Interesting article on 1 vs 2 RB sets

[psuasskicker]

It would be interesting to see if there was a site that detailed information on passing stats. I don't chart games but it would seem to me that Flacco was throwing in 2nd and 3rd and long situations quite often.

I have these week-by-week but not consolidated. It's something I can look at in the future, but the FO Almanac will likely have this in there. If it doesn't, I can put it together and look.

The Ravens will always be able to run the ball unless teams sell all the way out to stop it. ...

What i saw as staples to bad Ravens offensive performances were extremely aggressive defenses, stacked boxes on early downs which led to press and cover 2 coverages on 3rd downs. What i saw in these situations from the offense was under developed staple plays and roles on 3rd downs and unwillingness by the play caller to adjust to the way he was being defended. Now i saw it crystal clear in the AFCC, he made the adjustment and if not for Lee Evans we are talking about a Super Bowl berth. So i know it can be done, just has to be a constant.

Again, you're talking with subjective assessments without particularly using fact-based data to back it up. I don't have the formations data for all the losses to be able to talk to that, and I'm pretty certain no one has stacked box and Cover 2/3 data with any reliability (since that would require use of All-22 which doesn't exist).

However, simply using base assessments of what football teams do, it simply doesn't stand up to objective reasoning. If the Titans and Jaguars - two teams that were mediocre defensively (though the Jags had an impressive defensive DVOA) - were able to so easily crush the life out of the Ravens offense using such simple schematics, why didn't every team after that use exactly that coverage? If they all did, why did they fail so badly? This is a team that put up 35 and 23 on the Steelers and 20 on the Texans, two of the best defenses in the NFL.

The answer is one of two things.
1) It's not so simple as being able to stop them by going into those coverages. If it was, every team would have done it, and the Ravens offense would have been much worse than it was, and they would have lost more than four games over the course of the year.
2) If it was that simple, teams did it, and failed at it, which means it's not so simple as being able to stop them by going into those coverages, because they're good enough to beat them.

I completely disagree with how the Ravens lost their four games, and I'll go through game-by-game what I thought was the difference for how the defenses bottled up the Ravens offense.

Titans - Their front four absolutely man-handled the Ravens front four. They were in Flacco's face constantly and caused him to have an exceptionally poor game, and gave Rice no room to run.

Jaguars - Their DBs flat mauled Ravens receivers, giving them no ability to catch the balls for long gains. The long reception of the game was 20 yards, and Flacco threw for 6.5 yards per completion. 6.5 yards per attempt is a poor number. Per completion is horrendous. Again, no room to run.

Seahawks - I will not argue that play-calling wasn't the main reason we lost this game. I believe it was, as the Ravens ran the ball very effectively and the passing game was off badly, yet they passed 53 times vs only 12 runs.

Chargers - The offense was off here, but this was a terrible game regardless. The defense had a far worse game than the offense did. The entire team failed to execute.

Patriots - Lee Evans is a bitch.

You guys are boiling this down way too simplistically. There isn't one thing that's a huge problem which if you fix it will make everything better and suddenly the offense will become dominant. Ditching Cam may bring about improvement, but it's likely to be fairly minimal if it does, and you risk bringing in a far worse play-caller. Same if you ditch Flacco (though the risk of getting worse is far higher at the QB position). Same with every major hole in the offense.

But simply saying that the team was too one-dimensional and that it was too easy for teams to stop them just doesn't wash. This is the NFL. If it was so easy to play one single defensive scheme and shut this offense down, this team never would have been 12-4 with the #12 scoring offense and #15 yardage offense.

- C -

[Carey]

I have these week-by-week but not consolidated. It's something I can look at in the future, but the FO Almanac will likely have this in there. If it doesn't, I can put it together and look.



Again, you're talking with subjective assessments without particularly using fact-based data to back it up. I don't have the formations data for all the losses to be able to talk to that, and I'm pretty certain no one has stacked box and Cover 2/3 data with any reliability (since that would require use of All-22 which doesn't exist).

However, simply using base assessments of what football teams do, it simply doesn't stand up to objective reasoning. If the Titans and Jaguars - two teams that were mediocre defensively (though the Jags had an impressive defensive DVOA) - were able to so easily crush the life out of the Ravens offense using such simple schematics, why didn't every team after that use exactly that coverage? If they all did, why did they fail so badly? This is a team that put up 35 and 23 on the Steelers and 20 on the Texans, two of the best defenses in the NFL.

The answer is one of two things.
1) It's not so simple as being able to stop them by going into those coverages. If it was, every team would have done it, and the Ravens offense would have been much worse than it was, and they would have lost more than four games over the course of the year.
2) If it was that simple, teams did it, and failed at it, which means it's not so simple as being able to stop them by going into those coverages, because they're good enough to beat them.

I completely disagree with how the Ravens lost their four games, and I'll go through game-by-game what I thought was the difference for how the defenses bottled up the Ravens offense.

Titans - Their front four absolutely man-handled the Ravens front four. They were in Flacco's face constantly and caused him to have an exceptionally poor game, and gave Rice no room to run.

Jaguars - Their DBs flat mauled Ravens receivers, giving them no ability to catch the balls for long gains. The long reception of the game was 20 yards, and Flacco threw for 6.5 yards per completion. 6.5 yards per attempt is a poor number. Per completion is horrendous. Again, no room to run.

Seahawks - I will not argue that play-calling wasn't the main reason we lost this game. I believe it was, as the Ravens ran the ball very effectively and the passing game was off badly, yet they passed 53 times vs only 12 runs.

Chargers - The offense was off here, but this was a terrible game regardless. The defense had a far worse game than the offense did. The entire team failed to execute.

Patriots - Lee Evans is a bitch.

You guys are boiling this down way too simplistically. There isn't one thing that's a huge problem which if you fix it will make everything better and suddenly the offense will become dominant. Ditching Cam may bring about improvement, but it's likely to be fairly minimal if it does, and you risk bringing in a far worse play-caller. Same if you ditch Flacco (though the risk of getting worse is far higher at the QB position). Same with every major hole in the offense.

But simply saying that the team was too one-dimensional and that it was too easy for teams to stop them just doesn't wash. This is the NFL. If it was so easy to play one single defensive scheme and shut this offense down, this team never would have been 12-4 with the #12 scoring offense and #15 yardage offense.

- C -

Im not asking for Cam's head, i think at this point it would do more harm then hurt in the short term and possibly long term. My view is that because of the approach since he's been on board this offense is woefully under developed in certain aspects of the game. I also believe the offense hasnt had a purpose or flow.

Looking at those losses i saw DB's sitting on slower developing routes in that Titans game, the safeties looked close then normal. While i agree the front for dominated the O-Line its football 101 to slow down a pass rush you incorporate screens and go to quicker hitting pass plays. Never saw it...

The Jags game they were ultra aggressive, i counted a couple plays where Dawan Landry was lined up beside the defensive tackle....someone this far in the box and no adjustment made.

Seahawks game was just as you described but again aggressive play with guys playing closer to the line and corners jamming, but this is how the Seahawks normally play, still adjusments should have been made.

Charger game i agree was just a disaster all around

Patriot game again imo was prime example on how Cam should call games...He allowed to Joe make his imprint on the game. He trusted him in situations to make plays. He consistently called play action plays on downs that most certaintly would have been running downs. He became less predictable and by doing so he worked Flacco into a rhythm and what did we see? Flacco's footwork was clean, which isnt always the case....he didnt miss any routine throws, again not always the case...he made quicker decisions, again not always the case.

Im not at all saying this team is too easy to stop, im also not saying they're one dimensional, im saying they are underdeveloped and predictable from a play calling standpoint. To get to a point where they dont have these horrific performances other parts of the offense need to continue to develop. That development will only happen when there are staple plays and roles in other sets that arent currently considered strengths. Efficiency is obtained through repetition, until the "others" on offense are allowed(and earn)roles in the offense the offense will have a cap on it.

[jonboy79]

Don't forget about David reed coughing it up in that seattle game. It's hard to win a game where you cough up the kickoff twice inside your own 20.

[leachisabeast]

Don't forget about David reed coughing it up in that seattle game. It's hard to win a game where you cough up the kickoff twice inside your own 20.

That really did screw the whole game up for us. Because I am so sure that Cam pretty much wanted to completely abandon the run game when we went two scores down from those fumbles. Had that not happened, I think the game may have went into a completely different direction, we where running the ball effectively to begin with, and I think we would have won the game in usual Ravens fashion.

A couple of months later, Brady is staring down a wall of Ravens defenders in M and T bank stadium with horrendously loud crowd noise instead of having the luxury of playing in Foxboro.

[psuasskicker]

I also believe the offense hasnt had a purpose or flow.

I seriously have no idea how it's even possible to argue this as being the case.

- C -

[Carey]

I seriously have no idea how it's even possible to argue this as being the case.

- C -

Evidently we dont watch the same offense...i often leave the games wondering who where they attacking? how did they plan to get the best targets open? how can ii put my players in the best position for them to be successful and not just plug them into what i do? what kind of counters and adjustments were made? how will i work Flacco into rhythm? I routinely dont get these questions answered. Dont get me wrong, im encouraged by things i've seen in spurts but not nearly consistent enough.

[psuasskicker]

Probably semantics... I thought you meant something else.

I don't argue that point. Sometimes Cam's game planning is terrific (see, Patriots). Sometimes it leaves you scratching your head (see, Seattle).

- C -

[Carey]

Probably semantics... I thought you meant something else.

I don't argue that point. Sometimes Cam's game planning is terrific (see, Patriots). Sometimes it leaves you scratching your head (see, Seattle).

- C -

Yeah i probably should have worded it a bit better...i think Cam is a quality offensive coach, at this i'd rather see this thing out with him. I think natural progression will be the biggest key. One or more of the "others" Doss, Jones, etc. will have to step to the forefront and earn their way on the field.

Looking at Jacoby Jones i think he can play a role sort of like what Robert Meachem did previously with the Saints. Alot of vertical routes and even when they arent designed for him they can be used to clear out and manipulate defenders. Doss by all accounts has regained his quickness and has put on 10 lbs of muscle. Im a Doss fan, i think he's a savvy and smooth player with great hands and more athletic then people think. I also know that regular season games arent played in shorts and he'll have to realize that potential on the field. Pitta is just what i thought he was when we drafted him, a chain mover, he's gonna consistently find the open spots in coverage and make plays on 3rd down. It will be very helpful that he will have a role from the very beginning this year.

These guys will help Cam show a little more willingness to diversify the offense, they have to hold up their end of the bargain but Cam also has to allow them room to develop. I think thats one of the biggest keys to our season, and i look forward to seeing how/if these guys are utilized.

[The Excellector]

How do you develop your passing offense? Their current plan results in W's, but how many rings is it going to bring home. There is a pattern now. They try to work on the passing offense. The minute somebody makes a mistake, they go back to Rice. Then, come playoff time, the past two years, teams have taken Rice out. Uh oh, now we have to go back to that passing offense that we really haven't done much to develop. What's this, it lets us down? But how?

[HKusp]

Our DVOA was worse in 1-back than 2-back.

I think you guys are missing the more obvious point, which is that our passing game isn't as strong as our running game. When you have the best FB in the game, one of the top three RBs in the game, a QB who is maybe middle of the pack and a set of WRs and TEs who are maybe middle of the pack, what do you think you should do with them?

Hint: The answer is not "Park the FB on the bench most plays and throw out of shotgun 60%+ of the time." Especially as a 12-4 team who was holding a lead going into the 4th quarter a lot.

- C -

Winner... winner.... chicken dinner.

[psuasskicker]

How do you develop your passing offense? Their current plan results in W's, but how many rings is it going to bring home. There is a pattern now. They try to work on the passing offense. The minute somebody makes a mistake, they go back to Rice. Then, come playoff time, the past two years, teams have taken Rice out. Uh oh, now we have to go back to that passing offense that we really haven't done much to develop. What's this, it lets us down? But how?

You act like there's some magic number of passes that it takes to develop your passing offense. Again, we were a 12-4 team that took 11 of those 12 wins as leads into the fourth quarter. The Ravens passed the ball 544 times plus took 33 sacks and ran the ball 459 times. In other words, they're dropping back to pass 55.6% of the time. It's not just about their current plan resulting in wins. Their current plan should also be developing the passing game.

How exactly would you attempt to change those ratios in sake of developing the passing game, and how much would it take to be acceptable to develop the passing game? Because I'm just not seeing it. Let's contrast with the Green Bay Packers, who I think we can all agree has an extremely robust passing game. GB dropped back (att+sack) 593 times and ran 395 times, or 60.0% drop-backs. If we held that ratio, it would have meant an additional 47 passing plays (removing those 47 from run plays). Are you contending that getting those additional 47 passing plays would really have made a big difference in how well our passing game developed? Because I don't really see how, if we dropped back to pass 577 times already last year, how an additional 47 would really have helped.

And it almost certainly would have hurt us from the standpoint of how much we'd have won. So are you contending that it would have been better for us to go 10-6 and lost on the road in the first round of the playoffs in order to get those extra 47 drop-backs in?

If that's your contention, I totally disagree. If it's not, then I don't understand what your claim is.

- C -

[Carey]

You act like there's some magic number of passes that it takes to develop your passing offense. Again, we were a 12-4 team that took 11 of those 12 wins as leads into the fourth quarter. The Ravens passed the ball 544 times plus took 33 sacks and ran the ball 459 times. In other words, they're dropping back to pass 55.6% of the time. It's not just about their current plan resulting in wins. Their current plan should also be developing the passing game.

How exactly would you attempt to change those ratios in sake of developing the passing game, and how much would it take to be acceptable to develop the passing game? Because I'm just not seeing it. Let's contrast with the Green Bay Packers, who I think we can all agree has an extremely robust passing game. GB dropped back (att+sack) 593 times and ran 395 times, or 60.0% drop-backs. If we held that ratio, it would have meant an additional 47 passing plays (removing those 47 from run plays). Are you contending that getting those additional 47 passing plays would really have made a big difference in how well our passing game developed? Because I don't really see how, if we dropped back to pass 577 times already last year, how an additional 47 would really have helped.

And it almost certainly would have hurt us from the standpoint of how much we'd have won. So are you contending that it would have been better for us to go 10-6 and lost on the road in the first round of the playoffs in order to get those extra 47 drop-backs in?

If that's your contention, I totally disagree. If it's not, then I don't understand what your claim is.

- C -

Agreed, my view wouldnt change the number of dropbacks and if so very minimal. I think part of it in the simpliest terms, and maybe you could find this info or lead me in the direction on this....Rice had 104 targets last year, i wonder how many of those were by design/a few yards away from the LOS compared to how many were dump offs. If those targets go down and are distributed to the Pitta's, Jones's, Doss's and Dickson's of the team i think that will tell us Cam has sat down and broke down whats going wrong in those situations specifically and figured out what guys to put in what spots to try to minimize those outcomes. Obviously not nearly that simple and only part of the process, but a thought.