Training Camp     
  

Jump to content


Photo

The Ravens philosophy


  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

#1 arnie_uk

arnie_uk

    Like a Boss!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,186 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 January 2014 - 04:36 PM

This was a post on RSR in discussing the OC candidates and wether a change in philosophy is necessary and if harbs will sign off on it. It's a great post, well thought out and throws a spanner in the works in everything I have thought about harbaugh. What's your opinions.


Is it possible that the decision to play sound, running-based football is an organization-wide decision, ie it comes down from Ozzie? Because we're into about year 15 of having mediocre offense, while generally having good football teams, and I wonder if it's part of an organizational plan. The theory goes like this:

  • In the salary cap era, it is impossible to keep a good team together
  • Offensive players generally are paid more than defensive players
  • Therefore, there is a market inefficiency. It is cheaper to build an excellent defense than to build an excellent offense
  • But you can still compete for the division and advance to the conf title game if you guild a great defense
  • So, year over year we will strive to keep our defense strong, while only paying the dollars we must to sustain a mid-level offense
Honestly, this would explain SO MUCH about what we've seen from the organization over the years. It's plausible, in the sense that the theory emphasizes Ozzie's "value" oriented approach. Ozzie is like the Warren Buffet of NFL GM's, he's obsessed with value; and defensive players generally command less on the market than comparable offensive players. I mean, there are highly paid defenders – we have some on the roster right now – but around the league, the highest-paid offensive player makes more than the highest-paid defensive player, and the second-highest-paid offensive player makes more than the second-highest paid defensive player, etc. So if you're a "value" investor, it would make sense to choose to build a perennial defensive powerhouse, and try to scrape by on the more expensive side of the ball.

An organization that builds the best offense it can and tries to scrape by on the defensive side of ball, would field teams that look like the Manning-era Indy teams. The opposite kind of organization would look like the Ravens.

If any of that is true, than it would mean that fans on this board are right about offensive coordinators being sort of "shackled"; but wrong about who to blame for it. It would mean that Harbaugh bought into an organization-wide "profile" for how to consistently field winning teams, probably bought into it rather enthusiastically because (a) that's how he is anyway, and (B) it fits in with his deepest beliefs about football going back to his early years, and © he understands the implications of the salary cap.

The big contracts given to Ray Rice and to Flacco, and I guess an upcoming one to be given to Torrey Smith, would represent seismic shifts in the way the organization does business. And there should be some growing pains; we don't entirely know how to do it yet.

Am I blowing smoke here? Or is it possible there's something to it?
  • 0

#2 T3hRaven

T3hRaven

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,390 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:King's Landing

Posted 22 January 2014 - 04:45 PM

If you're making this argument five years ago, maybe there's something to it.  In this new era of the NFL, it's impossible to compete without a QB.  This places greater emphasis on the offensive side of the ball to be successful since so much money on a competitive team is going to be automatically tied up over there.  Offenses are too explosive now, you need a team that can score points to win.  That old defense wins championships adage might have worked before, but I don't believe it does anymore.  

 

But I understand what you're saying and there probably is some truth to a lot of it.  I'd just like to believe we're in the middle of a philosophical shift towards the new NFL.


  • 0

#3 The Raven

The Raven

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,478 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 January 2014 - 04:46 PM

Nah, I think it's a legit concern. Ozzie has consistently valued defense over offense, and he has failed to invest big money in the offense. 


  • 0

#4 Stephenjr

Stephenjr

    MVP

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,536 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hendersonville,N Carolina

Posted 22 January 2014 - 04:46 PM

This was a post on RSR in discussing the OC candidates and wether a change in philosophy is necessary and if harbs will sign off on it. It's a great post, well thought out and throws a spanner in the works in everything I have thought about harbaugh. What's your opinions.


Is it possible that the decision to play sound, running-based football is an organization-wide decision, ie it comes down from Ozzie? Because we're into about year 15 of having mediocre offense, while generally having good football teams, and I wonder if it's part of an organizational plan. The theory goes like this:



  • In the salary cap era, it is impossible to keep a good team together
  • Offensive players generally are paid more than defensive players
  • Therefore, there is a market inefficiency. It is cheaper to build an excellent defense than to build an excellent offense
  • But you can still compete for the division and advance to the conf title game if you guild a great defense
  • So, year over year we will strive to keep our defense strong, while only paying the dollars we must to sustain a mid-level offense
Honestly, this would explain SO MUCH about what we've seen from the organization over the years. It's plausible, in the sense that the theory emphasizes Ozzie's "value" oriented approach. Ozzie is like the Warren Buffet of NFL GM's, he's obsessed with value; and defensive players generally command less on the market than comparable offensive players. I mean, there are highly paid defenders – we have some on the roster right now – but around the league, the highest-paid offensive player makes more than the highest-paid defensive player, and the second-highest-paid offensive player makes more than the second-highest paid defensive player, etc. So if you're a "value" investor, it would make sense to choose to build a perennial defensive powerhouse, and try to scrape by on the more expensive side of the ball.

An organization that builds the best offense it can and tries to scrape by on the defensive side of ball, would field teams that look like the Manning-era Indy teams. The opposite kind of organization would look like the Ravens.

If any of that is true, than it would mean that fans on this board are right about offensive coordinators being sort of "shackled"; but wrong about who to blame for it. It would mean that Harbaugh bought into an organization-wide "profile" for how to consistently field winning teams, probably bought into it rather enthusiastically because (a) that's how he is anyway, and ( B) it fits in with his deepest beliefs about football going back to his early years, and © he understands the implications of the salary cap.

The big contracts given to Ray Rice and to Flacco, and I guess an upcoming one to be given to Torrey Smith, would represent seismic shifts in the way the organization does business. And there should be some growing pains; we don't entirely know how to do it yet.

Am I blowing smoke here? Or is it possible there's something to it?

 

I disagree. Are 3 highest paid players this year are all on D, Ngata, Suggs, and Webb. Qb, and LT are  high priced positions, but other then that, The Defensive players tend to make more money IMO.


  • 0

#5 Stephenjr

Stephenjr

    MVP

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,536 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hendersonville,N Carolina

Posted 22 January 2014 - 04:47 PM

If you're making this argument five years ago, maybe there's something to it.  In this new era of the NFL, it's impossible to compete without a QB.  This places greater emphasis on the offensive side of the ball to be successful since so much money on a competitive team is going to be automatically tied up over there.  Offenses are too explosive now, you need a team that can score points to win.  That old defense wins championships adage might have worked before, but I don't believe it does anymore.  

 

But I understand what you're saying and there probably is some truth to a lot of it.  I'd just like to believe we're in the middle of a philosophical shift towards the new NFL.

I agree, unless your the 2000 Ravens or this years Hawks. Lol


  • 0

#6 The Raven

The Raven

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,478 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 January 2014 - 04:48 PM

If you're making this argument five years ago, maybe there's something to it.  In this new era of the NFL, it's impossible to compete without a QB.  This places greater emphasis on the offensive side of the ball to be successful since so much money on a competitive team is going to be automatically tied up over there.  Offenses are too explosive now, you need a team that can score points to win.  That old defense wins championships adage might have worked before, but I don't believe it does anymore.  

 

But I understand what you're saying and there probably is some truth to a lot of it.  I'd just like to believe we're in the middle of a philosophical shift towards the new NFL.

 

I'm not sure about that. Two of the four teams that played this past weekend were in the bottom four in passing offense, but had top five defenses and top five run games. I think that a run game and a defense can still win as long as you limit turnovers and maximize TOP. Just look at the Seahawks and 49ers. 


  • 0




#7 arnie_uk

arnie_uk

    Like a Boss!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,186 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 January 2014 - 04:49 PM

If you're making this argument five years ago, maybe there's something to it.  In this new era of the NFL, it's impossible to compete without a QB.  This places greater emphasis on the offensive side of the ball to be successful since so much money on a competitive team is going to be automatically tied up over there.  Offenses are too explosive now, you need a team that can score points to win.  That old defense wins championships adage might have worked before, but I don't believe it does anymore.  
 
But I understand what you're saying and there probably is some truth to a lot of it.  I'd just like to believe we're in the middle of a philosophical shift towards the new NFL.

i hope we are aswell, the post is trying to come to terms with why it's taking us so long to shift our philosophy and maybe it's not harbs being conservative play good d and control the clock, but it comes from above him. If your we too look more deeply in it you could look at the draft philosophy.

Just recently, the last offensive player we drafted in the first was oher in 2009. Is that a symbol of a philosophy in the board room?
  • 0

#8 T3hRaven

T3hRaven

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,390 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:King's Landing

Posted 22 January 2014 - 04:56 PM

i hope we are aswell, the post is trying to come to terms with why it's taking us so long to shift our philosophy and maybe it's not harbs being conservative play good d and control the clock, but it comes from above him. If your we too look more deeply in it you could look at the draft philosophy.

Just recently, the last offensive player we drafted in the first was oher in 2009. Is that a symbol of a philosophy in the board room?

 

Well you came at this from an economic standpoint, you have to take that into account in the speed of the transition.  We have a TON of money still invested on defense.  The Ngata and Suggs contracts, relative to their production, are killers.  They have to get off the books first.  I understand the worry with the Manning-era Indy team defenses, but I think the problems then go deeper than that.  The Colts are a bad organization and I don't think they draft particularly well at most positions.  But that's another discussion entirely.

 

I think the defensive focus had to do with the money locked up on offense and the seemingly young 'stars' we had on this side of the ball.  Ozzie saw value and tried to get some help and get younger on the other side of the ball.  Every team, good organizations and bad, are trying to find their own particular way to balance a competitive team.  The most common way seems to be paying your pass rushers and your QB, and that's a sound strategy IMO.  But I think it's established that I like how the Pats do things as well, building an offensive line and a defensive line with the QB.

 

On a side note, I don't think Torrey is going to get paid as much as some think if he stays on this team.  He's not a top tier guy.


  • 0

#9 Tank 92

Tank 92

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,069 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cheltenham, MD

Posted 22 January 2014 - 05:10 PM

Missing from the equation is our propensity to have a strong running game as well, but none of this should be of any surprise. It's the smart way to consistently make it to the tournament and there's not going to be any huge shift in the equation. This season's offensive failures can be attributed more to winning the SB than the Ravens' philosophy on building a team. The need to replace so many starters on D in one off season tilted the scales, but they will make room and the needed moves to get the O in shape.

 

Bottom line, we're never going to try to become a fantasy point factory.


  • 1

Dragonfly...... a TD waitin' to happen!


#10 T3hRaven

T3hRaven

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,390 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:King's Landing

Posted 22 January 2014 - 05:19 PM

I'm not sure about that. Two of the four teams that played this past weekend were in the bottom four in passing offense, but had top five defenses and top five run games. I think that a run game and a defense can still win as long as you limit turnovers and maximize TOP. Just look at the Seahawks and 49ers. 

 

Talk to me in a few years about those teams.  When you have your QB on a cheap rookie deal, the economics are quite different, and that's the situation those teams are in.  They're exceptions to the rule, and in the case of the 49ers and Seahawks they are absolutely stacked at almost every position, especially the 49ers.  One paper, the 49ers are the most complete team in football.


  • 3

#11 Ravenseconbeast

Ravenseconbeast

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,416 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gaithersburg

Posted 22 January 2014 - 05:21 PM

Arnie, you basically nailed it my man
  • 0




#12 Jokerraven

Jokerraven

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 947 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Ocean City maryland

Posted 22 January 2014 - 05:31 PM

This was a post on RSR in discussing the OC candidates and wether a change in philosophy is necessary and if harbs will sign off on it. It's a great post, well thought out and throws a spanner in the works in everything I have thought about harbaugh. What's your opinions.


Is it possible that the decision to play sound, running-based football is an organization-wide decision, ie it comes down from Ozzie? Because we're into about year 15 of having mediocre offense, while generally having good football teams, and I wonder if it's part of an organizational plan. The theory goes like this:



  • In the salary cap era, it is impossible to keep a good team together
  • Offensive players generally are paid more than defensive players
  • Therefore, there is a market inefficiency. It is cheaper to build an excellent defense than to build an excellent offense
  • But you can still compete for the division and advance to the conf title game if you guild a great defense
  • So, year over year we will strive to keep our defense strong, while only paying the dollars we must to sustain a mid-level offense
Honestly, this would explain SO MUCH about what we've seen from the organization over the years. It's plausible, in the sense that the theory emphasizes Ozzie's "value" oriented approach. Ozzie is like the Warren Buffet of NFL GM's, he's obsessed with value; and defensive players generally command less on the market than comparable offensive players. I mean, there are highly paid defenders – we have some on the roster right now – but around the league, the highest-paid offensive player makes more than the highest-paid defensive player, and the second-highest-paid offensive player makes more than the second-highest paid defensive player, etc. So if you're a "value" investor, it would make sense to choose to build a perennial defensive powerhouse, and try to scrape by on the more expensive side of the ball.

An organization that builds the best offense it can and tries to scrape by on the defensive side of ball, would field teams that look like the Manning-era Indy teams. The opposite kind of organization would look like the Ravens.

If any of that is true, than it would mean that fans on this board are right about offensive coordinators being sort of "shackled"; but wrong about who to blame for it. It would mean that Harbaugh bought into an organization-wide "profile" for how to consistently field winning teams, probably bought into it rather enthusiastically because (a) that's how he is anyway, and ( B) it fits in with his deepest beliefs about football going back to his early years, and © he understands the implications of the salary cap.

The big contracts given to Ray Rice and to Flacco, and I guess an upcoming one to be given to Torrey Smith, would represent seismic shifts in the way the organization does business. And there should be some growing pains; we don't entirely know how to do it yet.

Am I blowing smoke here? Or is it possible there's something to it?

 

thanks for sharing. I think your dead on it explains allot esp. the wide receivers we tend to draft and how we always seem to be flush with good defensive players . It also explains why the transition to being high octane offense is not going so well . Change is never easy especially one as drastic as this.

RSR does produce some thought provoking accurate articles even if the writers are fans .


  • 0

#13 JoeyFlex5

JoeyFlex5

    Pro Bowler

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,001 posts

Posted 22 January 2014 - 05:36 PM

this is an incredible thought, and ozzie may have been thinking like that the past 18 years, but i think that ship has sailed considering you cant win big time in the nfl without a big time qb, which commands alot of money(unless theyre still under their rookie contracts, joe flacco, russell wilson)


  • 0

#14 Ravensfan23

Ravensfan23

    Hall of Famer

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,764 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baltimore

Posted 22 January 2014 - 05:41 PM

Great post. This is why I struggle with the whole, Harbs offense thing. The offense hasn't changed since we've had a team so how is it Harbs philosphy? Harbs just adopted it organizational model of the Ravens Way of doing things. I've said for a while that we need a newer appoarch to the Ravens Way on offense. It's nothing wrong with being a physical run team and great defense, but you finally have the QB you've always wanted and you have to allow the offense to grow with the times. Now I'm not saying become pass happy, but you gotta have a OC who is bold enough to be creative and that's why I think this decision is so important.

I actually think it's Mr B who wants this team to run through Flacco on offense the most, but he's not gonna meddle in what Ozzie and company do.
  • 0
Posted Image

#15 Hey Diddle

Hey Diddle

    Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts

Posted 22 January 2014 - 05:45 PM

This is the reason I have taken the Ravens D the last 7 years in fantasy!  I love the D, and run approach by Ozzie, which is why I strongly think signing Jimmy Smith this off-season before he blows up next year is huge for us, more important they signing Torrey.  Plus Richard Sherman is a free agent next year and is really going to inflate the "value" for CB's.  We have to deal with AJ, Josh, an Brown twice a year, we need Jimmy!


  • 0

#16 RavensIQ13

RavensIQ13

    Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 92 posts

Posted 22 January 2014 - 06:14 PM

I think it boils down to this:

 

In order to have a successful offense you have to have a successful quarterback. Because we struggled for many years to find that quarterback we relied on the run game to make up the slack. That's why the emphasis has been so run centric over the years. I think in todays NFL, Ozzie would take a top 5 passing offense over a top 5 rushing offense every time, because with the air attack comes points and that's all that matters at the end of the day. I don't see a correlation with spending money a particular way. I think Ozzie has proven he isn't opposed to paying one side of the ball over the other. He pays good players. Bottom line.


Edited by RavensIQ13, 22 January 2014 - 06:16 PM.

  • 0




#17 arnie_uk

arnie_uk

    Like a Boss!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,186 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 January 2014 - 06:26 PM

Just to point out, this wasn't my thought, someone else posted this and I am only sharing it. I was of the blame harbs line of thinking
  • 0

#18 5aiah

5aiah

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 976 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charm City

Posted 22 January 2014 - 06:46 PM

The few fans who I've discussed this with agree that it isn't just the head coach either but our particular way of building and running the team. That's spearheaded by Ozzie and Bisciotti too. This is actually the first I'm hearing of people solely blaming Harbs. Even though we ran a different offense before he came, "The Ravens Way" was in place long before he got here. It isn't about a particular offensive scheme but a philosophy that comes down from the top. The head coach isn't at the top in our case, he just has a seat at the table. You get different offensive coordinators or head coaches and they will still have to deal/struggle with our philosophy. Its won us 2 Super bowls in 13 years so it has something to it. 

 

We had a discussion on this a while back but it was back when we just missed the playoffs so people were busy running around with their heads cut off.


Edited by 5aiah, 22 January 2014 - 06:50 PM.

  • 0

#19 Gordo52

Gordo52

    52 G.O.A.T.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,476 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Mind

Posted 22 January 2014 - 07:07 PM

That's why the best teams happen to be the best at drafting. Having an explosive QB/RB/WR/TE that gets paid rookie salary, while putting more money on the defense is key to long term success. The better you are at drafting in the later rounds the less amount of money you have to pay, underpaid rookies, which helps even more.

Look at the Seahawks defense and what Russel Wilson gets paid. If Wilson commanded that big contract of course other parts of the team will suffer in place. Doesn't have to be drastic but it does affect who you can resign down the road for long term contracts. 1 year veteran deals are important in that logic also. Ozzie loves making those moves and it's important to hit on those, which he does. Also doesn't affect comp picks most the time which is another reason to not sign RFA's or first year FA's.

I hope I'm making sense I've been working 12 hours so excuse my wording. I agree with the philosophy.
  • 0
2dc45a6e-0473-4d16-b247-f9f9608f28d3_zps

#20 Robbo15

Robbo15

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 725 posts

Posted 22 January 2014 - 08:00 PM

This was a post on RSR in discussing the OC candidates and wether a change in philosophy is necessary and if harbs will sign off on it. It's a great post, well thought out and throws a spanner in the works in everything I have thought about harbaugh. What's your opinions.


Is it possible that the decision to play sound, running-based football is an organization-wide decision, ie it comes down from Ozzie? Because we're into about year 15 of having mediocre offense, while generally having good football teams, and I wonder if it's part of an organizational plan. The theory goes like this:

  • In the salary cap era, it is impossible to keep a good team together
  • Offensive players generally are paid more than defensive players
  • Therefore, there is a market inefficiency. It is cheaper to build an excellent defense than to build an excellent offense
  • But you can still compete for the division and advance to the conf title game if you guild a great defense
  • So, year over year we will strive to keep our defense strong, while only paying the dollars we must to sustain a mid-level offense
Honestly, this would explain SO MUCH about what we've seen from the organization over the years. It's plausible, in the sense that the theory emphasizes Ozzie's "value" oriented approach. Ozzie is like the Warren Buffet of NFL GM's, he's obsessed with value; and defensive players generally command less on the market than comparable offensive players. I mean, there are highly paid defenders – we have some on the roster right now – but around the league, the highest-paid offensive player makes more than the highest-paid defensive player, and the second-highest-paid offensive player makes more than the second-highest paid defensive player, etc. So if you're a "value" investor, it would make sense to choose to build a perennial defensive powerhouse, and try to scrape by on the more expensive side of the ball.

An organization that builds the best offense it can and tries to scrape by on the defensive side of ball, would field teams that look like the Manning-era Indy teams. The opposite kind of organization would look like the Ravens.

If any of that is true, than it would mean that fans on this board are right about offensive coordinators being sort of "shackled"; but wrong about who to blame for it. It would mean that Harbaugh bought into an organization-wide "profile" for how to consistently field winning teams, probably bought into it rather enthusiastically because (a) that's how he is anyway, and (B) it fits in with his deepest beliefs about football going back to his early years, and © he understands the implications of the salary cap.

The big contracts given to Ray Rice and to Flacco, and I guess an upcoming one to be given to Torrey Smith, would represent seismic shifts in the way the organization does business. And there should be some growing pains; we don't entirely know how to do it yet.

Am I blowing smoke here? Or is it possible there's something to it?
seems like you're on to something thinking about it it has to be true The "Ravens way" this might be what there referring to ?
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users