but one play-action fake could have resulted in a wide open WR. You frequently see this team's LB biting on play-action fakes.

[quote name='hawkprey' timestamp='1324327264' post='913822']
It's up to the coaches to call plays that have a better chance of being executed well. How often to we call overlapping routes in a bunch formation? A route tree that's designed to keep the defender from shadowing at least one of our defenders? What about getting Boldin in a one-on-one in the slot? And what happened to our TEs over the middle? You can't tell me they all just didn't "execute" when they didn't have a chance to catch the ball in the second half.

Here's an example. If San Diego wants to force us into a checkdown, why don't we go empty backfield and call a quick slant? Why not have 4 receivers on the field going deep? You can't force a team to a checkdown if there's no checkdown option and too many guys to cover in the secondary.
[/quote]

I'm not blaming the offensive problems solely on executions. But I'm not going to say a play or plan of attack wasn't attempted simply because we never saw it come to fruition. Cam more than likely doesn't call bunch formations with criss-crossing routes enough or feature the TEs. But I've seen Boldin in the slot and WRs don't appear to runs as many comeback routes as before.

To counter your example, what if 4 WRs go deep, none separates, or Joe simply doesn't want to pull the trigger and it results in sack or busted plays where the WRs have to break off the route and come back to the QB? Because those plays have happened before over the years and fans just chalk it up to bad game-planning.

[757RavensFan]

[quote name='marylandmike12' timestamp='1324328215' post='913862']
my science teacher (steeler fan) said we look at the steelers so high and onlly care about beating them

kind of makes sense
[/quote]

that would make sense if we were 2-12 with those two victories being over the Steelers. But we have beat 8 other teams. Some of them good and some of them bad. Now if he would have said we can't beat avg teams on the road, I would agree w/ him 100%.

[marylandmike12]

[quote name='757RavensFan' timestamp='1324329127' post='913894']

that would make sense if we were 2-12 with those two victories being over the Steelers. But we have beat 8 other teams. Some of them good and some of them bad. Now if he would have said we can't beat avg teams on the road, I would agree w/ him 100%.
[/quote]
we are 0-4 after beating him so he has a point

[757RavensFan]

[quote name='marylandmike12' timestamp='1324329251' post='913898']
we are 0-4 after beating him so he has a point
[/quote]

I'm lost...how are we 0-4 after beating the Steelers?

[marylandmike12]

[quote name='757RavensFan' timestamp='1324329854' post='913920']

I'm lost...how are we 0-4 after beating the Steelers?
[/quote]
0-2 the next game after we beat them

[1/28/01]

[quote name='marylandmike12' timestamp='1324330074' post='913928']
0-2 the next game after we beat them
[/quote]
Serious question...what is the "12" for in your username?

[marylandmike12]

[quote name='1/28/01' timestamp='1324332589' post='914013']
Serious question...what is the "12" for in your username?
[/quote]my dog is 12 why