Game 14: Packers @ Ravens - Sunday, December 19th, 3:25 PM CT

[brewcrewdue80]

The first drive instead of taking the field goal, they stopped the Packers, got a short field and a TD. Which is one of the reason you go on 4th down deep.

Harbaugh and Baltimore were operating as if they were a 7+ point underdog. Which they were. Its also why The OT was not really 50/50 to win, but like 66/33 like the beginning of the game.

 

The only counter argument i can make is the Baltimore defense has just held the Packers to a short field fg and a 3 and out while the Packers D got shredded on back to back TD drives. If Baltimore wins the coin toss they might match down and win it.

 

They have Justin Tucker. Take it to OT. Especially having the momentum, home crowd, and a tired GB defense.

[homer]

The first drive instead of taking the field goal, they stopped the Packers, got a short field and a TD. Which is one of the reason you go on 4th down deep.

Harbaugh and Baltimore were operating as if they were a 7+ point underdog. Which they were. Its also why The OT was not really 50/50 to win, but like 66/33 like the beginning of the game.

 

The only counter argument i can make is the Baltimore defense has just held the Packers to a short field fg and a 3 and out while the Packers D got shredded on back to back TD drives. If Baltimore wins the coin toss they might match down and win it.

 

They have Justin Tucker. Take it to OT. Especially having the momentum, home crowd, and a tired GB defense.

 

You're assuming they win the coin toss. GB could have easily gotten the kick and marched right down the field.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

One of the likely outcomes of OT is that Rodgers gets the ball and scores a TD in 5 plays. When Rodgers is on the other team I don't see any problem at all with trying to go up 32-31 and then hoping you can prevent a FG in 40 seconds.

 

There is really no way to love your chances when Rodgers is on the other side of the field. If anything I would have run the clock down more before scoring and THEN gone for 2. But I don't see any egregious coaching flaw in doing what they did.

[homer]

One of the likely outcomes of OT is that Rodgers gets the ball and scores a TD in 5 plays. When Rodgers is on the other team I don't see any problem at all with trying to go up 32-31 and then hoping you can prevent a FG in 40 seconds.

 

There is really no way to love your chances when Rodgers is on the other side of the field. If anything I would have run the clock down more before scoring and THEN gone for 2. But I don't see any egregious coaching flaw in doing what they did.

 

Particularly when you are playing an entire defensive backfield of 2nd and 3rd stringers.

[nodakfan17]

He had other aggressive calls that worked out fine. I don't know how many times this sort of discussion has to happen before people acknowledge that these scenarios don't exist in a vacuum and the events that follow are changed by the decisions.

 

You can't just tack 3 points on to the final score and go "See, he was wrong."

Snapper, I get the vacuum argument in most cases, but today, I’m not sure it impacts a lot downstream decisions. The Packers are getting the ball with roughly the same amount of time and field position. Only difference is Baltimore is up 3-0. The teams traded TD’s for most of the game and I doubt anyone felt compelled to kick or go for it later in the game as a result of that possession (except for the last drive). Sometimes it’s OK to take the points, especially when your kicker is Justin Tucker.

[young guns]

He had other aggressive calls that worked out fine. I don't know how many times this sort of discussion has to happen before people acknowledge that these scenarios don't exist in a vacuum and the events that follow are changed by the decisions.

 

You can't just tack 3 points on to the final score and go "See, he was wrong."

Snapper, I get the vacuum argument in most cases, but today, I’m not sure it impacts a lot downstream decisions. The Packers are getting the ball with roughly the same amount of time and field position. Only difference is Baltimore is up 3-0. The teams traded TD’s for most of the game and I doubt anyone felt compelled to kick or go for it later in the game as a result of that possession (except for the last drive). Sometimes it’s OK to take the points, especially when your kicker is Justin Tucker.

I know it's our special teams, but its still rough to say that we would have started at roughly the same field position when we started at our 6 after the 4th down.

[nodakfan17]

He had other aggressive calls that worked out fine. I don't know how many times this sort of discussion has to happen before people acknowledge that these scenarios don't exist in a vacuum and the events that follow are changed by the decisions.

 

You can't just tack 3 points on to the final score and go "See, he was wrong."

Snapper, I get the vacuum argument in most cases, but today, I’m not sure it impacts a lot downstream decisions. The Packers are getting the ball with roughly the same amount of time and field position. Only difference is Baltimore is up 3-0. The teams traded TD’s for most of the game and I doubt anyone felt compelled to kick or go for it later in the game as a result of that possession (except for the last drive). Sometimes it’s OK to take the points, especially when your kicker is Justin Tucker.

I know it's our special teams, but its still rough to say that we would have started at roughly the same field position when we started at our 6 after the 4th down.

That’s fair, but what kind of a difference are we talking about? 15 yards? (Yes, I acknowledge the butterfly effect and it’s not as simple as Baltimore having 3 extra points)

[areacodes]

He had other aggressive calls that worked out

Snapper, I get the vacuum argument in most cases, but today, I’m not sure it impacts a lot downstream decisions. The Packers are getting the ball with roughly the same amount of time and field position. Only difference is Baltimore is up 3-0. The teams traded TD’s for most of the game and I doubt anyone felt compelled to kick or go for it later in the game as a result of that possession (except for the last drive). Sometimes it’s OK to take the points, especially when your kicker is Justin Tucker.

I know it's our special teams, but its still rough to say that we would have started at roughly the same field position when we started at our 6 after the 4th down.

That’s fair, but what kind of a difference are we talking about? 15 yards? (Yes, I acknowledge the butterfly effect and it’s not as simple as Baltimore having 3 extra points)

 

Considering we went three and out and punted which gave Baltimore a short field (started past the 50) and they scored a TD on a 45 yard drive - odds are kicking the 3 points there changes the whole landscape of the game.

[areacodes]

So you can’t line up in the neutral zone but apparently you can dance in the neutral zone.

 

You can do whatever you want in the neutral zone if the offense doesn't react to it and you get back before the snap.

 

Yeah I know. It didn’t look like he got back to me.

 

I don’t know why, but that play bugged me in comparison to P. Smith being called offsides earlier in the game.

[CheezWizHed]

I hate the "jump-and-point" game. I hate it when Bakh does it, I hate it when anyone does it. If there is an obvious reaction by the offense due to the D jumping offsides (or snaps the ball and catches them in), fine. But if the OL jumps a second later an points at the DL moving backwards to get back onsides... that should be a false start, IMO.

[CheezWizHed]

TJ Slaton come on down.

 

For those of you who haven't seen Tyler Huntley play QB (Ravens back-up), you are in for a surprise. He is, currently, a better QB than Justin Fields imho. He doesn't have the Upside Fields has by any measure BUT he is a very dangerous threat. Sunday, will be just as tough to contain the pocket as last Sunday. He's more accurate than Fields today. Not an easy match-up whatsoever with Jackson unlikely to play.

 

I watched the game yesterday and kept hearing them say "Hundley"... I was thinking, NO... it couldn't be Brett. He looks SO much better than Brett was. I was relieved to see "Huntley" instead on his back.

 

I was very impressed by Tyler. Honestly, he looks like a better QB than LJ to me (admitting that I prefer pass-first QBs over run-first). Small sample surely, but a very nice accurate arm while still dangerous with his legs. LJ might have a higher peak, but the wear and tear on run-first QBs just brings them down so quickly (and it already seems as if that might be happening for LJ).

[SeaBass]

I hate the "jump-and-point" game. I hate it when Bakh does it, I hate it when anyone does it. If there is an obvious reaction by the offense due to the D jumping offsides (or snaps the ball and catches them in), fine. But if the OL jumps a second later an points at the DL moving backwards to get back onsides... that should be a false start, IMO.

It's against the rules for a defensive player to try to fake an offensive lineman into a false start by crossing into the neutral zone. Whether the OL is actually fooled into movement or not doesn't matter, a false start is a false start. An OL taking advantage of the rule is the same as QBs using a hard count or quick snapping the ball to catch the defense with 12 men while substituting.

[CheezWizHed]

I hate the "jump-and-point" game. I hate it when Bakh does it, I hate it when anyone does it. If there is an obvious reaction by the offense due to the D jumping offsides (or snaps the ball and catches them in), fine. But if the OL jumps a second later an points at the DL moving backwards to get back onsides... that should be a false start, IMO.

It's against the rules for a defensive player to try to fake an offensive lineman into a false start by crossing into the neutral zone. Whether the OL is actually fooled into movement or not doesn't matter, a false start is a false start. An OL taking advantage of the rule is the same as QBs using a hard count or quick snapping the ball to catch the defense with 12 men while substituting.

 

There is a difference between an OL reacting immediately to the DL coming in and the OL false starting a second later in an obvious non-reaction. Yes, it would be another subjective call, but it is a pet peeve of mine. Especially when the OL that false starts isn't even the one where the defender was coming in.

[adambr2]

I just don't like it from a tactical standpoint. 5 years plus a free play is worth much more than 5 yards and no free play.

[SeaBass]

I hate the "jump-and-point" game. I hate it when Bakh does it, I hate it when anyone does it. If there is an obvious reaction by the offense due to the D jumping offsides (or snaps the ball and catches them in), fine. But if the OL jumps a second later an points at the DL moving backwards to get back onsides... that should be a false start, IMO.

It's against the rules for a defensive player to try to fake an offensive lineman into a false start by crossing into the neutral zone. Whether the OL is actually fooled into movement or not doesn't matter, a false start is a false start. An OL taking advantage of the rule is the same as QBs using a hard count or quick snapping the ball to catch the defense with 12 men while substituting.

 

There is a difference between an OL reacting immediately to the DL coming in and the OL false starting a second later in an obvious non-reaction. Yes, it would be another subjective call, but it is a pet peeve of mine. Especially when the OL that false starts isn't even the one where the defender was coming in.

But when the O lineman moves pre snap it's still a false start. I guess it comes down to semantics but a penalty is going to be thrown either way and the rule states that the defensive player can't be in the neutral zone as a false start occurs. If I'm remembering correctly that rule used to not exist, the false start was always the O lineman's responsibility which led to defenders trying to force false starts.

 

So I guess you have to ask yourself if you prefer to watch jumping D lineman trying to induce a player that can't move presnap into moving or watch an O lineman jumping when a defender tries timing a snap and fails. They're never going to make it a judgement call for an official nor would I want them to because they're already awful at judgement calls.

 

I understand not liking it personally but in my opinion the rule exists for a very good reason. When you're going to require a player to keep absolutely still pre snap it doesn't feel fair to allow a defender to jump at him to try to make him flinch. Defenders can still move around and try to mess with an O lineman's head, they just can't cross into the neutral zone while doing so.

[brewcrewdue80]

I never really got the OL who would move to point a defender had crossed the neutral zone. As I feel like 1/4 to 1/3 the time the refs call out a false start instead. Watching the lineman today vs the 90s I feel they are allowed so much moving presnap than 20-30years ago. Anyway Defensive guy is allowed to cross the zone and go back in position. Think about when they are moving to get back onside, that any split second snap takes momentum he wants in the wrong direction. Great for a rush at him and great for pass protection.