Week 10: Baltimore Ravens (6-2) @ Seattle Seahawks (2-6)

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by da ThRONe

I get what your saying, but Rice has to have more than 5 carries. The Seahawks did just the opposite ran too much and in to many obvious situations and almost lost a game where you guys for a large stretch were just trying to hand the W to them.

What I'm saying is they believe Flacco can pull the safeties out of the box to make more room for Rice. When he does it, it works great, Rice gets his touches bc they have the ball longer and extend drives. When it doesn't work they're stuck in 2nd and 3rd and long, have no choice but to pass and only run a couple of plays on the drive which limits how many runs Rice could have.

Keep in mind I'm talking about what the coaches are trying to do. I completely disagree with it.

But Seattle didn't run too much, are you kidding? They had a perfect offensive gameplan for their team and it worked. They almost lost bc the Ravens are a better overall team. But that last drive when they had to protect the lead, they pounded the ball down the throats of a beat up defense... sealed the game and the running throughout the game was a big part of making it possible.

[da ThRONe]

Quote: Originally Posted by wwharton

What I'm saying is they believe Flacco can pull the safeties out of the box to make more room for Rice. When he does it, it works great, Rice gets his touches bc they have the ball longer and extend drives. When it doesn't work they're stuck in 2nd and 3rd and long, have no choice but to pass and only run a couple of plays on the drive which limits how many runs Rice could have. Keep in mind I'm talking about what the coaches are trying to do. I completely disagree with it. But Seattle didn't run too much, are you kidding? They had a perfect offensive gameplan for their team and it worked. They almost lost bc the Ravens are a better overall team. But that last drive when they had to protect the lead, they pounded the ball down the throats of a beat up defense... sealed the game and the running throughout the game was a big part of making it possible.

Completely disagree. The reason Seattle couldn't score in the redzone was the conservative play calling. Run on 1st and 2nd than pass on 3rd sometimes even running on 3rd. Unless your an elite running team which Seattle isn't you have to throw (or at the very least make the defense respect the passing game) to score TD's. Bevell seemed content with playing it safe and settled for fieldgoals.

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by da ThRONe

Completely disagree. The reason Seattle couldn't score in the redzone was the conservative play calling. Run on 1st and 2nd than pass on 3rd sometimes even running on 3rd. Unless your an elite running team which Seattle isn't you have to throw (or at the very least make the defense respect the passing game) to score TD's. Bevell seemed content with playing it safe and settled for fieldgoals.

I know it's just opinions but the facts are they beat a team that is still considered much better and was a heavy favorite coming into the game. What's more, they controlled the ball, the clock and ran down the throats of a team traditionally known for stopping the run. What you're saying makes no sense.

They methodically ran on most 1st and 2nd downs to create 3rd and reasonable for Jackson. It limited the potential for turnovers and wore down the defense. Because they ran so much, it opened up some good play action plays. It was a perfect gameplan, especially with the Ravens coming out of a physical war against the Steelers... and most importantly, it worked.

[da ThRONe]

Quote: Originally Posted by wwharton

I know it's just opinions but the facts are they beat a team that is still considered much better and was a heavy favorite coming into the game. What's more, they controlled the ball, the clock and ran down the throats of a team traditionally known for stopping the run. What you're saying makes no sense. They methodically ran on most 1st and 2nd downs to create 3rd and reasonable for Jackson. It limited the potential for turnovers and wore down the defense. Because they ran so much, it opened up some good play action plays. It was a perfect gameplan, especially with the Ravens coming out of a physical war against the Steelers... and most importantly, it worked.

Giving the turnovers and where the Seahawks got the ball the game shouldn't have come down to a drive. They made some big plays that last drive, but once again given the turnovers you guys gave them it shouldn't have been close. Just because they won doesn't mean the gameplan/play calling was sufficient.

The Seahawk averaged 3.36 ypc. and the longest run was 8 yards. They only had 121 total rushing yards they didn't ram the ball down you guys throat. Out of 6 red zone appearances they only scored 1TD. Now a couple passes that could have been TD's were dropped, but this win was about the Ravens turnovers not the Seahawks playcalling.

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by da ThRONe

Giving the turnovers and where the Seahawks got the ball the game shouldn't have come down to a drive. They made some big plays that last drive, but once again given the turnovers you guys gave them it shouldn't have been close. Just because they won doesn't mean the gameplan/play calling was sufficient. The Seahawk averaged 3.36 ypc. and the longest run was 8 yards. They only had 121 total rushing yards they didn't ram the ball down you guys throat. Out of 6 red zone appearances they only scored 1TD. Now a couple passes that could have been TD's were dropped, but this win was about the Ravens turnovers not the Seahawks playcalling.

I'm not sure what team you think the Seahawks are but they aren't the Saints. They aren't even the Ravens for that matter. With the talent they have against a team like the Ravens, the smart play would be (and was) to control the clock, limit opportunities for turnovers and hope you can create turnovers of your own. I don't know if you watched the game but if you did you'd know the average ypc means nothing. The ran the ball simply to make 3rd down easier for Jackson and to set up occasional play action passes. They're not that good and even worse when Rice went down. You basically think they should do the exact same thing people are mad at the Ravens for doing. Make Jackson throw more exposing his weaknesses and to a group of receivers that aren't very good... in turn putting the defense on the field more which would likely have resulted in giving up more points.

The Ravens/Cards game is an example of how the game would've turned out based on what you're thinking. They got the same turnovers and turned those into points. But they couldn't keep the Ravens offense off the field in the 2nd half and turned the ball over. I doubt you'll find a single Seahawks fan that had any problems whatsoever with how that game was coached or played.

[da ThRONe]

Quote: Originally Posted by wwharton

I'm not sure what team you think the Seahawks are but they aren't the Saints. They aren't even the Ravens for that matter. With the talent they have against a team like the Ravens, the smart play would be (and was) to control the clock, limit opportunities for turnovers and hope you can create turnovers of your own. I don't know if you watched the game but if you did you'd know the average ypc means nothing. The ran the ball simply to make 3rd down easier for Jackson and to set up occasional play action passes. They're not that good and even worse when Rice went down. You basically think they should do the exact same thing people are mad at the Ravens for doing. Make Jackson throw more exposing his weaknesses and to a group of receivers that aren't very good... in turn putting the defense on the field more which would likely have resulted in giving up more points. The Ravens/Cards game is an example of how the game would've turned out based on what you're thinking. They got the same turnovers and turned those into points. But they couldn't keep the Ravens offense off the field in the 2nd half and turned the ball over. I doubt you'll find a single Seahawks fan that had any problems whatsoever with how that game was coached or played.

I watched the game for the record, and Seattle running game was not keeping that offense on pace the majority of possesion and that's why they ended up with FG's instead of TD's. Their offensives points came from a few big pass plays and the turnovers.

Matter of opinions. I believe that the Seahawks offense is better than you believe, but regardless I don't think playing overly vanilla offense is the way to win. They aren't that good of a running team.

Not sure how Seahawks fans feel, but I knew what I saw. I knew what was coming as a viewer so I'm sure the Ravens D had caught on.

[ImTellinTim]

Quote: Originally Posted by da ThRONe

I watched the game for the record, and Seattle running game was not keeping that offense on pace the majority of possesion and that's why they ended up with FG's instead of TD's. Their offensives points came from a few big pass plays and the turnovers. Matter of opinions. I believe that the Seahawks offense is better than you believe, but regardless I don't think playing overly vanilla offense is the way to win. They aren't that good of a running team. Not sure how Seahawks fans feel, but I knew what I saw. I knew what was coming as a viewer so I'm sure the Ravens D had caught on.

I think you're giving Tarvaris Jackson and those receivers way too much credit. Jackson has proved over and over again that he's just not that good of a quarterback. If they are going to win games, it's not going to be airing it out with Jackson. In fact, I would argue that this type of game plan would do more to help them lose than win.

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by da ThRONe

I watched the game for the record, and Seattle running game was not keeping that offense on pace the majority of possesion and that's why they ended up with FG's instead of TD's. Their offensives points came from a few big pass plays and the turnovers. Matter of opinions. I believe that the Seahawks offense is better than you believe, but regardless I don't think playing overly vanilla offense is the way to win. They aren't that good of a running team. Not sure how Seahawks fans feel, but I knew what I saw. I knew what was coming as a viewer so I'm sure the Ravens D had caught on.

The Ravens have arguably the best defense in the NFL. Seattle's offense is average at best when 100%. Without Rice (and another WR went down with a concussion in that game too) it's even less. Meanwhile Lynch has been running as good as ever recently. I know you're Jackson's biggest fan but you don't have to push that agenda in every possible situation. In THIS game going in, the way the game was unfolding, and the way the Ravens were playing, the gameplan was perfect. You say it was bad but they won. You say the Ravens D caught on but I watched them move the chains to prevent the Ravens from getting the ball back when it counted. They didn't win by luck. The Ravens D got no pressure... bc of their gameplan. They didn't turn the ball over on offense... bc of their gameplan. They got 1st downs in important spots... bc of their gameplan. Don't know what else to tell you.