Marty stays...fixing the offense heading into 2017

[ellicottraven]

1 hour ago, DomMcRaven said:

I think that's the key phrase right there, but I'm also playing devil's advocate as well. I WISH it's a guaranteed victory if Flacco throws < 30 passes. 

Sadly it isn't but it is more probable that we win if he's made to throw less. However, that also depends on the toughness of the coordinator. Right now, Marty is just grateful to have a job because Joe wanted him. I don't see much changing in 2017 frankly unless God has a conference call with Harbaugh, Marty and Joe Flacco!

[BmoreBird22]

Mike McCoy is being mentioned as the top name available right now. Wish the Ravens would have looked his way

[Ravensfan23]

10 minutes ago, BmoreBird22 said:

Mike McCoy is being mentioned as the top name available right now. Wish the Ravens would have looked his way

Who says they didn't? Also I think if they did, the con probably out weighed the pros once determining if bringing him in for a interview was good or not.

[terrynjulia03]

1 hour ago, BmoreBird22 said:

Mike McCoy is being mentioned as the top name available right now. Wish the Ravens would have looked his way

I was hoping also. I was OK with keeping Marty for continuity reasons, but when you think about it he's still going to be a new OC anyway who will be implementing his system. That's not continuity besides already knowing the guys name. Ah well. 

[Ravensfan23]

1 hour ago, terrynjulia03 said:

I was hoping also. I was OK with keeping Marty for continuity reasons, but when you think about it he's still going to be a new OC anyway who will be implementing his system. That's not continuity besides already knowing the guys name. Ah well. 

That's exactly why it's continuity. He already know players and the coaching staff. He won't be implementing a new system, just his philosophy within the system. This will not be a start from scratch situation, more of a build upon what was started last season situation. McCoy would have brought in a entirely new offensive system and it's different from the WCO the Ravens have committed to run. So with McCoy you either bring him in and keep the system, thus forcing a roll peg into a square hole, which is a disadvantage for him from day 1. OR you bring him and basically ask him to teach all your coaches and players his system starting from scratch again.  

[Ravensfan23]

So I'm watching the Packers vs Giants game and the Pack are up 31-13 with less than 4 minutes remaining in the game. After 3 consecutive successful running plays that gained a total of 19 yards, the Packers proceed to throw the ball on 2nd and 5 from the 9 yardline and it's viewed as a great play call. Picture that. Almost the same exact situation that has many Ravens fans pissed at Marty and led to the worse call of all times saga, it was viewed as a great play call by McCarthy. So what's the difference? Is it because Flacco threw a Int and Rodgers completed his pass for a 1st down? Is it because they were up by 3 scores instead of 2? Or is it just a case of both offenses looking to deliver the kill shot to their opponent but the Ravens players failed to execute?

I never had a problem with the decision to throw the ball, just would have like a better play selection. But I'd be interested in hearing what some of you thought about McCarthy's decision to throw the ball in that situation

[The Raven]

6 minutes ago, Ravensfan23 said:

So I'm watching the Packers vs Giants game and the Pack are up 31-13 with less than 4 minutes remaining in the game. After 3 consecutive successful running plays that gained a total of 19 yards, the Packers proceed to throw the ball on 2nd and 5 from the 9 yardline and it's viewed as a great play call. Picture that. Almost the same exact situation that has many Ravens fans pissed at Marty and led to the worse call of all times saga, it was viewed as a great play call by McCarthy. So what's the difference? Is it because Flacco threw a Int and Rodgers completed his pass for a 1st down? Is it because they were up by 3 scores instead of 2? Or is it just a case of both offenses looking to deliver the kill shot to their opponent but the Ravens players failed to execute?

I never had a problem with the decision to throw the ball, just would have like a better play selection. But I'd be interested in hearing what some of you thought about McCarthy's decision to throw the ball in that situation

I liked our call and I liked that call #UnpopularOpinion

The result of the call doesn't make the call bad.

[Ravensfan23]

3 minutes ago, The Raven said:

I liked our call and I liked that call #UnpopularOpinion

The result of the call doesn't make the call bad.

Yea I liked the decision but would have liked the call to be more like the Packers. Run a hard play action to create movement and possible confusion by the LBs. But I love the aggressive mindset. I'm tried of this team playing to try and hold onto a game in the final moments. Score and put teams away mid way through the 4th quarter if possible. 

[K-Dog]

41 minutes ago, The Raven said:

 

The result of the call doesn't make the call bad.

Are you new here ?

;) 

[Willbacker]

56 minutes ago, Ravensfan23 said:

So I'm watching the Packers vs Giants game and the Pack are up 31-13 with less than 4 minutes remaining in the game. After 3 consecutive successful running plays that gained a total of 19 yards, the Packers proceed to throw the ball on 2nd and 5 from the 9 yardline and it's viewed as a great play call. Picture that. Almost the same exact situation that has many Ravens fans pissed at Marty and led to the worse call of all times saga, it was viewed as a great play call by McCarthy. So what's the difference? Is it because Flacco threw a Int and Rodgers completed his pass for a 1st down? Is it because they were up by 3 scores instead of 2? Or is it just a case of both offenses looking to deliver the kill shot to their opponent but the Ravens players failed to execute?

I never had a problem with the decision to throw the ball, just would have like a better play selection. But I'd be interested in hearing what some of you thought about McCarthy's decision to throw the ball in that situation

Exactly. Also in the Packer game no let up on defense. Strict man to man with deep safety coverage. Always stay aggressive.  

[JoeyFlex5]

1 hour ago, The Raven said:

I liked our call and I liked that call #UnpopularOpinion

The result of the call doesn't make the call bad.

how much time was left? i had to leave at halftime so i didnt see this part. 

if a field goal absolutely puts the game away, meaning it becomes a 2 possession game without enough time left to score twice(barring a kick return td and successful onside kick and hail mary, which wouldve been needed in the phi game if we ran some clock and kicked the fg) then there is absolutely no reason. 

if there is enough time for the opponent to legitimately make a run at a comeback, then you have to stay aggressive. 

if we scored on that play then obviously theres nothing to complain about, and i get what youre saying, but... when that totally unnecessary and reckless call comes back to bite you, then it highlights all the reasons it was a bad call. even if we scored there, its a bad call simply because its unnecessary risk, but nobody cares because touchdown and what not. 

the result doesnt make it a bad call, but the worst possible result highlights why that call shouldnt have been made.

[Willbacker]

2 minutes ago, JoeyFlex5 said:

how much time was left? i had to leave at halftime so i didnt see this part. 

if a field goal absolutely puts the game away, meaning it becomes a 2 possession game without enough time left to score twice(barring a kick return td and successful onside kick and hail mary, which wouldve been needed in the phi game if we ran some clock and kicked the fg) then there is absolutely no reason. 

if there is enough time for the opponent to legitimately make a run at a comeback, then you have to stay aggressive. 

if we scored on that play then obviously theres nothing to complain about, and i get what youre saying, but... when that totally unnecessary and reckless call comes back to bite you, then it highlights all the reasons it was a bad call. even if we scored there, its a bad call simply because its unnecessary risk, but nobody cares because touchdown and what not. 

the result doesnt make it a bad call, but the worst possible result highlights why that call shouldnt have been made.

It was a 10 pt lead with approx. 4 min left.

[JoeyFlex5]

18 minutes ago, Willbacker said:

It was a 10 pt lead with approx. 4 min left.

just looked at the drive chart for our eagles game and i was quite off on the game clock when that int was thrown. i couldve swore we were near the 2 minute warning at that point. i guess thats what happens when you work a 12 hour overnight shift and watch the game in a total haze lol. 

maybe they were comparable then... i still would advocate for running time off the clock and then pushing it from a 1 to a 2 possession game. 

[Ravensfan23]

43 minutes ago, Willbacker said:

It was a 10 pt lead with approx. 4 min left.

 

19 minutes ago, JoeyFlex5 said:

just looked at the drive chart for our eagles game and i was quite off on the game clock when that int was thrown. i couldve swore we were near the 2 minute warning at that point. i guess thats what happens when you work a 12 hour overnight shift and watch the game in a total haze lol. 

maybe they were comparable then... i still would advocate for running time off the clock and then pushing it from a 1 to a 2 possession game. 

The Ravens were up by 10 points with 6:16 left in the game. It was already a 2 possession game and a FG would have only pushed the lead up to 13 which is still a 2 possession game. Even if you do take another minute or minute and a half off the clock if you don't score a TD your only up by 13 with 4 minutes still on the clock and a defense who has a habit of blowing 4th quarter leads. Meanwhile a TD pushes the score up to 34-17 and the proverbial nail is in the coffin. 

I can't deny that running the ball in that situation is the higher percentage and smartest play, but for people, including Harbs to bash Marty for that call the way they did wasn't right imo. 

[JoeyFlex5]

10 hours ago, Ravensfan23 said:

 

The Ravens were up by 10 points with 6:16 left in the game. It was already a 2 possession game and a FG would have only pushed the lead up to 13 which is still a 2 possession game. Even if you do take another minute or minute and a half off the clock if you don't score a TD your only up by 13 with 4 minutes still on the clock and a defense who has a habit of blowing 4th quarter leads. Meanwhile a TD pushes the score up to 34-17 and the proverbial nail is in the coffin. 

I can't deny that running the ball in that situation is the higher percentage and smartest play, but for people, including Harbs to bash Marty for that call the way they did wasn't right imo. 

Yeah I'll agree here. Like I said I have barely watched the 1:00 games this year because I wake up around halftime and I'm in a stuper still by the end of it so a lot of these day games are a blur lol. I totally had the scenario wrong

[BmoreBird22]

20 hours ago, Ravensfan23 said:

Who says they didn't? Also I think if they did, the con probably out weighed the pros once determining if bringing him in for a interview was good or not.

I would venture to say that most of the discussion was centered more on Marty than looking at any other OC. I'm just shocked they didn't even interview another candidate.

[BmoreBird22]

12 hours ago, Ravensfan23 said:

So I'm watching the Packers vs Giants game and the Pack are up 31-13 with less than 4 minutes remaining in the game. After 3 consecutive successful running plays that gained a total of 19 yards, the Packers proceed to throw the ball on 2nd and 5 from the 9 yardline and it's viewed as a great play call. Picture that. Almost the same exact situation that has many Ravens fans pissed at Marty and led to the worse call of all times saga, it was viewed as a great play call by McCarthy. So what's the difference? Is it because Flacco threw a Int and Rodgers completed his pass for a 1st down? Is it because they were up by 3 scores instead of 2? Or is it just a case of both offenses looking to deliver the kill shot to their opponent but the Ravens players failed to execute?

I never had a problem with the decision to throw the ball, just would have like a better play selection. But I'd be interested in hearing what some of you thought about McCarthy's decision to throw the ball in that situation

I hated it for several reasons.

1. It was first down. You had two more downs to attempt a pass. Why not run the damn ball first and chew of some clock? The Eagles likely aren't coming back from 13 down unless they get the onside kick with how the drives were going (very long and time consuming).
2. The running game was actually doing well in that game. I think everyone who ran the ball (Joe excluded) had at least a 4.0 YPC mark.
3. The passing game was pretty wildly inconsistent. I did not feel like this was Joe's best game and the offensive line was getting worked by Cox and Graham.

I didn't hate the call to pass and I felt the overall play design was actually pretty well done, but Joe got tunnel vision and the Ravens had three downs to work with. I was just upset that they didn't even attempt to burn the clock.

With the Packers game, it sounds like the play was one of those little play action bootlegs where a player comes across the formation with you. I actually love those plays down in the red zone because it keeps the clock rolling one way or another. The quarterback is either going to complete that easy pass OR he's going to run and try to get yardage himself while staying inbounds. 

Had the Ravens called the exact same play as the Packers, I don't think I'd mind it as much because of the high probability that the clock keeps going.

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

I know people wanted McCoy, or at least wanted more of a process and interview.

But let me play devils advocate. It was reported that Harbs has been talking with people around the league and weighing OC options for some time. So it wasnt exactly like his decision was made in haste.

Lets assume he did reach out to McCoy, and McCoy was interested but is more interested in the available HC options. So, he wouldnt commit to anything until all the HC positions were filled. Then, once thats completed he wants to evaluate all available OC positions. 

By that time, if McCoy is available as an OC we're fighting all the new HC's looking to fill their staffs and anyone else looking to replace their OC's (the ones who just got hired as HC's, teams looking for an upgrade, plus someone like John Fox who McCoy has history with and could be looking to reunite with).

Now, if McCoy gets a HC job or takes an OC job elsewhere - we're now picking through the scraps hoping for an improvement.... and by this time Marty isnt happy with the lack of commitment and he goes elsewhere.

Now we're stuck holding the bag, with no continuity, hoping to get a decent OC let alone one with experience in the WCO.

 

That's a very likely scenario if we would have remained patient and looked to explore all OC candidates.... because we don't know who the real OC candidates are until all HC positions are filled... and then we're fighting potentially 7+ other teams for the best available OC candidates.

Marty may not have been the best. But, I have more confidence in Marty being able to improve this offense than I do in our ability to have been able to land a better OC than him and whoever that is improving the offense.

Edited January 9 by BOLDnPurPnBlacK

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

1 hour ago, BmoreBird22 said:

I would venture to say that most of the discussion was centered more on Marty than looking at any other OC. I'm just shocked they didn't even interview another candidate.

I just posted on this... and i get it, it was my initial reaction too.

But whats the point of interviewing guys who may not be legit candidates? Most of the guys we view as upgrades are all interested in HC jobs (for the most part). No real point in talking to them until that process plays out. Then we're interviewing them, and theyre probably interviewing elsewhere (new HC's looking to fill out their staffs, plus departed OC's who got HC jobs) so there's competition and we're on their mercy to make a decision.

In that time, Marty's gonna start interviewing elsewhere too. What if he gets a better offer, McCoy gets a HC job or goes to say Chicago, and all the other obvious upgrades at OC got HC jobs... what then?

 

Not saying that your sentiment is wrong (it was my initial one as well)... just wondering if you considered this (because I hadnt myself until recently).

Edited January 9 by BOLDnPurPnBlacK

[BmoreBird22]

1 hour ago, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

I just posted on this... and i get it, it was my initial reaction too.

But whats the point of interviewing guys who may not be legit candidates? Most of the guys we view as upgrades are all interested in HC jobs (for the most part). No real point in talking to them until that process plays out. Then we're interviewing them, and theyre probably interviewing elsewhere (new HC's looking to fill out their staffs, plus departed OC's who got HC jobs) so there's competition and we're on their mercy to make a decision.

In that time, Marty's gonna start interviewing elsewhere too. What if he gets a better offer, McCoy gets a HC job or goes to say Chicago, and all the other obvious upgrades at OC got HC jobs... what then?

 

Not saying that your sentiment is wrong (it was my initial one as well)... just wondering if you considered this (because I hadnt myself until recently).

From what I've read, McCoy is being viewed as an OC, not a HC. Would have been nice to try to swiftly set up for an interview.

[terrynjulia03]

22 hours ago, Ravensfan23 said:

That's exactly why it's continuity. He already know players and the coaching staff. He won't be implementing a new system, just his philosophy within the system. This will not be a start from scratch situation, more of a build upon what was started last season situation. McCoy would have brought in a entirely new offensive system and it's different from the WCO the Ravens have committed to run. So with McCoy you either bring him in and keep the system, thus forcing a roll peg into a square hole, which is a disadvantage for him from day 1. OR you bring him and basically ask him to teach all your coaches and players his system starting from scratch again.  

Maybe you haven't played ball. But Marty is STILL a new coach with his own playbook, and different than Trestman. Given the evidence he was still playing with Trestman playbook because those are the terms the offense knew. So if you keep him, terms change, routes change, etc.,... It's still a new system, I don't care if you a in and out is the same pattern just under a different call. It's still a new system. 

[rossihunter2]

32 minutes ago, terrynjulia03 said:

Maybe you haven't played ball. But Marty is STILL a new coach with his own playbook, and different than Trestman. Given the evidence he was still playing with Trestman playbook because those are the terms the offense knew. So if you keep him, terms change, routes change, etc.,... It's still a new system, I don't care if you a in and out is the same pattern just under a different call. It's still a new system. 

i doubt the system will change, and i doubt much language will change - what will probably change is the philosophy and use of players within the system as well as playcalling

[Ravensfan23]

5 hours ago, BmoreBird22 said:

I hated it for several reasons.

1. It was first down. You had two more downs to attempt a pass. Why not run the damn ball first and chew of some clock? The Eagles likely aren't coming back from 13 down unless they get the onside kick with how the drives were going (very long and time consuming).
2. The running game was actually doing well in that game. I think everyone who ran the ball (Joe excluded) had at least a 4.0 YPC mark.
3. The passing game was pretty wildly inconsistent. I did not feel like this was Joe's best game and the offensive line was getting worked by Cox and Graham.

I didn't hate the call to pass and I felt the overall play design was actually pretty well done, but Joe got tunnel vision and the Ravens had three downs to work with. I was just upset that they didn't even attempt to burn the clock.

With the Packers game, it sounds like the play was one of those little play action bootlegs where a player comes across the formation with you. I actually love those plays down in the red zone because it keeps the clock rolling one way or another. The quarterback is either going to complete that easy pass OR he's going to run and try to get yardage himself while staying inbounds. 

Had the Ravens called the exact same play as the Packers, I don't think I'd mind it as much because of the high probability that the clock keeps going.

This is basically how I feel about it. Don't have a issue with the mindset of being aggressive, especially knowing how even rookie QBs rip our defense late in games, but would have definitely liked a better play selection. 

 

[Ravensfan23]

1 hour ago, terrynjulia03 said:

Maybe you haven't played ball. But Marty is STILL a new coach with his own playbook, and different than Trestman. Given the evidence he was still playing with Trestman playbook because those are the terms the offense knew. So if you keep him, terms change, routes change, etc.,... It's still a new system, I don't care if you a in and out is the same pattern just under a different call. It's still a new system. 

Maybe you don't understand the term of continuity. 

It's not all about the playbook. Marty has a working relationship with not only the players but most of the lower level coaches that will be on this staff. If you bring someone new in that mean new relationships have to be formed. So when Marty and Engram sit down to talk about what are real expectations of Chris Moore moving forward, there is already a certain level of trust between them because they both watch him in practice throughout the season and Marty knows the type of work both Engram and Moore has put in together. 

Marty already knows the players he'll spend all offseason building the offense around because he's seen guys like Maxx, Waller, Moore, Camp, Gilmore, Lewis, Urschel and other practice over the last 2 seasons so even though their onfield production might not have been the best he already has a working relationship with these players and probably has a general idea of what they can do and how he'd like to use them. It's impossible for a new coach to have this. 

Lastingly, although Marty isn't using his playbook, he was using the concepts and verbiage of his playbook. It's the WCO it's not gonna change that much. Some things might change schematically i.e more crosses, more screens, more deep shot, but the offense isn't gonna change. If you bring in a guy like Mike McCoy there is a likelihood that he changes everything because he's not really a WCO guy. So now even though there will be changes to the playbook, having the same coach that's been in your ear much of the last season, having a familiarity of how he runs practice and his expectations of things makes the transition to a new playbook much easier than if it were a brand new coach. This offseason will be about opening up Marty's playbook more than installing a new playbook and there is a huge difference. 

Oh yeah and no, I've never played NFL football before, which i'm sure most people here haven't. 

[K-Dog]

6 hours ago, rossihunter2 said:

i doubt the system will change, and i doubt much language will change - what will probably change is the philosophy and use of players within the system as well as playcalling

Good enough for me. 

[The Raven]

7 hours ago, rossihunter2 said:

i doubt the system will change, and i doubt much language will change - what will probably change is the philosophy and use of players within the system as well as playcalling

Why do you think the philosophy will change but not the system? It's the same guy calling the plays. If this season showed anything about Marty it's that his philosophy hasn't changed since he called plays for the Eagles.

[Ravenskid52752]

Jason La Canfora

Jason La Canfora – Verified account ‏@JasonLaCanfora

 

Been reporting on possibility of Greg Roman joining Ravens staff as an assistant since last Wed. Been in contact with John Harbaugh...

Would expect the topic to come up at Ravens end-of-season pressers Tues. Could be resolved soon. Would not be coordinator job

Ravens have an opening on their offensive staff. Run game needs help. That's Roman's forte. Could be a run game specialist-type role

 

[Tokyo Reporter]

Here's Zrebiec on Roman: 

 

[RavensFanMania]

9 hours ago, rossihunter2 said:

i doubt the system will change, and i doubt much language will change - what will probably change is the philosophy and use of players within the system as well as playcalling

Marty said himself when he was hired as OC that his verbiage was much different than Trestmans.

Edited January 10 by RavensFanMania

[Underdogsontop!]

Greg Roman sucks