(10-12-2020, 04:44 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Except it's still relevant because the Ravens were up by multiple scores for most of the game, thereby potentially determining how aggressive they were with their offense knowing there wasn't a big worry of being behind at any point.

I don't understand.

If they were playing more conservative because they wEre up big then shouldn't they have completed a much higher percentage of their passes?  Jackson barely hit 50% (19 of 37).

(10-12-2020, 04:46 PM)Au165 Wrote: Not really, again mis-casting one score giving up because of a horrible INT and another literally not being on the defense at all is somewhat dishonest. Oh they may have thrown more? Awesome, that would have worked out better than them running.

The defense played well, anyone who watched the game (which you did) could tell you that. Box score critiquing isn't really indicative of it.

Ok.

Well let's look at how Lamar Jackson is doing this year then.
Averaging 190 yards per game.
Averaging 192 before the Bengals game.
0 300-yard games this season.
Ravens are 31st in passing yards this season.

It's not like he's lighting up defenses with his arm this year.

Also, just 1 sack.

I admitted the Bengals played better in coverage than against the run, I just didn't think it was as stellar of a performance as some think.


I'm not ready to say Anarumo deserves to keep his job after the BAL game.

(10-12-2020, 04:57 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Ok.

Well let's look at how Lamar Jackson is doing this year then.
Averaging 190 yards per game.
Averaging 192 before the Bengals game.
0 300-yard games this season.
Ravens are 31st in passing yards this season.

It's not like he's lighting up defenses with his arm this year.

Also, just 1 sack.

I admitted the Bengals played better in coverage than against the run, I just didn't think it was as stellar of a performance as some think.


I'm not ready to say Anarumo deserves to keep his job after the BAL game.

He was averaging a completion percentage of 68.8% before yesterday...where we held him to 51% on 37 attempts (most attempts of the year by the way). He was efficient before yesterday, even if he wasn't lighting people up, and he wasn't effecient yesterday which at least says a little something.

(10-12-2020, 04:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't understand.

If they were playing more conservative because they wEre up big then shouldn't they have completed a much higher percentage of their passes?  Jackson barely hit 50% (19 of 37).

They should have. But given they were having success with the run, they probably should have ran more than they did. It didn't matter anyway.

I guess what I'm saying is did the Ravens really feel any stress about whether they passed or ran? Their defense was lights out and the Bengals were never threatening to take over that game.

While the pass coverage seemed good, they only got 1 sack and still allowed 160 yards rushing.

I'm not ready to anoint this defense as good yet.

(10-12-2020, 05:08 PM)ochocincos Wrote: They should have. But given they were having success with the run, they probably should have ran more than they did. It didn't matter anyway.

I guess what I'm saying is did the Ravens really feel any stress about whether they passed or ran? Their defense was lights out and the Bengals were never threatening to take over that game.

While the pass coverage seemed good, they only got 1 sack and still allowed 160 yards rushing.

I'm not ready to anoint this defense as good yet.

One defense faced the leagues best rushing attack and the reigning MVP, the other faced the worst O line in the league and a rookie QB. I’d say one defense did what they were expected to do and the other performed better than expected. It’s all relative, the franchises are in different places right now.

(10-12-2020, 05:01 PM)Au165 Wrote: He was averaging a completion percentage of 68.8% before yesterday...where we held him to 51% on 37 attempts (most attempts of the year by the way). He was efficient before yesterday, even if he wasn't lighting people up, and he wasn't effecient yesterday which at least says a little something.

It does, but I would have liked to see more pressure, turnovers, and run stuffing to claim "good."
I don't want to call the whole defense "good" when really it was just the coverage.

(10-12-2020, 05:11 PM)ochocincos Wrote: It does, but I would have liked to see more pressure, turnovers, and run stuffing to claim "good."
I don't want to call the whole defense "good" when really it was just the coverage.

You mush rush on a QB like Jackson. You can’t get too far upfield or he takes off. I believe they had 7 pressures to go with the sack, so the pass rush was solid on the day while also containing the scramble.

We didnt have idiots like Nick.Vigil not executing
Gap responsibilty and then looking like a out of control
Spinning top.trying to tackle Lamar.
Overall the LBers played solid vs the Ravens

(10-12-2020, 05:11 PM)ochocincos Wrote: It does, but I would have liked to see more pressure, turnovers, and run stuffing to claim "good."
I don't want to call the whole defense "good" when really it was just the coverage.

There's also something to be said about the offense being so putrid. I agree with you, I thought the D played decent, but the offense was straight crap. They keep them in the game then it could change how the Ravens call the game. They fell into their strengths by not being at least serviceable on both sides of the ball. I think the perfect example is how Washington played them is what I expected us to.

(10-12-2020, 10:19 AM)Sled21 Wrote: ...and we'd still hold the Ravens to 27 points.

The Defense only gave up 20.
The other 7 points came from a fumble recovery for a TD.