Ozzie on Cam's firing

**Ravenswintitle** · 01-26-2013, 11:32 AM

just my $.02 but I agree with alien^. Harbs was never on the hot seat and the decision was his. Did he have discussions with management and Biscotti? Likely he did but you have to let the head coach make those decisions or how could you ever hold him accountable? Either way it worked out well for all involved... so far

**Terpsfan82** · 01-26-2013, 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by TL24x7

Because Bisciotti was involved doesn't make him Dan Snyder. He's a smart guy who understands the dynamics of organizational hierarchy perhaps more so than any other owner on the planet given the way he's made his fortune. I think he knows when to call in a marker, and he did.

Each time I've had the pleasure to spend some time with Bisciotti, the way he processes information and the interesting way he responds to questions screams "outside the box" thinking. I learn something from him with each conversation.

But back on point, he made if very clear to me when he said, "I'm more involved than people think."

He isn't dictating decisions, just influencing them by challenging his people and then asking them to consider alternatives and possibilities. The best way to get people to buy in to change is to have them put their own stamp on it. He's a master of that.

That said, his influence in Cam's firing was extreme. He wanted him gone 2 years prior but Harbs convinced him otherwise. In December, Harbs still not buying into Cam's dismissal, ran out of rope and couldn't save him.

You speak of knowing a few things about Harbs. Then you should know he's conservative by nature and firing a family friend, his coordinator in season while in first place, goes completely against his tendencies.

I agree with this and believe it's spot on. We all remember the year end presser after the 2010 season where Harbaugh proclaimed "Cam under fire" would be a good thing. It seemed he was uncomfortable with calling out his friend even then, and was only doing it at the behest of Biscotti. Biscotti was livid at the showing of the offense (126 total yards, meltdown during the second half, going into turtle mode) during that meltdown in Pittsburgh.

**HoustonRaven** · 01-26-2013, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by alienrace

There is no way Harbs is on the hot seat or ever was. No chance whatsoever.

As for Cam, maybe Biscotti wasn't happy with Cam, that I can buy, but to say he pressured Harbaugh is hard to believe. I don't doubt that he and Harbs discussed the matter, but I don't think it got to the point of saying fire the guy or else.

Especially because all of the counts appear backed up by multiple sources, as well as the game film. Cam and Harbs got into it bigtime on the sideline of the Redskins game, we all saw it and heard about it. Multiple reports said it carried over into the locker room. The reason for the fight was because Harbs asked Cam to use more max-protect in the second half when the Redskins started bringing 5 pass rushers, and Cam didn't listen to him and did his own thing, costing us two turnovers.

It's pretty obvious to everyone that Harbaugh was pissed at Cam for being insubordinate, and went to Biscotti.

I think this post is rather naive.

It was pretty well reported to the contrary. Just because the sideline blow up happened doesn't mean it was all Harbs doing.

In fact, I think it lends itself to the opposite -- Harbs and Cam are friends and knew that any Cam fuck up would lead to him getting the boot, thus his sideline frustration and blow up.

**Boulderraven** · 01-26-2013, 01:25 PM

Not exactly sure how it went down, but I have heard from a reliable source is was a "group decision" dating back to a few weeks to when the Ravens played @ Pittsburgh. They were not happy with Cam's protection package calls in the games after that. Ravens blew lead at home vs Pittsburgh, @ Washington to sacks from the Blind side with empty backfeild sets and no TE help. Then "mysteriously" extra TE used, more RB chipping and a Reid goes to IR and McKinnie surfaces at LT once in "shape" Cameron would NOT take orders from Harbs on protection packages as well as abandoning the "sugar" huddle in which Caldwell and the offense spent the offseason designing. Notice the "sugar huddle on the road in NE gashed the Pats in the 2nd half and they let JOE play football" Cam was up Joe's butt to much and he never could get in rythymn. Ozzie and the FO is totally endorsing Harbs so he has control of lockerroom and doesnt lose respect, but Ravens dont make outlaw decisions they do things in a corporate fashion, but Harbs gets the credit as he should.

**TL24x7** · 01-26-2013, 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by Ravenswintitle

just my $.02 but I agree with alien^. Harbs was never on the hot seat and the decision was his. Did he have discussions with management and Biscotti? Likely he did but you have to let the head coach make those decisions or how could you ever hold him accountable? Either way it worked out well for all involved... so far

Hot seat means you are on notice. And when the owner makes a power move to make a change in the coaching staff because the coach can't or won't, the move alone suggests that the coach isn't doing what he's suppose to do and by default ends up on the hot seat.

Clearly now he is no longer on that seat.

I'm just sharing what I can. You guys can and obviously have made up your own minds about what happened.

**pickles** · 01-26-2013, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by TL24x7

Hot seat means you are on notice. And when the owner makes a power move to make a change in the coaching staff because the coach can't or won't, the move alone suggests that the coach isn't doing what he's suppose to do and by default ends up on the hot seat.

Clearly now he is no longer on that seat.

I'm just sharing what I can. You guys can and obviously have made up your own minds about what happened.

So Harbs was "on notice" and the proof that he was on notice is an equally unprovable theory that Bisciotti forced the Cam decision.

That's pretty much the definition of circular logic.

If anybody thinks they were going to fire Harbaugh, after five straight playoff appearances, they are seriously deluded.

IMO, the idea of a group decision seems like the most plausible and the most like the org.'s MO.

**rlh445** · 01-26-2013, 05:22 PM

I like how on one hand people are saying that Biscuit is a very smart owner and will do what's best for the team and in the same breath say Harbs was on the 'hot seat' after doing nothing but winning for five years and getting a text from Bisciotti while down in Denver by a touchdown with minutes left in the game stating that no matter what happens, he was proud of the team. That doesn't quite add up. I'm sure it was a group decision that everyone agreed with because that's what makes the most sense given how the entire front office has run since Steve took over full ownership.

I'm willing to say that it's very possible that perhaps Bisciotti said to John, 'Well man what's going on?! You need to right this ship,' and that forced Harbs to admit what he's probably known for at least a couple of years: Cam wasn't going to change and it was bringing down the entire team starting with his franchise QB. I don't think he said, 'If you don't make the necessary changes (COUGH CAM COUGH) you're done here,'.

**StingerNLG** · 01-26-2013, 06:45 PM

The problem here is that there is no evidence to suggest that Bisciotti forced/threatened/coerced/etc: Harbaugh to get rid of Cam. And I doubt very highly with 5 years of winning and already 2 AFCC games that he walked into John's office and said "Fire Cam or else".

Not to mention we've heard NOTHING from the "anonymous" team source on this to guys like Mike Preston. Remember during the whole Billick thing stuff got leaked out to Preston? Nothing from him on this. In fact, I think he has said on the air once or twice that this was Harbaugh's call.

When Bisciotti wanted to make an example of Brian Billick, he had no trouble doing it in front of the media. Ozzie's statement wasn't just a "we don't discuss personnel matters", or "this was a team decision". This was an emphatic "no, we did not have anything to do with Cam's firing".

I just don't buy this one.

**Captain Silver** · 01-26-2013, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by StingerNLG

The problem here is that there is no evidence to suggest that Bisciotti forced/threatened/coerced/etc: Harbaugh to get rid of Cam. And I doubt very highly with 5 years of winning and already 2 AFCC games that he walked into John's office and said "Fire Cam or else".

Not to mention we've heard NOTHING from the "anonymous" team source on this to guys like Mike Preston. Remember during the whole Billick thing stuff got leaked out to Preston? Nothing from him on this. In fact, I think he has said on the air once or twice that this was Harbaugh's call.

When Bisciotti wanted to make an example of Brian Billick, he had no trouble doing it in front of the media. Ozzie's statement wasn't just a "we don't discuss personnel matters", or "this was a team decision". This was an emphatic "no, we did not have anything to do with Cam's firing".

I just don't buy this one.

Well if Preston said it was John's call then it really must have been the Biscuit ;)

**TL24x7** · 01-27-2013, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by pickles

So Harbs was "on notice" and the proof that he was on notice is an equally unprovable theory that Bisciotti forced the Cam decision.

That's pretty much the definition of circular logic.

If anybody thinks they were going to fire Harbaugh, after five straight playoff appearances, they are seriously deluded.

IMO, the idea of a group decision seems like the most plausible and the most like the org.'s MO.

Just trying to share what I've learned. Take it for what it's worth which to you apparently isn't much.

You are now free to move about the circular cabin...

**ballhawk** · 01-27-2013, 01:15 PM

You all know that Tony is a lot closer to the situation then any of us are, right?

**MarkS** · 01-27-2013, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by ballhawk

You all know that Tony is a lot closer to the situation then any of us are, right?

Sure. Closer than Ozzie? Yea...no.

So we have a choice to believe an unnamed "source" developed by a guy who runs a fan website, or the senior front office official of the organization, who went on record. The only way Tony is right and Ozzie wrong, is if Ozzie himself is part of the conspiracy to cover up the truth.

Everyone here is entitled to choose what to believe, obv. I believe Ozzie...guess I'm just being naive.