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%
Results 37 to 46 of 46
-
Re: Bigger Impact: No Rice or No Suggs?
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.Disclaimer: The content posted is of my own opinion.
-
Re: Bigger Impact: No Rice or No Suggs?
Ok can you give me the teams we where 5-2 against, and do you mean in 2011, or 2010?
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.
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.
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.
-
05-04-2012, 07:28 PM #39Veteran Poster
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
- Posts
- 4,553
Re: Bigger Impact: No Rice or No Suggs?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
05-04-2012, 07:39 PM #40Veteran Poster
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
- Posts
- 4,553
Re: Bigger Impact: No Rice or No Suggs?
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)"
-
05-04-2012, 08:17 PM #41Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,882
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.
-
05-05-2012, 12:09 AM #42Hall Of Fame Poster
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
- Posts
- 5,588
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.
-
05-05-2012, 12:15 AM #43Hall Of Fame Poster
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
- Posts
- 5,588
-
05-05-2012, 08:30 AM #44
Re: Bigger Impact: No Rice or No Suggs?
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!!!!!!!
-
05-05-2012, 09:06 AM #45
- Join Date
- May 2010
- Location
- Greensboro, North Carolina
- Posts
- 10,031
- Blog Entries
- 3
Re: Bigger Impact: No Rice or No Suggs?
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