Coaching Change -- Cam Cameron has been Fired

**Dusty728** · 12-10-2012, 06:54 PM

I hardly ever post in here but i just had to log in to say this day was like an early Christmas present to me.
Before today I expected us to end our season in the playoffs again and, another year without getting ray his 2nd ring.
Now, anything is possible and I feel we have a much better chance of getting that SB win.

**Tspot-D-Ravenator** · 12-10-2012, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

Well, Harbs was screaming at him on the sidelines a bunch yesterday. We shall see ....

I missed that! Is there any video on him yelling at Cam? I know I saw it a few weeks ago.

**Raveninwoodlawn** · 12-10-2012, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by bacchys

He did get rid of the ball quickly. The pass rusher was quicker. He started throwing as soon as he hit the end of his drop. It doesn't get any quicker than that.

Originally Posted by Paintballguy

That's what drives me nuts. Everyone is saying Flacco has to be quicker. He couldn't do anything quicker on that sack/fumble. His arm was going forward as soon as he hit his back foot.

Originally Posted by moose10101

It does if you make the drop shorter, which is one of the big gripes about Cam's plays. It isn't all on Joe.

Originally Posted by Paintballguy

Bingo. 3 stop drops and shotgun.

Originally Posted by Boulderraven

I dont blame KO on the Int. He had TWO guys to block. The problem was no TE and worse no RB in backfeild to chip. If their was a RB in backfeild likely no blitz at all, but RR was spit wide Right at the SIDELINE. Never go empty backfeild with no TE's. On 3rd and 5 you have a back to keep defense honest, and block or use as release valve. JUST AWFUL PLAY CALL.

Originally Posted by Boulderraven

I rewatched the play 10x. It was 6 on 5. Kerrigan is pretty fast also. You cant have 6 on 5 with no backfeild help. Inexcusable, especially in FG territory. Joe got rid of it in like a second and half, can't do better than that. If you have a RB in the backfeild, Joe has a little more time. KO had little chance as did the play.

Joe got the snap, and while Kerrigan was on him quick, you can see Joe take his drop and then immediately drift back a couple of steps.

My problem with the play is that whoever you want to blame, when a defense shows an all out blitz like they did, you HAVE to assume that everybody is coming and audible to at least one hot route. Joe did nothing took the snap and reacted like he wanted to try and wait for a guy to break open. Make no doubt about it, on that play, guys wound up open, but since there were no hot routes, Joe would have had to throw the ball before the WR break and he didn't do it. If nothing else, Joe needs to eat the ball...secure it and take the sack so that we at least get 3. When the opposing team brings more than you can block (and yes, even with an extra back in, the guy that would have been covering him could have just blitzed as well still making it more than we could block), it's on the QB to audible to something that can beat it and get the ball out of his hands. Joe even said that play was on him.

Take a look at this...

And take a look at this...

Same play...only Eli got rid of it immediately.

**PainServer52** · 12-10-2012, 07:49 PM

I'm happy most of us got our wish. The timing of this move is weird. We have 3 games left and heading into the playoffs. I'm not sure if Caldwell is the answer either, he doesn't have much experience calling plays, how do we know he's an upgrade from Cam?

I swear when I heard a coaching change was coming earlier today, I thought it would be Pees. I thought Cam would be fired in the offseason.

**Boulderraven** · 12-10-2012, 07:54 PM

Originally Posted by Raveninwoodlawn

Joe got the snap, and while Kerrigan was on him quick, you can see Joe take his drop and then immediately drift back a couple of steps.

My problem with the play is that whoever you want to blame, when a defense shows an all out blitz like they did, you HAVE to assume that everybody is coming and audible to at least one hot route. Joe did nothing took the snap and reacted like he wanted to try and wait for a guy to break open. Make no doubt about it, on that play, guys wound up open, but since there were no hot routes, Joe would have had to throw the ball before the WR break and he didn't do it. If nothing else, Joe needs to eat the ball...secure it and take the sack so that we at least get 3. When the opposing team brings more than you can block (and yes, even with an extra back in, the guy that would have been covering him could have just blitzed as well still making it more than we could block), it's on the QB to audible to something that can beat it and get the ball out of his hands. Joe even said that play was on him.

Take a look at this...

And take a look at this...

Same play...only Eli got rid of it immediately.

Joe never blames anyone ever. He tried to get rid of it quickly, but it became a bouncing ball that landed in Fletchers lap. Plus, running hot routes in the Redzone can lead to easy picks because Lb's, Cb, and S are looking to jump the route. Then you get no points. Just poor play design. Why split Rice a yard from the sideline? Is he a big target? Will he have time to cross the feild? Do you run a fade pattern to Rice? Total offensive ineptitude.

**Raveninwoodlawn** · 12-10-2012, 08:07 PM

Originally Posted by Boulderraven

Joe never blames anyone ever. He tried to get rid of it quickly, but it became a bouncing ball that landed in Fletchers lap. Plus, running hot routes in the Redzone can lead to easy picks because Lb's, Cb, and S are looking to jump the route. Then you get no points. Just poor play design. Why split Rice a yard from the sideline? Is he a big target? Will he have time to cross the feild? Do you run a fade pattern to Rice? Total offensive ineptitude.

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.

**JohnBKistler** · 12-10-2012, 08:10 PM

Originally Posted by Raveninwoodlawn

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.

And the frustrating thing? Flacco used to be much better at protecting the ball earlier in his career. Whether it was luck, or whether he's trying to do more than what he's capable of, he seems to be much more of a game-killer these days.

**Boulderraven** · 12-10-2012, 08:23 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.

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.

**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.

**wickedsolo** · 12-10-2012, 08:48 PM

Corey -

They very well could have offered something like that to Cam, but he said no way.

This was coming. Whether or not anyone wanted to realize it, this was coming. The offense had stagnated, things that worked were never revisted, no adjustments were ever made, and you could just kind of tell that there was a general lack of interest from Flacco and some of the other players on offense.

**Boulderraven** · 12-10-2012, 08:51 PM

Raveninwoodlawn, I agree he has to eat that ball, but the play call had enormous risk vs reward potential. That's the issue. That's why he was reportedly fired over protections schemes that cost the Ravens back to back games with the LEAD to inferior teams. Pittsburgh is AWFUL, the only decent games they played are vs the Ravens recently.

**Corey** · 12-10-2012, 08:53 PM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

Corey -

They very well could have offered something like that to Cam, but he said no way.

This was coming. Whether or not anyone wanted to realize it, this was coming. The offense had stagnated, things that worked were never revisted, no adjustments were ever made, and you could just kind of tell that there was a general lack of interest from Flacco and some of the other players on offense.

Yeah, I just read the Yahoo! article. It was for the best. We were wondering why there had been no movement on Flacco's contract. Sounds like Flacco gave the team an ultimatum. Two years to late if you ask me.

**Boulderraven** · 12-10-2012, 08:56 PM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

Corey -

They very well could have offered something like that to Cam, but he said no way.

This was coming. Whether or not anyone wanted to realize it, this was coming. The offense had stagnated, things that worked were never revisted, no adjustments were ever made, and you could just kind of tell that there was a general lack of interest from Flacco and some of the other players on offense.

He was fired because protection schemes, losing two leads in back to back games. I dont think thier is a lack of interest at all, Joe has about $100 million riding on this. He just never accepted player imput during the game and made adjustments. He treated everyone as a robot, no one liked him. The Ravens players and coaches were fed up, he cost them 2 games and almost 3 if you count San Diego. The witch is dead.

**JohnBKistler** · 12-10-2012, 08:57 PM

Originally Posted by Corey

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.

Or the owner just flew off the handle like 98% of the fan base last night and wanted somebody's head.

**Boulderraven** · 12-10-2012, 08:58 PM

Originally Posted by Corey

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.

He won't and can't he is still getting paid by the Ravens a few million.

**Boulderraven** · 12-10-2012, 08:59 PM

Originally Posted by JohnBKistler

Or the owner just flew off the handle like 98% of the fan base last night and wanted somebody's head.

Do you watch games?

**Raveninwoodlawn** · 12-10-2012, 09:04 PM

Originally Posted by StingerNLG

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

Not sure what you mean by indicting Flacco. He made an obvious mistake IMHO. Not saying we need to get rid of him or that he isn't good. Don't know why I can' point out a huge play in the game and simply say, that particular play was Player "X"'s fault. We do it for everybody else...but when it's Flacco, everybody gets super defensive.

As for the play...sorry buddy other than the Redskins showing the blitz from jump and Joe being in the shotgun, it is exactly the same...and Joe holding the ball and Eli getting rid of it. Both blitzes came from the right side of the formation. Both had guys completely free bearing down from the right side. Neither guy had time to step up in the pocket.

Joe drifted back a couple steps after his drop from the snap. Eli immediately launched the ball. Eli actually turned his entire body around to protect himself after his throwing motion. T

Originally Posted by Boulderraven

Raveninwoodlawn, I agree he has to eat that ball, but the play call had enormous risk vs reward potential. That's the issue. That's why he was reportedly fired over protections schemes that cost the Ravens back to back games with the LEAD to inferior teams. Pittsburgh is AWFUL, the only decent games they played are vs the Ravens recently.

Whatever man. You just tried to basically make it out like we were the only team in the league in the last...who knows how many decades...that doesn't have a hot route available.

The play could have been salvaged by the QB. No matter how bad you think the play call from the sideline is.