Numbers lie. Stats are for losers. And other true clichés.

[Shas]

This is isn't going to break any new ground here, because the point I am going to make is something that most people already know. And that point is that people will find stats to support their opinions even when an isolated stat often doesn't really tell the full story we want it to tell.

Since 105.7's content seems to be a popular topic here today, that's the example I'll use.

Bob and Rob were making the case against Cam Cameron's play calling acumen. This was discussed in the context of Cam being fired and Norv Turner being an upgrade as O.C.

By the way, I also heard an interesting point made about how the organization seems to be just as intolerant and impatient about their mediocre offensive performances as the fans are. Only in Baltimore, they claimed, could you have an organization that:

1. Didn't bring back the Super Bowl winning quarterback
2. Cut his replacement after he took the team to the playoffs, despite losing his star running back before the season started and having no back up in place
3. Firing the offensive coordinator after a 4-2 start
4. Firing the offensive coordinator despite the team going to the playoffs all four years he was here, if indeed that happens to Cam in the offseason.

Compelling, although it glosses over some other facts that mostly center around the fact that the offense didn't do much to contribute to the level of winning during those seasons.

Which is kind of the point I'm making.

You can select some facts that at first glance seem to paint a pretty damning story, but if you consider all the evidence, maybe they don't really support your case at all.

The case this morning on 105.7 was Cam's stubborn insistence on throwing the ball with so much frequency when in fact a better play caller would simply give the ball to Ray Rice as often as possible.

In support of this claim they first trotted out the classic stat that correlates winning with running the ball. We've all seen the fact cited that the Ravens handed the ball off to Rice just 36 times in their four losses of the season. They ran it 45 times in a single game in beating the Browns in Week 13.

Damning on the surface. But of course it glosses over the fact that the Ravens found themselves in the second halves of those games down at least two scores because of turnovers and bad defensive play. So while Cam may not have been brilliant, he wasn't turning the ball over nor was he responsible for allowing the opponent to score.

Really, what that stat tells you is that getting leads causes the Ravens to run the ball and preserve wins; running doesn't really cause wins, it is an effect of winning.

The other stat that Rob Long threw out was a comparison between Flacco and Rogers. Funny, because Joe himself made a comparison last night to his red zone throwing attempts compared to Rogers. Long's stat had to do with overall attempts. He pointed out that Joe has 523 passing attempts this season compared to 502 passing attempts for Rogers. Long's point is that Cam is out of control and no way he should be calling for Flacco to throw the ball so often because no way Flacco is nearly as good as Rogers.

Makes sense.

Until you put it in context with more facts. First fact being that the Packers only have one loss. They get the lead in a whole lot of games and don't need to throw the ball late in games. In fact, during their 19 game winning streak they only trailed in the fourth quarter one time, and that was recently when they came back against the Giants. In my minds' eye, I believe I can see Rogers flinging the ball a lot in that fourth-quarter comeback.

Point being if the Ravens were winning 19 in a row and never trailing in the fourth quarter I guarantee Joe would throw it less and Ray Rice run it more. Take the second Cleveland game for instance. Had they not given up the special teams score and the second half TD drive to make it a game again, no way Flacco is still throwing it in the fourth quarter.

The other mitigating facts in the Rogers v. Flacco comparison include the fact that the Packers move the ball down the field in big chunks and don't need to convert third downs nearly as often. Rogers' yards-per-attempt average is 50% higher than Joes'. They move the ball nearly at will and don't need as many snaps to score.

The Packers have 917 offensive snaps to the Ravens' 984. That alone is enough to explain the difference in Joe's throwing attempts.

The Packers also have run the ball 371 times compared to the Ravens' 427. So it's not like Joe's extra throws came at the expense of the running game. The case that is coming together is that the Packers offense is simply more efficient. They need fewer snaps to matriculate the ball downfield. That's not an indictment of Cam's balance between run and pass.

When you do the math, Rogers has fewer passing attempts than Joe, but Rogers throws 58% of the time to Joe's 55%.

Similarly, the Packers faced third down attempts just 177 times to the Ravens' 216. You can bet how many of those extra 39 third-down attempts for the Ravens were passing downs by necessity.

And finally, the Packers are +22 in turnover margin to the Ravens +1. The Packers offense is getting the ball in excellent field position, with less ground to cover, a hell of a lot more often than Flacco and the Ravens are. It makes sense that to cover longer ground there are going to be extra throws.

Okay, now that I've drilled the point into the ground, I feel better. But I know that I have not ended the debate. This really is not a thread in support of Cam's playcalling, because he deserves criticism. But what I hope this serves as is a reminder that it's never one factor that explains performance, or lack thereof. While we hate to hear coaches talk about a lack of execution, there is still a lot of truth to that claim.

[The Excellector]

I think that was an excellent post Shaslers.

[alien bird]

And finally, the Packers are +22 in turnover margin to the Ravens +1. The Packers offense is getting the ball in excellent field position, with less ground to cover....

Interesting stat for a 14-1 football team:
Packers Offense = gaining 395.5 yards/game
Packers Defense = allowing 400.7 yards/game

That has to be the result of the turnover margin and short fields.
So, you are right - isolated stats do not tell the entire story. Not close.

[festivus]

In other words, just because you've identified two facts ("The Ravens lost four games this season, and they were all on the road. And they were all against teams we should have beaten.") doesn't mean one is the *cause* of the other ("The Ravens play down to poor opponents on the road.").

You see it all the time, particularly among sports fans.

[GOTA]

The Packers defense has not been good at all this season. If this was 5 years ago that would have mattered. In today's NFL it doesn't. Rodgers has no fear of 3rd and long or sacks or even interceptions. He knows he can go down the field at any time and score almost at will. Teams then get behind and have to do things they shouldn't to catch up. That leads to those turnovers and even more Packers scores. It's the perfect system for the new rules of the NFL.

[bmorecareful]

What a great post. Everything you said is very true and it illustrates something--that "pop" sports analysis is very far behind reality.

ACTUAL statisticians and analysts have produced a very telling body of work in football analysis that contradicts the "pop" or conventional wisdom in a lot of stark ways. Although I don't have time to go through it all now, it's a well known fact amongst those truly "in the know" that running is an EFFECT of winning, not a CAUSE, just as you said.

It's starting to catch on a little bit. You do hear people say "pass to score, run to win," which is closer to the reality that teams produce points by passing and kill the clock by running, since passing is more efficient than running but doesn't run out the clock. But it's just like advanced baseball stats--it's going to take time before the average analyst and average fan catch on.

[palukaraven]

Good post Shas. I will say that running the ball offensively isn't necessarily ALWAYS consistent with being ahead in a game as opposed to being behind. There have been cases this season where the Ravens chose to go with a lop-sided pass/run ratio even with the game being within reach. But typically having offensive production weighed heavier on the run side is an indication the team is winning the game, but it also provides a means to control the time of possession and keep the other teams offense off the field.

[Jeremiah W]

The Packers defense has not been good at all this season. If this was 5 years ago that would have mattered. In today's NFL it doesn't. Rodgers has no fear of 3rd and long or sacks or even interceptions. He knows he can go down the field at any time and score almost at will. Teams then get behind and have to do things they shouldn't to catch up. That leads to those turnovers and even more Packers scores. It's the perfect system for the new rules of the NFL.

The Packer D has allowed a lot of yards, but they are 12th in PPG allowed and lead the NFL in picks.

So I agree with the end of your post, but not the begining. The Packer D is not like some of the Raven and Steeler units over the last decade, but they are good at what they have to do in the types of games the O puts them in.

I really like the OP and thread. You can use stats to make any kind of argument sound convincing, but they do not always hold up to further discussion an inspection when all the circumstances are looked at.

[JStruds]

You can select some facts that at first glance seem to paint a pretty damning story, but if you consider all the evidence, maybe they don't really support your case at all.

The case this morning on 105.7 was Cam's stubborn insistence on throwing the ball with so much frequency when in fact a better play caller would simply give the ball to Ray Rice as often as possible.

In support of this claim they first trotted out the classic stat that correlates winning with running the ball. We've all seen the fact cited that the Ravens handed the ball off to Rice just 36 times in their four losses of the season. They ran it 45 times in a single game in beating the Browns in Week 13.

Damning on the surface. But of course it glosses over the fact that the Ravens found themselves in the second halves of those games down at least two scores because of turnovers and bad defensive play. So while Cam may not have been brilliant, he wasn't turning the ball over nor was he responsible for allowing the opponent to score.

Really, what that stat tells you is that getting leads causes the Ravens to run the ball and preserve wins; running doesn't really cause wins, it is an effect of winning.

Overall, I'm in agreement with your post. However, I do have one minor counterpoint.

Using the Seattle game as an example, Cam actually gave up on the run late in the 1st quarter; I think we were down 10 points at the time. Later, Cam, Joe and Harbaugh all defended going almost solely to the pass because of the score.

Now fast forward to Cinn I and Cle II. We were beating Cinn by (I think) 20-10 about midway through the 3d quarter, yet the Bengals at one point ran the ball on four consecutive plays. Last week, while we were winning 17-0, again in the 3d quarter, Cle continued to run the ball. In both games, the end result was in doubt until late in the game.

Obviously, there are points in games when passing becomes the only option; the 2d half against Ariz and the last drive against Pitts for example. However, I believe Cam sometimes gives up on it too soon, and this is where much of the criticism is generated. (I also think he goes away from it sometimes when it's working, but that's probably not relevant to your original post.)

[Boulderraven]

Stats are for geeks, usually for those who never played. Ignore them. Points and wins matter.

[52decleetzu]

This is isn't going to break any new ground here, because the point I am going to make is something that most people already know. And that point is that people will find stats to support their opinions even when an isolated stat often doesn't really tell the full story we want it to tell.

Since 105.7's content seems to be a popular topic here today, that's the example I'll use.

Bob and Rob were making the case against Cam Cameron's play calling acumen. This was discussed in the context of Cam being fired and Norv Turner being an upgrade as O.C.

By the way, I also heard an interesting point made about how the organization seems to be just as intolerant and impatient about their mediocre offensive performances as the fans are. Only in Baltimore, they claimed, could you have an organization that:

1. Didn't bring back the Super Bowl winning quarterback
2. Cut his replacement after he took the team to the playoffs, despite losing his star running back before the season started and having no back up in place
3. Firing the offensive coordinator after a 4-2 start
4. Firing the offensive coordinator despite the team going to the playoffs all four years he was here, if indeed that happens to Cam in the offseason.

Compelling, although it glosses over some other facts that mostly center around the fact that the offense didn't do much to contribute to the level of winning during those seasons.

Which is kind of the point I'm making.

You can select some facts that at first glance seem to paint a pretty damning story, but if you consider all the evidence, maybe they don't really support your case at all.

The case this morning on 105.7 was Cam's stubborn insistence on throwing the ball with so much frequency when in fact a better play caller would simply give the ball to Ray Rice as often as possible.

In support of this claim they first trotted out the classic stat that correlates winning with running the ball. We've all seen the fact cited that the Ravens handed the ball off to Rice just 36 times in their four losses of the season. They ran it 45 times in a single game in beating the Browns in Week 13.

Damning on the surface. But of course it glosses over the fact that the Ravens found themselves in the second halves of those games down at least two scores because of turnovers and bad defensive play. So while Cam may not have been brilliant, he wasn't turning the ball over nor was he responsible for allowing the opponent to score.

Really, what that stat tells you is that getting leads causes the Ravens to run the ball and preserve wins; running doesn't really cause wins, it is an effect of winning.

The other stat that Rob Long threw out was a comparison between Flacco and Rogers. Funny, because Joe himself made a comparison last night to his red zone throwing attempts compared to Rogers. Long's stat had to do with overall attempts. He pointed out that Joe has 523 passing attempts this season compared to 502 passing attempts for Rogers. Long's point is that Cam is out of control and no way he should be calling for Flacco to throw the ball so often because no way Flacco is nearly as good as Rogers.

Makes sense.

Until you put it in context with more facts. First fact being that the Packers only have one loss. They get the lead in a whole lot of games and don't need to throw the ball late in games. In fact, during their 19 game winning streak they only trailed in the fourth quarter one time, and that was recently when they came back against the Giants. In my minds' eye, I believe I can see Rogers flinging the ball a lot in that fourth-quarter comeback.

Point being if the Ravens were winning 19 in a row and never trailing in the fourth quarter I guarantee Joe would throw it less and Ray Rice run it more. Take the second Cleveland game for instance. Had they not given up the special teams score and the second half TD drive to make it a game again, no way Flacco is still throwing it in the fourth quarter.

The other mitigating facts in the Rogers v. Flacco comparison include the fact that the Packers move the ball down the field in big chunks and don't need to convert third downs nearly as often. Rogers' yards-per-attempt average is 50% higher than Joes'. They move the ball nearly at will and don't need as many snaps to score.

The Packers have 917 offensive snaps to the Ravens' 984. That alone is enough to explain the difference in Joe's throwing attempts.

The Packers also have run the ball 371 times compared to the Ravens' 427. So it's not like Joe's extra throws came at the expense of the running game. The case that is coming together is that the Packers offense is simply more efficient. They need fewer snaps to matriculate the ball downfield. That's not an indictment of Cam's balance between run and pass.

When you do the math, Rogers has fewer passing attempts than Joe, but Rogers throws 58% of the time to Joe's 55%.

Similarly, the Packers faced third down attempts just 177 times to the Ravens' 216. You can bet how many of those extra 39 third-down attempts for the Ravens were passing downs by necessity.

And finally, the Packers are +22 in turnover margin to the Ravens +1. The Packers offense is getting the ball in excellent field position, with less ground to cover, a hell of a lot more often than Flacco and the Ravens are. It makes sense that to cover longer ground there are going to be extra throws.

Okay, now that I've drilled the point into the ground, I feel better. But I know that I have not ended the debate. This really is not a thread in support of Cam's playcalling, because he deserves criticism. But what I hope this serves as is a reminder that it's never one factor that explains performance, or lack thereof. While we hate to hear coaches talk about a lack of execution, there is still a lot of truth to that claim.

Fantastic post Shas.

You just have to realize that most radio hosts are completely clueless and come into their shows completely unprepared with anything but the most basic of stats to back up their "argument". It would be too much work for them to actually go behind the stats and really analyze what is going on and why. They would rather yell and scream about whatever the idiots that call into the radio are saying and then get the hell out of there as fast as they can. Now some of that blame goes on their employer who would laugh at any of them if they wanted more pay for more work, or even someone making peanuts to help them out analyzing stuff.

I can't tell you how many times I have heard Cerrato or any of the other buffoons throw out numbers that have no background, are incomplete or just so oversimplified it makes me want to pull my damn hair out. There is a new way of analyzing numbers that has come about over the last 5 years or so, but the guys that are on these shows have probably never heard of that stuff. I have always said every host should have an intern researcher that is there for 8 HOURS a day (imagine that!) to give these guys information and guidance for their shows. I hear stuff all the time they throw out that just isn't accurate, or completely out of context and then we will get 3 hours of garbage on a false premise like you pointed out.

They would rather "entertain" all the fans out there instead of trying to get into a meaningful discussion about what is really going on with certain numbers and WHY. The whole talk radio situation has snowballed into something that is a complete waste of time and energy for the most part, and not a place for anything but the casual fan who lacks the information the host does to rant and rave.

They have SO much time on the radio to talk about the nuts and bolts of the matter, but you never hear it. Ever. The discussions could really educate the fanbase if they actually did some research and put some time into knowing what they are talking about, but instead they just throw out surface stats and don't go deeper

My advice...turn the radio off. You will get nothing out of it. I used to listen all the time but realized it is pointless these days.

[Shas]

one minor counterpoint.

Using the Seattle game as an example, Cam actually gave up on the run late in the 1st quarter; I think we were down 10 points at the time. Later, Cam, Joe and Harbaugh all defended going almost solely to the pass because of the score.

You make a good point. As I said, I wasn't meaning to defend Cam entirely, just meant to point out that there are mitigating circumstances to consider. While Cam is not an idiot for calling the number of passing plays he calls, he may be guilty of jumping out of the run too quickly.

I'd also have to think back to how effectively the Ravens had been running the ball against whatever front Seattle had been giving them prior to leaning on the passing game. Sometimes you have to credit the defense for forcing your team to get away from what it came into the game wanting to do.

I'm sure Cam and Harbaugh would argue that they wanted to get a quick score in that Seattle game to make it a reasonable 10-7 contest so they could then get back to the run. Best laid plans, right?

Funny, I heard Flacco say that he does think that they are at their best when they spread it out in the two minute offense. While that's arguable, and maybe even untrue, it's interesting that he feels more comfortable running that than handing the ball to Rice with Leach leading the way.

As much as I blame Cam, part of me wonders if Flacco is pressing to try and show everyone he can carry the team on his back. He has stated that he believes he is having his best season. While I think there is actually more truth in that claim than most people would agree with, I also know that there is some absurdity to it. (That could be another long post in and of itself). My point being that while we all wanted Cam to give Joe the reigns this year at times, maybe Cam has, and maybe it's Joe who is leaning on the passing game too much, anxious to prove a point. He's a more confident, stubborn guy than many people think. Don't let his goofy demeanor fool you.

[Shas]

Fantastic post Shas.

You just have to realize that most radio hosts are completely clueless and come into their shows completely unprepared with anything but the most basic of stats to back up their "argument". It would be too much work for them to actually go behind the stats and really analyze what is going on and why.

Thanks.

Really, though, I didn't mean my post to be a long slam of Bob and Rob. It was really just a jumping off place for me.

It's easy for me to wait in the bushes for weeks and then jump out and undress them when I hear a mistake worth posting about. Those guys have a lot of airtime to fill. There is going to be garbage. I'd rather weed through the garbage than not listen at all. But I understand why you find it all tiresome.

Regardless, I do think they are encouraged to make outlandish statements in order to stir people to call and talk about their show. It works. I posted about it. We're talking about it.l

We all hate Skip Bayliss, the primo example of a broadcaster spewing bullshit just to see how we react.

I'll take the bullshit and put it on myself to think my way through to the truth, even if I never call the shows.

[JStruds]

I'd also have to think back to how effectively the Ravens had been running the ball against whatever front Seattle had been giving them prior to leaning on the passing game. Sometimes you have to credit the defense for forcing your team to get away from what it came into the game wanting to do.

I'm sure Cam and Harbaugh would argue that they wanted to get a quick score in that Seattle game to make it a reasonable 10-7 contest so they could then get back to the run. Best laid plans, right?

Funny, I heard Flacco say that he does think that they are at their best when they spread it out in the two minute offense. While that's arguable, and maybe even untrue, it's interesting that he feels more comfortable running that than handing the ball to Rice with Leach leading the way.

IIRC (don't bet on it) we had 55 yards rushing in the 1st quarter against Seattle. Given my memory, that could have been a completely different game.

I think Joe has a point about the spread/two minute offense, and I'm surprised it hasn't been used from time-to-time just to change the rhythm (or lack thereof) of the offense.

The correct offense is not always determined before a game begins; as you noted, sometimes circumstances and the other team dictate that something else must be tried. The ability of coaches and players to recognize the need for and execute these changes has not been a Ravens' strong point this season.

Maybe Flacco is trying too hard. Multiple drops and a greatly increased number of long passes have lowered his numbers, but he has improved his pocket awareness, if not his ball security. So, everything is not worse; still this will only be his best season if he finishes off strong.

[Haloti92]

Another serious counterpoint to the issue of whether we pass 'too much,' though not really a counterpoint to the claim that stats can be deceiving or that radio hosts can be clueless, is that GB is not the team to compare ourselves to AT ALL. They are an entirely different animal. We have an elite RB, they don't. They have an elite QB, we don't. Long's argument, without using GB as the comparison, is that we should rely on our RB more and our QB less. This sounds sensible. But a GB comparison is not the way to prove your point. They are anomalous for the reasons shas stated. They score in fewer but longer plays, they face way less 3rd downs than most teams, and they are ahead earlier and by more than most teams; all of which skews their play selection to the point of making them discardable.

To mitigate the effect of 'winning' and running, and losing and passing. Let's compare ourselves to teams with very winning (10+ wins) records in terms of pass attempts. GB, NO, NE, SF, Pitt, Houston, Detroit. We have had 525 att, ranking us at 13.

GB (508 attempts, ranks 18th), NO (624 att, ranks 1st), NE (576 att, ranks 3rd), SF (420 att, ranks 31st), Pitt (499 att, ranks 19th), Houston (435 att, ranks 29th), Detroit (607, ranks 2nd).

Out of those teams, in terms of defense, RB quality, and QB quality, I would argue we are closer to Hou, SF and perhaps even Pitt (though they get edge in QB and we in RB). Yet we pass a decent amount more than all of them. Detroit is a domer that has dubious running options, an elite WR and, this year, near-elite QB play (Stafford, 96.6 rating, 4500 yds, 36 TDs). NE, NO, and the anomalous GB all have elite QBs and way less quality at RB.

So GB was not the team to reach for to make the point, but I don't think Long's suggestion (that we should run more and pass less) is belied when we compare ourselves to the SFs, and Houstons of the league; teams that ride their elite-RB and do not over-use their average QBs.

Of course, our elite RB is a better pass-catcher, so that negates some of Long's point and bolsters the defense of Cam's calls. But still, I don't think the stats 'prove' that we really are not throwing more than we should. And of course, there is the issue of whether Flacco is playing better than Alex Smith and the Houston QB tandem (with and without Andre), which also would argue for or warrant more attempts than them.

[festivus]

Funny, I heard Flacco say that he does think that they are at their best when they spread it out in the two minute offense. While that's arguable, and maybe even untrue, it's interesting that he feels more comfortable running that than handing the ball to Rice with Leach leading the way.

He's the quarterback. He's supposed to want the ball in his hands. I wouldn't expect anything different, from *any* QB.

As I read through this thread I see it's grist for everybody's mill: Basically none of us wants to be bothered by stats (Completion percentage? Win/loss record? Who cares, I know what I know; don't bother me with numbers.), so it's good news for everybody. Not how you intended it at all, Shas, but it's interesting to see it begin to shake out that way.

[Ravenswintitle]

Great thread and I still maintain that you pass to score and run to win. Every game has it's own ebb and flow as every season does; but overall many of the pass heavy games were predicated on other situations causing the Ravens to nearly abandon the run. I also believe Harbaugh has a strong influence in the offensive philosophy and that it's not solely Cam or Joe's decision. Lastly, Joe has the option to check out of a run to pass or vise versa but that never seems to be taken into consideration, it's always a Cam bashing party.

It's easy to second guess play selection after a game and say wrong decisions were made based on the outcome. If those plays had worked, it would've been the right call. Our personnel on offense, reads, and the defense making a play against them all are factors.

[52decleetzu]

Thanks.

Really, though, I didn't mean my post to be a long slam of Bob and Rob. It was really just a jumping off place for me.

It's easy for me to wait in the bushes for weeks and then jump out and undress them when I hear a mistake worth posting about. Those guys have a lot of airtime to fill. There is going to be garbage. I'd rather weed through the garbage than not listen at all. But I understand why you find it all tiresome.

Regardless, I do think they are encouraged to make outlandish statements in order to stir people to call and talk about their show. It works. I posted about it. We're talking about it.l

We all hate Skip Bayliss, the primo example of a broadcaster spewing bullshit just to see how we react.



I'll take the bullshit and put it on myself to think my way through to the truth, even if I never call the shows.

Agreed.

But to the point of they have so much time to fill......they do nothing with it.
I wouldn't include Bob either. He doesn't try to throw stuff out there if he doesn't have a good reason for doing so. And he doesn't try to pretend he knows what he is talking about if he doesn't.

Don't get me started on Bayless. There has been no bigger embarrassment to the profession of journalism than that idiot. Thank ESPN and their obsession with ratings and Money for that one.

[lobachevsky]

Superb work, Shas. By day I work as a statistician for a small research organization, & this post is a great example of digging deeper into the numbers to get closer to the truth.

There have been articles in the literature from time to time that illustrate the danger of chasing statistics for answers without a basic understanding of what is going on in the process in question. (My personal favorite is from 44 years ago this month: "Derivation of theory by means of factor analysis or Tom Swift and his electric factor analysis machine".)

"Ignoring statistics" is stupid; you're probably safer ignoring anyone who tells you to ignore statistics. But you should also be cautious in their use & interpretation. A few truisms from my field that folks ought to keep in mind:

• Correlation is not causation
• Data is not the plural of anecdote
• Chance is lumpy

And from the wider world--

• Figures never lie, but liars sure can figure
• The second best way to lie is to tell the truth, but not all of it (R. A. Heinlein)

Re comparing offenses: The divide between "elite QB, so-so RB" and "elite RB, so-so QB" is probably valid but as Haloti92 points out, R2 is a heckuva weapon in the passing game. Most teams use passes to RBs (screens & dumpoffs) as extensions of the running game. I conjecture that treating all plays where the ball ends up in a RBs hand as if they were runs would yield a clearer idea of what the offense is about. And in that case, I would also conjecture that the Ravens' offense is somewhat less out of balance than it appears at first glance.

[Greg]

Damning on the surface. But of course it glosses over the fact that the Ravens found themselves in the second halves of those games down at least two scores because of turnovers and bad defensive play. So while Cam may not have been brilliant, he wasn't turning the ball over nor was he responsible for allowing the opponent to score.

I agree that the score can require you to throw more, but the problem is he falls into a pass happy offense too quickly and down just a score or two. If we are down two scores in the last 10 minutes, fine. But he drops the run game early in the 3rd quarter or even earlier at times when there is plenty of time to score enough to catch up even with a run heavy style.

With our defense we should, even if down 10-14 points, be able to hold them and have the offense running its normal run first scheme catch up if we haven't reached the 4th quarter yet.