It's the same old story: consensus is -- Cam is at the root of our underachieving O.
After 20+ years in management, I take a different view. For example, our O line is substandard. Not Moeller's fault: it's Cam's fault because he keeps Moeller on and/or does not kick his butt and demand better. Cam not delivering at an SB level? Harbaugh's fault for letting Cam get away with that performance.
Ultimately, look to Bisciotti. It's inescapable: Steve is a lax owner (doubtful!) or he is generally satisfied with the performance of his employees.
This is just a phase we are going through that makes everyone question the FO even if we are 6-2. It's far from pretty, but I still consider this FO to be among the best in the NFL, all teams go through their down periods, this is the NFL, to be 6-2 with the amount of flaws we have on our current team, it really is quite amazing, especially coming off 4 straight winning seasons, we just need to find a way to finish better and win it all.
I don't have many issues with Harbaugh as a coach, other than the fact that he has made some poor choices of coordinators and certain positional coaches in his time here. Mattison, Cam, Pees, and Moeller, being the worse decisions thus far. He has however made some good personnel decisions too that people forget about, like Chuck Pagano for example.
We havent had any semblance of receiver separation in Cam's 5yrs, so that alone is reason to move on. Hey with a new OC, maybe RavensnTerps, aka Cam's son, will be right with his Joe aint that great rants. Seriously, can the Ravens answer the question if Joe is worth $15-17M/yr? By keeping Cam, they definitely cannot. Part of me believes in a f---ed up way that it was planned to keep Cam b/c they knew that Joe wouldnt flourish under his system, thus driving down his contract value.
NFL coaches are employees who have careers to think about just like a lot of other, more mundane folks, and if you think NFL coaches ALWAYS act to maximize their team's chances of winning games, you're wrong. The thing is, NFL coaches ALWAYS act to maximize their own career value, and winning as many football games as possible usually does that. But winning games might not always be the #1 consideration in a coach's mind to maximize his career value, especially if the coach needs to make a decision that might win more games but makes the coach look bad.
Think about it... why in the world are the Jaguars playing Blaine Gabbert right now? He is the worst QB in the NFL, it's not even close, and he's not getting any better. Yet they have Chad Henne on the bench as a clearly superior option who could win more games, and are not playing him. Because a GM and coach that bench or cut a guy who was a first-round pick last year look stupid, they look like they're admitting a huge mistake, and it would hurt their careers (I'm looking mostly at the GM Gene Smith.)
Another example: the Patriots and Wes Welker. They were routinely playing freaking Julian Edelman over Welker early in the season, and nobody can tell me it's because they think Edelman is a better player. As soon as Edelman and Hernandez went down to injuries, they moved Welker up the depth chart and re-incorporated him into the offense, and he looks as good as he always had. Belichick's actions were motivated by an attempt to lower Welker's value, and not by actual on-field considerations.
Another thing that's happening here in Baltimore is the Bryant McKinnie situation... it's not the same issue, but it's pretty clear that the Ravens don't want him to pay him the "50+% of snaps" escalator in his contract. By not playing him, they save money... even though most of us tend to think this team becomes better with McKinnie at LT. Yet the Ravens aren't even CONSIDERING it, and I think the money is the primary reason for that.
So yes, the thought that the Ravens are essentially intentionally sabotaging Flacco's success to drive down his value is an exaggeration, but it's by no means crazy. NFL coaches are still people and people behave in strange ways.