Seriously, Do The Ravens Need Vonta Leach?

**HoustonRaven** · 06-01-2012, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by ActualSpamBot

We were a dropped pass and a screwed up special teams play from having a Ravens/9ers super bowl.

People shoveling dirt on the idea that you can win it all with a strong D/ running game and a adequate passing game are simply wrong.

Agreed.

I suppose I can buy that the league wants more scoring. But then I think about the Ravens v. Steelers match up. It's one of the premiere (arguably the best) match up in the NFL right now. So I don't buy the meme that's the only way you can win a Super Bowl. Or that it's the best way for that matter.

Teams looks at their division opponents and find the best way to win. We found that formula last season and it worked in great fashion.

**GOTA** · 06-01-2012, 12:34 PM

The results are the results. Until another 2000 Ravens/2002 Bucs type comes along and wins the Super Bowl I'm not buying that it can be done. The reason is that those teams can't suddenly turn on the passing game when they need to so it does come down to a handful of botched plays. This is what the NFL wants and it's changed the rules to make sure it happens that way.

**HoustonRaven** · 06-01-2012, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by GOTA

The results are the results. Until another 2000 Ravens/2002 Bucs type comes along and wins the Super Bowl I'm not buying that it can be done. The reason is that those teams can't suddenly turn on the passing game when they need to so it does come down to a handful of botched plays. This is what the NFL wants and it's changed the rules to make sure it happens that way.

Correlation does not equal causation.

A lot of those rules changes happened after we started seeing premiere QB's winning the big one.

And I cannot recall another time in the league where we've had this many QB's starting that play at a extremely high caliber.

**leachisabeast** · 06-01-2012, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by GOTA

The results are the results. Until another 2000 Ravens/2002 Bucs type comes along and wins the Super Bowl I'm not buying that it can be done. The reason is that those teams can't suddenly turn on the passing game when they need to so it does come down to a handful of botched plays. This is what the NFL wants and it's changed the rules to make sure it happens that way.

Steelers in 2005? Giants in 2007? The Colts where running the ball quite a bit in 2006, and the team they faced in the SB where the Bears who where a run first team that year. The only reason the Steelers and the Giants running game isn't remembered in those SB years, is because their QB's have gone on to become elite QB's in the league, unlike in those years they where very average QB's and relied a lot on their defense and running games. Even in 2008 the Steelers still relied on their defense some what, and one of the key successes to the Giants SB run this year was the re-emergence of their defense through out the play offs. Oh and btw the Saints where 6th in rushing offense in their SB year.

**GOTA** · 06-01-2012, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by leachisabeast

Steelers in 2005? Giants in 2007? The Colts where running the ball quite a bit in 2006, and the team they faced in the SB where the Bears who where a run first team that year. The only reason the Steelers and the Giants running game isn't remembered in those SB years, is because their QB's have gone on to become elite QB's in the league, unlike in those years they where very average QB's and relied a lot on their defense and running games. Even in 2008 the Steelers still relied on their defense some what, and one of the key successes to the Giants SB run this year was the re-emergence of their defense through out the play offs.

The rules have changed since then. Just look at scoring and passing yards since 2008. They keep going higher at a crazy rate.

No one is saying that defense and running game aren't important. They're just not as important as they used to be. For years we always said that Defense wins Championships. That's just not the way it is anymore. Teams that can play defense and run the ball at an elite level but are middle to bottom of the pack in passing can be pretty good but they aren't winning any titles. When offensive lineman can hold every play while receivers and quarterbacks can barely be touched you have to change the way you build your team. It's going to get worse too because this emphasis on player safety is going to have a direct impact on how defense is played.

**GOTA** · 06-01-2012, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

Correlation does not equal causation.

A lot of those rules changes happened after we started seeing premiere QB's winning the big one.

And I cannot recall another time in the league where we've had this many QB's starting that play at a extremely high caliber.

That's because the rule changes allow them to play at a high caliber. If this was 2005 and I told you there was QB who put up over 3400 yards, completed 55% of his passes and had 26 touchdown passes you would think he was a Pro Bowl player. Those numbers weren't that far off from what Drew Brees was putting up in 2005. Now that player is Mark Sanchez. Is Sanchez an example of just how great QB play has gotten or someone who benefits from the rule changes? Having seen Sanchez, it's has to be the rule changes.

**HoustonRaven** · 06-01-2012, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by GOTA

That's because the rule changes allow them to play at a high caliber. If this was 2005 and I told you there was QB who put up over 3400 yards, completed 55% of his passes and had 26 touchdown passes you would think he was a Pro Bowl player. Those numbers weren't that far off from what Drew Brees was putting up in 2005. Now that player is Mark Sanchez. Is Sanchez an example of just how great QB play has gotten or someone who benefits from the rule changes? Having seen Sanchez, it's has to be the rule changes.

Again, correlation does not equal causation.

For example ...

"Players salaries increased between 2000 and 2012. QB stats have increased over that same time. Ergo, QB stats have increased because the players are getting paid more"

That's a fallacy. I don't believe those rule changes were intended to boost QB play. They were intended to protect the QB.

**wickedsolo** · 06-01-2012, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

Again, correlation does not equal causation.

For example ...

"Players salaries increased between 2000 and 2012. QB stats have increased over that same time. Ergo, QB stats have increased because the players are getting paid more"

That's a fallacy. I don't believe those rule changes were intended to boost QB play. They were intended to protect the QB.

There has definitely been rule changes to protect the QB, but I don't see how you can argue that they were not intended to boost the QB/WR play either. Quarterbacks are - more often than not - the most popular player on a team. The average fan probably won't know who the starting cornerbacks are for the New Orleans Saints (for example), but they'll sure as hell know who Drew Brees is. The same can be said for pretty much any team in the NFL. Those same average fans don't want to watch games where the final score is 10-7. The average fan wants to see Tom Brady throw for 300+ yards and 3 TD's.

It's a marketing ploy to make the game more exciting for the average fan. They did the same thing in hockey by changing the rules up so you don't really have too many games with a final score of 1-0, whereas 10 or 15 years ago, that wasn't that uncommon at all.

**HoustonRaven** · 06-01-2012, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

There has definitely been rule changes to protect the QB, but I don't see how you can argue that they were not intended to boost the QB/WR play either. Quarterbacks are - more often than not - the most popular player on a team. The average fan probably won't know who the starting cornerbacks are for the New Orleans Saints (for example), but they'll sure as hell know who Drew Brees is. The same can be said for pretty much any team in the NFL. Those same average fans don't want to watch games where the final score is 10-7. The average fan wants to see Tom Brady throw for 300+ yards and 3 TD's.

It's a marketing ploy to make the game more exciting for the average fan. They did the same thing in hockey by changing the rules up so you don't really have too many games with a final score of 1-0, whereas 10 or 15 years ago, that wasn't that uncommon at all.

10-7 games have always been few and far between, even going back to the 80's.

I'm not arguing that the outcome of the rules being altered led to more passing. I just don't buy the media meme that these rules changes, which were all about protecting the QB when they were enacted, were also intended to boost QB play.

One could easily argue that the rule changes means the QB's stay more healthy and the end result is higher QB production.

**GOTA** · 06-01-2012, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

There has definitely been rule changes to protect the QB, but I don't see how you can argue that they were not intended to boost the QB/WR play either. Quarterbacks are - more often than not - the most popular player on a team. The average fan probably won't know who the starting cornerbacks are for the New Orleans Saints (for example), but they'll sure as hell know who Drew Brees is. The same can be said for pretty much any team in the NFL. Those same average fans don't want to watch games where the final score is 10-7. The average fan wants to see Tom Brady throw for 300+ yards and 3 TD's.

It's a marketing ploy to make the game more exciting for the average fan. They did the same thing in hockey by changing the rules up so you don't really have too many games with a final score of 1-0, whereas 10 or 15 years ago, that wasn't that uncommon at all.

It's worked too. Sunday Night Football is now the highest rated television show in the US and that's coming off all the negative pub from the lockout. Casual fans love offense.

A couple of years ago my office was buzzing after the Cardinals/Packers playoff game that the Cardinals won in overtime. Multiple people were telling me that it was the greatest game that they had ever seen. All I thought watching it was that the NFL is turning into the Arena league. Each team just marched back and forth up the field without being stopped. I think they scored near 100 points between them. As a lover of defense it was terrible to see but the casual fans ate it up.

As long as scoring = ratings they're going to keep boosting scoring.

**NCRAVEN** · 06-01-2012, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by GOTA

As a lover of defense it was terrible to see but the casual fans ate it up.

:word

Originally Posted by GOTA

As long as scoring = ratings they're going to keep boosting scoring.

**Jayc00** · 06-01-2012, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by GOTA

The rules have changed since then. Just look at scoring and passing yards since 2008. They keep going higher at a crazy rate.

No one is saying that defense and running game aren't important. They're just not as important as they used to be. For years we always said that Defense wins Championships. That's just not the way it is anymore. Teams that can play defense and run the ball at an elite level but are middle to bottom of the pack in passing can be pretty good but they aren't winning any titles. When offensive lineman can hold every play while receivers and quarterbacks can barely be touched you have to change the way you build your team. It's going to get worse too because this emphasis on player safety is going to have a direct impact on how defense is played.

Defense still wins Championships IMO. It was the difference between the Giants and Patriots in the SB, the better Defense won.