Bigger Impact: No Rice or No Suggs?

**lovefootball** · 05-04-2012, 07:17 PM

With both out, Ravens get to begin a new chapter for the team. We get to see how Harbaugh and company do with getting other players to step up. Granted Suggs was DPOY and was awesome against most teams, both he gave away all his moves and potential to the above average teams(Patriots) in 2012. After the Pats knew what he could do, they handled him easily in 2012. I say someone comes thru and begins a new phase for offense and defense. No need to worry about players like Suggs and Rice, a new player will make the plays necessary to get wins. It will make it harder for opposing teams to plan against players that they have no film on. Next man up is the Ravens motto.

**steelerhater** · 05-04-2012, 11:09 PM

Definitely Suggs. As good as Ray Rice is, our offense is limited by the moron we have calling the plays. The Ravens braintrust is ok with a very mediocre offense, as they count on the defense to win games for us. Losing Suggs hurts our defense and, by extension, our chances of winning.

**steelerhater** · 05-04-2012, 11:15 PM

Originally Posted by pslholder96

It could be the other way around though. Ray Rice's absence could force Cam to "unleash" Joe and tap into his potential. You know and I know in some way, shape or form Cam's schemes and lack of creatively is holding Joe back somewhat. The silver lining in all this is to see if Joe is really capable of taking his game to the next level and only RR's absence would force Cam's hand and acclerate that opportunity.

It wouldn't force Cam's hand at all. He does what he wants and has absolutely no culpability in the offense failing.

**blacknpurplepain** · 05-05-2012, 07:30 AM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

That's not what he's saying at all. Not even close. He's not talking about ONE player who could come in and replicate Rice's production. What he's saying is that it may take 2 running backs to equate to what Rice has done, but it isn't as far-fetched as you may think.

Take the Packers for example. In 09, Ryan Grant had over 1200 yards and 11 TD's for the Pack. That was a hell of a season and he looked as good as any back did. The next year Grant got hurt and they went RB by committee (Brandon Jackson, John Juhn, & James Starks) and came within about 150 yards of duplicating Grant's season and won the Super Bowl. Last year, with Grant still on the team, they went RB by committee again.

Now, I'm not saying that the Ravens offense is anywhere near Green Bay's nor am I saying that Flacco is anything close to Rodgers. What I am saying is that as dynamic as Rice is, to think that a RB by committee approach can't produce enough for the Ravens to still maintain success isn't necessarily true.

If RR was just a running threat I would buy into this. I am sure you can replace RR rushing numbers with 2 backs but last I checked he lead the team in catches and 3rd in receiving yards. Just bc RR is not getting the ball doesn't mean the defense is not planning for him which give other players 1 on 1 opportunities. IMO the team suffers more without RR. Suggs is a hell of a player too but I think the defense won't drop off as much.

**Corey** · 05-05-2012, 08:06 AM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

That would be a tough call.

Both are incredible impact players for their respective units. Over the course of the last two seasons Rice has contributed or been a part of over 30% of the offensive production. For 1 player, that is A LOT.

However, I think the offense can still function without Rice. It won't look the same, but I think the offense could still function without him. If I had any faith that Cam Cameron could call a consistent game I would have no problem saying missing Suggs would be a significantly bigger loss than missing Rice, but Cam is as big of a question mark on this team as any, so that's why it would be a tough choice for me. The reason why I voted for Suggs over Rice though is because even with Rice and the OL not playing well and rendered ineffective in the playoffs, Flacco still was able to put the team on his shoulders and make plays. Flacco has the ability to take over a game.

That said, Rice is going to sign his franchise tender, suck it up, and play this year and continue negotiating, or accept the contract offer that they've already made him (which according to Tony is right on par with what Arian Foster's deal was in Houston). So, Rice will be a part of the team all season long.

The offense probably could function without Rice. But I'd argue the defense would function at a much higher level without Suggs than the offense could without Rice. The defense just has a much better track record of producing regardless of who is out there. We've had future hall of famers miss games and the defense didn't miss a beat plugging in largely unknown players. Hell, we've been without Suggs and the defense didn't miss a beat.

I don't want to see a Ravens offense without a great running back. The Ravens track record in none J. Lewis or RR years is not very good.

**Terpsfan82** · 05-05-2012, 08:33 AM

Originally Posted by Corey

The offense probably could function without Rice. But I'd argue the defense would function at a much higher level without Suggs than the offense could without Rice. The defense just has a much better track record of producing regardless of who is out there. We've had future hall of famers miss games and the defense didn't miss a beat plugging in largely unknown players. Hell, we've been without Suggs and the defense didn't miss a beat.

I don't want to see a Ravens offense without a great running back. The Ravens track record in none J. Lewis or RR years is not very good.

This. Not to mention the coaches on the defensive side of the ball seem to have a better grasp of how to handle personnel than their offensive counterparts.