Logical, unheated QB discussion [Archive] - Baltimore Ravens Message Board & Fan Forum

Greg

08-26-2006, 10:42 AM

Let's all take a breath and relax a tad.

First, McNair is the starter and should be, he is proven and I think will eventually be fine. His first 2 games were good, the offense just couldn't finish the drives in game 2. I think that is fixable. Last night McNair made a few mistakes, that INT was a very bad (maybe even bonehead) decision.

Boller has looked good the last 2 games, and I don't care about the competition, he has remained composed in the pocket and thrown the ball where his WRs can make plays and the defense can't. In a positive, in the Giants came even though he missed a few throws (especially the TDs he missed) he still found the open guy.

The problem some people, myself included, are having with this debate is that the standards applied to Boller don't apply to McNair. McNair had crappy protection, does that excuse his play? Because it didn't excuse Boller's much of the time.

The fact is when given time to throw both of our QBs look good, the real key is can we pick up the blitzes and can the QB and receivers make the hot reads and perform. We won't stop seeing these blitzes until we do.

Now, no name calling and no getting pissed off.

Edit to add: Nobody is happy over McNair's tough night, I think anybody pointing his play out is noting that the criticism directed toward Boller was unfairly harsh because we can now see a guy we KNOW is good struggling.

Mobtown

08-26-2006, 10:53 AM

Last night McNair made a few mistakes, that INT was a very bad (maybe even bonehead) decision.

I think if you watch the replay you will see that the INT was Clayton's fault, not Macs. Clayton was open when the ball was released, but for some reason he decided to start drifting towards the sideline. He was out of position when the ball arrived and worse he opened up the door for the CB to cut him off on the inside.

Boller has looked good the last 2 games, and I don't care about the competition, he has remained composed in the pocket and thrown the ball where his WRs can make plays and the defense can't. In a positive, in the Giants came even though he missed a few throws (especially the TDs he missed) he still found the open guy.

Agreed. With the exception of game 1, Boller has looked very good.

The problem some people, myself included, are having with this debate is that the standards applied to Boller don't apply to McNair. McNair had crappy protection, does that excuse his play? Because it didn't excuse Boller's much of the time.

The fact is when given time to throw both of our QBs look good, the real key is can we pick up the blitzes and can the QB and receivers make the hot reads and perform. We won't stop seeing these blitzes until we do.

I try to not hold either QB to a different standard, comparisons are difficult given that Boller is not playing with the first team O or against the first team D.

I believe that regardless of who is QB this year, our season will be made or broken on the play of our OL. The right side looks especially weak and D's like Pitt and Indy are going to put a serious hurting on us unless we can find and anchor on that side.

RavenMad2099

08-26-2006, 11:00 AM

the real key is can we pick up the blitzes and can the QB and receivers make the hot reads and perform. We won't stop seeing these blitzes until we do.
I agree with that, and I think McNair will make defenses pay more often than not. Even a short pass over the middle can turn into a big gain if the defense is bringing the house.

I don't expect our O to be tops in the league. I just want it to be something we can rely on. If it can control the clock, move the ball, and get us some points, our D will take care of the rest....and no, I'm not talking about a "don't make any mistakes" kind of offense. We can all agree we need more than that. We need a QB who reads defenses and puts the ball where it needs to be to give us the best chance to move downfield, get points, and win the battle of field position.

I think McNair is the best guy on our roster to do that.
It's not time to panic yet. There were a lot of good vibes heading into camp this year, and I hate to see that ruined.

Greg

08-26-2006, 11:07 AM

I think if you watch the replay you will see that the INT was Clayton's fault, not Macs. Clayton was open when the ball was released, but for some reason he decided to start drifting towards the sideline.
Smoot was all over Clayton on that play, are you claiming Clayton was SUPPOSED to stop? I haven't read much on the game so maybe so, but the even if he stops SMOOT IS ALL OVER HIM. Throwing the ball in any case was a terrible decision.

I did watch the replay and I saw McNair throw a soft ball to the outside that he had ZERO business throwing.

Mobtown

08-26-2006, 11:12 AM

Smoot was all over Clayton on that play, are you claiming Clayton was SUPPOSED to stop? I haven't read much on the game so maybe so, but the even if he stops SMOOT IS ALL OVER HIM. Throwing the ball in any case was a terrible decision.

That is exactly what I am saying. Clayton was supposed to run a 5 yrd curl into zone coverage. It was a timing play and he broke focus and started moving to the outside before he had the ball in his hands. Even if Smoot is all over him, if he sits down in the zone like he is supposed to Smoot has to go THOUGH him to get to the ball. Imcomplete pass at the worst. Instead, by peeling off to the outside, Clayton opened the door and gave Smoot the inside move.

Look, it wasnt a pretty play, but the responsibility doesn't fall solely on Mac's shoulders.

Greg

08-26-2006, 11:35 AM

Okay, and I am not trying to get into an argument with you, but have you read or heard somewhere that Clayton was supposed to curl and not turn out? If so, please link.

Mobtown

08-26-2006, 11:44 AM

Okay, and I am not trying to get into an argument with you, but have you read or heard somewhere that Clayton was supposed to curl and not turn out? If so, please link.

Come on, you know I don't have a link. :grbac:

You can tell by watching the play. Clayton DID curl so it's not a guess on my part. The ball was released just as Clayton was turning in. This indicates that the play was a timing pass where the ball is on it's way before Clayton looks for it. For some reason he starts to sidestep towards the sidelines instead of holding his spot in the zone where the ball was already set to arrive.

Regardless, Mac IS going to throw INTs this year so we should all get used to seeing it. Hopefully, he throws twice as many TDs. :thumbup:

The Fanatic

08-26-2006, 11:47 AM

Okay, and I am not trying to get into an argument with you, but have you read or heard somewhere that Clayton was supposed to curl and not turn out? If so, please link.

Not in specifics, but close.

Billicks Thoughts (http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/football/bal-sp.ravens26aug26,0,1790415.story?coll=bal-sports-headlines)

"And even their highly efficient passing attack was off-target. Steve McNair's first interception of the preseason was returned 69 yards for a touchdown by Vikings cornerback Fred Smoot, a turnover that coach Brian Billick chalked up to a "blown route" by receiver Mark Clayton."

I agree all the way around though.
The ball shouldn't have been thrown with that type of blanketed coverage.

All in all, nothing about last night looked good!!:grbac:

Greg

08-26-2006, 12:07 PM

Come on, you know I don't have a link. :grbac:

You can tell by watching the play.
Well I will wait for the coaches to tell me Clayton was at fault. And how am I supposed to know you you don't have a link.

Since Fanatic has the link, thanks Fanatic. That makes me feel better.

Mobtown

08-26-2006, 12:18 PM

Well I will wait for the coaches to tell me Clayton was at fault.

So then what exactly is the point of having any discussion with you if you are only willing to listen when you hear it from a coach?

From the other thread:

Again, when bad things happen with McNair the fingers point all over the place, when Boller does it is all his fault.

It seems that some are willing to hang Mac out to dry after only 4 quarters of play. You were all on his jock after that first drive but now people are making excuses for him? I am not any happier with the way things went last than the rest of you, but you are guilty of NOT looking at anything other than QB play just as some are guilty of looking ONLY at QB play.

All I am saying is that it is way too early to be making to sort of critisizms that you and T are throwing out there. Mac WILL make mistakes...just like Boller.

The Fanatic

08-26-2006, 12:19 PM

Fassel has weighed in on this a bit too.

According To Fassel (http://www.profootball24x7.com/column_view.php?cid=33&id=432&view=archive)

"Steve wasn't alone on that interception,” offensive coordinator Jim Fassel said. “That was a play that had a couple of mistakes. We'll get that corrected."

Greg

08-26-2006, 12:33 PM

So then what exactly is the point of having any discussion with you if you are only willing to listen when you hear it from a coach?
We can discuss it, my part was the regardless of your observation, in my mind I wanted to hear it from the coaches. I didn't say shut up or quit posting any take like that. Nor was I attacking you.

Drkraven

08-26-2006, 03:32 PM

Edit to add: Nobody is happy over McNair's tough night, I think anybody pointing his play out is noting that the criticism directed toward Boller was unfairly harsh because we can now see a guy we KNOW is good struggling.__________________Rack It, Greg. Tex I agree, I think Bollers improvement is because of McNair and the pressure of not being the starter.

BirdFan

08-26-2006, 03:51 PM

The announcers (I think they were ex-NFL players) on the Ravens radio telecast said that by Boller locking onto his first or primary receiver it will end up getting him picked frequently

But his results say otherwise. Boller does not have that high interception record you would expect. Perhaps "locking on" is given more importance than it deserves.

Nobody is happy over McNair's tough night, I think anybody pointing his play out is noting that the criticism directed toward Boller was unfairly harsh because we can now see a guy we KNOW is good struggling

EXACTLY! I said it in another thread...this offense creates "Bollers".

Brandon

08-26-2006, 04:44 PM

Okay, and I am not trying to get into an argument with you, but have you read or heard somewhere that Clayton was supposed to curl and not turn out? If so, please link.

Actually, I did hear on the post game show last evening that the route Clayton ran on that play was wrong. Can't really provide a link for that, but I will take their word for it on that one.

I agree with you on all the other stuff regarding standards for Boller and McNair.

Mista T

08-26-2006, 05:14 PM

All I am saying is that it is way too early to be making to sort of critisizms that you and T are throwing out there.

I don't think 3/4ths through the exhibition season is too early to start assessing performance. It's a good milestone: there should be some semblance of the 1st team offense we will see in season

Our short passing game looks to be clicking along fine. Thinking about it, we haven't had such good short passing game synchronization since Harbs & Zeier were here, and now we have significantly better receivers. My "criticism", if you will, is the total absence of even a medium range passing attack, much less a few long balls, which we know, from having faced him, that McNair used to be able to throw a few years ago. Even last season, he threw a few deeper pattern completions aginst us in Nashville. If Fassel does not open it up, or if McNair has lost arm strength to become too risky with longer passing, the Defenses could ignore the deep non-threats and smother both the short passing and running games.

McNair may or may not be the problem. They may be working him in slowly, going to his strengths, or perhaps not tipping our hand to Tampa scouting. Nothing would please me more than to see McNair resemble Randall Cunningham of 1998 or even Tony Banks of 1999 with a few bombs. But until I see some evidence that McNair has that type of ability at his age, yeah, I'm concerned that the Offense isn't fixed at all.

:mrt:

Mobtown

08-27-2006, 01:47 AM

I don't think 3/4ths through the exhibition season is too early to start assessing performance. It's a good milestone: there should be some semblance of the 1st team offense we will see in season

Our short passing game looks to be clicking along fine. Thinking about it, we haven't had such good short passing game synchronization since Harbs & Zeier were here, and now we have significantly better receivers. My "criticism", if you will, is the total absence of even a medium range passing attack, much less a few long balls, which we know, from having faced him, that McNair used to be able to throw a few years ago. Even last season, he threw a few deeper pattern completions aginst us in Nashville. If Fassel does not open it up, or if McNair has lost arm strength to become too risky with longer passing, the Defenses could ignore the deep non-threats and smother both the short passing and running games.

McNair may or may not be the problem. They may be working him in slowly, going to his strengths, or perhaps not tipping our hand to Tampa scouting. Nothing would please me more than to see McNair resemble Randall Cunningham of 1998 or even Tony Banks of 1999 with a few bombs. But until I see some evidence that McNair has that type of ability at his age, yeah, I'm concerned that the Offense isn't fixed at all.

:mrt:

My mistake then T. I thought that based on your opening post in the other thread you were saying that we have wasted 33m based on 4 quarters of preseason ball.

We will all know shortly, assuming our swiss cheese OL doesn't get him killed in Game 1.

Dabruise

08-29-2006, 12:10 PM

think anybody pointing his play out is noting that the criticism directed toward Boller was unfairly harsh because we can now see a guy we KNOW is good struggling.

I disagree in a big way. McNair has played 3 games in Purple. He has played well in all 3, Even in the Vikes game (his worst) we still felt like it was possible to make a first down and he was very consistent on his short (chain moving) stuff. Boller has never been able to string together three performances even approaching the last 3 by McNair. Boller's problem has been consistency. It is also unfair to compair Kyle's performances now to what they were the last 3 years. He's progressed. That's good news. But the criticism was leveled against his performance at the time.

The only concern I have is us getting into the end zone. We have weapons that will enable us to win even if we have to go to a short passing game. It will keep the LBs honest and will allow room for Jamal and MA.

I'll reserve judgment on just how good McNair is until after DC.

One factor that seems to always be forgotten, we have always employed a rushing strategy that involved grinding defenses down so that the beginning of the 4th Q is ours. Kinda hard to do that in 2Qs. Additionally, we didn't have the benefit of 2nd half adjustments. For the last 5 or 6 years, our defense has been notoriously slow starting. Even when other teams didn't score, our defense has fairly consistently allowed the other team to march down the field on the opening drive or two. Then they would lock down. Haven't had a chance to do that either. This is a team with a lot of depth. We should see dividends in stamina and options later in games.

Mista T

08-29-2006, 04:27 PM

you were saying that we have wasted 33m based on 4 quarters of preseason ball.

If McNair can establish a passing game that gets us into serious playoff contention for a few years, I will gladly eat my words. Until then: "I'm from Missouri". McNair has to show me that he's worth $33 million with only a short passing game.

I just got back from a layover in Nashville last night. Naturally, all the discussion at the bar with a bunch of locals was about McNair. Their universal assessment was that they hated to lose him as a great character and team leader, but that, at this stage of his career, he wasn't worth anything closely resembling the $$$ we paid.

:mrt:

hurting

08-29-2006, 07:01 PM

I think everyone as already put my thoughts into words in this thread. I have always thought that Boller was unfairly criticized at times. I will not nor would not defend him by saying he was great or even good. But, I always thought he was at least fair to decent given his circumstances.

I am ecstatic that we now have McNair and I think he will manage to cover up some of the flaws of this STILL piss poor O-line. However if these TURDS don’t learn how to block, we may all be visiting McNair in the ICU.

On another note I heard some ‘genius’ :261695: on the radio say; he thought we got rid on the wrong QB since AW was lighting it up in Cincy. If said person would just learn how to put 2+2 together (ie in B-more with piss-poor line AW + sucks; in B-more with piss-poor line Boller Sucks; in Cincy with good line AW shines; in B-more with piss-poor line McNair looks average = It’s the O-LINE stupid) he would have come to the conclusion that we need some serious help on the

O-line (get rid of Flynn).

Thanks and stay classy B-more :thumbup:

LBoogy

08-30-2006, 10:55 PM

Steve McNair will be just fine; the guy brings the type of intangibles to the table that very FEW NFL quarterbacks possess. I tend to be an optimist with Boller, but McNair is clearly fit to be our starter for this year and next (barring any unforeseen circumstances).

It's encouraging how well Kyle has been playing this preseason and it's encouraging to see McNair play efficiently. Last game for McNair was not good and KB's NY game wasn't the best, but it has to be kept in perspective. It's the preseason people!

I think our QB situation is the LEAST of our worries on offense this season. The PLAY of our quarterback(s) solely depends on our offensive line. There is NO question in my mind that McNair can still play. There is little question in my mind that Boller can come in and at AT LEAST lead us to a .500 record. Individually, these guys (especially McNair) can help this team win IF they are protected. If the offensive line continues down the same road, it DOESN'T matter how capable Stevie and Kyle are. If they aren't protected and the running game is non-existent (as it was last year), our offense doesn't have a chance.

Not to turn this into an O-line thread, but the lack of activity in improving the O-line is absolutely astounding. After an AWFUL O-line last season, our FO takes no action; whether it be signing free agents, through the draft, or getting rid of Chris Forrester! At one point I thought to myself, "well maybe the FO isn't overhauling the O-line because they are confident in starting some of our YOUNG draft acquistions in place of the incompetent veterans...": NOPE.

We have 2 second rounders and an (evidently) impressive 4th round G/C riding the pine. Shouldn't Terry be able to contribute as a 2nd year 2nd round pick? What about Chris Chester? We drafted him in the 2nd round this year. Jason Brown has been seemingly impressive at OG/OC, has the college pedigree and all-world strength, and yet isn't starting in place of Mike Flynn or Keydrick Vincent. Mulitalo doesn't get a pass with me either. He played like garbage last season and hopefully he actually IS in better shape.

Nevertheless, our QB situation is great IMO. The problem lies in our O-line; if it isn't resolved, we don't have a chance. The same group of guys from last season WILL NOT cut it, and it's inexcusible that our FO would actually NOT adjust the shittiest offensive line in the NFL.

StingerNLG

08-31-2006, 12:46 PM

Nevertheless, our QB situation is great IMO. The problem lies in our O-line; if it isn't resolved, we don't have a chance. The same group of guys from last season WILL NOT cut it, and it's inexcusible that our FO would actually NOT adjust the shittiest offensive line in the NFL.

Can not tell you how much I agree with this. O-Line troubles have been so frustrating the last 3 years.

But I think it's time people start to be happy that BOTH our QB's are seemingly doing well. We're going to need them both.

Dabruise

09-01-2006, 11:44 AM

Everyone one has been frustrated with the O-line play. I still maintain that they aren't nearly as bad as the Ravens Nation has portrayed them. However, they are, without question, the weakest unit on the team.

That being said, it's not really fair to say that the FO has not tried to address the O-line. As much as the line play is critical to success, every front office in professional sports believes you sign your skill players. And you get them first. Most believe that you develop your "grunts" and try to hang on to the good ones. No, the Ravens front office has not spent quarterback money on a guard or center that their own contending teams even let go. But they did try to sign one of the best right tackles in the league in 2001 and got burned badly when he was injured and out for the season.

They chose to rebuild the defense first after the purge. But since then, have drafted Pashos in the 5th, Brown in the 4th, Adam Terry in the 2nd, and Chris Chester in the 2nd. Look around the league, the vast majority of O-lineman are late round picks or UDFA. It would be really stupid to draft an offensive lineman in the middle of the first round. But we've pick OL in the 2nd of our last two drafts.

As to FA lineman, the young ones are almost always overpaid and the old ones are well... old. Had for a bargain but their productivity is limited.

Maybe our FO has done a poor job of evaluating OL talent but I don't think it's fair to say that they have done nothing to try to improve the line. The choices are rather stark and simple. Rolle or a top FA guard? Mason or a 2nd string center that couldn't beat out Mike Flynn? Bentley/Hutchinson or McNair?

lance1086

09-01-2006, 05:12 PM

have drafted Pashos in the 5th, Brown in the 4th, Adam Terry in the 2nd, and Chris Chester in the 2nd. Look around the league, the vast majority of O-lineman are late round picks or UDFA. It would be really stupid to draft an offensive lineman in the middle of the first round. But we've pick OL in the 2nd of our last two drafts.
Good points. We also drafted Jason Brown, and acquired Keydrick Vincent. It's not as if, our FO has been blind to the glaring need at OLine.

LBoogy

09-04-2006, 01:36 PM

But since then, have drafted Pashos in the 5th, Brown in the 4th, Adam Terry in the 2nd, and Chris Chester in the 2nd. Look around the league, the vast majority of O-lineman are late round picks or UDFA. It would be really stupid to draft an offensive lineman in the middle of the first round. But we've pick OL in the 2nd of our last two drafts.

That was my take on the situation 3-4 months ago. It has changed since then.

My problem lies in the fact that these guys aren't even seeing the field.

They may be young and inexperienced but are they NOT good enough to replace the likes of Keydrick Vincent and Mike Flynn? And if they are CLEARLY NOT good enough to replace these guys, then why don't we dip into free agency?

My problem is that Vincent and Flynn played HORRIBLY last season, yet they are STILL STARTING! Yes, we've *partly* adressed the need for OL in the draft, but it seems the guys we're drafting are projects and not ready to contribute. It seems that we need an immediate impact on the OL, yet it is continuing to be ignored.

Pashos is unproven and doesn't have a veteran backup. Apparently Terry can't play RT and needs MORE time. Chester didn't even start a full season in college at O-line and brown apparently cannot make the line calls. My question is WHY the hell can't a 2nd year 2nd round OT crack the starting lineup on our shitty line? Why can't a 2nd year first team AA and iron man in Jason Brown knock off Keydrick Vincent and Mike Flynn? Huh?

I'll say it again: if they REALLY and LEGITIMATELY are NOT good enough to start, then why are we keeping one of the worst OL's in the NFL together?

I'll be glad to eat my words on this one. The rest of our team is stacked, but the OL is a worry of mine.

Art-Florida

09-04-2006, 03:04 PM

That was my take on the situation 3-4 months ago. It has changed since then.

My problem lies in the fact that these guys aren't even seeing the field.

They may be young and inexperienced but are they NOT good enough to replace the likes of Keydrick Vincent and Mike Flynn? And if they are CLEARLY NOT good enough to replace these guys, then why don't we dip into free agency?

My problem is that Vincent and Flynn played HORRIBLY last season, yet they are STILL STARTING! Yes, we've *partly* adressed the need for OL in the draft, but it seems the guys we're drafting are projects and not ready to contribute. It seems that we need an immediate impact on the OL, yet it is continuing to be ignored.

Pashos is unproven and doesn't have a veteran backup. Apparently Terry can't play RT and needs MORE time. Chester didn't even start a full season in college at O-line and brown apparently cannot make the line calls. My question is WHY the hell can't a 2nd year 2nd round OT crack the starting lineup on our shitty line? Why can't a 2nd year first team AA and iron man in Jason Brown knock off Keydrick Vincent and Mike Flynn? Huh?

I'll say it again: if they REALLY and LEGITIMATELY are NOT good enough to start, then why are we keeping one of the worst OL's in the NFL together?

I'll be glad to eat my words on this one. The rest of our team is stacked, but the OL is a worry of mine.

Everything you said is irrefutable. The F.O. and coaching staff needs some thought redirection. THE 'OLINE IS IMPORTANT.

sailorsam

09-05-2006, 01:44 PM

I think we all agree that McNair at this point is a better QB than Boller. My only concern here is how much he (McNair) will be able to play this year.
I think Boller has improved a lot (admitedly, he started pretty rough). He did great during the Viking and Packer games last year (the Browns game was a disaster for all concerned), and has looked good this preseason. Not only has he gotten more experienced (= more comfortable), but he got better weapons now. (To whom was he throwing at first, Kevin Johnson and Travis Taylor?)
it is an NFL truism that 'any quarterback can pick you apart, if he has time'. at this point, do we think Boller can put up 300 yards on most Sundays, given good protection? I say yes. If/When McNair goes down (how long has it been since he's played all 16 games? how many QBs do any more?), I think Kyle can do ok...
...given time!!!

StingerNLG

09-11-2006, 06:41 PM

Edited: Not even worth the time anymore.

highwater

09-12-2006, 06:54 PM

I think it has been recently established than virtually any mediocre QB in the NFL can have a career game against the non-existent Green Bay Packers defense which is one of the worst I have ever seen in the NFL over the past twenty years.

That's ridiculous, which makes me think you haven't paid attention to the all Packers games last year, much less all NFL games the past twenty years, but I'll play along since there are no games tonight.

Did you see the Vikings game last year? Or is the Green Bay game your only point of reference?