Logical, unheated QB discussion

**Drkraven** · 08-26-2006, 04:32 PM

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.__________________

Rack It, Greg. Tex I agree, I think Bollers improvement is because of McNair and the pressure of not being the starter.

**BirdFan** · 08-26-2006, 04:51 PM

The announcers (I think they were ex-NFL players) on the Ravens radio telecast said that by Boller locking onto his first or primary receiver it will end up getting him picked frequently

But his results say otherwise. Boller does not have that high interception record you would expect. Perhaps "locking on" is given more importance than it deserves.

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

EXACTLY! I said it in another thread...this offense creates "Bollers".

**Brandon** · 08-26-2006, 05:44 PM

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.

**Mista T** · 08-26-2006, 06:14 PM

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.

**Mobtown** · 08-27-2006, 02:47 AM

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.

**Dabruise** · 08-29-2006, 01:10 PM

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.

**Mista T** · 08-29-2006, 05:27 PM

you were saying that we have wasted 33m based on 4 quarters of preseason ball.

If McNair can establish a passing game that gets us into serious playoff contention for a few years, I will gladly eat my words. Until then: "I'm from Missouri". McNair has to show me that he's worth $33 million with only a short passing game.

I just got back from a layover in Nashville last night. Naturally, all the discussion at the bar with a bunch of locals was about McNair. Their universal assessment was that they hated to lose him as a great character and team leader, but that, at this stage of his career, he wasn't worth anything closely resembling the $$$ we paid.

**hurting** · 08-29-2006, 08:01 PM

I think everyone as already put my thoughts into words in this thread. I have always thought that Boller was unfairly criticized at times. I will not nor would not defend him by saying he was great or even good. But, I always thought he was at least fair to decent given his circumstances.

I am ecstatic that we now have McNair and I think he will manage to cover up some of the flaws of this STILL piss poor O-line. However if these TURDS don’t learn how to block, we may all be visiting McNair in the ICU.

On another note I heard some ‘genius’

on the radio say; he thought we got rid on the wrong QB since AW was lighting it up in Cincy. If said person would just learn how to put 2+2 together (ie in B-more with piss-poor line AW + sucks; in B-more with piss-poor line Boller Sucks; in Cincy with good line AW shines; in B-more with piss-poor line McNair looks average = It’s the O-LINE stupid) he would have come to the conclusion that we need some serious help on the

O-line (get rid of Flynn).

Thanks and stay classy B-more

**LBoogy** · 08-30-2006, 11:55 PM

Steve McNair will be just fine; the guy brings the type of intangibles to the table that very FEW NFL quarterbacks possess. I tend to be an optimist with Boller, but McNair is clearly fit to be our starter for this year and next (barring any unforeseen circumstances).

It's encouraging how well Kyle has been playing this preseason and it's encouraging to see McNair play efficiently. Last game for McNair was not good and KB's NY game wasn't the best, but it has to be kept in perspective. It's the preseason people!

I think our QB situation is the LEAST of our worries on offense this season. The PLAY of our quarterback(s) solely depends on our offensive line. There is NO question in my mind that McNair can still play. There is little question in my mind that Boller can come in and at AT LEAST lead us to a .500 record. Individually, these guys (especially McNair) can help this team win IF they are protected. If the offensive line continues down the same road, it DOESN'T matter how capable Stevie and Kyle are. If they aren't protected and the running game is non-existent (as it was last year), our offense doesn't have a chance.

Not to turn this into an O-line thread, but the lack of activity in improving the O-line is absolutely astounding. After an AWFUL O-line last season, our FO takes no action; whether it be signing free agents, through the draft, or getting rid of Chris Forrester! At one point I thought to myself, "well maybe the FO isn't overhauling the O-line because they are confident in starting some of our YOUNG draft acquistions in place of the incompetent veterans...": NOPE.

We have 2 second rounders and an (evidently) impressive 4th round G/C riding the pine. Shouldn't Terry be able to contribute as a 2nd year 2nd round pick? What about Chris Chester? We drafted him in the 2nd round this year. Jason Brown has been seemingly impressive at OG/OC, has the college pedigree and all-world strength, and yet isn't starting in place of Mike Flynn or Keydrick Vincent. Mulitalo doesn't get a pass with me either. He played like garbage last season and hopefully he actually IS in better shape.

Nevertheless, our QB situation is great IMO. The problem lies in our O-line; if it isn't resolved, we don't have a chance. The same group of guys from last season WILL NOT cut it, and it's inexcusible that our FO would actually NOT adjust the shittiest offensive line in the NFL.

**StingerNLG** · 08-31-2006, 01:46 PM

Nevertheless, our QB situation is great IMO. The problem lies in our O-line; if it isn't resolved, we don't have a chance. The same group of guys from last season WILL NOT cut it, and it's inexcusible that our FO would actually NOT adjust the shittiest offensive line in the NFL.

Can not tell you how much I agree with this. O-Line troubles have been so frustrating the last 3 years.

But I think it's time people start to be happy that BOTH our QB's are seemingly doing well. We're going to need them both.

**Dabruise** · 09-01-2006, 12:44 PM

Everyone one has been frustrated with the O-line play. I still maintain that they aren't nearly as bad as the Ravens Nation has portrayed them. However, they are, without question, the weakest unit on the team.

That being said, it's not really fair to say that the FO has not tried to address the O-line. As much as the line play is critical to success, every front office in professional sports believes you sign your skill players. And you get them first. Most believe that you develop your "grunts" and try to hang on to the good ones. No, the Ravens front office has not spent quarterback money on a guard or center that their own contending teams even let go. But they did try to sign one of the best right tackles in the league in 2001 and got burned badly when he was injured and out for the season.

They chose to rebuild the defense first after the purge. But since then, have drafted Pashos in the 5th, Brown in the 4th, Adam Terry in the 2nd, and Chris Chester in the 2nd. Look around the league, the vast majority of O-lineman are late round picks or UDFA. It would be really stupid to draft an offensive lineman in the middle of the first round. But we've pick OL in the 2nd of our last two drafts.

As to FA lineman, the young ones are almost always overpaid and the old ones are well... old. Had for a bargain but their productivity is limited.

Maybe our FO has done a poor job of evaluating OL talent but I don't think it's fair to say that they have done nothing to try to improve the line. The choices are rather stark and simple. Rolle or a top FA guard? Mason or a 2nd string center that couldn't beat out Mike Flynn? Bentley/Hutchinson or McNair?

**lance1086** · 09-01-2006, 06:12 PM

have drafted Pashos in the 5th, Brown in the 4th, Adam Terry in the 2nd, and Chris Chester in the 2nd. Look around the league, the vast majority of O-lineman are late round picks or UDFA. It would be really stupid to draft an offensive lineman in the middle of the first round. But we've pick OL in the 2nd of our last two drafts.

Good points. We also drafted Jason Brown, and acquired Keydrick Vincent. It's not as if, our FO has been blind to the glaring need at OLine.