Ravens road woes on offense should be blamed on Harbaugh

[PerpetuallyBored74]

Thanks for posting this.

Dickson is not a 100% guarantee.

Tony - if it were Pitta or Boldin, he may have thrown it.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Forum Runner

This.

If Dickson drops it, and with him that seems to happen about 1 out of 4 or 5 times, then no 1st down and the clock gets stopped because of the incomplete pass.

3rd and 2 in that situation, trying to take time off the clock and everything, you have to run it.
Or call for a deliberate sack I guess.

Didn't even know that was in our playbook...jeez.

[Haloti92]

If Dickson drops it, and with him that seems to happen about 1 out of 4 or 5 times, then no 1st down and the clock gets stopped because of the incomplete pass.

Even if Dickson drops it 1 out of 4 or 5 times, who cares? People are talking about this as if a drop means we lose. A drop means Leftwich and Co. have an extra 35 seconds to tie (or longer shot win) the game. What exactly do those 35 seconds do to their odds of tying (or winning)? Obviously the odds go up, but it absolutely matters how much and from where to where.

And the other 3 of 4 or 4 of 5 times Dickson catches it the game is 100% over with us winning. This is another example where people are not really looking at the math and are overstating the risks and understating/ignoring the rewards.

That said, I would have run the ball. Because a) you can pick up the first running it as well, and b) throwing it while simulataneously giving your QB the "play it safe, don't throw an incompletion" almost assures a sack and no first down (as we saw).

[PerpetuallyBored74]

So, you would've wanted Joe to throw it to Dickson?

Keep in mind, that running the ball is not an option since Cam/Harbs had decided that it wasn't.

So, it's either throw it or take the sack.

[wickedsolo]

Significantly different situations wouldn't you say?

PP

Absolutely. Not saying it isnt or wasnt. Im just pointing out that I think the whole "they dont trust Flacco" argument isnt 100% accurate.

I think Boulder nailed it. Harbs philosophy is ball control/conservative play on the road. They are 3-2 with a decent Redskins game and a Cinci game still on the road. Even if they lose those and win out at home that is still a 12-4 record and a playoff birth. May not he homefield advantage, but you gotta get there first, right?

Sent from my DROID X2 using Forum Runner

[wickedsolo]

Even if Dickson drops it 1 out of 4 or 5 times, who cares? People are talking about this as if a drop means we lose. A drop means Leftwich and Co. have an extra 35 seconds to tie (or longer shot win) the game. What exactly do those 35 seconds do to their odds of tying (or winning)? Obviously the odds go up, but it absolutely matters how much and from where to where.

And the other 3 of 4 or 4 of 5 times Dickson catches it the game is 100% over with us winning. This is another example where people are not really looking at the math and are overstating the risks and understating/ignoring the rewards.

That said, I would have run the ball. Because a) you can pick up the first running it as well, and b) throwing it while simulataneously giving your QB the "play it safe, don't throw an incompletion" almost assures a sack and no first down (as we saw).

I agree that running the rock should have been the call there. Even if Flacco - supposedly - wanted to pass it there, Cam should have said no and put in Pierce. At least then you're still keeping the clock moving and it isn't letting your QB take an unnecessary hit.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Forum Runner

[wickedsolo]

I tend to agree although we'll never know for sure.

I thought the call to pass the ball at all was stupid, but I guess they thought the Steelers were selling out for the run and wouldn't be able to get the first down as success with the run the whole night was very limited at best. More like pathetic.

Whole point being was the most important thing to do there was run off clock and not surrender field position or God forbid the ball.

Freak stuff seems to happen with us against the Steelers at the worst times... I.E.- The Rice fumble, the Palomano sack, etc.

I don't think Flacco trusts Dickson the way he does Pitta.

Any kind of deflection for an Int. would have been possibly devestating.
An incomplete pass stops the clock giving them more time on offense.

Taking the sack was essentially the same thing as running the ball and not getting the 1st down.

I think if the Steelers would have had timeouts the situation would have been different making getting the 1st down much more essential possibly changing the way the play was approached and forcing us to play to win rather then not to lose.

I dont know this for sure, but I can tell you from my experiences that if you drop critical passes, you wont get many looks again.

No one here could legitimately argue that Flacco trusts Dickson as much as he does Pitta.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Forum Runner

[Haloti92]

So, you would've wanted Joe to throw it to Dickson?

Keep in mind, that running the ball is not an option since Cam/Harbs had decided that it wasn't.

So, it's either throw it or take the sack.

I don't exactly recall how close the closest defender was, but if he was open at all, then yeah I think we should have thrown it, though with Leftwich's ineptitude the odds are probably close either way (like the difference of winning 94% of the time and 95% of the time). A catch wins the game; a drop doesn't lose the game, in fact it likely only marginally reduces our chances of losing the game (giving them 35 extra seconds to score).

Play with the numbers (percentages) and see whether it makes sense to actually throw it (assuming you are hell bent to drop back to pass, which is clearly debatable).

It isn't like either decision, to take sack or throw it is clearly better unless your odds of completing are lower than average (no one is open) or way higher than average or your odds of throwing an INT is significant (no one is open).

I would have preferred we just run it. But the decision to throw it after dropping back is debatable and which option is preferable entirely depends on the chances of a) us completing it, b) Leftwich driving for FG with 1:45 left, and c) Leftwich driving for FG with 1:05 left. The smaller odds of them scoring a TD, us fumbling on the sack, us throwing an INT, us getting a punt blocked or them returning a punt for a TD, etc, etc are so small as to be basically negligible (at least for discussion purposes).

If we assume that we win an OT game 50% of the time (for sake of argument, but obviously this can be changed easily).

And percentage Leftwich ties game with 1:45 left is X
And percentage Leftwich ties game with 1:05 left is Y
And percentage we complete the first down pass to Dickson is Z

then

Odds we win if we throw it are: Z + (1-Z)*(.5X + (1-X)) or Z + (1-Z)*(1-.5X)
Odds we win if we take sack are: (1-Y) + (.5Y) or 1-.5Y

One thing you can see is that if you assign us a 50% chance of completing the pass, then the odds of throwing vs. not throwing are equal only when Leftwich's odds of tying it with the extra 35-40 seconds is exactly double his odds of tying with the 1:05. If Z = 50% then first equation simplifies to 1-.25X, while the second equation is 1-.5Y. If Leftwich less than doubles his chances with the extra time then it is better to throw it; if he more than doubles his chances then better to eat sack (assuming the 50/50 chance of completion).


Of course they very well might be double if you start to look at how low they are in either case, i.e. 10% vs. 5% or even 4% vs 2%. And clearly our odds of completing the ball may be less than or greater than 50%. Obviously the lower it is the more favorable it is to take the sack, and vice versa.

So back to the question, lol....I would have to check out the replay to see how open he was to see how likely it would have been to be completed. And in either case I think we are comparing very close and very high percentage chances in either case.

[bacchys]

What if Cam is trying to cover up Flacco's faults... Its just too easy to Keep blaming cam alone.. look at your
Qb body language when things are going bad.. Flacco looks lost. He gets that deer in the head lights look and then
its over for the offence. Now dont get me wrong. Cam sucks big time, but what if we have a trifecta going on here.. Joe, Cam and Harbaugh...

Wow. One big pile of crap.

[PerpetuallyBored74]

I don't exactly recall how close the closest defender was, but if he was open at all, then yeah I think we should have thrown it, though with Leftwich's ineptitude the odds are probably close either way (like the difference of winning 94% of the time and 95% of the time). A catch wins the game; a drop doesn't lose the game, in fact it likely only marginally reduces our chances of losing the game (giving them 35 extra seconds to score).

Play with the numbers (percentages) and see whether it makes sense to actually throw it (assuming you are hell bent to drop back to pass, which is clearly debatable).

It isn't like either decision, to take sack or throw it is clearly better unless your odds of completing are lower than average (no one is open) or way higher than average or your odds of throwing an INT is significant (no one is open).

I would have preferred we just run it. But the decision to throw it after dropping back is debatable and which option is preferable entirely depends on the chances of a) us completing it, b) Leftwich driving for FG with 1:45 left, and c) Leftwich driving for FG with 1:05 left. The smaller odds of them scoring a TD, us fumbling on the sack, us throwing an INT, us getting a punt blocked or them returning a punt for a TD, etc, etc are so small as to be basically negligible (at least for discussion purposes).

If we assume that we win an OT game 50% of the time (for sake of argument, but obviously this can be changed easily).

And percentage Leftwich ties game with 1:45 left is X
And percentage Leftwich ties game with 1:05 left is Y
And percentage we complete the first down pass to Dickson is Z

then

Odds we win if we throw it are: Z + (1-Z)*(.5X + (1-X)) or Z + (1-Z)*(1-.5X)
Odds we win if we take sack are: (1-Y) + (.5Y) or 1-.5Y

One thing you can see is that if you assign us a 50% chance of completing the pass, then the odds of throwing vs. not throwing are equal only when Leftwich's odds of tying it with the extra 35-40 seconds is exactly double his odds of tying with the 1:05. If Z = 50% then first equation simplifies to 1-.25X, while the second equation is 1-.5Y. If Leftwich less than doubles his chances with the extra time then it is better to throw it; if he more than doubles his chances then better to eat sack (assuming the 50/50 chance of completion).


Of course they very well might be double if you start to look at how low they are in either case, i.e. 10% vs. 5% or even 4% vs 2%. And clearly our odds of completing the ball may be less than or greater than 50%. Obviously the lower it is the more favorable it is to take the sack, and vice versa.

So back to the question, lol....I would have to check out the replay to see how open he was to see how likely it would have been to be completed. And in either case I think we are comparing very close and very high percentage chances in either case.

I doubt anyone on the Ravens, including coaches knows of such formulas, let alone uses them.

Since the Steelers only needed a FG to tie, then those 35 seconds are actually very important, especially when you want to run a prevent D to keep Wallace from blowing right past your makeshift secondary.
You can't be certain that special teams keeps them pinned so deep by not allowing a better return on the punt.
And there's no way to know if Tomlin, realizing that Leftwich is hurt and can't make the throws like he normally does, wouldn't have gone with Batch who might have lit a spark under the Steelers O.
Or he might have stunk like a skunk coming into the game cold.
Too many unknowns to rely on any formula--that's probably what Cam and Harbs would tell you if you asked them.

Ultimately, I think Joe did what Joe always does: whatever he was told to do.

[StingerNLG]

This.

If Dickson drops it, and with him that seems to happen about 1 out of 4 or 5 times, then no 1st down and the clock gets stopped because of the incomplete pass.

3rd and 2 in that situation, trying to take time off the clock and everything, you have to run it.
Or call for a deliberate sack I guess.

Didn't even know that was in our playbook...jeez.

The difference between running the ball and taking the sack was probably 8-9 seconds off the clock.

Not sure why people aren't understanding that.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

[Haloti92]

I doubt anyone on the Ravens, including coaches knows of such formulas, let alone uses them.

Since the Steelers only needed a FG to tie, then those 35 seconds are actually very important, especially when you want to run a prevent D to keep Wallace from blowing right past your makeshift secondary.
You can't be certain that special teams keeps them pinned so deep by not allowing a better return on the punt.
And there's no way to know if Tomlin, realizing that Leftwich is hurt and can't make the throws like he normally does, wouldn't have gone with Batch who might have lit a spark under the Steelers O.
Or he might have stunk like a skunk coming into the game cold.
Too many unknowns to rely on any formula--that's probably what Cam and Harbs would tell you if you asked them.

Ultimately, I think Joe did what Joe always does: whatever he was told to do.

One doesn't need to strictly "rely" on the formula, but one absolutely has to recognize that the choice was not whether it is better to give the Steelers only 1:05 to score vs. 1:45 to score. That is obvious.

The choice is about whether the possible benefit of giving them NO time to score (kneeling it out after a firstdown) is greater than the possible risk of giving them the extra 40 seconds to score (incomplete pass and punt).

One doesn't need any formula to realize that this is the choice. One does not need to assign specific probabilities and get an "exact" estimate (oxymoron, I know). One can make that decision in very general terms or gut feelings.

And too often NFL coaches over-weight the risks of any possible decision and under-weight the rewards. This has been discussed before, but it is undeniable. It is also undeniable that the average fan does this as well. Looking at the math helps demonstrate this tendency. But in terms of this specific example, both choices are very similar and both choices left us with a great chance to win (making reasonable assumptions).

And I agree Joe did whatever he thought he was told to do. The question is what exactly he was told. Or even, what exactly does it mean (to the listener) when someone says, "we are going to look to pass, but only throw it if you are guaranteed to get the first down." Since the odds of completing the pass are not ever 100% (even if every Steeler defender dropped dead at the snap our Receiver could drop the ball), that directive essentially means always take the sack to the conservative listener that takes it literally and plays it safe. But I am sure that other QBs more prone to gamble or seek the limelight would interpret that as "I will throw it if someone is open." So to some degree I understand Tony's point/distinction, even if I do not in any way fault Flacco for refusing to throw it.

[wickedsolo]

The difference between running the ball and taking the sack was probably 8-9 seconds off the clock.

Not sure why people aren't understanding that.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

Good point Sting. Def didnt think about it like that.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Forum Runner

[Haloti92]

Good point Sting. Def didnt think about it like that.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Forum Runner

I am not sure about 8-9 seconds, but certainly a few seconds. How much longer does it take to run a draw from shotgun then wait to get sacked in shotgun; in both cases the ball carrier has to be tackled.

Of course we could have run towards the sideline for even more time killed, or even pitched it to the RB who ran around in the backfield.

I don't think it makes any sense to reduce your chances of getting a first down and ending the game to zero (essentially a delayed kneel down) just to burn a few extra seconds off the clock (designed sack vs. actual run that could lead to a first).

[Captain Silver]

I am not sure about 8-9 seconds, but certainly a few seconds. How much longer does it take to run a draw from shotgun then wait to get sacked in shotgun; in both cases the ball carrier has to be tackled.

Of course we could have run towards the sideline for even more time killed, or even pitched it to the RB who ran around in the backfield.

I don't think it makes any sense to reduce your chances of getting a first down and ending the game to zero (essentially a delayed kneel down) just to burn a few extra seconds off the clock (designed sack vs. actual run that could lead to a first).

Because people are apologists, plain and simple. What you said makes 100% football sense in every sense of the word. WWPD - What would Parcells do? Ask yourself that. In that given situation, he would have done as you described.

Any other attempt is foolish; to defend it simply reeks of purple shades.

[BigPlayReceiver]

I agree with the OP and I don't understand how Tony's point has been so widely confused here.
The discussion deserve a better thread IMO...one that is devoid of sarcasm and speculation.
Still, I'm looking forward to the comments after the SD game today

[HoustonRaven]

The ROAD WOES is way exaggerated. They are 3-2 and should be 4-1 if not for A BOGUS PI call On Jocoby Jones. Old saying is play .500 on the road and clean up at home. If they beat SD on Sunday they go 4-2 with 2 game remaining @WASH and @Cincy. They do seem to play more conservative on the road, not to turn it over IMO. This might be due to basically 2 rookies on the oline. They seem to try NOT to lose on the road more than at home. If it was for a horrible officials call @philly this thread wouldnt exist.

Hmmmm

[houstonravensfan]

Tony said:

"The blame isn’t all on Flacco. Cam Cameron AND John Harbaugh must accept some of the blame as well. Some might argue, and count me among them, that the coaches are more to blame than Joe.

The finger pointing often starts with Cameron. But hasn’t this gone on long enough? If it’s obvious to you and to me that the play calling is obsolete, at some point isn’t this on Harbaugh? If Cameron’s game planning is all on him and you see that your offense can’t get out of its own way on the road, wouldn’t a good head coach want to know what is going on?"

Great observation.

When I see an idiot at work (they're everywhere), I don't blame the idiot -- I blame the manager(s) who hired him.

IF Cam really is the main problem, then Harbs is more aware of that fact than we are. And IF Harbs agrees with most of us, then Harbs is the cause of the problem.

Options:
Cam is doing what Harbs wants him to do. Then Harbs is responsible for this uneven offensive performance.
Cam is NOT doing what Harbs wants him to do. Then Harbs is too weak to get him in line (?)