Coaching Change -- Cam Cameron has been Fired

**RavenScallywag** · 12-10-2012, 08:17 AM

Dan Patrick is reporting there is a change in the Ravens coaching staff, more to come shortly...

Hmmm...

https://twitter.com/BlogAndTackle/st...39120981778433

we'll see if this is bunk or what

**GOTA** · 12-10-2012, 08:24 AM

That's an odd source. Dan Patrick isn't exactly a breaking news guy. He wouldn't say this if it wasn't solid. Very curious to hear who it is.

**TheFlacco** · 12-10-2012, 08:26 AM

My guess is that the O-line coach is out. But I would LOVE for them to take the clipboard from Cam.

**Bhcforlife** · 12-10-2012, 08:31 AM

I would guess it's someone relatively minor like Moeller or another position coach, something to try and tell the fanbase "Here, we are doing something to try and fix this." Kind of like Andy Reid getting rid of Jim Washburn a couple weeks ago...

Would be shocked if it's Pees or Cameron with three games left in the season.

**wickedsolo** · 12-10-2012, 08:33 AM

I agree that I can't see it being a BIG change...the only thing I could see (if it were big) is letting Cam go in lieu of Jim Caldwell...but I'm not sure that would be a good thing.

Much more likely to see Andy Moeller go. Or maybe Jeff Hostler.

Either way, I'd be good with that. Moeller and Hostler are terrible.

**RavenScallywag** · 12-10-2012, 08:35 AM

Also, they didn't say if it was axing of a coach. Maybe they are just taking playcalling away from Cameron, but I don't really see Harbaugh calling the plays, nor do I see Caldwell doing it. It'd be a bit comical if they say Joe is going to call all the plays from now on. Kind've like "you want the money, go earn it".

**YorkRavensFan** · 12-10-2012, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

I agree that I can't see it being a BIG change...the only thing I could see (if it were big) is letting Cam go in lieu of Jim Caldwell...but I'm not sure that would be a good thing

I'm not sure. It could spark the offense to dump Cam. Not just because of his play calling but an emotional spark having their source of frustration gone. I could see Flacco and Rice both having a huge game if that happened.

**Captain Silver** · 12-10-2012, 08:34 AM

My money would be on Moeller, they've been keeping that sacrificial lamb around a while, time to appease the mob.

**NCRAVEN** · 12-10-2012, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by Captain Silver

My money would be on Moeller, they've been keeping that sacrificial lamb around a while, time to appease the mob.

If it's a change this is right.

**AirFlacco** · 12-10-2012, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by Bhcforlife

I would guess it's someone relatively minor like Moeller or another position coach, something to try and tell the fanbase "Here, we are doing something to try and fix this." Kind of like Andy Reid getting rid of Jim Washburn a couple weeks ago...

Would be shocked if it's Pees or Cameron with three games left in the season.

The Biscuit had to be really pissed to fire CAM
at this point. He scored 28 pts yesterday but
Pees gave up 31 pts - 8 in the last min of regulation.

That wasn't CAMs fault - 28 pts should be enough to win most games but not with this D.

The entire city is happy but I just question the timing and the guy.

Glad Caldwell got promoted. What a great move
coming in and working with Joe.

**Jsmoove** · 12-10-2012, 01:59 PM

pees better be looking over his shoulders cause dat ass ain't safe either.

**Ravenswintitle** · 12-10-2012, 10:49 AM

Here we go

**callahan09** · 12-10-2012, 04:48 PM

Wilbon on PTI basically just said that Flacco made Cam look bad and not vice versa. Ridiculous. Said the problem was Flacco's fumbling and interceptions. Right. Even the best QBs turn the ball over sometimes. Flacco has never been and still isn't a quarterback who turns the ball over a lot. Flacco's turnovers are more likely a symptom of Cam failing to adjust as the defense adjusts to what our offense has been doing. And Cam's playbook not having the kind of plays in it that suit our players or help receivers get open. It's not like that INT yesterday was really Flacco's fault... The guy had pressure coming at him immediately and he tried to throw the ball away, it got tipped and it bounced around and Fletcher made an immaculate/lucky/ridiculous catch for the int.

**nickh0801** · 12-10-2012, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by callahan09

Wilbon on PTI basically just said that Flacco made Cam look bad and not vice versa. Ridiculous. Said the problem was Flacco's fumbling and interceptions. Right. Even the best QBs turn the ball over sometimes. Flacco has never been and still isn't a quarterback who turns the ball over a lot. Flacco's turnovers are more likely a symptom of Cam failing to adjust as the defense adjusts to what our offense has been doing. And Cam's playbook not having the kind of plays in it that suit our players or help receivers get open. It's not like that INT yesterday was really Flacco's fault... The guy had pressure coming at him immediately and he tried to throw the ball away, it got tipped and it bounced around and Fletcher made an immaculate/lucky/ridiculous catch for the int.

PTI is scripted too. Him and Tony always take opposite sides to discuss. They flip flop on topics more than anyone else on tv. Just like Skip Bayless, they do it for the ratings.

**SugarRay52** · 12-10-2012, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by nickh0801

PTI is scripted too. Him and Tony always take opposite sides to discuss. They flip flop on topics more than anyone else on tv. Just like Skip Bayless, they do it for the ratings.

Bayless always denied that he wasn't trying to get ratings but he's definitely doing that now, he's making $500,000 a year.

**SugarRay52** · 12-10-2012, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by callahan09

Wilbon on PTI basically just said that Flacco made Cam look bad and not vice versa. Ridiculous. Said the problem was Flacco's fumbling and interceptions. Right. Even the best QBs turn the ball over sometimes. Flacco has never been and still isn't a quarterback who turns the ball over a lot. Flacco's turnovers are more likely a symptom of Cam failing to adjust as the defense adjusts to what our offense has been doing. And Cam's playbook not having the kind of plays in it that suit our players or help receivers get open. It's not like that INT yesterday was really Flacco's fault... The guy had pressure coming at him immediately and he tried to throw the ball away, it got tipped and it bounced around and Fletcher made an immaculate/lucky/ridiculous catch for the int.

Ignore Wilbon, this asshole has always hated Joe maybe more than Skip Bayless does. He said Joe was a below average QB after the Houston loss. Joe does have to develop better pocket presence and stop the fumbling but we know Cameron hurt him more than the other way around. Don't listen to jerks like Wilbon or Bayless, listen to Ron Jaworski, Greg Cosell and Adam Caplan who know Cameron was the problem and have the film to back it up.

**StingerNLG** · 12-10-2012, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by Raveninwoodlawn

Huh?

EVERYBODY knows that the way to beat those blitzes is to get rid of the ball quickly. I'd argue that a jumped route is much less likely because they have zero help if they get beat. Your logic basically says there is no hope when teams bring more than you can block. And who's to say A...the ball has to go to Rice and B...the person who was covering Rice wouldn't blitz since his man is staying in to block...you know that is a common scheme, if you are in man and your man stays in to block you rush the passer.

When you have more guys coming than are blocking...which can happen whether you have 5 guys blocking or 9...it's up to the QB to beat the blitz and that goes for the pre snap reads to the post snap reads.

Did you see the second link? Eli had a man bearing down on him in his face...completely free and he threw the ball quick.

If nothing...nothing else, Joe needs to eat the ball there and at least give us a FG attempt. That goes to poor awareness...you don't try and throw in that situation.

Problem is that they are two different formations and two different pressures. Eli didn't have someone bear on him from the front, so he had a chance to step forward. Joe had an empty backfield and the Blitzer came right at him.

Joe has also made plays like that out of the I before.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

**Raveninwoodlawn** · 12-10-2012, 08:33 PM

Originally Posted by Boulderraven

I agree that Joe needed to eat the ball and take the 3, but the design of that play was horrid for OUR offense. Ravens dont use Hot routes, Cam hates them. With a short feild everybody plays closer and is bump and run. It's a risky play formation with that down and distance at that spot on the feild. Their are way better play options than that risky one. I have to think real hard when the last time the Ravens did a hot route. Real hard. They pissed away an easy 3 and with a 1 back set and a TE at the line, Joe has 2 safety valves to gain 5 yards, not to mention protection or an open WR if thier was one.

I don't believe that at all. But it feeds into the Cam bashing so whatever.

Like I said, even if we are the only team in the last 50 years to not have a hot route available, Joe needs to eat the ball

Originally Posted by StingerNLG

Problem is that they are two different formations and two different pressures. Eli didn't have someone bear on him from the front, so he had a chance to step forward. Joe had an empty backfield and the Blitzer came right at him.

Joe has also made plays like that out of the I before.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

Sting...on the Manning play, a LB and a safety drop down on Manning's front side. The LB is picked up and the safety is basically at the LOS with a running start at the snap...he was completely free running in Mannings face.

The only difference is that the free man on Joe was a DE/OLB and the free man in Manning's face was a safety...and Manning wasn't in the shotgun...and the Saints at least tried to disguise their blitz. But the main part of the play was the same though...a free man running and closing quickly on the front side.

He didn't step forward either.

**StingerNLG** · 12-10-2012, 08:42 PM

Originally Posted by Raveninwoodlawn

I don't believe that at all. But it feeds into the Cam bashing so whatever.

Like I said, even if we are the only team in the last 50 years to not have a hot route available, Joe needs to eat the ball

Sting...on the Manning play, a LB and a safety drop down on Manning's front side. The LB is picked up and the safety is basically at the LOS with a running start at the snap...he was completely free running in Mannings face.

The only difference is that the free man on Joe was a DE/OLB and the free man in Manning's face was a safety...and Manning wasn't in the shotgun...and the Saints at least tried to disguise their blitz. But the main part of the play was the same though...a free man running and closing quickly on the front side.

He didn't step forward either.

I'm watching the video RIW. Its just not the same situation. But I've also seen Eli fumble out of these. I don't indict Flacco as much over this one play.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

**Corey** · 12-10-2012, 08:44 PM

I can't wait to see what this offense can do without Cam handcuffing it but I do question the timing. Why now? They could have stripped him of his playcalling duties and kept him on as basically a consultant until the end of the season. Cam doesn't seem like the type but he could sell info about our team to the highest bidder by signing on with one of our competitors.