Photo

Yahoo Sports previews Ravens


  • Please log in to reply
82 replies to this topic

#81 bmore_ken

bmore_ken

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,001 posts

Posted Today, 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
  • 82,646 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted Today, 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
  • 40,989 posts

Posted Today, 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.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Partners