Dear Mr Caldwell, why did you run on 10/12 first downs in the first half

[bacchys]

Right. When we were down by 7, 70 yards away from the endzone, with 41 seconds left, and no timeouts, we had them right where we wanted them.

Like last year's Evans "drop." Couldn't have used an extra early TD there either.

The fact is, there is a risk to seemingly purposely not trying your hardest to score points early in the game. You get a certain number of drives in a game. That number is finite. It is absolutely possible you can come up one drive/possession short. And of course it puts more pressure on those later drives if they are "must score" drives due to being behind, rather than "inscrease/take the lead" drives. It also obviously puts pressure on your defense to not allow the opponent to keep pace with your second half scoring.

All that said, again, if somehow the early "safe" or "wear them down" strategy that seems to reduce our early scoring (due to safe play) actually increases our total points scored in a full game (by somehow making it much easier to score later) then obviously I am fine with it. But I just am not necessarily convinced that this is the case. I think Joe could score early and often and keep it up, assuming that all game we were calling the kind of mix we were calling in the 3rd and early 4th quarters of last night's game. And that doesn't mean I want to throw it every down, as we were still running in the 3rd and early 4th yesterday.

My opinion, and obviously you and others disagree.

We didn't have the same approach in the Denver game as we did last night. If the defense hadn't held New England to a field goal on their first red zone trip, I think it's probable we would have seen a more balanced attack even earlier. It didn't hurt that the offense came up with a scoring drive with the run-first mentality, either. The Ravens scored the first touchdown of the game, and the defense made sure there was no reason to abandon the game plan in the first half.

[Haloti92]

We didn't have the same approach in the Denver game as we did last night. If the defense hadn't held New England to a field goal on their first red zone trip, I think it's probable we would have seen a more balanced attack even earlier. It didn't hurt that the offense came up with a scoring drive with the run-first mentality, either. The Ravens scored the first touchdown of the game, and the defense made sure there was no reason to abandon the game plan in the first half.

Can't really argue with any of this except to say that we got the ball down by 3 with 4 minutes left in the 1st half and had run-run-sack where a first down or two (let alone a scoring drive) ends NE's 1st half scoring at 10. Then we got lucky to go into halftime down 13-7 instead of 17-7. Obviously, looking at the way the second half panned out, even 17-7 wouldn't have been a problem. But I still don't like the prospect of trying to outscore a team like the Pats by 11 in 30 minutes of football.

But all in all, you are right, and it is very hard to argue with success. I guess the fact I am seemingly doing it is just an indication that we played a nearly flawless overall game, and there isn't much else to say other than that.

[bacchys]

Double Post

[bmorecareful]

The whole "the run worked great because it created opportunities in the 2nd half" argument seems very weak. First of all, Harbaugh's comments seem to contradict the notion that they "got what they wanted." He claims that they recognized that running the ball WASN'T working as they wanted it to and that necessitated a change. That doesn't sound like the two halves were part of some greater strategy but rather that they had to abandon the strategy of the first half and move to a totally different gameplan--a much more effective one.

Secondly, in the Coryell you run the ball up the middle to force the defense to creep up LBs that would otherwise be dropping deep into coverage and to move a safety down into the box. Neither of those things happened despite all the early-down running in the first half. The Patriots remained in a 2 deep shell the entire game and the Ravens never really made an effort to move the Patriots' LBs around with play action, tosses, counters, etc. It doesn't mean that the Ravens didn't have success throwing intermediate into the LBs' zones, but that was more a result of just great throws beating coverages rather than scheming LBs out of position. It just didn't happen that way.

Basically the Patriots simply won the battle against the Ravens' running game with their front 7 the entire game (at least until the very end.) The Ravens understood that they were losing that fight and adjusted accordingly in the 2nd half. I appreciate that, but they could have fielded a more effective offense in the first half by varying their playcalls on early downs--even if they wanted to run it, they should have gotten away from the zone runs up the middle which were HIGHLY ineffective.

All in all, the game was won because Flacco and the defense stepped up hugely in the 2nd half. I don't think the running game contributed much to the win on both a micro (winning the down by down battles) or macro (playing into a longer-term strategy) level.

[RavensRule21215]

The whole "the run worked great because it created opportunities in the 2nd half" argument seems very weak. First of all, Harbaugh's comments seem to contradict the notion that they "got what they wanted." He claims that they recognized that running the ball WASN'T working as they wanted it to and that necessitated a change. That doesn't sound like the two halves were part of some greater strategy but rather that they had to abandon the strategy of the first half and move to a totally different gameplan--a much more effective one.

Secondly, in the Coryell you run the ball up the middle to force the defense to creep up LBs that would otherwise be dropping deep into coverage and to move a safety down into the box. Neither of those things happened despite all the early-down running in the first half. The Patriots remained in a 2 deep shell the entire game and the Ravens never really made an effort to move the Patriots' LBs around with play action, tosses, counters, etc. It doesn't mean that the Ravens didn't have success throwing intermediate into the LBs' zones, but that was more a result of just great throws beating coverages rather than scheming LBs out of position. It just didn't happen that way.

Basically the Patriots simply won the battle against the Ravens' running game with their front 7 the entire game (at least until the very end.) The Ravens understood that they were losing that fight and adjusted accordingly in the 2nd half. I appreciate that, but they could have fielded a more effective offense in the first half by varying their playcalls on early downs--even if they wanted to run it, they should have gotten away from the zone runs up the middle which were HIGHLY ineffective.

All in all, the game was won because Flacco and the defense stepped up hugely in the 2nd half. I don't think the running game contributed much to the win on both a micro (winning the down by down battles) or macro (playing into a longer-term strategy) level.

Excellent, level-headed analysis, IMO.

[rlh445]

The game I was watching didn't selectively edit out the good runs.

Ahaha, someone 'cooking the books' in an Internet argument?! Why, I never..!

[blah3]

Is it possible that the Ravens wanted to keep the tempo of the game slow in the first half to negate some of the hurry up that NE runs this year? Much like a basketball team that is better in the half court not getting into a running game with a fast break team?

[callahan09]

In the first half, our average starting field position was the 11 yard line. In the second half, it was the 26 yard line.

The Patriots had an average start position of the 33 yard line in the first half, and the 25 yard line in the second half.

We averaged a start position of the 20 yard line in the whole game. The Patriots averaged a start position of the 29 yard line in the whole game.

We started past our own 20 yard line only 3 times. They started past their own 20 yard line 9 times.

We lost the field position battle BADLY, and still dominated the game. That's incredible.

[bacchys]

Can't really argue with any of this except to say that we got the ball down by 3 with 4 minutes left in the 1st half and had run-run-sack where a first down or two (let alone a scoring drive) ends NE's 1st half scoring at 10. Then we got lucky to go into halftime down 13-7 instead of 17-7. Obviously, looking at the way the second half panned out, even 17-7 wouldn't have been a problem. But I still don't like the prospect of trying to outscore a team like the Pats by 11 in 30 minutes of football.

But all in all, you are right, and it is very hard to argue with success. I guess the fact I am seemingly doing it is just an indication that we played a nearly flawless overall game, and there isn't much else to say other than that.

Run-run-sack is better than sack-incomplete-incomplete. If Caldwell pulled a Cam, these boards would be howling about his not using Rice enough.

The Ravens definitely didn't play a flawless game. There were opportunities left on the field. Dickson and Pitta both dropped catchable balls in the early going that would have moved the chains, for instance, but those drops would have hurt had they happened on first down, too.

The running game was effective in the early going. The Ravens chewed up clock and did move the chains more often than not even if it didn't lead to a score. Part of the reason for the approach, imo, was mentioned upthread: the Ravens' starting position was horrible the entire first half. One part of the 2000 team that never gets enough notice or credit is how Dilfer and the offense had a knack for getting between the 40's where, at least, they could punt deep into the opponent's territory and put them on a long field against that defense. The Ravens don't have that defense this year, of course, but they were better off avoiding a turnover on their own side of the field and keeping the Pats as far from the goal line as they could than having a quick three-and-out with incompletions or- worse- a turnover.

Still, I do think Caldwell should have looked for more playaction, especially on second down, and have Smith and Doss run short to medium crossing routes behind the linebackers. But, overall, the playcalling in either half wasn't a problem in this game. It could have been better, sure, but it wasn't a problem.

[Ravenswintitle]

i think we may have found rharris

[iggyman555]

at least you finally admit it. How'd ya like Oher, by the way?

he was ok, extension?

[iggyman555]

If you don't see how our constant power running in the first half loosened up safety coverage on the back end in the second, then I think you need to look over some basic football strategies.

we mostly passed from the shotgun in the 2nd half, not even same formations as first half

[londonraven]

All this chat and noone mentions that Aqib Talib was injured early, as was Patrick Chung although I don't know if he returned.

Initial run heavy game plan + opposing secondary banged up + sticking with what works = Evolving gameplan vs Pats

I agree 1 or 2 easy short first down passes wouldn't go amiss but I think the game plan is run heavy to scope them out in the first half and see how and where to target 2nd half.

it worked woop superbowl 47, can't wait

[StingerNLG]

Run-run-sack is better than sack-incomplete-incomplete. If Caldwell pulled a Cam, these boards would be howling about his not using Rice enough.

The Ravens definitely didn't play a flawless game. There were opportunities left on the field. Dickson and Pitta both dropped catchable balls in the early going that would have moved the chains, for instance, but those drops would have hurt had they happened on first down, too.

The running game was effective in the early going. The Ravens chewed up clock and did move the chains more often than not even if it didn't lead to a score. Part of the reason for the approach, imo, was mentioned upthread: the Ravens' starting position was horrible the entire first half. One part of the 2000 team that never gets enough notice or credit is how Dilfer and the offense had a knack for getting between the 40's where, at least, they could punt deep into the opponent's territory and put them on a long field against that defense. The Ravens don't have that defense this year, of course, but they were better off avoiding a turnover on their own side of the field and keeping the Pats as far from the goal line as they could than having a quick three-and-out with incompletions or- worse- a turnover.

Still, I do think Caldwell should have looked for more playaction, especially on second down, and have Smith and Doss run short to medium crossing routes behind the linebackers. But, overall, the playcalling in either half wasn't a problem in this game. It could have been better, sure, but it wasn't a problem.

I think some of this is overlooked too. Pitta and Dickson had drops which would have been 1st downs and Pittas a nice little chunk play. So it's not like they completely went run-run-pass everytime. You also have to think Caldwell tried to account for both the wind and the shitty field position. One errant throw from the 11 yard line and the Patriots could get an easy score.

Looking at it from a situational standpoint, how much of this 1st half gameplan was also just trying to play field position and not get into a blowout situation early?

[Haloti92]

Stop with the Pitta drop nonsense. Full sprint, full horizontal lay out attempt to catch a lobbed ball into a sideways wind that barely hits one of your hands is by no reasonable measure a "drop." The only thing that can be criticized on that play is the throw, and I wouldn't even really do that considering the circumstances and weather.

The problem with the argument that we were playing it safe due to field position, etc, is that 2 short runs equals a 3rd and long, and passing on 3rd and long when the other team knows you are passing and where you need time to get the required depth of routes is exactly the kind of play where you see more turnovers.

No need to beat a dead horse, but our first down runs were not effective in the first 5 drives (obviously, as half of them were for 2 yards or less, and a quarter of them were for 3 yards exactly), and other than possibly tiring out Wilfork at the expense of moving the chains (which we also did not do very regularly with the exception of a single drive in our first 5 drives), I don't see any benefit to calling them versus short passes or a good mix (like we called starting with our 2nd drive of the 2nd half).

And as for playing not to get blown out, i.e. playing it safe, that to me is precisely the problem. We could have easily gone into half down 10 (if the Pats didn't fubar their clock management). I don't think greatly increasing your odds of going into the half down 10 is warranted just to avoid a very small chance you might go into half down, what, 17? 20?

It isn't a huge deal, but it is still a lesser version (to Cameron's full blown version) of 'play it safe,' which imo indicates a lack of confidence in your offense, or specifically your QB. Which imo is not necessitated by any evidence and could end up being costly (though like most 'safe' coaching choices, the costs are hard to spot).

[Paintballguy]

Guys we are going to the Super Bowl!!!

[Haloti92]

Guys we are going to the Super Bowl!!!

Yes, but if some us don't invent something to bitch about (even if half-heartedly), we may jinx things around here. The current mix of irrational complaining and vociferous defending of everything the team does has served us well up until this point.

[Paintballguy]

Yes, but if some us don't invent something to bitch about (even if half-heartedly), we may jinx things around here. The current mix of irrational complaining and vociferous defending of everything the team does has served us well up until this point.

Touche

[pslholder96]

Dear Mr Caldwell, congratulations on taking the permanent job of OC next year...as announced by Harbaugh during his 4pm press conference earlier

[StingerNLG]

Stop with the Pitta drop nonsense. Full sprint, full horizontal lay out attempt to catch a lobbed ball into a sideways wind that barely hits one of your hands is by no reasonable measure a "drop." The only thing that can be criticized on that play is the throw, and I wouldn't even really do that considering the circumstances and weather.

It was a drop. I don't understand why it's a big deal here. It was in his hands and he didn't reel it in. Brandon Lloyd dropped one too. And the point wasn't to bash Pitta. Just pointing out it was a pass that if completed would have been a big gain. That might have changed the entire playcalling scenario for the rest of that drive, we don't know.

Oh, and stop with the condescending "Stop the Pitta drop nonsense". I don't know how many times I've asked people to be respectful of other people's opinions.

The problem with the argument that we were playing it safe due to field position, etc, is that 2 short runs equals a 3rd and long, and passing on 3rd and long when the other team knows you are passing and where you need time to get the required depth of routes is exactly the kind of play where you see more turnovers.

No need to beat a dead horse, but our first down runs were not effective in the first 5 drives (obviously, as half of them were for 2 yards or less, and a quarter of them were for 3 yards exactly), and other than possibly tiring out Wilfork at the expense of moving the chains (which we also did not do very regularly with the exception of a single drive in our first 5 drives), I don't see any benefit to calling them versus short passes or a good mix (like we called starting with our 2nd drive of the 2nd half).

Except they weren't thinking 3rd and long? Last week they were getting 3-4 yards a carry in the second half and getting into 3rd and short. While I'm sure they weren't looking to air it out from jump, I doubt they expected 3rd and 8 every series.

And as for playing not to get blown out, i.e. playing it safe, that to me is precisely the problem. We could have easily gone into half down 10 (if the Pats didn't fubar their clock management). I don't think greatly increasing your odds of going into the half down 10 is warranted just to avoid a very small chance you might go into half down, what, 17? 20?[/quote]

And my point is that if the wind does catch hold of a pass wrong, or if Taqib jumps a short route and takes the ball to the endzone, we're looking at a different game.

It isn't a huge deal, but it is still a lesser version (to Cameron's full blown version) of 'play it safe,' which imo indicates a lack of confidence in your offense, or specifically your QB. Which imo is not necessitated by any evidence and could end up being costly (though like most 'safe' coaching choices, the costs are hard to spot).

Well, I would agree with that if they didn't "unleash the Flakken" in the second half of the game. If they had no confidence in Joe, they wouldn't have put the ball in his hands. I think this was more of a gameplan to the conditions in the first half. If Rice breaks off big runs in the first half and we're at the 40-45 yard line, then I think you see them mix in more 1st down throws. Again, I believe Caldwell was playing the situation and the hand that was dealt.