The Good, Bad and Awful week 2 vs Browns.

[Ravensfan23]

4 hours ago, January J said:

Yes Young has. I'd say he has certainly exceeded expectations. Not sure what to expect from powers. Reports were he was lighting it up in camp- but we all witnessed him get burnt in preseason on several occasions. Maybe he was playing through a nagging injury or somethin- but that cant always be an excuse. The jags will definitely be the biggest test for our secondary so far. We will have our hands full that's for sure. But either way I like the idea of bringing in Davis on third down in obvious passing situations.

I will say about powers in the preseason, Harbs said they put him in a few difficult situations. So we'll see. 

[Filmstudy]

6 hours ago, redrum52 said:

Was just watching the coach film because I wanted to key in in Jimmy.  As I got to the 4th I realized I didn't think I had seen any plays made on the slot guy.  Young did an incredible job in the and I realized when Jimmy is man against his guys, qbs don't even seem to look his way most the time.

This.

I just did a piece on Young:

http://russellstreetreport.com/2016/09/22/filmstudy/tavon-young-vs-browns/

It's got the results in tabular form which make it really easy to follow with Game Pass (<15 min).  

[FlocksGottaFeed]

On 9/18/2016 at 8:48 PM, 4everraven said:

Yep, photo-shopped without question.

Thanks. Glad you got that in. Very mysterious how basic human anatomy can be ignored (half a foot and shadows that don't match-up anywhere in the known-universe) just to make conversation. I've taught industry professionals photoshop for years and that's definitely PhotoShopped.

[usmccharles]

1 hour ago, Filmstudy said:

This.

I just did a piece on Young:

http://russellstreetreport.com/2016/09/22/filmstudy/tavon-young-vs-browns/

It's got the results in tabular form which make it really easy to follow with Game Pass (<15 min).  

Have you don't any stats on how much a CB has been targeted, yard allowed, etc... I would be very interested to see those. 

[trevorsteadman]

On 9/22/2016 at 3:41 PM, Filmstudy said:

This.

I just did a piece on Young:

http://russellstreetreport.com/2016/09/22/filmstudy/tavon-young-vs-browns/

It's got the results in tabular form which make it really easy to follow with Game Pass (<15 min).  

I really enjoy your stats thank you for sharing your articles! Great insight we sometimes don't see during the live game all the time.

[Filmstudy]

On 9/22/2016 at 7:37 PM, usmccharles said:

Have you don't any stats on how much a CB has been targeted, yard allowed, etc... I would be very interested to see those. 

That's actually one of the more difficult things to assign (responsibility for targets), and to do it accurately I'd have to wait for the coaches video on Tuesday.  So I don't try to record it for the database, only when I'm looking at some DB for a single game or when a player has played a limited number of snaps over several games.

[Sami84]

tavon young = captain munnerlyn

 

 

[FlocksGottaFeed]

On 9/18/2016 at 8:50 PM, Cville-Raven said:

lol its not "photoshopped", its just zoomed and cropped. The image doesn't lie. 

Note: This is not a judgement call on the poster, photographer and/or anyone who disagrees with my professional assessment of these photos that suggest that Coleman's 1st NFL TD was not in bounds (bang-bang play). It's only to give light to how it could be easily seen as possibly photo-shopped.   

From the Joe Robbins Photographer Profile - "Was chief photographer at The Tribune, a daily newspaper in Seymour, Indiana, home of John Mellencamp. Mainly responsible for photographing news, sports, portraits and features as well as handling various advertising assignments. Extensive use of Photoshop with both Mac and PC computers."

This is common practice in sports journalism in photography, because of the speed of the game (aesthetically pleasing only). At 3 main factors call the shots into question: Shadows are from 2 different photo angles are pointing in opposite directions from the goal and goal line white chalk area is inconsistently 'too' white on foot close-up (plus - foot is abnormally cropped too deep).

 

No other NFL, sports media and/or journalism organization with the exception of 'Late for Work' (a mistake not a criticism) and here have referenced any objections to the 'reviewed' call so maybe it's a just mute-point. To add - the photographer himself hasn't proclaimed any objections to the reviewed call.

If it's just our wanting to balance the 'Pryor' call with this call - there's no reason. The Pryor call is clearly defined in the rules and even Cleveland is just calling it a 'teachable moment'. We came-back to win that game...period. Great plays by both teams. No added narratives needed. (neg away if so).

[JoeyFlex5]

4 hours ago, jkm5bmore said:

Note: This is not a judgement call on the poster, photographer and/or anyone who disagrees with my professional assessment of these photos that suggest that Coleman's 1st NFL TD was not in bounds (bang-bang play). It's only to give light to how it could be easily seen as possibly photo-shopped.   

From the Joe Robbins Photographer Profile - "Was chief photographer at The Tribune, a daily newspaper in Seymour, Indiana, home of John Mellencamp. Mainly responsible for photographing news, sports, portraits and features as well as handling various advertising assignments. Extensive use of Photoshop with both Mac and PC computers."

This is common practice in sports journalism in photography, because of the speed of the game (aesthetically pleasing only). At 3 main factors call the shots into question: Shadows are from 2 different photo angles are pointing in opposite directions from the goal and goal line white chalk area is inconsistently 'too' white on foot close-up (plus - foot is abnormally cropped too deep).

 

No other NFL, sports media and/or journalism organization with the exception of 'Late for Work' (a mistake not a criticism) and here have referenced any objections to the 'reviewed' call so maybe it's a just mute-point. To add - the photographer himself hasn't proclaimed any objections to the reviewed call.

If it's just our wanting to balance the 'Pryor' call with this call - there's no reason. The Pryor call is clearly defined in the rules and even Cleveland is just calling it a 'teachable moment'. We came-back to win that game...period. Great plays by both teams. No added narratives needed. (neg away if so).

thats not a shadow from his foot... thats from his shin/knee, which would explain why its to the left of his foot but the shadow begins far to the right of his knee, consistent with the angle of the shadows pointing to the goal line in every other picture. 

as far the arm extension.... thats not an argument whatsoever, those pictures are very clearly taken at different times/positions.pic 1 he appears to just be coming down with the ball, pic 2 his 2nd foot had just hit the ground(slightly out of bounds it appears, and confirmed by the 3rd pic) and in the 3rd pic you can see him go from extended right leg to trying to toe tap and tucks the ball further, but the toe tap is too little too late as it would be a 3rd foot down but the 2nd foot down was clearly out of bounds, since hes clearly going through motions from the 2nd to 3rd pic, obviously the arm extension means little or nothing in regards to it being photoshopped. 

i havent spoken on the matter of the non-overturning of this play yet, i could care less, the results were good for us in the end, im just giving my 2 cents on how i dont see it being photoshopped, at least not for those specific reasons.

[Cville-Raven]

4 hours ago, JoeyFlex5 said:

thats not a shadow from his foot... thats from his shin/knee, which would explain why its to the left of his foot but the shadow begins far to the right of his knee, consistent with the angle of the shadows pointing to the goal line in every other picture. 

as far the arm extension.... thats not an argument whatsoever, those pictures are very clearly taken at different times/positions.pic 1 he appears to just be coming down with the ball, pic 2 his 2nd foot had just hit the ground(slightly out of bounds it appears, and confirmed by the 3rd pic) and in the 3rd pic you can see him go from extended right leg to trying to toe tap and tucks the ball further, but the toe tap is too little too late as it would be a 3rd foot down but the 2nd foot down was clearly out of bounds, since hes clearly going through motions from the 2nd to 3rd pic, obviously the arm extension means little or nothing in regards to it being photoshopped. 

i havent spoken on the matter of the non-overturning of this play yet, i could care less, the results were good for us in the end, im just giving my 2 cents on how i dont see it being photoshopped, at least not for those specific reasons.

Yup

[GrimCoconut]

We're still talking last week when we won the game and have this week? 

Edited September 25, 2016 by GrimCoconut

[frozen joe flacco fan]

On ‎9‎/‎21‎/‎2016 at 3:12 AM, arnie_uk said:

seriously complaining about the refs after the taunting call?

No, I'm not complaining. I'm just sayin it looks like the zebras are finally giving the Ravens a fair shake on close calls. It was patently well obvious that we were not getting the benefit of the doubt on close calls after the Ray Rice domestic violence incident.That's all. That being said, the refs ought to be able to get a call right when a receiver has his foot on the end line of the end zone. That's just ridiculous in this day of sophisticated electronic surveillance cameras, etc. Personally, I like the way the refs are re-asserting control over the players this year. As far as I'm concerned, a team should never allow itself to be in a position to have a game decided by the officiating. Unfortunately, NFL games are often decided by a bad call by the officials. The taunting call is a case in point. It was an iffy call. But that's life. Fair is a place where you go to see horses, cows, pigs and sheep judged.