Good or bad reporting?

[Tru11]

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.......

[ravensfan160]

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.

[redrum52]

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.

[frozen joe flacco fan]

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?

[FlocksGottaFeed]

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.

[ravensfan160]

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.

[redrum52]

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.

[redrum52]

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.

[Militant X 1]

"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

[Tank 92]

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

[Tru11]

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......

[Tru11]

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......

[gabefergy]

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

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

People don't understand this concept for some reason.

[Guest Omerta]

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.

[frozen joe flacco fan]

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.

[redrum52]

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?

[Tank 92]

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.

[jdynamite]

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

[jdynamite]

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.

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

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...

[Tru11]

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.

[BloodRaven]

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.

 

This. We were probably a good FS away from being a good defense, nobody knew Huff would be such a bust.

[Tru11]

This. We were probably a good FS away from being a good defense, nobody knew Huff would be such a bust.

 

well he just had 1 game to show himself lol.

 

maybe he could have improved with more games.

 

heck the broncos stomped most teams so we could have overreacted.

 

most plays he got beat he was in man cov anyways instead of playing center field in a deep zone.

[reediddy]

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?

 

it was a simple case of this year's team's inability to put together a complete quarter, albeit a complete game

[BmoreBlitz]

Both the O and the D had their struggles. The D performing better of the two.

The article, media or Ozzie never stated that the D did not perform well over all but not having 4th quater lapses could have helped the team with a couple of extra wins.

 

Regardless, of the fact of playing great for 3 quaters the Ravens D gave up an avg of 8.4 points per game in the 4th.

 

Also, note 8 of the 12 playoff teams were at the top in regards to giving up the least amount of points in the 4th qtr. The key word 4TH QTR.

[Tru11]

Both the O and the D had their struggles. The D performing better of the two.

The article, media or Ozzie never stated that the D did not perform well over all but not having 4th quater lapses could have helped the team with a couple of extra wins.

 

Regardless, of the fact of playing great for 3 quaters the Ravens D gave up an avg of 8.4 points per game in the 4th.

 

Also, note 8 of the 12 playoff teams were at the top in regards to giving up the least amount of points in the 4th qtr. The key word 4TH QTR.

 

 

the points you talk about include pick 6 thrown by flacco and tyrod....

so how much does it really tell you.

 

also when you have a better look at those points you should realise that the defense was already in a bad position when they took the field.

 

unlike many of you blindbelievers im not going to fault the defense for allowing a FG  when they actually come on the field with the opponent already in FG range.

 

some  the points came on turnovers by the offense or failed 4th down conversions by the offense and such.....

 

did you know that 8 out of 10 play offs teams where top in limiting turnovers.

the 2 teams that arent in the top are the broncos who are the highest scoring offense in NFL history and other team is the andy dalton lead bengals which should not be a suprise.....

 

1 could say that without all those turnovers at the end of the 3rd and in the 4th quarter by the offense , the defense might not have looked as bad as most of you want to believe.

 

sure they had trouble getting stops at times but it wasent nearly as bad as most like to think.

 

then again the offense would have not looked that bad either if they decided to stick with what worked and the coach made better decisions in when being agressive and when not .....

[Guest RBates]

It's the defensive play calling in the Middle of the field.  He is so bland it's ridiculous.  I told you, Pees is not putting the players in position to make plays. 

[frozen joe flacco fan]

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.

 

Yep, it was a pun! It will be interesting to see which one of his buddies Harbaugh hires for his next error in the Harbaugh era. He's running out of Philly friends. I think we need to bring someone in from outside the organization rather than to promote Hostler. So far, he's brought in two former head coaches who had respective records of 1-15 and 2-14 in their most recent season as head coach. Thanks to Peyton Manning, Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne, Caldwell's record at Indy was 26-22. Without Peyton, it was a different story. I'm glad to see Caldwell leave and thought the whole idea was to designate him as an acting OC until they could find a replacement for Cameron. I guess when we won the SB they decided to stand pat with him. In retrospect, I think that was a big mistake. He could have resumed his duties as the QBs coach which is why he was brought here in the first place.  

 

At a minimum to straighten out this offense, we need a better center, a big-time WR, another TE who can catch and block, a heavy-duty RB and a veteran backup QB who can push Joe. It also would be nice to draft a big right tackle and just let Oher and Monroe compete for the starting left tackle position. I realize that's a lot to ask but without all these key pieces of the puzzle I think the offense will continue to struggle. The heavy-duty RB would have been helpful in the bad weather games we played against Chicago and Minnesota.