Should Tyrod Taylor be included more often?

[Haloti92]

Creativity?

Put the best 11 men on the field as was mentioned above. Joe Flacco gives us the best shot at winning any game, and possession, any downs. Any tinkering with him for Taylor undermines his leadership as the starting quarterback for this team. Period. You don't invest $120 Million in a franchise quarterback who's performance is less than his check when his O-Line and RB suck right now.

You want to use a trick play? Do it when your offensive line can actually fucking block.

Since different men have different skill sets, there exist no such "best 11 men" in any offense that attempts to be creative. We already run in more than 11 guys as it is. You think we are making a mistake doing it?

And again, Tyrod would be the "best" man if we are looking for a guy who can run and throw the ball on our team. What you are saying is you can't imagine a play where having a guy that can run the ball and throw the ball would be helpful. That is the problem.

And there is 0% chance putting Tyrod in for a couple plays per game to change things up "undermines" Flacco at all. Sounds like you don't have the same opinion of Flacco's character that I do.

As for trick plays. You use them when your offensive line can't block. If your offensive line could block, you could drive down the field with your less mobile QB, running predictable plays, and scoring enough points to win. Trick plays are a way to "win" on a play with your brain, when you can't "win" consistently with your body.

[Rayvens52]

The upside is the potential of a big play.

The purpose of doing this would not be to get Tyrod some work. The purpose would be to win games. Games we are currently losing with our "standard" offense's ineptitude.

The downside is close to zero. In fact it probably is zero assuming we can drill into Tyrod's head not to throw the ball into coverage on plays where we give him a pass option.

And since a gain of 5 yards, let alone 18, would be an improvement over our current offense, the upside almost has to be more than the downside. More or equal, not less.

The one play we already ran gained 4 times our average gain. So I don't see how anyone can try to argue there is no upside. When I said the upside is probably less than some people imagine, I meant that I don't expect multiple TDs on these kinds of plays (of we start running 2-3 per game), but rather a bunch of modest gains with the occasional big play (18 yards, 20 yards, etc.) when the defense makes a mental mistake defending the play.

And what you do not seem to understand is that the more times he sees the playing field the less effective he becomes. He, like the play is a gimmick, which is why the wildcat is dead. He had his nice 1 play, it will not be effective any more as it is on tape now. You can try and make new plays for him all you want but it is a gimmick offense and nothing we dream up will be anything different than what the D's we play have already seen. Last year (or year before) we ran a fake field goal for a TD, why don't we try that 4 times a game too if we are going to just have the team run madden plays?


I'm not saying this team could not be more creative on offense, I'm saying that using Tyrod is not the answer to becoming more creative and a more dynamic offense.

[Haloti92]

No argument on Tyrod's strengths--but hold that thought...So when Tyrod enters the game, replacing a WR (probably the slot), the Ravens gain the possibility for an end-around option. Anything else? Statue of Liberty option pass, I guess but that's pretty much the same thing. Direct snap if they line him up in the backfield. Anything else?

It seems to me that all the possible plays with Tyrod handling the ball in an option-type format can be successfully defended in pretty much the same way.

What do they lose? Suppose they want to run a different sort of play out of that package, with Tyrod as a decoy. In theory that would make sense. But it prompts a few questions: (a) Can he catch anything but a pitchback? Say, a flare out of the backfield as a safety valve or screen? (b) Can he catch Joe's fastball on a slant? (c) Can he run a more complicated route--or more importantly, sell it as a legitimate possibility that has to be defended? (d) Can he block downfield effectively? (e) Can he pick up blitzers?

I suspect the answers to those questions are (a) Probably, (b) No, (c) Probably not, (d) Vs a DB, maybe, (e) Probably not. Note that all of those possibilities involve capabilities not normally part of a QB's skill set which would cost practice time & reps getting him up to speed.

Anything that Tyrod is asked to do other than handle the ball is not going to get done as well as the player he replaces would have done it. Essentially they'd be playing 10-1/2 on 11. In fact, more like 10 on 11, because most all of his positional assignments on those other plays would expose the only backup QB on the roster to getting lit up, so they'd have to be crazy to risk it (especially since Tyrod isn't built to "take a licking & keep on ticking"). (For dogsake, is there anyone else who's taken a snap under center since HS??)

Once or twice a game, in the right situation, maybe. More often than that would IMHO be nuts. The risk/reward equation is all wrong.

No one is re-inventing the wheel here.

And all I am talking about (can't speak for others) is 'once or twice' a game.

He has been in once and the play gained 18 yards. Whether the reverse could have gained the same or more if run by one of our WRs, who knows? But the WR would be less able to stop, step back and throw the ball, if the defense charged the line after the pitch/handoff.

No doubt the defense can have a plan to defend such plays. They simply require the defense to be on their toes to more possible variations. The defense also has plans to defend standard runs and passes and are doing a damn good job of it against our standard plays.

I am certainly not arguing we are neglecting a Holy Grail here.

[Haloti92]

And what you do not seem to understand is that the more times he sees the playing field the less effective he becomes. He, like the play is a gimmick, which is why the wildcat is dead. He had his nice 1 play, it will not be effective any more as it is on tape now. You can try and make new plays for him all you want but it is a gimmick offense and nothing we dream up will be anything different than what the D's we play have already seen. Last year (or year before) we ran a fake field goal for a TD, why don't we try that 4 times a game too if we are going to just have the team run madden plays?


I'm not saying this team could not be more creative on offense, I'm saying that using Tyrod is not the answer to becoming more creative and a more dynamic offense.

I understand perfectly. You are arguing against a strawman.

And the wildcat isn't dead at all. It is still used as a change up. And successfully. In fact it was used against us successfully this year. It is dead as run-every-play-because-your-QB-sucks offense. And even then, only because defenses started playing extra heavy run defense (wildcat just gives you an extra blocker in lieu of the QB anyway).

Obviously he gets less effective the more he goes out there, which is why it is limited to 2-3 times per game. Not per series. And you can easily vary such plays with a guy like Tyrod to accommodate 2-3 plays per game. You can even set the defense up if you are smart by making them think they know what the variation will be based on previous week's film.

It also sounds like you are assuming that a failed "creative" play is somehow different or more-damaging than one of the two dozen failed "standard" and predictable plays we run every game.

Tyrod isn't "the" answer to anything. He is "a" way to be creative, make the defense use their brains (more than we currently do), and possibly catch them napping for a big play.

[Rayvens52]

I understand perfectly. You are arguing against a strawman.

And the wildcat isn't dead at all. It is still used as a change up. And successfully. In fact it was used against us successfully this year. It is dead as run-every-play-because-your-QB-sucks offense. And even then, only because defenses started playing extra heavy run defense (wildcat just gives you an extra blocker in lieu of the QB anyway).

Obviously he gets less effective the more he goes out there, which is why it is limited to 2-3 times per game. Not per series. And you can easily vary such plays with a guy like Tyrod to accommodate 2-3 plays per game. You can even set the defense up if you are smart by making them think they know what the variation will be based on previous week's film.

It also sounds like you are assuming that a failed "creative" play is somehow different or more-damaging than one of the two dozen failed "standard" and predictable plays we run every game.

Tyrod isn't "the" answer to anything. He is "a" way to be creative, make the defense use their brains (more than we currently do), and possibly catch them napping for a big play.

Your definition of success is much different than mine. You think Pitt ran the wildcat against us successfully? What did they have 4 plays for about 15 yds? What teams are running the wildcat successfully in the NFL anymore? It is nothing more than a gimmick just like RG3 and Cap, how are they performing now that NFL defenses had time to scout? Sorry but Tyrod is not the answer to becoming more creative at all! This is no different than when people wanted Troy in for special packages because he was supposedly so athletic, howd that work out and he was a Heisman winner.

[JAB1985]

The upside is the potential of a big play.

The purpose of doing this would not be to get Tyrod some work. The purpose would be to win games. Games we are currently losing with our "standard" offense's ineptitude.

The downside is close to zero. In fact it probably is zero assuming we can drill into Tyrod's head not to throw the ball into coverage on plays where we give him a pass option.

And since a gain of 5 yards, let alone 18, would be an improvement over our current offense, the upside almost has to be more than the downside. More or equal, not less.

The one play we already ran gained 4 times our average gain. So I don't see how anyone can try to argue there is no upside. When I said the upside is probably less than some people imagine, I meant that I don't expect multiple TDs on these kinds of plays (of we start running 2-3 per game), but rather a bunch of modest gains with the occasional big play (18 yards, 20 yards, etc.) when the defense makes a mental mistake defending the play.

I think that play had a lot less to do with Tyrod than the play call itself. I think it would have been successful if we had anybody in there to run the same play. We can use it as its really his only contribution so far this season but its incredibly misleading when his career average before that was 5. I dont see defenses changing how they guard him or being caught off guard. the upside of him vs a guy thats better at the position he comes in at is where im stuck. I just dont see him as a better player or offering anything other that a better version of the HB option.

[Haloti92]

Your definition of success is much different than mine. You think Pitt ran the wildcat against us successfully? What did they have 4 plays for about 15 yds? What teams are running the wildcat successfully in the NFL anymore? It is nothing more than a gimmick just like RG3 and Cap, how are they performing now that NFL defenses had time to scout? Sorry but Tyrod is not the answer to becoming more creative at all! This is no different than when people wanted Troy in for special packages because he was supposedly so athletic, howd that work out and he was a Heisman winner.

My definition of success is simply a successful play.

The Steelers ran the wildcat on 3rd and 2, and gained 6 yards. Success. You are the one saying the wildcat is "dead" whatever that means.

As for you fixating on the issue of teams "running the wildcat" successfully, I remind you we aren't talking about "running the wildcat." We are talking about 2-3 change-up plays per game.

As for Troy Smith, we barely used him at all. And there were certainly successful plays. The 43 yard completion to Flacco comes to mind. And there were no disastrous plays that I recall.

But even that comparison doesn't fly because the Ravens' offense was nowhere near as inept as it is now, and more importantly we were not losing games in which a single big play might have turned the tide. Suffice it to say, if our offense was ranked in the middle of the pack and we were multiple games above .500, I would see a much lesser need to try to "catch" the defense off-guard for a big play.

[Rayvens52]

My definition of success is simply a successful play.

The Steelers ran the wildcat on 3rd and 2, and gained 6 yards. Success. You are the one saying the wildcat is "dead" whatever that means.

As for you fixating on the issue of teams "running the wildcat" successfully, I remind you we aren't talking about "running the wildcat." We are talking about 2-3 change-up plays per game.

As for Troy Smith, we barely used him at all. And there were certainly successful plays. The 43 yard completion to Flacco comes to mind. And there were no disastrous plays that I recall.

But even that comparison doesn't fly because the Ravens' offense was nowhere near as inept as it is now, and more importantly we were not losing games in which a single big play might have turned the tide. Suffice it to say, if our offense was ranked in the middle of the pack and we were multiple games above .500, I would see a much lesser need to try to "catch" the defense off-guard for a big play.

2-3 plays a game is 2-3 plays too many. He is a backup QB, period. As I stated earlier he is a below avg QB, subpar RB and bad WR, he brings no value to field, defenses will not be fooled by a gimmick play that has been run a million times since 2010, it is a wasted play. If you want creativity on O draw up better plays that allow the best 11 on the field that will result in large gains and hopefully TD's, Tyrod is never one of the best 11 including 2-3 times a game.

[Haloti92]

2-3 plays a game is 2-3 plays too many. He is a backup QB, period. As I stated earlier he is a below avg QB, subpar RB and bad WR, he brings no value to field, defenses will not be fooled by a gimmick play that has been run a million times since 2010, it is a wasted play. If you want creativity on O draw up better plays that allow the best 11 on the field that will result in large gains and hopefully TD's, Tyrod is never one of the best 11 including 2-3 times a game.

All of this has already been addressed.

He can throw better than WRs and RBs and run better than our QB.

Defenses will not be fooled, except when they are.

We are talking about many different kinds of plays, not the imaginary single play you keep fixating on that has "been run a million times since 2010."

Our offense sucks ass, and a single big play could have won a couple more games. Heck, the flea-flicker, despite the blatant underthrow, resulted in a rare TD for our offense, and we won the game by the skin of our teeth.

And yes, Tyrod is one of the best 11, assuming one of the 11 is supposed to create a run-pass option that will keep the defense on their toes.

And an incompletion or zero yard gain is not only not the end of the world, it would be lost in the crowd of incompletions and zero yard gains our offense routinely puts up in its current form.

[Ravens44]

At this point after 10 games...everyone and his mother KNOWS our Oline is a huge problem and our play design is ONCE AGAIN prehistoric.
But I will say I have NO CLUE as to what the coaching staff is thinking (if they are thinking at all) every Sunday.
It does appear they don't see what we see.
And I don't know how that will change.
The Ravens currently have the 30th ranked offense.
We didn't have that when everyone on the planet knew we were just going to hand off to Jamal every play.
So, I figure the offensive coaches don't know what to do, which means they will continue to do the same thing.
The offensive scheme handicaps our players, so each player has to win his one on one battle every freaking play inspite of the play design failures. That's not going to happen for the Ravens.
They will have to change what they have been doing since training camp.

What do you think the odds of that happening are?

I think the odds are way better that the Steelers win the division than the Ravens changing the way they block upfront leading to holes to run through and time for Joe to throw with plays that are reworked to get our receivers open by design. I want them to prove me wrong and shut me up.

[Haloti92]

Our offense is actually ranked 31st in yards per play. Our defense just gives it more plays than some of the other teams' offenses get (per game).

And even worse, it is only a single tenth of a yard per play better than Jacksonville at #32, and two tenths behind #30. So closer to last than to 30th.

[Captain Silver]

So you are saying that trying something in a game and essentially giving Flacco another weapon/option is a huge mistake?

He is not a weapon, he by far worse than ANY of our other wide receivers, he is a back up QB. End of discussion. He runs the scout offense for the D and if needed, plays mop up (hahaha, made myself laugh) or in the event of an injury to Joe.

But I get your angle Joe, I used to be a blogger, throw anything against the wall, see if it sticks and you create traffic, well played but conceptually foolish when the team needs to focus on simple blocking before getting cute.

2-3 plays a game is 2-3 plays too many. He is a backup QB, period. As I stated earlier he is a below avg QB, subpar RB and bad WR, he brings no value to field, defenses will not be fooled by a gimmick play that has been run a million times since 2010, it is a wasted play. If you want creativity on O draw up better plays that allow the best 11 on the field that will result in large gains and hopefully TD's, Tyrod is never one of the best 11 including 2-3 times a game.

Dude, sound logic. But it falls on deaf ears because people want 'juice'. Juice would come if defenders weren't in Flacco's face .09 seconds after "Hike".