Looking back at the Raven's game.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Looking back at the Raven's game.

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

     

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

     

    Woodhead had 2 carries in the first half both of which came on the hurry up drive before the end of the half.  The Pats ran 45 plays in the first half of which 19 were from the shotgun which is a hair over 42% not 90%.  Outside of the last drive of the half where they ran 7 of 8 plays from the shotgun they ran 37 plays of which 12 were from the shotgun which is a hair over 32%.

    So let's recap.  In the first half Ridley had double digit carries of which only 1 was from the shotgun.  Woodhead had 2 carries all of which were in the last drive of the half meaning he had ZERO carries before that drive. Other than that drive the Patriots ran under a third of their plays from the shotgun.  Believe it or not lots of teams run their hurry up offenses at the end of halves out of the shotgun so harping on that is like harping on football 101.  Even including that drive the majority of the plays run were not out of the shotgun.  Just stop.  You cannot win this no matter how hard you try.  I can't wait to hear what new excuse you will come up with next.



     



     

    Dude, you're not mentioning Vereen.  Vereen and Woodhead have the same skill set and are used in the hurry ups or shotguns. I don't care who specifically it is in those formations.

    We didn't run a hurry up at the end of a half. I have no issue with that at all. We started the game with it!

    Why is it that our offensive gameplans are totally overthought and there is too much tinkering, with no rhythm attempted to be developed, and somehow when we lose those games people act all confused?

    Why can't we just go toe to toe and just line up and get the run game established/attempt to do it in traditonal formations? What is the problem?

    A hurry up or 2 minute, a shotgun spread, a read option, etc, shouldn't be a base of an offense.

    That's sort of the point. You think it can be. I don't think it can be because it's not enough.

    In my last post to you, I didn't even count our last drive before halftime, because I fully realize with 1:14 left at the 47, you should be using a 2 minute there.

    Why are you so defensive about this anyway?

    All we have to do is get back to he basics, smash mouth early, dictate and impose our will, etc.   For whatever reason, we don't do that. When we do, we win.

     




    While Vereen and Woodhead both are good 3rd down backs their styles are nothing alike and their skill sets are different. There are certain kinds of plays that Woodhead excels at and others that Vereen excels at. Plus I believe Vereen can be a feature back not wholly unlike Ray Rice (though they are also different players) while Woodhead cannot.

     

    Vereen I think also has more skills as a downfield receiver than Woody. And he has better skills at running the ball outside where Woody is great at cutting back behind blockers but does not have stright line speed to just take it to the outside. I think they are very different players.

     




    I think it's hard to judge or analyze just what Vareen is...the guy has hardly played. I have seen him do some things in preseason games that lead me to believe that he has special skills as a pass catcher, but he's done nothing in my opinion as a runner. His first year I thought he looked quick and shifty, but wetn down too easily on first contact. His second year I thought he looked stronger, but then he was hurt so fast I didn't get a chance to see him and make an opinion on him. I'd have to see him run at least five games as a lead back before I personally can tell what he is.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Looking back at the Raven's game.

    In response to mthurl's comment:

    I thought it was a typical game we've come to expect out of this team come playoff time against a good opponent. Offense relies on Brady's arm to score points, move the ball, close out halfs, kill the clock, control the clock, win field position...when that doesn't happen we lose. Pretty simple stuff.

    Our defense tries hard...generally shows up to play good run D.  We are well coached - people are not out of position - we don't get fooled on anything, but when those third and long obvious passing situations arrive we don't have the talent to get it done. The QB has all day to look over the field and our corners can't cover long enough. To the naked eye it looks like things are almost good enough, but almost being good enough is in reality light years away in this league. Being almost good enough gets you beat...it may be close with outstanding coaching and playing tough, but when you're not good enough you lose. Until that changes we won't win another Super Bowl. 




    Also, it is getting far too typical that we will blow big plays. And that is not a new phenomena at this point.

    I truly believe Welker is gone because of his drops. If you can't count on a guy in the biggest moments; you really just can't count on him. (And many may not be considering this same factor as a big part of why Samuel was not retained.)

     

     

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: Looking back at the Raven's game.

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

     

    As for the first half in that game, here is what I have:

    First 3 Series

    4 plays, 1 shotgun

    12 plays, 3 shotguns

    5 plays, 2 shotguns

    Now, this is 25% shotgun, approx, but unless you think you can establish a run out of a gimmick no huddle with Brady under Center (I don't think a no huddle is a good way to establish a run game at all, because it's your minute offense and you'e usually passing or trying to catch the D napping on a 3rd and 1 or something), this approach also hampers establishing a run game.

    I still feel without establishing a legit run game against a good D, you're doing yourself a disservice in the second half.

    Obligatory runs aren't really runs that are intended to lay down a run game as part of a gameplan, IMO.

    I would honestly like to see them have Brady under Center and use more base or power formations out of the gate, UNTIL they get the run game established, because it does two things:

    1. Makes the D think about it.

    2. Opens up playaction in the second half.

    It's not all about looking at the shotguns in a box score. 

     

     




    Gee, I hope BB is reading this brilliant dissertation by you. Maybe that way he can learn how to coach a football team to your satisfaction.

     




    In a way you are both right. But the answer.. and the cause .. is due to the O line, not the coach, the play calling or the QB. The O line is falling short against the best it faces. This has been true against the best opponents during the year too often (not every time) and in the playoffs when we lose.

    The answer is not to call plays that will fail! It is to upgrade the line so that we can be successful calling those plays.

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: Looking back at the Raven's game.

    In response to mthurl's comment:

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

     

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

     

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

     

    Woodhead had 2 carries in the first half both of which came on the hurry up drive before the end of the half.  The Pats ran 45 plays in the first half of which 19 were from the shotgun which is a hair over 42% not 90%.  Outside of the last drive of the half where they ran 7 of 8 plays from the shotgun they ran 37 plays of which 12 were from the shotgun which is a hair over 32%.

    So let's recap.  In the first half Ridley had double digit carries of which only 1 was from the shotgun.  Woodhead had 2 carries all of which were in the last drive of the half meaning he had ZERO carries before that drive. Other than that drive the Patriots ran under a third of their plays from the shotgun.  Believe it or not lots of teams run their hurry up offenses at the end of halves out of the shotgun so harping on that is like harping on football 101.  Even including that drive the majority of the plays run were not out of the shotgun.  Just stop.  You cannot win this no matter how hard you try.  I can't wait to hear what new excuse you will come up with next.



     



     

    Dude, you're not mentioning Vereen.  Vereen and Woodhead have the same skill set and are used in the hurry ups or shotguns. I don't care who specifically it is in those formations.

    We didn't run a hurry up at the end of a half. I have no issue with that at all. We started the game with it!

    Why is it that our offensive gameplans are totally overthought and there is too much tinkering, with no rhythm attempted to be developed, and somehow when we lose those games people act all confused?

    Why can't we just go toe to toe and just line up and get the run game established/attempt to do it in traditonal formations? What is the problem?

    A hurry up or 2 minute, a shotgun spread, a read option, etc, shouldn't be a base of an offense.

    That's sort of the point. You think it can be. I don't think it can be because it's not enough.

    In my last post to you, I didn't even count our last drive before halftime, because I fully realize with 1:14 left at the 47, you should be using a 2 minute there.

    Why are you so defensive about this anyway?

    All we have to do is get back to he basics, smash mouth early, dictate and impose our will, etc.   For whatever reason, we don't do that. When we do, we win.

     




    While Vereen and Woodhead both are good 3rd down backs their styles are nothing alike and their skill sets are different. There are certain kinds of plays that Woodhead excels at and others that Vereen excels at. Plus I believe Vereen can be a feature back not wholly unlike Ray Rice (though they are also different players) while Woodhead cannot.

     

    Vereen I think also has more skills as a downfield receiver than Woody. And he has better skills at running the ball outside where Woody is great at cutting back behind blockers but does not have stright line speed to just take it to the outside. I think they are very different players.

     

     




    I think it's hard to judge or analyze just what Vareen is...the guy has hardly played. I have seen him do some things in preseason games that lead me to believe that he has special skills as a pass catcher, but he's done nothing in my opinion as a runner. His first year I thought he looked quick and shifty, but wetn down too easily on first contact. His second year I thought he looked stronger, but then he was hurt so fast I didn't get a chance to see him and make an opinion on him. I'd have to see him run at least five games as a lead back before I personally can tell what he is.

     



    I am not saying he IS the quality feature back but that he has the skills - and I think he can be one. But regardless of that, the bigger point is that he CAN do things that Woody just cannot and Woody can do some things Vereen is not as adept at. My point was essentially THEY ARE NOT BACKS WITH THE SAME SKILL SETS. They are VERY different.

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: Looking back at the Raven's game.

    In response to mthurl's comment:

    I thought it was a typical game we've come to expect out of this team come playoff time against a good opponent. Offense relies on Brady's arm to score points, move the ball, close out halfs, kill the clock, control the clock, win field position...when that doesn't happen we lose. Pretty simple stuff.

    Our defense tries hard...generally shows up to play good run D.  We are well coached - people are not out of position - we don't get fooled on anything, but when those third and long obvious passing situations arrive we don't have the talent to get it done. The QB has all day to look over the field and our corners can't cover long enough. To the naked eye it looks like things are almost good enough, but almost being good enough is in reality light years away in this league. Being almost good enough gets you beat...it may be close with outstanding coaching and playing tough, but when you're not good enough you lose. Until that changes we won't win another Super Bowl. 




    Again, it is my belief that we have a sound O line but not one that is good enough to dominate agains the best in the biggest games - eithyer pass blocking OR runnning the ball. The two TEs, Gronk Especially, helps the running game but not enough in total and not when he is hurt as he has been the last two playoffs.

    On the other side of the football it is the same but worse! The D line is not good enough to really shut down a running game altogether without committing too much and it certainly does not have the pressure to put on QBs at each moment in a big game.

    Upgrading both lines is ESSENTIAL to make this team able to play big in big games. BOth O and D lines set up the rest of the team to make big plays in the course of a play. While Welker may still drop those balls there would be other plays that would have changed the course of the offensive game and plays that would have chanbged the defensive course of the game.

    It is not Brady or Welker or the D. It is the O line and even more so the D line. Improve them enough and the rest of the team looks unstopable.

     

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Looking back at the Raven's game.

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

     

    However, I do feel the hurry up does fall under gimmick offense, wrinkle or "not a base of an offense".

    Yes.

     


    I just pray BB got this down in his notes when he was picking your brilliant coaching mind today with his daily peruse of the board.

    You would really think the greatest coach in history would know that a hurry up is a just a gimmick and not fall into that trap your superior coaching wiles would avoid.

     

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Looking back at the Raven's game.

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

     

    He could have left with a ring, but our offense barely dribbled out 14 points leaving everyone in shock.


    Oh yeah, genius. Or he could have not dropped the Lombardi.

    Hey, slam the offensive line all you want bonehead. I won't stop you. They deserve all the criticism in the world for their horrendous play. But Samuel had the game in his hands and flubbed it. No changing that no matter what rock you want to look under to find an excuse.

     

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Looking back at the Raven's game.

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

     

    As for the first half in that game, here is what I have:

    First 3 Series

    4 plays, 1 shotgun

    12 plays, 3 shotguns

    5 plays, 2 shotguns

    Now, this is 25% shotgun, approx, but unless you think you can establish a run out of a gimmick no huddle with Brady under Center (I don't think a no huddle is a good way to establish a run game at all, because it's your minute offense and you'e usually passing or trying to catch the D napping on a 3rd and 1 or something), this approach also hampers establishing a run game.

    I still feel without establishing a legit run game against a good D, you're doing yourself a disservice in the second half.

    Obligatory runs aren't really runs that are intended to lay down a run game as part of a gameplan, IMO.

    I would honestly like to see them have Brady under Center and use more base or power formations out of the gate, UNTIL they get the run game established, because it does two things:

    1. Makes the D think about it.

    2. Opens up playaction in the second half.

    It's not all about looking at the shotguns in a box score. 

     

     




    Gee, I hope BB is reading this brilliant dissertation by you. Maybe that way he can learn how to coach a football team to your satisfaction.

     

     




     

    In a way you are both right. But the answer.. and the cause .. is due to the O line, not the coach, the play calling or the QB. The O line is falling short against the best it faces. This has been true against the best opponents during the year too often (not every time) and in the playoffs when we lose.

    The answer is not to call plays that will fail! It is to upgrade the line so that we can be successful calling those plays.

     




    The O-line is all part of the mediocre team the GM has given the HC and QB. No argument from me on that score.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Looking back at the Raven's game.

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

     

     

    He could have left with a ring, but our offense barely dribbled out 14 points leaving everyone in shock.

     

     


    Oh yeah, genius. Or he could have not dropped the Lombardi.

    Hey, slam the offensive line all you want bonehead. I won't stop you. They deserve all the criticism in the world for their horrendous play. But Samuel had the game in his hands and flubbed it. No changing that no matter what rock you want to look under to find an excuse.

     

     




    Note how a drop by Samuel or Welker 4 years later, don't trump the idea we didn't score enough points in either game. lol

     




    I don't know why I bother... but.....

    Things happen during the course of a game meatball. Sometimes they aren't so good. But when you get to the nitty gritty time, all that pales in comparison.

    The moment of truth is where the Lombardi Trophys grow. The big plays that are made or not made when it is all on the line are the stuff of legends in the NFL. Nobody is winning the MVP trophy because they scored a TD in the 1st quarter.

    BB has said it and it is so. Against good teams you are just trying to put yourself in a position to win when the game is on the line. We just haven't been doing that.

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxfan94. Show redsoxfan94's posts

    Re: Looking back at the Raven's game.

    yes babe, its everyone besides brady's fault.....oh boy.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Looking back at the Raven's game.

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:



    Now the O Line is mediocre? Don't look now folks, but Portfolio's silly comments about our O Line, a line that features the best RT in the NFL, the second best LT in the AFC (JOe THomas in Cleveland is number 1), Logan Mankins, a good technically sound Center, a good technically sound RG, etc, are now being used by Babe to piggyback off the idea that BB has surrounded Brady with "mediocre" talent.

     

    Unreal.

    Also, this line is coached by Dante Scarnecchia, arguably the best O Line coach in NFL history, without question in the cap era.


    The best RT in the NFL has never even gotten to a pro-bowl? Amazing!

    The second best LT has never gotten to a pro-bowl? Astonishing!

    You say, the C and RG are "good technically sound". I see. In other words, average.

    The Pats O-line have been overachievers for many years now. And that over achievement far too often has stopped dead in its tracks against top level D lines in the playoffs. Learn the game nutcase.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Looking back at the Raven's game.

    In response to redsoxfan94's comment:

    yes babe, its everyone besides brady's fault.....oh boy.




    Well genius, can you list the players on the team as good as Brady?

     

    It's not a players fault if they are mediocre. It's the GM's fault for assembling too many of them as opposed to impact players.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Looking back at the Raven's game.

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

     

    I go by facts.

     


    As I say, facts to you are like the noonday sun to a vampire.

    You are probably the single worst case on a football board I have ever seen of completely ignoring facts and instead just making things up.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Looking back at the Raven's game.

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to redsoxfan94's comment:

     

    yes babe, its everyone besides brady's fault.....oh boy.

     




    Well genius, can you list the players on the team as good as Brady?

     

     

    It's not a players fault if they are mediocre. It's the GM's fault for assembling too many of them as opposed to impact players.

     




    ^^^See folks, this is the kind of irrational behavior that permeates the Babe Parilli kind of pink helmet fan:

     

     

    He's basically saying Brady deserves more HOF type players around him in the cap era.

     




    Spare us your inane stupidity wack job. Of course Brady will be more effective with high caliber players around him.

    And you laud those mediocre players at the same time you slam the HOFer. You're a running joke here.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Looking back at the Raven's game.

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

    Leave it to you to make the premise that we have to have All Pro O Linemen across the line to appease Brady.

     


    Your hero Meriweather made the pro-bowl twice before BB cut him at the end of his rookie contarct numbnuts. It can't be that hard to do.

    BTW, how's your other hero Chung doing?

     

Share