2020 ROT

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

32 minutes ago, sp6488 said:

That's literally what they did in the second half of this last week's game...

Probably a joke about it all being a plan, but your insinuation that the bolded won't happen doesn't track with what they just did.

My insinuation is that if you're using play action to gain 5-7 yards passing the ball, you're doing it all wrong.

Play action is designed so you can get chunk yardage. You can have the worst running attack in the league an get 5-7 yards passing the ball per play.

[drd23]

9 hours ago, Danand said:

If we boil everything down to statistics and analytics, there is absolutely no reason to run the ball whatsoever as it is based on a potential outcome vs. risks. 

What analytics says about running the football, is that is only makes sense when a team run the ball with succes - which is just hindsight.

I think analytics and statistics can be great tools, but I also think people use it in a way it shouldn't. 

I can't tell if this is just a really bad strawman or if you genuinely just don't understand when you say stuff like this

[Danand]

43 minutes ago, drd23 said:

I can't tell if this is just a really bad strawman or if you genuinely just don't understand when you say stuff like this

I most likely don't understand it. The point remains the same.

I have yet to see analytics that say, that you should run the ball at any given point. Or that running is more efficient than passing.

 

[drd23]

2 hours ago, Danand said:

I most likely don't understand it. The point remains the same.

I have yet to see analytics that say, that you should run the ball at any given point. Or that running is more efficient than passing.

It does in certain short yardage situations (and I'm sure the team would have specialised analytics that take into account this team's relative effectiveness at running the ball), but why should any analytics say that "running is more efficient than passing"?  They should just point to what is the most effective way to move the ball - and given the ever increasing completion percentages of QBs and increasingly favourable rule set (stricter RTP, less the DBs can do to WRs, less holding calls on the OL, not calling false starts on OTs that leave a fraction of a second before the snap etc) its logical that passing would be more efficient in the vast majority of situations.

[diamondbull424]

10 hours ago, M.10.E said:

 

This was an amazing interview, for sure.

[Danand]

I don't think we could take much from the interview. I have a little bit of a hard time understanding Lamar at times, maybe because it is not my native language and his dialect throws me off, but maybe I hear it different than those who think he is overly critical about the offense.

To me it sounds overblown that he is unhappy with the offense, and rather just says that teams have adjusted and have a better recognition of what we try to do on offense - that is not a critique per say of scheme or playcalling. Atleast that was not the feeling I got listening to the interview. He knows it doesn't click, he want the passing game to work - that is pretty evident to all.

We also talk about how to balance the run/pass in other threads and what routes could do it - both to help out Lamar, the WR's and the oline.

How many times did Rich Eisen say "Lamar, Lamar, Lamar"? That got annoying.

[sp6488]

11 hours ago, Danand said:

I don't think we could take much from the interview. I have a little bit of a hard time understanding Lamar at times, maybe because it is not my native language and his dialect throws me off, but maybe I hear it different than those who think he is overly critical about the offense.

To me it sounds overblown that he is unhappy with the offense, and rather just says that teams have adjusted and have a better recognition of what we try to do on offense - that is not a critique per say of scheme or playcalling. Atleast that was not the feeling I got listening to the interview. He knows it doesn't click, he want the passing game to work - that is pretty evident to all.

We also talk about how to balance the run/pass in other threads and what routes could do it - both to help out Lamar, the WR's and the oline.

How many times did Rich Eisen say "Lamar, Lamar, Lamar"? That got annoying.

I think some of it simply comes down to him being the reigning MVP and a legit star. Media outlets looking for headlines are going to take everything he says and try to turn it into a juicy headline any way they can. It's sort of like the Antonio Brown or Dez Bryant storylines:

Reporter - "Lamar, how would you feel about the Ravens signing Antonio Brown?"

Lamar - "Man, that would be cool, wouldn't it?"

Headline - "Lamar calls on Ravens front office to sign Brown immediately"

Edited November 12, 2020 by sp6488

[drd23]

Interesting article that points the finger squarely at Roman for the lack of success of the passing game (and in particular the pass plays that don't involve PA)

 

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

Guys....we got issues....

 

TL;DR --> We ran the exact same play the 1st play of each half, AND the first 3rd down of each half against the Steelers. We also ran the same play back to back in 22 personnel (2nd play was Lamar's 2nd(?) INT).

Greg Roman is more predictable than a teenager playing Madden. Holy cow.

[AngusMcFife]

43 minutes ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

Guys....we got issues....

 

TL;DR --> We ran the exact same play the 1st play of each half, AND the first 3rd down of each half against the Steelers. We also ran the same play back to back in 22 personnel (2nd play was Lamar's 2nd(?) INT).

Greg Roman is more predictable than a teenager playing Madden. Holy cow.

Nice vid. I think his point stands, but he confused the plays. He called the first play of the second half a run play (at 13:17 in the 3rd q), but Lamar had already thrown an INT in that quarter by that play. 

[Danand]

Haven't seen the video yet, but it is not unusual to call the same play several times a game - either because it works or because you saw an opportunity running it. Especially with Romans scheme, we run different plays out of the same look - McVay has the same approach with the Rams passing game.

All this "Greg Roman" sucks is arbitrary to me as I see very little actual suggestions to what he should do different in the passing game. Also, if we simply don't have great passing concepts, that is on both Roman and Culley - OC's are allowed to have weaknesses in their scheming, but the main issue is if they can't make adjustments during games or gameplan and "set up" the opposing defense.

This goes both ways for Roman as I think he has shown he can adjust, but not to a degree where he is excempt of criticism

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

11 hours ago, Danand said:

Haven't seen the video yet, but it is not unusual to call the same play several times a game - either because it works or because you saw an opportunity running it. Especially with Romans scheme, we run different plays out of the same look - McVay has the same approach with the Rams passing game.

All this "Greg Roman" sucks is arbitrary to me as I see very little actual suggestions to what he should do different in the passing game. Also, if we simply don't have great passing concepts, that is on both Roman and Culley - OC's are allowed to have weaknesses in their scheming, but the main issue is if they can't make adjustments during games or gameplan and "set up" the opposing defense.

This goes both ways for Roman as I think he has shown he can adjust, but not to a degree where he is excempt of criticism

It's not just calling the same plays, it's evidence that we are very predictable because those same plays are run in the same situations, and in these videos, you can clearly see how defenses, once they see a play ran the first time, adjust to it the second time.

If you want a suggestion of what he can do different in the passing game, here you go:

• Running different plays off of the same looks
• Using Ricard + Boyle less, or running PA shots off of their packages on 1st/2nd down
• Using bunch/stack formations to get Hollywood free releases on crossing routes or quick seam routes
• Using RB routes out of the back field to get JKD or Justice Hill in space (Texas routes, Wheel routes, Table routes)

Edited November 13, 2020 by AFlaccoSeagulls

[diamondbull424]

8 hours ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

It's not just calling the same plays, it's evidence that we are very predictable because those same plays are run in the same situations, and in these videos, you can clearly see how defenses, once they see a play ran the first time, adjust to it the second time.

If you want a suggestion of what he can do different in the passing game, here you go:

• Running different plays off of the same looks
• Using Ricard + Boyle less, or running PA shots off of their packages on 1st/2nd down
• Using bunch/stack formations to get Hollywood free releases on crossing routes or quick seam routes
• Using RB routes out of the back field to get JKD or Justice Hill in space (Texas routes, Wheel routes, Table routes)

On that note of suggestions. If he demands to use this personnel formations, why not mix it up?

• JKD and Hill both in with jet motion fakes and releasing them into the flats for easy looks in space.

- That would be 22 personnel with Boyle in the game, but be FAR more varied in what we could use to attack defenses. We could successfully use multiple run fakes. We could line both Hill and JKD up out wide and motion them into the backfield to get a bead on defensive coverage. We could motion them out wide and provide them basic receiver routes to run against LBs.

We have all these RBs in the roster. How about we put them in positions where we can best utilize their talent?

• Varied route depths. Too often our receiving options are attacking similar parts of the field. Happens too often for it not to be scheme.

• 5 WR (and/or 4 WR, 1 TE) passing sets. Lamar did this in college at Louisville. How about attacking all levels of the defense with our scheme and let Lamar figure out where the holes are: Hollywood, Duvernay, Snead, Boykin, and Bryant/Andrews. See how Lamar looks dicing up defense’s and put more tape for defenses to have to pay attention to so they can’t focus as heavily on “figuring out” our bread and butter running game.

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

2 minutes ago, diamondbull424 said:

On that note of suggestions. If he demands to use this personnel formations, why not mix it up?

• JKD and Hill both in with jet motion fakes and releasing them into the flats for easy looks in space.

- That would be 22 personnel with Boyle in the game, but be FAR more varied in what we could use to attack defenses. We could successfully use multiple run fakes. We could line both Hill and JKD up out wide and motion them into the backfield to get a bead on defensive coverage. We could motion them out wide and provide them basic receiver routes to run against LBs.

We have all these RBs in the roster. How about we put them in positions where we can best utilize their talent?

• Varied route depths. Too often our receiving options are attacking similar parts of the field. Happens too often for it not to be scheme.

• 5 WR (and/or 4 WR, 1 TE) passing sets. Lamar did this in college at Louisville. How about attacking all levels of the defense with our scheme and let Lamar figure out where the holes are: Hollywood, Duvernay, Snead, Boykin, and Bryant/Andrews. See how Lamar looks dicing up defense’s and put more tape for defenses to have to pay attention to so they can’t focus as heavily on “figuring out” our bread and butter running game.

BLASPHEMY!@!!!!!!

[RavensfanRD]

So going forward, the Ravens offensive line should go...

Zues Jr. , Bozeman, Mekari, Powers, Fluker

Pick up old man Delanie Walker off the street and another blocking TE. Where do we go from here, gentlemen?