Best Stat of the Night

[thundercleetz]

Flacco doesn't progress through his reads nor does he put the nail in the coffin when it comes to the endzone. It's great throwing for all those yards, but how can you not throw a 5 yd comeback td. Carson Palmer has no problem sticking a 5 yd td pass, flacco's problem lies with his ability to read the play. trust your freaking arm and stick the ball into his chest. A simple hook route will work in the endzone but flacco never see's it until it's either not open or he is under pressuer.

 

I would be willing to challenge that through tape. The problem lies within the playcalling and personel. We don't have a redzone threat like the Bengals do. For that matter, we don't run that type of route in the redzone. Most of the time there are not any progressions to go through, for we will only have two receivers in a route. Either that, or we will have pre-designe plays where Flacco is to get the ball out to a pre-determined receiver very quickly, which was the case Sunday night.

 

When we do have four or five receivers in routes, Joe does go through his progressions. Boller couldn't go through progressions. Joe does, it should be obvious just by watching him play.

[RavensNest8483]

I would be willing to challenge that through tape. The problem lies within the playcalling and personel. We don't have a redzone threat like the Bengals do. For that matter, we don't run that type of route in the redzone. Most of the time there are not any progressions to go through, for we will only have two receivers in a route. Either that, or we will have pre-designe plays where Flacco is to get the ball out to a pre-determined receiver very quickly, which was the case Sunday night.

 

When we do have four or five receivers in routes, Joe does go through his progressions. Boller couldn't go through progressions. Joe does, it should be obvious just by watching him play.

 

So your telling me when we go 4 and 5 wide...that no wr can get open or that cam can't design a route for a play to work? Thats a crock. MOST of the time Flacco can only convert the out route or the checkdown. Look at the tape on that. You can find that in both Bengals games, vikings game and every game sense.

[bmw800]

Only the out route or the checkdown? In the Viking's game? Did you watch that game? Let's take a look at the video (from NFL.com's highlights of that game, video titled Joe Flacco highlights (http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d81380660/WK-6-Joe-Flacco-highlights)

 

1st pass: 17 yard out pattern to Clayton. Ok, there's your out pattern right there.

 

2nd pass: 25 yard corner route to Mason. Hmm, that doesn't seem to be an out route, now does it (btw, there is a difference between an "out route" and an "outside route", which includes such things as outs, corners, outside hook routes, flats, wheels, swings, flys, fades, and any number of hybrid routes.)

 

3rd pass: 22 yard late releasing flat pattern to Heap there. And notice, by looking at his eyes on that route, that was his 4th read on that play. Certainly seemed to go through his progressions there. Sure its a checkdown, but its not like he was panicking. He held the ball for a good long time, looked right, middle, and left down the field, then found Heap. Not sure what else you wanted him to do on that play.

 

4th pass: 24 yard corner route to Mason. First repeat route we've had, though it isn't an out route.

 

5th pass: 24 yard seam route to Heap. Hmm, look at that, over the middle of the field! And he sure read that defense well to drop the pass right in whole between the safety and linebacker.

 

6th pass: 27 yard skinny post or seam to Washington. Hey look, over the middle again!

 

7th pass: 32 yard go route for to Clayton for a TD. Read the single coverage, threw a good pass, scored a TD. He sure can't read defenses, can he? Got hit as he threw too, not too much panicking in the face if the blitz there.

 

8th pass: 64 yard wheel route to Rice. Sure, Rice did a lot of damage on the run there, but that was no checkdown pass there. That was a DESIGNED route and play to Rice. And why not design plays for the most dynamic guy on the field? Seems like a good idea to me. And Joe put the ball in a place where Rice could catch and run. That's not something to take for granted.

 

9th pass: 12 yard flat route to Mason. Again, not a checkdown. He read the defense, realized no one was covering Mason, and threw it to him. Again, what the hell was he supposed to do, throw it to the guy who is double covered?

 

In total that game, Flacco was 28/43 (65.1%) for 385 yards and 2 TDs with no INTS. The 9 passes I pointed out included one out route and one checkdown, with 2 flat routes, 2 corners, a seam, a skinny post, a go route, and out route, and a wheel route, hitting 5 different receivers and displaying his ability to read defenses (pre- and post-snap) and to go through his progressions. What's more, I could go back to any game and show you the same thing, to a greater or lesser extent.

 

To be clear, I'm not saying that Flacco is without faults, nor do I absolve him from blame in the Cincy games and Colts game. However, to say the Pittsburgh game shows him regressing, or the Viking game displays how he can't read D's or throw anything other than outs and checkdowns is bordering on the ridiculous.

[cravnravn]

The pass to Rice on the 4th and 5 was far from a out route..And it was nowhere near a checkdown, it was designed for him if the LB'er went with him in motion.

[vmax]

The pass to Rice on the 4th and 5 was far from a out route..And it was nowhere near a checkdown, it was designed for him if the LB'er went with him in motion.

 

 

Yea...last night Harbaugh said that was the call from the bench...if Farrior shadows Rice he's the target.

 

The Steelers all week prepared to stop Rice...they knew he was the key....and they could not do it.

[thundercleetz]

So your telling me when we go 4 and 5 wide...that no wr can get open or that cam can't design a route for a play to work? Thats a crock. MOST of the time Flacco can only convert the out route or the checkdown. Look at the tape on that. You can find that in both Bengals games, vikings game and every game sense.

 

Where did you get that assumption? Joe gets plenty of completions when we go to 4 receiver sets. Either that or he gets sacked :P

 

Believe me, I have watched the tape. Joe is perfectly fine in reading the middle of the field and going through progressions. In both Bengals games you may have a point, but those are conveniently Joe's two worst games of the season. You don't have a 90+ QB rating through and only throw 8 INTs in eleven NFL games by just hitting checkdowns and staring down receivers. If that were the case Kyle Boller would still be our QB.

[RavensNest8483]

Only the out route or the checkdown? In the Viking's game? Did you watch that game? Let's take a look at the video (from NFL.com's highlights of that game, video titled Joe Flacco highlights (http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d81380660/WK-6-Joe-Flacco-highlights)

 

1st pass: 17 yard out pattern to Clayton. Ok, there's your out pattern right there.

 

2nd pass: 25 yard corner route to Mason. Hmm, that doesn't seem to be an out route, now does it (btw, there is a difference between an "out route" and an "outside route", which includes such things as outs, corners, outside hook routes, flats, wheels, swings, flys, fades, and any number of hybrid routes.)

 

3rd pass: 22 yard late releasing flat pattern to Heap there. And notice, by looking at his eyes on that route, that was his 4th read on that play. Certainly seemed to go through his progressions there. Sure its a checkdown, but its not like he was panicking. He held the ball for a good long time, looked right, middle, and left down the field, then found Heap. Not sure what else you wanted him to do on that play.

 

4th pass: 24 yard corner route to Mason. First repeat route we've had, though it isn't an out route.

 

5th pass: 24 yard seam route to Heap. Hmm, look at that, over the middle of the field! And he sure read that defense well to drop the pass right in whole between the safety and linebacker.

 

6th pass: 27 yard skinny post or seam to Washington. Hey look, over the middle again!

 

7th pass: 32 yard go route for to Clayton for a TD. Read the single coverage, threw a good pass, scored a TD. He sure can't read defenses, can he? Got hit as he threw too, not too much panicking in the face if the blitz there.

 

8th pass: 64 yard wheel route to Rice. Sure, Rice did a lot of damage on the run there, but that was no checkdown pass there. That was a DESIGNED route and play to Rice. And why not design plays for the most dynamic guy on the field? Seems like a good idea to me. And Joe put the ball in a place where Rice could catch and run. That's not something to take for granted.

 

9th pass: 12 yard flat route to Mason. Again, not a checkdown. He read the defense, realized no one was covering Mason, and threw it to him. Again, what the hell was he supposed to do, throw it to the guy who is double covered?

 

In total that game, Flacco was 28/43 (65.1%) for 385 yards and 2 TDs with no INTS. The 9 passes I pointed out included one out route and one checkdown, with 2 flat routes, 2 corners, a seam, a skinny post, a go route, and out route, and a wheel route, hitting 5 different receivers and displaying his ability to read defenses (pre- and post-snap) and to go through his progressions. What's more, I could go back to any game and show you the same thing, to a greater or lesser extent.

 

To be clear, I'm not saying that Flacco is without faults, nor do I absolve him from blame in the Cincy games and Colts game. However, to say the Pittsburgh game shows him regressing, or the Viking game displays how he can't read D's or throw anything other than outs and checkdowns is bordering on the ridiculous.

 

 

Ok there is a reason they are called "highlights". You picked 9 passes out of 43, 21% of his throws, thats exactly how we should evaluate him. So 21% of the time Flacco is great out there reading the field. At least we can agree on something. Please show me in the bengals game how flacco threw anything in the middle of the field.

 

Another thing you need to remember, this was earlier in the yr. Teams have figured out that Rice is a monster and Mason is our best wr. Why are we struggling now? B/c Flacco still zeros in on these guys and is slow thru his reads. I was at the game in Cincy, and he looked like he never had played the position before. There were guys running wide open thru the middle.

 

My biggest pt still remains flacco is the reason why this offense struggles. As he gets better so will the offense and team for that matter. People will be saying Cam is great and that Kelly Washington was the greatest FA pick ever, until then start pointing some blame on the man running the show, your golden boy, Joe Flacco.

[RavensNest8483]

The pass to Rice on the 4th and 5 was far from a out route..And it was nowhere near a checkdown, it was designed for him if the LB'er went with him in motion.

 

Thanks you for your keen observation, that was a slant pattern. There was a reason I said MOST of the time instead of all the time.

[dc.]

RN... I would still put the primary blame for the lack of over-the-middle passing on the play-calling, not Flacco.

 

I feel like I've complained every game this year... 3rd and 8... 3 guys go 25 yards downfield... Rice goes 2 yards under... That's just pathetic.

 

And the Heap option across the middle has been extra limited by our apparent need to keep him in to block all the time. Which is crap.

 

When there are receivers over the middle, Flacco seems to find them. But he can't read or throw to a receiver over the middle if they aren't there.

[dc.]

Yea...last night Harbaugh said that was the call from the bench...if Farrior shadows Rice he's the target.

 

The Steelers all week prepared to stop Rice...they knew he was the key....and they could not do it.

 

By the way... what do we do if the Steelers cover Rice appropriately? Or are in zone?

 

Harbaugh's timeout on that play was an atrocious call, in my opinion. Unless he had already made up his mind to go for it. But from what I saw, he hadn't made up his mind.

 

Really, by taking the time out, his hand was forced. You can't take a timeout, leaving you one and the warning, and then punt the ball there.

 

Meanwhile, you also have to have your gameplan ready... you need to know going into 3rd down... 4th and long we punt, 4th and X we go for it. We can't waste the timeout all the time.

 

In the end, it worked out. But if we waste the timeout and don't get it... or waste the timeout and punt... ?? Those aren't even options. The timeouts made it a MUST GET situation. Far more than it was if we didn't take the TO.

[thundercleetz]

Harbaugh's timeout on that play was an atrocious call, in my opinion. Unless he had already made up his mind to go for it. But from what I saw, he hadn't made up his mind.

 

Really, by taking the time out, his hand was forced. You can't take a timeout, leaving you one and the warning, and then punt the ball there.

 

Meanwhile, you also have to have your gameplan ready... you need to know going into 3rd down... 4th and long we punt, 4th and X we go for it. We can't waste the timeout all the time.

 

In the end, it worked out. But if we waste the timeout and don't get it... or waste the timeout and punt... ?? Those aren't even options. The timeouts made it a MUST GET situation. Far more than it was if we didn't take the TO.

 

What a bad timeout. A good coach has a play ready in the event it is fourth and short. That decision to go for it needs to be decided ahead of time.

[geo]

By the way... what do we do if the Steelers cover Rice appropriately? Or are in zone?

 

Harbaugh's timeout on that play was an atrocious call, in my opinion. Unless he had already made up his mind to go for it. But from what I saw, he hadn't made up his mind.

 

Really, by taking the time out, his hand was forced. You can't take a timeout, leaving you one and the warning, and then punt the ball there.

 

Meanwhile, you also have to have your gameplan ready... you need to know going into 3rd down... 4th and long we punt, 4th and X we go for it. We can't waste the timeout all the time.

 

In the end, it worked out. But if we waste the timeout and don't get it... or waste the timeout and punt... ?? Those aren't even options. The timeouts made it a MUST GET situation. Far more than it was if we didn't take the TO.

 

Oh I do always agree with you DC, not this time.

This time out and if. Come on, why not just be pleased with the fact that we finally had som succes with a play after a time out! Next time Joe migth make the rigth play again. How many times have we not seen a disaster after a time out? And it was Joe who had not won a close game since the Bolts game, even in that game it was probably Ray who ended up with the win and since that game well you know how many close games we lost.

 

I think it was fair to call that time out, and we were not those who communicated with Joe in that game and Joe is still not Peyton, Brady, Favre or Ben. And it was pretty important that we did the rigth thing in that situation.. and if Flacco failed this pass without a time out, how would we then reacted..

 

And the punt was that really an option with only 3 min. left.. oh yeah we would likely get another drive.. not for sure though. Still Flacco had to face this Steelers defense again who had how many sacks against him, would he have had better options, with less time, I think not.

[vmax]

You play to win the game...that's what surfaced during the indecision of the moment.

I love it.

[dc.]

Oh I do always agree with you DC, not this time.

This time out and if. Come on, why not just be pleased with the fact that we finally had som succes with a play after a time out! Next time Joe migth make the rigth play again. How many times have we not seen a disaster after a time out? And it was Joe who had not won a close game since the Bolts game, even in that game it was probably Ray who ended up with the win and since that game well you know how many close games we lost.

 

I think it was fair to call that time out, and we were not those who communicated with Joe in that game and Joe is still not Peyton, Brady, Favre or Ben. And it was pretty important that we did the rigth thing in that situation.. and if Flacco failed this pass without a time out, how would we then reacted..

 

And the punt was that really an option with only 3 min. left.. oh yeah we would likely get another drive.. not for sure though. Still Flacco had to face this Steelers defense again who had how many sacks against him, would he have had better options, with less time, I think not.

 

Well... if you have two timeouts and the two minute warning... I expect to get another drive. Our defense had done a pretty good job (and had gotten better through the game) at stopping the Steelers. So I would have trusted them.

 

And if we go for it and miss... still, two timeouts and a two minute warning. Worse field position for a final drive, but I'd still expect a final drive.

 

But one timeout and the warning? Not so secure. Like Cleetz said, you have to have the play called and the decision ready... you get 10 seconds to think... and then you go.

 

And when someone says, "Why didn't you take the timeout?" you explain that there were two options: go with no time out or punt with no timeout. The end.

 

 

I'm not complaining about the play, at all. Nor am I complaining about the outcome. And maybe we don't get that play (or that big of a play) without the timeout... but Harbs' clock and game management has been in question frequently.

 

 

And it was Joe who had not won a close game since the Bolts game, even in that game it was probably Ray who ended up with the win and since that game well you know how many close games we lost.

 

By the way... I have to disagree with this entirely. Joe didn't lose us either Bengals game... no more than bad defense did (especially the first game). He also didn't lose us the game in Minnesota. Again, no more than a bad kick and bad defense early. He also didn't lose the game in NE - again, a bad kick and Clayton's bad hands. And Indy? Well, if you want to pin that on Joe... go ahead. But there was plenty of blame to go around there too.

[geo]

I did not say that Joe lost us any of these games, in my world its not that interesting if Hauschka makes this play or Clayton that, what I am saying we did not win those close games and it has to affect a young QB.

 

And in this case I think you are rigth when you say we would get the ball back. How many drives did we have with out any scores and now time is the factor and fieldposition against a very good D... Our best opportunity was here and now, and this was it.. it was the season in one single play..

 

And here I am Harbs, do I doubt yes, do I take the time out yes! Am I blaming Harbs if we played and failed that play probably, but I do understand his dilemma too, so now Joe did all the rigth things in all the other games in the end.. sooner or later he would be the one to blame. And here you are as HC and this is it, this is the season, he is carefull with probably the games last big possibility to get a W.

[RavensNest8483]

Well... if you have two timeouts and the two minute warning... I expect to get another drive. Our defense had done a pretty good job (and had gotten better through the game) at stopping the Steelers. So I would have trusted them.

 

And if we go for it and miss... still, two timeouts and a two minute warning. Worse field position for a final drive, but I'd still expect a final drive.

 

But one timeout and the warning? Not so secure. Like Cleetz said, you have to have the play called and the decision ready... you get 10 seconds to think... and then you go.

 

And when someone says, "Why didn't you take the timeout?" you explain that there were two options: go with no time out or punt with no timeout. The end.

 

 

I'm not complaining about the play, at all. Nor am I complaining about the outcome. And maybe we don't get that play (or that big of a play) without the timeout... but Harbs' clock and game management has been in question frequently.

 

 

 

 

By the way... I have to disagree with this entirely. Joe didn't lose us either Bengals game... no more than bad defense did (especially the first game). He also didn't lose us the game in Minnesota. Again, no more than a bad kick and bad defense early. He also didn't lose the game in NE - again, a bad kick and Clayton's bad hands. And Indy? Well, if you want to pin that on Joe... go ahead. But there was plenty of blame to go around there too.

 

 

You cannot blame our defense for either of the Bengals game IMO. The game at baltimore, the Ravens were losing all game and if it wasn't for Rice's amazing td run we would have never taken a lead. Yea, the defense couldn't hold them but Flacco couldn't hit a wide open mark clayton to clinch the win. Not to mention our defense scored 7 pts for us in this game. The game at Cincinnati, Flacco looked god awful and the defense got bushwhacked it's first 3 drives of the game and after the D was stout.

[dc.]

You cannot blame our defense for either of the Bengals game IMO. The game at baltimore, the Ravens were losing all game and if it wasn't for Rice's amazing td run we would have never taken a lead. Yea, the defense couldn't hold them but Flacco couldn't hit a wide open mark clayton to clinch the win. Not to mention our defense scored 7 pts for us in this game. The game at Cincinnati, Flacco looked god awful and the defense got bushwhacked it's first 3 drives of the game and after the D was stout.

 

If we're winning with 2 minutes left... and the opposition has the ball on their side of the field... I expect a win. The first loss goes on the defense. Not entirely, of course - hell, I've been the one saying the offense deserves plenty of blame in both losses - but the defense let that loss go.

 

Meanwhile, the second Cincy game is a bit of a weird circumstance. If Hauschka doesn't miss that kick, the game is a very different situation. And if people want to continue to get on Joe for missing deep balls, that's fine. But the fact is this team has three passing plays... 1. Dump to Rice 2. Comebacks to Mason and 3. Deep Balls Praying for Luck. None are particularly attractive. And none are entirely Joe's fault. Good passes or bad, good reads or bad; they don't leave many options for him.

 

Again, watch the tape. How many times on passing downs do we send every receiver out or deep, leaving the only middle option to be Rice (if he even goes middle)? And how many pass plays go 7 step drop? By my count, far far far far far too many.

[RavensNest8483]

If we're winning with 2 minutes left... and the opposition has the ball on their side of the field... I expect a win. The first loss goes on the defense. Not entirely, of course - hell, I've been the one saying the offense deserves plenty of blame in both losses - but the defense let that loss go.

 

Meanwhile, the second Cincy game is a bit of a weird circumstance. If Hauschka doesn't miss that kick, the game is a very different situation. And if people want to continue to get on Joe for missing deep balls, that's fine. But the fact is this team has three passing plays... 1. Dump to Rice 2. Comebacks to Mason and 3. Deep Balls Praying for Luck. None are particularly attractive. And none are entirely Joe's fault. Good passes or bad, good reads or bad; they don't leave many options for him.

 

Again, watch the tape. How many times on passing downs do we send every receiver out or deep, leaving the only middle option to be Rice (if he even goes middle)? And how many pass plays go 7 step drop? By my count, far far far far far too many.

 

Long gone are the days where we could rely on the defense to seal the win for us. We have a good def that will keep us in alot of games, but the problem with this team is offense. Our offense still doesn't score tds, has way to many 3 and outs & have no proven identity. This team is where it is b/c of the offense, we all knew the def would eventually fall from great to good. The problem is our offense is still avg which is why we sit at 6-5.

[thundercleetz]

Long gone are the days where we could rely on the defense to seal the win for us. We have a good def that will keep us in alot of games, but the problem with this team is offense. Our offense still doesn't score tds, has way to many 3 and outs & have no proven identity. This team is where it is b/c of the offense, we all knew the def would eventually fall from great to good. The problem is our offense is still avg which is why we sit at 6-5.

 

This is a valid point that has become very popular among NFL analysts. I think everyone can agree that there is NO defense in the NFL right now that is considered a "Super Bowl winning" defense. When is the last time we have had a season like that? Because of this, we will probably see a Saints-Colts Super Bowl. Our offense is probably above average (13th out of 32 teams), and our defense is 10th in the league. Those are actually very good ratings, we just can never seem to get the two going at the same time. We have proven we can slow down a team like the Colts, Pats, and Vikings, we just need our offense to score touchdowns in order for us to take that next step. We probably need a little more talent at the receiver position before we can do this.

[dc.]

Long gone are the days where we could rely on the defense to seal the win for us. We have a good def that will keep us in alot of games, but the problem with this team is offense. Our offense still doesn't score tds, has way to many 3 and outs & have no proven identity. This team is where it is b/c of the offense, we all knew the def would eventually fall from great to good. The problem is our offense is still avg which is why we sit at 6-5.

 

Theres a difference between a defense winning you a game and keeping in a game/sealing a game.

 

Our defense can (and should be able) to seal games for us. If an opponent has 2 minutes to go 80 yards and needs the TD... I expect our defense to get it done. Period.