Week 9: The Good, Bad and Ugly vent thread

[BmoreBird22]

7 hours ago, ravensdfan said:

What the offense did or didn't do has no bearing on us changing what was working defensively as soon as that scoreboard said 4th quarter and it nearly costing us. Zero reason to do that so early.

If you notice, I've not credited the offense one iota for anything positive in this game. That still does not change the fact that the defense had a 21 pt lead going into the 4th that was nearly squandered because Pees decided to change what was working way too early.

That is just fact.

I tried to lighten the mood with a pic of my cat tackling Steelers in the 4th quarter and it was deleted. So I just dont' care now. When did this place stop being fun?

It didn't nearly cost anything. What it did do was run down the clock to 0:00 when the offense could not sustain a drive or bleed out the clock. Pittsburgh was taking off a lot of time on their drives, but the Ravens couldn't even got longer than 1:30. That's a real issue.

You haven't discredited the offense whatsoever, either. You just come in here full games blazing on Pees with no rationality in your posts without actually examining why he did what he did.

Again, does no one find it coincidental that Pees switches what's worked (TEN THREE AND OUTS) when the team goes up by 21? I mean, seriously, do you find this odd whatsoever that he goes from forcing 1:30 drives to allowing five minute drives with 13:00 left? Is that not odd to you whatsoever?

Oh, no? It's because you only care about the final score. This game was never close in the slightest bit. The Ravens dominated this game on special teams and on defense. 

[BmoreBird22]

3 hours ago, arnie_uk said:

Yes honestly. If they got that onside kick I fully expected them to go the 60 yards and tie the game. I have zero trust in our defense in the 4th qtr.

Even after arguably one of the greatest 3 qtrs I can remember seeing.

I don't know what it is, but even you have to admit that every since pees came, allowing the opposition to score at will in the 4th qtr has been a trend.

Read the above repoly, but going 60 yards in :43 seconds against a defense that had forced ten three and outs wasn't happening.

[Tank 92]

6 hours ago, Filmstudy said:

There were 2 issues I'd point to that fueled the rally in Q4:

1. The defense was tired playing 34 plays in Q4.  That's especially tough for the pass rush.

2. The Ravens kept Orr (every snap) and McClellan (27 of 34 snaps) on the field for virtually the entirety of Q4.  Those are 2 big targets in zone that provide nothing to the pass rush (Mosely/Orr/McClellan had a combined 0 pressure events for the entire game).

Levine in the dime was the better choice and was rested.

The rally started at the beginning of the 4th quarter.  The Ravens had the ball for just about the entire 3rd quarter, all but 2:30. Defense basically spent the entire 3rd quarter on the bench, after getting an extended rest at the half. The "defense was tired" excuse just doesn't make sense. If they were tired then conditioning is a major issue.  

I'm not smart enough to know exactly what the issues are, but both the offense and defense have to learn how to finish games.  

I will say that more often than not, it looks like the D plays soft at the end of games. My guess is that this not an issue of scheme, rather an issue of execution.   

Edited November 8, 2016 by Tank 92

[Tank 92]

1 hour ago, BmoreBird22 said:

Read the above repoly, but going 60 yards in :43 seconds against a defense that had forced ten three and outs wasn't happening.

wut?  That same defense had just given up more than 200 yards and 14 points in the 4th quarter.  Damn straight they were capable of giving up another 50 yard drive in 43 seconds. I for one couldn't even watch the onsides kick.   lol

[arnie_uk]

1 hour ago, BmoreBird22 said:

Read the above repoly, but going 60 yards in :43 seconds against a defense that had forced ten three and outs wasn't happening.

See tanks reply below. Over 200 yards and 14 points in what 8 minutes with the ravens having about 2 mins possession in between times says otherwise. 

I know I thought they had more chance of scoring than us stopping them

[Jacquouille]

12 minutes ago, Tank 92 said:

wut?  That same defense had just given up more than 200 yards and 14 points in the 4th quarter.  Damn straight they were capable of giving up another 50 yard drive in 43 seconds. I for one couldn't even watch the onsides kick.   lol

 

6 minutes ago, arnie_uk said:

See tanks reply below. Over 200 yards and 14 points in what 8 minutes with the ravens having about 2 mins possession in between times says otherwise. 

I know I thought they had more chance of scoring than us stopping them

43 seconds with no timeout is near impossible. If you can't get out of bounds just once it's over. 

[ShaeSquire]

The Good: Defense was on-point, the emotions were all there. 21-0 You know how we do, we burn the clock. 

The Bad: Offense needs a little bit more coverage for Joe to get comfortable and be cool.

The Ugly: Ben went way unprepared into that game. But, our defense is clicking that's for sure. I mean we shut Bell down in the first quarter.

  This wasn't a bad game in my eyes I think it's momentum for the next ones. They all know what's next Cowboy and Patriots, trust me, we will be ready for both.

 

[Filmstudy]

Re tired defense in Q4:

--Tiring is MUCH more a function of consecutive snaps played as opposed to total snaps played.

--The natural course of 3-down defense has substitution packages on passing downs where the rotation naturally rests pass rushers.

--Playing 4-down, pass-only defense puts much more pressure on the same players, most notably the pass rush.  The Ravens tried to alleviate with alternation of Guy and Jernigan, but Pierce (0), Williams (6), and Urban (0), played a combined 6 snaps in Q4.  That severely limited the ability to spread DL snaps.

--McClellan/Orr/Mosley had a combined 0 pressure events for the game.  Mosley has to play every snap, because he's the signal caller.  McClellan and Orr provide very little to the pass rush, so an extra DB (some coaches would advise 2 for optimal zone defense) would have provided more effective zone defense.  The 2000 Ravens played exclusively dime and quarter in similar situations and all of the DCs prior to Pees would have played a heavy component of dime.  Pees played all nickel.  

Edited November 8, 2016 by Filmstudy

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

7 hours ago, arnie_uk said:

Yes honestly. If they got that onside kick I fully expected them to go the 60 yards and tie the game. I have zero trust in our defense in the 4th qtr.

Even after arguably one of the greatest 3 qtrs I can remember seeing.

I don't know what it is, but even you have to admit that every since pees came, allowing the opposition to score at will in the 4th qtr has been a trend.

It was a complaint even before that.

It was the biggest complaint when Mattison was here. Everyone thinks he was awful, but his D's ranked Top 5 i believe, but there was this notion that he went into prevent in the 4th quarter and blew leads.

Even with Pagano, it wasnt as big of a talking point but there were still plenty of games where there were plenty of "oh, here we go again"'s. 

 

Letting Pitt score there stunk. I wanted the shutout as bad as anyone.

But Pees has to adjust there. We couldnt keep stacking 7-8 in the box. It worked great earlier bc they stuck heavily with the run, and kept bringing the TE's in for protection. It was comfortable to let Jimmy lock his side down, put the single high safety over the other side and feel confident in avoiding that big play. Everything underneath then was just clogged up.

 

Then late, they largely abandoned the run, starting going with 3-4 wide, empty back fields, flexing Bell into the slot or out wide, flexing the TE out.... so sticking with the 7-8 men in the box wouldve been suicide. We'd have been severely undermanned on the outsides, and be way too vulnerable to the big play (literally the one thing they couldve done to complete a come back). 

So, he adjusted. He changed the D up a little to counteract what the Offense was doing. It's entirely possible that what the offense starting doing, and stuck to, at the end of the game just gave them an advantage.

Their gameplan earlier fed right into our strengths and led to the D looking amazing for 3.5 qtrs. What they switched to doing (hurry up, attacking the seams, and checking down when its not there) really tested our pass rush. We couldnt get home, and so they had success with it. I still think its the proper adjustment - and imo it worked. We forced Pitt to take a long time to score, instead of a quick strike.... and its why they ran out of time.

Had the offense contributed even a bit, the plan wouldve worked even better... bc they wouldnt have got the 2nd TD most likely.

[BmoreBird22]

2 hours ago, Tank 92 said:

wut?  That same defense had just given up more than 200 yards and 14 points in the 4th quarter.  Damn straight they were capable of giving up another 50 yard drive in 43 seconds. I for one couldn't even watch the onsides kick.   lol

 

2 hours ago, arnie_uk said:

See tanks reply below. Over 200 yards and 14 points in what 8 minutes with the ravens having about 2 mins possession in between times says otherwise. 

I know I thought they had more chance of scoring than us stopping them

This defense forced 10 three and outs and didn't allow a single third down conversion until 47 minutes into the game. Something tells me that if they needed to adjust and clamp down, they could have.

But in that situation, you're just trying to burn the clock down and there are two ways to do this.

1. You run the ball on offense and pick up first downs. Considering that without the Mike Wallace TD, the Ravens were averaging around 2.8 yards per play and had no semblance of a running game, this wasn't going to happen. I mean seriously, after the Steelers turned it over on downs, a first down ices the game and we have a 21-7 win, but instead, the offense lets a whole :53 seconds or what ever it was off the clock and gets a huge -5 yards. So, instead of getting a first down or gaining a few yards and helping field position on the punt, they lose yards and can't even burn it down to the two minute warning.

With the offense not doing a damn thing to burn the clock, we come to option two.

2. Defensively, you allow the opponent to pick up maybe 10 yards on a play, but let them burn off thirty, forty seconds at a time so that they slowly bleed the clock themselves. If they score, but take off seven minutes from the clock in the process, then good. With only 13 minutes left, you're not going to score three touchdowns if all three drives take over 5 minutes. 

I see some people trying to make it into a thing about the Steelers switching philosophies or trying to go more aerial and using more spread personnel and whatnot, but I don't think it's that at all. The Steelers were mostly using three wide the entire game and using a single back look for the entire game. In the second half, their play selection mostly favored the pass, by a good bit.

The Ravens didn't magically make this change when they hit the fourth because they forced a three and out on Pitt's first drive of the fourth, then scored a block punt TD. Does no one at all find it slightly coincidental that the Steelers start moving the ball in the fourth after a huge momentum changing play for the Ravens? The Ravens wanted to bleed the clock and they certainly did with their defense. Sucks that the defense was the unit to have to take that fall because of the totally inept offense, but that's how it works out from time to time.

And given how many opportunities the Steelers had against the aggressive man looks that barely came up short, I'm not surprised one bit that the Ravens decided to keep the plays in front of them and tried to give the Steelers as few drives as possible.                                                                                                                                                                       

[January J]

5 hours ago, BmoreBird22 said:

Read the above repoly, but going 60 yards in :43 seconds against a defense that had forced ten three and outs wasn't happening.

 

3 hours ago, Tank 92 said:

wut?  That same defense had just given up more than 200 yards and 14 points in the 4th quarter.  Damn straight they were capable of giving up another 50 yard drive in 43 seconds. I for one couldn't even watch the onsides kick.   lol

With no timeouts mind you.

[rmcjacket23]

8 minutes ago, BmoreBird22 said:

 

This defense forced 10 three and outs and didn't allow a single third down conversion until 47 minutes into the game. Something tells me that if they needed to adjust and clamp down, they could have.

But in that situation, you're just trying to burn the clock down and there are two ways to do this.

1. You run the ball on offense and pick up first downs. Considering that without the Mike Wallace TD, the Ravens were averaging around 2.8 yards per play and had no semblance of a running game, this wasn't going to happen. I mean seriously, after the Steelers turned it over on downs, a first down ices the game and we have a 21-7 win, but instead, the offense lets a whole :53 seconds or what ever it was off the clock and gets a huge -5 yards. So, instead of getting a first down or gaining a few yards and helping field position on the punt, they lose yards and can't even burn it down to the two minute warning.

With the offense not doing a damn thing to burn the clock, we come to option two.

2. Defensively, you allow the opponent to pick up maybe 10 yards on a play, but let them burn off thirty, forty seconds at a time so that they slowly bleed the clock themselves. If they score, but take off seven minutes from the clock in the process, then good. With only 13 minutes left, you're not going to score three touchdowns if all three drives take over 5 minutes. 

I see some people trying to make it into a thing about the Steelers switching philosophies or trying to go more aerial and using more spread personnel and whatnot, but I don't think it's that at all. The Steelers were mostly using three wide the entire game and using a single back look for the entire game. In the second half, their play selection mostly favored the pass, by a good bit.

The Ravens didn't magically make this change when they hit the fourth because they forced a three and out on Pitt's first drive of the fourth, then scored a block punt TD. Does no one at all find it slightly coincidental that the Steelers start moving the ball in the fourth after a huge momentum changing play for the Ravens? The Ravens wanted to bleed the clock and they certainly did with their defense. Sucks that the defense was the unit to have to take that fall because of the totally inept offense, but that's how it works out from time to time.

And given how many opportunities the Steelers had against the aggressive man looks that barely came up short, I'm not surprised one bit that the Ravens decided to keep the plays in front of them and tried to give the Steelers as few drives as possible.                                                                                                                                                                       

The only "knock" I have with the prevent style we were playing is, as FilmStudy pointed out, Pees played all nickel instead of switching to dime. He could have swapped out a linebacker for a DB and possibly helped to prevent some of the longer pass plays down the seam that we were giving up.

Other than that, 100% agree that its actually larger on the offense. 1 or 2 first downs on either of the drives where we are up practically ends the game.

[BmoreBird22]

4 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

The only "knock" I have with the prevent style we were playing is, as FilmStudy pointed out, Pees played all nickel instead of switching to dime. He could have swapped out a linebacker for a DB and possibly helped to prevent some of the longer pass plays down the seam that we were giving up.

Other than that, 100% agree that its actually larger on the offense. 1 or 2 first downs on either of the drives where we are up practically ends the game.

I wanna know what the major aversion to the dime is with Pees. Levine spends the entire offseason preparing for that role and plays really well and then you get Elam back who'd also function well in that role, but nope, just run the nickel with players like McClellan who don't do well in coverage.

[January J]

7 minutes ago, BmoreBird22 said:

I wanna know what the major aversion to the dime is with Pees. Levine spends the entire offseason preparing for that role and plays really well and then you get Elam back who'd also function well in that role, but nope, just run the nickel with players like McClellan who don't do well in coverage.

Beats me. Did Elam play any defensive snaps Sunday? Or any on ST?

[January J]

14 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

The only "knock" I have with the prevent style we were playing is, as FilmStudy pointed out, Pees played all nickel instead of switching to dime. He could have swapped out a linebacker for a DB and possibly helped to prevent some of the longer pass plays down the seam that we were giving up.

Other than that, 100% agree that its actually larger on the offense. 1 or 2 first downs on either of the drives where we are up practically ends the game.

They were trying so hard not to cause a quick turnover it was like they were timid to even run a play. Should've went for the throat IMO. But a quick pick 6 could've been disastrous. Yes things couldve been handled differently with the luxury of hindsight but hard to complain about a W.

[Filmstudy]

4 minutes ago, January J said:

Beats me. Did Elam play any defensive snaps Sunday? Or any on ST?

0 defensive snaps for Elam or Levine.  The only 5 DBs who played were Powers, Smith, Young, Webb, Weddle.

 

[BmoreBird22]

9 minutes ago, January J said:

Beats me. Did Elam play any defensive snaps Sunday? Or any on ST?

I was at the game, so I wasn't really charting players on the field, but I think someone noticed him before the end of the half.

[terrynjulia03]

11 hours ago, Filmstudy said:

There were 2 issues I'd point to that fueled the rally in Q4:

1. The defense was tired playing 34 plays in Q4.  That's especially tough for the pass rush.

2. The Ravens kept Orr (every snap) and McClellan (27 of 34 snaps) on the field for virtually the entirety of Q4.  Those are 2 big targets in zone that provide nothing to the pass rush (Mosely/Orr/McClellan had a combined 0 pressure events for the entire game).

Levine in the dime was the better choice and was rested.

Glad you saw the same I did Ken. And what I was saying. He left our LBs in and just pushed them to the back of the box, but that still doesn't mean they can cover. Levine would've been a obvious choice, also was Elam dressed? If so they could have played both Levine and Elam in a overload dime package. 

[BmoreBird22]

3 hours ago, Filmstudy said:

Re tired defense in Q4:

--Tiring is MUCH more a function of consecutive snaps played as opposed to total snaps played.

--The natural course of 3-down defense has substitution packages on passing downs where the rotation naturally rests pass rushers.

--Playing 4-down, pass-only defense puts much more pressure on the same players, most notably the pass rush.  The Ravens tried to alleviate with alternation of Guy and Jernigan, but Pierce (0), Williams (6), and Urban (0), played a combined 6 snaps in Q4.  That severely limited the ability to spread DL snaps.

--McClellan/Orr/Mosley had a combined 0 pressure events for the game.  Mosley has to play every snap, because he's the signal caller.  McClellan and Orr provide very little to the pass rush, so an extra DB (some coaches would advise 2 for optimal zone defense) would have provided more effective zone defense.  The 2000 Ravens played exclusively dime and quarter in similar situations and all of the DCs prior to Pees would have played a heavy component of dime.  Pees played all nickel.  

I can't find the quoted post above (not looking terribly hard might be the reason...), but Mosley had an excellent day in coverage yesterday and hasn't Orr been pretty good in coverage this year?

Obviously the weak link in those 34 snaps is McClellan, especially when running the ball was an afterthought, but you'd still think Mosley and Orr would be at least decent choices in coverage, wouldn't you?

[ravensdfan]

5 hours ago, BmoreBird22 said:

It didn't nearly cost anything. What it did do was run down the clock to 0:00 when the offense could not sustain a drive or bleed out the clock. Pittsburgh was taking off a lot of time on their drives, but the Ravens couldn't even got longer than 1:30. That's a real issue.

You haven't discredited the offense whatsoever, either. You just come in here full games blazing on Pees with no rationality in your posts without actually examining why he did what he did.

Again, does no one find it coincidental that Pees switches what's worked (TEN THREE AND OUTS) when the team goes up by 21? I mean, seriously, do you find this odd whatsoever that he goes from forcing 1:30 drives to allowing five minute drives with 13:00 left? Is that not odd to you whatsoever?

Oh, no? It's because you only care about the final score. This game was never close in the slightest bit. The Ravens dominated this game on special teams and on defense. 

Um dude, they nearly had the 2nd TD with 5 mins left. Healthy Ben, we're having an entirely different discussion. Sorry, but you don't do that the second the scoreboard says 4th quarter. That's how you wind up losing games. I mean is Pees your long lost Uncle or something? Because you NEVER admit he did anything wrong. Ever. You act like he walks on water & is the greatest DC of all time. Which couldn't be further from the truth. Pretty much why no one else wanted him.

Edited November 8, 2016 by ravensdfan

[BmoreBird22]

Just now, ravensdfan said:

Um dude, they nearly had the 2nd TD with 5 mins left. Healthy Ben, we're having an entirely different discussion. Sorry, but you don't do that the second the scoreboard says 4th quarter. That's how you wind up losing games.

They didn't do it the second the scoreboard hit the fourth quarter, especially considering they forced a three and out in quick succession after the start of the fourth quarter.

They did it after the scoreboard said 21-0 and when they realized the offense hadn't sustained a drive of over three minutes for around three, four drives now.

He was healthy enough to play and he obviously moved around well and made some big throws in the fourth, so I do not buy health as a reason whatsoever. 

And there's always an excuse for it. Just be happy they won. It wasn't a close game, no matter how you slice it. 

It's always something like, "Oh, if it had only been a better offense." Now the Ravens faced the NFL's top offense with the two best players at their position and stopped them. Just get over it.

[Filmstudy]

6 minutes ago, BmoreBird22 said:

I can't find the quoted post above (not looking terribly hard might be the reason...), but Mosley had an excellent day in coverage yesterday and hasn't Orr been pretty good in coverage this year?

Obviously the weak link in those 34 snaps is McClellan, especially when running the ball was an afterthought, but you'd still think Mosley and Orr would be at least decent choices in coverage, wouldn't you?

Mosley has done well in coverage this year and in this game, plus he's the signal caller, so no problem there.  Orr and McClellan have both been targets.

The Ravens have been playing a 1-down lineman pass rush package with just Jernigan (or Guy on Sunday) in a 3-point stance.  The others are all standing (presumably to confuse on provide some coverage flexibility), but it seems McClellan is a fixture in that package.  So the personnel on the field include:

--5 DBs

--Mosley and Orr

--Jernigan (primarily, it was Guy some in Q4 on Sunday)

--2 pass-rushing OLBs from among Suggs, Judon, and Smith

--McClellan

On Sunday, for example, McClellan played 27 of the 34 snaps in Q4.

If Levine took the spot of Orr in this package, he would (and did during Mosley's absence) position himself similarly to either threaten the blitz or drop to coverage.  He'd be a hell of a lot better in coverage and my contention is he's not much worse than Orr in terms of pass rush value, because both are looking for a free run to get home, not to beat a blocker.  Levine's short area coverage skills were on full display during the preseason, and the Ravens always did well with the dime prior to Pees' arrival.

As an alternative, if Pees wants to keep Orr on the field, he can remove McClellan and have Orr take Albert's roll in the dime package.

[rmcjacket23]

8 minutes ago, Filmstudy said:

Mosley has done well in coverage this year and in this game, plus he's the signal caller, so no problem there.  Orr and McClellan have both been targets.

The Ravens have been playing a 1-down lineman pass rush package with just Jernigan (or Guy on Sunday) in a 3-point stance.  The others are all standing (presumably to confuse on provide some coverage flexibility), but it seems McClellan is a fixture in that package.  So the personnel on the field include:

--5 DBs

--Mosley and Orr

--Jernigan (primarily, it was Guy some in Q4 on Sunday)

--2 pass-rushing OLBs from among Suggs, Judon, and Smith

--McClellan

On Sunday, for example, McClellan played 27 of the 34 snaps in Q4.

If Levine took the spot of Orr in this package, he would (and did during Mosley's absence) position himself similarly to either threaten the blitz or drop to coverage.  He'd be a hell of a lot better in coverage and my contention is he's not much worse than Orr in terms of pass rush value, because both are looking for a free run to get home, not to beat a blocker.  Levine's short area coverage skills were on full display during the preseason, and the Ravens always did well with the dime prior to Pees' arrival.

As an alternative, if Pees wants to keep Orr on the field, he can remove McClellan and have Orr take Albert's roll in the dime package.

Precisely what I was going to say. What's the purpose of having Orr, Mosley and McClellan on the field in a "prevent" package when neither is a good pass rusher and you can get equal or better coverage skills from a DB like Levine or Elam?

I mean I suppose if you were playing an offense that just kept attacking the short-intermediate routes in the middle of the field than linebackers flooding the passing lanes would be beneficial, but it was clear that Ben was completely fine attacking the seams deep down the middle, so I don't understand the usage here.

MAYBE its justifiable when you are up 21-0, but after the Steelers score to make it 21-7 and we give the ball back, there's no reason not to have 6 DBs out there. 

[Tru11]

i guess he is also getting tired of all of this unjustifiable prevent crap that he thought that leaving all 3 of those lbers in the game might put it to rest.

probably also explains why he send powers on a CB blitz at around the 6 min mark.

he probably just did it to get some of these ill logic peeps off his back.

 

[terrynjulia03]

7 minutes ago, Tru11 said:

i guess he is also getting tired of all of this unjustifiable prevent crap that he thought that leaving all 3 of those lbers in the game might put it to rest.

probably also explains why he send powers on a CB blitz at around the 6 min mark.

he probably just did it to get some of these ill logic peeps off his back.

 

Pretty sure none of the coaches give 2 squirts what we think. However I bet they occasionally take a look to see what's being said and sometimes something sticks that may seem like a good idea and they'll try it. We're all human, and if a coach doesn't at least read comments from fans, some of whom study gametape quite a bit, than they're a fool. 

[Tru11]

20 minutes ago, terrynjulia03 said:

Pretty sure none of the coaches give 2 squirts what we think. However I bet they occasionally take a look to see what's being said and sometimes something sticks that may seem like a good idea and they'll try it. We're all human, and if a coach doesn't at least read comments from fans, some of whom study gametape quite a bit, than they're a fool. 

sure why not

[BmoreBird22]

1 hour ago, Filmstudy said:

As an alternative, if Pees wants to keep Orr on the field, he can remove McClellan and have Orr take Albert's roll in the dime package.

This would be what I'd be looking to do and I'm confused as to why we haven't seen it yet.

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

1 hour ago, BmoreBird22 said:

This would be what I'd be looking to do and I'm confused as to why we haven't seen it yet.

Having McLellan in the defense when the offense is in hurry up, and clearly looking to attack down field makes 0 sense to me.

I am also completely confused as to why we havent seen Levine deployed more often. I know it was preseason, but he was arguably our best playmaker. Made a couple game saving plays in the exact type of scenarios as we were seeing on Sunday. Use the man.

McLellans only value imo is as a backup, rotational ILB or as a run defender setting the edge. Offers nothing from a pass rush perspective, and his coverage ability is sub par.

I didnt realize he was on the field so often in the 4th qtr. So, if i were to blame Pees for one thing - thatd be it.

 

Though, I wonder, if maybe Pitt recognized this as a favorable personnel grouping to attack and really put the pedal down in their hurry up to keep him on the field. Maybe they wanted to sub him off at some point but Pitt did a nice job of preventing it?

But, the fact that he was back out there on the next drive kind of eliminates that theory.

[Filmstudy]

49 minutes ago, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

Having McLellan in the defense when the offense is in hurry up, and clearly looking to attack down field makes 0 sense to me.

I am also completely confused as to why we havent seen Levine deployed more often. I know it was preseason, but he was arguably our best playmaker. Made a couple game saving plays in the exact type of scenarios as we were seeing on Sunday. Use the man.

McLellans only value imo is as a backup, rotational ILB or as a run defender setting the edge. Offers nothing from a pass rush perspective, and his coverage ability is sub par.

I didnt realize he was on the field so often in the 4th qtr. So, if i were to blame Pees for one thing - thatd be it.

 

Though, I wonder, if maybe Pitt recognized this as a favorable personnel grouping to attack and really put the pedal down in their hurry up to keep him on the field. Maybe they wanted to sub him off at some point but Pitt did a nice job of preventing it?

But, the fact that he was back out there on the next drive kind of eliminates that theory.

I'm in agreement that McClellan's value is as a 2-down edge setter at OLB.

I write a lot of things about McClellan that must seem uncomplimentary.  The guy is a fine football player:

--He makes the team every year despite the perception he's in camp battles with players like Arthur Brown, because he's consistently willing to take a role where the Ravens have a hole.

--Rosburg consistently praises him for his special teams play and on-field leadership to reposition players in kick coverage.

--He's one of the Ravens' 2 best edge setters (along with Suggs) at OLB, where the situational pass rushers should need rotation to be fresh for passing downs.

--He's a player from whom I have never seen complaint in social media or heard of any off-field concern.

The problem is he's such a good team player, Pees has cast him in some roles that don't fit his skill set.

With regard to the point about subbing him off, that would not have been a problem, because they shifted between Guy and Jernigan every few plays.  

Edited November 8, 2016 by Filmstudy

[Tru11]

If i have to guess its probably that McClellan is a very experienced player who can play all 4 lber positions.

he probably offers a lil bit more assurance in being able to do what he is asked to do without worrying of committing dumb penalties or being out of position to many times.

our defense has been committing very few penalties and it probably has to do with having so many experienced players on the field.