Jump to content



Recent headlines from The Baltimore Sun

Photo
- - - - -

Why waste a position?


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#1 tigercruise

tigercruise

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,427 posts

Posted 25 November 2013 - 05:45 AM

When Tyrod came into the game several times, they put Flacco out on the flank. After the snap, Joe just stood there and did nothing. Why leave Joe in the play if he clearly is not going to at least give the impression that he's there for a reason? In that situation, sit Joe out for the play and put someone in the position that would at least give the impression that we are playing with 11 men on the field instead of 10.


"The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." Margaret Thatcher

#2 OriginalColtsFan

OriginalColtsFan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,560 posts

Posted 25 November 2013 - 07:17 AM

It's just another example of how out of touch the Ravens brain trust coaching staff really is.



#3 CajunRaven

CajunRaven

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,541 posts

Posted 25 November 2013 - 07:57 AM

Before the snap on those plays, Joe stood there with his hands in his pockets keeping them warm. It was obvious he wasn't going to be part of the play.

 

If he's going to be out there, they have to at least give some appearance he may actually be a part of the play.

 

I'll give them credit though for at least trying something different running the ball.


Is it Football Season yet?

“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

Thomas Jefferson

#4 jessup270

jessup270

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,919 posts

Posted 25 November 2013 - 11:24 AM

I am curious, when Tyrod came in , Joe should run off the field and have a receiver take the spot in lieu of of Flacco.



#5 Struds

Struds

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,845 posts

Posted 25 November 2013 - 12:14 PM

 

I'll give them credit though for at least trying something different running the ball.

Me too, but I could have used 2-3 less plays.  Unless it's a a team's main offense, I think it's more efective when used very sparingly.



#6 Rael

Rael

    Rational member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,613 posts

Posted 25 November 2013 - 12:16 PM

I think maybe they were trying to lull the defense into totally forgetting about Joe out there. Let him dog it for a couple plays and then streak down the sideline when they aren't expecting it. After all, they have thrown to him before. On the other hand, maybe I'm giving too much credit to the coaches.


Pessimism is just an ugly word for 'pattern recognition'.

#7 Steveg85321

Steveg85321

    Sage of wisdom, reason and truth

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,068 posts

Posted 25 November 2013 - 12:31 PM

I am curious, when Tyrod came in , Joe should run off the field and have a receiver take the spot in lieu of of Flacco.

Or a blocker. I completely agree that Flacco standing there is useless. How about throwing in someone to lead for Taylor, like Leach for example. I like using those plays because it showed the defense a new wrinkle to have to think about, and I don't mind that they used it maybe too often, because it showed other teams (see Steelers) a different thing to prepare for. But you definitely have to have 11 useful players to make a play work.



#8 Easton Raven

Easton Raven

    Member

  • Validating
  • PipPipPip
  • 394 posts

Posted 25 November 2013 - 04:30 PM

I think maybe they were trying to lull the defense into totally forgetting about Joe out there. Let him dog it for a couple plays and then streak down the sideline when they aren't expecting it. After all, they have thrown to him before. On the other hand, maybe I'm giving too much credit to the coaches.

Thats kinda what I had in mind too. It's been a couple of years but I do recall the pass to Joe...I think in his rookie season...can't recall who threw it....maybe Mark Clayton????  At any rate..there is "archival" film on that kind of play and maybe it was gamesmanship. But then again...yeah, I gotta wonder if the coaches are that clever...they have not been so far...until Sunday when they must've taken their clever pills 'cause they were getting cute on every series in the first half using Tyrod so much.



#9 Easton Raven

Easton Raven

    Member

  • Validating
  • PipPipPip
  • 394 posts

Posted 25 November 2013 - 04:33 PM

Then again...I think Suggs called it the Troy Smith Package or something like that...maybe he threw that pass????



#10 bmore_ken

bmore_ken

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 55,690 posts

Posted 25 November 2013 - 04:41 PM

Then again...I think Suggs called it the Troy Smith Package or something like that...maybe he threw that pass????

It was Troy Smith, but it was called the Suggs Package

 

http://www.baltimore...33-6FCF7753CE73


Edited by bmore_ken, 25 November 2013 - 04:41 PM.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. It has a nice sound to it

Suggs has signed. I've never been so happy to be wrong

Don't blame me, I voted Bob Barr:cool:

#11 Easton Raven

Easton Raven

    Member

  • Validating
  • PipPipPip
  • 394 posts

Posted 25 November 2013 - 04:43 PM

Yes...you are right...had a brain fart there....



#12 Easton Raven

Easton Raven

    Member

  • Validating
  • PipPipPip
  • 394 posts

Posted 25 November 2013 - 04:48 PM

Lotsa discussion about the use of Taylor on 105.7 this morning. A lot of people were against it. I think...whatever it takes to create a spark...and be ready to throw a few of those plays in there anytime the offense needs a little something in order to get moving. The did seem to get into a rhythm after a bit although as Dierdorf mentioned in the broadcast...1 or 2 plays were headscratchers leaving Taylor in after a big play.

 

I think putting him in there as a decoy, using him in a read option or as a passer...several times per game... does add an extra dimension for other teams to prepare for. We should keep doing it till it no longer works considering the uphill battle the Ravens have to get to the post season now.



#13 LarryN

LarryN

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 16,905 posts

Posted 25 November 2013 - 04:52 PM

 

It's been a couple of years but I do recall the pass to Joe...I think in his rookie season...can't recall who threw it....maybe Mark Clayton????

Joe had a 43 yard reception from Troy Smith, week 8, 2008, against the Raiders. He got to the 6 yard line, leading to an eventual Stover field goal.

http://www.nfl.com/g...amp;tab=analyze

Edited by LarryN, 25 November 2013 - 04:55 PM.

"She's like the ex-girlfriend they're SO over, never want to see again, have already forgotten about -- really, it's O-ver -- but they just can't stop talking about her." --- Ann Coulter, discussing Sarah Palin

#14 bmore_ken

bmore_ken

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 55,690 posts

Posted 25 November 2013 - 04:56 PM

I generally against those type of plays, but with our lousy offense, why not?


Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. It has a nice sound to it

Suggs has signed. I've never been so happy to be wrong

Don't blame me, I voted Bob Barr:cool:

#15 Dub

Dub

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 922 posts

Posted 25 November 2013 - 05:04 PM

When Tyrod came into the game several times, they put Flacco out on the flank. After the snap, Joe just stood there and did nothing. Why leave Joe in the play if he clearly is not going to at least give the impression that he's there for a reason? In that situation, sit Joe out for the play and put someone in the position that would at least give the impression that we are playing with 11 men on the field instead of 10.

 

 

It's just another example of how out of touch the Ravens brain trust coaching staff really is.

 

 

I am curious, when Tyrod came in , Joe should run off the field and have a receiver take the spot in lieu of of Flacco.

 

Here are several reasons why you keep Joe in the game and just have him stand at the WR position. Hope this makes sense.

 

1. Do you really want your starting $120mil QB running routes so a DB can get a free shot on your QB. Even if the play is away from the ball a DB can still hit the QB.

 

2. You do not want to have a freakish injury happen such as a rolled ankle or anything because Joe goes to run a route or attempt to block someone with the play not even close to him. If Elam gets to Geno a second sooner, Geno is laid out when the Jets passed him the ball out of there wildcat formation.

 

3. If you take Joe out everytime Tyrod comes in, than you are basically telling everyone what you plan to do and limit your options. Remember Tyrod running the reverse a couple games ago and them faking the reverse for the screen this game. Well if you always take Joe out, you cannot set up those types of plays.

 

4. With Joe staying in the game with Tyrod there are a lot of other 'trick plays' that could be run such as a double pass, or a reverse pass, etc.



#16 Easton Raven

Easton Raven

    Member

  • Validating
  • PipPipPip
  • 394 posts

Posted 25 November 2013 - 05:17 PM

Dub, you nailed it. Keeping Flacco in makes for a more plausible sell on whatever they are trying to pull off. AND  adds one more element of responsibility for the defense to account for...thus a greater degree, however slight, of confusion to impose on them...or a greater number of decisions to make on the field/on the fly...however you want to look at it. Basically...it buys the offense that  nanosecond that could make the difference in the success of the play.



#17 jamesdean

jamesdean

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,077 posts

Posted 25 November 2013 - 06:25 PM

Personally, I'd rather see Taylor be used as a running back.  Put him in the back field with Rice or Pierce or all three.  I seriously doubt any team is afraid of what he may do with his arm.  If I'm a DC and I see him in the game, he's either in there as a runner or a running decoy.



#18 jamesdean

jamesdean

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,077 posts

Posted 25 November 2013 - 06:27 PM

Here are several reasons why you keep Joe in the game and just have him stand at the WR position. Hope this makes sense.

 

1. Do you really want your starting $120mil QB running routes so a DB can get a free shot on your QB. Even if the play is away from the ball a DB can still hit the QB.

 

2. You do not want to have a freakish injury happen such as a rolled ankle or anything because Joe goes to run a route or attempt to block someone with the play not even close to him. If Elam gets to Geno a second sooner, Geno is laid out when the Jets passed him the ball out of there wildcat formation.

 

3. If you take Joe out everytime Tyrod comes in, than you are basically telling everyone what you plan to do and limit your options. Remember Tyrod running the reverse a couple games ago and them faking the reverse for the screen this game. Well if you always take Joe out, you cannot set up those types of plays.

 

4. With Joe staying in the game with Tyrod there are a lot of other 'trick plays' that could be run such as a double pass, or a reverse pass, etc.

Agreed but if you're going to do those kind of plays, I think it helps if Joe looks a little more interested.



#19 OriginalColtsFan

OriginalColtsFan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,560 posts

Posted 25 November 2013 - 07:07 PM

Here are several reasons why you keep Joe in the game and just have him stand at the WR position. Hope this makes sense.

 

1. Do you really want your starting $120mil QB running routes so a DB can get a free shot on your QB. Even if the play is away from the ball a DB can still hit the QB.

 

2. You do not want to have a freakish injury happen such as a rolled ankle or anything because Joe goes to run a route or attempt to block someone with the play not even close to him. If Elam gets to Geno a second sooner, Geno is laid out when the Jets passed him the ball out of there wildcat formation.

 

3. If you take Joe out everytime Tyrod comes in, than you are basically telling everyone what you plan to do and limit your options. Remember Tyrod running the reverse a couple games ago and them faking the reverse for the screen this game. Well if you always take Joe out, you cannot set up those types of plays.

 

4. With Joe staying in the game with Tyrod there are a lot of other 'trick plays' that could be run such as a double pass, or a reverse pass, etc.

Thanks for the thoughtful post. I followed you through 1 & 2. But then I got lost on 3 & 4 because the two halves seem contradictory. I have no problem with TT coming in. I just have an issue with a franchise QB pulling that sort of double duty. Just have Joe run off and bring in another WR or someone who's an actual threat so as not to get Joe hurt in some out of position sort of play.



#20 jessup270

jessup270

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,919 posts

Posted 25 November 2013 - 07:57 PM

Personally, I'd rather see Taylor be used as a running back.  Put him in the back field with Rice or Pierce or all three.  I seriously doubt any team is afraid of what he may do with his arm.  If I'm a DC and I see him in the game, he's either in there as a runner or a running decoy.

 

All good points you make.  With Tyrod in the backfield as a running back you can direct snap the ball to him, instead of Flacco.

 

One of the posters said that if Joe is lined up as a receiver, you are running the risk of injuring him if he takes on the role of receiver.  Thats true, but if Flacco is lined up as receiver he is fair game to be hit, just standing there.  The Jets did not even bother to cover Flacco, my guess is that Jets reaction to Flacco, was based on Flacco's lack of interest in the play.  Not a good attitude for a 5 and 6 QB.

 

I for one think Flacco is not being a team player on this issue.  Its not like Flacco is really doing a great job this season and you are taking the ball out of his hands, for a low percentage play.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users