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 25 to 36 of 46
-
05-04-2012, 04:54 PM #25Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
RBs are a dime a dozen these days.
Players like Suggs ain't. That's not a knock on Rice either. We'd be more successful over the length of a season without Rice than we would without Suggs.
No brainer. IMO.
-
-
Re: Bigger Impact: No Rice or No Suggs?
Sadly we're about to find out what it will be like without Suggs, and I think it'll be a bigger loss than many of you seem to think
World Domination 3 Points at a Time!
-
Re: Bigger Impact: No Rice or No Suggs?
Defensive Player of the Year. Period. Done. We've had capable backups like, McGahee, McLain, & Williams that have had great games spelling Rice. Nobody has has taken Suggs spot.
You people seem to forget, Rice doesn't sack Rothelisburger.
-
05-04-2012, 05:29 PM #29Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
In a way, it most certainly was.
Rice gets hurt and we can sign an adequate replacement with little effort. May take two players to match his offensive output, but it's very doable. Hence the "dime a dozen" reference.
You don't however pick up the phone and find the DPOY on the open market. And as Capt'n said, Rice can't sack Big Jen.
-
Re: Bigger Impact: No Rice or No Suggs?
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.
-
Re: Bigger Impact: No Rice or No Suggs?
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. That’s more than double the fine in the prior CBA which was $14,000 per day.
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...
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".Disclaimer: The content posted is of my own opinion.
-
05-04-2012, 06:05 PM #32Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
-
Re: Bigger Impact: No Rice or No Suggs?
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.Disclaimer: The content posted is of my own opinion.
-
Re: Bigger Impact: No Rice or No Suggs?
-
05-04-2012, 06:14 PM #35Hall Of Fame Poster
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
- Posts
- 6,040
Re: Bigger Impact: No Rice or No Suggs?
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.
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.
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.
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
-
Re: Bigger Impact: No Rice or No Suggs?
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.
Bookmarks