• Welcome to PurpleFlock! Sign up here so that you can chat with your fellow Ravens fans.

The Random Thought Thread

Deebo813 said:
Lol nobody thinks ET dominated. Its simple fact that our current safties arent better than him.. we can replace both clark and elliot with ease.. clark maybe a little harder but elliot he is not good whatsoever
Click to expand...

LOL ok bruh…
 
Deebo813 said:
It would take et 3-5 yrs to play like clark? Lmaooo cmon man. There isnt any comparison for ET, clark and elliot lol. They shouldnt even be compared tbh
Click to expand...
It would take ET 2 years just to learn how to be a box safety. And that would require max effort. It's wildly, wildly, wildly different from anything he was ever asked to do in Seattle.
 
rossihunter2 said:
i think that point about being better in pass coverage is obviously the crux of the issue - elliott's good at what he does and he's versatile which helps but most teams pass more than they run and get better results when they pass vs when they run - pass coverage is essential and i think the ravens arent necessarily looking for a ball-hawk/true free safety in the old sense but definitely will be looking for someone with range and instincts to close in the deep but also someone who they feel comfortable manning up in the nickel and in various situations (and i think you're seeing more and more of that in college year on year)
Click to expand...
Correct. Its the man coverage against tight ends or slot receivers that is what pretty much every team in the league is looking for out of a free safety. Which is why a) they're so hard to find and b) the one's that teams do find tend to get drafted before the Ravens are on the clock.

They're mostly in the mold of these hybrid safeties/linebackers, who are somewhat position-less "athletes" who are frequently built bigger than Corners, but also play middle of the field and can cover. Again, very difficult to find.

That's why I think they like Elliott, and why they didn't employ ET in the same way he was employed in Seattle. In Seattle, in their very basic, very generic Cover 3 scheme, ET was basically just standing 15-20 yards off the ball and told "don't let anything go over your head". And he pretty much never did, and if teams tried, he made them pay, which is what he was great at. And he could cover your average slot players or tight ends if needed.

The Ravens much more prefer to disguise their coverages, blitz from more exotic places, and aren't afraid to let the Corners be on an island in man coverage.
 
rmcjacket23 said:
Correct. Its the man coverage against tight ends or slot receivers that is what pretty much every team in the league is looking for out of a free safety. Which is why a) they're so hard to find and b) the one's that teams do find tend to get drafted before the Ravens are on the clock.

They're mostly in the mold of these hybrid safeties/linebackers, who are somewhat position-less "athletes" who are frequently built bigger than Corners, but also play middle of the field and can cover. Again, very difficult to find.

That's why I think they like Elliott, and why they didn't employ ET in the same way he was employed in Seattle. In Seattle, in their very basic, very generic Cover 3 scheme, ET was basically just standing 15-20 yards off the ball and told "don't let anything go over your head". And he pretty much never did, and if teams tried, he made them pay, which is what he was great at. And he could cover your average slot players or tight ends if needed.

The Ravens much more prefer to disguise their coverages, blitz from more exotic places, and aren't afraid to let the Corners be on an island in man coverage.
Click to expand...

it's why ET had 0 sacks in his amazing career in Seattle yet in his first season in baltimore had 2 (and had at least 1 other taken off the board by penalty elsewhere in the play)
 
rmcjacket23 said:
Correct. Its the man coverage against tight ends or slot receivers that is what pretty much every team in the league is looking for out of a free safety. Which is why a) they're so hard to find and b) the one's that teams do find tend to get drafted before the Ravens are on the clock.

They're mostly in the mold of these hybrid safeties/linebackers, who are somewhat position-less "athletes" who are frequently built bigger than Corners, but also play middle of the field and can cover. Again, very difficult to find.

That's why I think they like Elliott, and why they didn't employ ET in the same way he was employed in Seattle. In Seattle, in their very basic, very generic Cover 3 scheme, ET was basically just standing 15-20 yards off the ball and told "don't let anything go over your head". And he pretty much never did, and if teams tried, he made them pay, which is what he was great at. And he could cover your average slot players or tight ends if needed.

The Ravens much more prefer to disguise their coverages, blitz from more exotic places, and aren't afraid to let the Corners be on an island in man coverage.
Click to expand...
We didnt employ him like in sea because we werent gonna run cover 3 all game when we love man cvg.. we also didnt have the pass rushers they have nor a guy like kam chancellor.. thats legit the only reason why lol
 
Deebo813 said:
You really underestimate peoples football iq huh lol..
Click to expand...
Think you're underestimating how hard it is to forget a lifetime of playing habits and instincts. And then develop new ones. It would take a high football IQ just to do that in two years. There are no shortcuts for muscle memory so you need the reps.
 
Deebo813 said:
You really underestimate peoples football iq huh lol..
Click to expand...
Nope. That two years was to learn it. The rest is physical. May have had great football IQ, but implementation of intelligence is largely a product of desire. Not like ET really showed you he was willing to do whatever was best for the team. One of the reasons he's not here anymore.

Football IQ only gets you to a certain point. A lot of really smart guys in this league who can't play a lick.
 
Deebo813 said:
We didnt employ him like in sea because we werent gonna run cover 3 all game when we love man cvg.. we also didnt have the pass rushers they have nor a guy like kam chancellor.. thats legit the only reason why lol
Click to expand...
Well that and no smart DC is going to overhaul his defensive schemes for a 30+ year old Safety, especially when your best defensive players are the guys playing parallel to him, not in front of him. Doesn't really matter who they are. If he was expecting that, then he badly, badly, badly mis-read the temperature in the room. And that's on him.
 
Deebo813 said:
With earl, we had him at los, he was running back ti centerfield.. never seen elliot do that
Click to expand...

he literally had a great play where he covered a ton of ground in the last game we saw him against the bills in the playoffs
started pre-snap at the LoS on the wrong side of the formation in disguise and at the snap and gunned it deep to get over the top of the WR on the other side of the formation running a go and managed to get on top of it

https://media.giphy.com/media/SjHmGICt6gR48oQqYG/giphy.gif
 
QuothTheRaven said:
Think you're underestimating how hard it is to forget a lifetime of playing habits and instincts. And then develop new ones. It would take a high football IQ just to do that in two years. There are no shortcuts for muscle memory so you need the reps.
Click to expand...

idk i think some people are overestimating how different the "2" safety positions are nowadays - also... why are we talking about ET as a strong safety? deshon elliott isnt a strong safety either...
 
rossihunter2 said:
idk i think some people are overestimating how different the "2" safety positions are nowadays - also... why are we talking about ET as a strong safety? deshon elliott isnt a strong safety either...
Click to expand...
I said it would take ET at least 2-3 years to learn how to play the role that Chuck Clark plays.
 
rossihunter2 said:
idk i think some people are overestimating how different the "2" safety positions are nowadays - also... why are we talking about ET as a strong safety? deshon elliott isnt a strong safety either...
Click to expand...
Think that's mostly true but ET is/was one of the more "pure" free safeties in the league. Judging by all the reports of him freelancing, I kind of assume his instincts are a big part of his game. But my point probably doesn't apply to most safeties in the league.
 
rmcjacket23 said:
I said it would take ET at least 2-3 years to learn how to play the role that Chuck Clark plays.
Click to expand...
Who ever suggested he take chuck clarks role? Why are you even going there? Because that’s what fits your narrative, what is actually being discussed, him taking elliotts spot, doesn’t fit your narrative so you pull something else out of thin air just for arguments sake.

there have been mentions of not liking our safety tandem, but not one person has specifically stated that earl thomas would fill chuck Clark’s role better than Clark, only you mentioned this and then went on and on about it and still continue to. Jesus Christ dude stop arguing just to argue
 
JoeyFlex5 said:
Who ever suggested he take chuck clarks role? Why are you even going there? Because that’s what fits your narrative, what is actually being discussed, him taking elliotts spot, doesn’t fit your narrative so you pull something else out of thin air just for arguments sake.

there have been mentions of not liking our safety tandem, but not one person has specifically stated that earl thomas would fill chuck Clark’s role better than Clark, only you mentioned this and then went on and on about it and still continue to. Jesus Christ dude stop arguing just to argue
Click to expand...
Yeah you whiffed really, really, really badly on this one.
You do realize that this entire discussion is largely based on a single poster, who's words are easily quotable a page or so back, who suggested that ET is better than Clark and Elliott COMBINED as a football player. Naturally, there is no other way to take that, other than ET would be a better box safety than Clark. If he's better than both COMBINED, I believe the transitive property (could be the wrong math reference, but who gives a shit) makes it definitive that he would be better than both individually at what they do.

Hence, why I suggested that ET would not, by any stretch of the imagination, be a better player than Clark in the role that Clark currently operates on this team. There's at least one person who very clearly doesn't agree with that, and think that because ET has a "great football IQ", he apparently could learn an entire different position in three months and do it better than one of the league's better guy's can.
 
rmcjacket23 said:
Yeah you whiffed really, really, really badly on this one.
You do realize that this entire discussion is largely based on a single poster, who's words are easily quotable a page or so back, who suggested that ET is better than Clark and Elliott COMBINED as a football player. Naturally, there is no other way to take that, other than ET would be a better box safety than Clark. If he's better than both COMBINED, I believe the transitive property (could be the wrong math reference, but who gives a shit) makes it definitive that he would be better than both individually at what they do.

Hence, why I suggested that ET would not, by any stretch of the imagination, be a better player than Clark in the role that Clark currently operates on this team. There's at least one person who very clearly doesn't agree with that, and think that because ET has a "great football IQ", he apparently could learn an entire different position in three months and do it better than one of the league's better guy's can.
Click to expand...
Nah. You’re making this entirely about this one specific thing, what Deebo said was extremely broad and vague, you drew your own summaries to make it only about earl thomas stepping into a box safety green dot role, as you are one to do. You love to find the tiniest hole or potential hole in ones argument, beat that hole to death, and turn it into your own discussion.
 
The spirit of the argument is: would you rather have a safety like earl thomas who is an excellent deep cover safety with all time Levels of football iq, or would you rather have what we have currently which are polar opposite (more in the box and downhill types) and have been a large part of our struggles vs KC.

you won’t argue that though, you will only argue that earl thomas isn’t a green dot wearing box safety like chuck Clark and couldn’t fill that role.
 
rmcjacket23 said:
Yeah you whiffed really, really, really badly on this one.
You do realize that this entire discussion is largely based on a single poster, who's words are easily quotable a page or so back, who suggested that ET is better than Clark and Elliott COMBINED as a football player. Naturally, there is no other way to take that, other than ET would be a better box safety than Clark. If he's better than both COMBINED, I believe the transitive property (could be the wrong math reference, but who gives a shit) makes it definitive that he would be better than both individually at what they do.

Hence, why I suggested that ET would not, by any stretch of the imagination, be a better player than Clark in the role that Clark currently operates on this team. There's at least one person who very clearly doesn't agree with that, and think that because ET has a "great football IQ", he apparently could learn an entire different position in three months and do it better than one of the league's better guy's can.
Click to expand...

Which is what makes this whole conversation freaking hilarious. To think ET 2019 was not only better than both combined, but MUCH better than both combined, is just a homerism of name value
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top