View Poll Results: Bigger Impact?

Voters
28. You may not vote on this poll
  • Ray Rice

    14 50.00%
  • T Sizzle

    8 28.57%
  • Both

    3 10.71%
  • Neitheir absence will have impact

    3 10.71%
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 46
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    31,832
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Bigger Impact: No Rice or No Suggs?



    Quote Originally Posted by mommathurgoesthatman View Post
    It should not be confusing because its a hypothetical question. This is a "what if" question/poll.

    Ray Rice steped up not only to be our best player on offense but also a vocal leader and a team leader. He develop into a leauge wide star. So him sitting out until mandatory training camp starting in late July/ early August and skipping OTA's and other group workouts, voluntary or not, still is not a good thing IMO. Ray Rice is a vocal leader on this offense and with Pierce, Allen, Berry all having no to little experience in the NFL, Ray Rice presence would be greatly beneficiary to the younger players before training camp starts. I know people are already sold on Pierce but i watch more tape on him and he has trouble in pass blocking and blitz pick up. Which is probably the hardest thing a rookie RB can learn in the NFL. IMO if Ray Rice wanted to hold out this season would be the year to do it. Rice is the single most (maybe next to Flacco) important player on our team. He outplayed his contract by far and he wants a long term deal with good numbers. I cant blame him if he did hold out. I wouldnt be mad.
    Hey dude, I answered you what my thought was. I was just merely telling you that some people may find your hypothetical question confusing and unlikely/unrealistic because Rice will be a part of the offense whether he wants to be or not. There is no financial leverage to be gained from him holding out. Quite the opposite, as a matter of fact.


    http://www.forbes.com/sites/sportsmo...ts-in-the-nfl/
    The league got a win in the new CBA as it pertains to holdouts. In an effort to prevent them, under the new CBA if player under contract fails to report to training camp, he is fined $30,000 per day by his club. Thatís more than double the fine in the prior CBA which was $14,000 per day.
    So, considering Rice only made a few hundred thousand last year, getting fined $30K per day would significantly hurt his bank account more than a lot of other guys.

    http://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/2011...he-new-nfl-cba
    Now, if a player fails to report to his team a minimum of 30 days before their first regular season game, the entire season will not count towards his service time...

    If they aren't on the roster a month before game 1, they lose the whole season no matter when they report. This just recently went into effect for Chris Johnson of the Titans-he's holding out for a new deal and did not report 30 days before the first game, so he now loses the entire 2011 season for his service time...
    Ravor might be a better person to ask about this, but if he isn't on the roster as reported 30 days and essentially "loses" the 2011 season then I would imagine if that were to be applied to the franchise tag - even though it'd be his 2nd time under the tag - he'd only be paid as if it were the 1st time...which would cost him a few mill as well.

    I agree that Rice sitting out for all of the off-season stuff until August isn't a good thing for him or for the team, but the reality is that even if he were under contract or given a new contract he wouldn't have to report until August anyway. If you want to look at a silver lining in this it is that some of the younger depth guys (Pierce, Double A, Berry, etc) will get more reps and it'll give the coaching staff a better idea of what they have. That could also hurt Rice's chances of getting a long term deal in Baltimore as well because if, say, Double A comes in and just kills it and the coaching staff feel that he can be the feature back in Baltimore, well then Rice's value just went down a little bit and Rice just lost some leverage and is STILL under the franchise tag and able to be franchised again the following year, which means by the time he actually was a free agent he'd be close to 28 years old and lost 2 years of his "prime".
    Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer.

    -Arnold Schwarzenegger



    Check out Fatherhood Rules - a blog site dedicated to sports, food, music, movies, and politics.
    http://fatherhoodrules.com




  2. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,500
    Quote Originally Posted by leachisabeast View Post
    Name me one RB you could phone up and just sign off the streets who accounted for most of his teams offense production, and who led the league in total yards, a RB who can take it to the house like Rice can. Of course we are going to miss Suggs, but our defense is still going to be a top 10 and maybe even top 5 unit. Without a guy like Rice, our offense will stall on drives one hell of a lot.
    Watch "Moneyball" and you will get what I'm trying to say.

    I did say it may take more than one to match his offensive output.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  3. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    31,832
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Bigger Impact: No Rice or No Suggs?

    Quote Originally Posted by leachisabeast View Post
    Name me one RB you could phone up and just sign off the streets who accounted for most of his teams offense production, and who led the league in total yards, a RB who can take it to the house like Rice can. Of course we are going to miss Suggs, but our defense is still going to be a top 10 and maybe even top 5 unit. Without a guy like Rice, our offense will stall on drives one hell of a lot.
    That's not what he's saying at all. Not even close. He's not talking about ONE player who could come in and replicate Rice's production. What he's saying is that it may take 2 running backs to equate to what Rice has done, but it isn't as far-fetched as you may think.

    Take the Packers for example. In 09, Ryan Grant had over 1200 yards and 11 TD's for the Pack. That was a hell of a season and he looked as good as any back did. The next year Grant got hurt and they went RB by committee (Brandon Jackson, John Juhn, & James Starks) and came within about 150 yards of duplicating Grant's season and won the Super Bowl. Last year, with Grant still on the team, they went RB by committee again.

    Now, I'm not saying that the Ravens offense is anywhere near Green Bay's nor am I saying that Flacco is anything close to Rodgers. What I am saying is that as dynamic as Rice is, to think that a RB by committee approach can't produce enough for the Ravens to still maintain success isn't necessarily true.
    Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer.

    -Arnold Schwarzenegger



    Check out Fatherhood Rules - a blog site dedicated to sports, food, music, movies, and politics.
    http://fatherhoodrules.com




  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    "Merry old England"
    Posts
    9,307
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Bigger Impact: No Rice or No Suggs?

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Watch "Moneyball" and you will get what I'm trying to say.

    I did say it may take more than one to match his offensive output.
    Then your just bringing in quantity over quality. Replacing Ray Rice with two Ryan Grants would be a big drop off.

    With that said, Bernard Pierce is someone to look out for. If he turns out as good as I think he will, THEN maybe you can afford to lose Rice.




  5. #35

    Re: Bigger Impact: No Rice or No Suggs?

    Quote Originally Posted by GOTA View Post
    How many of Flacco's passes come off of play action? What defense isn't forced to alter their coverage schemes because they are worried leaving a linebacker covering Rice? That's just the effect Rice has in the passing game. It's not even about him running the ball where he is a threat to break one almost every time.

    Rice doesn't have to touch the ball to be effective. He just has to be on the field because he is the one that every defense is out to stop. That makes it a lot easier for Flacco to put the ball in other places. Without Rice out there defense would be pounding Flacco every play because no one is worried about any of the receivers or tight ends on this team and they clearly aren't worried about being beaten by the playcalling.
    Well, the facts don't seem to support your argument at all. First of all, the Ravens used play-action on 15.2% of passes last year, which is actually below league average. They average 5.3 yards per play off play-action, but 6.2 yards per play without it. That difference was the third-biggest gap in the league last year--which means we were basically the league's third-worst play-action team! Believe it or not, we have been a worse passing team off play-action than out of regular drop-backs and shotgun for the past 4 straight years.

    NOTE: The above statistics are from Football Outsiders: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/gam...onship-preview

    If Ray Rice had such a big effect on the Ravens' passing game we would expect the Ravens to pass the ball better on fakes, but they don't. And I would also continue to point to the fact that the Ravens passed the ball well even when Rice was not a threat on the field, like in 2 minute drills and in the shotgun. It's hard to argue that Rice was somehow magically making the passing game better just by being on the field when the facts don't support that conclusion at all.


    Quote Originally Posted by leachisabeast View Post
    So backs have to be awesome in every single game they play through the season? It must be hard with all the knocks that you take, there isn't a more physically draining position than playing running back, especially when you are 5'8 and often used like a power back. Oh and don't you expect the offense to be able to sustain a drive down the field without relying on Ray Rice? You kind of expect that to happen for a SB contending team, teams like the Packers and the Patriots managed to go through games and win them without running the ball at all. What makes it special that we managed to do it on a couple of drives every other game?
    I'm not saying Rice has to be great in every game, that's stupid and we don't expect that of any player (except Joe Flacco.) If Rice were an utterly irreplaceable element of our offense, wouldn't you expect our team to lose whenever he was ineffective? You probably would, but that was not the case for the Ravens last year; we were 5-2 when Rice averaged less than 4 yards per carry. We were 7-2 when he did, which is obviously a better mark, but I'm not arguing that Rice doesn't make our offense a lot better. Clearly he does. I just don't think he's the most "impactful" player on this team.

    Quote Originally Posted by leachisabeast View Post
    Well to start with, in the 92 yard drive we where against the clock, I don't think any teams would want to run the ball in that situation, even the Texans. The Steelers also basically know EXACTLY how to stuff our run game, if you put any back out there, I'm pretty sure most of the time the Steelers would be able to stop the run. They game plan around stopping Rice all week, like we game plan all week around stopping Roethlisberger.

    In the Arizona game we where down pretty badly at the beginning of the second half, so we couldn't really afford to run the ball with the score being the way it was.
    The fact that these situations were obviously pass-only simply strengthens my argument: that we were able to pass the ball effectively even without the threat of Rice rushing it. You can try to excuse it away as much as you like, but the fact remains that the passing game worked.

    Quote Originally Posted by leachisabeast View Post
    heWell if the offense could actually sustain offensive drives without completely relying on Ray Rice, and effectively pass the ball more consistently, maybe teams would respect our passing game more, and not revolve their whole game plan around stopping Ray Rice. I doubt any back in the league would have any more success in those games against the Texans and the Patriots behind our offensive line the way those teams where stacking the box up.

    I'm not sold on that at all. We haven't proven that we can do it and win games against good defensive teams. The only exception to that is the week 9 game against the Steelers. That's THE ONLY time I've seen them do it. We passed the ball well vs the Patriots, but their secondary was awful all year. Just have a look at the Jags and Seahawks game, look at how we failed miserably when we got away from running the ball. You either roll with Rice, develop Pierce into a good RB, or sign a good RB, either way this offense needs to have an effective rushing game. The Ravens will never EVER have an offense like the Packers or the Patriots with the coordinator we have, the weapons we have, and the offensive line we have.

    Terrell Suggs is a better player, but losing Rice would have a bigger overall negative effect on our team.
    You seem to make excuses for anything that doesn't fit your narrative--even though I've shown you that this team was effective passing the ball in situations where Rice was ineffective or otherwise irrelevant, you're not convinced. I guess you consider the Steelers to be an "elite" defense, but not the 49ers (2nd in the league,) Texans (4th in the league,) Browns (5th in the league,) Bengals (9th in the league,) etc. etc.

    Regarding the Jacksonville and Seattle games, first of all Rice was horrible against JAX, having by his own admission the worst game of his career. Against Seattle, we were down 2 scores almost the ENTIRE GAME, which by your earlier logic (which was correct) necessitates passing the ball, yet somehow we were bad because we "got away from the run?" Come on, man.
    Last edited by bmorecareful; 05-04-2012 at 06:19 PM. Reason: added attribution of stats




  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    "Merry old England"
    Posts
    9,307
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Bigger Impact: No Rice or No Suggs?

    Quote Originally Posted by wickedsolo View Post
    That's not what he's saying at all. Not even close. He's not talking about ONE player who could come in and replicate Rice's production. What he's saying is that it may take 2 running backs to equate to what Rice has done, but it isn't as far-fetched as you may think.

    Take the Packers for example. In 09, Ryan Grant had over 1200 yards and 11 TD's for the Pack. That was a hell of a season and he looked as good as any back did. The next year Grant got hurt and they went RB by committee (Brandon Jackson, John Juhn, & James Starks) and came within about 150 yards of duplicating Grant's season and won the Super Bowl. Last year, with Grant still on the team, they went RB by committee again.

    Now, I'm not saying that the Ravens offense is anywhere near Green Bay's nor am I saying that Flacco is anything close to Rodgers. What I am saying is that as dynamic as Rice is, to think that a RB by committee approach can't produce enough for the Ravens to still maintain success isn't necessarily true.
    Ryan Grant also only had just over 100 receiving yards in 2009, and has never really been a great receiving back. That's another thing to Rice's game, he is like an extra weapon in the passing game for Flacco. Lets just say you lose Rice to injury, and you sign Ryan Grant and run a dual threat with Pierce, you basically have no receiving RB's in this case.




  7. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    31,832
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Bigger Impact: No Rice or No Suggs?

    Quote Originally Posted by leachisabeast View Post
    Ryan Grant also only had just over 100 receiving yards in 2009, and has never really been a great receiving back. That's another thing to Rice's game, he is like an extra weapon in the passing game for Flacco. Lets just say you lose Rice to injury, and you sign Ryan Grant and run a dual threat with Pierce, you basically have no receiving RB's in this case.
    I don't think anyone here is going to argue against your point that Rice is an integral piece to the offense. I've done the legwork myself in other threads and on my blog I even wrote up a piece on what the actual value of Rice is compared to - arguably the best RB of last year - Arian Foster.

    Rice accounted for something like 34% of the total offense (rushing & passing) over the course of the past 2 seasons. You can't replace that kind of contribution.

    What you can do is mask it. No, Ryan Grant isn't the impact player that Rice is regarding the passing game, but if you can get 800 yards on the ground out of Grant, & 500 out of Pierce and between the two they have 500-600 yards receiving on the season combined, then you can see how you can quickly account for the loss of Rice's production by masking it with 2 players.

    I want Rice as a Raven for the rest of his career. I do. I've been following the guy since he was at Rutgers. He's a fantastic player, but I will continue to stand on my point that if the Ravens are going to get to the SB and have a shot at winning it is going to come on the arm of Flacco. Not the legs of Rice.
    Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer.

    -Arnold Schwarzenegger



    Check out Fatherhood Rules - a blog site dedicated to sports, food, music, movies, and politics.
    http://fatherhoodrules.com




  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    "Merry old England"
    Posts
    9,307
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Bigger Impact: No Rice or No Suggs?

    Quote Originally Posted by bmorecareful View Post
    I'm not saying Rice has to be great in every game, that's stupid and we don't expect that of any player (except Joe Flacco.) If Rice were an utterly irreplaceable element of our offense, wouldn't you expect our team to lose whenever he was ineffective? You probably would, but that was not the case for the Ravens last year; we were 5-2 when Rice averaged less than 4 yards per carry. We were 7-2 when he did, which is obviously a better mark, but I'm not arguing that Rice doesn't make our offense a lot better. Clearly he does. I just don't think he's the most "impactful" player on this team.
    Ok can you give me the teams we where 5-2 against, and do you mean in 2011, or 2010?

    Quote Originally Posted by bmorecareful View Post
    The fact that these situations were obviously pass-only simply strengthens my argument: that we were able to pass the ball effectively even without the threat of Rice rushing it. You can try to excuse it away as much as you like, but the fact remains that the passing game worked.
    I totally agree with you on this one. When Cam gives Flacco the keys to the car, and lets him play the way he's most effective in (in the shotgun) we can be a dangerous team in the passing game. What I really mean is the consistency of the passing game, one minute we look like the Green Bay Packers in that 92 field drive, then the next minute we look like the Cleveland Browns. This is mainly due to Cam Cameron's play calling, the fact that our Oline can't block speed rushers to save their lives, and that our receivers drop a ton of balls and struggle to get separation. All of this is why we would miss Rice so badly.

    Quote Originally Posted by bmorecareful View Post
    You seem to make excuses for anything that doesn't fit your narrative--even though I've shown you that this team was effective passing the ball in situations where Rice was ineffective or otherwise irrelevant, you're not convinced. I guess you consider the Steelers to be an "elite" defense, but not the 49ers (2nd in the league,) Texans (4th in the league,) Browns (5th in the league,) Bengals (9th in the league,) etc. etc.
    The Steelers victory in week 9 was generally a great offensive performance, not taking that away from them at all, week 1 was just a great all around team victory, everyone had a great game. As for the other games you mentioned, all of them where basically won by our defense, in none of those games did our passing offense look anything special at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by bmorecareful View Post
    Regarding the Jacksonville and Seattle games, first of all Rice was horrible against JAX, having by his own admission the worst game of his career. Against Seattle, we were down 2 scores almost the ENTIRE GAME, which by your earlier logic (which was correct) necessitates passing the ball, yet somehow we were bad because we "got away from the run?" Come on, man.
    Well Rice fumbled the ball twice, but he was still only given 8 carries. 8 CARRIES! The score was close all through the game, and to me, we would have won that game had we just handed Rice the damn ball more, and even got Williams involved. And we where down by three scores vs the Cardinals, and two vs the Seahawks. We could have ran the ball at least a little against Seattle and would have probably ended up in better position to beat them. Even against the Cardinals we ran the ball in, and we won the damn game by giving Rice the ball on the goal line, which we for some reason didn't do in Seattle.

    We could have easily won either two of those joke games, and suddenly your hosting the AFCCG against the Patriots or the Texans instead of going to Foxboro.




  9. #39

    Re: Bigger Impact: No Rice or No Suggs?

    Quote Originally Posted by bmorecareful View Post
    Well, the facts don't seem to support your argument at all. First of all, the Ravens used play-action on 15.2% of passes last year, which is actually below league average. They average 5.3 yards per play off play-action, but 6.2 yards per play without it. That difference was the third-biggest gap in the league last year--which means we were basically the league's third-worst play-action team! Believe it or not, we have been a worse passing team off play-action than out of regular drop-backs and shotgun for the past 4 straight years.
    This could mean a number of things (and probably does) that has nothing to do with whether defenses respect Rice in their schemes. For example, it could mean we throw the ball deeper off of play-action fakes and our QB and receivers are not good at completing longer passes (for 16-25 yds this is the case). Relatedly (with going deep off of fakes), it could mean that we do not target Rice off of the fakes as much, and therefore there are more "failed plays" (incompletions), which brings our average down. In short, the failure of the OC, QB and WRs to execute deep passes off of fakes is certainly more of an indictment of the OC, QB and WRs than the RB (who statistically is better than the other RBs whose QBs/OCs/WRs are doing better off of play-action).

    And this means, it is very possible to argue that if we had an even worse RB back there our results off of play action passes would be even worse.

    Quote Originally Posted by bmorecareful View Post
    If Ray Rice had such a big effect on the Ravens' passing game we would expect the Ravens to pass the ball better on fakes, but they don't. And I would also continue to point to the fact that the Ravens passed the ball well even when Rice was not a threat on the field, like in 2 minute drills and in the shotgun. It's hard to argue that Rice was somehow magically making the passing game better just by being on the field when the facts don't support that conclusion at all.
    Not necessarily true, as mentioned. As for 2 minute drills and shotgun, Rice was on the field for most of those plays, the defense plays differently as well as the offense in those situations, and therefore we do not have any control group of plays for comparison.


    Quote Originally Posted by bmorecareful View Post

    I'm not saying Rice has to be great in every game, that's stupid and we don't expect that of any player (except Joe Flacco.) If Rice were an utterly irreplaceable element of our offense, wouldn't you expect our team to lose whenever he was ineffective? You probably would, but that was not the case for the Ravens last year; we were 5-2 when Rice averaged less than 4 yards per carry. We were 7-2 when he did, which is obviously a better mark, but I'm not arguing that Rice doesn't make our offense a lot better. Clearly he does. I just don't think he's the most "impactful" player on this team.
    For starters, averaging less than 4 yards a carry is not a good indication of "effective." It is too arbitrary and doesn't include his receiving yards. Let's look at the Jets game. Rice averaged 2.64 yards per carry (25 for 66 yards), thereby being a game where he was "ineffective" by your 4YPC cutoff. But he also had 2 catches for 64 yards in that game. And as importantly, Flacco was 10 for 31 for 163 yards, 0 TD and 1 INT, which is a QB rating of 37.4. And remember 64 of his 163 came from Rice. The defense won that game, and Rice's ineffectiveness can be debated, but Flacco's ineffectiveness cannot.

    Plus, your argument here ignores the crux of the opposing argument, which is that other teams feel they have to (and will say as much, you can ask them) stop Rice first and foremost. So arguing that we win, eventhough Rice has been "stopped" therefore we don't need Rice is a fallacy. Suppose the other team had 8-9 guys in the box all game to achieve the 2.64 YPC for Rice? And all game Flacco had the benefit of single coverage for all his other receivers? That Flacco should and does do well here, is not an indictment of Rice, or evidence that Rice was unimportant for that game, but quite the contrary.



    Quote Originally Posted by bmorecareful View Post
    The fact that these situations were obviously pass-only simply strengthens my argument: that we were able to pass the ball effectively even without the threat of Rice rushing it. You can try to excuse it away as much as you like, but the fact remains that the passing game worked.
    There is still the threat of Rice receiving it (for crucial first downs, or long gain). And as I said, the whole game is different in these situations, so the comparison is a bad one (to the other 98% of the time the teams are playing). Arguing that there exists circumstances where the RB position in general is not as important as other situations is not a very sound argument for how Rice does not help the team's offense on the whole.

    Quote Originally Posted by bmorecareful View Post
    You seem to make excuses for anything that doesn't fit your narrative--even though I've shown you that this team was effective passing the ball in situations where Rice was ineffective or otherwise irrelevant, you're not convinced. I guess you consider the Steelers to be an "elite" defense, but not the 49ers (2nd in the league,) Texans (4th in the league,) Browns (5th in the league,) Bengals (9th in the league,) etc. etc.
    Except once you take out the games where Rice did well, plus the games where Rice did not do that well but neither did Flacco or the passing game (or offense in general, i.e. the defense was the main catalyst to victory), you aren't left with much. And as said, to the extent you are, there is still left the point that even if Rice has a bad game, he can be crucial to the offensive effort, depending on how much effort and resources the defense has to spend in order to assure Rice has a bad game.


    Quote Originally Posted by bmorecareful View Post
    Regarding the Jacksonville and Seattle games, first of all Rice was horrible against JAX, having by his own admission the worst game of his career. Against Seattle, we were down 2 scores almost the ENTIRE GAME, which by your earlier logic (which was correct) necessitates passing the ball, yet somehow we were bad because we "got away from the run?" Come on, man.
    Yes, Rice was bad against Jacksonville, and so was Flacco. That game is not helpful in this discussion at all, except to say that our passing game was not able to lead us to victory in that game, a game where our running game was ineffective. As for the Seattle game, I agree with you somewhat; the "getting away from the run" claim for that one is overused, imo. That said, we didn't do that well in any phase of the game.
    Last edited by Haloti92; 05-04-2012 at 07:34 PM.




  10. #40

    Re: Bigger Impact: No Rice or No Suggs?

    Quote Originally Posted by wickedsolo View Post
    He's a fantastic player, but I will continue to stand on my point that if the Ravens are going to get to the SB and have a shot at winning it is going to come on the arm of Flacco. Not the legs of Rice.
    I agree with this, but I would simply say that the better our RB is, the less is required from Flacco. There is a minimum amount of contribution that the passing game (QB/WR) has to provide, and that minimum is a lot higher than a decade ago, but depending on your running game (and defense), that amount is still variable; and the better the defense and RB the less is needed by the QB. Downgrading the RB position, especially to one that doesn't have 60+ catches for 600+ yards, necessitates better play from your QB to compensate.

    This isn't really getting into salary cap talk, which is a different topic than "how much does Rice help us (regardless of cap space used)"




  11. #41

    Re: Bigger Impact: No Rice or No Suggs?

    With both out, Ravens get to begin a new chapter for the team. We get to see how Harbaugh and company do with getting other players to step up. Granted Suggs was DPOY and was awesome against most teams, both he gave away all his moves and potential to the above average teams(Patriots) in 2012. After the Pats knew what he could do, they handled him easily in 2012. I say someone comes thru and begins a new phase for offense and defense. No need to worry about players like Suggs and Rice, a new player will make the plays necessary to get wins. It will make it harder for opposing teams to plan against players that they have no film on. Next man up is the Ravens motto.




  12. #42

    Re: Bigger Impact: No Rice or No Suggs?

    Definitely Suggs. As good as Ray Rice is, our offense is limited by the moron we have calling the plays. The Ravens braintrust is ok with a very mediocre offense, as they count on the defense to win games for us. Losing Suggs hurts our defense and, by extension, our chances of winning.




  13. #43

    Re: Bigger Impact: No Rice or No Suggs?

    Quote Originally Posted by pslholder96 View Post
    It could be the other way around though. Ray Rice's absence could force Cam to "unleash" Joe and tap into his potential. You know and I know in some way, shape or form Cam's schemes and lack of creatively is holding Joe back somewhat. The silver lining in all this is to see if Joe is really capable of taking his game to the next level and only RR's absence would force Cam's hand and acclerate that opportunity.
    It wouldn't force Cam's hand at all. He does what he wants and has absolutely no culpability in the offense failing.




  14. #44

    Re: Bigger Impact: No Rice or No Suggs?

    Quote Originally Posted by wickedsolo View Post
    That's not what he's saying at all. Not even close. He's not talking about ONE player who could come in and replicate Rice's production. What he's saying is that it may take 2 running backs to equate to what Rice has done, but it isn't as far-fetched as you may think.

    Take the Packers for example. In 09, Ryan Grant had over 1200 yards and 11 TD's for the Pack. That was a hell of a season and he looked as good as any back did. The next year Grant got hurt and they went RB by committee (Brandon Jackson, John Juhn, & James Starks) and came within about 150 yards of duplicating Grant's season and won the Super Bowl. Last year, with Grant still on the team, they went RB by committee again.

    Now, I'm not saying that the Ravens offense is anywhere near Green Bay's nor am I saying that Flacco is anything close to Rodgers. What I am saying is that as dynamic as Rice is, to think that a RB by committee approach can't produce enough for the Ravens to still maintain success isn't necessarily true.
    If RR was just a running threat I would buy into this. I am sure you can replace RR rushing numbers with 2 backs but last I checked he lead the team in catches and 3rd in receiving yards. Just bc RR is not getting the ball doesn't mean the defense is not planning for him which give other players 1 on 1 opportunities. IMO the team suffers more without RR. Suggs is a hell of a player too but I think the defense won't drop off as much.
    Last edited by blacknpurplepain; 05-05-2012 at 09:11 AM.
    WE DON'T NEED YOUR RESPECT BUT WE WILL BEAT UP ON YOU AND TAKE YOUR SOUL!!!!!!!




  15. #45
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina
    Posts
    5,171
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Bigger Impact: No Rice or No Suggs?

    Quote Originally Posted by wickedsolo View Post
    That would be a tough call.

    Both are incredible impact players for their respective units. Over the course of the last two seasons Rice has contributed or been a part of over 30% of the offensive production. For 1 player, that is A LOT.

    However, I think the offense can still function without Rice. It won't look the same, but I think the offense could still function without him. If I had any faith that Cam Cameron could call a consistent game I would have no problem saying missing Suggs would be a significantly bigger loss than missing Rice, but Cam is as big of a question mark on this team as any, so that's why it would be a tough choice for me. The reason why I voted for Suggs over Rice though is because even with Rice and the OL not playing well and rendered ineffective in the playoffs, Flacco still was able to put the team on his shoulders and make plays. Flacco has the ability to take over a game.


    That said, Rice is going to sign his franchise tender, suck it up, and play this year and continue negotiating, or accept the contract offer that they've already made him (which according to Tony is right on par with what Arian Foster's deal was in Houston). So, Rice will be a part of the team all season long.
    The offense probably could function without Rice. But I'd argue the defense would function at a much higher level without Suggs than the offense could without Rice. The defense just has a much better track record of producing regardless of who is out there. We've had future hall of famers miss games and the defense didn't miss a beat plugging in largely unknown players. Hell, we've been without Suggs and the defense didn't miss a beat.

    I don't want to see a Ravens offense without a great running back. The Ravens track record in none J. Lewis or RR years is not very good.




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