dc.

So many things wrong here and not a lot to do about it... Still seeing nothing but 7 step drops and long, slow-developing pass patterns. Even if guys get open, Joe has no time. And because it's a 7 step drop, the pressure up the middle may not get to him, but it limits his ability to step-up. I still wonder where our 3-step drops, quick slants, etc etc are. I just don't understand. You don't need a 2-3 step lead on that. You just need half a step. The running game is failing because the Pack realizes that, especially with our passing struggles, we've got no push up the middle. They're containing outside, forcing Rice inside, and they have enough big guys to plug holes. We need to establish an inside, power running game to keep them honest. Make them really fear what could come inside to free up Rice elsewhere. In other words, give McClain the fucking ball a few times. And Cam needs to get his fucking head on straight. The play-calling continues to be all over the place and the MNF crew are at least calling him on it. There's no consistency, no tempo, no way to say "this is our gameplan." Part of that is certainly execution... but part of it is just wacky calls at wacky times. We aren't good enough to waste even 1 snap per series. Defensively... disappointed in the penalties, obviously. But the offense is hardly doing anything to give these guys hope. Pass rush has looked decent at times, but just can't finish. Secondary is just so undisciplined it's sad. The penalties, missed tackles, slips and sucky coverage are one thing... but what really bothers me is seeing our DBs and LBs arguing with each other pre-snap and sometimes right up the snap. Nobody seems to have a clue what's going on. Mattison needs to appoint a goddamn leader for the secondary and settle it. Too many know-it-alls between Landry, Webb, Fox, Carr and Walker... not enough playmakers, role-players or listeners.

I'm calling inconclusive...ball is beginning to come out as the knee touches. Upheld

And yet, that's just theory. Because no player, X Y or Z is going to make every play or be worth every penny. The players we have achieve what they achieve, and we have to judge them on that. It's impossible to speculate about how another piece would work in a system. Elvis Grbac's addition to the Ravens following their Super Bowl is a fine example. Few losses, on offense or defense. Grbac was, at the time, an enormous gain. He had averaged 25 touchdowns and to 14 picks in his previous two seasons. Dilfer had 11 picks in half a season with the Ravens. But which team is more successful? By your logic, it would be hard to argue that the sum of the parts of 2001 should have been worth more than the sum of the parts of 2000. But they are not. Where does your guide account for that? That in some cases, the WHOLE can be worth more than the SUM?

I'm actually going to go at this a little further because I find it interesting... This Ravens team is, arguably, 4 individual plays away from being 10-1 right now. Less arguably, 3 plays from 9-2. Even less arguably, 2 plays from 8-3. Vikings - Missed kick that, if made, wins the game. Bengals 1 - Ray Lewis personal foul that, if not made, might end game Colts - Billy Cundiff missed kick from inside 40, point difference in game Patriots - Mark Clayton drop that ends game By your logic and your theory, because results are so inconsequential, the team we have now at 6-5 is exactly the same as the possible 10-1, 9-2 and 8-3 teams that exist in some other dimension... And to an extent, I can see that. If a single play is making a difference, then yes, we are very much the same team. The Vikings game might be the perfect example of that, the Ravens played a wholly inconsistent and flawed game, and yet were one play from a victory. But a victory does not erase those flaws. But, I take issue because the 10-1 team and 6-5 team are so very much different. I cannot believe that if this team were 10-1 right now by a difference of those four plays (and no other difference), that you would start this thread. Why? Because there is, quite plainly, something to be said for winning 10 of 11 games. Perfect or imperfect within the wins, 10 wins is 10 wins. While we might have complaints about Foxworth, Landry, Washington, Carr, Walker, etc... It's exceptionally hard to call for someone's head when the outcomes are invariably in our favor. At 10-1, we'd all question Fox and Landry, certainly. But we'd justify that, like it or not, they were a part of a 10-1 team. And the risk of attempting to replace a part is just as great as leaving it in. And even if we were to discuss the implications of keeping or replacing Fox, Landry, Washington and any one else... it would almost certainly come at the end of the season, and certainly not with 5 games left to play. If you say otherwise, then you either are entirely dispassionate or simply misguided. Further, by your logic, it would be very easy to argue that Ozzie's 2000 Super Bowl winning team was not his best. Because, again by your logic, the results are not the guiding factor. The 2000 team was exceptionally flawed and many expected it to do no better than 8 or 9 wins. But it did achieve more and it is certainly one of the best teams this franchise has seen. Perhaps rivaled by 2006's 13-3 team, but not by many others. By your logic, we could argue that almost any team in Ravens history should be considered the best because, on a player by player, "overall long-term goal" analysis, they were 'worth more.' But the 2000 Ravens have rings, records and respect. No other team from this franchise comes close, at least to most observers.

Resigned vs. hoping for the worst... there is a difference. But I don't know why you are resigned at all. I am dispassionate about the results. And that's where I would say you aren't a fan. We play for the results. Every game. Every year. We watch for the results too. Don't give me the sports management bullshit either. All respect to your education, but really. Flaunting a major in any business-related field is a joke. But it's also entirely unrelated to this discussion. There's too much junk science and not enough hard evidence used in deciding what makes 'good business practice' for it to be legit. I have a bias - business management, sports management, whatever... they aren't college majors. They shouldn't be at least. What, aside from trade secrets and failed entrepreneur opinion, do these majors learn? Second, if you think Ozzie and Bisciotti aren't watching and hoping for good results this season, you're as delusional as Ray Lewis. Sure, there is an element of finding holes and looking forward at all times. But this season is alive and still going on, and they are invested in this season twice as much as next season. Third, you are certainly right that most seasons are won or lost before the kickoff, to an extent. But what you view as a 9-7 team might be a 10-6 team. And it might be a playoff team. And if you don't care about that, then I don't care about your opinion. Because results ARE what matter.

Which leads me to ask what Cleetz asked in another thread... What fun do you get from watching or cheering for the Ravens, then? We may very well end up 9-7 and you should certainly take some pride (though I'd hope not joy) in predicting that correctly. You know your team. You read something right. But what's the fun in deciding to looking at April? Especially with a team that's 6-5 with 5 games to play... What happens to your "I've watched all year to see who we should bring back because there's no playoffs" if this team does make the playoffs? Is that your version of low expectations, low risk? Personally, you sound like you are rooting for this team to finish 9-7 so you can feel good about your prediction. And it feels and sounds fairweather to me. What did you expect with the Ravens last year? I remember my 8-8 prediction last year was about as high as anyone here. If you watched all season planning for no playoffs, then what the hell is the reason to watch? And what part do you take in the playoffs? "HEY! I never expected you all to be here, and even in week 10 I was telling everyone how we should start just looking at the draft, but we're here now so wooo!" ?

I agree that we need to really unleash the rushing game... And on a related note, I need to ask a question I asked many a time last season... Is there a reason we are so reluctant to really put 2 backs in on running plays? Or perhaps even three? I mean, where's the creativity? All three can catch. All three can run. Two are damn good blockers. It might be a little 'college,' but who cares? The Wildcat has become a regular for many teams in the league! My big issue is last year and this year... McClain never gets the ball from the FB position. If he's on the field and the sole back... he might get the ball. But if he's the up-back, you know he's not touching it except perhaps on a dump-off. What sense does that make?? The glory of having three weapons in the backfield is to really keep a defense off balance... mix up the duos in the backfield and make the defense pick who and where they are going to defend... My bet is that 9 times out of 10, we'll succeed in finding them on their heels.

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.

Except that every team gets to Rodgers these days, Max... it shouldn't take Suggs. I liken GB to the Ravens of last year... remember, the Ravens last year didn't win a game against a team with a winning record/a team heading to the playoffs until they beat what, Philly or Dallas? And our stats were inflated by games against Cincy and Cle and the like... GB is much the same. Not good at beating good teams. Getting stats by beating bad teams. That's not to say we can take them lightly by any means... but it is to say that they are exceptionally beatable, and you need look no further than TB to see it. Meanwhile, this year, the Ravens have had a much tougher schedule than last year. That plays largely into our record. Last year the Ravens played one of the easiest schedules in the league. This year, they might play the toughest (only we could pull NE and Indy AGAIN thanks to their 2nd place finishes).

Disagree on Heap. He continues to be limited as much by his role as a blocker as anything else. When he gets out into routes, he has lots of luck finding the ball. Agree on WR and DB - though, I think DB is better than it was just weeks ago, as you said. I still think, defensively, there's something to be said for letting Mattison really find his feet, especially in terms of teaching the guys we have. Suggs will be interesting. Even if Ray drops off, I don't know that we'll regret the deal. I am sure that he is man enough to know when to retire and save this team the money we need. I don't think he will want to be on the field if he can't play the way he's used to. Of course you're right about Stover. You won't find me arguing that we would have won any game with him here. But I still think putting a point value on any single player is just silly. In most cases, hypothetically, I would agree that Ben is worth at least 3 points over Dixon. But, I never expected Dixon to be worth 14. I think his 14 was a bit of luck, a bit of a fluke. So is Ben worth 17 - the three you give him and 14 that Dixon maybe shouldn't have had? There's too many variables and questions. If that argument seems weak (which I don't believe it is), I still return to this. In 3 games last season, as Crav pointed out, the Ravens lost by a combined 15 points. After the first game, where the Ravens lose by 3 in OT in Pittsburgh, there had to be plenty of people saying "In X weeks, in Baltimore, with a rejuvenated Joe Flacco, etc etc, that game is all Baltimore's!" And they were wrong. It's simply not how football and especially not how rivalry games work. I honestly believe you could have played the 2nd string squad for Pitt on every side of the ball... and the game would have looked very similar.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Nice post, Pun'kin. Haha. ;) I still say, though, regarding all of this "situational" analysis of the win (they were missing _____, we were at home_____) and the "doesn't bode well..." that it doesn't really matter. Pitt did a lot of things right. So did the Ravens. Period. Both did plenty wrong. Theres no way to know in a division game how that will change with new players. Last year, how do you think Pitt and their fans were feeling after a close game in Week 3 against a rookie quarterback and two young offensive lineman? They barely scrapped by, but got the win. And that was at home for them! Primetime! But when push came to shove twice more... they still got it done. Scores are just numbers. There's no way to just value Troy+Ben+Smith+Home Game = 18 points. Shucks!

Honestly... the Pack doesn't scare me that much. I'm not saying I see a win... I'm not saying we will win... none of that... but they just don't scare me. They've won 3 in a row... two at home against decent teams (Dallas and San Francisco) ... and then they beat the Lions. None of that scares me. And then I look back and see that they lost two consecutive leading into their current streak... giving up 38 points a piece to the Vikes and Bucs. THE BUCS! If our offense can get it in gear, I like our chances. And honestly, I like our chances of putting the offense in gear. Defensively? Despite all the holes and flaws... the numbers tell a very clear story. We are giving up 17 points a game. That's less than the Steelers and the Packers right now. Period. Cliche, but the "bend, don't break" philosophy is working. Our problems right now are as big on offense as they are on defense. But I have plenty of faith we can put the O in gear... just run it down their f'n throats.

You simply can't hypothesize on that, though. Or, even if you can and want to, you can't put any weight in the 'could have.' The Ravens didn't play a perfect game. Far from it. The Steelers didn't either. And even with Ben, there's no way to say they would have made more or fewer plays. There's also no way to say how we would have responded. We can only evaluate what actually happened as it happened with the players involved.

I loved the running side of the gameplan, OTR... it worked like a charm. I only wish we saw even more of it. The passing game plan was weak and has been... I still can't entirely figure it out, but it just bothers me. What's with all the 7 step drops and long set-ups on pass plays? We seem to have two pass plays... long set up, pray the line holds... or quick dump to Mason/Rice... The stupidity of the WR screens was appalling... and Cam kept calling it! It's the freaking Steelers! They aren't falling for it. Notice how many of our best plays were on short drops and quick hits over the middle. Including Rice's big gain on the 4th down (which was not a check down, it was a designed play). I want to see the stats... because something tells me that 90% of our passes go outside the box, which is just insane. I know FLacco throws that outside comeback beautifully, but the quick hits over the middle work and have to be utilized. Period. Sorry if they are 'scary' without a great WR, but make it happen.

A bunch of media folks are making it out to be that because we were at home and Ben was out and Troy was out and blah blah blah that apparently we "should" have won this game and the 3 point win only bodes poorly... Shut it. It was far from a perfect game. But I'll continue to put blame on an offense that can't find a rhythm or gameplan to save its life over a defense that, despite some rocky moments, looked generally good. Honestly, my biggest defensive complaint is gameplanning as well. I was saying it pre-game; while the talking heads were going off about blitzing Dixon, I said sit back and let him throw. Sit back, make him throw the ball, and let our guys make plays - because they can if they have to. Freak him out with weird looks and see what he does. We figured that out eventually.. Anyway... for all the talk of 'we shoulda won' ... so what. I never heard Michaels or Collinsworth mention that Suggs wasn't on the field. Or Washington (not that many would call that a huge loss). But for 4 quarters we got bombarded with excuses for the Steelers as if our team was in prime shape. Hardly. We won a tough game. Both Bengals games were losses where we only gave up 17. This time we win giving up 17. And we should win giving up 17 most games. Done and done.

I did know that Monday is Cyber Monday. It's a nice follow-up... though lots of places like NewEgg do Black Friday too. I really am not that in need of tech stuff right now oddly enough (actually, maybe a new printer... mine is on its last legs). Moving in a few weeks, though, so I need lots of random crap. haha

Geeeeez. I refuse to subject myself to it. I did buy a TV yesterday online... most stores were offering their Black Friday deals online Wed-Thurs. I even got it with in-store pick-up later this weekend, so no shipping fees.

The Muppets one is fantastic. Fantastic. Animal... Mana Mana... Beeker... Amazing. Fozzie "Let me joke!" "Does anybody know if there's a part for meeeeeeee" amazing

I don't think she dated Phelps... she's only been in the news for what, 6 months?

I still think trust is only part of it... there simply aren't many people to throw to when you send 2 guys downfield, keep 2 in to block and then the last guy is Rice... In the Sun's Ravens blog today there were quotes from Freeney saying that he wasn't too disappointed in being shut out of sacks (he and Mathis, even) because of how much help the Ravens were giving Oher and Gaither. Most saw it as a bit of a cop out by Freeney, and it was. But he also made a good point: keep men in to block and that's fewer guys ready to receive. And no receivers means no points. And he was right... if we leave Gaither and Oher to play solo... maybe Freeney gets his sack. But maybe we get our touchdowns thanks to having Heap, Washington, Smith and lord knows who else downfield....

Agree with both of you... Fox was playing it right on the Reed pick, he played underneath while Reed helped over the top. And kudos to Reed for getting over there, because he was almost caught out of position... half a step... And also agree that Reed just dipped on the Clark route on the TD... not sure what the plan was, but Clark was obviously wide open and Fox was left with two me, while Reed was just hanging out inside.