The Ravens organization is stuck in the past.

**The Excellector** · 12-22-2013, 11:22 PM

Originally Posted by ERey

That's a ridiculous argument. So you're basing whatever it is your trying to say on "Flacco played really, really well so it really shouldn't count". Uh OK. That actually has nothing to do with the actual thread topic of the Ravens are stuck in the past. I can't even entertain a debate with you based on your talking points.

You mentioned the pistol formation and other posters have mentioned how they've become more pass reliant recently. The common theme is that they wait until AFTER their run the ball and play defense strategy failed horribly.

**Ravenous1** · 12-22-2013, 11:23 PM

Originally Posted by ERey

So a team that utilizes the pistol formation a lot is running a design from 20-30 years ago? The pistol became relatively popular in the NFL that past few years. I'm not denying the Ravens need improvement (that's obvious based on their record), but to say they are "stuck in the past" is just wrong.

To say "The Ravens organization is stuck in the past" is being a wee bit sensational. This team won the Super Bowl last year.

Here is the real issue. You have Jim Caldwell running what is essentially still Cam Camerons offense with a few meaningless wrinkles. The problem comes in the attention to detail. Despite his faults, Cam was pretty good at making sure people had the fundamentals. He might not put them in a position to make a play but he made sure they looked good accomplishing nothing. With Caldwell there seems to be a lot of breakdowns and very basic error going on. At the end of the day it feels like what we are running now is Cams offense without the benefit of solid fundamentals.

**Raveninwoodlawn** · 12-22-2013, 11:26 PM

Originally Posted by ERey

That's a ridiculous argument. So you're basing whatever it is your trying to say on "Flacco played really, really well so it really shouldn't count". Uh OK. That actually has nothing to do with the actual thread topic of the Ravens are stuck in the past. I can't even entertain a debate with you based on your talking points.

We've had the same system since Cam and Joe got here.

6 years worth of middling offense?

Or a 4 game stretch?

Which data sample is a better representative of the offense?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

**ERey** · 12-22-2013, 11:27 PM

Originally Posted by Ravenous1

To say "The Ravens organization is stuck in the past" is being a wee bit sensational. This team won the Super Bowl last year.

Here is the real issue. You have Jim Caldwell running what is essentially still Cam Camerons offense with a few meaningless wrinkles. The problem comes in the attention to detail. Despite his faults, Cam was pretty good at making sure people had the fundamentals. He might not put them in a position to make a play but he made sure they looked good accomplishing nothing. With Caldwell there seems to be a lot of breakdowns and very basic error going on. At the end of the day it feels like what we are running now is Cams offense without the benefit of solid fundamentals.

Cam's offense seemed to utilize the fullback more and no pistol formation. But I'll definitely buy your explanation in regards to detail over "they are stuck in the past". It just isn't true.

**Brien Jackson** · 12-22-2013, 11:34 PM

Originally Posted by ERey

Cam's offense seemed to utilize the fullback more and no pistol formation. But I'll definitely buy your explanation in regards to detail over "they are stuck in the past". It just isn't true.

Serious question: what exactly are you trying to argue? That their offense is just dandy?

**Uli2001** · 12-22-2013, 11:40 PM

Some changes on offense are needed. I think a series was emblematic today. With the Ravens down 20-7 and driving, everyone in the stadium and at home were envisioning a comeback. Then they turn the ball over on downs after three straight incomplete throws of 20 yards or more down the field. No imagination, no misdirection, just chuck it down the field for the ole jump ball down the sidelines.

**Mac in Va** · 12-22-2013, 11:43 PM

Originally Posted by GOTA

Was there a great receiver on the market this past year that they should have signed? Wallace? Welker? Amendola? Jennings? Trade for Harvin? I didn't want any of those guys and not 1 of them earned what they were paid. I wouldn't mind signing a true #1 receiver but I sure didn't see one hit the market last year.

This is where I'm at. I'll even throw in Victor Cruz who was available momentarily albeit for a draft pick. Trading Boldin seemed to suggest that the FO was happy to go with Smith, Pitta and whoever came out of training camp as the #2...but then Pitta gets injured. The real surprise for me was how poorly the o-line played averaging just above 3ypc rushing. Birk retired and I expected some letdown but then KO gets KO'd our LT played so badly we traded for Monroe and shipped him to Miami and Oher... well, he's his usual self at RT. I believe Yanda also had offseason shoulder surgery.

I didn't see a viable #1 on the market either. I think the FO did the best they could in that regard and perhaps overestimated the depth and talent of the o-line; that's the real problem. Shoring up the "middle of the defense" drafting Elam and preparing this team for life in the AFCN seemed prudent.

**ERey** · 12-22-2013, 11:55 PM

Originally Posted by Brien Jackson

Serious question: what exactly are you trying to argue? That their offense is just dandy?

I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. I'm arguing that the organization isn't stuck in the past which is the topic of the thread. I'm not arguing against the fact that they need to improve. The Ravens need help in several areas, but the losses aren't because they are stuck in the past.

Certainly the most recent Super Bowl winner is not stuck in the past. They won with a mediocre defense, a strong armed franchise QB, a sure handed tall tight end, a strong o-line, two fast receivers, a shifty pass catching RB and a great WR that can out muscle any defender. This sounds like a formula any team would want.

Unfortunately with all the changes this year it hasn't worked out. But its not because they are stuck in the past.

**HoustonRaven** · 12-23-2013, 12:09 AM

Hey look, Ex with the exact same thread as last week but with a different title.

**Mac in Va** · 12-23-2013, 12:27 AM

Originally Posted by ERey

Certainly the most recent Super Bowl winner is not stuck in the past. They won with a mediocre defense, a strong armed franchise QB, a sure handed tall tight end, a strong o-line, two fast receivers, a shifty pass catching RB and a great WR that can out muscle any defender. This sounds like a formula any team would want.

Unfortunately with all the changes this year it hasn't worked out. But its not because they are stuck in the past.

+1 for that. I hear "quarterback driven league" bandied about quite a bit but the idea of a sound defense a good running game and a deep and talented o-line won't hurt. Joe's got the talent and I think he has a few more Lombardi trophies in him. We're not stuck in the past; just dealing with some unfortunate circumstances.

**bacchys** · 12-23-2013, 01:29 AM

Originally Posted by Brien Jackson

Serious question: what exactly are you trying to argue? That their offense is just dandy?

You don't have to think the offense is "just dandy" to recognize that the "stuck in the past" statement doesn't match reality.

**PurpleApocalypse37** · 12-23-2013, 01:54 AM

Originally Posted by ERey

So a team that is still the Super Bowl Champs until another team wins is "stuck in the past". Yea OK. :grbac:

Yes, clearly.

They only won the Super Bowl last year because Joe Flacco had the second greatest playoffs in NFL history.

He had 13 touchdowns and 0 interceptions in the last 5 games of the season - Giants, Colts, Broncos, Patriots, 49ers.

That 5 game stretch is the only time during Flacco's entire career playing in a modern NFL offense.

Then they scrapped it.