Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Tru11

Good or bad reporting?

58 posts in this topic

well everyone probaly has read this link:

http://www.baltimoreravens.com/news/article-1/Defense-Needs-Confidence-In-Crunch-Time/77c8c30e-a8f7-4fe7-9751-bfbb29a14d36

 

I know alot of people are saying the defense was bad in the 4th and they need to improve and 134 points given up is bad and such.

 

but how much of this is actuall fact and how much can you actually blame on the defense?

 

well ive looked up all the points that where give up in the 4th by the ravens and ive seen something very intresting.

 

vs Denver 14 points yes all on defense

vs CLE 0 points allowed

VS TEX 0 points allowed

VS  BUF 0 points allowed

vs  DOLP 10 points allowed 7 being a pick 6 lol

vs Packers 3 points allowed

vs Pits 6 points allowed FG after failed onside kick.

vs CLE 3 points allowed 

vs CIN 14 points allowed 1 after an INT and 1 was the hail mary

vs  CHI 7 points on a long drive so yeah defense

vs Jets 0 points allowed

vs Pits 13 points yeah on the defense actually 1 TD came after pits started on their 40 yard line after kickoff out of bound but still most on them.

vs vikes 20 points 6 coming after a INT (failed 2pnt con) by the offense and 14 you can blame the defense

vs DET 6 points failed 2pnt by det can blame defense

vs Pats 21 points 7 coming after a failed 4th down by offense and 14 where turnovers turned into points by pats defense

vs Bengal 17 points 7 on defense and 10 coming on a pick 6 and FG coming after another pick lol.

 

now its a fact the ravens gave up 134 points in the 4th quarter.

 

However there where 4 direct scores after an offense turnover and i question how its possible that these 4 scores count against the defense?

So Flacco throws a pick 6 against the dolphins and Bengals and its the defense fault they gave up points?

Tyrod fumbles and throws a pick that results in direct points while the defense was on the side line and its their fault?

The ravens have a failed onside kick and the defense holds the opponent to a FG and its their fault they gave up 3 points?

Offense fails on 4th down and gives other team good field position and it results in a FG and we blame the defense for not stopping them?

 

how i see it:

14 points broncos all defense.

3 points dolphins all defense

3 points packers all defense

3 points steelers all defense altough drive did start at steelers 37.

3 points cleveland all defense

7 points bengals hail mary all defense

7 points chicago all defense

7 points steelers all defense 6 points part defense

14 points vikes all defense

6 points lions all defense

7 points bengals all defense

 

thats about 74 points you can blame it all on the defense and 6 points that id say is also on them

thats 80 points.

 

28 points came when the defense was watching the offense on the side line giving up direct points.

 

19 points are questionable at best:

3 points came in the steelers 1st game where steelers kicked a FG after a failed onside that gave them the ball on the ravens 38.

6 points came in the vikes game where flacco had a pick on the ravens 33 and vikes scored a TD but failed the XP

7 points came in the pats game where the ravens failed on 4th down on the ravens 48 and the pats scored a TD off it.

3 points came in the bengals 2nd game where a flacco pick was returned to the ravens 20 and held them to a FG.

 

on the fence:

7 points came in the bengals game where after a pick the bengals went  70 yards for a TD.

defense just forced a punt in the 4th and within 2 min of game time they where back on the field lol.

 

now im not saying the defense was perfect or great but to be fair they where not nearly as bad in the 4th quarter as the media and some fans here wants us to believe.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


im still wondering how its the defense fault the other team scores a pick 6 lol.

where they supposed to run up the field to tackle the guy who got the INT???

also when the defense has to stop the opponent on the ravens 20 yard line and they hold them to a FG, im not sure how someone could argue they did not get s stop lol.
im pretty sure when the opponent has the ball on the 20 yard line they are in FG range already.....

it seems alot of people expected the defense to be like that 2000 defense .......
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for doingng the research, at the least pick sixes should not count against a defense. Ever. Neither should special teams scores
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im still wondering how its the defense fault the other team scores a pick 6 lol.

where they supposed to run up the field to tackle the guy who got the INT???

also when the defense has to stop the opponent on the ravens 20 yard line and they hold them to a FG, im not sure how someone could argue they did not get s stop lol.
im pretty sure when the opponent has the ball on the 20 yard line they are in FG range already.....

it seems alot of people expected the defense to be like that 2000 defense .......

That's just the way the stats are classified. Since you brought up the 2000 defense, they didn't get credit for a shutout in the Super Bowl because special teams gave up the kickoff return to the Giants.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pick-sixes and fumble TDs should not count against the defense. But when you get into 'oh well it's not great field position so it shouldn't count against them' then that's a grey area. If the defense is on the field and points are scored, it is technically 'against' them.

 

These stats have been tabulated like that for as long as I can remember.

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for doingng the research, at the least pick sixes should not count against a defense. Ever. Neither should special teams scores

Ya its absurd that they do.  I realize as it stands now scorekeepers have nowhere to statistically place those points, but come up with another column or something.  Pinning it on the defense is insane, they're not even on the field lol.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I'll say is I'd rather have last year's defense than this year's defense. A poor defense that performs in critical situations rather than a decent defense that fails in those situations.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
all other teams defences face the same issues, and yet we still were dead last, ie most points allowed in the 4th qtr this year.

We failed, when it mattered, there's no way around it
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While you're right, stating the number of points is a bit misleading.

But, the point of the comment was that by not getting off the field we missed 3 or 4 games we probably could have won.

Like in the Packers game, you list only 3 points given up which may be true, but the defense allowed a long completion to Finley for a 1st down and then 2 more 1st downs by Lacy to run the clock out. We never got the chance to win the game bc the defense couldn't force a punt.

Chicago another example.

While the points were mentioned, I don't think it was their reason for saying the D needs to improve in the 4th quarter. It wasn't just about points, it was allowing 1st down conversions on 3rd and longs or allowing completions in big situations.

That is the fault of the defense and something they need to improve upon. They need to make plays with the game on the line.

The offense needs more improvement for sure, but their failings don't excuse the short comings of the defense. Just as the dynamic of the offense typically playing well in the 4th and making clutch plays, doesn't excuse their poor play through the first 3 quarters.

This shouldn't be an offense vs defense thing. All 3 units need to improve. The offense more than the defense for sure, but the defense needs to improve as well. Especially considering how much more talent we have on defense than on offense.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I'll say is I'd rather have last year's defense than this year's defense. A poor defense that performs in critical situations rather than a decent defense that fails in those situations.

 

you do realise last year defense was giving up point by bunches during the other 3  quaters right?

if they where coupled with this offense we would have most likely been blownout  in most games lol.

 

the only reason we can talk about critical situations was because the defense kept games close and within reach till the 4th quarter.

 

but yeah last years 4th quarter defense with the other 3 quarter defense of this season would have been great.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The defense definitely had their issues.  That's undeniable!  However, in my view; it was the offense's lack of capitalizing and seizing their opportunities (that came either from themselves by moving the chains or through the defense getting them the ball back with INT's and fumble recoveries with good field positioning etc.) nearly all season long to score TD's.  Especially, when they were in the red zone.  Joe Flacco even said it himself about his offense; "We're just not good enough!"  They weren't!  End of season...end of story!  Let's move on!

 

#Mili

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While you're right, stating the number of points is a bit misleading.

But, the point of the comment was that by not getting off the field we missed 3 or 4 games we probably could have won.

Like in the Packers game, you list only 3 points given up which may be true, but the defense allowed a long completion to Finley for a 1st down and then 2 more 1st downs by Lacy to run the clock out. We never got the chance to win the game bc the defense couldn't force a punt.

Chicago another example.

While the points were mentioned, I don't think it was their reason for saying the D needs to improve in the 4th quarter. It wasn't just about points, it was allowing 1st down conversions on 3rd and longs or allowing completions in big situations.

That is the fault of the defense and something they need to improve upon. They need to make plays with the game on the line.

The offense needs more improvement for sure, but their failings don't excuse the short comings of the defense. Just as the dynamic of the offense typically playing well in the 4th and making clutch plays, doesn't excuse their poor play through the first 3 quarters.

This shouldn't be an offense vs defense thing. All 3 units need to improve. The offense more than the defense for sure, but the defense needs to improve as well. Especially considering how much more talent we have on defense than on offense.

 

i get what your saying and i do agree they did not come trough at some points when needed but you and many other are forgetting 1 important thing though.

 

ill use the packers game.

 

fact: the last 2 packers drives the defense did struggle and was a let down.

fact: there where 11 drives before the last 2 drives.

 

lets break down those 11 drives:

there where 6 punts

there was a INT

there was a missed FG

there was a TD

there where 2 FG.

 

basicially prior to the last 2 drives there where 9 stops and 3 drives that resulted in 1 TD and 2 FG.

 

now when you consider they played against aaron rodgers who is a top 3 QB in the entire NFL.

 

so my question is:

Did the defense really let us down that game or arent they not the biggest reason that we lost what most like to believe?

i mean the offense had 13 drives resulted in 2 TD a FG,8 punts , a fumble and a turnover on downs.

 

lookin at the last 2 drives yeah lets blame the defense, look at the whole game and well maybe despite those 2 drives the defense actually played great  IMO....

 

That bears well the offense basicially handed the bears 10 points with a pick 6 and another pick at midfield that went for a FG lol.

 

would probaly have been a win if the offense did not hand the bears 10 free points but yeah lets blame the defense lol.

lets also forget that the offense got the ball first in OT and had to punt............

 

personally only the broncos and 2nd browns games where real defensive let downs IMO.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I'll say is I'd rather have last year's defense than this year's defense. A poor defense that performs in critical situations rather than a decent defense that fails in those situations.


I'd bet a good amount that the 13 defense would look a lot better with the 12 offense.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And then there's the Vikings game.

Didn't Flacco throw 3 picks that game?

Not trying to make this a Flacco thread. The point is we turned the ball over 3 times and the game was still kept in check early.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Defense has taken a lot of undeserved blame. They were easily the strength of the team and the main reason why we had any shot at making the playoffs.

They got stop after stop and watched the offense bungle their opportunities time and time again. There were definitely opportunities the defense had to make key stops and couldn't, but overall they played great this year.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A great defense doesn't have as much miscommunication in its secondary as ours did.

Or allow runningbacks to plow through the line with ease as often as ours did.

Or have a blitz that is so uncreative that it is so easy and obvious to read like ours was.

Or have a pass rush that all but disappears after mid-season the way ours did.

 

A great defense doesn't get too conservative when it should stay more aggressive at the end of close games.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't read the whole thing but from what I read it sounds like you're making excuses for the defense.I read Ryan's article about the offense and the one that you linked about defense.Both of them are good reporting!Our past 4 overall picks were defensive players.Our first 4 draft picks in the first 4 rounds last year were defensive players.We traded away our best wr and used the left over cap space all on defensive players.We do so much for our defense in spite of our offense that we hold them to a different standard.They played bad in the 4th quarter of alot of games last year.It's not just about the points they gave up.It's about the games like vs the packers,@ the steelers and @ the browns where they let those teams run out long periods of clock on us to close out games.Even when the offense tried to mount a comeback in denver by scoring a td and making it a 2 score game they let us down.Thomas went 70 yards for a td on the next drive.I wont blame them for the vikings games because the field conditions were horrible.No matter which way you try to twist the stats,it wasn't a great year for the defense in the 4th quarter.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every team gives up points that could be blamed on the offense. Given that turnovers and points off of offense/ST happen most every game, you can't just say "The defense only gave up 80 4th quarter points" because you have no basis for comparison. What does the average defense look like without counting points off turnovers?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im still wondering how its the defense fault the other team scores a pick 6 lol.

where they supposed to run up the field to tackle the guy who got the INT???

also when the defense has to stop the opponent on the ravens 20 yard line and they hold them to a FG, im not sure how someone could argue they did not get s stop lol.
im pretty sure when the opponent has the ball on the 20 yard line they are in FG range already.....

it seems alot of people expected the defense to be like that 2000 defense .......

Pick 6's shouldn't count against the D. Didn't realize it did. Pure garbage.

 

I'd bet a good amount that the 13 defense would look a lot better with the 12 offense.

Yeah but would they have won the SB. Remember we had a lot of injuries last year and got healthy for the playoffs. Don't live by the stats man. 2012 was the better D.

 

A great defense doesn't have as much miscommunication in its secondary as ours did.

Or allow runningbacks to plow through the line with ease as often as ours did.

Or have a blitz that is so uncreative that it is so easy and obvious to read like ours was.

Or have a pass rush that all but disappears after mid-season the way ours did.

 

A great defense doesn't get too conservative when it should stay more aggressive at the end of close games.

Looked they stayed in preseason mode.Lol. Daryl Smith did a great job of replacing Ray but still it seemed like nobody stepped up when it counted. Never good when the passrush just "poof" goes up in midair. There was no outside pressure.

 

I didn't read the whole thing but from what I read it sounds like you're making excuses for the defense.I read Ryan's article about the offense and the one that you linked about defense.Both of them are good reporting!Our past 4 overall picks were defensive players.Our first 4 draft picks in the first 4 rounds last year were defensive players.We traded away our best wr and used the left over cap space all on defensive players.We do so much for our defense in spite of our offense that we hold them to a different standard.They played bad in the 4th quarter of alot of games last year.It's not just about the points they gave up.It's about the games like vs the packers,@ the steelers and @ the browns where they let those teams run out long periods of clock on us to close out games.Even when the offense tried to mount a comeback in denver by scoring a td and making it a 2 score game they let us down.Thomas went 70 yards for a td on the next drive.I wont blame them for the vikings games because the field conditions were horrible.No matter which way you try to twist the stats,it wasn't a great year for the defense in the 4th quarter.

Yeah don't forget about the long drives that closed out games against us. Those count as pts.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yeah but would they have won the SB. Remember we had a lot of injuries last year and got healthy for the playoffs. Don't live by the stats man. 2012 was the better D.

 

 

This defense was better than the 2012 defense, FACT.  I can't guarantee they would win a SB, but I say it's highly likely they could make a deep run.  What made the 12 defense look better was the fact that the offense was for the most part putting up points.  How many games did this team get over 20 points?  You realize the league average was around 24 right?  I will bet if you go team through team, you will see the defense probably held more people under their average than the offense was able to reach even the LEAGUE average in points.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i get what your saying and i do agree they did not come trough at some points when needed but you and many other are forgetting 1 important thing though.
 
ill use the packers game.
 
fact: the last 2 packers drives the defense did struggle and was a let down.
fact: there where 11 drives before the last 2 drives.
 
lets break down those 11 drives:
there where 6 punts
there was a INT
there was a missed FG
there was a TD
there where 2 FG.
 
basicially prior to the last 2 drives there where 9 stops and 3 drives that resulted in 1 TD and 2 FG.
 
now when you consider they played against aaron rodgers who is a top 3 QB in the entire NFL.
 
so my question is:
Did the defense really let us down that game or arent they not the biggest reason that we lost what most like to believe?
i mean the offense had 13 drives resulted in 2 TD a FG,8 punts , a fumble and a turnover on downs.
 
lookin at the last 2 drives yeah lets blame the defense, look at the whole game and well maybe despite those 2 drives the defense actually played great  IMO....
 
That bears well the offense basicially handed the bears 10 points with a pick 6 and another pick at midfield that went for a FG lol.
 
would probaly have been a win if the offense did not hand the bears 10 free points but yeah lets blame the defense lol.
lets also forget that the offense got the ball first in OT and had to punt............
 
personally only the broncos and 2nd browns games where real defensive let downs IMO.


Stopping the first 11 drives, but not the 2 final ones with the game on the line is like a team who goes 14-2 in the regular season but bounces 1st round of the playoffs.

No one dismissed a 14-2 record, but no one remembers it if you don't get it done in crunch time.

Same thing applies here.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stopping the first 11 drives, but not the 2 final ones with the game on the line is like a team who goes 14-2 in the regular season but bounces 1st round of the playoffs.

No one dismissed a 14-2 record, but no one remembers it if you don't get it done in crunch time.

Same thing applies here.

 

 

in order for you to end up 14-2 you need the other parts on the team to do good as well.

 

if the defense decided to play like the offense on the first 11 drives and decided to play ball on the last 2 drives we would have been 0-16...........

 

point being that the last 2 drives are irrelevant if the 11 prior drives are nothing to write home about.

 

doubt letting the opponent score on 11 drives and then get 2 stops on the last 2 drives are a recipe for succes........

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

point being that the last 2 drives are irrelevant if the 11 prior drives are nothing to write home about.

 

 

 

 

Actually that's not true if your team is within one score with a chance to win. It could be the difference between winning or losing.

 

As is so true in most cases it ain't how you start, it's how you finish that matters most.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually that's not true if your team is within one score with a chance to win. It could be the difference between winning or losing.

 

As is so true in most cases it ain't how you start, it's how you finish that matters most.

 

the only reason its within 1 score is when either 1 part is not scoring or another part is allowing the opponent the score.

when both play well its not a 1 score game and when both play poorly its not a 1 score game.

 

you cant expect perfection from 1 part and settle for other part just showing up when they feel like it.

 

its a team game.

 

if 1 part does great for 11 drives and then screws up for the last 2 drives and the other part sucks for 11 drives and then has 2 good drives , i question if people objectively look at who to blame.

 

unless you expect 1 part to do it all ofcourse lol

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the only reason its within 1 score is when either 1 part is not scoring or another part is allowing the opponent the score.

when both play well its not a 1 score game and when both play poorly its not a 1 score game.

 

you cant expect perfection from 1 part and settle for other part just showing up when they feel like it.

 

its a team game.

 

if 1 part does great for 11 drives and then screws up for the last 2 drives and the other part sucks for 11 drives and then has 2 good drives , i question if people objectively look at who to blame.

 

unless you expect 1 part to do it all ofcourse lol

 

 

I understand all of that and it may be at times the O explodes at the end and makes up for bad D play during the course of a game(I know, laughable pertaining to 2013). And I've said it multiple times, you can't go back and assume that if we score more early that would make up points lacking at the end. Scoring more early means history has changed and you don't know what else might change, i.e., the other team playing differently and scoring more as well. But you can objectively look at what happens at the end and judge whether failure caused a loss because, well, it is at the end and assuming something changes does not change history, only the outcome.

 

I'm not looking to place blame, rather looking what could have been done to win more games. You can't ignore the fact that if the D didn't fold at the end of 3 or 4, chances are that we would have had a much better record. Like you said, it's a team game.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand all of that and it may be at times the O explodes at the end and makes up for bad D play during the course of a game(I know, laughable pertaining to 2013). And I've said it multiple times, you can't go back and assume that if we score more early that would make up points lacking at the end. Scoring more early means history has changed and you don't know what else might change, i.e., the other team playing differently and scoring more as well. But you can objectively look at what happens at the end and judge whether failure caused a loss because, well, it is at the end and assuming something changes does not change history, only the outcome.

 

I'm not looking to place blame, rather looking what could have been done to win more games. You can't ignore the fact that if the D didn't fold at the end of 3 or 4, chances are that we would have had a much better record. Like you said, it's a team game.

 

they played good 11 of the freakin 13 drives.

what more could they have done lol.

 

you expect the defense to be perfect??

 

they did everything they could to keep the team in games.............

 

its not realistic to expect the defense to play perfect for 4 quarters every single drive......

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they played good 11 of the freakin 13 drives.

what more could they have done lol.

 

you expect the defense to be perfect??

 

they did everything they could to keep the team in games.............

 

its not realistic to expect the defense to play perfect for 4 quarters every single drive......

 

No, I and pretty much everyone else expects them to perform when the game is on the line.

 

I'll just give up after this because it's obvious you are just not buying into what is popular belief. but that's OK! lol

 

It ain't how you start, it's how you finish that matters most. That's in football, basketball, baseball, ping pong, curling, whatever!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I and pretty much everyone else expects them to perform when the game is on the line.

 

I'll just give up after this because it's obvious you are just not buying into what is popular belief. but that's OK! lol

 

It ain't how you start, it's how you finish that matters most. That's in football, basketball, baseball, ping pong, curling, whatever!

 

so when the offense doesent put up any points and the defense doesent stop anyone you still think its a game when you enter the 4th quarter?

 

when the whole team doesent start well , when the whole team doesent get their act right through the mid section, there is no reason to believe their would be another finish then being blown out......

 

the defense kept the ravens in games and they are the only reason this is even a discussion.

if they decided to play just as bad as the offense through the whole game we would be 0-16.....

 

once people stop thinking that only the last 2 drives matter and start believing every single drive matters we might not have to worry about either side blowing a game at the end.

 

but yeah you are right, just blame the defense for playing bad 2 drives and let the offense off the hook for sucking 11 drives.

makes sense.......

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't so much points our defense gave up as it was the defense allowed long time consuming drives when they needed to get the ball back to our offense.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't so much points our defense gave up as it was the defense allowed long time consuming drives when they needed to get the ball back to our offense.

This is what's funny to me.  How many games did we actually go in with the lead late into the 4th?  Most of these what if games that are being played were in situations where we were tied and the offense would've needed to score again anyway.  Maybe 2 I can think of weren't like that, being the Browns and GB, but still, how do we even know the offense would score?  In one situation where the defense actually got the offense the ball back, guess what?  Flacco threw a pick.  I know the game was early, but come on, there is no way people can seriously pin this season on the defense collapsing in the 4th when the other side doesn't decide to chip in til about 2/3 -3/4 into the game.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i get what your saying and i do agree they did not come trough at some points when needed but you and many other are forgetting 1 important thing though.

 

ill use the packers game.

 

fact: the last 2 packers drives the defense did struggle and was a let down.

fact: there where 11 drives before the last 2 drives.

 

lets break down those 11 drives:

there where 6 punts

there was a INT

there was a missed FG

there was a TD

there where 2 FG.

 

basicially prior to the last 2 drives there where 9 stops and 3 drives that resulted in 1 TD and 2 FG.

 

now when you consider they played against aaron rodgers who is a top 3 QB in the entire NFL.

 

so my question is:

Did the defense really let us down that game or arent they not the biggest reason that we lost what most like to believe?

i mean the offense had 13 drives resulted in 2 TD a FG,8 punts , a fumble and a turnover on downs.

 

lookin at the last 2 drives yeah lets blame the defense, look at the whole game and well maybe despite those 2 drives the defense actually played great  IMO....

 

That bears well the offense basicially handed the bears 10 points with a pick 6 and another pick at midfield that went for a FG lol.

 

would probaly have been a win if the offense did not hand the bears 10 free points but yeah lets blame the defense lol.

lets also forget that the offense got the ball first in OT and had to punt............

 

personally only the broncos and 2nd browns games where real defensive let downs IMO.

 

Since you brought up the Green Bay game, which we lost 19-17, please don't omit the "brilliant" decision to go for it on 4th down instead of kicking an easy FG in the first half. We got zero points out of that possession and that's a real morale buster, especially when we hadn't scored any points in the game. Smart coaches subscribe to the old adage "Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered; don't be greedy, take what the defense will give you." Bottom line: Our defense played well and held Aaron Rodgers and company to 19 points. Had we not eschewed a FG in the 1st half, we would have had at least 20 points at the end of the game, right? 

 

I would rather have the Head Coach make smart decision versus aggressive decisions but that's just me. Howd that aggressive thing work for you this year, Coach?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to the post subject question regarding 'good or bad reporting', my answer is simply it is good journalism on a marginal subject, only.

 

In response to the research that you did to argue your opinion on the subject of 'defense under-performance in the 4th quarter' my thought is that you should be congratulated. You make an impressive argument for your position.

 

Based on the original article itself that was mostly comprised of FO and/or coaches interviews (their own assessments on the subject) and NFL stats that supported their concerns, it was objective coverage of the topic. It never argued that the Ravens offense was better than the defense, this 2013 defense is not as good as past Raven defenses; nor did it make a case for an argument that the defense did not perform well for the most part. It simply reported the fact that we ranked low in the 4th quarter. Every NFL defense is subject to the same stats, same rating system and same measure for improvement or decline. That's objectivity (i.e. - good journalism).

 

As far as your assessment is concern: Fans don't have to be objective. Most fan responses will be laced with emotions, strong opinions and unchangeable positions. That's to be expected. The only thing that I disagree with in how we respond is when we use any measure to pass blame. We all  are guilty of this from time to time because we love our team. However, the article did not pass blame it only took a 'marginal' subject to create interest and give an opportunity for readers to examine their feelings on the subject, not to 're-thread' every other thread that's already been 're-threaded' before. That's a good thing. Let's stay on topic.

 

I share a simpler opinion with those interviewed. I feel that there were opportunities on defense for momentum changing plays to be made in 4th quarters that weren't acted on. I do believe that this was a result of a mix of new veteran personnel and inexperience playing together for the first time. I also agree with the concept that this takes more time to create the kind of trust that allows players to know that they can be more aggressive in those moments and the other 10 will have their backs. We can improve there. That being said: I'm confident that 2014 will bring more of that late game trust and aggressive, play-making, close-down opponents' offenses culture that fans have become use to seeing.

 

Good post. Thank you for posting.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what's funny to me.  How many games did we actually go in with the lead late into the 4th?  Most of these what if games that are being played were in situations where we were tied and the offense would've needed to score again anyway.  Maybe 2 I can think of weren't like that, being the Browns and GB, but still, how do we even know the offense would score?  In one situation where the defense actually got the offense the ball back, guess what?  Flacco threw a pick.  I know the game was early, but come on, there is no way people can seriously pin this season on the defense collapsing in the 4th when the other side doesn't decide to chip in til about 2/3 -3/4 into the game.

If the defense gets a stop there is a chance the offense wins the game. If the defense can't get a stop and the opponent runs out the clock the game is over. Just because there is a chance that the offense fails to score doesn't give the defense a pass for not getting the ball back.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the defense gets a stop there is a chance the offense wins the game. If the defense can't get a stop and the opponent runs out the clock the game is over. Just because there is a chance that the offense fails to score doesn't give the defense a pass for not getting the ball back.

"IF" the offense scores earlier and more consistently, we are more likely to win the game.  I'm not saying the defense shouldn't stop them, but the offenses job is to score and one side was doing their job a lot more efficiently than the other.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you brought up the Green Bay game, which we lost 19-17, please don't omit the "brilliant" decision to go for it on 4th down instead of kicking an easy FG in the first half. We got zero points out of that possession and that's a real morale buster, especially when we hadn't scored any points in the game. Smart coaches subscribe to the old adage "Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered; don't be greedy, take what the defense will give you." Bottom line: Our defense played well and held Aaron Rodgers and company to 9 points. Had we not eschewed a FG in the 1st half, we would have had at least 20 points at the end of the game, right? 

 

I would rather have the Head Coach make smart decision versus aggressive decisions but that's just me. Howd that aggressive thing work for you this year, Coach?

That particular game angered the hell out of me.  The going for it on 4th, stopping them from getting the fg then giving it up.  You don't give away games, wins are earned, but that was the closest I think I've seen this team to ever giving one up.  It's not exactly a walk in the park keeping Rodgers tamed for 3 quarters like that.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"IF" the offense scores earlier and more consistently, we are more likely to win the game.  I'm not saying the defense shouldn't stop them, but the offenses job is to score and one side was doing their job a lot more efficiently than the other.

Some people can't seem to accept this line of reasoning though.

 

#Mili

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people can't seem to accept this line of reasoning though.

 

#Mili

 

 

Mili, it can't be accepted because it just doesn't hold water.

 

There's two teams on the field and they are both trying to win. In a game that is close at the end, it could be that the opposing D is playing just as good as our D making the game close. Or it could be that both offenses are trading scores and it is a tight game at the end. Or it could be that one offense has been sucking for most of the game, then pulls it together to make the game close at the end. All of these scenarios have one thing in common;  If it's a close game obviously what decides the outcome is how a team performs when it matters most, at the end!

 

If both sides performed well all of the time, from beginning to end there would be no worries, would there?  :P

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you brought up the Green Bay game, which we lost 19-17, please don't omit the "brilliant" decision to go for it on 4th down instead of kicking an easy FG in the first half. We got zero points out of that possession and that's a real morale buster, especially when we hadn't scored any points in the game. Smart coaches subscribe to the old adage "Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered; don't be greedy, take what the defense will give you." Bottom line: Our defense played well and held Aaron Rodgers and company to 9 points. Had we not eschewed a FG in the 1st half, we would have had at least 20 points at the end of the game, right? 

 

I would rather have the Head Coach make smart decision versus aggressive decisions but that's just me. Howd that aggressive thing work for you this year, Coach?

 

hey man im not pinning  this on flacco and the offense to much.

 

i believe the whole offense was set up to fail due to the brilliant scheme change made  be the o-line coordinator not to mention his BFF making the weirdest decisions to be agressive.

 

you got a rookie center and 2 guys coming back from injury, 1 guy everyone labels lazy and 1 guy who played a different tackle position each season and then decide to implement a new scheme with new signals and what not.

 

brilliant coaching......

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the defense gets a stop there is a chance the offense wins the game. If the defense can't get a stop and the opponent runs out the clock the game is over. Just because there is a chance that the offense fails to score doesn't give the defense a pass for not getting the ball back.

 

defense was getting stops through the whole game........

 

probaly should have capitalized on them earlier......

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

defense was getting stops through the whole game........

probaly should have capitalized on them earlier......


People don't understand this concept for some reason.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While you're right, stating the number of points is a bit misleading.But, the point of the comment was that by not getting off the field we missed 3 or 4 games we probably could have won.


This is what gets me. People say well if the defense could have got a stop... say they do, then what. The same offense that failed to score more than thirty twice is going to magically figure out how to play football. No. Fact is if we put the offense back there we might actually lose by more.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mili, it can't be accepted because it just doesn't hold water.

 

There's two teams on the field and they are both trying to win. In a game that is close at the end, it could be that the opposing D is playing just as good as our D making the game close. Or it could be that both offenses are trading scores and it is a tight game at the end. Or it could be that one offense has been sucking for most of the game, then pulls it together to make the game close at the end. All of these scenarios have one thing in common;  If it's a close game obviously what decides the outcome is how a team performs when it matters most, at the end!

 

If both sides performed well all of the time, from beginning to end there would be no worries, would there?  :P

 

The Green Bay game is a case in point. Both the offense and defense played well enough to win. Joe actually outplayed his counterpart, that discount doublecheck guy. When an NFL team scores at least 20 points, they should win. We would have scored 20 points if the HC didn't forgo a FG in the 1st half in the name of "aggressive" playcalling. Aaron Rodgers led his team to a whopping 19 points but I don't hear anybody questioning his manhood. With better coaching and playcalling, we woulda, shoulda and coulda won that one. They made the playoffs and we didn't because of the outcome. That's life in the Harbaugh Error.   

 

I heard someone say in a post today that if Q had been here in 2013, it wouldn't have made any difference. I beg to differ that laughable statement. I think Q had 8 catches for 136 yards, 1 headbutt and a calm-down the HC moment on the sidelines against Cam's Panthers. Great game Q! Come back to Bmore! We could use someone who has a calming influence on our HC so that he doesn't go into panic mode in the 1st half of games.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what gets me. People say well if the defense could have got a stop... say they do, then what. The same offense that failed to score more than thirty twice is going to magically figure out how to play football. No. Fact is if we put the offense back there we might actually lose by more.

LMAO... THANK YOU.   This team only scored over 20 4 times and scored 20 in 3 more.  20 isn't some highlight for scoring when the league is shifting rules for you to pile on points.  Why the hell should anyone on that defense or team have faith that even if the ball is given back to them they will score?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Green Bay game is a case in point. Both the offense and defense played well enough to win. Joe actually outplayed his counterpart, that discount doublecheck guy. When an NFL team scores at least 20 points, they should win. We would have scored 20 points if the HC didn't forgo a FG in the 1st half in the name of "aggressive" playcalling. Aaron Rodgers led his team to a whopping 19 points but I don't hear anybody questioning his manhood. With better coaching and playcalling, we woulda, shoulda and coulda won that one. They made the playoffs and we didn't because of the outcome. That's life in the Harbaugh Error.   

 

I heard someone say in a post today that if Q had been here in 2013, it wouldn't have made any difference. I beg to differ that laughable statement. I think Q had 8 catches for 136 yards, 1 headbutt and a calm-down the HC moment on the sidelines against Cam's Panthers. Great game Q! Come back to Bmore! We could use someone who has a calming influence on our HC so that he doesn't go into panic mode in the 1st half of games.

 

 

Right. And Joe had the O crankin' at the end of that game. You just knew if they got the ball back they would score. But the D(which had just given up a long TD pass to a team with only one guy on the field capable of making the catch) allowed a long, clock eating drive to close out the game.

 

Note; I think I know the post you are speaking of :P about Q and you are taking it out of context.  No one was claiming that he couldn't have made a difference. It was said that having Q alone would not have allowed us to make a deep run into the post season. It was thought that having better O line performance and a running game would have made a much bigger difference in this seasons' outcome than just having Q on the squad.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While you're right, stating the number of points is a bit misleading.

But, the point of the comment was that by not getting off the field we missed 3 or 4 games we probably could have won.

Like in the Packers game, you list only 3 points given up which may be true, but the defense allowed a long completion to Finley for a 1st down and then 2 more 1st downs by Lacy to run the clock out. We never got the chance to win the game bc the defense couldn't force a punt.

Chicago another example.

While the points were mentioned, I don't think it was their reason for saying the D needs to improve in the 4th quarter. It wasn't just about points, it was allowing 1st down conversions on 3rd and longs or allowing completions in big situations.

That is the fault of the defense and something they need to improve upon. They need to make plays with the game on the line.

The offense needs more improvement for sure, but their failings don't excuse the short comings of the defense. Just as the dynamic of the offense typically playing well in the 4th and making clutch plays, doesn't excuse their poor play through the first 3 quarters.

This shouldn't be an offense vs defense thing. All 3 units need to improve. The offense more than the defense for sure, but the defense needs to improve as well. Especially considering how much more talent we have on defense than on offense.


Totally agree with you... While the OP stats are interesting the points that they gave up in the fourth weren't the "problem" the problem was that the defense failed to make critical game changing stops in the fourth quarter of a few games. In those games it appeared as if momentum was swinging in The Ravens favor and the offense if given the chance could march down field to win, There was a 5 game stretch that we went 1-4 starting with the Packers game ending with the Bears game in which the defense gave up either long time consuming second half drives to eat up the clock or the go ahead score with little to no time left. And the one game that was a victory was the Bengal game and well that HailMary was an attempt.

Early in the season most people on the boards were saying the Offense can't get a first down defense is getting tired but in games like the Steeler game the defense gave up long drives from the beginning until the end of the game
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Green Bay game is a case in point. Both the offense and defense played well enough to win. Joe actually outplayed his counterpart, that discount doublecheck guy. When an NFL team scores at least 20 points, they should win. We would have scored 20 points if the HC didn't forgo a FG in the 1st half in the name of "aggressive" playcalling. Aaron Rodgers led his team to a whopping 19 points but I don't hear anybody questioning his manhood. With better coaching and playcalling, we woulda, shoulda and coulda won that one. They made the playoffs and we didn't because of the outcome. That's life in the Harbaugh Error.

I heard someone say in a post today that if Q had been here in 2013, it wouldn't have made any difference. I beg to differ that laughable statement. I think Q had 8 catches for 136 yards, 1 headbutt and a calm-down the HC moment on the sidelines against Cam's Panthers. Great game Q! Come back to Bmore! We could use someone who has a calming influence on our HC so that he doesn't go into panic mode in the 1st half of games.

Not sure if that's a play on words by you. But did you mean Harbaugh Era?

Also Boldin having those catches and yards for the 49ers yesterday is no indication of how he would have performed in our un-creative offense this year, minus a run game also. The 49ers put Boldin in motion, line him up at various positions also run rub- routes with him and V.Davis and Crabtree to create space. Also there's a stable running game with Gore, Hunter and Kaep. The threat of Kaep running often caused Safeties to stare in the backfield more often also.
Boldin never reached a 1,000 yds with us, mainly because the coaching staff rarely found creative ways to get him the ball... He had 1,179 this year.
Arizona constantly moved him around to create mismatches with his physicality.

With all that said, this offense would have benefitted from having Boldin this season, but the flip side to that Coin is that a guy like Marlon Brown doesn't get discovered because Flacco doesn't have to say in Preseason play the young guys Mellette & Brown. Depth chart would have still read Torrey Boldin Jones, so less reps for doss to screw up and less reason for Brown to be given a shot. Can't have it both ways.

On a side note** I'm glad Boldin has had a successful and productive season stats wise, that way nobody trashes him like some did with D.Mason. It's similar in that when Mason was let go along with Heap that year people were in an uproar, but once Mason didn't do a thing with the Jets or Texans the threads began to lump Mason in with guys that left for big FA contracts but never became stars etc like A.Thomas, E.Hartwell etc.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what gets me. People say well if the defense could have got a stop... say they do, then what. The same offense that failed to score more than thirty twice is going to magically figure out how to play football. No. Fact is if we put the offense back there we might actually lose by more.

The offense was terrible for the most part, but typically played well down the stretch of games.

The two units were almost polar opposites. The defense was stout for 3 quarters plus, but seemed to fizzle out more often than not in the 4th quarter. The offense was dreadful for 3 quarters and only came to life when absolutely necessary late in games.

The offense is certainly more to blame for our sub par season. No doubt about it and I don't think anyone would disagree. But just bc the offense was more to blame overall that doesn't forgive the shortcomings of the defense.

Almost the entire offseason was focused on the defense. Our highest paid players, our highest draft picks, and almost all of our free agent signings were defensive players. I think it's clear the team was built with the idea of keeping games close with a strong defense and solid running game and calculated shots down field.

With that much emphasis and with that many resources allocated to the defense the expectations are certainly MUCH higher... While the play of the defense probably doesn't rank even in the top 5 reasons as to why our season was a failure, that doesn't make it unfair to acknowledge that there were a few games where our defense didn't make the plays you'd expect a defense with that much talent to make.

It doesn't have to be all the offenses fault or the defense. It's fair to reflect on the season as a whole and look at everywhere we fell short. And even though there are 10 things we did well on defense that are going to be great to build on for next year... One place we absolutely need to get better if we're going to be an actual contender is making stops late in games.

While this years defense was better overall than 2012's, they were better in a few key areas I think. A knack for making the big play or eating the big stop in close and important games and overall red zone defense.

It is something worth noting and something that needs to be addressed...
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we can all agree that the defense had some short comming especially in the 4th quarter.

agree on that.

 

but the reason i made this thread is to point out it wasent nearly as bad as the media wants us to believe.

 

for instance the talk about the defense giving up an HISTORIC 134 points in the 4th quarter.

 

hilariously 28 of those 134 points where a offense turnover turned in direct points.

in other words the defense never saw the field lol.

 

then you also have situations where the opponent was pretty much in FG range when the defense came on the field.

 

was the defense bad? yes at times they where.

where they as bad as what they want us to believe? no i dont think they where at all

did they cost us as many games as some want to believe? no i believe they kept us in more games then most want to believe.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites