Week 9: The Good, Bad and Ugly vent thread

[Militant X 1]

18 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?

I saw that pic of your cat playing DB.  LOL!!

 

[Tank 92]

17 hours 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.

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.                                                                                                                                                                       

I completely understand the idea of switching up to keep the play in front of you, but the notion that the Ravens go to this scheme solely to burn clock is honestly, well, pretty ridiculous. The purpose is to "prevent" TDs, limit the opposition to a FG at best, and at that they haven't been doing so hot of a job.  And I'll say again, I don't blame the scheming one bit, it's a matter of poor execution. 

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

3 hours ago, Tank 92 said:

I completely understand the idea of switching up to keep the play in front of you, but the notion that the Ravens go to this scheme solely to burn clock is honestly, well, pretty ridiculous. The purpose is to "prevent" TDs, limit the opposition to a FG at best, and at that they haven't been doing so hot of a job.  And I'll say again, I don't blame the scheming one bit, it's a matter of poor execution. 

No you're right it's not solely to kill clock. 

Obviously they want to prevent the TD, but at least this way if they do score it's going to take them a lot more time to do so and limit or altogether eliminate their chances of scoring enough pts to come back. 

And I agree it's more an issue of execution than the game plan itself. That's the only point I really contended -- that Pees was totally at fault for putting out a bad game plan. 

Some of it was just Ben coming alive and making some great throws. But, we didn't get pressure (can be tough to do when on the field for 40 some straight plays, almost) and we allowed some bigger completions. 

[BmoreBird22]

3 hours ago, Tank 92 said:

I completely understand the idea of switching up to keep the play in front of you, but the notion that the Ravens go to this scheme solely to burn clock is honestly, well, pretty ridiculous. The purpose is to "prevent" TDs, limit the opposition to a FG at best, and at that they haven't been doing so hot of a job.  And I'll say again, I don't blame the scheming one bit, it's a matter of poor execution. 

Of course they'd like to stop points from being scored, but if the clock runs out entirely during the process, does it matter?

[trevorsteadman]

1 hour ago, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

No you're right it's not solely to kill clock. 

Obviously they want to prevent the TD, but at least this way if they do score it's going to take them a lot more time to do so and limit or altogether eliminate their chances of scoring enough pts to come back. 

And I agree it's more an issue of execution than the game plan itself. That's the only point I really contended -- that Pees was totally at fault for putting out a bad game plan. 

Some of it was just Ben coming alive and making some great throws. But, we didn't get pressure (can be tough to do when on the field for 40 some straight plays, almost) and we allowed some bigger completions. 

Honestly Big Ben made the defense look better than it really was the first three quarters with inaccurate throws and some bad decisions. The defense did pretty well but there were some times that players got free on the Steelers and the ball was off the mark. The Ravens need to hold onto those free interceptions there were 3 maybe even 4 that were catchable that the team couldn't hold onto. 

The team should've won by 40 the way it was playing the first 3 quarters. 

[MTRavensFan]

True that. Ben looked HORRIBLE til the very end.

[VermontRaven]

Come on guys. It's the day before our next game.  Time to move on from the vent thread and move forward to the Browns game!  Gotta look forward, not backwards!  GO RAVENS!

[BmoreBird22]

44 minutes ago, MTRavensFan said:

True that. Ben looked HORRIBLE til the very end.

Yeah because the defense smothered passing lanes...

[MTRavensFan]

25 minutes ago, BmoreBird22 said:

Yeah because the defense smothered passing lanes...

I was more talking about his accuracy. Passes way off the mark.

[BmoreBird22]

44 minutes ago, MTRavensFan said:

I was more talking about his accuracy. Passes way off the mark.

He didn't have windows to throw into either way. 

Plus, we can't expect a quarterback to be on the mark 100% of the time.

[Filmstudy]

I have posted OL scoring for the Steelers game:

http://russellstreetreport.com/2016/11/09/filmstudy/ronnie-stanley-poor-play-against-steelers/

Cliff Notes:

--Flacco had ATS on just 12 of 32 throws, but had an inverted game with almost 10 YPP without ATS and 1.6 YPP with ATS

--Stanley had the worst game I have scored since Hurst in the 2015 opener at Denver

--Alex Lewis had a terrific return to LG and was the highest graded on the OL

--Jeremy Zuttah did not allow a single pass rush event

[MTRavensFan]

Thought Zuttah and Lewis had good games, just by the eye test, Thanks, Filmstudy!

[Militant X 1]

2 hours ago, VermontRaven said:

Come on guys. It's the day before our next game.  Time to move on from the vent thread and move forward to the Browns game!  Gotta look forward, not backwards!  GO RAVENS!

I agree cause IF the Ravens fall to the Browns...at home...and on prime time television and look bad in the process...that win against the Steelers don't mean jack!

GO RAVENS!

[Moderator 3]

19 minutes ago, Filmstudy said:

I have posted OL scoring for the Steelers game:

http://russellstreetreport.com/2016/11/09/filmstudy/ronnie-stanley-poor-play-against-steelers/

Cliff Notes:

--Flacco had ATS on just 12 of 32 throws, but had an inverted game with almost 10 YPP without ATS and 1.6 YPP with ATS

--Stanley had the worst game I have scored since Hurst in the 2015 opener at Denver

--Alex Lewis had a terrific return to LG and was the highest graded on the OL

--Jeremy Zuttah did not allow a single pass rush event

Was probably the shock of having ATS.

[DomMcRaven]

5 hours ago, Militant X 1 said:

I agree cause IF the Ravens fall to the Browns...at home...and on prime time television and look bad in the process...that win against the Steelers don't mean jack!

GO RAVENS!

It's crazy that you say this because Suggs basically said the exact same thing. But it's completely true. 

[nextgen_RavensFan]

I just about stopped thinking long term for the Ravens and enjoy them game by game. I think i have become a spoiled fan and expect play-offs every year. I think the team we see on the field this year will be like night and day compared to next seasons. I am in no way saying we cannot make the play-offs and in fact hope we do but i just want to take it game by game and watch the rising stars mature and grow while the staying competitive. I am tired of pointing fingers and griping about the team. I am lucky we have such an organization here again and just want to enjoy it. After all does anyone remember what we had before and the talent that used to roll in and out when we had the colts ? Kind of puts it in perspective huh.

Edited November 10, 2016 by nextgen_RavensFan

[Ravens4Real]

The one negative that I didn't state earlier in the week but I will now after rewatching the game, Jimmy Smith should be sending Big Ben thank you cards for being so inaccurate Sunday.

He was beaten handily twice for touchdowns and both of them were by Coates which makes it even more glaring. Coates beat him once on a streak and was a good 5 yards past him. Ben just simply missed the pass. The other he alligator armed a potential TD (not sure if he would have gotten feet in) that Jimmy seemed to just give up on.

After rewatching, I'm not even sure I can fully evaluate the D. Young played wel some plays, but it is so hard to judge them when the Steelers were so off, especially Ben. Steelers had a lot of stuff open that they usually hit but couldn't Sunday for some reason. Probably Big Bens rust.

[Adreme]

2 hours ago, Ravens4Real said:

The one negative that I didn't state earlier in the week but I will now after rewatching the game, Jimmy Smith should be sending Big Ben thank you cards for being so inaccurate Sunday.

He was beaten handily twice for touchdowns and both of them were by Coates which makes it even more glaring. Coates beat him once on a streak and was a good 5 yards past him. Ben just simply missed the pass. The other he alligator armed a potential TD (not sure if he would have gotten feet in) that Jimmy seemed to just give up on.

After rewatching, I'm not even sure I can fully evaluate the D. Young played wel some plays, but it is so hard to judge them when the Steelers were so off, especially Ben. Steelers had a lot of stuff open that they usually hit but couldn't Sunday for some reason. Probably Big Bens rust.

I know one of the plays you are thinking of offhand and he was not beat it was actually Weddle who was in the wrong place.  Jimmy was supposed to watch the outside with Weddle covering him if he went inside which he did so Weddle blew his coverage.

One of the trickiest things when judging defenses is that the person who started on coverage might not be the person who is responsible for coverage the entire play.