Ravens: Hubris turns to humility
The Ravens looked like they were going to waltz right through the Denver Broncos defense on their first possession of the game after Joe Flacco's 58-yard completion to Ed Dickson and a couple of succeeding quarterback keepers. Then it got ugly.
The Ravens appeared to score on a six-yard QB draw -- one official signaled touchdown -- but ended up with the ball spoted at the one. Then Willis McGahee stutter-stepped to a pair of no gains and the Ravens tried to pull a rabbit out of their playbook on fourth down.
Now don't misunderstand. If the Ravens had run another running play or a quick pass and come up empty, I've got no problem with that. That would still have left the Broncos sitting at their own goal line. But the Ravens inserted Haloti Ngata in as an eligible receiver and tried to run a pass play to him in the left flat. Somehow, the play deteriorated into a 14-yard sack and Ngata limped off the field.
It was a ridiculous outcome. The Broncos were bailed out of both a red zone situation and field position hell because the Ravens got a little full of themselves. Time will tell whether they will live to regret it.






> 
Comments
Okay, I am going to weigh in on this now even though nobody is probably watching and after a 31-17 win, doesn't really matter on any short term basis.
However, I question two general philosophies here. One is laid at the stoop of John Harbaugh, the Ravens' head coach. The other is placed on Cam Cameron's offensive coordinator's stoop.
And I want to add as a preamble I am a supporter of both in their current positions.
Philosophy problem Numero Uno: This is not the Jamal Lewis era Ravens. Back then, Lewis was a masher with break-away speed. The offensive line was populated with mashers. Fourth-and-one, everyone plow ahead, clear the pile, move the chains (or if at the goal line, celebrate your six-soon-to-be-seven points).
The Raven o-line has evolved through youth and draft picks (not counting Birk in the middle) into an athletic bunch. Blocking schemes, misdirections and variety is now the focal point of those in the trenches. That is their individual and collective strength.
Therefore, the Ravens should spread things out a bit. Quick hits to the lead man (McClain) can be done. Off tackle can still be done. So can sweeps. A quick slant. A shovel pass. Even use the shotgun on occasion. Leave the QB draw as a viable option.
The point is trickery isn't necessary if you have options and you showcase options. Plowing forward makes sense if other options have to be respected. That is why that was successful yesterday in the middle of field.
This is not a group that can just say "We're plowing forward for one yard and there's not a darn thing you can do about it."
This brings up two more sub-points. First, using Haloti Ngata on offense just doesn't make sense. Since he is not a lead blocker and he is not following a masher, his use is, well, useless. This worked before because Gaither was in the scheme of things. He is more of a pure masher. You have Gaither followed by McClain and/or Ngata, then let the plowing begin.
The second sub-point is leave McGahee's style of running alone. If you are plowing forward but not moving forward, there is nowhere to go. Delete the juking and the play just ends a couple seconds earlier. The juking may lead to an opening in the rubble or he may be able to bounce it outside. McGahee has proven he can hit the holes when they are there so stop the fashionable complaining about his style. No hole, no chance.
Okay, now the philosophical faux pas of the head coach. Scoreless game, fourth-and-goal at the one: Kick the stinking field goal. Get ahead early, turn it over to the defense, then add to your point total. Maybe then get up by two scores.
Playing Denver, it didn't matter too, too much -- well, not at all as it turned out. But there are a lot of teams scratching their collective heads on who they lost yesterday. No need to invite the unwanted guest of an upset loss.
Think about it on a global scale. How often do teams go for a two-point conversion in the first half? Unless your placekicker is injured, the answer is never. The common explanation -- a correct one at that -- is you don't want to be chasing points throughout the game.
That is especially true given the two-pointer is in the 50% (one in two) neighborhood and the PAT exceeds 95% (one in 20).
Now consider we are talking about three times as many points (three versus seven rather than one versus two). Add to that, you have to think the Raven D won't give up 20 points. That means a FG gets you 15% of the way there with much more than 85% of the game remaining.
Plus, you started the last set of downs at the one; you just didn't get there. Already the probability has to be viewed as less than 50%. Given we are talking about three times as many points being risked, the probability should be at 75% at the very minimum.
Gonads are wonderful for what they do, but they are no substitute for a brain.
(To me, turning the ball over on downs and missed FG attempts are forms of turnovers just as damaging as fumbles lost and interceptions. The possible exceptions are missed FGs at the end of a half and interceptions on passes greater than 40 yards.)
Posted by: waspman | October 11, 2010 3:05 PM