Absolutely inexcusable playcall right there. More evidence that Cam is scared to death of the Steelers defense. If we had ended up losing the game because of that horrific call the sports media would be buzzing in Baltimore all week
Member
Absolutely inexcusable playcall right there. More evidence that Cam is scared to death of the Steelers defense. If we had ended up losing the game because of that horrific call the sports media would be buzzing in Baltimore all week
Member
been calling for him to be fired since that playoff debacle in Indy 2009Originally Posted by can you hear me now!
Member
Does anyone else have an issue with the way Flacco just froze up, and asked for that sack? I mean, couldn't he of just thrown it out of bounds? I've been a BIG supporter of Joe's ever since he's been here. But that was almost Grbac like! Pathetic.
Member
CAM CAMERON is a jerk what an dumb move 4 th and inches RICE gets 8 guys in his face.. all FLACCO had to do was fall forward for 4 inches
Member
Why would you want him to throw it out of bounds to stop the clock? It was the play right after the 2 min warning and Pitt had no TO's left
Member
because they had no timeouts left and an incompletion would have stopped the clock and given Pittsburgh about 1:58 to work with instead of 1:15. Flacco made the right decision on a horrific playcall by CaMORON
Member
Froze up and ASKED for the sack? Well...apparently...he didn't "ask" for the sack -- it was a "QB sack" BY DESIGN. And that REALLY highlights just what sort of genius Cam Cameron really is. First, it was his "prevent offense". Now, it's his intentional "QB SACK". What's next? One can only agonize in anticipation.
Member
I understand that, but taking a hit and risking an injury from Steelers LB's that are good at causing them just doesn't make sense to me? I almost don't even believe what Harb's said cause it has to be the dumbest play call ever! Taking a sack to lose? Why not just run it and get the first down? Of course the plan was for Joe to throw. He even could have started to run forward himself at one point (as he surprisingly had time) but he didn't? He just froze like a child and clamped up like he was gonna get gang banged or something? No effort at all?
Member
You seem reluctant to believe the truth -- that it was DESIGNED to "work" that way. That's your choice, I suppose. And it's understandable, to a certain extent, because no OC in his right mind would EVER design a play like that. But we're not talking about just any old OC here -- we're talking about Cam Cameron.
By the same token, I remember a play back in the good old Brian Billick days...when he had Steve McNair run around like a chicken with his head cut off -- around the Cincy 20 yard line (back when the Ravens still had Stover) -- on 4th down, to try to take as much time off the clock, rather than kick a FG which would have put the Ravens up by 9 (at the time, they were up by 6, with around a minute or less left on the clock). Brainy Brian's "logic" was that it was less risky to do that (and turn the ball over the Palmer in his prime) than to just go ahead and kick the field goal and put the game out of reach. (Because of the stats/his fear that it might be blocked and run back for a TD; something that almost never happens, and I don't believe ever happened in Stover's entire career. Palmer had, on the other hand, won games in final minute drives.) That is the "logic" of a very scared coach. Cameron is similar. It makes sense -- in a sicko sort of way.
Member
You've hit the nail on the head. No OC in his right mind would ever design such a play unless he was, well, for a lack of a better word, nuts. Seriously, it is hard to imagine him doing that. In all honesty, if I had been Flacco I wouldn't have done it. I would have called an audible and either run the ball or thrown a pass just for the living hell of it. What's Cameron going to do if Joe had done that? Not a damn thing. That play call was a disgrace.
Member
Sorry, but I believe you are totally wrong on the sack.
First of all there were 2 minutes left. Pissburgh had no TOs left. The dumbest two things that could have happened were 1) a turnover due to an INT, a muffed hand off or a fumble; or 2) an incomplete pass.
I just watched a replay of the game and strongly suspect (and to be sure I have no information to support this - other than my gut instinct) that Flacco made the same calculation.
Look at the results: when the referees blew the play after the sack, there were only 1:54 left on the clock (but it kept running!). The Ravens took a TO at the end of the play clock so there were only 1:14 seconds left on the clock. After the punt, only 55 seconds remained and the Squealers had the ball on their own 25 yard line.
I'd say that Flacco took the sack on purpose and I believe that it was a brilliant instance of clock management.
On the road...against the Number 1 defense in the NFL...and the Ravens got out with a win!
'nuff said.
Member
Sorry, but I disagree. Flacco was told to take the sack. It was a called play. It was not Flacco's decision. And, it was a loser mentality call. Have you ever seen that done before in the NFL? 3rd and two. You make the first, game over. You don't, you still run the clock down. You don't tell your QB to take a sack. Nuff said.
Member
Cameron already said that there were two plays called but Flacco had the option to choose.
As to getting the first down, all the receivers were covered, and WHY would you take the chance on a turnover when the D was playing so well?
Finally, the "loser" call is funny considering the Ravens beat the Nbr 1 defense on the road and are now 2 games ahead of the Squealers with only 6 games to go!
Member
Brilliant? this was hands down Cameron's most idiotic playcall yet and he has quite the gallery to choose from. So it's more risky to send your running back who almost never fumbles up the middle to try to gain two yards than it is to intentionally have your QB sacked by some of the most brutal linebackers in the NFL. Cam needs to be fired for this display of idiocy much less his other multiple sins. Inexcusable
Member
Cameron ALWAYS says that. Just like Harbaugh/Cameron "said" that Joe audibled twice last year in those back to back passing plays that should have been runs when it was OBVIOUS that there was NO TIME IN THE WORLD for him to audible; no indication whatsoever that he audibled; and so it goes with "Harbaugh/Cameron" says. It's nothing but scapegoating Joe and trying to hide Cameron's ineptitude. We'll never know for sure about all of the specifics, but enough evidence exists from former players and my own observations to satisfy me when it comes to believing and identifying Cameron's control freak M.O. You draw your own conclusions.
Member
You play to win; not play not to lose. IMO, playing not to lose is a loser mentality. The Steelers still had almost a minute left and even though they had no time outs, they still could have moved into field goal range. If that had happened, would you still agree with the called sack? And I have seen nothing written that said Cameron called "two" plays and Flacco made the choice. Link please.
Member
If he had done that then the ravens might have actually lost the game. As it was the steelers get the ball with a minute left and no time outs and an awful quarterbac.
It was the right move and the right call. If the Ravens ran it they would have been stopped. They couldn't get a half a yard run for a first down what maes anyone think they could have run for a first down there. I am sure the strategy was if you have a guy wide open throw it otherwise take the sack and we run down the clock and make them try and drive the field with no time outs.
Good call. I like how evereyone is clamoring for Cam to be fired. Let's see one of the worst defenses in the league and the team is 8-2. Also you do realize the steelers have the best defense in the game. And Flacco was missing on his passes.
Member
My biggest problem with Cam last night, was calling for passing plays that had receivers set up 3 or 4 yards short of the needed first down marker, on 3rd down plays. It happened continuously, for it to be a coincidence.
Member
I agree with that.
Member
"If" the Flacco sack was a called play, why would such a play a better option than giving your running back the ball and trying for the two yards, that would have won the game? Both plays keep the clock running.
Even if Flacco had thrown the ball to a wide open receiver, the receiver could have just plain dropped just the ball (remember the NE playoff game), had the ball bound off his hands for an interception or even fumbled while trying to run with it. Not to mention the clock stopping for an in-completion.
If Flacco takes a QB sack on purpose, that means you weren't even trying to get the first down AND it meant that Flacco could have taken a hard it and fumbled.
QBs are easier to strip a ball from than a running back.
Posting Permissions
 |
| Terms of Service | Search/Archive | Feedback | Contact Information | DC50tv | Baltimore Sun | Chicago Tribune | Daily Press | Hartford Courant | LA Times | Orlando Sentinel | Sun Sentinel The Morning Call | The Virginia Gazette Baltimore Sun, 501 N. Calvert Street, P.O. Box 1377, Baltimore, MD 21278 |
Reply With Quote