Philly extend up LeSean McCoy

[bmorecareful]

...Since 09 Rice has been the focal point in our offense and has been more important than Flacco, just the way it is, there have been many games where Rice has ran for more yards than what Flacco has passed...

I was with you up until this. No RB in the NFL is more important than his QB--period. Maurice Jones-Drew led the league in combined yards last year, but his QB is a bum and consequently their offense was last in the league in every major statistical category. That's true across the NFL. Of the top 5 offenses last year, only the Panthers have a dominant rushing attack--and that's really only because their most dangerous runner is the QB himself, a QB who still threw for over 4,000 yards last year.

Seriously, the notion that Rice is a more important offensive player than Flacco is just unsupportable. I can't even conceive of an argument where that's the case. And your statement that "there have been many games where Rice ran for more yards than Flacco passed" is just not true. It's happened 3 times total in 3 years. Once was against the Patriots in the 2009 playoffs when he threw 10 passes and Rice rushed 22 times. The other two times were both last year, @CLE and @CIN, and again we ran the ball a ton more times in those games than we passed it.

No argument at all that this is a run-first team that needs a strong OL and rushing attack, but in today's NFL even being "run first" doesn't mean the RB is more important than the QB. The days of interchangeable schmucks handing off to star RBs and getting great results is long over.

[leachisabeast]

I was with you up until this. No RB in the NFL is more important than his QB--period. Maurice Jones-Drew led the league in combined yards last year, but his QB is a bum and consequently their offense was last in the league in every major statistical category. That's true across the NFL. Of the top 5 offenses last year, only the Panthers have a dominant rushing attack--and that's really only because their most dangerous runner is the QB himself, a QB who still threw for over 4,000 yards last year.

Seriously, the notion that Rice is a more important offensive player than Flacco is just unsupportable. I can't even conceive of an argument where that's the case. And your statement that "there have been many games where Rice ran for more yards than Flacco passed" is just not true. It's happened 3 times total in 3 years. Once was against the Patriots in the 2009 playoffs when he threw 10 passes and Rice rushed 22 times. The other two times were both last year, @CLE and @CIN, and again we ran the ball a ton more times in those games than we passed it.

No argument at all that this is a run-first team that needs a strong OL and rushing attack, but in today's NFL even being "run first" doesn't mean the RB is more important than the QB. The days of interchangeable schmucks handing off to star RBs and getting great results is long over.

I never said that Rice IS more important to this offense than Flacco, but the way that Cam has been running this offense has more importance on the RB, that begin Rice. It's like watching a 1960's style offense, anyone who thinks you cannot win games without having a modern offense in today's game needs to watch the Baltimore Ravens, because it's like watching Jim Brown and the Cleveland Browns all over again. Vonta Leach is probably more important to this offense than the #3 receiver and in some games even the #2 receiver the way Cam has called some games.

At the end of the day, no RB in this league is more important than the QB in todays game. But I was saying that Rice has been more of a focal point in this offense than what Joe has been. And like I said, it's the way Cam has been running this offense, it's not that Flacco is bad or good, or that Rice is a better or worse player than Flacco.

Just going slightly off topic here. I do think that run first teams can win SB's too. The notion that you MUST have a pass heavy offense is nonsense IMO. A bunch of teams have won the SB in the past few years because of their pass happy offense (along with a solid defense that always seem to get forgotten about if it's teams like the Packers or the Saints), but that doesn't completely rule out a run first team from having a chance at winning the SB. After all, if the seeding worked out a bit differently, you could have had the Texans playing the Patriots, and the Texans could have well won that one. And the Ravens could have been playing the Broncos for arguments sake, either three could have made the SB and potentially won it.

[Haloti92]

The days of interchangeable schmucks handing off to star RBs and getting great results is long over.

This really hasn't been the case for decades. The 2000 Ravens were the semi-exception and it was much more our D than our rushing offense. Our running game was good, but only 5th, but our defense was beyond special.

The issue is how you define "interchangeable schmuck." Because it is certainly possible to win a SB with average QB play, assuming you make up for it with your RB and/or defense. Last year the SB would have been Alex Smith vs Joe Flacco had it not been for a single-play choke in each conference game. Eli Manning won a SB with a 73.9 rating (ranked 24th) in 2007. And the Steelers in 2005 with their 24th ranked passing attack and 5th ranked rushing game (and 4th ranked defense). Rex Grossman and Matt Hasselbeck and Jake Delhomme made it to the SB.

What has changed over the last decade is that it is now possible to win a SB with a high powered offense (much more pass-oriented obviously) and a not good or even bad running game and/or defense. That is a change. But this type of offense isn't necessarily required to win a SB. And most importantly, it is not a given that there are more than a small handful of QBs/teams that can do it.

If you don't have such a QB (and/or scheme and/or WRs etc) then you absolutely need a good defense and good running game. You can't just say "RB and defense" doesn't matter much for our team because look at the frequency that SB winners have dubious RBs and defense, because those teams have QBs we don't have. It isn't the only formula of success as much as it is suddenly a formula of success. But it is a formula predicated on an elite QB (so far), and therefore isn't a formula for everyone.

The QB position is definitely more important, in general. But that isn't the same thing as saying that, on every team, if you swap the RB or defense with the league average RB/defense you will be better off than if you had swapped the QB with the league average QB.

Of course the difference between the 16th best RB and the 32nd best is a lot less than the difference between the 16th best QB and the 32nd best, and that is the main reason the QB position is so much more important. Because not far below a certain "average" skill level at QB it becomes impossible to be successful. In other words, Boller quality and you can't really succeed. But I am not sure for a team with a good enough RB and defense that the Dalton / Schaub / Cutler / Newton / Stafford/ Romo / Rivers / Smith / Ryan / Vick type QBs cannot win. And maybe even the Sanchez / Fitzpatrick / Moore / Cassel / Kolb /Hasselbeck / Bradford type players. And obviously we know the Brady /Brees / Rodgers / Manning x2 / Roethlisberger types can win. Not all those guys in the first two groups get to have great defenses and running games. But there is no way to say definitively that they couldn't win if they had them, even if it is pretty much a given that they could not win without them.

[blacknpurplepain]

Your's is a quality post. There are obviously many layers to peel back in this debate and bringing the discussion down to the level of touches gets you the closest to what we're actually trying to measure--on-field ability.

Regarding Ben Tate vs. Foster, I haven't watched every snap Tate has ever played, but he certainly grades out to my eyes as an extremely capable back. I have read in many credible sources (Rotoworld, Pro Football Weekly, etc.) that talent evaluators in the league/close to the league believe Tate is as good a back as Foster or possibly better, FWIW.

I don't think anyone would argue that Houston is anything but a great environment for RB success. Then again, we run the same blocking scheme as the Texans, so could one make the argument that Rice had his best year under a system that made him look better than he is? I would not make that argument personally because my eyes tell me differently, but causality is a very difficult thing to prove one way or another.

I watched Tate in HS and college and yes he is legit. I think it's the blocking scheme too like back in the day with denver. We run the same scheme but I don't think our linemen fits that scheme especially on the right side. We need to go back to a mauling line bc that left side will be huge

Sent from my BlackBerry 9810 using Tapatalk

[The Excellector]

Rice was only hurt in 2008 in his rookie season when LeRon McClain and McGahee shared the load. We did finish 11-5 and make the play offs, AND win two play off games, but we played with a very conservative game plan which limited Flacco to what he could really do. Not knocking him or anything, but we could have put in any average QB in that year with the amount of times we ran the ball, our defense that year also had a HUGE part in those wins in Flacco's rookie year. Since 09 Rice has been the focal point in our offense and has been more important than Flacco, just the way it is, there have been many games where Rice has ran for more yards than what Flacco has passed. That isn't neccesarily to do with Flacco not being good enough, it's just the way Cam Cameron has ran our offense.

Long term is where Flacco becomes more important, because Rice is not going to last as long as Flacco is in the league. Ultimately I think this offense is always going to need a strong running game, and a strong running back, that doesn't mean Flacco can't take control of this offense and lead us to the SB (would have proven that had Lee Evans concentrated a bit more), but I don't see him being able to run the sort of offense Brady and Rogers run either.

Chris McAlister was on IR that year. Even Terrell Suggs missed a couple of games. Jameel McClain had to start for him. Frank Walker and Fabian Washington were getting playing time. The 08 team wasn't that much better than the 11' team. The offensive line was better. That was it.

It came down to the same issues with Flacco. He put up a 2 TD O Int performance against Miami, but people made it seem like 1 didn't count, because he ran it in. Then, he led the game winning drive against the #1 seeded Titans, in their house. Tennessee took away the run, Flacco had to throw and showed that he could make the throws if the WRs caught the ball. Pittsburgh was his reality check, but they still made it to that game.

[The Excellector]

Rice was only hurt in 2008 in his rookie season when LeRon McClain and McGahee shared the load. We did finish 11-5 and make the play offs, AND win two play off games, but we played with a very conservative game plan which limited Flacco to what he could really do. Not knocking him or anything, but we could have put in any average QB in that year with the amount of times we ran the ball, our defense that year also had a HUGE part in those wins in Flacco's rookie year. Since 09 Rice has been the focal point in our offense and has been more important than Flacco, just the way it is, there have been many games where Rice has ran for more yards than what Flacco has passed. That isn't neccesarily to do with Flacco not being good enough, it's just the way Cam Cameron has ran our offense.

Long term is where Flacco becomes more important, because Rice is not going to last as long as Flacco is in the league. Ultimately I think this offense is always going to need a strong running game, and a strong running back, that doesn't mean Flacco can't take control of this offense and lead us to the SB (would have proven that had Lee Evans concentrated a bit more), but I don't see him being able to run the sort of offense Brady and Rogers run either.

Which brings us back to my point. They can have that without Rice, but if people think they can have it with Rice, yet without Flacco, they will be disappointed.

[bmorecareful]

This really hasn't been the case for decades. The 2000 Ravens were the semi-exception and it was much more our D than our rushing offense. Our running game was good, but only 5th, but our defense was beyond special.

The issue is how you define "interchangeable schmuck." Because it is certainly possible to win a SB with average QB play, assuming you make up for it with your RB and/or defense. Last year the SB would have been Alex Smith vs Joe Flacco had it not been for a single-play choke in each conference game. Eli Manning won a SB with a 73.9 rating (ranked 24th) in 2007. And the Steelers in 2005 with their 24th ranked passing attack and 5th ranked rushing game (and 4th ranked defense). Rex Grossman and Matt Hasselbeck and Jake Delhomme made it to the SB.

What has changed over the last decade is that it is now possible to win a SB with a high powered offense (much more pass-oriented obviously) and a not good or even bad running game and/or defense. That is a change. But this type of offense isn't necessarily required to win a SB. And most importantly, it is not a given that there are more than a small handful of QBs/teams that can do it.

If you don't have such a QB (and/or scheme and/or WRs etc) then you absolutely need a good defense and good running game. You can't just say "RB and defense" doesn't matter much for our team because look at the frequency that SB winners have dubious RBs and defense, because those teams have QBs we don't have. It isn't the only formula of success as much as it is suddenly a formula of success. But it is a formula predicated on an elite QB (so far), and therefore isn't a formula for everyone.

The QB position is definitely more important, in general. But that isn't the same thing as saying that, on every team, if you swap the RB or defense with the league average RB/defense you will be better off than if you had swapped the QB with the league average QB.

Of course the difference between the 16th best RB and the 32nd best is a lot less than the difference between the 16th best QB and the 32nd best, and that is the main reason the QB position is so much more important. Because not far below a certain "average" skill level at QB it becomes impossible to be successful. In other words, Boller quality and you can't really succeed. But I am not sure for a team with a good enough RB and defense that the Dalton / Schaub / Cutler / Newton / Stafford/ Romo / Rivers / Smith / Ryan / Vick type QBs cannot win. And maybe even the Sanchez / Fitzpatrick / Moore / Cassel / Kolb /Hasselbeck / Bradford type players. And obviously we know the Brady /Brees / Rodgers / Manning x2 / Roethlisberger types can win. Not all those guys in the first two groups get to have great defenses and running games. But there is no way to say definitively that they couldn't win if they had them, even if it is pretty much a given that they could not win without them.

The post below says it all.

Chris McAlister was on IR that year. Even Terrell Suggs missed a couple of games. Jameel McClain had to start for him. Frank Walker and Fabian Washington were getting playing time. The 08 team wasn't that much better than the 11' team. The offensive line was better. That was it.

It came down to the same issues with Flacco. He put up a 2 TD O Int performance against Miami, but people made it seem like 1 didn't count, because he ran it in. Then, he led the game winning drive against the #1 seeded Titans, in their house. Tennessee took away the run, Flacco had to throw and showed that he could make the throws if the WRs caught the ball. Pittsburgh was his reality check, but they still made it to that game.

You MUST have a QB who can be a playmaker when called upon to win the SB. An "interchangeable schmuck" is someone who is not capable of doing that at least more often than not. You CAN win the SB without a statistical juggernaut of a QB, but you can't win the SB without a playmaker at QB. Your running game and defense are important, but they absolutely pale in comparison to your QB because there are many situations where only good QB play and nothing else can put points on the board and win you the game. You can't say the same for any other aspect of an NFL team.

Ultimately it becomes very difficult to capture statistically. Flacco did not have a great statistical year, but he proved himself capable of winning games when his defense let him down and when his RB let him down. He became a playmaker at QB instead of a complementary piece. I think that you can win a lot of games with a good running game and defense, but you are ALWAYS going to hit situations where your QB has to drive you down the field and take the lead--and usually those games are against good teams, and only good teams make it to the playoffs.

We all know the elite QBs can do that, some moreso than others. Some of the 2nd tier guys can do it, too. I think the elite guys are going to be capable of doing enough to make it to the playoffs and win playoff games without a lot of help around them, the 2nd tier guys will need more help. Flacco is a 2nd tier guy--he'll need help to get there, but he can do it when needed without help.

That theme played out this past year. We were one pass away from the SB because of a confluence of good things: a good running game, a good defense, and good enough play from the QB position. Once we got to the playoffs, teams took Ray Rice away with ease and forced Flacco to beat them. He proved he could do it.

[wickedsolo]

The post below says it all.



You MUST have a QB who can be a playmaker when called upon to win the SB. An "interchangeable schmuck" is someone who is not capable of doing that at least more often than not. You CAN win the SB without a statistical juggernaut of a QB, but you can't win the SB without a playmaker at QB. Your running game and defense are important, but they absolutely pale in comparison to your QB because there are many situations where only good QB play and nothing else can put points on the board and win you the game. You can't say the same for any other aspect of an NFL team.

Ultimately it becomes very difficult to capture statistically. Flacco did not have a great statistical year, but he proved himself capable of winning games when his defense let him down and when his RB let him down. He became a playmaker at QB instead of a complementary piece. I think that you can win a lot of games with a good running game and defense, but you are ALWAYS going to hit situations where your QB has to drive you down the field and take the lead--and usually those games are against good teams, and only good teams make it to the playoffs.

We all know the elite QBs can do that, some moreso than others. Some of the 2nd tier guys can do it, too. I think the elite guys are going to be capable of doing enough to make it to the playoffs and win playoff games without a lot of help around them, the 2nd tier guys will need more help. Flacco is a 2nd tier guy--he'll need help to get there, but he can do it when needed without help.

That theme played out this past year. We were one pass away from the SB because of a confluence of good things: a good running game, a good defense, and good enough play from the QB position. Once we got to the playoffs, teams took Ray Rice away with ease and forced Flacco to beat them. He proved he could do it.

:word

[pslholder96]

Slightly off topic given the recent discussion on this thread but looks like some progress is being made in the Rice negotiations.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/r...,6019530.story

[wickedsolo]

Slightly off topic given the recent discussion on this thread but looks like some progress is being made in the Rice negotiations.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/r...,6019530.story

Good.

A 5 year deal would be optimal.

[pslholder96]

Good.

A 5 year deal would be optimal.

The market has really firmed up for Ray Rice. I would be extremely dissappointed if he didn't sign a contract extension before July 16th. If he doesn't sign then one can assume either Ray or his agent are being really greedy. My gut feeling tells me Ray is getting bad advice from his agent.

[wickedsolo]

The market has really firmed up for Ray Rice. I would be extremely dissappointed if he didn't sign a contract extension before July 16th. If he doesn't sign then one can assume either Ray or his agent are being really greedy. My gut feeling tells me Ray is getting bad advice from his agent.

Probably.

At one point he had some decent leverage, but now that two of the best young RB's in the league have signed the market is pretty firmly set for Rice and the Ravens have all of the leverage.

Maybe tossing another year onto the contract and making it something like a 6 year $55 million with something like $22 guaranteed would make him sign. Who knows. That would still be in the range of what Foster and McCoy signed for (high 8's/low 9's per year) and would be more guaranteed money.

The only problem is what do you do if in say 2 years Rice is still a decent player, but Bernard Pierce or Double-A is just killing it? Obviously a good problem to have, but it is something to think about.