Questions you would like asked in presser.

[Virginia 55]

I know that a lot of the reporters don't ask the tough questions due to Harbaugh's tough responses.

But if you could ask any question during the presser what would it be? 

Hopefully they read this and realize we are sick of the company questions. 

 

My first question would have to be, in the last presser with Harbaugh,

Why reference the run game and you only attempted 10 runs? The only thing wrong with the run game is the ten attempts.

Edited November 5, 2016 by Virginia 55

[Moderator 3]

Is that a question?

[January J]

Its not about which question I want to ask but who I want to hear answers from. I'd love to hear several questions answered by bisciotti and Ozzie just to get a feel for where their heads are at and how they feel about the direction we're headed.

 

[FlocksGottaFeed]

How does it feel to win your 2nd Super Bowl after most people consistently counted your team out after the 1st one in the Super Dome?

[Maryland]

You can ask whatever question you want at the presser, but without some sodium pentothol (aka "truth serum") to get a straight answer, he's just going to say something like "that's a bad question" and move on, or answer your question obtusely like usual. 

So I'd ask a ton of questions related to recent drafts, like how high were they on player x, which players were they close to trading up for, which player did they really want who got sniped.

And I'd want to know how the interview process goes when they look for a new OC, like how did it go when they hired Trestman--how much input came from Ozzie, Steve, Flacco, etc., or was it mostly his decision. And I'd want to know if he thinks his control in selecting the future OC will be tempered by the Trestman fiasco.

Oh, and I'd ask about Flacco, like whether he really is hard to coach, and how much time does he put into studying the game and improving himself. Is he really a "9 to 5" QB as some have suggested? 

[The Raven]

14 hours ago, Virginia 55 said:

I know that a lot of the reporters don't ask the tough questions due to Harbaugh's tough responses.

But if you could ask any question during the presser what would it be? 

Hopefully they read this and realize we are sick of the company questions. 

 

My first question would have to be, in the last presser with Harbaugh,

Why ask about the run game and you only attempted 10 runs? The only thing wrong with the run game is the ten attempts.

It's amusing that you bring this up, because that question was asked in the Monday presser and the postgame presser.

It's like you make a concerted effort to be uninformed and ignorant of reality.

[Deflated Football]

I want to ask Steve when he is going to fire the medical/training staff. 

[usmccharles]

On ‎10‎/‎28‎/‎2016 at 8:23 PM, Maryland said:

You can ask whatever question you want at the presser, but without some sodium pentothol (aka "truth serum") to get a straight answer, he's just going to say something like "that's a bad question" and move on, or answer your question obtusely like usual. 

So I'd ask a ton of questions related to recent drafts, like how high were they on player x, which players were they close to trading up for, which player did they really want who got sniped.

And I'd want to know how the interview process goes when they look for a new OC, like how did it go when they hired Trestman--how much input came from Ozzie, Steve, Flacco, etc., or was it mostly his decision. And I'd want to know if he thinks his control in selecting the future OC will be tempered by the Trestman fiasco.

Oh, and I'd ask about Flacco, like whether he really is hard to coach, and how much time does he put into studying the game and improving himself. Is he really a "9 to 5" QB as some have suggested? 

Who has suggested that?

Sadly, we wont get any real answers

[Bandwagon]

Hi John Harbaugh, why are you so delusional?

[Maryland]

10 hours ago, usmccharles said:

Who has suggested that?

Sadly, we wont get any real answers

Vinny Cerrato I think. Pretty sure he is well-connected with Trestman after their days at San Fran, so perhaps that was Trestman's impression of Flacco spoken through Cerrato.

[kjbmore]

I'd like to know how much input Harbs has into this toothless roster 

also any idea when we're going to join the other teams in the modern era of football and starting picking some receivers and corners with high draft picks - no - once every 5 years is not adequate

[rmcjacket23]

On 10/28/2016 at 9:24 AM, Virginia 55 said:

I know that a lot of the reporters don't ask the tough questions due to Harbaugh's tough responses.

But if you could ask any question during the presser what would it be? 

Hopefully they read this and realize we are sick of the company questions. 

 

My first question would have to be, in the last presser with Harbaugh,

Why ask about the run game and you only attempted 10 runs? The only thing wrong with the run game is the ten attempts.

And I'd give you the Belichick treatment... its how every single coach should treat the press.

The press is going to write what they want anyway. They'll just take whatever you say and use it against you to push whatever their narrative of the day is.

I would smuggly and condescendingly just stare at you and say absolutely nothing, until you curled up in the fetal position and starting sucking your thumb.

And why would I do that if I were him? Because I'd know that I'm better than you at just about every possible aspect of life. And I'd make sure that you would know that by the time we left.

And I wouldn't have to say a word to accomplish it either. But hey, at least you got to ask the "tough" questions (which isn't a tough question at all... its called an obvious question).

OR... I could just be a jerk and point you in the direction of the Jets game, where we ran the ball 11 times for a whopping 11 yards. And then I'd laugh at your notion that running it more was going to yield better results, since that makes no sense whatsoever. 

Edited November 3, 2016 by rmcjacket23

[AsianRice]

How's your lunch?

[The Raven]

2 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

And I'd give you the Belichick treatment... its how every single coach should treat the press.

The press is going to write what they want anyway. They'll just take whatever you say and use it against you to push whatever their narrative of the day is.

I would smuggly and condescendingly just stare at you and say absolutely nothing, until you curled up in the fetal position and starting sucking your thumb.

And why would I do that if I were him? Because I'd know that I'm better than you at just about every possible aspect of life. And I'd make sure that you would know that by the time we left.

And I wouldn't have to say a word to accomplish it either. But hey, at least you got to ask the "tough" questions (which isn't a tough question at all... its called an obvious question).

OR... I could just be a jerk and point you in the direction of the Jets game, where we ran the ball 11 times for a whopping 11 yards. And then I'd laugh at your notion that running it more was going to yield better results, since that makes no sense whatsoever. 

You have an infantile understanding of how the press works, but maybe I'm biased because I am the press.

Again, I have to tell you I appreciate your analysis and insight into the game, but sometimes, you come off as peevish and perverse. Worse than me, and that's saying something. Oh, you'd smugly and condescendingly stare at the reporter... We're all impressed and quite terrified. As a reporter, I'm here to tell you that we'd laugh at you and say that you aggressively avoided the question, which doesn't look good for PR when you have a losing record. It would make you look a little like that guy Jim Harbaugh, who was derided as insane by many, including his own fans.

And by the way, when reporters asked John that questioned about the run game, he gave an honest answer. Maybe you could learn from him and have some humility. And if you point in the direction of the Jets game, that's fine. That's why reporters ask the question, to get an answer, you brainless blowhard. 

Edited November 3, 2016 by The Raven

[rmcjacket23]

49 minutes ago, The Raven said:

You have an infantile understanding of how the press works, but maybe I'm biased because I am the press.

Again, I have to tell you I appreciate your analysis and insight into the game, but sometimes, you come off as peevish and perverse. Worse than me, and that's saying something. Oh, you'd smugly and condescendingly stare at the reporter... We're all impressed and quite terrified. As a reporter, I'm here to tell you that we'd laugh at you and say that you aggressively avoided the question, which doesn't look good for PR when you have a losing record. It would make you look a little like that guy Jim Harbaugh, who was derided as insane by many, including his own fans.

And by the way, when reporters asked John that questioned about the run game, he gave an honest answer. Maybe you could learn from him and have some humility. And if you point in the direction of the Jets game, that's fine. That's why reporters ask the question, to get an answer, you brainless blowhard. 

OK, so you'd laugh at me and write negatively about the coach for avoiding the question. And? How would that affect my job as a coach in any way? My job is tied to my teams performance, not how well or how poorly I handle the media. I would think that would be quite obvious at this point, given how many times coaches do a very poor job of handling the media, and yet still somehow stay employed. I think Jim Harbaugh is actually the perfect example of MY point. Michigan looks brilliant right now, and the 49ers look like clowns. Now, I will say that pretty much has nothing to do with the media, because nobody thought Harbaugh was fired because of the media.

Feel pretty confident that Steve Bisciotti doesn't care that much about how John handles a press conference, mostly because I've seen the condescension and sometimes disgust with the way Steve has treated the media in the past with some of the questions they've asked (namely the Ray Rice situation). So if anything, this particular Owner would be more sympathetic with John's choice to do so.

Plus, as it were, most of these same things would be written regardless of whether a reporter liked or disliked the way John handled the question. He's going to be criticized, he's going to be second-guessed, and reporters and analysts will still call for his job. Him being a nice guy to them won't change that. We know this.

[The Raven]

38 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

OK, so you'd laugh at me and write negatively about the coach for avoiding the question. And? How would that affect my job as a coach in any way? My job is tied to my teams performance, not how well or how poorly I handle the media. I would think that would be quite obvious at this point, given how many times coaches do a very poor job of handling the media, and yet still somehow stay employed. I think Jim Harbaugh is actually the perfect example of MY point. Michigan looks brilliant right now, and the 49ers look like clowns. Now, I will say that pretty much has nothing to do with the media, because nobody thought Harbaugh was fired because of the media.

Feel pretty confident that Steve Bisciotti doesn't care that much about how John handles a press conference, mostly because I've seen the condescension and sometimes disgust with the way Steve has treated the media in the past with some of the questions they've asked (namely the Ray Rice situation). So if anything, this particular Owner would be more sympathetic with John's choice to do so.

Plus, as it were, most of these same things would be written regardless of whether a reporter liked or disliked the way John handled the question. He's going to be criticized, he's going to be second-guessed, and reporters and analysts will still call for his job. Him being a nice guy to them won't change that. We know this.

I didn't say it would affect your job. I just said it would make you look like a tool.

And since apparently you're not as good at critical thinking as you think you are, I'll spell it out for you....

Poor team performance + bad public image = fired.

Do you think Billick was fired just because of a bad, injury plagued season? I think his image had at least a little to do with it, too. That Dolphins loss hurt the image. Image matters to the guy that signs the checks, probably more so in a year where ratings are down.

Belichick and Jim get away with it because they win. Once you stop winning, it's harder to be smug and cocky.

Also, Steve is pretty good with reporters, other than with the Rice fiasco. He was being flippant out of frustration or to dissuade reporters from pursuing the story further. It's an old PR tactic. If you make the mean reporter feel bad, he'll go away. But that's not how it ended up, is it? 

Edited November 3, 2016 by The Raven

[rmcjacket23]

2 hours ago, The Raven said:

I didn't say it would affect your job. I just said it would make you look like a tool.

And since apparently you're not as good at critical thinking as you think you are, I'll spell it out for you....

Poor team performance + bad public image = fired.

Do you think Billick was fired just because of a bad, injury plagued season? I think his image had at least a little to do with it, too. That Dolphins loss hurt the image. Image matters to the guy that signs the checks, probably more so in a year where ratings are down.

Belichick and Jim get away with it because they win. Once you stop winning, it's harder to be smug and cocky.

Also, Steve is pretty good with reporters, other than with the Rice fiasco. He was being flippant out of frustration or to dissuade reporters from pursuing the story further. It's an old PR tactic. If you make the mean reporter feel bad, he'll go away. But that's not how it ended up, is it? 

And you can also spell it out like this...

Poor team performance + good public image = still fired. There's countless examples of this. They can be found annually. So the common denominator for that is?

And when you say Billick got fired because of a bad season, you really mean TWO bad seasons. And a third season where he was the #1 seed in the conference and didn't win a playoff game.

One playoff appearance in four years (with zero playoff wins) from a coach on a team with perceived talent who was a perennial contender and was viewed as a great offensive mind who could never really field a great offense isn't going to instill confidence in any owner. That, above all else, was why Billick was fired.

I agree that coaches that don't win get away with less... but that's because they don't win. I have rarely, if ever, seen a coach fired simply for being smug and arrogant. I've seen them fired for being so AND losing a lot. 

Edited November 3, 2016 by rmcjacket23

[nextgen_RavensFan]

I would love to ask why year after year we are just blistered with injuries ? Is it a reflection of the training and fitness personell ? We have what seems like the most fragile team environment in the NFL. We are always one injury from a fated season.

[The Raven]

2 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

And you can also spell it out like this...

Poor team performance + good public image = still fired. There's countless examples of this. They can be found annually. So the common denominator for that is?

And when you say Billick got fired because of a bad season, you really mean TWO bad seasons. And a third season where he was the #1 seed in the conference and didn't win a playoff game.

One playoff appearance in four years (with zero playoff wins) from a coach on a team with perceived talent who was a perennial contender and was viewed as a great offensive mind who could never really field a great offense isn't going to instill confidence in any owner. That, above all else, was why Billick was fired.

I agree that coaches that don't win get away with less... but that's because they don't win. I have rarely, if ever, seen a coach fired simply for being smug and arrogant. I've seen them fired for being so AND losing a lot. 

Like two losing seasons and a .500 season in four years? Because that's what we're on track for. Just saying.

[rmcjacket23]

5 hours ago, The Raven said:

Like two losing seasons and a .500 season in four years? Because that's what we're on track for. Just saying.

OK, and?

Is it some sort of major revelation that some people might think Johns employment status isn't set in stone?

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

On 11/3/2016 at 8:22 AM, kjbmore said:

I'd like to know how much input Harbs has into this toothless roster 

also any idea when we're going to join the other teams in the modern era of football and starting picking some receivers and corners with high draft picks - no - once every 5 years is not adequate

I think I brought this up in another thread - but please show me these modern teams that draft receivers on the regular. 

Looked into it a bit, and really only the Packers, NYG, Phi, Hou, Mia, and Pitt have. And none have really had success doing so.

Pack and Pitt are the only quality teams that have done so, and they arent quality teams bc of it. Montgomery and Adams are underachievers and Rodgers is struggling for consistent weapons still... and they HAVE Nelson and Cobb as it is.

And Wheaton/Coates arent anything special. If they didnt have Brown (a low pick investment) they'd be the worst WR corps in the league probably. 

Plus, both have elite QBs (who havent been able to "Make" those WRs btw, as many would suggest). 

The rest have been pretty bad. Parker and Landry are both good but it hasnt helped them win. Beckham and Shepard are good, but in both cases ignoring the defensive side of the ball has killed them. They just dont compete. In fact, with NYG when their philosophy was more focused on drafting defense high, they won 2 SBs. 

In Philly, Matthews is a good possession receiver, but thats not nearly enough. Agahlor has been horrible.

Its a 33% return rate to get even a quality receiver. And the 2 teams that have done better than that rate and really hit on their picks (NYG and MIA) are arguably the worst of the bunch.

 

To me, that just doesnt make much sense. Id rather us invest our assets in positions we have a good rate of return (LB, DL, OL) so we know we're getting high quality players with them more often than not.

Plus, until we've invested and found an offensive identity with an OC who can implement it successful its a waste to invest in those weapons.

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

20 hours ago, nextgen_RavensFan said:

I would love to ask why year after year we are just blistered with injuries ? Is it a reflection of the training and fitness personell ? We have what seems like the most fragile team environment in the NFL. We are always one injury from a fated season.

Well its an epidemic across the league... we've just happened to be at the pinnacle of a league wide epidemic. We're arguably the worst-case scenario of whats been happening league wide.

The off season is shorter, and the time they are training prepares them less for the physicality and the grind of what actual season games are like.

Idc what anyone says, less padded and less physical practice DOES NOT help guys stay healthier. It's like developing callouses. Or fighting off diseases. If you routinely get exposed to smaller doses of hits, impact, strain on muscles, strain on tendons/ligaments, you are much better prepared to survive the larger hits, impacts, and strains of the game.

Getting your cardio up isnt going to prepare the body to take hits. And, i just dont think theres much a training staff, coaching staff, or player can do. We've got key players who are older and more susceptible to becoming injured, especially when their bodies have been prepared for the regular season a certain way most of their careers, and then thats taken away.

Players being bigger, faster, stronger accounts for some it. The game being played in more space and at a higher speed - therefore bigger impacts, has something to do with it. But, imo, the #1 culprit is the reduced training/practice time and the dialed back nature of the physicality in the practices. 

[Ravensfan23]

19 minutes ago, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

I think I brought this up in another thread - but please show me these modern teams that draft receivers on the regular. 

Looked into it a bit, and really only the Packers, NYG, Phi, Hou, Mia, and Pitt have. And none have really had success doing so.

Pack and Pitt are the only quality teams that have done so, and they arent quality teams bc of it. Montgomery and Adams are underachievers and Rodgers is struggling for consistent weapons still... and they HAVE Nelson and Cobb as it is.

And Wheaton/Coates arent anything special. If they didnt have Brown (a low pick investment) they'd be the worst WR corps in the league probably. 

Plus, both have elite QBs (who havent been able to "Make" those WRs btw, as many would suggest). 

 

12 minutes ago, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

Well its an epidemic across the league... we've just happened to be at the pinnacle of a league wide epidemic. We're arguably the worst-case scenario of whats been happening league wide.

The off season is shorter, and the time they are training prepares them less for the physicality and the grind of what actual season games are like.

Idc what anyone says, less padded and less physical practice DOES NOT help guys stay healthier. It's like developing callouses. Or fighting off diseases. If you routinely get exposed to smaller doses of hits, impact, strain on muscles, strain on tendons/ligaments, you are much better prepared to survive the larger hits, impacts, and strains of the game.

Getting your cardio up isnt going to prepare the body to take hits. And, i just dont think theres much a training staff, coaching staff, or player can do. We've got key players who are older and more susceptible to becoming injured, especially when their bodies have been prepared for the regular season a certain way most of their careers, and then thats taken away.

Players being bigger, faster, stronger accounts for some it. The game being played in more space and at a higher speed - therefore bigger impacts, has something to do with it. But, imo, the #1 culprit is the reduced training/practice time and the dialed back nature of the physicality in the practices. 

I literally got a headache reading these two post. That is way too much logic for this board. Gotta slow down with the common sense man.  

[K-Dog]

" What is your favorite cheese? "

[kjbmore]

19 hours ago, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

Well its an epidemic across the league... we've just happened to be at the pinnacle of a league wide epidemic. We're arguably the worst-case scenario of whats been happening league wide.

The off season is shorter, and the time they are training prepares them less for the physicality and the grind of what actual season games are like.

Idc what anyone says, less padded and less physical practice DOES NOT help guys stay healthier. It's like developing callouses. Or fighting off diseases. If you routinely get exposed to smaller doses of hits, impact, strain on muscles, strain on tendons/ligaments, you are much better prepared to survive the larger hits, impacts, and strains of the game.

Getting your cardio up isnt going to prepare the body to take hits. And, i just dont think theres much a training staff, coaching staff, or player can do. We've got key players who are older and more susceptible to becoming injured, especially when their bodies have been prepared for the regular season a certain way most of their careers, and then thats taken away.

Players being bigger, faster, stronger accounts for some it. The game being played in more space and at a higher speed - therefore bigger impacts, has something to do with it. But, imo, the #1 culprit is the reduced training/practice time and the dialed back nature of the physicality in the practices. 

I think our team specifically is more injured because we're older and we put a lot on the plate of our older guys.

suggs, dumervil, Steve smith,

then u get your freak injuries which u can't do anything about

We might also be overloading our younger guys, seem like a few of them on IR - obviously some of that's phantom

[Virginia 55]

On 10/28/2016 at 11:29 PM, The Raven said:

It's amusing that you bring this up, because that question was asked in the Monday presser and the postgame presser.

It's like you make a concerted effort to be uninformed and ignorant of reality.

Thanks,   

The question is what questions would you like answered in the presser. 

Edited November 10, 2016 by Virginia 55

[Virginia 55]

On 11/3/2016 at 8:22 AM, kjbmore said:

I'd like to know how much input Harbs has into this toothless roster 

also any idea when we're going to join the other teams in the modern era of football and starting picking some receivers and corners with high draft picks - no - once every 5 years is not adequate

i like this question. 

[kjbmore]

20 hours ago, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

I think I brought this up in another thread - but please show me these modern teams that draft receivers on the regular. 

Looked into it a bit, and really only the Packers, NYG, Phi, Hou, Mia, and Pitt have. And none have really had success doing so.

Pack and Pitt are the only quality teams that have done so, and they arent quality teams bc of it. Montgomery and Adams are underachievers and Rodgers is struggling for consistent weapons still... and they HAVE Nelson and Cobb as it is.

And Wheaton/Coates arent anything special. If they didnt have Brown (a low pick investment) they'd be the worst WR corps in the league probably. 

Plus, both have elite QBs (who havent been able to "Make" those WRs btw, as many would suggest). 

The rest have been pretty bad. Parker and Landry are both good but it hasnt helped them win. Beckham and Shepard are good, but in both cases ignoring the defensive side of the ball has killed them. They just dont compete. In fact, with NYG when their philosophy was more focused on drafting defense high, they won 2 SBs. 

In Philly, Matthews is a good possession receiver, but thats not nearly enough. Agahlor has been horrible.

Its a 33% return rate to get even a quality receiver. And the 2 teams that have done better than that rate and really hit on their picks (NYG and MIA) are arguably the worst of the bunch.

 

To me, that just doesnt make much sense. Id rather us invest our assets in positions we have a good rate of return (LB, DL, OL) so we know we're getting high quality players with them more often than not.

Plus, until we've invested and found an offensive identity with an OC who can implement it successful its a waste to invest in those weapons.

Come on man, teams are constantly adding receivers - through the draft and free agency, feel free to run through team by team and have a look at draft picks and free agent additions 

If your happy with our offense the last few years you might be in the minority - I think the results speak for themselves we've been ranking in the bottom rung for pts scored the 8-8 year, the 5-11 year and this year

but hey hopefully we turn it around and our current group of players can start getting into the endzone and putting some points on the board

[flynismo]

6 hours ago, kjbmore said:

Come on man, teams are constantly adding receivers - through the draft and free agency, feel free to run through team by team and have a look at draft picks and free agent additions 

If your happy with our offense the last few years you might be in the minority - I think the results speak for themselves we've been ranking in the bottom rung for pts scored the 8-8 year, the 5-11 year and this year

but hey hopefully we turn it around and our current group of players can start getting into the endzone and putting some points on the board

I actually initially agreed with your initial statement about using more high picks on WRs and CBs.

But then after thinking about it, and then reviewing the drafts each year since 2012 and the players that were on the board when we made our picks, I think we made some great decisions in hindsight (other than Elam and Brown of course). There simply weren't any highly rated prospects available at those positions when we picked, at least not better than the guys we actually picked.

Have to keep in mind, those two positions are extremely valuable, and we typically draft near the end of each round.

2011 was a very unusual year, where guys at those positions were highly ranked AND fell to us; getting Jimmy and Torrey were both amazing value picks. So, we would certainly pull the trigger on an explosive player at those positions, if he were actually there for us to take.

Edited November 5, 2016 by flynismo