Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
RavingManiac

Dean Pees

95 posts in this topic

3 hours ago, OriginalColtsFan said:

I'm not sure how putting all the plays together is not fair. Just looking at 1 isolated play would be unfair. But this is an entire game, looking at all the plays in context. Plus this has been going on for years; it's not one isolated incident. What is shows me is that Pees will continue to use the (non-disguised) 3 man rush, despite the fact that it results in QBs having all day to pick apart the defense. To me it says he never learns from past mistakes. And while this one game was lopsided in the 20-0 result, and that one play "only" resulted in a 6 yard gain and not a TD, against better teams Pees's stubborn reliance on a failed strategy will result in on-going failure. And it's unnecessary when he has much more viable schemes at his disposal. So let's see how it plays out in 2017. Okay?

I guess what I mean is that there is some value to unpredictability. A pitcher may throw a bad pitch on purpose that if the hitter was ready for it would crush it. He may bury it in the dirt for a sure ball. He might put it inside knowing it was a ball. It doesn't mean, in the overall scheme of things, the pitch had no purpose. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, OriginalColtsFan said:

 

Observation: 3 of the 3 "3 man rushes" in the game, 100%, were in the red zone.

And only one completion for a 33% completion average so I'm not sure of your point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rael said:

I guess what I mean is that there is some value to unpredictability. A pitcher may throw a bad pitch on purpose that if the hitter was ready for it would crush it. He may bury it in the dirt for a sure ball. He might put it inside knowing it was a ball. It doesn't mean, in the overall scheme of things, the pitch had no purpose. 

There's a lot of value to unpredictability. But I've looked at one game. In this game, 100% of Pees's 3 man rushes were inside the red zone. You don't think opposing DCs look at film and spot predictable patterns like that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rael said:

And only one completion for a 33% completion average so I'm not sure of your point. 

Yes. Dalton only completed 1. Let's see how other teams do. Fair enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, OriginalColtsFan said:

There's a lot of value to unpredictability. But I've looked at one game. In this game, 100% of Pees's 3 man rushes were inside the red zone. You don't think opposing DCs look at film and spot predictable patterns like that?

I think we are probably arguing over a 5% difference in philosophy, but then again that is what the internet is for. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, OriginalColtsFan said:

Yes. Dalton only completed 1. Let's see how other teams do. Fair enough?

Seems right...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rael said:

I think we are probably arguing over a 5% difference in philosophy, but then again that is what the internet is for. 

I think it's a fairly accepted maxim that most NFL games hinge on a couple of plays, here and there. (Along with the maxim that a lot of games are won/lost in the closings of halves and games.) All it takes is a few blown coverages, or bad schemes, to lose a game, especially considering how many close games are won/lost under John Harbaugh. Since you got me interested in the whole "3 man rush" thing, I decided to look at the first game -- a shut out -- and see objectively how many 3 man rushes there were, in what context, and the results. The one commonality I found is that they were ALL in the red zone. And I guarantee that if I can see it, NFL DCs can see it too. And do their best to exploit it. Teams with better O-lines and better QBs will do their best to do just that. So again...as I've said...it's important to have good personnel, but if your DC is dialing up schemes consistently in the red zone that give good QBs all day to throw, you're going to get burned. I don't know how to make it any simpler than that. So now with one game in the books, let's look objectively -- not emotionally -- at the 3 man rushes over the course of the season and see what happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, OriginalColtsFan said:

I think it's a fairly accepted maxim that most NFL games hinge on a couple of plays, here and there. (Along with the maxim that a lot of games are won/lost in the closings of halves and games.) All it takes is a few blown coverages, or bad schemes, to lose a game, especially considering how many close games are won/lost under John Harbaugh. Since you got me interested in the whole "3 man rush" thing, I decided to look at the first game -- a shut out -- and see objectively how many 3 man rushes there were, in what context, and the results. The one commonality I found is that they were ALL in the red zone. And I guarantee that if I can see it, NFL DCs can see it too. And do their best to exploit it. Teams with better O-lines and better QBs will do their best to do just that. So again...as I've said...it's important to have good personnel, but if your DC is dialing up schemes consistently in the red zone that give good QBs all day to throw, you're going to get burned. I don't know how to make it any simpler than that. So now with one game in the books, let's look objectively -- not emotionally -- at the 3 man rushes over the course of the season and see what happens.

I will let you have the last word. Oops, I guess I didn't... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Rael said:

And only one completion for a 33% completion average so I'm not sure of your point. 

My point? Is this. I have a hypothesis, based upon subjective observations over the course of 5 years, that the 3 man rush is the least effective/most damaging scheme employed by Dean Pees. I hypothesize that he tends to use it later in games, and often in the red zone (but also when the Ravens have teams pinned down in their own end on 3rd and long situations), with detrimental effects, resulting in the Ravens giving up 4th quarter leads resulting in losses in games which would have otherwise been wins. Based upon our discussions, I decided to look at it more objectively/scientifically this year, and chart how often the 3 man rushes are used, in what contexts, and the results. I don't think it could be any easier to understand. (But I could be wrong there.) ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, OriginalColtsFan said:

My point? Is this. I have a hypothesis, based upon subjective observations over the course of 5 years, that the 3 man rush is the least effective/most damaging scheme employed by Dean Pees. I hypothesize that he tends to use it later in games, and often in the red zone (but also when the Ravens have teams pinned down in their own end on 3rd and long situations), with detrimental effects, resulting in the Ravens giving up 4th quarter leads resulting in losses in games which would have otherwise been wins. Based upon our discussions, I decided to look at it more objectively/scientifically this year, and chart how often the 3 man rushes are used, in what contexts, and the results. I don't think it could be any easier to understand. (But I could be wrong there.) ;)

I look forward to your continued analysis on the subject throughout the season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Rael said:

I look forward to your continued analysis on the subject throughout the season.

That is so cool that you said that. Because I was having second thoughts, figuring no one was interested. I was going to scrap the whole thing, thinking maybe it was just a selfish indulgence. But now...I'll definitely do it. THANKS!

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, OriginalColtsFan said:

That is so cool that you said that. Because I was having second thoughts, figuring no one was interested. I was going to scrap the whole thing, thinking maybe it was just a selfish indulgence. But now...I'll definitely do it. THANKS!

:)

LOL. You are a pain in  the neck but you're OK OCF. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Rael said:

LOL. You are a pain in  the neck but you're OK OCF. 

Heheheheheh!

(Likewise, I'm sure.)

;)

But seriously...this is an issue that comes up in a lot of game threads. And one thing I've found is that there is a lot of distortion when viewing live games and it takes a real play by play breakdown to see if what one THINKS one is really seeing is ACTUALLY what's happening. Sometimes it is, but other times when you stop and break stuff down objectively, the patterns you think are there aren't there. It's distorted perception. (Mr. D taught me that. He breaks down O-line play to see what's really going on, and what isn't.) So after you and I got to talking about this whole 3 man rush topic, it made sense to me to not just go by what I thought I remembered. I just want to be fair and give it an honest eval is all.

Peace out.

Edited by OriginalColtsFan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, OriginalColtsFan said:

Heheheheheh!

(Likewise, I'm sure.)

;)

But seriously...this is an issue that comes up in a lot of game threads. And one thing I've found is that there is a lot of distortion when viewing live games and it takes a real play by play breakdown to see if what one THINKS one is really seeing is ACTUALLY what's happening. Sometimes it is, but other times when you stop and break stuff down objectively, the patterns you think are there aren't there. It's distorted perception. (Mr. D taught me that. He breaks down O-line play to see what's really going on, and what isn't.) So after you and I got to talking about this whole 3 man rush topic, it made sense to me to not just go by what I thought I remembered. I just want to be fair and give it an honest eval is all.

Peace out.

You have at it. I don't have the patience to re-watch a game anymore. The games just haven't been important enough to me since my season ticket buddy passed away a few years ago. Plus late last year I bought a big-*** boat so most of my early season games will now be watched exclusively by streaming my sling box with a spinning rod in my hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rael said:

You have at it. I don't have the patience to re-watch a game anymore. The games just haven't been important enough to me since my season ticket buddy passed away a few years ago. Plus late last year I bought a big-*** boat so most of my early season games will now be watched exclusively by streaming my sling box with a spinning rod in my hand.

A boat...a hole in the water into which you pour money.

;)

Enjoy the good life.

Edited by OriginalColtsFan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On September 12, 2017 at 9:20 PM, OriginalColtsFan said:

I'm re-watching the game now. On the second Bengals drive, when Mosley got the pick in the end zone, it looks like there was sort of a 3 1/2 man rush. Three pass rushers were around Dalton, and one Raven defender was around the LOS, engaged with either a RB or TE, it's hard to tell. And Mosley was playing sort of center field back in the end zone. So I suppose that was some sort of a variation of the 3 man rush, but not just a straight pure 3 man rush, since a 4th Raven defender was hovering around the LOS. It certainly was effective.

I haven't looked at that yet. I will . Sounds like Mosely was a spy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, mrdeltoid said:

I haven't looked at that yet. I will . Sounds like Mosely was a spy.

Mosley got the pick. It was another player who was the spy. Mosley was sort of doing his best Ed Reed on a very short field, playing center field, reading the QB, if I saw it correctly.

It really is a different world slowing things down and looking play by play at what's actually going on, rather than just making sweeping generalizations and relying on emotional recollections. You really did teach me that. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, OriginalColtsFan said:

Mosley got the pick. It was another player who was the spy. Mosley was sort of doing his best Ed Reed on a very short field, playing center field, reading the QB, if I saw it correctly.

It really is a different world slowing things down and looking play by play at what's actually going on, rather than just making sweeping generalizations and relying on emotion recollections. You really did teach me that. Thanks.

Pleasures mine OCF. You've always had an analytical perspective that I've appreciated, and was prolly a little misunderstood by some.  And watching one play 5 to 10 times in slo-mo while being pretty tedious, definitely shows where a play broke down, or who blew an assignment. Everything I've ever learned about coaching I owe to all the college and pro - football coaches that that took the time to teach at various coaching clinics around the east coast. All the years I spent as a player, I thought I "knew football". After a few years of coaching, boy was I embarrassed! I just hope the coaches I was "giving advice" to back then, didn't laugh too hard behind my back.:o So I get a kick out of watching a press conference after the game and the "expert reporters" ask a bunch of stupid questions that can't possibly be answered without looking at the film. Then they are upset with the coach when he says "I gotta look at the film to answer that! And when the "expert reporter" that "knows football" because he played in college thinks he's got a "gotcha question", only to be told "we gotta look at the film", to which he calls a "cop out". I wish I could get the "cut ups" the teams all get to study in the NFL. Ahhh football. It don't get any better than this does it?B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mrdeltoid said:

Pleasures mine OCF. You've always had an analytical perspective that I've appreciated, and was prolly a little misunderstood by some.  And watching one play 5 to 10 times in slo-mo while being pretty tedious, definitely shows where a play broke down, or who blew an assignment. Everything I've ever learned about coaching I owe to all the college and pro - football coaches that that took the time to teach at various coaching clinics around the east coast. All the years I spent as a player, I thought I "knew football". After a few years of coaching, boy was I embarrassed! I just hope the coaches I was "giving advice" to back then, didn't laugh too hard behind my back.:o So I get a kick out of watching a press conference after the game and the "expert reporters" ask a bunch of stupid questions that can't possibly be answered without looking at the film. Then they are upset with the coach when he says "I gotta look at the film to answer that! And when the "expert reporter" that "knows football" because he played in college thinks he's got a "gotcha question", only to be told "we gotta look at the film", to which he calls a "cop out". I wish I could get the "cut ups" the teams all get to study in the NFL. Ahhh football. It don't get any better than this does it?B)

We're talkin about Preston and Harbaugh here, aren't we, coach?

:D

(And again...thanks. It makes the whole process much clearer and more enjoyable. At least for me.)

To be continued....to be sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, OriginalColtsFan said:

We're talkin about Preston and Harbaugh here, aren't we, coach?

:D

(And again...thanks. It makes the whole process much clearer and more enjoyable. At least for me.)

To be continued....to be sure.

Shhhhhhhh ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, mrdeltoid said:

Shhhhhhhh ;)

Mums the word.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, mrdeltoid said:

Pleasures mine OCF. You've always had an analytical perspective that I've appreciated, and was prolly a little misunderstood by some.  And watching one play 5 to 10 times in slo-mo while being pretty tedious, definitely shows where a play broke down, or who blew an assignment. Everything I've ever learned about coaching I owe to all the college and pro - football coaches that that took the time to teach at various coaching clinics around the east coast. All the years I spent as a player, I thought I "knew football". After a few years of coaching, boy was I embarrassed! I just hope the coaches I was "giving advice" to back then, didn't laugh too hard behind my back.:o So I get a kick out of watching a press conference after the game and the "expert reporters" ask a bunch of stupid questions that can't possibly be answered without looking at the film. Then they are upset with the coach when he says "I gotta look at the film to answer that! And when the "expert reporter" that "knows football" because he played in college thinks he's got a "gotcha question", only to be told "we gotta look at the film", to which he calls a "cop out". I wish I could get the "cut ups" the teams all get to study in the NFL. Ahhh football. It don't get any better than this does it?B)

Upon further review...

While what you are saying is right on target, there is something that, I believe, you left out. When a team has a chronic problem that goes unsolved (i.e. year after year of blown coverages in the secondary due to "miscommunication" issues), and the head coach stands up in front of the mics and says: "Yes, we're aware of the problem and we're going to fix it, I can promise you that. But I need to look at the tape to see more before I can fully address the matter today", it's not that looking at tape is invalid. Not at all. It's that not fixing the problem(s) is at the heart of the matter, and they've BEEN looking at tape for years and still haven't fixed the problem. So the criticism, in that instance, which I believe is totally valid, is that the head coach has failed to fix a chronic problem then attempts to avoid public accountability for that failure. Clearly, if looking at the tape were the key element in solving the problem, it would have been solved years ago. But it hasn't. 

My 2 cents.

:)

Edited by OriginalColtsFan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, OriginalColtsFan said:

Upon further review...

While what you are saying is right on target, there is something that, I believe, you left out. When a team has a chronic problem that goes unsolved (i.e. year after year of blown coverages in the secondary due to "miscommunication" issues), and the head coach stands up in front of the mics and says: "Yes, we're aware of the problem and we're going to fix it, I can promise you that. But I need to look at the tape to see more before I can fully address the matter today", it's not that looking at tape is invalid. Not at all. It's that not fixing the problem(s) is at the heart of the matter, and they've BEEN looking at tape for years and still haven't fixed the problem. So the criticism, in that instance, which I believe is totally valid, is that the head coach has failed to fix a chronic problem then attempts to avoid public accountability for that failure. Clearly, if looking at the tape were the key element in solving the problem, it would have been solved years ago. But it hasn't. 

My 2 cents.

:)

It's hard to say. "Miscommunication" is a very broad explanation. In what context was he using it i? Was it getting the coverage to the field? crowd noise as the DB's tried to communicate?, or was it a call made by the S, that a CB heard wrong? or an adjustment made by the HC getting to the field? What I'm getting at, is Harbaugh is purposely ambiguous . What ever the situation, he ain't gonna put it out there. No matter what the cause, nothing positive can come from making it public. Whether it's poor execution or a bad coverage for the offensive set, giving the exact reason for it will throw somebody under the bus. It would help if I could see all the plays that were blown. There's only so much a coach can do from the sideline. To be honest, it's usually many different contributing factors to blown coverages. 99% of the time it's a lapse in judgement/execution by a player, and the HC usually will give a generic answer at the presser, and address it in the DB meeting. And if it happens more than a few times, Harbaugh isn't gonna give the other teams any kind of an edge. The most frustrating player when it came to blown coverages to me was Ed, believe it or not. He got away with a lot because he was a super star, but holy cow could he free lance. I saw plenty of times when the CB came off a receiver, only to jab step and sprint toward a WR with nothing between him and the end zone but green. Many a CB got ripped by the fans for plays the corner "thought" there was help over top. The smartest coaches reveal very little about mistakes. Jim Mora became my hero after a few after game pressers. Especially the "You don't know what we're trying to do" conference. I gave 2nd place to his"Playoffs?????" press conference.:lol: I know it's frustrating OCF but we are never gonna get an details out of that guy.:unsure: All that said, you could be absolutely right. We'll never know until he's gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, mrdeltoid said:

It's hard to say. "Miscommunication" is a very broad explanation. In what context was he using it i? Was it getting the coverage to the field? crowd noise as the DB's tried to communicate?, or was it a call made by the S, that a CB heard wrong? or an adjustment made by the HC getting to the field? What I'm getting at, is Harbaugh is purposely ambiguous . What ever the situation, he ain't gonna put it out there. No matter what the cause, nothing positive can come from making it public. Whether it's poor execution or a bad coverage for the offensive set, giving the exact reason for it will throw somebody under the bus. It would help if I could see all the plays that were blown. There's only so much a coach can do from the sideline. To be honest, it's usually many different contributing factors to blown coverages. 99% of the time it's a lapse in judgement/execution by a player, and the HC usually will give a generic answer at the presser, and address it in the DB meeting. And if it happens more than a few times, Harbaugh isn't gonna give the other teams any kind of an edge. The most frustrating player when it came to blown coverages to me was Ed, believe it or not. He got away with a lot because he was a super star, but holy cow could he free lance. I saw plenty of times when the CB came off a receiver, only to jab step and sprint toward a WR with nothing between him and the end zone but green. Many a CB got ripped by the fans for plays the corner "thought" there was help over top. The smartest coaches reveal very little about mistakes. Jim Mora became my hero after a few after game pressers. Especially the "You don't know what we're trying to do" conference. I gave 2nd place to his"Playoffs?????" press conference.:lol: I know it's frustrating OCF but we are never gonna get an details out of that guy.:unsure: All that said, you could be absolutely right. We'll never know until he's gone.

C'mon, man. You know exactly what I'm talking about. Archuletta knew exactly what he was talking about, and exactly what he saw. The corner back was on ONE page, and the safety was on ANOTHER page. And the coverage got BLOWN. And the exact same thing has been going on for years. So this is a brand new season, with the "new and improved" Ravens defense, and yet the SAME OLD PROBLEMS are reappearing. And EVERY time Harbaugh is asked about it he says the same thing: 1. "We're aware of the problem" and then he VOWS to fix it. 2. He says he needs to look at the tape. And yet it never gets fixed. His entire interaction with the media is like that of a stubborn obstinate child. And it's a COP OUT! He knows EXACTLY what went wrong, yet he DOESN'T know how to fix it. And he resents being asked "loaded" questions because of his arrogance.

Sports is sports BECAUSE it's in the public eye! To run away from the media and shun one's responsibility to the public is, unfortunately, the way things are in the 21st century, but it doesn't make it right. There is NO accountability on this team, from the owner on down. And I will not accept that.

Edited by OriginalColtsFan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Ravens defense dominated the game. I have to believe you are the only one who feels the Ravens got lucky to win. When you say the score was not indicative of how close the game was, I agree but for the exact opposite reason you believe. I think it easily could have been more lopsided if the Ravens chose to be more aggressive but they were more interested in burning the clock. Of course,!this is the " what if" game which you like to play and can't be proven.  If Mosley doesn't intercept that play in the end zone and the DB had fell down at the beginning of the play, that's a very easy touchdown. If Terrance West fumbles the ball and a DB picks it up and takes it to the house, then that's 14 easy points right there and it's a totally different ball game. Then to make matters worse, if they run a kickoff return for a td then it's 21-20 and we are losing.. Does anybody else think the defense dominated the game? Why are we complaining about the defense when they played excellent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0