Is Harbaugh on the Hot Seat Yet

[GrimCoconut]

11 hours ago, rossihunter2 said:

nope - ozzie is going nowhere and neither is eric - if anyone goes it will be harbaugh (and even then i dont think that's as likely as everyone here seems to think)

This would also normally be my response but are you really sure? Ozzie hasn't drafted a CB high in years despite it being a problem for years and his OLB haven't worked out except maybe Judon and if I'm Steve I'm at least thinking here because Steve has publicly mentioned getting a pass rusher high for seemingly years now 

[rossihunter2]

3 hours ago, GrimCoconut said:

This would also normally be my response but are you really sure? Ozzie hasn't drafted a CB high in years despite it being a problem for years and his OLB haven't worked out except maybe Judon and if I'm Steve I'm at least thinking here because Steve has publicly mentioned getting a pass rusher high for seemingly years now 

Steve is also someone who doesn't smother his staff - yes he'd like a pass rusher but not if the process doesn't point that way - I think the entire staff and front office would like a pass rusher too but they're not gonna reach for one and Steve wouldn't want them to - it's a method that hasn't really changed since the Ravens began and Steve won't want it to just to take one position high 

[GrimCoconut]

2 hours ago, rossihunter2 said:

Steve is also someone who doesn't smother his staff - yes he'd like a pass rusher but not if the process doesn't point that way - I think the entire staff and front office would like a pass rusher too but they're not gonna reach for one and Steve wouldn't want them to - it's a method that hasn't really changed since the Ravens began and Steve won't want it to just to take one position high 

Right but when the owner sees a problem that's never really fixed after years or talented that is brought in to fix it never succeeds then that reflects on the GM and makes him liable 

[rossihunter2]

5 hours ago, GrimCoconut said:

Right but when the owner sees a problem that's never really fixed after years or talented that is brought in to fix it never succeeds then that reflects on the GM and makes him liable 

As Steve said himself though, if he were a less patient man, he probably would have fired both Ozzie and Eric by now which isn't the kind of ownership situation that solves any problem

[GrimCoconut]

8 minutes ago, rossihunter2 said:

As Steve said himself though, if he were a less patient man, he probably would have fired both Ozzie and Eric by now which isn't the kind of ownership situation that solves any problem

Yeah I don't disagree. I just think if you want to cast blame at Harbaugh you have to also cast as much blame on those bringing in the talent aka Ozzie and Eric.

Edited January 6 by GrimCoconut

[Steve0x]

I cant believe Harbaugh and Pees are still here. 

[rossihunter2]

7 minutes ago, Steve0x said:

I cant believe Harbaugh and Pees are still here. 

What tangible reason is there for either of them not to be?

[allblackraven]

15 minutes ago, rossihunter2 said:

What tangible reason is there for either of them not to be?

Our boys are watching the playoff from home? Again.

[rossihunter2]

2 hours ago, allblackraven said:

Our boys are watching the playoff from home? Again.

if those were the reasons to fire coaches then 24 head coaches would be fired every year

[PurpleCity5]

4 hours ago, GrimCoconut said:

Yeah I don't disagree. I just think if you want to cast blame at Harbaugh you have to also cast as much blame on those bringing in the talent aka Ozzie and Eric.

In my opinion, It's easy to blame the both of them but to be honest, when evaluating the team and what they went through, I honestly have to say that Ozzie and Eric put together a good team. 

Offensively there's no reason the team should have played like that. Talent wise this offense is better than the 2014 offense yet the 2014 unit outperforms them by miles. It's not even a joke in terms of how disappointing this offense was even. Lots of resources allocated to TE and what did we get from that position? Not a lot. They did a great job filling in LT, and the WRs group was a downfall as well but the team didn't put guys like Perriman and Wallace in spots to succeed. Blown opportunities in utilizing the both of them. 

Injuries to the defense ruined what was once a top D in the league through the first half of the year. Add in the jump with the turnover numbers and I easily think this unit could have been much better had they not suffered the loss of Jimmy. 

Of course CB was a need, but didn't this secondary rank as one of the best in the league this year with Jimmy? I think the missing element was obviously #2 CB. In terms of a pass rush, totally agree, nothing to say there. 

Not disagreeing with you but I think Harbaugh is a bit more liable than those two. 

Definitely think those two deserve some blame, but the loss against New York and Washington doesn't look good on Harbaugh's resume. Both games should've been won and had they been won the Ravens would be in the playoffs. 

 

[Steve0x]

4 hours ago, rossihunter2 said:

What tangible reason is there for either of them not to be?

Missing playoffs 3 out of 4 seasons is unacceptable for our franchise.  

[usmccharles]

38 minutes ago, Steve0x said:

Missing playoffs 3 out of 4 seasons is unacceptable for our franchise.  

You mean....missed the playoffs 3 out 9 years?  yea, terrible

[frozen joe flacco fan]

On ‎1‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 9:28 AM, rmcjacket23 said:

I don't think you really understand what BPA is though and how we use it...

In reality, we use a BPA strategy based on a draft board that is assembled to reflect positions that we would like to upgrade. If we were using a true "BPA" strategy, then if the best player on our board in round 1 is a QB, we would take that player, regardless of whether we need a QB, which we don't. It would be the equivalent of us taking the best LT in the draft next year in round 1. 

You assemble a draft board to address multiple positions that you would like to address, and then you take the highest rated player on your board among those positions. In almost every season, the position list is quite lengthy, so we have maybe 4-5 positions or more that we could draft a player at.

Its also funny that when people knock the BPA strategy they do so ONLY by selectively choosing picks they didn't like or didn't work out. 

If Art Brown was a "need pick", then CJ Mosley was also. How do we know this? Well MLB was certainly a position we needed when we drafted him. In fact, the FO told us in the offseason prior to the draft that they would be upgrading the MLB position that offseason. So are you saying that Mosley was BPA and Brown was a "need"?

I mean this isn't rocket science guys. By the time the draft comes around, I and everybody else on these boards will likely be able to tell you the 4-5 positions that our first round pick will come from. It won't be a QB and it won't be a LT. Last year the positions everybody thought our first round pick would come from was LT, Corner, WR or pass rusher. We pretty much knew that going in. And guess what... we drafted one of those players.

The problem I think fans have is that they don't understand that taking the BPA doesn't mean you're taking a good player everytime. Every single NFL team rates a player highly on draft day and whiffs on that player on an annual basis. Every single one of them, every single year.

Fan logic when it comes to the draft:

Good pick = we used BPA

Bad pick = we reached for need

The reality is that you can make a BPA pick that doesn't pan out.

 

I agree with your take on how the BPA approach to the Draft is intended to work. Obviously, it would not make sense to use it as a strategy by itself without first establishing a hierarchy of needs for the team. Overall, the Ravens track record in the draft has been moderately successful over the long haul. However, the reality is that our most recent drafts have been less successful than they have been in the past. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. My problem with our draft strategy is that it seems that we are bypassing a lot of BPA players b/c the FO and the coaching staff apparently cannot agree on the hierarchy of needs. For instance, we are now four years removed from the Super Bowl and we have not drafted a top-notch CB to complement Jimmy Smith. Will it be Tavon Young? I doubt it. We haven't drafted a suitable replacement for Ed Reed either. Is it Matt Elam? Nope! Some of the O-linemen we have drafted are absolutely terrible. James Hurst was recently rated as the worst O-lineman in the NFL. No matter how it is intended to work, there is further evidence that our BPA strategy is not working as intended. Many of our draft picks who have become free agents have not panned out for their new teams. I hear many Ravens fans comment on that repeatedly on this blog. So, were they successful draft picks for the Ravens? Also, if one takes an objective look at our roster lately, one must conclude that several of our better players have come to us by way of FA. In summary, one could also conclude that the track record of "The Great and Powerful Wizard of Oz" is not as stellar as it should be, given his awesome reputation in the draft. 

However, I do take exception to your last sentence and here's why. The reality is that if the BPA pick doesn't pan out, he may not really be the BPA, assuming he's not injured like BP was. In other words, we cannot afford to miss on draft picks that are so important to the lifeblood of the team. Hindsight is always 20-20. I get it, but I think the real problem lies in the effectiveness of our college scouting, including the combine, and the organization's apparent inability to reach a consensus on the hierarchy of needs. Is Harbaugh on the hot seat yet? IDK but if he's not a part of the solution then he's part of the problem.

[Sherly_Tebow]

47 minutes ago, usmccharles said:

You mean....missed the playoffs 3 out 9 years?  yea, terrible

It's all about perspective. 6 or 9 isn't bad. Plus each of those 6, we won at least 1 playoff game. And we're a few plays away from appearing in more than 1 superbowl. Sure we haven't played to what we should, but I believe in Harbaugh as our couch moving forward.

[usmccharles]

Just now, Sherly_Tebow said:

It's all about perspective. 6 or 9 isn't bad. Plus each of those 6, we won at least 1 playoff game. And we're a few plays away from appearing in more than 1 superbowl. Sure we haven't played to what we should, but I believe in Harbaugh as our couch moving forward.

Yea im with you, ive been a supporter of his.  People like to bend facts to fit their own narrative.  In 9 years he has 10 playoff wins and a record of 85-59....

[frozen joe flacco fan]

4 minutes ago, Sherly_Tebow said:

It's all about perspective. 6 or 9 isn't bad. Plus each of those 6, we won at least 1 playoff game. And we're a few plays away from appearing in more than 1 superbowl. Sure we haven't played to what we should, but I believe in Harbaugh as our couch moving forward.

LOL. You believe in Harbaugh as our couch(sp) moving forward. Was that a Freudian slip or just a faux pas? 6 out of 9 isn't bad. You're right about that but 8 out of 8 is better. That's what Green Bay and NE have now done

[frozen joe flacco fan]

4 minutes ago, usmccharles said:

Yea im with you, ive been a supporter of his.  People like to bend facts to fit their own narrative.  In 9 years he has 10 playoff wins and a record of 85-59....

What is his regular season record for the last 4 years?

[Moderator 2]

Honestly I think the coaches got mulligan last year 20 ish on IR including QB, I thought butts would be hotter then they seem to be this year-- then again Mr. B tends away from drama in the Media.  I think the early firings of 3 head coaches plus the medically retirement of another plus the other two vacancies shows it may be a meh for the new best thing in coaching.

[Sherly_Tebow]

34 minutes ago, frozen joe flacco fan said:

LOL. You believe in Harbaugh as our couch(sp) moving forward. Was that a Freudian slip or just a faux pas? 6 out of 9 isn't bad. You're right about that but 8 out of 8 is better. That's what Green Bay and NE have now done

Good for them. I guarentee almost every team in the league would settle for six cracks at a superbowl out of 9 years. The Ravens need to do better, and firing Harbs won't be the way to do that in my personal opinion.

Edited January 7 by Sherly_Tebow

[usmccharles]

54 minutes ago, frozen joe flacco fan said:

LOL. You believe in Harbaugh as our couch(sp) moving forward. Was that a Freudian slip or just a faux pas? 6 out of 9 isn't bad. You're right about that but 8 out of 8 is better. That's what Green Bay and NE have now done

My couch has very good back support with beer holders,  so yea,  pretty happy.  Good for them,  we aren't them.   Green Bay has had two hof QBs since we've became a franchise.  They should be in the playoffs every year.  But keep comparing your success to others together than the capabilities of what you have,  you will always be disappointed. Always.   

[ellicottraven]

1 hour ago, Moderator 2 said:

Honestly I think the coaches got mulligan last year 20 ish on IR including QB, I thought butts would be hotter then they seem to be this year-- then again Mr. B tends away from drama in the Media.  I think the early firings of 3 head coaches plus the medically retirement of another plus the other two vacancies shows it may be a meh for the new best thing in coaching.

I'm pretty certain the league wide coaching vacancies and the limited availability of HC candidates played into the decision to stay pat for the year and give Harbaugh another chance. However, I wouldn't be shocked if Harbaugh and gang become a mid-season casualty if they start off really slow and lose against beatable teams. I think the rope just got small for Harbaugh this year.

Edited January 7 by ellicottraven

[RayRayRaven]

On ‎1‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 8:37 PM, usmccharles said:

Right.....playoffs every year.  One win in the playoffs each year, a superbowl.  Pretty pathetic

as long as harball has enablers that believe he was a great coach in the early  years and will accept losing with our current players he'll be safe. its sad to watch.  we have fallen so far from the great period when we had playmakers and a mediocre coach. now we don't have playmakers and our coach is still mediocre at best

[RayRayRaven]

6 hours ago, frozen joe flacco fan said:

LOL. You believe in Harbaugh as our couch(sp) moving forward. Was that a Freudian slip or just a faux pas? 6 out of 9 isn't bad. You're right about that but 8 out of 8 is better. That's what Green Bay and NE have now done

my expectations are high. missing 3 out of 4 and waving the surrender flag vs a beat down Bengals team is too much to take. the camels back is done broken

[rmcjacket23]

8 hours ago, Moderator 2 said:

Honestly I think the coaches got mulligan last year 20 ish on IR including QB, I thought butts would be hotter then they seem to be this year-- then again Mr. B tends away from drama in the Media.  I think the early firings of 3 head coaches plus the medically retirement of another plus the other two vacancies shows it may be a meh for the new best thing in coaching.

Maybe. The problem is we didn't start the year with 20 guys on IR... we played almost half a season being reasonably healthy by NFL standards. And I believe we were like 2-6 or 1-7 during that stretch. Last year was the biggest sign of what we saw a lot of this year... not a talented enough roster. 

And so I think ownership realizes that a coaching change won't accomplish anything until there's a large talent infusion on the roster. We infused some talent at some areas this season which led to us being a better team than the year prior, but it takes a lot more than just one offseason to improve a roster in the way we need to.

If after 2-3 years of talent infusions there's no significant growth in terms of on-field success, then yes the coaching staff typically comes under fire.

[rmcjacket23]

8 hours ago, frozen joe flacco fan said:

What is his regular season record for the last 4 years?

31-33, so basically right at average.

I suppose fans could argue that being "average" isn't good enough, which I'd agree with, but while its possible we could be better, its also possible we could be significantly worse from a record standpoint.

And there enlies the risk.

[rmcjacket23]

9 hours ago, frozen joe flacco fan said:

I agree with your take on how the BPA approach to the Draft is intended to work. Obviously, it would not make sense to use it as a strategy by itself without first establishing a hierarchy of needs for the team. Overall, the Ravens track record in the draft has been moderately successful over the long haul. However, the reality is that our most recent drafts have been less successful than they have been in the past. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. My problem with our draft strategy is that it seems that we are bypassing a lot of BPA players b/c the FO and the coaching staff apparently cannot agree on the hierarchy of needs. For instance, we are now four years removed from the Super Bowl and we have not drafted a top-notch CB to complement Jimmy Smith. Will it be Tavon Young? I doubt it. We haven't drafted a suitable replacement for Ed Reed either. Is it Matt Elam? Nope! Some of the O-linemen we have drafted are absolutely terrible. James Hurst was recently rated as the worst O-lineman in the NFL. No matter how it is intended to work, there is further evidence that our BPA strategy is not working as intended. Many of our draft picks who have become free agents have not panned out for their new teams. I hear many Ravens fans comment on that repeatedly on this blog. So, were they successful draft picks for the Ravens? Also, if one takes an objective look at our roster lately, one must conclude that several of our better players have come to us by way of FA. In summary, one could also conclude that the track record of "The Great and Powerful Wizard of Oz" is not as stellar as it should be, given his awesome reputation in the draft. 

However, I do take exception to your last sentence and here's why. The reality is that if the BPA pick doesn't pan out, he may not really be the BPA, assuming he's not injured like BP was. In other words, we cannot afford to miss on draft picks that are so important to the lifeblood of the team. Hindsight is always 20-20. I get it, but I think the real problem lies in the effectiveness of our college scouting, including the combine, and the organization's apparent inability to reach a consensus on the hierarchy of needs. Is Harbaugh on the hot seat yet? IDK but if he's not a part of the solution then he's part of the problem.

Couple of problems I have with this...

1. I have no issue not using a high draft pick on a corner recently. For starters, if there's one thing we know about that position specifically, its basically a coin toss in the draft. You've got 1st rounders who are studs and 1st rounders who are absolutely terrible drafted in the same year. There's more than one way to get good corners. Developing mid-rounders into good players is one way, which is something we've done, and being able to spend decent money in FA on one is another. I'm not even saying you have to spend top dollar for an "elite" corner, but willing to spend more than $2-3M a year on a FA corner would help.

2. I think fans view some of these draft picks as "replacements" for older players isn't really accurate often. For example, Matt Elam was never drafted to replace Ed Reed, largely because they don't even have the same skill sets or would have been asked to fill the same role. Elam was always more of a "box" safety, playing more of the Bernard Pollard role. If people recall, we lost our entire safety group after 2012, not just Ed Reed. So we didn't just need one safety, we needed two. We drafted Elam, and he didn't pan out, just like Huff didn't pan out.

3. I definitely don't think reaching a quality hierarchy of needs is an issue, because fans rarely complain about the positions we actually address with our high draft picks. The issue is with the execution of the draft picks, the talent evaluation, and in many ways, just some of the poor quality of college players coming out at certain positions.

Just adjusting the hierarchy doesn't change anything if you're not getting a quality player. We could have taken 3 corners in the 1st round in the last 5 years, but if one or two of them suck, what are we accomplishing?

[K-Dog]

9 hours ago, usmccharles said:

My couch has very good back support with beer holders,  so yea,  pretty happy.  Good for them,  we aren't them.   Green Bay has had two hof QBs since we've became a franchise.  They should be in the playoffs every year.  But keep comparing your success to others together than the capabilities of what you have,  you will always be disappointed. Always.   

The comparison game really is silly.

Browns, Bills,  Eagles would love some of the titles we hold.

That said if you do want to play the compare game, there are far more teams that we are better than in the past 10-20 years than teams that are better than us.

[HoldingCall]

Is John on the hot seat? I don't believe he is nor should be. I think Joe Flacco may be more on that seat. At this point, there is nothing much the FO can do about it. Think how Joe out manuvered them on his contract then hasn't delivered the expected results. John didn't take credit for Flacco's hot playoff run nor his huge contract. He shouldn't be blamed for Joe's return to who he was before the streak. 

I am not saying the present state of not going to the playoffs is Joe's fault. After all, they missed playoffs by just 9 seconds (so close). But I am saying that the team isn't what it is suppose to be and Joe's play has a something to do with it. 

 

[Steve0x]

14 hours ago, usmccharles said:

You mean....missed the playoffs 3 out 9 years?  yea, terrible

Well the last 4 years only made 1 playoff game. Thats terrible in my book 

Edited January 7 by Steve0x

[ellicottraven]

1 hour ago, Steve0x said:

Well the last 4 years only made 1 playoff game. Thats terrible in my book 

If only you were Steve Bisciotti and not @Steveox we wouldn't be having this conversation. They would be gone!

Edited January 7 by ellicottraven