Photo

BSL: The Strategy for Success in the Lamar Jackson Era


  • Please log in to reply
210 replies to this topic

#41 St.Steveg

St.Steveg
  • Members
  • 75 posts

Posted 07 August 2019 - 03:59 PM

My observation is that the people who want Lamar to fail (or be injured) in order to prove themselves right include and go beyond Ravens' fans, certainly in media as well. It's the guys who know so much about football they've got it down to a science. Their knowledge comforts them, and Lamar's success will disprove their theory. They like their football (and probably their lives) to be all set like it's always been, and they have reasons why it should be so. Lamar is an outlier, a wild hare that disturbs them. And yeah they could be right, maybe the reasons cannot be overcome and Lamar is a bust, but to me that does not excuse wanting it.

 

I make no claim to being an expert. I'm here for the fun and the winning. I hope like hell #8 succeeds, that these games will be fun to watch, and the Ravens relentlessly crush everyone, running the ball down their throats and passing effectively at will.


  • ravens82 likes this

#42 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 85,001 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 07 August 2019 - 04:25 PM

The Ravens were a middling team going nowhere for 3 straight seasons.  It would have been a 4th season, if throwing Lamar in the mix hadn't shaken things up enough for a 6-1 run to win the division and make the playoffs.

 

I see the team as a playoff contender right now, that has the potential to be a SB contender in a couple of years.  Jackson's development as a QB is key to that.   Sometimes, on Internet forums, the line between 'skeptical about his ability to develop' and 'rooting for him to fail to be proven correct' is not easy to see.

I think this is bs but whatever.


  • BSLGabeFerguson likes this
@BSLRobShields

#43 ravens82

ravens82
  • Members
  • 306 posts
  • LocationEllicott City, MD

Posted 07 August 2019 - 04:27 PM

I think this is bs but whatever.

 

You think the 4-5 squad was going to the playoffs without Lamar becoming the starter?



#44 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 85,001 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 07 August 2019 - 04:50 PM

You think the 4-5 squad was going to the playoffs without Lamar becoming the starter?

I think characterizing in the way you are ignores many factors, mainly the incredibly soft schedule Lamar faced.

Not to mention, a healthier team and a rejuvenated team,late bye week).

So yes, I think the team does the same.

Remember, that 4-5 team should have been at least 5-4 because the Saints game was won. They easily could have won at least one other game had Stanley and Humphrey not have been out.

They had one of the best point differentials in football despite being 4-5.
@BSLRobShields

#45 BSLGabeFerguson

BSLGabeFerguson

    Ravens Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,250 posts
  • LocationCity of Angels

Posted 07 August 2019 - 05:18 PM

I think this is bs but whatever.

It's the laziest of narratives.


  • BSLRobShields likes this
@gabefergy

#46 85Knight

85Knight
  • Members
  • 459 posts

Posted 07 August 2019 - 06:05 PM

It's the laziest of narratives.


Like I said earlier, the rhetoric is old and tired. After all the encouraging things we've heard from OTA's and training camp if you're still spouting that "Lamar is going to be a failure" stuff I have a hard time calling it anything but an agenda. Some people made reference to how Joe was treated and I called those people out then too. Ironically I think some people want Lamar to fail because they liked Joe so much and thought he should have been given his job back. I say get over it and move on.
  • bmore_ken likes this

#47 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 41,600 posts

Posted 07 August 2019 - 06:17 PM

You think the 4-5 squad was going to the playoffs without Lamar becoming the starter?

I think the team finishes 4-2 or 5-1 whether it's Joe or Lamar or even Griffin starting.

At the Chargers Lamar played great and we won a game we probably lose with the others starting. He also played great at the Chiefs but we lost anyways. The other 4 games we win no matter who the QB is, IMO. Those are awful, awful teams and the defense was playing at an elite level.

#48 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 85,001 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 07 August 2019 - 06:40 PM

Like I said earlier, the rhetoric is old and tired. After all the encouraging things we've heard from OTA's and training camp if you're still spouting that "Lamar is going to be a failure" stuff I have a hard time calling it anything but an agenda. Some people made reference to how Joe was treated and I called those people out then too. Ironically I think some people want Lamar to fail because they liked Joe so much and thought he should have been given his job back. I say get over it and move on.


Jake Fox once hit 10 homers in spring training.
@BSLRobShields

#49 BSLGabeFerguson

BSLGabeFerguson

    Ravens Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,250 posts
  • LocationCity of Angels

Posted 07 August 2019 - 07:10 PM

Like I said earlier, the rhetoric is old and tired. After all the encouraging things we've heard from OTA's and training camp if you're still spouting that "Lamar is going to be a failure" stuff I have a hard time calling it anything but an agenda. Some people made reference to how Joe was treated and I called those people out then too. Ironically I think some people want Lamar to fail because they liked Joe so much and thought he should have been given his job back. I say get over it and move on.

First of all,  I would caution conflating criticism and/or pessimism with any kind of "agenda".

 

Personally, I haven't said anything about Lamar being a failure, but the notion that he somehow single-handedly turned around the Ravens season last year is silly.

 

There were a lot of factors that contributed to the team's success down the stretch, most notably a really easy schedule, a defense that was playing at a very high level, and a healthy team.

 

But frankly, that's all in the past. Lamar is the starter and I think the vast majority of fans want to see him succeed. If anyone wants him to fail just so they can be validated that is a pretty sad position to be in imo.


@gabefergy

#50 ravens82

ravens82
  • Members
  • 306 posts
  • LocationEllicott City, MD

Posted 07 August 2019 - 08:32 PM

I think characterizing in the way you are ignores many factors, mainly the incredibly soft schedule Lamar faced.

Not to mention, a healthier team and a rejuvenated team,late bye week).

So yes, I think the team does the same.

Remember, that 4-5 team should have been at least 5-4 because the Saints game was won. They easily could have won at least one other game had Stanley and Humphrey not have been out.

They had one of the best point differentials in football despite being 4-5.

 

A few points:

 

1) The Saints game was not "won".  I was there, and the game would have only have been TIED if Tucker hadn't picked a bad time to miss a PAT.  That hardly guaranteed a victory.

 

2) You dismiss Jackson's wins because they were against "soft" schedule.  Two of Flacco's four wins were against 6-10 teams (BUF, DEN).  Only the win @PIT was vs. strong competition.  The win @TEN was also solid, but largely a defensive domination (shutout).  The team looked terrible losing @CAR and @CLE.

 

3) Lamar came in and did what was needed against bad teams (at home and on the road).  He almost pulled off an amazing upset @KC, and did pull it off @LAC.

 

There's no way to know for sure if Flacco would have been able to go 6-1 vs. the same schedule.  I personally doubt it, since they had not managed 6 wins in any stretch of 7 games in the previous 3 seasons.  Yes, the defense was playing very well.  If Mosley hadn't gotten that pick to seal the win against CLE in the last game, maybe the narrative is somewhat different.  But Jackson earned the trust of the Ravens coaching staff -- no one was forcing them to start Jackson once Flacco got healthy.  They believed he gave them the best chance to win.


  • bmore_ken likes this

#51 ravens82

ravens82
  • Members
  • 306 posts
  • LocationEllicott City, MD

Posted 07 August 2019 - 08:45 PM

It's the laziest of narratives.

 

If it's such a "lazy" narrative, why would the Ravens coaching staff continue to start Jackson once Flacco was healthy?  Nobody on the outside would have been surprised if Flacco became the starter again.  It's because Harbaugh realized that Jackson was giving them a better chance to win.  I'd call that "shaking things up".  Note that I did not say "single-handedly turned around the Ravens".


  • bmore_ken likes this

#52 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 85,001 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 07 August 2019 - 08:53 PM

A few points:

 

1) The Saints game was not "won".  I was there, and the game would have only have been TIED if Tucker hadn't picked a bad time to miss a PAT.  That hardly guaranteed a victory.

 

2) You dismiss Jackson's wins because they were against "soft" schedule.  Two of Flacco's four wins were against 6-10 teams (BUF, DEN).  Only the win @PIT was vs. strong competition.  The win @TEN was also solid, but largely a defensive domination (shutout).  The team looked terrible losing @CAR and @CLE.

 

3) Lamar came in and did what was needed against bad teams (at home and on the road).  He almost pulled off an amazing upset @KC, and did pull it off @LAC.

 

There's no way to know for sure if Flacco would have been able to go 6-1 vs. the same schedule.  I personally doubt it, since they had not managed 6 wins in any stretch of 7 games in the previous 3 seasons.  Yes, the defense was playing very well.  If Mosley hadn't gotten that pick to seal the win against CLE in the last game, maybe the narrative is somewhat different.  But Jackson earned the trust of the Ravens coaching staff -- no one was forcing them to start Jackson once Flacco got healthy.  They believed he gave them the best chance to win.

1) They were up 17-7 going into the 4thQ.  Between the missed extra point and the defense shitting the bed (IMO, this doesn't happen if Humphrey is there), they gave the game away.  That game was won.  Them losing had nothing to do with Joe.

 

2) First of all, I didn't dismiss anything...wins are wins.  However, you would have to know nothing about football to say that Jackson played a tougher schedule than Joe.  And it doesn't matter who the wins were against in the first 9 games...its about the overall schedule, thus the point of mentioning it.

 

And your last paragraph was right...the team trusted him, including when he crapped the bed in the playoffs.  I am fine with how things worked out.  Hindsight being what it is, of course it was better than Lamar got game action in and started to learn and win.  That's better for the future.  But I don't have much doubt that we would have been in the playoffs with a healthy Joe and had a better chance to beat LA as well.


@BSLRobShields

#53 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 85,001 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 07 August 2019 - 08:54 PM

If it's such a "lazy" narrative, why would the Ravens coaching staff continue to start Jackson once Flacco was healthy?  Nobody on the outside would have been surprised if Flacco became the starter again.  It's because Harbaugh realized that Jackson was giving them a better chance to win.  I'd call that "shaking things up".  Note that I did not say "single-handedly turned around the Ravens".

Its lazy because its a simple way of saying something that needs way more context to it than just "6-1".


@BSLRobShields

#54 Biggsy

Biggsy

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,065 posts

Posted 07 August 2019 - 09:18 PM

Its lazy because its a simple way of saying something that needs way more context to it than just "6-1".


The Ravens went 6-1 through dominant defense, and a phenomenal running game. A running game we never would have had under Flacco. Lamar opened the running lanes up. You can't question that. With Flacco, I would bet money we don't go 6-1. Mainly because we had an idiot of an offensive coordinator that would have passed the ball 50 times with Flacco instead of focusing on the run game.
  • bmore_ken likes this

#55 ravens82

ravens82
  • Members
  • 306 posts
  • LocationEllicott City, MD

Posted 07 August 2019 - 09:20 PM

Its lazy because its a simple way of saying something that needs way more context to it than just "6-1".

 

I gave it context. 

 

1) They were up 17-7 going into the 4thQ.  Between the missed extra point and the defense shitting the bed (IMO, this doesn't happen if Humphrey is there), they gave the game away.  That game was won.  Them losing had nothing to do with Joe.

 

2) First of all, I didn't dismiss anything...wins are wins.  However, you would have to know nothing about football to say that Jackson played a tougher schedule than Joe.  And it doesn't matter who the wins were against in the first 9 games...its about the overall schedule, thus the point of mentioning it.

 

And your last paragraph was right...the team trusted him, including when he crapped the bed in the playoffs.  I am fine with how things worked out.  Hindsight being what it is, of course it was better than Lamar got game action in and started to learn and win.  That's better for the future.  But I don't have much doubt that we would have been in the playoffs with a healthy Joe and had a better chance to beat LA as well.

 

1) Football is a team game.  Agree that Flacco played well enough to win, but the team didn't get it done around him.  Just like Lamar @KC.  But I would NOT call that game "won" because we had a 10 point lead against perhaps the best offense in the league with a full quarter to go, sorry.  Before that final 4th quarter drive by the Ravens everyone in my section thought the Saints were going to win.  When Flacco threw the TD to John Brown it looked like we'd be headed to OT with momentum.  Didn't even see the PAT miss.  Just assumed it was good.

 

2) While I don't think that Lamar played a tougher schedule, I think the difference is not as big as you are making it seem.  The 9 teams Flacco played against averaged 8.0 wins.  The 7 teams Jackson played against averaged 7.57 wins.  Flacco did handle more of the divisional games which are tougher, especially against PIT.

 

3) You seem comfortable saying that Flacco would have gone 6-1 or 7-0 to get to the playoffs.  I don't think so.  We'll never know for sure.


  • bmore_ken likes this

#56 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 85,001 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 07 August 2019 - 10:18 PM

The Ravens went 6-1 through dominant defense, and a phenomenal running game. A running game we never would have had under Flacco. Lamar opened the running lanes up. You can't question that. With Flacco, I would bet money we don't go 6-1. Mainly because we had an idiot of an offensive coordinator that would have passed the ball 50 times with Flacco instead of focusing on the run game.

You don’t need as good a run game to win games.

Zero doubt in my mind the passing game is way better with Joe.
@BSLRobShields

#57 BSLGabeFerguson

BSLGabeFerguson

    Ravens Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,250 posts
  • LocationCity of Angels

Posted 07 August 2019 - 10:36 PM

The Ravens could have easily gone 6-1 with Flacco. They might have won a playoff game too.
@gabefergy

#58 ravens82

ravens82
  • Members
  • 306 posts
  • LocationEllicott City, MD

Posted 07 August 2019 - 11:23 PM

The Ravens could have easily gone 6-1 with Flacco. They might have won a playoff game too.


Ravens hadn’t gone 6-1 in 7 straight games since SB47. Yes, the defense was playing well, but to say they would have “easily” done something they hadn’t done in 5 seasons does not make sense to me.
  • bmore_ken likes this

#59 Biggsy

Biggsy

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,065 posts

Posted 08 August 2019 - 08:38 AM

The Ravens could have easily gone 6-1 with Flacco. They might have won a playoff game too.


"Easily"?


I love it. Watching Flacco's declining play, if he were still the starter, no one with football knowledge would ever have the balls to say he'd "easily" go 6-1, and. beat LAC in the first round of the playoffs. But now, all of a sudden, he "easily" would have gone 6-1. I love Flacco. I'm still a fan of Flacco. I stood up for him until the bitter end. And even I don't have the arrogance to say he'd "easily" win 6 out of 7.
  • bmore_ken likes this

#60 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 85,001 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 08 August 2019 - 08:49 AM

"Easily"?

5 of the 6 games they won were against Cinci, Oak, TB, Atl and Cle..4 of which were at home.  2 of those teams drafted in the top 5, 2 others in the 11-14 range.

 

Yes, they easily could have won those games.

 

Remember, Joe wasn't really playing bad last year.  He wasn't good against Carolina but outside of that, he was fine.  Of course, we don't know what his health would have been like and that is the great unknown in all of this.

 

But a fully healthy Flacco, with a healthy team around him coming off a bye?  Yes, I think they could have easily won those games.


  • BSLGabeFerguson likes this
@BSLRobShields




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Partners