The Good, The Bad and The Ugly - Titans Edition

[rossihunter2]

I felt like he had room to extend the play with his feet but went too far back and then settled in what looked like a collapsing pocket. He's also appeared more confused and hesitant in the pocket too. He isn't as decisive and confident back there as I saw last year. I may need to go back and watch but that was my impression when I saw him take that sack and saw it develop that he was standing there and the sack looked like it was coming but he seemed like he had some room to rush.

Perhaps that is fair regarding Roman but I also don't like the substitutions we are doing nor like the predictability we have regarding when we run vs. pass. We aren't strong up front yet we continue to try like we are. The OL lost a lot of grit with Yanda.

dont get me wrong i think we could be doing better playcalling-wise but i dont think it's been close to being the big problem since the bye week

i dont disagree that there have been some sacks he didnt need to take this season - but this titans one he had literally nothing he could do - there was no escape route I could see, there was no way of backing out of the sack either, no one was open (at least as far as you can see on the broadcast view) and the pressure came so quickly that his only option was to try and step up into the void but he got got

the only way he escapes is if he times stepping up perfectly with Dobbins getting just enough in the way to get up - it also doesnt help that his back foot slips as he tries to cut upfield

link to the play:
https://media.giphy.com/media/513m1qzhi9lA4Jx4Va/giphy.gif

 

[rmcjacket23]

I said, the FG came off the INT... not sure what you're disagreeing with. The Tenn FG was the result of the INT. The kickoff after the FG started our drive that ended with us punting after the challenge. Without that INT and the points that arose from it, we go into a last possession tied at 21 despite the punt after the challenge and despite the Titans scoring that TD on the drive after the punt. All things remaining the same, we get the ball back tied at 21 in the final couple minutes and kick the winning FG with time expiring. The negative impact of that INT was huge. You disputed the INT earlier as insignificant in an earlier comment...

The only thing that remains uncertain is whether we could have done anything positive had the challenge not occurred. If we continue that drive uninterrupted, who knows maybe we stall as you and Ross think, or maybe it goes a different direction as I feel it would have. You guys think the challenge and INT were not a big deal, I think both were critical. We'll have to leave it boiled down to that.

That's because it didn't lead to the FG. It led to the Titans getting the ball and needing to go 60-70 yards to get a FG. Lamar's interception had less to do with the outcome of the game than our defense just making a stop of a team marching down the field on you for first straight possessions to end the game did. Why didn't the defense just make a play?

If there's no interception, and the Ravens punt, everything else being equal, Ravens lose the football game.

If you change one play in any single game, everything else that happens after it is moot, because none of it is the same. "All else being equal" doesn't work in real life. You're shoving a square peg in a round hole.

Maybe instead of Lamar converting 3rd and 1, he fumbles the football, throws an interception, and Tennessee takes it back for 6. Think maybe that would have an impact on the game?

Can play this game all along. There were many, many, many, many, many paths where the Ravens win the football game after Lamar throws that INT. There were many, many, many, many, many plays after it, and any sort of deviation from said plays could have had a significant impact on the game.

THAT is why I put no stock in this "well if he didn't throw that INT we somehow, arbitrarily, win the game" argument. You can't even win the "well if everything else happened the same argument" because, by definition, nothing that happened afterwards could have been the same.

 

[gtalk12]

Ravens just said Mark Andrews is going to say something at 4:30




MAN

 

[drjohnnyfever]

That's because it didn't lead to the FG. It led to the Titans getting the ball and needing to go 60-70 yards to get a FG. Lamar's interception had less to do with the outcome of the game than our defense just making a stop of a team marching down the field on you for first straight possessions to end the game did. Why didn't the defense just make a play?

If there's no interception, and the Ravens punt, everything else being equal, Ravens lose the football game.

If you change one play in any single game, everything else that happens after it is moot, because none of it is the same. "All else being equal" doesn't work in real life. You're shoving a square peg in a round hole.

Maybe instead of Lamar converting 3rd and 1, he fumbles the football, throws an interception, and Tennessee takes it back for 6. Think maybe that would have an impact on the game?

Can play this game all along. There were many, many, many, many, many paths where the Ravens win the football game after Lamar throws that INT. There were many, many, many, many, many plays after it, and any sort of deviation from said plays could have had a significant impact on the game.

THAT is why I put no stock in this "well if he didn't throw that INT we somehow, arbitrarily, win the game" argument. You can't even win the "well if everything else happened the same argument" because, by definition, nothing that happened afterwards could have been the same.

Sorry, that's just dumb. The "what if's" are what drives the discussion. Of course one play doesn't determine the outcome.... unless you are the Titans in OT...

I'm sorry you and ross don't like my point of view or don't like the "what if" discussions or that my queries about what occurred doesn't line up with your level knowledge and expertise. If you can't discuss plays, their effectiveness, or how they affect future decisions, what's the point of a forum?

Of course one play or series doesn't decide the game and any myriad of future consequences can occur as a result of any given decision or play. Beauty of sports... Games can be decided on the snowball effect of bad thinking, however. Sure, the DEF could have put up a stop and they should have. But the reason you discuss things from the perspective of, "...all things remaining the same," is to have a discussion about consequences.

There's a show that used to be on NBCSports, called Turning Point... my turning point was the challenge. Overall play is not a turning point. We played poorly, sure. What sealed our deal is the challenge, imo. We were never on track after that. Ross said it might have been Andrews penalty after the challenge. You disagree. Fine. It could have changed the outcome or not and as I said in my last post, we'll never know how that 3rd and 1 might have turned out because it didn't occur because a coach took the play out of the control of an QB and OFF with two downs to do and one yard to get. That doesn't inspire confidence to me.

Getting that first down doesn't mean we would have won, but, imo, it was a bad decision that had a negative impact. I think we both can agree there were plays left on the field that could have changed the game in our favor.

 

[A1A]

I'd like to see neither. I'd like to see a team that goes up by double digits on somebody finish the game and continue to play with the same intensity and passion that they showed to take the lead to begin with. Like its cute to praise them for their "never give up" attitude, but that attitude should also apply from the first step on the field, not from the last.

So a team that comes out flat is a reflection of poor coaching, and a team that quits after falling behind is a reflection of poor coaching. But somehow, a team that gets out to a lead and then lets their opponent come back is all of the sudden NOT a reflection of poor coaching. RIIIIIGHT.

As for your "we kept giving the ball back to them" thought, that's just not factually accurate. Like the reality of the game doesn't support your claim.

1. Titans had the same number of drives (4) in the second half as they did in the first half (4).
2. In the first half the Ravens ran 32 offensive plays (ignore the two at the end of the half) and the Titans ran 31 offensive plays. Number of plays run were balanced, and TOP was pretty much balanced. Ravens had the ball for less than one minute longer than the Titans in the first half.
3. In the second half. The Ravens had 29 offensive plays, and the Titans had 33. Extremely comparable to the first half as well. The TOP was slightly skewed in favor of Tennessee, but they still had the ball for less than 17 minutes in the second half, so by no means overwhelming.

The problem wasn't that we kept giving Tennessee the ball. It was that our defense couldn't get off the field when they had it. Outside of the opening drive in the half, Tennessee's last four possessions, including OT, were FG, FG, TD, TD. And the Ravens had multiple 7+ play drives that ate up over 3 minutes of clock AND an OT rest period, which is more than sufficient rest for the defense.

Lol u can't be wrong huh...so a team with fight is the same as a team with no will, that can't come back. Ok buddy. Fighting back and winning games like the Titans did to the Ravens yesterday isn't "cute" its badass and the difference between champions and wannabes. Obviously we want different things. I want W's u must want cool stats.

 

[airconteka]

Sorry, that's just dumb. The "what if's" are what drives the discussion. Of course one play doesn't determine the outcome.... unless you are the Titans in OT...

I'm sorry you and ross don't like my point of view or don't like the "what if" discussions or that my queries about what occurred doesn't line up with your level knowledge and expertise. If you can't discuss plays, their effectiveness, or how they affect future decisions, what's the point of a forum?

Of course one play or series doesn't decide the game and any myriad of future consequences can occur as a result of any given decision or play. Beauty of sports... Games can be decided on the snowball effect of bad thinking, however. Sure, the DEF could have put up a stop and they should have. But the reason you discuss things from the perspective of, "...all things remaining the same," is to have a discussion about consequences.

There's a show that used to be on NBCSports, called Turning Point... my turning point was the challenge. Overall play is not a turning point. We played poorly, sure. What sealed our deal is the challenge, imo. We were never on track after that. Ross said it might have been Andrews penalty after the challenge. You disagree. Fine. It could have changed the outcome or not and as I said in my last post, we'll never know how that 3rd and 1 might have turned out because it didn't occur because a coach took the play out of the control of an QB and OFF with two downs to do and one yard to get. That doesn't inspire confidence to me.

Getting that first down doesn't mean we would have won, but, imo, it was a bad decision that had a negative impact. I think we both can agree there were plays left on the field that could have changed the game in our favor.

If you want to pick a turning point thrn surely its us missing 4 tackles to let them score the go ahead TD.

 

[rmcjacket23]

Sorry, that's just dumb. The "what if's" are what drives the discussion. Of course one play doesn't determine the outcome.... unless you are the Titans in OT...

I'm sorry you and ross don't like my point of view or don't like the "what if" discussions or that my queries about what occurred doesn't line up with your level knowledge and expertise. If you can't discuss plays, their effectiveness, or how they affect future decisions, what's the point of a forum?

Of course one play or series doesn't decide the game and any myriad of future consequences can occur as a result of any given decision or play. Beauty of sports... Games can be decided on the snowball effect of bad thinking, however. Sure, the DEF could have put up a stop and they should have. But the reason you discuss things from the perspective of, "...all things remaining the same," is to have a discussion about consequences.

There's a show that used to be on NBCSports, called Turning Point... my turning point was the challenge. Overall play is not a turning point. We played poorly, sure. What sealed our deal is the challenge, imo. We were never on track after that. Ross said it might have been Andrews penalty after the challenge. You disagree. Fine. It could have changed the outcome or not and as I said in my last post, we'll never know how that 3rd and 1 might have turned out because it didn't occur because a coach took the play out of the control of an QB and OFF with two downs to do and one yard to get. That doesn't inspire confidence to me.

Getting that first down doesn't mean we would have won, but, imo, it was a bad decision that had a negative impact. I think we both can agree there were plays left on the field that could have changed the game in our favor.

Well the purpose of a forum, in this context, would be not to spend an unreasonable amount of time second-guessing a decision that, as you admitted, seems to have a completely indeterminable impact on the game.

As you can see already, by about Monday/Tuesday, most people have moved onto discussing future games and actual current landscape of the team, not totally reflecting on second-guessing one of many decisions that determine the outcome of a game.

 

[rmcjacket23]

Lol u can't be wrong huh...so a team with fight is the same as a team with no will, that can't come back. Ok buddy. Fighting back and winning games like the Titans did to the Ravens yesterday isn't "cute" its badass and the difference between champions and wannabes. Obviously we want different things. I want W's u must want cool stats.

LOL, nice try kid. I suggest you re-read what I wrote as many times as you need to until you actually comprehend it.

The point you either missed or ignored, likely because its a devastating blow to your argument, is that it takes the same amount of will (though on the other end of the spectrum) to blow a lead as it does to come back from one. It takes high levels of lack of effort to blow some of the leads they have, just like it requires high levels of lack of effort to blow the lead the Ravens blew on Sunday. Its comical that you completely ignore that aspect, and I can't explain to you why you choose to do so. That's on you.

This type of short-sighted, incomplete analysis probably works on your buddies wearing their letterman jackets at Applebees. It just doesn't work on me. You gotta do better.

The "champions and wannabees" think is great and cute and all, but Tennessee wasn't a champion last year, they won't be a champion this year, and so this whole cliche blah blah blah talk is going to be moot by the end anyway.

 

[Militant X 1]

This type of short-sighted, incomplete analysis probably works on your buddies wearing their letterman jackets at Applebees. It just doesn't work on me. You gotta do better.

 

[The Last Great Raven]

"It's on me." is so cliche. The Pitt game was going to haunt us on it's own with our terrible QB play in the form of INT's, but NE and Tenn are the nails in our coffin and the sad part is that all these L's were given away on turnovers. We had each game won.

There is nothing more maddening than injuries and not being able to compete as well as a result, but this team has played well despite injuries and has still managed to give away 3 crucial games that we couldn't close out. To me, that's more about character and a will to win than anything else. Starting the game yesterday with a fight about turf and then giving them the field in the 4th and overtime is shameful. We aren't going anywhere at this rate.

Lamar is gonna have some turnovers. You have to live with that. But they HAVE to let him RUN. They cannot make him into something he is not. Abandon the PROJECT. Let the man Run for as long as his legs will carry him and the RAVENS