Third And One

**ravenjoe** · 11-28-2007, 01:52 PM

Please correct me if I'm wrong on this one, fans. Back in 2000, the Ravens had a critical game with the Titans IN Tennessee, which I believe we had to win to make the playoffs. Trent Dilfer was QB, and we had Third and One, and it was late in the game. We needed that first down, because we were behind in the game, and remember we needed this win. Well, as I remember, Dilfer goes deep ( remember, we needed just ONE yard to keep that critical drive going ) to Patrick Johnson, I believe. Well, what happens, is he was interfered with and the ball was placed on the one yard line. The next play (or two) Dilfer threw a TD pass in the corner, and the Ravens held on to win. It seems we continue to bash Billick on his third and one calls, but this one play may have been one of the most important play calls of the entire season. I don't know if Billick made the call, and/or Cavanaugh, but the gamble paid off!

**camdenyard** · 11-28-2007, 01:56 PM

You going back seven years to find an example of a gamble that paid off says all that needs to be said about this offense

**ravenjoe** · 11-28-2007, 02:17 PM

Not really - I simply feel that if the players execute, and we have the right players in position to succeed, then this system may not be as bad as advertised. In Minnesota, he had the right players, which, when coupled with his 'gambler' mentality, led to the highest scoring offense in history (at the time ). Just want to give a different perspective on all of this, that's all.

**festivus** · 11-28-2007, 02:18 PM

Third and short is a passing down for most teams most of the time in today's NFL. DF ran some numbers a week or two ago; I don't have them but I remember the segment.

**ravenwoman** · 11-28-2007, 03:13 PM

You can't compare the 2000 team to this one. On third and one, you play the percentages. Especially with a running back like Willis McGaghee. You run the ball. If you don't do that, try QB sneek. If that doesn't work, you go home.

**camdenyard** · 11-28-2007, 03:58 PM

I simply feel that if the players execute, and we have the right players in position to succeed, then this system may not be as bad as advertised

Hmm. Okay, I'll play.

Do we have the right players? Well, nine years' worth of players have come and gone, many of them Pro Bowl caliber and at least one will be a HOF-er. You look at the talent we've had, you scratch your head as to how they continue to not produce, year after year. Let's not forget that half our points have come from our kicker. Are all these players just not very good?

If not, then you have to ask yourself what are they being given to execute?

It's the SYSTEM. It's got to be - one or two down years, I can see. But it's been 9 years. We bring solid talent in here and it's true - they come here and die. Pro Bowlers like Elvis Grbac and Steve McNair turn to jello. Rookies like Redman get so screwed up trying to learn and run this system that they are permanantly football retarded.

is it the coaching? I do know that our most recent castoff QB is looking like Joe Montana in Cleveland. In CLEVELAND

Billick's system is apparently impossible to perfect, or just downright stupid. I roughly equate it with being asked to drive a car down I-695 backwards, or giving a 10 year old a Strat and telling him to play "Cliffs of Dover" note for note, or asking any one of us to translate English into perfect Latin. What you'll get is a dumb look.

How many swing passes in the flat to 3rd-string TEs for 1-yard losses do you need to see? How about 4-yard slants when you need 8 yards on 3rd down? How many punts from your own 39 on 3rd-and-1?

I've seen enough.

**Galen Sevinne** · 11-28-2007, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by ravenjoe

Not really - I simply feel that if the players execute, and we have the right players in position to succeed, then this system may not be as bad as advertised. In Minnesota, he had the right players, which, when coupled with his 'gambler' mentality, led to the highest scoring offense in history (at the time ). Just want to give a different perspective on all of this, that's all.

Defensive pass interference is not offensive players executing.

**ravenjoe** · 11-28-2007, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne

Defensive pass interference is not offensive players executing.

Yea, of course. The point that I am trying to make is that Billick has always had a certain 'go-for-broke' mentality when faced with certain situations, like 3rd and one, "which is a good thing, not a bad thing". This, in no way, exonerates him of some of the boneheaded calls he has made this year. But, playing devil's advocate here, why was last year, with the exception of the playoff loss to the Colts (which turned on a poor decision by McNair in the endzone), different? I venture to say that the team (last year) was in a rythm for a number of reasons: it executed; the line blocked; fewer mistakes; a winning QB at the controls who knew how to win; a healthy defense; and, a system that complemented the offensive players' strengths.

**UKRaven** · 11-29-2007, 05:35 AM

If they got it right once in the past then all well and good. Rightly or wrongly, the 'feeling' is that we ALWAYS pass on 3rd & short (and 4th & short and sometimes BOTH!!) (stats needed here!)

In the games I've watched this year, we seem never to have tried a run on 3rd & short / or faked it / heaven knows what Boller would do with the option - except get flattened by an un-blocked DB!!!

**StingerNLG** · 11-29-2007, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by festivus

Third and short is a passing down for most teams most of the time in today's NFL. DF ran some numbers a week or two ago; I don't have them but I remember the segment.

I remember that. Apparently the Patriots do it half the time. We do it more.

But, I think Drew also added in 3rd and 2 in that equation. I think 3rd and 2 changes the playcall a bit.

I think if you have a running back like McGahee, 3rd and 1 is a no-brainer unless you plan on chucking the ball downfield.