Looking back at the Raven's game.

  1. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Looking back at the Raven's game.

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

     

    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.

     

     

     




    Do you know what the words skill and set mean?  You did this the other day when I said Kelly is a Gerard Warren kind of signing a la 2010 except Kelly is known for pass rushing from4-3 DT spot. Warren was not.

     

    Each has 3-4 experience, too.

    They're also similar in size.  Yes, Kelly is very similar to Warren except Kelly is more of a pass rusher than a run stopper.  I am sorry you are unaware of these facts, but those are the facts.

    No, somehow Woodhead and Vereen don't have similar skill sets? lmao

    Care to explain HOW BB isn't using Vereen in the same exact fashion as he used Woodhead here since 2010?

     



    l-MY-AO...

    Kelly is a DT and so is Warren. Gee, they must have the same skill sets.

    Vereen and Woody are both RB who are quick and the Pats have trown to each. They must have the same skill sets.

    LMAO? really? Vereen running style and Woody's are not at all alike. And that is because they have different skill sets. They did not run the same running plays or pass plays BECAUSE they are not the same player. Just because they both were used on third downs does not mean they have the same skill set.

    Gronk and Hern, when both are healthy, both play on many downs and both are frequent targets and both are TEs. By your "logic" they have the same skill sets but clearly that is simply the viewpoint of someone who views things in a simplisitic way.

    Vereen has more straightline speed than Woody. Woody is much more of a stop, start and jump type runner who thrives in slipping back and forth using blocks where Vereen excells in making a move off a block and then exploding. They read different plays better. So they do not run all the same plays. Vereen can take it wide on a sweep. Woody can cut outside behind a block but he is not a pure outside runnner. Vereen has noticeably more power than Woody. Vereen has more experience and sophisitcation in the passing game and can be used with much more versatilty downfield. Woody is great on taking dump offs but is not especially sophisticated in his route running.

    Warren was good agaisnt the run and not a very good pass rusher. Kelly has been the reverse of that. Perhaps in this D, especially playing next to Vinny, he will be freer to be more effective in the running game. But he is no Waren and Warren is no Kelly.

    ... LAUGH MOA

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1'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:

     

     

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

    2. There is this really bad vibe/aura that Brady is above everyone around him because he has rings and the rest of the offense does not.

    BAD

    Nice going, Portfolio. Port makes a very dumb comment and it opens the door for Babe to troll for the next 3 hours.



    Both you and Babe have made some very true comments in this thread and both of you have gone TOO far in some cooments to the point of missing truly key elements.

    Case in point the O line. Babe is right that the quality of the line is a reflection of how well the team is put together AND that the O line has not altogether been up to it in the playoff losses (including SBs). You are right in saying the O line is a good one and that others, including TB, have to take some responsibility.

    What you get wrong is in missing what to me is a fact that the O line has in fact fallen short against the best Ds they face. The running game does not fail simply because we do not call enough running plays! It fall short BECAUSE the blocking is not good enough in crunch time against the best Ds. The pass blocking has broken down because we just fall short against the best pass rushing teams. - In your defence I very much agree that having Mankins hurt makes a big difference. I very much agree that having Gronk hurt affects the blocking as well. But the O line has not been good ENOUGH. You could NEVER be successful building a team because you latch on to one aspect and are blind to other things. ANd you compound your problem with you Napoleonic belief in your own omnipotence.

    Babe is wrong when he says the O line plays over their head. They ARE good. One of the better lines OVERALL. But they do not dominate in the running game nor in pass protection. This is true against the best teams and we have seen it every year in the biggest losses. I am not blaming the O line but they do fall short of what is needed to either run or pass on critical plays. Babe gets it partly right but loses sight of what is good just as you lose sight of what is not good enough.

    I expect you will add ANOTHER of your own DUMB comments (I go there because you do in your brilliance)... If you follow up with just some lame remark I will likely not respond. Because I have said what I wanted to say already. Maybe that is yet another lesson posters here could give you.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Looking back at the Raven's game.

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

    The crucial moment was in the gameplanning room when BB and McDaniels turn to Brady and say, "how do you think we should attack them, Tom"?

    I am fine with "blaming" BB for not interjecting and overruling what is clearly a failed formation against physical Ds with a good pass rush.

    You have to beat teams like that at their own game.  In each case, the Giants or Ravens do what we USED to do on offense. 

    Hopefully, BB is making it stop by walking from Welkie (sounds like a Hallmark movie name, lmao). Personally, I think, as stated many times here, he realizes this by lowering the money to Welker. It explains why they could have afforded him, but tried to save face, by at least making an offer. 

    When Welker said "I don't think they want me back", he was correct. Nothign personal, but he is correct.

    They thought they could win with a Welker-centric offense and gameplans and it's impossible to ignore that Brady and Welkie are very good friends.

    I am not saying it's intentional, but nepotism never works in business.

    Just feel relieved that stuff is over. It didn't work well enough in numerous playoff games and 2 SBs.



    bass - i think you are onto something with McDaniels, as i felt he threw way too much in that game and should have ran the ball much more than they did!  i hope he gets better in the biggest games or we'll continue to struggle in the primetime games

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Looking back at the Raven's game.

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

    Yet, I spell out for you above as to WHY our O Line doesn't do as well?  He's not right if you think I am right.  The O Line didn't wake up vs the Jets, Ravens or Giants in the SB and say "hey, let's be average today!".

    BJGE had 8 carries for 50 yards by halftime in 2011's matchup with Balt and was benched so we run more shotgun spread.  It's so obvious. So, the O Line wasn't mediocre in that game at all. The O Line was also dominant in the second half of the SB, but because we subbed in Woodhead too much after that TD drive out of halftime. Just stick with what works and stop tweaking it because or offense is predictable, which allows the defenss to "cheat", so to speak. Get it?

    You're calling my comments dumb and don't even know Tommy Kelly and Gerard Warren share clear similarties minus their strengths with pass rush and run stopping respectively? You kind of made a fool of yourself yesterday on that one. 

    There is no way on earth that line is medicore just because in the playoffs without there being a reason. And, it's not just because we know Balt has a good front 7, or the Giants, or whomever.

    It's not JUST the execution which is what he is saying and what you're somewhat saying.

    I am saying that this pattern of a finesse style ideology where our offense fades and sputters, with it appearing the O Line is leaky, goes back to 2006's AFC title game.  You can't just set up a run game with the draw out of a shotgun and expect it to work all game long, which is we ended up doing on offense.  Look at thow the offense sputtered in that one. It's because we never developed a traditional running game in the first half. We should have come out on that second half with more power runs.

    That's great that it worked so well, but don't expect it to keep working.  I know Dillon wasn't healthy in that 2006 AFC title game, but just tell Logie Mankins to prepare for some hammer jobs and run it for clock.

    I think it's WAY, WAY more about ideology than execution vs the more elite Ds. A more balanced ideology would help our entire O Line. It's like they don't want to use more traditional Weis plays and it's just mindboggling.

    Why on earth you'd want to limit yourself in the playbook against these Ds is beyond me.

    Finally, "babe made some good comments"? May I ask which ones? 

    I see a litany of excuses as to why Brady hasn;t played well. I'll give the SB 42 O Line one to him, but that's it.

    The subbing of our backs tells the opposing D if it''s a run or pass, which leaves our O Line at a disadvantage. The subbing for matchups has become obsessive and gone too far.



    As usual we agree on some things but not on everything.

    I did not use the word EXECUTION. Simply   and explicitly I said .. and have been saying for a while... that the line on both sides of the ball (or at least one side) needs to get better talent wise so that we match up well in big games against the best talented opponents.

    Our O line is good and well rounded and has depth. ALL critical aspects. So they are not a weakness. BUT - in the biggest games agaonst the strongest opponents they are not good ENOUGH for the O to be effective  ENOUGH. They are not playing badly, just not good enough.

    The D line more so as they are not as good as the O line. This is especially clear in pass rush... on ability to REGULARLY put pressure on QB. AND it is that element that WILL generate big plays BEHIND the D line... that is the D line can set up other players to make big plays. But they are not doing that in these bigger games against the best opponents because their talent is just not good enough.

    While this IS a reflection on those who build this team I am of the belief that the team is well built and refelcts superior work by the GM. Still, the team has fallen short in PART because the talent has been JUST not quite good enough when matched against those dominating opponents.

    I am hopeful that adding Kelly and Armstead will make a difference but I have no belief one way or the other. Just that it could make a difference.

    As for you v Babe... well, consider this: it is rare to find someone who is wrong about everything and rare to find someone who is right about everything. But that is what you insist is true and has been since you and Babe first shared a teething ring. You have both made points that I thnk are valid and both made points that I think are less so or even not so. To think that you and he are either ALL right or ALL wrong is as short sighted and narrow minded and flat out foolish as some of the political omnipotence we hear from every side of every issue.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Looking back at the Raven's game.

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

    So, again, you keep ignoring the WHY as to why our O Line doesn't look as good dropping back to pass block 40+ times with Brady in the shotgun and RBs subbed in and out at such a high rate.

    It's like, you're acknowledging the O Line could be better (which I agree!), but you want to ignore the why they could be better.

    No offense does what our O does and no O Line is asked to pass protect at rate ours is, with the predictability of what we do.

    All those front 7s do is rush, ignore the run, kind of watch for a draw but not really, and then the back end plays man on Welker and/or Gronk with one of them being doubled.  Welker is doubled in between the 20s, Gronk in the red zone.

    If you have Brady waiting and waiting for 1 of those 2 targets to shake loose from the coverage, our O Line might break down after 4-5 seconds.

    A big reason why the O line looked bad in SB 42 was because the Giants scheme was better executed than what it was in the December match up, but we also kept running our offense the same way.

    BB, Brady, McDaniels clearly think that if they keep doing it, at some point, we will out execute them based on our talent level around Brady.  That has not worked.

    Obviously, injuries to Gronk are a factor to this idea, but to not walk into the pre game meeting room with the O Line and to not challenge the O Line to have the game of their lives run blocking more so than pass blocking is ridiculous. You have Logan Mankins at LG who is a better run blocker than pass blocker, two great Tackles, an athletic right side of the line, etc.

    What is the problem?

    Does Brady like to pass that much and does he prefer the shotgun that much?

    I urge you to compare how our offense was run vs HOuston and then vs Baltimore. We tried to get to playaction vs Houston in both games. We never did vs Baltimore.  We ran a hurry up and used a boatload of shotgun, where the running was yet again only coming off as obligatory.




    This line of thought is reasonable...

    I think that BB has a concern that the O line has in fact its limitations against the best. Houston was NOT Baltimore. They have some very good players including Watt. But they are not as strong up front and not as aggressive. Now aggressive can be used against the D yes. But in this case the point I want to make is that Baltimore was more capable of shutting us down than Houston was. And I think the coaching staff felt that when the chips were truly on the line (no pun intended) the running game was not up to it. That putting the ball in Brady's hands was a higher chance of success EVEN in light of your observation which is not without merit.

    I do not believe this team has shown it can run at will against the very best. They are good but not dominant at that level.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Looking back at the Raven's game.

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    1.) I think that Ridley's fumble is certainly the turning point. That and the defensive collpase that overlapped it. 

    2.) I disagree that the game was characterized by poor execution, as some in the thread stated. It wasn't perfect, but they executed pretty well through three quarters. The game was close, and featured NE running ball control offense. Prior to the last 8 minutes when they needed two TDs and a FG to win, NE ran the ball 27 times to 30 passes. That figure even includes the end of the half hurry up drive that was all passes. 

    They spent most of the day, as their base game plan, handing off to Ridley. 

    The problem is their defense isn't good enough to play that game. They don't "force" turnovers, rather they rely on other teams to make mistakes when they are forced to come back from large defecits. They have trouble getting off the field quickly as well, which aggravates the mission of a ball control scheme. It makes no sense to chew up clock on offense if your opponent is moving the ball fluidly and scoring. 

    3.) I also disagree that they put the game in Brady's hands, as one poster said. Ridley was the focus of their game plan going in. Brady was tapped after the fumble and two blown drives by the defense to clean up after the mess with a 3 score comeback in 8 minutes. Before that, he was handing the ball off all day. 

    3.) Not going to blame Ridley. Ridley has ball control issues that go back to LSU, I told everyone about them coming out. He doesn't have great hands, and to a degree it will always limit what he can do in this offense. But I can't really pin that fumble on ball control ... the dude tried to lower his pads and churn it for extra yards. This is what you are coached to do to protect the ball and increase your projection of power. Baltimore players lead with their helment, it's what they do. 

    It's a freak turnover. But, I' sure to the surprise of many who thought running the football 27 times in three quarters would "win" any game, turnovers happen when you run a lot too.

    5.) While Talib's disappearance had some impact, I question how drastic it was. They gave up the same rough score (about 28) the week prior, and it is in line with what we can expect out o the defense in the last 6 years in the post-season (~25-26 ppg, losing TOP, .5 turnovers per game). At some point you just have to look at it, and say, good offenses are going to be able to execute their game plan on your defense, and try and improve the defense until it isn't always the case. 

    6.) What we learned? Bolster the defense ... get some depth ... avoid freak turnovers ... STAY HEALTHY ... get after it this post-season. 

    The last one is key: the last four post-seasons NE lost some key players Welker, Gronk, Hern, Carter, Talib. It's a testament to how football is sometimes about being the healthiest team standing. Baltimore was getting players BACK as the playoffs started, not losing them.

    To be honest, it would be amazing just once to finish a post-season with Gronk actually in pads. He is the most important guy to the rushing game that isn't an o-lineman, and the most important to the passing game that isn't Brady. He has more impact on his offense than any other TE or WR in football because he is such a dominant combo TE. It's a shame that your second best player has missed two playoff ending games in a row and fills a fan's mind with would've and could've types of thoughts. 



    Not a lot to disagree with here, but I would ask whether you thought the blocking in the run game was well executed.  The results were rather pedestrian imo given the number of DBs the Ravens had on the field for most of the game.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from patsbandwagonsince76. Show patsbandwagonsince76's posts

    Re: Looking back at the Raven's game.

    All I remember is the Ravens D playing pretty well, and were everywhere. I remember wondering if they actually test for performance enhancing drugs in the playoffs becasue they seemed really strong.

    Also remember the smirk on Flacos face after Talib went out, like he could pass at will.

    Whatever. Someday, maybe in the Brady era, maybe not it, will all come together for them again.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Looking back at the Raven's game.

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    1.) I think that Ridley's fumble is certainly the turning point. That and the defensive collpase that overlapped it. 

    2.) I disagree that the game was characterized by poor execution, as some in the thread stated. It wasn't perfect, but they executed pretty well through three quarters. The game was close, and featured NE running ball control offense. Prior to the last 8 minutes when they needed two TDs and a FG to win, NE ran the ball 27 times to 30 passes. That figure even includes the end of the half hurry up drive that was all passes. 

    They spent most of the day, as their base game plan, handing off to Ridley. 

    The problem is their defense isn't good enough to play that game. They don't "force" turnovers, rather they rely on other teams to make mistakes when they are forced to come back from large defecits. They have trouble getting off the field quickly as well, which aggravates the mission of a ball control scheme. It makes no sense to chew up clock on offense if your opponent is moving the ball fluidly and scoring. 

    3.) I also disagree that they put the game in Brady's hands, as one poster said. Ridley was the focus of their game plan going in. Brady was tapped after the fumble and two blown drives by the defense to clean up after the mess with a 3 score comeback in 8 minutes. Before that, he was handing the ball off all day. 

    3.) Not going to blame Ridley. Ridley has ball control issues that go back to LSU, I told everyone about them coming out. He doesn't have great hands, and to a degree it will always limit what he can do in this offense. But I can't really pin that fumble on ball control ... the dude tried to lower his pads and churn it for extra yards. This is what you are coached to do to protect the ball and increase your projection of power. Baltimore players lead with their helment, it's what they do. 

    It's a freak turnover. But, I' sure to the surprise of many who thought running the football 27 times in three quarters would "win" any game, turnovers happen when you run a lot too.

    5.) While Talib's disappearance had some impact, I question how drastic it was. They gave up the same rough score (about 28) the week prior, and it is in line with what we can expect out o the defense in the last 6 years in the post-season (~25-26 ppg, losing TOP, .5 turnovers per game). At some point you just have to look at it, and say, good offenses are going to be able to execute their game plan on your defense, and try and improve the defense until it isn't always the case. 

    6.) What we learned? Bolster the defense ... get some depth ... avoid freak turnovers ... STAY HEALTHY ... get after it this post-season. 

    The last one is key: the last four post-seasons NE lost some key players Welker, Gronk, Hern, Carter, Talib. It's a testament to how football is sometimes about being the healthiest team standing. Baltimore was getting players BACK as the playoffs started, not losing them.

    To be honest, it would be amazing just once to finish a post-season with Gronk actually in pads. He is the most important guy to the rushing game that isn't an o-lineman, and the most important to the passing game that isn't Brady. He has more impact on his offense than any other TE or WR in football because he is such a dominant combo TE. It's a shame that your second best player has missed two playoff ending games in a row and fills a fan's mind with would've and could've types of thoughts. 



    On most points I agree. NOt quite as much in terms of having the ball in Brady's hands. At critical moments in big games they have been throwing. But also, they need to "get after it"? Like they are not trying HARD enough? That has 0 value and is not worthy of the rest of the post.

    But here is the point I would like to follow up on: how did the O play during the regular season and how do they play against the best teams? The O has a significant drop off when facing really good competition. I AM NOT LETTING THE D OFF THE HOOK. I am only FOR THE MOMENT wanting to talk about O in light of your comments. THe fall off is not because the "skill" players are not good enough (though again I agree that Gronk being hurt is a big blow)... the difference is that the O line is not good ENOUGH against that level of talent.And I am not saying they are not good. Just that they need an upgrade at that level.

     

    There is an alternative to upgrading the O line. Upgrading the D. TO me what was needed was an upgrade at DT, at covering TEs and RBs and in depth at coverage and more speed at LB. In all that they need to upgrade the pass rush so that they can put pressure at will (even if they dont get the sack). Not yet sure about pass rush which is very key but they have done all the other things in off season - especially when you include the fact that they have 1st and 2nd year men coming in with more experience.

    We all talk about making big plays... as you noted the D was not. Those improve with improved play at the line. We will see how far the D has come soon enough. I do wish they could upgrade either C or RG and we all would like to see how good this team is when healthy in the playoffs. Even with all the issues many of us point out had they been healthy who knows whether they might have won the last 2 SBs?

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Looking back at the Raven's game.

    They need players.  Without Gronk, the offensive weapons really lack potency, especially in the red zone.

     

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Looking back at the Raven's game.

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    They need players.  Without Gronk, the offensive weapons really lack potency, especially in the red zone.



    It's not as simple as just taking away the best player and then talking about the lack of depth.  Consider that the top 4 receiving options in 2007 (Moss, Welker, Stallworth, Gaffney) combined for 3842 (80%) of Brady's 4806 yards and 41 (82%) of his 50 TDs.  Last season the top 4 receiving options combined for 3538 (73%) of Brady's 4827 yards and 26 (76%) of Brady's 34 TDs.  Nobody complained about the lack of offensive weapons on the 2007 team despite the fact that the production was even more concentrated at the top.  Plus I think Ridley is a better back than Maroney.  The difference is that team didn't lose it's best receiving option to injury.  If we took Moss off the 2007 team it would look "thin" as well.  There are not many teams that can lose their top receiving option (to say nothing of Gronk's ability as a blocker) and still field an equally effective offense.

     

     

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts