So is Flacco on the hot seat now, or is it Harbaugh?

**ActualSpamBot** · 12-14-2012, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by bmorecareful

Harbaugh didn't win the games. The team won the games. The team includes Harbaugh, the OC whose dismissal you have consistently said you agreed with, and the 4 DCs we've had--some better than others.

It's my opinion (and it's not a popular one I'm sure) that coaching and QB play are more important to wins and losses than all other elements of the game combined. See also, Manning 3 years ago. Leads his team to the playoffs and a 10-6 record. 2011 and basically an identical roster goes 2-14 without him. Tom Brady goes 16-0 and then a year later the same roster without him is 5 games worse.

Similarly I feel that the consistent success of certain coaches (Harbs among them) despite the league turnover rate being so high that we have exactly 5 starters on O and D left on the roster since 2008 is fairly convincing evidence that a good coach is more important that keeping the same roster of players together.

**ActualSpamBot** · 12-14-2012, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

So I'll ask again since his main job on gameday is challenges, timeouts, clock management and game management situations - can you point to any that had very positive affects on the outcome?

I already explained this in the post you quoted. A good challenge (which he has had dozens of) or a needed time out (which he has dozens of) and good game management (which is such a vague concept that I can only assume it means "good game plan" which his ability to coach us to a nearly .700 winning percent means that he has one on no less than 70% of his games) are all invisible. They just look like good players beating another team. But all the talent in the world won't win you games consistently if it isn't applied correctly. And the only way to determine if a game plan was the right one is by results.

It's not plugging one's fingers in one's ears and chanting 9-4 to cite the team's record as evidence of good coaching. It's even less so to point out 62-29 with two division titles in a row. A coach doesn't produce that record unless he's got:

A. A massive talent advantage on both sides of the ball (which we don't have, and never have except perhaps in 2006 before Harbs got here) or
B. The ability to design and execute game plans better than his opponents 70% of the time.

**saintmatthew** · 12-14-2012, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

Could you point to timeouts called or not called, or challenges called or not called, or end of half or end of game situations that you think he's done a good job of?

End of the 1st half against the Eagles week 2. Got three extra points when most teams would have let Eagles try and race the clock to the end zone.

**NCRAVEN** · 12-14-2012, 12:30 PM

SO you don't have any specific examples ? :D

Cause I've got a ton of stupid ones that have a major impact on outcomes of games.

**ActualSpamBot** · 12-14-2012, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

SO you don't have any specific examples ? :D

Cause I've got a ton of stupid ones that have a major impact on outcomes of games.

Tell you what. You give me specific examples of John Odgen pass blocking well without referencing results of the play (i.e No saying it was good blocking because he didn't give up a sack on that play) and I'll give you specific examples of John Harbaugh coaching well without referencing results (i.e No saying it was good coaching because the team he coached won the game.)

**NCRAVEN** · 12-14-2012, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by ActualSpamBot

Tell you what. You give me specific examples of John Odgen pass blocking well without referencing results of the play (i.e No saying it was good blocking because he didn't give up a sack on that play) and I'll give you specific examples of John Harbaugh coaching well without referencing results (i.e No saying it was good coaching because the team he coached won the game.)

Lame. In no way are those two comparable.

Not calling a timeout at the end of the of the AFCCG is a specific example, calling one to allow Cundiff time to setup would have been a specific example.

saintmatthew provided one. I am not saying he doesn't have any, I'm saying he has a lot of bad ones, more often than not in really close games that his call or non-call have a major affect on the game. If you don't have any just say so, it's cool, I don't remember everything about every game.

**ActualSpamBot** · 12-14-2012, 12:42 PM

And AGAIN! My point is not that he's super awesome at calling time outs and never fucks up at that. It's that to say that "THE ONLY THREE THINGS HE'S RESPONSIBLE FOR ON GAME DAY ARE MOTIVATION, TIME OUTS, AND CHALLENGES AND THAT HE'S TERRIBLE AT THOSE THINGS" is incorrect in it's assumption.

If you say "The only thing Halfbacks do is run for TDs. Ray Rice runs for fewer TDs than Stevan Ridley therefor Ray Rice is worse than Stevan Ridley." I can disagree with that conclusion even though the support for it (Ridley does have more TDs than Rice) is accurate. I can do this because I disagree with the premise that the only way to judge a halfback is by his total rushing TDs.

Similarly I disagree that the only things Harbs is responsible for on gameday are time outs, motivation, and challenges. AND I disagree that those are the determining factors in evaluating a head coach. While there are coaches out there who are better at those things (Marvin Lewis has a STELLAR challenge record) that doesn't make them better coaches because it ignores every other facet of their job from Monday morning 6 days out to game day to the final whistle.

**Haloti92** · 12-14-2012, 12:48 PM

It isn't that Harbaugh makes a mistake with every decision. To do that he would need to be aware of the correct decision everytime and purposely choose the incorrect one.

For me it is the blatantly bad decisions, the ones that I know are wrong the instant they are made (not after game ends), as a random fan. And to be fair, other coaches make similar mistakes. Tomlin for example has the same issues Harbaugh has with timeouts and challenges.

Like trying an onsides kick at Jacksonville on MNF with over two minutes to play, two timeouts, down by 2 points, against a team that had managed only 3 FGs (two of them 50+ yards) up until that point led by a QB who was 9/20 for 93 total yards and a 59.0 rating and had been sacked 4 times that game.

That is a beyond stupid decision. And keep in mind I am a guy who is sensitive to "play it safe" calls and always give "risk taking" the benefit of the doubt when there is doubt.

In this case, there is no doubt, that decision makes no sense and when Jacksonville started at our 37 yard line, and went 3 and out (like we thought they would), and kicked another 50+ yard FG to make the score 12-7, we were in a much worse position because of it.

You kick away there, they go three and out, you receive the punt near mid-field in most cases, down by 2 points with close to two minutes left. And you do it 100/100 times considering the way that game was being played. 100/100. Not Harbaugh.

**ActualSpamBot** · 12-14-2012, 12:58 PM

And if I were arguing that he never fucks up and has NEVER cost us a game by doing so, pointing out that decision would be a major coup. But that is not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that in the NFL, talent is relatively evenly dispersed (as the game's parity would suggest, and the salary cap mandates) and therefor, a team that consistently outperforms the competition (which we do) is doing so because it is being well coached. Coaching staffs are the constant in the NFL. They are there for much longer than the bulk of the roster. Therefor, citing a coach's record is one of the only ways to demonstrate his value relative to his peers. Harb's record is among the best, which is why I consider him among the best. And while he obviously is not perfect, it is foolish to claim that he's literally horrible at literally everything he is supposed to do on game day which was exactly what the poster I responded to claimed.

**NCRAVEN** · 12-14-2012, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by ActualSpamBot

And if I were arguing that he never fucks up and has NEVER cost us a game by doing so, pointing out that decision would be a major coup. But that is not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that in the NFL, talent is relatively evenly dispersed (as the game's parity would suggest, and the salary cap mandates) and therefor, a team that consistently outperforms the competition (which we do) is doing so because it is being well coached. Coaching staffs are the constant in the NFL. They are there for much longer than the bulk of the roster. Therefor, citing a coach's record is one of the only ways to demonstrate his value relative to his peers. Harb's record is among the best, which is why I consider him among the best. And while he obviously is not perfect, it is foolish to claim that he's literally horrible at literally everything he is supposed to do on game day which was exactly what the poster I responded to claimed.

Great post. Not a lot to argue with other than to nitpick, so I won't.

I will just ask this and hope for an honest answer.

The main areas that people have a problem with may not be all he does but those are the 3 main areas that cost us games and presumably from getting over the hump. Sooooo, if he doesn't improve in clock management, challenge management game management and continues to cost us games, do you keep him around if we have the same level of wins we have had?

**ActualSpamBot** · 12-14-2012, 01:23 PM

I keep him around for at least 3 more seasons even if he has plateaued in all areas (which is unlikely). After that IF he still hasn't won it all I would look to upgrade simply because people are not logical machines and doubt and low morale could at this point begin to reduce his effectiveness in other areas, thus lessening his likelihood of improving his results.

Because once again, I disagree wit your premise that those areas will or must keep us on the wrong side of a Superbowl. If you win 2 out of 3 consistently, then you have a great chance of winning the 3 or 4 in a row you need to win it all. The competition is tougher in the playoffs, but the game is still the same and he wins playoff games at nearly the same rate he wins regular season games so I have little doubt that he can win it all. It just has to come together. We've had streaks of 4 plus straight wins against playoff teams under Harbs. They just didn't come in the playoffs.

**Dirt1** · 12-14-2012, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by ActualSpamBot

I keep him around for at least 3 more seasons even if he has plateaued in all areas (which is unlikely). After that I would look to upgrade simply because people are not logical machines and doubt and low morale could at this point begin to reduce his effectiveness in other areas, thus lessening his likelihood of improving his results.

Because once again, I disagree wit your premise that those areas will or must keep us on the wrong side of a Superbowl. If you win 2 out of 3 consistently, then you have a great chance of winning the 3 or 4 in a row you need to win it all. The competition is tougher in the playoffs, but the game is still the same and he wins playoff games at nearly the same rate he wins regular season games so I have little doubt that he can win it all. It just has to come together. We've had streaks of 4 plus straight wins against playoff teams under Harbs. They just didn't come in the playoffs.

The next two games are bad match-up for the Ravens. Not that they couldn't win one or both of them, but the match-ups are not in their favor. The last game of the season is a road game at Cincy. The Ravens have struggled on the road this year. If they somehow finish the season losing their last five straight games (a scenario that is not that far fetched), I think Harbaugh is toast even if they still manage to back into the playoffs.