Archived

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

davy_861

Do the Ravens utilize gadget plays enough?

97 posts in this topic

Gadget plays have a high risk over reward ratio. Do the ravens have the personnel to try at least one a game? Who are good gadget players on the team? Will Kubiak bring more excitement to the offense in this manner?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They did some gadget plays when they brought Tyrod into the game and lined Joe up as a WR against Pittsburgh. Flaccos arm strength could be used on some flea flickers.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gadget plays have a high risk over reward ratio. Do the ravens have the personnel to try at least one a game? Who are good gadget players on the team? Will Kubiak bring more excitement to the offense in this manner?

I think the Ravens just want a consistently good offense.  So they're more worried about that, than a "gagdet offense."

Some could say they've tried, but I don't agree.  The whole point is to catch the defense off-guard.  Anytime they've put in a back-up QB.... it was an automatic running play.  There wasn't even an attempt to sell a pass.  So really, it was pointless.

The occassional flea-flicker has worked, and I can see that still being a part of the playbook.

You asked if they have the personnel to run that?  Well, I don't know... but in my opinion they have the personnel to have a good offense in the NFL.  I don't think they deserve any excuses.  They should be performing better than they have been.  Scoring more points, and possessing the ball much more than their opponent.  If this doesn't happen, I hope I don't hear "it was the first year in a new offense" excuses.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We tried some with Tyrod but Joe refused to run a 9 route to draw the CB away from the box. I guess he's fine with being paid.

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't mind seeing some gadget plays used. Obviously, it has to be the right situation to call a gadget play, but that is one thing I've always wanted to see more out of the Ravens. One play that comes to mind is in a goal-line situation, load up with blockers and Crocket Gilmore. Pitch/handoff to the strong side and have Gilmore leave his block after a second or two and run into the end zone for a HB Pass. I think something small like that could possibly work once or maybe twice. 

 

This is a perfect example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW6_SJJfjCU

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't mind seeing some gadget plays used. Obviously, it has to be the right situation to call a gadget play, but that is one thing I've always wanted to see more out of the Ravens. One play that comes to mind is in a goal-line situation, load up with blockers and Crocket Gilmore. Pitch/handoff to the strong side and have Gilmore leave his block after a second or two and run into the end zone for a HB Pass. I think something small like that could possibly work once or maybe twice. 

 

This is a perfect example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW6_SJJfjCU

 

Truthfully, I think we should make a conscious effort to run one, maybe two, every single week as a throwaway play. Just to plant the seed and keep defenses on their toes -- not to actually rely on it for anything

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He doesn't like being taken from under center. He has a point - the problem with the offense wasn't him. Why should he be the one who loses snaps?

 

why??

 

maybe because it could help the team?

 

doesent seem like a team first mentality if you put it that way lol

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good offense doesn't need gadgets. That's like saying the US didn't need a nuclear bomb in ww2, or better yet, were so good we refuse to try different things. We want the opponent to know our every move because we are so great --no deception or trickery=boring  

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, OP, are you going to participate in the discussion or are you just gathering opinions?

I will participate.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We could run Joe out as a WR couple times a game. That what you're thinking?

A "trick play" 3~4 times a year...no problem.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We tried some with Tyrod but Joe refused to run a 9 route to draw the CB away from the box. I guess he's fine with being paid.

As far as I remember, The Coaches were the ones who told Joe dont run the 9 route. I remember Ben geting mad at Pittsburgh staff when they told him to line up at WR. Since he's not Joe Flacco, so He didn't get much flack for it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We could run Joe out as a WR couple times a game. That what you're thinking?

A "trick play" 3~4 times a year...no problem.

You don't have to take Joe away from center to run a gadget play
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why??

 

maybe because it could help the team?

 

doesent seem like a team first mentality if you put it that way lol

I don't think using guys in a manner out of their element helps the team; if Ngata can play TE, great, but that doesn't mean we should expect Flacco to run routes.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I remember, The Coaches were the ones who told Joe dont run the 9 route.

I'm not 100% sure, but I could have sworn it was Joe who made the choice. Could be wrong though

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am all for some more trick plays, but Joe lining up at wide receiver is just a silly trick play. The defense already knows a trick is coming before we even snap the ball. We have to conceive the play better, and look like we are running a normal play. I was never a fan of Flacco lining up at WR. Kubiak can (hopefully) come up with some better trick plays than that.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think using guys in a manner out of their element helps the team; if Ngata can play TE, great, but that doesn't mean we should expect Flacco to run routes.

Flacco running routes huh. Can you even identify gadget players. I asked that question. I didn't mention anything about hurting big JOE or putting NGATA at TE. Were the Cowboys afraid to put DEION SANDERS at WR?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not 100% sure, but I could have sworn it was Joe who made the choice. Could be wrong though

Hmmm maybe it was an option route and Joe elected not to run the route. I remember hearing the interview, i'll have to go back and look.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think using guys in a manner out of their element helps the team; if Ngata can play TE, great, but that doesn't mean we should expect Flacco to run routes.

Please don't remind me, I was fuming because Ngata sprained his MCL being lined up on offense. I wanted to kick the coaching staff in their collective throats. Good thing most of them are gone now :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please don't remind me, I was fuming because Ngata sprained his MCL being lined up on offense. I wanted to kick the coaching staff in their collective throats. Good thing most of them are gone now :)

So true

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I remember, The Coaches were the ones who told Joe dont run the 9 route. I remember Ben geting mad at Pittsburgh staff when they told him to line up at WR. Since he's not Joe Flacco, so He didn't get much flack for it.

I made up the 9 route part because it would be silly to watch Joe running it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I made up the 9 route part because it would be silly to watch Joe running it.

Tyrod to Flacco @ OAK in 2008! It was very silly, but that's what made it entertaining!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tyrod to Flacco @ OAK in 2008! It was very silly, but that's what made it entertaining!

It was Troy smith. Tyrod wasn't a pro then
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites