Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 34

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    4,491

    Logical, unheated QB discussion



    Let's all take a breath and relax a tad.

    First, McNair is the starter and should be, he is proven and I think will eventually be fine. His first 2 games were good, the offense just couldn't finish the drives in game 2. I think that is fixable. Last night McNair made a few mistakes, that INT was a very bad (maybe even bonehead) decision.

    Boller has looked good the last 2 games, and I don't care about the competition, he has remained composed in the pocket and thrown the ball where his WRs can make plays and the defense can't. In a positive, in the Giants came even though he missed a few throws (especially the TDs he missed) he still found the open guy.

    The problem some people, myself included, are having with this debate is that the standards applied to Boller don't apply to McNair. McNair had crappy protection, does that excuse his play? Because it didn't excuse Boller's much of the time.

    The fact is when given time to throw both of our QBs look good, the real key is can we pick up the blitzes and can the QB and receivers make the hot reads and perform. We won't stop seeing these blitzes until we do.

    Now, no name calling and no getting pissed off.

    Edit to add: Nobody is happy over McNair's tough night, I think anybody pointing his play out is noting that the criticism directed toward Boller was unfairly harsh because we can now see a guy we KNOW is good struggling.
    Last edited by Greg; 08-26-2006 at 11:51 AM.




  2. #2

    Re: Logical, unheated QB discussion

    Last night McNair made a few mistakes, that INT was a very bad (maybe even bonehead) decision.
    I think if you watch the replay you will see that the INT was Clayton's fault, not Macs. Clayton was open when the ball was released, but for some reason he decided to start drifting towards the sideline. He was out of position when the ball arrived and worse he opened up the door for the CB to cut him off on the inside.

    Boller has looked good the last 2 games, and I don't care about the competition, he has remained composed in the pocket and thrown the ball where his WRs can make plays and the defense can't. In a positive, in the Giants came even though he missed a few throws (especially the TDs he missed) he still found the open guy.
    Agreed. With the exception of game 1, Boller has looked very good.


    The problem some people, myself included, are having with this debate is that the standards applied to Boller don't apply to McNair. McNair had crappy protection, does that excuse his play? Because it didn't excuse Boller's much of the time.

    The fact is when given time to throw both of our QBs look good, the real key is can we pick up the blitzes and can the QB and receivers make the hot reads and perform. We won't stop seeing these blitzes until we do.
    I try to not hold either QB to a different standard, comparisons are difficult given that Boller is not playing with the first team O or against the first team D.

    I believe that regardless of who is QB this year, our season will be made or broken on the play of our OL. The right side looks especially weak and D's like Pitt and Indy are going to put a serious hurting on us unless we can find and anchor on that side.




  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Leading the Freak Parade
    Posts
    55

    Re: Logical, unheated QB discussion

    the real key is can we pick up the blitzes and can the QB and receivers make the hot reads and perform. We won't stop seeing these blitzes until we do.
    I agree with that, and I think McNair will make defenses pay more often than not. Even a short pass over the middle can turn into a big gain if the defense is bringing the house.

    I don't expect our O to be tops in the league. I just want it to be something we can rely on. If it can control the clock, move the ball, and get us some points, our D will take care of the rest....and no, I'm not talking about a "don't make any mistakes" kind of offense. We can all agree we need more than that. We need a QB who reads defenses and puts the ball where it needs to be to give us the best chance to move downfield, get points, and win the battle of field position.

    I think McNair is the best guy on our roster to do that.
    It's not time to panic yet. There were a lot of good vibes heading into camp this year, and I hate to see that ruined.
    THE 2nd WAVE LOYAL™
    © 2007 DRayRaven Enterprises™. All rights reserved, patent pending.
    The contents of this post may not be reproduced in whole or in part without the express written consent
    of DRayRaven, ProFootball 24x7, the Baltimore Ravens, the National Football League, or related entities.




  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    4,491

    Re: Logical, unheated QB discussion

    I think if you watch the replay you will see that the INT was Clayton's fault, not Macs. Clayton was open when the ball was released, but for some reason he decided to start drifting towards the sideline.
    Smoot was all over Clayton on that play, are you claiming Clayton was SUPPOSED to stop? I haven't read much on the game so maybe so, but the even if he stops SMOOT IS ALL OVER HIM. Throwing the ball in any case was a terrible decision.

    I did watch the replay and I saw McNair throw a soft ball to the outside that he had ZERO business throwing.




  5. #5

    Re: Logical, unheated QB discussion

    Smoot was all over Clayton on that play, are you claiming Clayton was SUPPOSED to stop? I haven't read much on the game so maybe so, but the even if he stops SMOOT IS ALL OVER HIM. Throwing the ball in any case was a terrible decision.
    That is exactly what I am saying. Clayton was supposed to run a 5 yrd curl into zone coverage. It was a timing play and he broke focus and started moving to the outside before he had the ball in his hands. Even if Smoot is all over him, if he sits down in the zone like he is supposed to Smoot has to go THOUGH him to get to the ball. Imcomplete pass at the worst. Instead, by peeling off to the outside, Clayton opened the door and gave Smoot the inside move.

    Look, it wasnt a pretty play, but the responsibility doesn't fall solely on Mac's shoulders.




  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    4,491

    Re: Logical, unheated QB discussion

    Okay, and I am not trying to get into an argument with you, but have you read or heard somewhere that Clayton was supposed to curl and not turn out? If so, please link.




  7. #7

    Re: Logical, unheated QB discussion

    Okay, and I am not trying to get into an argument with you, but have you read or heard somewhere that Clayton was supposed to curl and not turn out? If so, please link.
    Come on, you know I don't have a link.

    You can tell by watching the play. Clayton DID curl so it's not a guess on my part. The ball was released just as Clayton was turning in. This indicates that the play was a timing pass where the ball is on it's way before Clayton looks for it. For some reason he starts to sidestep towards the sidelines instead of holding his spot in the zone where the ball was already set to arrive.

    Regardless, Mac IS going to throw INTs this year so we should all get used to seeing it. Hopefully, he throws twice as many TDs.




  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    4,491

    Re: Logical, unheated QB discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Mobtown
    Come on, you know I don't have a link.

    You can tell by watching the play.
    Well I will wait for the coaches to tell me Clayton was at fault. And how am I supposed to know you you don't have a link.

    Since Fanatic has the link, thanks Fanatic. That makes me feel better.




  9. #9

    Re: Logical, unheated QB discussion

    Well I will wait for the coaches to tell me Clayton was at fault.
    So then what exactly is the point of having any discussion with you if you are only willing to listen when you hear it from a coach?

    From the other thread:

    Again, when bad things happen with McNair the fingers point all over the place, when Boller does it is all his fault.
    It seems that some are willing to hang Mac out to dry after only 4 quarters of play. You were all on his jock after that first drive but now people are making excuses for him? I am not any happier with the way things went last than the rest of you, but you are guilty of NOT looking at anything other than QB play just as some are guilty of looking ONLY at QB play.

    All I am saying is that it is way too early to be making to sort of critisizms that you and T are throwing out there. Mac WILL make mistakes...just like Boller.




  10. Re: Logical, unheated QB discussion

    Fassel has weighed in on this a bit too.

    According To Fassel

    "Steve wasn't alone on that interception,” offensive coordinator Jim Fassel said. “That was a play that had a couple of mistakes. We'll get that corrected."
    Will Die A Ravens Fan!!




  11. Re: Logical, unheated QB discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg
    Okay, and I am not trying to get into an argument with you, but have you read or heard somewhere that Clayton was supposed to curl and not turn out? If so, please link.
    Not in specifics, but close.

    Billicks Thoughts

    "And even their highly efficient passing attack was off-target. Steve McNair's first interception of the preseason was returned 69 yards for a touchdown by Vikings cornerback Fred Smoot, a turnover that coach Brian Billick chalked up to a "blown route" by receiver Mark Clayton."

    I agree all the way around though.
    The ball shouldn't have been thrown with that type of blanketed coverage.

    All in all, nothing about last night looked good!!
    Will Die A Ravens Fan!!




  12. #12

    Re: Logical, unheated QB discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg
    Okay, and I am not trying to get into an argument with you, but have you read or heard somewhere that Clayton was supposed to curl and not turn out? If so, please link.
    Actually, I did hear on the post game show last evening that the route Clayton ran on that play was wrong. Can't really provide a link for that, but I will take their word for it on that one.

    I agree with you on all the other stuff regarding standards for Boller and McNair.




  13. #13

    Unhappy Re: Logical, unheated QB discussion

    All I am saying is that it is way too early to be making to sort of critisizms that you and T are throwing out there.
    I don't think 3/4ths through the exhibition season is too early to start assessing performance. It's a good milestone: there should be some semblance of the 1st team offense we will see in season

    Our short passing game looks to be clicking along fine. Thinking about it, we haven't had such good short passing game synchronization since Harbs & Zeier were here, and now we have significantly better receivers. My "criticism", if you will, is the total absence of even a medium range passing attack, much less a few long balls, which we know, from having faced him, that McNair used to be able to throw a few years ago. Even last season, he threw a few deeper pattern completions aginst us in Nashville. If Fassel does not open it up, or if McNair has lost arm strength to become too risky with longer passing, the Defenses could ignore the deep non-threats and smother both the short passing and running games.

    McNair may or may not be the problem. They may be working him in slowly, going to his strengths, or perhaps not tipping our hand to Tampa scouting. Nothing would please me more than to see McNair resemble Randall Cunningham of 1998 or even Tony Banks of 1999 with a few bombs. But until I see some evidence that McNair has that type of ability at his age, yeah, I'm concerned that the Offense isn't fixed at all.





  14. #14

    Re: Logical, unheated QB discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Mista T
    I don't think 3/4ths through the exhibition season is too early to start assessing performance. It's a good milestone: there should be some semblance of the 1st team offense we will see in season

    Our short passing game looks to be clicking along fine. Thinking about it, we haven't had such good short passing game synchronization since Harbs & Zeier were here, and now we have significantly better receivers. My "criticism", if you will, is the total absence of even a medium range passing attack, much less a few long balls, which we know, from having faced him, that McNair used to be able to throw a few years ago. Even last season, he threw a few deeper pattern completions aginst us in Nashville. If Fassel does not open it up, or if McNair has lost arm strength to become too risky with longer passing, the Defenses could ignore the deep non-threats and smother both the short passing and running games.

    McNair may or may not be the problem. They may be working him in slowly, going to his strengths, or perhaps not tipping our hand to Tampa scouting. Nothing would please me more than to see McNair resemble Randall Cunningham of 1998 or even Tony Banks of 1999 with a few bombs. But until I see some evidence that McNair has that type of ability at his age, yeah, I'm concerned that the Offense isn't fixed at all.


    My mistake then T. I thought that based on your opening post in the other thread you were saying that we have wasted 33m based on 4 quarters of preseason ball.

    We will all know shortly, assuming our swiss cheese OL doesn't get him killed in Game 1.




  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    York, PA
    Posts
    215

    Re: Logical, unheated QB discussion

    think anybody pointing his play out is noting that the criticism directed toward Boller was unfairly harsh because we can now see a guy we KNOW is good struggling.
    I disagree in a big way. McNair has played 3 games in Purple. He has played well in all 3, Even in the Vikes game (his worst) we still felt like it was possible to make a first down and he was very consistent on his short (chain moving) stuff. Boller has never been able to string together three performances even approaching the last 3 by McNair. Boller's problem has been consistency. It is also unfair to compair Kyle's performances now to what they were the last 3 years. He's progressed. That's good news. But the criticism was leveled against his performance at the time.

    The only concern I have is us getting into the end zone. We have weapons that will enable us to win even if we have to go to a short passing game. It will keep the LBs honest and will allow room for Jamal and MA.

    I'll reserve judgment on just how good McNair is until after DC.

    One factor that seems to always be forgotten, we have always employed a rushing strategy that involved grinding defenses down so that the beginning of the 4th Q is ours. Kinda hard to do that in 2Qs. Additionally, we didn't have the benefit of 2nd half adjustments. For the last 5 or 6 years, our defense has been notoriously slow starting. Even when other teams didn't score, our defense has fairly consistently allowed the other team to march down the field on the opening drive or two. Then they would lock down. Haven't had a chance to do that either. This is a team with a lot of depth. We should see dividends in stamina and options later in games.




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland