Saints @ Ravens: Interview with the Enemy
by Dave Cariello on Dec 16, 2010 6:01 AM CST
Email
Print
Been a while since we've had one of these cross-blog posts for you guys to enjoy but I'm glad to have it back for this week. I had the chance to ask a few questions of SB Nation's head Baltimore Ravens blogger, Bruce Raffel, from Baltimore Beatdown. Our brief discussion can be found after the jump.
So read on and get a little more familiar with the Saints opponent this week by reading what Bruce had to say about the Ravens.
CSC: Where do the Ravens stand on the health front? What are the key injuries?
BB: Tight end Todd Heap's status is still uncertain and his absence left a huge void in the Ravens gameplan against the Houston Texans last week as the rookie TE only caught one ball in that game. Otherwise, the team came out of the game relatively sound and have remained so most of the season.
CSC: Any concern that the Ravens will be worn down this weekend because of the OT game against the Texans this past Monday, in particular the defense? Is there enough gas in the tank?
BB: The Ravens certainly were exhausted in the Texans game and a short week is partially negated by this being a home game. If the Ravens can keep their offense on the field, then the defense should be well rested. If not, the same thing could happen with disasterous results.
CSC: The Ravens running game seems to be under-performing these past few weeks. What, if anything, is behind that?
BB: The poor performance of the offensive line has hurt both the run game and the pass protection. Once a strength of Ravens team's past, it is a real concern and has the team hesitant to try to force the ball down opponent's throats as they have built their reputation on that type of smash-mouth football.
CSC: Which part of the Ravens defense should the Saints attempt to exploit?
BB: The short slants and quick hits, plus WR screens have all given the Ravens defense fits. Poor tackling by the cornerbacks combined with the linebackers inability to cover the TE's and running backs have given opponents chances to drive down the field, tiring out the Ravens defense as prevously discussed.
CSC: The Ravens have been outscored 74-105 in the 4th quarter this season and have been involved in three overtime games. Do they have a problem closing out games?
BB: Obviously, this is an issue, with all four of the Ravens losses coming after they surrendered fourth quarter leads. Interestingly, the are among the league leaders in defense in the third quarter. There has been questionable play-calling in critical moments that has turned the tide the past two games and if that doesn't change, it will be the downfall of the team's season at some point.
CSC: Care to make a prediction?
BB: If the Ravens allow the Saints to come back like they did the Texans, they will be blown away and lose. However, the season has been head-shaking from week to week and with the home field advantage and cold weather, I like the Ravens chances. But the thought of a close game will have fans on both teams on the edge of their seats for at least 60 minutes, if not more. I'll be the homer and say Ravens 27-24.
39 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
What stands out to me is thatn here is another team of many
where the LBs have “an inability to cover TE’s and running backs…” which supports my theory that just about every team has this problem and it is usually the #1 complaint about the D. Clearly it stems from the fact that LBs (especially OLBs) have to be big enough and strong enough to shed blocks of 300+ lb linemen but also fleet footed and agile enough to cover the pass – especially man coverage at times. It’s an impossible task to be a master at all that. They do the best they can under the circumstances.
If Pro is the opposite of Con, what is the opposite of Progress? Congress!
-Men's Restroom - House of Representatives, Washington, DC
Yet, there are still both 4-3 and 3-4 OLBs in this league that excel at creating disruption in the backfield and pressuring the QB. Give me one of those on the weak side, along with another that specializes in shadowing TEs on the strong side. I’m not looking for Superman and Captain Marvel, just a couple of players that can handle one assignment or the other better than most.
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
Re: #25 ... CUT THAT CHUMP.
I’m curious CP, what’s your take on 4-3/3-4 backers coming out of college. It seems to be that there is a grossly huge number of “tweener” 3/4 backers/DE that have been coming out in the past few years but almost no quality 4-3 OLBs. It seems like you find a quality back in those situations he’s always pegged as an inside guy. Every year it seems there’s perhaps only 1 first round grade 4-3 outside backer. I find that incredibly odd considering most teams play the 4-3 in college as well as the pros, although 3-4 is once again in vogue. To counter that, there’s probably 4-5 1st round grade 3-4 OLBs and an equal number of 4-3 DEs. It’s maddening at times.
"Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not 'every man for himself.' And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked 'em up."
A lot of that has to do with demand, as well as what’s witnessed in collegiate games. Even the teams that run a 4-3 in the pros will draft 3-4 OLBs and use them as situational pass rushers, as DEs, etc., like you said. That’s based on knowing, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that these guys can and will find a way to get after the QB, penetrate, wreak havoc in the backfield, string out running plays, all that good stuff. Basically, they’re so good at what they do, that GMs are willing to force a square peg into a round hole, just to get them on their roster. In fact, a lot of times it’s these dynamic players that trigger a change in a DC’s philosophy and lead to a switch in schemes. And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that — provided the guy’s not a flash in the pan on the pro level, or gets injured early on in his rookie season — which does occasionally happen, but there’s really no way to predict that going in.
In any case, these “difference makers” are sought by BOTH the 3-4 teams and 4-3 teams alike, so they wind up being hyped as first round picks, while other OLBs in both schemes — including some of the more productive, yet less “flashy” pure 4-3 guys — get pushed to the backburner, not unlike centers and fullbacks. The thinking is that they can be had later on, which is true. The problem being that when you’re content with waiting on the OLB position as a whole, that’s exactly what you typically wind up with … non-difference makers. There are exceptions, obviously. Sometimes you have guys that played the 4-3 in college that become absolute terrors in the NFL as 3-4 OLBs or situational pass rushers. That’s almost always a product of trial and error, though. More often than not, if they were THAT prolific, they would have already been “discovered” and used in that capacity at the lower level of competition.
But yeah, most of these “tweeners” were 3-4 OLBs or 4-3 DEs in college, i.e., playmakers in schemes geared toward their strengths — hence the highlight reel production/national spotlight — and now that they’re in the pros, DCs are chomping at the bit to get them involved. So much so, that they’re willing to invent hybrid positions in which to utilize them, in their otherwise non-ideal scheme.
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
Re: #25 ... CUT THAT CHUMP.
What you have to keep in mind is, DCs in college are guaranteed a 100% turnover in personnel every five seasons, so it’s not as big of a deal to cater schemes to players. Most mid-round or later draft picks are signing 2 and 3 year contracts and even those aren’t guaranteed, which tends to make the NFL more scheme driven. You really have no idea how long you’re going to be dealing with this group of players, so why cater to their strengths? Land a couple of studs in the early rounds though and now you’re talking about 5 or 6 year contracts with huge signing bonuses to boot. Bigger investment = more faith in building around that player.
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
Re: #25 ... CUT THAT CHUMP.
I just think it’s really odd that you only have one 4-3 “difference maker” a year compared to half a dozen 3-4 guys at the Linebacker position. In 2007 you had zero 4-3 first round OLBs, but you had timmons and Spencer at 3-4 (not including DE’s switched over). 2008 you had Keith Rivers. 2009 Curry and Cushing. 2010 Weatherspoon. Averaging 1 a year is pretty darn low odds for a difference maker as a 4-3 OLB. You would just think that it would be more prevalent.
"Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not 'every man for himself.' And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked 'em up."
Not really. That’s what I’m saying … had they been true “difference makers” in college, probably 8 or 9 times out of 10 their DCs wouldn’t have been running a 4-3 scheme. They would have switched to a 3-4 at some point, in order to cash in on that player’s dominant skills set. They can always switch back, once they go pro (assuming the collegiate program being discussed is fresh out of studs at the OLB position).
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
Re: #25 ... CUT THAT CHUMP.
“Cash in” is probably a poor choice in words LOL. In order to “best feature”. Better?
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
Re: #25 ... CUT THAT CHUMP.
Either switch schemes or have them playing DE in the 4-3, in which case they’re out of sight, out of mind as an OLB. At least, until they go pro, at which point they’re considered too light for the DE position and are subsequently labeled a ’tweener or 3-4 OLB anyway.
I’d venture to say the majority of the “difference makers” at OLB in the 4-3 in college come from programs that either:
a.) are extremely inflexible in what scheme they run from year-to-year.
b.) are catered to a “difference making” DE at some point during that OLB’s tenure.
In scenario a., most dynamic OLBs coming out of college are going to avoid that situation all together. Think about it. If you’re a blue chip high school OLB prospect, what on earth is the advantage of signing on with a steadfast 4-3 program? Odds are you’re going to be out of the spotlight for four years and miss out on millions of dollars as a first round pick in the pros.
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
Re: #25 ... CUT THAT CHUMP.
Looked to me that the things that hurt the Ravens the most
are the things we do the best. I dont think it will be close. Our saint will score fast and often and I dont see the Ravens being able to stop the barage. I dont see them being a come from behind team and certainly not able to keep up. Fourth quarter will make the Ravens weak again. I think Drew and Payton will exploit DB’s with fast tempo to wear them down and cruise to win.
My Magnificent Black and Gold Warriors
The weather conditions will be a wildcard
Our offense is unpredictable at times in cold weather. Plus, the Ravens D can step up when they really need to. They’ll really need to this week to keep pace with the Steelers. I’m expecting a nailbiter that goes down to the last second. I’d be tickled pink by a Saints beatdown, but I’d be very surprised if that happens.
Payton and Brees and GW and Vilma will really want this game (and a Falcons loss) so we have a shot at the 1st seed next week, so I expect they’re putting together a masterful gameplan at this very moment. This is gonna be a great game.
"As soon as Tony (Dungy) said we had no chance, I knew we had 'em right where we wanted 'em"--Coach Sean Payton right after Super Bowl XLIV with the Lombardi Trophy firmly in hand. WHO DAT!!
by David "Satch" Kelly on Dec 16, 2010 11:19 AM CST up reply actions
Agreed. Should be a very close, very competitive game.
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
Re: #25 ... CUT THAT CHUMP.
From a Ravens perspective,
we seem to play up or down to the level of our competition. Hence the close game s with the Texans and Bills, as well as the Jets, Steelers and Pats. If that’s the trend, the expect another classic, as the home field plus the expected inclement weather (20’s and snow) should be to our advantage
aka 'Rexx'
by Bruce Raffel on Dec 16, 2010 11:16 PM CST up reply actions
oh, they'll be a Baltimore Beat Down alright
by Andrew Juge on Dec 16, 2010 9:48 AM CST reply actions 1 recs
HAH! Great play on their name.
I’ll admit to a mild bit of nervousness, but this is a team the BENGALS managed to beat earlier in the year. We shouldn’t really have that much trouble with them.
I hope I'm wrong...
…but this is going to be a tough game. I’m hoping they can be patient with their game plan, play field position if the shots are not there, don’t turnover the ball, and wear the Ravens out in the 2nd half. Much like the way they beat the Jets last year. If they force things, the Ravens can make you pay and turn takeaways into 6 points in a hurry.
All I want for Christmas is some balance on Offense. This is the type of game that cries for it.
“Much like the way they beat the Jets last year.”
The Jets completely outplayed us last year. If it wasn’t for the late INTs, we would have lost that game. It was basically the same as the Cowboys game, with a couple of good breaks down the stretch. Actually, Dallas was a bit more dominant, in that they were able to build a multiple possession lead. Still, it’s the closest 2009 (or since) loss to which it compares (not many to chose from).
“All I want for Christmas is some balance on Offense. This is the type of game that cries for it.”
Hallelujah. Ram it down their throats.
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
Re: #25 ... CUT THAT CHUMP.
I think it was Bill Belicheck
who said stats were for losers…but here’s the box from that game http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=291004018
The Saints ran for 153 yards and passed for 190. The Defense scored twice which yes, was the factor in getting the ‘W.’
Brees was very efficient and the Saints took what the Jets ‘D’ gave him. Including a nice time consuming drive in the 4th quarter (11 plays 74yds) to put the game away. When I remember that game, I’ll remember it as a workmanlike performance for the offense; not forcing the issue (other than 25 putting one on the turf). I guess what I am driving at is anytime you run 32 times and pass the same amount, you are being patient with your game plan; regardless of the scoreboard.
If I was Payton for a day, I’d come out with the same type of game plan for this game…let’s win the TOP battle, take care of the ball, wear them out and put the game away in the 4th quarter.
I love that you are using the Jets game to prove your point. Ram it down their throats, you say? And exactly how many times did we fail to punch it after we had first and goal on the 1 in that game again? Wasn’t it like 8 times if I remember?
Run the ball my fat arse. Do what works, whatever it may be. Find it and then do it, over and over again. Period.
by FriarBob on Dec 16, 2010 7:54 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Since when is "ram" synonymous with "run"?
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
Re: #25 ... CUT THAT CHUMP.
Apparently everyone watches football a lot different than I do. Taking care of the football is what has Atlanta a game up on the Saints. Tell me, had the Saints played balanced and took care of the football against Atlanta, that it would have come down to Hartley? A lot folks are up and down about Hartley this and Hartley that…how about forcing the issue when the Saints we’re rolling in the 1st half? Had they pounded the ball after taking an early lead, the Saints may be the team sitting at 11-2.
maybe… or, we could have gone three and out more often – who knows.
we could have gotten into more third and longs and ‘had’ to throw on crucial downs and turned it over more – who knows.
saying we should be more balanced is nice in theory, but if you ain’t getting first downs you’re not likely to win.
"You can't be king of the world, if you're a slave to the grind."
“saying we should be more balanced is nice in theory, but if you ain’t getting first downs you’re not likely to win.”
You mean, like they did without said balance? Surely being less predictable on offense would have led to the same results.
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
Re: #25 ... CUT THAT CHUMP.
Completely agree with you, dude. The same could be said of the Browns game, when Brees is forcing two pick sixes to his newborn’s namesake. 14 fewer points for Cleveland and that’s a victory, also. Hell, even if just only one of those drives is preserved and turned into 7 points of our own, via a more conservative attack, the net is a 1 point victory.
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
Re: #25 ... CUT THAT CHUMP.
I’m sure that argument will be met by “what guarantees that a more balanced attack would have resulted in TDs when the Saints DID score?”
To that, I pre-reply: “what exactly did you witness in that particular game that leads you to believe that it WOULDN’T have?”
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
Re: #25 ... CUT THAT CHUMP.
I 100% agree, if...
if we could tell the future, then I’d 100% agree that we should change all future INT thrown by Brees to run plays.
That would be epic.
But, alas, we don’t have any pre-cogs working for the Saints (that I know of), so you can’t just change those two plays to run plays and all of a sudden not throw 2 INT’s.
lol.
"You can't be king of the world, if you're a slave to the grind."
PASSING IS MORE EXCITING THAN RUNNING.
WE WON THE SUPER BOWL PASSING MORE THAN WE RAN.
NEVERMIND THE FACT THAT WE WERE PRACTICALLY THE SAME TEAM PERSONNEL WISE THAT WENT 7-9 AND 8-8 THE TWO SEASONS PRIOR WHILE PASSING THE BALL FAR MORE OFTEN.
IT’S THE SUBTLE PERSONNEL MOVES THAT MADE ALLLLLLLL THE DIFFERENCE.
8-8 MINUS JASON DAVID, PLUS DARREN SHARPER = 13-3.
IT’S THE NEW MATH, BEEOTCHES!
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
Re: #25 ... CUT THAT CHUMP.
OMFG, I FORGOT G-DUB. HE WAS THE REASON FOR THE SEASON, TOO!
DOWN WITH BALANCE, PASS PASS PASS!
IF IT AIN’T BROKE, DON’T FIX IT!
EVEN IF IT OCCASIONALLY LOOKS LIKE IT’S HELD TOGETHER WITH DUCT TAPE!
A HARD-EARNED WIN IS STILL A WIN!
PLAY-CALLING IS NEVER A FACTOR, AS LONG AS WE GET THAT W!
HECK, EVEN WHEN WE DON’T, IT ISN’T!
WE’LL ALWAYS HAVE OTHER FACTORS WE CAN PIN THE BLAME ON.
FAT PUNK KICKER BAD!
VISOR WEARING GENIUS GOOD!
GEAUX SAINTS!
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
Re: #25 ... CUT THAT CHUMP.
Ram it down their throats
There you go; Get our running game going, and make their linebackers and safties come up to make the tackles. Wear em down running it , and then pass em crazy when they try to catch their breath. Just my opinion….Geaux Saints…..
A SAINT in Panther country
by carolinasaintsfan on Dec 16, 2010 2:08 PM CST reply actions
Silver lining dept
Whatever happens Sunday, which looks like a toss-up from here, weather in the play-offs should be no worse than the current blizzard. Good experience for the second round game, if Saints can’t catch Atlanta.
"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds" -Bob Marley
by PanheadCatahoula on Dec 16, 2010 3:19 PM CST reply actions
a lot of
S%IT talking ravens out here in sin city….hope that our O line shows up and that this will make it a 7th W in a row. Oh….Vilma, Smith and Hargrove: please knock flacco the f out!
"Obstacles can not crush me. Every obstacle yields to stern resolve. He who is fixed to a star does not change his mind." -Leonardo DaVinci
by BigCountryLV on Dec 16, 2010 4:57 PM CST via mobile reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- NFLPA files collusion claim against NFL, team owners, claiming salary cap arrangement in uncapped year
- Donald Driver compared winning ‘Dancing With The Stars’ to winning Super Bowl
- Report: Most NFL players would have no problem with an openly gay teammate
- Donald Driver wins ‘Dancing With the Stars’
- Student has diploma withheld after Tebowing at graduation
