Photo

Yahoo Sports previews Ravens


  • Please log in to reply
92 replies to this topic

#81 bmore_ken

bmore_ken

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,103 posts

Posted 18 July 2019 - 07:20 AM

Overall health obviously huge.

Defense staying off the field for longer stretches would logically help keep them fresher (as well as reduce their snap count and thus chances of injury).

Know if Im going to argue that, the inverse is true for the offense.

Health is always the X factor in any team's season. I don't think anyone is taking away from what the defense was last year. But to give them sole credit and ignore LJ's almost 700 yards rushing and 11 combined TDs is just silly imo.



#82 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 83,663 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 18 July 2019 - 07:35 AM

Health is always the X factor in any team's season. I don't think anyone is taking away from what the defense was last year. But to give them sole credit and ignore LJ's almost 700 yards rushing and 11 combined TDs is just silly imo.


No one is. But the idiotic masses blamed Joe for the 4-5 start especially the 3 straight losses.

Joe actually played well in 2 of those losses and the saints game really stands out as a game you don’t lose if you are healthy.

If they are 5-4 or 6-3 instead of 4-5, the outlook on everything is much different, as well as the perception of Joe and how the season was going.

But people pointing to just the record of the team with Lamar compared to it with Joe are doing it with very little context. There was a lot going against Joe and going for Lamar...and the 3 biggest things were health, schedule and just being fresh. Joe had all of that against him and Lamar had all of it for him.

Those things continue to be ignored. And NONE of that has anything to do with any evaluation of Lamar. You and a few others turn that stuff into people bashing Lamar and that’s just dumb. It’s just pointing out facts that Joe played harder teams and the Ravens were missing some key guys (Stanley and Humphrey being the 2 primary guys) in their losses and Lamar didn’t have to deal with that. That’s not something he did. That’s luck. Just as it would have been lucky for Joe had he not had those injuries and had Lamar had them.

And btw, if Lamar did have to deal with those injuries, those of you putting him on a pedestal would be rushing to say yea but he was without Stanley, so he was running for his life!
  • BSLGabeFerguson likes this
@BSLRobShields

#83 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 41,310 posts

Posted 18 July 2019 - 07:53 AM

Overall health obviously huge.

Defense staying off the field for longer stretches would logically help keep them fresher (as well as reduce their snap count and thus chances of injury).

Know if Im going to argue that, the inverse is true for the offense.

 

This is a good point.  Snap count as it relates to chances of injury seems like an absolutely valid argument to me.  More time per play (running the ball, using all the play clock) means not only fewer drives but fewer plays.  Very well could be a reduced risk of injury for both sides of the ball.

 

I'll continue to argue that I don't think an increased amount of rest due to the offense having a long drive improves the actual quality of the defensive play.  But I do think what you've stated here is a likely theory.  Of course, I also would've thought that a rested defense plays better than a non-rested or tired defense was a good theory, and that's been shown at least preliminarily to not be the case.



#84 85Knight

85Knight
  • Members
  • 389 posts

Posted 19 July 2019 - 06:47 AM

Nobody has said it is not better to possess the ball longer than the other team.

The entire article and all of my recent posting was about whether a "rested" defense performs better (allowing fewer points on average per drive) than a "tired" defense. While it would seem that this would be the case, the numbers which represent the actual results seen during hundreds or thousands of games did not bear that out.

The belief that a defense plays better because the offense held the ball does not appear to be true based on actually looking at all the numbers from all the drives. That's the entirety of the claim. Nothing beyond that.

There is no argument being made that there are not other benefits to a team for the offense being able to control the clock. Just don't say that running the ball and Lamar's offense gave the defense tons of rest and that rest is why the defense played better when he was out there. The added rest very likely was a nonfactor in the defensive performance.


I read that study and I still don't agree with it because I don't see how you can use actual games to make that case. The opposing offense is on the field for every snap the defense is and it's getting "tired" too. So it's understandable that the rest factor becomes negligible as the game goes on. To really set up a test like that you'd have to have a defense at the end of the game face the same offense it was playing at the start of game.

That's probably the main reason the data shakes out the way it does but when an offense is physically pounding a defense over a long period, especially running the ball, it has to take more of a toll on the defense later in the game. For this reason I believe coaches and players when they say the defense was "gassed" at the end of the game.

#85 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 83,663 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 22 July 2019 - 10:52 AM

https://www.espn.com...ings-happen#bal
@BSLRobShields

#86 BSLGabeFerguson

BSLGabeFerguson

    Ravens Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,158 posts
  • LocationCity of Angels

Posted 22 July 2019 - 11:29 AM

https://www.espn.com...ings-happen#bal

I would expect Jackson to fall back to around 10 carries per game in 2019. 

10 carries/game is what I would expect as well...significant drop off from the 17 per in 2018


@gabefergy

#87 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 83,663 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 22 July 2019 - 01:48 PM

https://theathletic....tiers-rankings/

 

 

Tier 4

A Tier 4 quarterback could be an unproven player with some upside or a veteran who is ultimately best suited as a backup.

TIER_4_Jackson.jpg

Tier 2 votes: 1 | Tier 3 votes: 18 | Tier 4 votes: 34 | Tier 5 votes: 2

There are two kinds of Tier 4 quarterbacks: the veteran who ideally would not start all 16 games in a season (think Ryan Fitzpatrick), and the young player for which there simply is not enough evidence to make an evaluation (think Mahomes one year ago, when his résumé consisted of one start in a meaningless 2017 Week 17 game).

Jackson fits into the not-enough-evidence category. However, unlike with Mahomes last summer, a sizeable chunk of voters questioned whether Jackson could become a polished-enough passer for the Ravens to become contenders in the absence of a dominant defense and strong rushing attack. Some feared injuries would derail Jackson in the long term.

“I like Jackson,” a head coach said. “They built the offense around him, and he threw the ball a little better than they anticipated. There is a skill set to build around, and then he just needs to work really hard on the other stuff — sort of the way Alex Smith did in Kansas City when he became a much better deep passer.”

An offensive coordinator whose team faced Baltimore called Jackson a better runner than Colin Kaepernick but not nearly as good as a passer. Both quarterbacks had Greg Roman as their offensive coordinator, which voters thought was a good thing for Jackson. Coaches lauded Baltimore for completely changing its offensive style during the 2018 season to facilitate the change from Flacco to Jackson.

“My concern for Jackson is he was knocked out of games, playing only the last eight,” an evaluator said. “Still, I gave him a 3 instead of a 4 because he knows what he needs to work on. He said he needs to get better with his accuracy and seeing it quicker. It will be interesting to see if he can.”

One of the two voters who placed Jackson in the fifth tier called him a system-based quarterback in a system in which quarterbacks do not last long.

“I was high on Lamar coming out,” a personnel director said. “I think he’s a winner; he has the ‘it’ factor. It does not always show with his passing accuracy, but guys like Lamar who have the ability to electrify and bring their teammates together — that is a pretty cool deal.”


@BSLRobShields

#88 BSLSeanJester

BSLSeanJester

    Restaurant / Travel Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,372 posts

Posted 22 July 2019 - 06:26 PM

That one evaluator does know that Lamar started the last 8 games because he wasn’t the starter for the first 9 games, right?
  • jkough1 and bmore_ken like this

I never had friends later on like the ones I had when I was twelve. Jesus, does anyone?


#89 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 41,310 posts

Posted 22 July 2019 - 07:44 PM


That one evaluator does know that Lamar started the last 8 games because he wasn’t the starter for the first 9 games, right?


I think he meant it as in "he was knocked out of games during his stretch as a starter even though he only started the second half and didn't have any wear and tear before that." Insinuating that if he started all season, that problem would only grow.

#90 jkough1

jkough1

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,426 posts

Posted 22 July 2019 - 08:00 PM

I think he meant it as in "he was knocked out of games during his stretch as a starter even though he only started the second half and didn't have any wear and tear before that." Insinuating that if he started all season, that problem would only grow.

 

I'm trying to remember, he came back and played in both of the games he got "knocked out" of? I wonder if that matters. Though getting dinged up does matter. So not completely ruling this out. But it didn't feel like he was that risky health wise over the 8 he played. 



#91 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 41,310 posts

Posted 22 July 2019 - 08:14 PM


I'm trying to remember, he came back and played in both of the games he got "knocked out" of? I wonder if that matters. Though getting dinged up does matter. So not completely ruling this out. But it didn't feel like he was that risky health wise over the 8 he played.

Maybe I interpreted the comment this way because I know that Lamar returned, but I also thought he meant knocked out to include missing plays rather than just that he couldn't return. Maybe I'm giving too much benefit of the doubt to the nameless source here.

I'm worried about Lamar's health more than your average QB, but not so much as any of the guys who've proven to be injury prone. I think we're just gonna have to live with the occasional hard hit and hope that he can get back up. Certainly don't doubt the toughness.
  • bmore_ken likes this

#92 jkough1

jkough1

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,426 posts

Posted 23 July 2019 - 09:37 AM

Maybe I interpreted the comment this way because I know that Lamar returned, but I also thought he meant knocked out to include missing plays rather than just that he couldn't return. Maybe I'm giving too much benefit of the doubt to the nameless source here.

I'm worried about Lamar's health more than your average QB, but not so much as any of the guys who've proven to be injury prone. I think we're just gonna have to live with the occasional hard hit and hope that he can get back up. Certainly don't doubt the toughness.

 

There were also times Joe didn't come out, but for all intent and purposes he was "out". It was run run run, 3 straight plays for multiple drives. His role was just limited in terms of what it brought to the scheme that there wasn't as much value in bringing him out. 

 

So I don't know that I'm ready to call him more injury prone yet (he very well could be), but I would be willing to say him coming out has a higher impact on the offense overall. 

 

One was a concussion related issue on the goal line, right? So he had to go through protocol. Was the other hand? I don't remember him missing more than a drive on either though. Plus having a backup like RG3 who can come in, also lets you do that if needed. 

 

I'd agree with anyone that says he takes more hits overall though. And don't think you can disagree with the notion that you have to worry about his health more than a typical pocket QB. 



#93 russsnyder

russsnyder

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,232 posts

Posted 23 July 2019 - 12:44 PM

There were also times Joe didn't come out, but for all intent and purposes he was "out". It was run run run, 3 straight plays for multiple drives. His role was just limited in terms of what it brought to the scheme that there wasn't as much value in bringing him out. 

 

So I don't know that I'm ready to call him more injury prone yet (he very well could be), but I would be willing to say him coming out has a higher impact on the offense overall. 

 

One was a concussion related issue on the goal line, right? So he had to go through protocol. Was the other hand? I don't remember him missing more than a drive on either though. Plus having a backup like RG3 who can come in, also lets you do that if needed. 

 

I'd agree with anyone that says he takes more hits overall though. And don't think you can disagree with the notion that you have to worry about his health more than a typical pocket QB. 

 

    Yep.

 

   Jackson came out the other time after taking a hit around mid field. 

 

   He may have tweaked an ankle. 

 

   I think this was the game where RG3 completed his first regular season pass in a few years..

 

   IIRC, Jackson returned during that same drive.

 

   Jackson will likely be more injury prone because of the way that he plays.

 

   He has supposedly bulked up in the off season as well, hopefully this helps him withstand some hits.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Partners