Ed Reed's fault?

**psuasskicker** · 10-15-2006, 08:03 PM

I'm hearing a lot how it was Reed's fault how open Smith was on that final play, and I'm frankly not buying it.

Reed bit on the underneath route cause it made more sense for Delhomme to be throwing that. Move the chains, don't take the high risk play. He bit wrong, that happens sometimes.

But as a corner, you can't just let your guy get so wide open that you're eating his dust all the way to the end zone. Rolle got burned about as badly as you'll ever see a CB get burned. He may think there's going to be safety help over the top, but he's GOT to keep with his man to at least be able to tackle him if the pass gets completed.

The argument that it's Reed's fault basically implies that Rolle had shut down the other side if Smith cuts up or to the left, and Reed biting up front allowed Smith to go across the middle and that's the only reason he was open. That's BS. Delhomme could have thrown it anywhere on the field and Smith would have been open. Rolle got toasted. Reed biting was a problem, but Rolle's gotta stay at least in the vicinity of his man.

- C -

**Raveninwoodlawn** · 10-15-2006, 08:15 PM

Why is it so hard to beleive defenders run braketed coverages and CB's a lot of times have short zones?

Typically, when you see CB's passively bail out or blatently play a certain side of a WR's shoulder, he is expecting help.

**ClericBlackDave** · 10-15-2006, 08:18 PM

Reed needs to stay at home. He gambles too much guessing where the ball is going and, against a top QB and a Marquee reciever, it hurt us.

He just needed to stay home. The offense just needed a lil help to win it back.

**AZRAVEN** · 10-15-2006, 08:20 PM

Could it perhaps be that the Panthers are smart enough to take advantage of Reed's tendency to jump routes to go for the big play? I'm not arguing, it's just a question.

**ExiledRaven** · 10-15-2006, 08:30 PM

I think all sorts of teams are taking advantage of our tendency to go after the big play whether jumping a route or even with a pass rush (the screen).

We've been beat on pump fakes, double moves, and plays where a safety or corner plays only for the short route far too much.

**RavenFanatic2k6** · 10-15-2006, 08:42 PM

I'm all for letting Reed be aggressive, but when we only have 3 DBs in the game he needs to be where he's supposed to be.

**PARavensJeff** · 10-15-2006, 08:54 PM

Well, that play isn't the only play that ruined the day, just the backbreaker when the team is trying to come back. Reed bit short & Delhomme made him pay. Rolle expeced help over the top & it wasn't there. But Rolle is continuing to look bad, whether he is expecting help or not & that theme continued today on earlier plays.

**F Angelos** · 10-15-2006, 09:33 PM

Originally Posted by psuasskicker

I'm hearing a lot how it was Reed's fault how open Smith was on that final play, and I'm frankly not buying it.

Reed bit on the underneath route cause it made more sense for Delhomme to be throwing that. Move the chains, don't take the high risk play. He bit wrong, that happens sometimes.

But as a corner, you can't just let your guy get so wide open that you're eating his dust all the way to the end zone. Rolle got burned about as badly as you'll ever see a CB get burned. He may think there's going to be safety help over the top, but he's GOT to keep with his man to at least be able to tackle him if the pass gets completed.

The argument that it's Reed's fault basically implies that Rolle had shut down the other side if Smith cuts up or to the left, and Reed biting up front allowed Smith to go across the middle and that's the only reason he was open. That's BS. Delhomme could have thrown it anywhere on the field and Smith would have been open. Rolle got toasted. Reed biting was a problem, but Rolle's gotta stay at least in the vicinity of his man.

- C -

Apparantly you didn't watch Super Bowl 35 because the same thing happened to Angie Seahorn. He thought Shaun Williams had deep coverage on Stokley but Williams inexplicably bit on Dilfer's fake to Sharpe who was already double covered so when Seahorn turned around and saw Stokely running he chased after him and everyone assumed it must have been Seahorn's fault.

**PurpleRulz** · 10-15-2006, 09:38 PM

I place the blame at both Rolle and Reed. There is no way you leave Steve Smith wide open like that. Even if Jake gets off a mid field completion for a first down, you always protect against the big play.

Either Rolle is not 100 percent, or he is in the November of his career.

Right now, he is our weak link of the secondary.

**crowdog89** · 10-15-2006, 09:45 PM

Originally Posted by psuasskicker

I'm hearing a lot how it was Reed's fault how open Smith was on that final play, and I'm frankly not buying it.

- C -

Will you buy it from the mouth of Reed?

A blunder in the Ravens' secondary -- cornerback Samari Rolle let Smith run free because he thought safety Ed Reed had coverage for the deep middle part of the field -- allowed the Panthers to push their lead to 23-14 with 4:15 left in the game.

"He was my responsibility and he scored a touchdown. It was a miscommunication," Reed said. "We knew what they were going to do and they made a play."

Link from Baltimore Sun Story

**52decleetzu** · 10-15-2006, 10:22 PM

It was absolutely Reeds fault he flat out blew his assignment on the play.They broke the play down on "Football night in America" and they showed how Samari basically let him go for a split second and then realized that there was no help and just tried to play catch up but it was too late.

It was Reeds fault all the way but I guess some just have to have someone to blame the loss on,and it looks like Samari is the popular choice this week.

**RavenDavey** · 10-16-2006, 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by 52decleetzu

it looks like Samari is the popular choice this week.

Ed admitted fault to this particular coverage lapse, but each week we continue to see long TD's against Rolle in man to man coverage. He can not keep up with the speedy receivers in this league. They need to find someone who can step up with CMAC this year, or we will see touchdown "replays" live each week as the receivers continually beat Rolle!

**Fanman** · 10-16-2006, 09:52 AM

It was more Reed's fault than Rolle. Reed was basically a no-show the whole game.

There was one way the Panthers could beat us and was if Smith had a monster day. Don't you think the D-scheme would have been to have help on Smith ALL DAY no matter what? And why wasn't C-Mac on Smith in the second half? I question the strategy of not having your #1 cover guy on their #1 WR. We got burned by Smith all day and it cost us the game.

FM

**52decleetzu** · 10-16-2006, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by Fanman

It was more Reed's fault than Rolle. Reed was basically a no-show the whole game.

There was one way the Panthers could beat us and was if Smith had a monster day. Don't you think the D-scheme would have been to have help on Smith ALL DAY no matter what? And why wasn't C-Mac on Smith in the second half? I question the strategy of not having your #1 cover guy on their #1 WR. We got burned by Smith all day and it cost us the game.

FM

The reason why CMac wasnt in there on Smith was because the type of receiver SS is vs the type of corner CMac is just doesnt jive.

CMac is the big physical corner,which is why he was on KJ and not SS who is the smaller shiftier receiver.Rolle is probably the better pure cover guy in terms of quickness and speed(didnt look like it yesterday) which is why he was on him.

I still dont think Rolle is completely healthy ,that foot is still bothering him if you ask me.CMac hid an injury that was bothering him last year we found out about after the season,and I wouldnt doubt that Rolle might be doing the same.

**RAVENOUS52** · 10-16-2006, 11:40 AM

Oh well, we live and we learn with things like this...

The bye week will definitely do us lots of good...

Hopefully by then the lobotomy Samari Rolle is having performed tonight will make him forget all about being torched to a burnt crisp...