Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Sparks, MD
    Posts
    631

    Playing not to lose vs. Playing to win

    A couple of thoughts after the game

    1.) If you are going to play a time of possession type of game you have got to convert third and short. Somehow the Ravens have forgotten the formula (i..e, McClain) that allowed them to do this successfully the past 2 years. They are not good at third and short.

    2) At 4th and short at the Patriots 50, the Ravens played it far too conservative by not going for it. The offense never had any steam after that call. 3 plays later the Patriots were back at their 50.

    3) Short screens and runs to Rice are not going to work. How the Patriots were able to stop all 3 of our wide receivers in the last part in the game I was unable to see, but clearly Cam was not able to adjust appropriately.

    At the end of the day, we lost this game because we were not aggressive. Certainly had enough shots on goal to win.





  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern PA
    Posts
    6,854
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Playing not to lose vs. Playing to win

    Agree 100%!

    The lack of balls to go for it on 4th and 1 at their 50 pissed me off. It basically said we're gonna pack it in and hope for the best!

    Its hard to tell what they did when the Pats were on D in the 4th but whatever happened Cam didn't adjust for it.





  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern PA
    Posts
    6,854
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Playing not to lose vs. Playing to win

    Agree 100%!

    The lack of balls to go for it on 4th and 1 at their 50 pissed me off. It basically said we're gonna pack it in and hope for the best!

    Its hard to tell what they did when the Pats were on D in the 4th but whatever happened Cam didn't adjust for it.





  4. #4

    Re: Playing not to lose vs. Playing to win

    Quote Originally Posted by Merlin View Post
    A couple of thoughts after the game

    1.) If you are going to play a time of possession type of game you have got to convert third and short. Somehow the Ravens have forgotten the formula (i..e, McClain) that allowed them to do this successfully the past 2 years. They are not good at third and short.

    2) At 4th and short at the Patriots 50, the Ravens played it far too conservative by not going for it. The offense never had any steam after that call. 3 plays later the Patriots were back at their 50.

    3) Short screens and runs to Rice are not going to work. How the Patriots were able to stop all 3 of our wide receivers in the last part in the game I was unable to see, but clearly Cam was not able to adjust appropriately.

    At the end of the day, we lost this game because we were not aggressive. Certainly had enough shots on goal to win.
    You're correct. What else needs be said?





  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tenuous
    Posts
    4,920

    Re: Playing not to lose vs. Playing to win

    Quote Originally Posted by Dragz View Post
    You're correct. What else needs be said?
    Well, I can say what would have been said (if it was a coaching decison to not throw the ball downfield which I am not so sure of) if Flacco throws it downfield with a 10 point lead and there is an interception.

    Where is the three-headed monster? Why will Cam not develop the running game? We have thre pro-bowl running backs and all Cam wants to do is throw it to his new toys! Run the ball damnit! Ground and pound!

    Coaches will never get the full support of fans. With a 10 point lead, on the road against a good team, the formula is to play it conservatively.

    That being said, I am still not sure it was the conservative play calling vs. Flacco's fear of throwing the ball into a zone defense.









  6. #6

    Re: Playing not to lose vs. Playing to win

    Galen is 100% correct! We would be bitching if Joe threw an interception calling it too aggressive. Good things and bad things can happen when being aggressive. If you want an example look at Ed Reed. Everybody complained that he was being too aggressive at one point but he became one of the best in the NFL by being aggressive. The coaches really are in a no-win situation with the fans when they lose.





  7. #7

    Re: Playing not to lose vs. Playing to win

    If I have anything to say about how the outcome of a game is going to occur, I'll always err on the side of being AGGRESSIVE unless mitigating circumstances, such as weather or personnel, prevents it.

    Slow death like the one our Ravens suffered Sunday afternoon is totally unacceptable in any way, shape, or form.





  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Hiding in Tommy Tallarico's bushes
    Posts
    10,420

    Re: Playing not to lose vs. Playing to win

    Quote Originally Posted by WxKevin View Post
    Galen is 100% correct! We would be bitching if Joe threw an interception calling it too aggressive. Good things and bad things can happen when being aggressive. If you want an example look at Ed Reed. Everybody complained that he was being too aggressive at one point but he became one of the best in the NFL by being aggressive. The coaches really are in a no-win situation with the fans when they lose.
    I disagree. Punting on 4th and a half a yard when you have the talent behind the QB to get that half a yard is not aggressive.

    Checkdowns and runs up the middle when you know it hasn't been working all game is not being aggressive.

    Not taking a single shot downfield in the last 30 minutes of the game (including overtime), is not being aggressive.

    It's not about whether Joe slings another 20 passes around and throws a pick.

    Brady and the Patriots got aggressive. And Brady threw TWO picks. But guess what? In the end their aggressiveness won the game.





  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Not at the Bank
    Posts
    2,324
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Playing not to lose vs. Playing to win

    There are big differences from being aggressive versues being over aggressive and stupid, and then there is conservative.

    Lets start with the reason we lost, 'Conservative' conservative does not work with elite Coach and QB's and a team that is playing to win.

    'Over Aggressive' is high risk, high reward, not your best option unless you are down. Trying to force the ball down field in tight windows and running trickery plays.

    'Agressive' is what the Patriots ran on us, dare you to throw, but you wont because you are playing conservative, and then run 4-5 guys out on patterns, and protect enough to have 2-3 options behind the LB's and/or 2-3 options in front of the LB's and spread the field.

    What did we do, ran 3 out 10+ 1 option short (Rice who was spied and exactly what the D wanted and knew would come for Cam) and go 3 and out and play prevent D. Not a winning formula against teams that know how to win and have a HOF coach and QB.





  10. #10

    Re: Playing not to lose vs. Playing to win

    Quote Originally Posted by Merlin View Post
    A couple of thoughts after the game


    3) Short screens and runs to Rice are not going to work. How the Patriots were able to stop all 3 of our wide receivers in the last part in the game I was unable to see, but clearly Cam was not able to adjust appropriately.

    At the end of the day, we lost this game because we were not aggressive. Certainly had enough shots on goal to win.
    Agree with what your saying although the screen and draw game is usually effective against the type of D the Pats were in with deep LB drops.

    I think the problem was that Rice was the lone option on the checkdown. No one else was clearing out with short crossing routes so that Rice could sneak out and have some separation from the LB's All our receivers were deep. No wonder Rice was tackled by one and even two LB's when he was 2 yards across the line of scrimmage.

    I think it was a mistake to send all our WR's deep all the time when the LB's are giving 10 yards of cushion between themselves and the line of scrimmage. As other posters have mentioned, the Frisco style offense works well in that situations with lots of horizontal crossing routes underneath.

    It seems like Cam is playing very opportunistic when we are starting the game. He takes what the defense if giving and mixes up the play calls. Once we have a lead it seems like he tries to get the offense to dictate what they are going to do instead of using the successful formula of taking what the d is giving up. I'm sure his rationale is ball security (limiting turnovers) and relying on our defense to get the needed stop.

    I don't think Flacco or the offense should just throw caution to the wind and start chucking the ball all over the place. Nor should we run on 1st and secnd between the tackes every time. There is a middle ground where you still look to attack the defense in less predictable ways that are still within the range of being "safe."





Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Link To Mobile Site
var infolinks_pid = 3297965; var infolinks_wsid = 0; //—->