Results 61 to 72 of 182
-
-
-
11-21-2013, 02:12 PM #63
Re: Should Tyrod Taylor be included more often?
And the point the rest of us are making is we are positive the guys getting paid a ton of money have thought of this and it is about putting the best 11 on the field for any given play, Tyrod is not one of the best 11, ever! The reason his 18 yd play worked was not because it was Tyrod and the D was shocked to see him, they called the right play at the right time. Watch one winning drive where that play is talked about, our own players on the bench were quoted as saying " I was like who is #2" He lined up at WR and the play worked, if our own guys forgot who #2 was I can all but guarantee the D just thought it was a receiver.
If you want to have fun and make a thread about what you would do have it, but if you truly believe that Tyrod is going to help this team in any fashion whatsoever you are sadly mistaken. He is a below avg Qb, a subpar RB and a bad WR, so how any part of the combo makes you think he will help is beyond me? You are calling for a wildcat package that league figured out years ago and does not work and those teams that were running back in the day had much better options than Tyrod Taylor!Hating Steeler Fans Since Birth
Section 126, Row 33
Lets Go Flacco :happyanim
-
11-21-2013, 02:13 PM #64iggyman555 Guest
-
11-21-2013, 02:14 PM #65iggyman555 Guest
-
Re: Should Tyrod Taylor be included more often?
Id agree with your first 3 paragraphs. the downside may be minimal but I wouldnt think the upside is much more than minimal either. Im fine with it once were mathematically eliminated. I wont care much what they do at that point. right now, i just dont see the upside being high enough to warrant it, even if the downside is minimal.
-JAB
-
Re: Should Tyrod Taylor be included more often?
And I think if they really want to be creative then they should implement more of the route tree than what they are doing.
Don't you find it is strange that a majority of the passes are going to the middle of the field?
The Ravens (even going back to Cam's days) completely limit areas of the field from their playbook. I don't know why this is, but other than the playoffs, the Ravens just don't use the whole field at all. Even during the playoffs they didn't use the entire field.
It limits their offense and makes it easier for defenses to defend.Disclaimer: The content posted is of my own opinion.
-
-
Re: Should Tyrod Taylor be included more often?
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.
-
11-21-2013, 02:31 PM #70Veteran Poster
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
- Posts
- 4,553
Re: Should Tyrod Taylor be included more often?
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.
-
11-21-2013, 02:36 PM #71On The Practice Squad
- Join Date
- Dec 2012
- Location
- Bel Air
- Posts
- 38
-
11-21-2013, 02:37 PM #72Hyperbolic curmudgeometer
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
- Location
- Balmer Merlin Hon
- Posts
- 5,854
- Blog Entries
- 1
Re: Should Tyrod Taylor be included more often?
No argument on Tyrod's strengths--but hold that thought...
Obviously the 'best' way to improve the offense is to have the O-line play better, the WRs play better, the RBs play better, and the QB play better. But while we perpetually keep wishing that will happen starting the next play, we could also attempt to improve the offense by changing things up, making it mentally harder for the opposition to defend, and perhaps catching them napping for a single random big play.
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.
Bookmarks