Ravens Win Battle on OL, but Lose War

Filmstudy Ravens Win Battle on OL, but Lose War

Posted in Filmstudy
Print this article

Each of the offensive linemen played all 63 snaps (excludes penalties).

Monroe: The Ravens would benefit greatly if Eugene could find his form from last season. He played another clunker and fell victim to Freeney’s spin move twice (Q1, 10:53 and Q2, 2:00). He was also beaten by Ingram for the Chargers’ only knockdown of Flacco (Q3, 10:05). His illegal use of hands flag negated a 1st down at the 5 (Q2, 2:28) and the Ravens stalled and settled for a FG.

Scoring: 63 plays, 53 blocks, 5 missed, 1/2 penetration, 2.5 pressures, 1 QH, 1 illegal use of hands, 38 points (.60 per play). D.

Osemele: With one exception, Kelechi had a highlight-reel game. His ineligible man downfield flag negated a 31-yard catch and run by Gillmore. Otherwise, he had 6 starred blocks, 11 blocks in level 2, and 2 pancakes. Unlike in New Orleans, the gains on his starred blocks were just 6, 8, 4, 2, 14, and 5 yards.

Scoring: 63 plays, 60 blocks, 2 missed, 1/2 pressure, 1 illegal man downfield, 56 points (.89 per play). I adjusted him by .05 for quality of competition (low) and 2 star blocks above the threshold of 4. A.

Zuttah: Zuttah had some good plays, but had difficulty maintaining his ground. Let’s start with the good. He had 4 blocks in level 2. Among 3 star blocks, he drove NT Lissemore back 6-7 yards with a small assist from Yanda as Forsett ran right for 23 yards (Q2, 5:02). He had 3 run-blocking misses where he was driven into the backfield, or allowed penetration that did not result in a loss. He was driven back by Liuget (Q3, 1:06) who took down Forsett for a loss of 1. He was bulled by Lissemore for a pressure (Q1, 0:14) and failed to pick up Attaochu’s stunt just 2 plays later (Q2, 15:00) for another pressure. That’s simply too much penetration allowed by a center. While it wasn’t the deciding factor in this game, it might be in another.

Scoring: 63 plays, 55 blocks, 4 missed, 1.5 penetrations, 2 pressures, 48 points (.76 per play). With an adjustment of .04 for opponent quality, that’s a D. He appeared to be limping at one point. The next man up would be Urschel if he misses time at some point this season. Is there any logical reason why Gradkowski is still a Raven?

Yanda: Marshal returned to form after his mediocre showing against the Saints. He had 7 blocks in level 2, 2 pancakes, and 6 star blocks. His only star block that coincided with a big run came when he got pieces of 3 blocks (Palepoi pinned for Wagner, Lissemore pinned for Zuttah, and Connor driven straight back in level 2) to lead Forsett’s 23-yard run right (Q2, 5:02).

Scoring: 63 plays, 61 blocks, 1 missed, 1 pressure, 59 points (.94 per play). That’s .99 adjusted which is his 7th A grade in 12 games.

Wagner: Ricky had another outstanding game versus a variety of less-than-stellar players. I scored him as making every other block including 4 in level 2, 1 successful pull, and 2 star blocks. He gave up a full pressure each to Ingram (Q1, 10:58) and Mathews (Q3, 0:28). He had 6 blocks in level 2, 2 pancakes, and had 3 star blocks. The Ravens only gained 2 yards total on his 3 star run blocks, but a lineman who consistently delivers on his individual assignments will (much more often than not) provide above average YPC.

Scoring: 63 plays, 57 blocks, 3 missed, 2.5 pressures, 52 points, (.86 per play). The raw score is tied for his 2nd highest of the season, and with adjustment, that’s another A.

Flacco had ample time and space (ATS) on 16 of 31 drop backs (52%). The OL didn’t fail him that frequently, but he had several times where the ball needed to come out quickly on screens, where the Chargers sent an overload, or where one of the eligible receivers missed their block. Summarized:

Screen Shot 2014-12-01 at 9.25.24 AM


Summarizing the results relative to expectation:

Screen Shot 2014-12-01 at 9.25.31 AM

Any time Joe is 35 yards of expectation better than his 2010-13 results, I’ll take it, but there were no sacks or turnovers which contributed to a high 3rd down conversion rate (7/12, 58%). Unfortunately, the Chargers converted 9/11 (82%). Some factors that affected the yards versus expectation significantly (positively or negatively):

  • Long-distance drops by Aiken and Steve Smith
  • Fine catches by Marlon Brown and Torrey Smith on the first drive
  • Negation of a 31-yard play when Osemele was flagged for ineligible man downfield
  • Consistent biting on play action from the Chargers who gave significant time for naked boots to develop.

In addition to his yardage, Joe engineered 3 big pass interference calls on the Chargers. Unfortunately, the first (Q2, 6:11) was marked at the 6 when it occurred in the end zone and that ended up costing the Ravens 4 points.

Facebook Comments
Share This  
Ken McKusick

About Ken McKusick

Known as “Filmstudy” from his handle on area message boards, Ken is a lifelong Baltimorean and rabid fan of Baltimore sports. He grew up within walking distance of Memorial Stadium and attended all but a handful of Orioles games from 1979 through 2001. He got his start in sports modeling with baseball in the mid 1980’s. He began writing about the Ravens in 2006 and maintains a library of video for every game the team has played. He’s a graduate of Syracuse with degrees in Broadcast Journalism and Math who recently retired from his actuarial career to pursue his passion as a football analyst full time.

If you have math or modeling questions related to sports or gambling, Ken is always interested in hearing new problems or ideas.

He can be reached by email at [email protected] or followed on Twitter @filmstudyravens.

More from Ken McKusick


Your browser is out-of-date!

Update your browser to view this website correctly.

Get More Information