Flacco Versus Opponents
by BAL_Hawk on May 7, 2010 11:00 AM EDT
Email
Print
I had an interesting discussion where I argued a point regarding the Ravens' performance last season. Technically, it's only a theory, and the more that I thought about it, the more I began to question it. Obviously, many aspects of football are arbitrary and random. Guys can wake-up and have a good or bad day on the football field for no apparent reason. This is the human factor that can never be perfectly described by any one theory and what makes football so fun to watch. That being said, many theories can help to discover and illustrate what may be happening in reality. My theory is that the Ravens' struggles versus quality opponents last season was a result, in large part, to quarterback play on both sides of the ball. This would seem obvious, but my theory is a little more specific.
Basically, I believe that Joe Flacco's quarterback play was worse toward the end of the season and the defense's play was better at the end of the season. The fall of Flacco and the rise of the defense created a unique situation that affected the entire season. Since Flacco was having less success versus opposing defenses and wasn't able to score as efficiently, pressure was put on the defense. Luckily, the defense improved, but the weaknesses in pass coverage and pressure could only be covered up. As a result, the Ravens continued to struggle versus teams with good quarterbacks because Flacco was unable to keep scoring-pace with quarterbacks who had success versus his defense. Obviously, teams with good quarterbacks and good defenses were the hardest for the Ravens to overcome. In my mind, Flacco's drop-off can be attributed to the injuries that he suffered in the Vikings game, and the defense's poor play in the beginning of the season can be attributed to the new system under Greg Mattison.
The argument was basic and based on general feelings. After I made the argument, I began to think about its plausibility. There are so many different and valid arguments that can be made against it. I watched every snap last season, and I definitely got the feeling that Flacco was "on" early in the season but seemed to slow down as the season progressed. I also felt like the defense started out weak but finished strong. Many other fans have expressed the same feelings, and the statistics for Flacco and the defense seem to agree. However, it's hard to make an argument connecting both Flacco's play and the defense's play to wins and loses. For every fact that I could point out, there is one that contradicts it, so I decided to discover the plausibility of the argument for myself.
Introduction:
What exactly was I trying to prove? I wanted to show that as the season progressed, Flacco slowly cooled down and the defense heated up. I also wanted to discover if there was any connection between that argument and wins and losses. The argument hinges on the fact that the Ravens never reached their full potential last season. Most teams never do, but in the case of the Ravens season, the success of the quarterbacks, both the opponents and Flacco, versus the respective defenses should help us to understand the Ravens success and failure last season.
Football is a team game, and both sides of the ball effect the game's outcome and effect each other. If Flacco's success versus an opposing defense matches the success of an opponent quarterback versus his defense, the game should be close... theoretically. If Flacco is having more success than the opposing quarterback, the Ravens should be winning. Obviously, quarterback play isn't the only factor in winning football games. Flacco only threw for thirty-four yards versus the Patriots in the playoffs, and the Ravens still won. That's why I decided not to analyze a single game or even a few games. I decided that the entire season needs to be taken into account and that I would be looking for trends.
Trend analysis is a statistical technique that uses data analysis to discover what is happening in reality. It's like reverse-engineering with numbers. The NFL is great because statistics are well documented and easily accessible. I decided that I would analyze several statistics as the 2009 season progressed and would compare Flacco to his opponents in different games. The idea behind comparing Flacco to his competition is to understand how Flacco's performance versus opponent quarterbacks' performance contributes to wins and losses over a season.
Passer rating should give me a good understanding of how much success a respective quarterback is having versus the defense he is facing. Yardage will tell me the same thing but should be checked versus the other statistics since yardage can be racked up when a team is playing from behind. Touchdowns and interceptions should be the most telling statistic in my opinion. Touchdowns and interceptions can be arbitrary, but when you consider that quarterbacks are trying their best to score touchdowns and defenses are trying to force interceptions, the ability to achieve them is an indicator of success, especially over time. Interceptions are useful when studying opposing quarterbacks since they are typically a good indicator of pressure and coverage by the defense. The more games analyzed, the more accurate the results will be, especially with regard to touchdowns and interceptions.
Analysis:
The trend analysis provided intriguing insight into the Ravens season. From the "QB Rating" graph, it's clear that both the opponent quartbacks' rating and Flacco's rating fell as the season progressed. This is exactly what I expected if my argument is true. If Flacco's rating is declining as much as the opposing quarterbacks', that means his decline is happening at the same time as the defense's emergence. The fact that they're parallel is also a huge support for my theory. This means that the defense was increasing in success versus opposing offenses at nearly the same rate as Flacco was declining in success versus opposing defenses. The "QB Rating" trend line gives us a good overall view of the season in terms of the success of the quarterbacks versus the respective defenses.
The "Yards" and the "Touchdown" graphs were also what I expected. As the season progressed, Flacco threw for less yardage and touchdowns. The opposing quarterback also declined but at a much slower rate. In fact, the slope of Flacco's "Touchdowns" trend line causes it to overtake the opposing quarterbacks' trend line. The fact that Flacco was finding the end-zone at a drastically different rate than the opposing quarterbacks means that even though he was competitive statistically (which is evident due to the parallel "QB Rating" trend lines), he was not as efficient at scoring. If Flacco is capable of competing statistically but not scoring consistently, what does that tell us? Obviously, the offense wants to score on every play, so this tells us that Flacco can move the ball but not score when needed. Now, this isn't saying that Flacco is incapable. In fact, the analysis shows that Flacco was more efficient than the competition early in the season but wasn't as efficient as the competition later in season. This is evident because Flacco's "Touchdowns" and "Yards" trend lines start higher and finish lower and therefore, have a greater negative decline. The opponent quarterbacks' "Touchdowns" trend line is almost flat but does decline slightly. Therefore, Flacco became increasingly more inefficient while the competition remained at an even scoring efficiency as the season progressed. This weakness would obviously be magnified versus a quarterback that is having success versus Flacco's defense and scoring when needed.
The "Interceptions" graph is an indicator of the defenses' success. From the graph, it's clear to see the dramatic rise in the opposing quarterbacks' trend line as the season progressed. This basically shows that the defense was playing more aggressive as the season progressed. A bad defense can force interceptions, but it takes an aggressive and effective defense to force a trend line up like the graph above. Flacco's "Interceptions" trend line is almost flat and may decline a little. When a quarterback's play declines, they typically throw more interceptions. In other words, interceptions typically increase as a quarterbacks statistics decrease. With Flacco, every area of his game declined, but he didn't really have a huge increase in interceptions. This tells me that the Ravens were playing it smart with Flacco and protecting him with easy, max-protect game plans. This is technically a subjective point of view because it can just as easily be argued that Flacco's decrease in numbers without an increase in interceptions were a result of a run-first focus in the running game. That argument has weight, but if Flacco is throwing for career highs and the offense is effectively running and passing, why would they change anything? That's what leads me to believe that the coaches were protecting Flacco later in the season after the injury, presumably.
Conclusion:
I'd love to be able to say that my analysis proves my argument and subsequent theory beyond any doubt. However, I don't think that I can objectively say that. There are just too many opposing arguments that also have weight. However, I have shown that Flacco was less effective versus opposing defenses as the season progressed and the defense was more effective versus opponent quarterbacks as the season progressed, and if you connect that fact with the fact that the Ravens continued to win games throughout the season, the conclusion is that the Ravens were winning games with their offense early and with their defense late.
At the very least, the analysis shows that my argument is very plausible if not likely. It doesn't necessarily prove anything about the Ravens success and failure during the season since there are so many other factors, but with trend analysis, the idea really wasn't to prove the theory. The idea is to prove the plausibly and likelihood of it, and in that regard, I believe that the analysis has been very successful. Using trend analysis, it is possible to construct a model which is independent of anything known about the physics of a process of an incompletely understood physical system. Therefore, this type of analysis can circumvent the billions of other factors to completely describe any situation given an infinite time frame. Since we can't use an infinite time-frame and only have relevant data from a single season, I cannot say that the analysis completely describes the Ravens season. However, it does give us an useful model from which an accurate estimation of reality can be made.
The fact that Flacco's "QB Rating" trend line is parallel with the opponent quarterbacks' trend line tells us that the average games were competitive between the Ravens and their opponents. In other words, Flacco's decline didn't affect the competitiveness of the Ravens because the defense picked up the slack. The fact that Flacco's "Touchdowns" trend line significantly decreases and the opponent quarterbacks' trend line stays relatively steady tells us that Flacco's efficiency severely decreased as the season progressed. The decreased efficiency was a likely reason for the Ravens struggles versus quality opponents. Even though Flacco and the Ravens were competitive, they weren't able to consistently put games away when it counted, and the analysis shows that. Using the analysis, we have effectively seen that my original argument aligns with statistical data and ultimately, is a very good approximation of what happened during the Ravens' 2009 season.
The opinions posted here are those of the administrator of this blog and his loyal readers. They are in no way official comments from the team, and should not be misconstued as such, even though he thinks he could do just as well or even a better job!
100 comments
|
11 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Now this is what I called backing up your points
Showing graphs and into great detail, I sure hope you are making a living out of this
Great Work Hawk
Very interesting stuff. I have been in the same camp as you in regards to the main causes for fluctuations in Flacco’s play later in the season (Injury), and the Def’s play early in the year (New Coord). While this is not concrete evidence, it does look very probable that this was the case and the coaches took some of the burden off a hobbled Flacco, and the D picked up most of the slack.
This is why I feel Flacco should not be harshly judged on his play later in the season. He was injured, although still gave us the best chance to win, so he gutted it out. Playing hurt did hinder his decision making and especially pocket presence as he was rendered basically immobile and it clearly made him uncomfortable at times. While Flacco is not Mike Vick by any means, when healthy, he does have solid athleticism for a man his size (See 38yd TD run in 1st pro game). Hopefully Joe has been working on adding strength to his core and lower body this off season to prevent the likelihood of a similar injury occurring.
This article exemplifies why I think Joe will bounce back (from poor play late in year) with a break out season this year. Not only is he healthy, he possesses a very strong work ethic and desire to be great and learn from his mistakes. With the weapons the Ravens have added this off season, Joe is in a great position to succeed and supplant himself firmly into one of the NFL’s elite quarterbacks (top 8-10) in 2010.
Actually he could be harshly judged
If these trends are as accurate as rthey seem, it shows that mors than likely if the Ravens defense did not step up when it did, the Ravens probably would not have made the playoffs on the streength of Joe’s right arm.
This is perhaps as good an article ever written here, with such detailed research and analysis, that it needs to be linked elsewhere. I will submit it to SB Nation and ask where else it can be sent.
Facinating stuff and so well written. Great, great job! Recommend everyone “rec” this story. I did.
aka 'Rexx'
by Bruce Raffel on May 7, 2010 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions
Also "Featured" it
as only I can do, which keeps it on the sidebar under “Featured Posts” as long as I want to keep it up there. Thanks again.
aka 'Rexx'
by Bruce Raffel on May 7, 2010 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions
the Ravens probably would not have made the playoffs on the streength of Joe’s right arm.
That is the whole point. Joe was injured and clearly not himself so they game planned to take pressure off him and put it on the D. People can judge all they want but the point being made is that he was not playing anywhere near healthy and it should not be seen as an accurate representation of Joe in the future.
you could see it in his release
he seemed to move his whole lower body on his release, as if when he really heaved the ball he had to move his plant leg also or else it would hurt to twist his body like that. not good mechanics and a large part of why it was hard for him to throw with power and accuracy down the stretch.
" Surgeon General's Warning: Do not stare directly at Al Davis. Do not think about Al Davis. Do not make any sudden movements when near Al Davis."
--Simmons
"Just win baby. Yeah, I stole that."
--Jon Gruden
If I could
I’d try and send it to Joe himself…
Congratulations to Joe Haden!!! now you get to be run over by Anquan Boldin for the next three years!! -Me
by lastcallbmore on May 7, 2010 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions
not if this is a trend through out the league though
his opponents have gone down too, but what about QBs form other teams, then you would have to look at which of those QBs are on playoff teams and which ones are Brady Quinn putting up 300 yards on the Lions.
It would make some sense that this happens with most QBs in the league as defenses get hot as they do over the course of a season and they start to have more immediate film to study and pick apart. Especially within a division that is as defensive minded as the AFC North.
Good bye Big Walt.
If these trends are as accurate as rthey seem, it shows that mors than likely if the Ravens defense did not step up when it did, the Ravens probably would not have made the playoffs on the streength of Joe’s right arm.
That’s exactly right, Bruce. If the defense hadn’t gotten their act together (sometime in the second half of the Vikings game), I don’t think there’s any way that the Ravens would have made the playoffs last season. They barely got in anyway. Flacco was good enough to keep teams from suffocating the running game, but there’s now way he could have kept up if opposing teams were putting up tons of points per game on average.
If the defense hadn’t gotten their act together (sometime in the second half of the Vikings game)…
I’m glad it didn’t take any longer. The first half of the Vikings game was brutal to watch. It seemed like they completely outmatched us in every phase of the game.
Water covers 2/3 of the Earth's surface. Ed Reed covers the rest.
I think you perfectly pointed out that Joe is willing to do anything to get the job done, including playing with swelling in the hip that made it 2 inches larger. Even though we could tell that he was hurting and his play was declining because of it, what was his excuse for having a bad game? He didn’t get it done. We never once heard one complaint from him about his injury and the way he handled himself, you really would have never known he was even hurting.
Joe is a gym and film rat. I heard they even made him a personal room at The Castle for him to sleep in because he spends so much time there (not at college bars). We definitely know that Joe is working probably harder than anyone on our team.
Joe will have a great, great year. He took a huge step from 2008 to 2009 with the same weapons and playing major time with an injury. Now, he has an elite WR group and a plentiful supply of young guys who can go across the middle. And for those games where he is struggling to get it done (every QB has them except Peyton) he has 3 Pro-Bowl ball carriers in the backfield to move the offense for him.
I really would not be surprised to see Joe’s name in the Pro-Bowl race this year. Great work, Drew.
You have to hate losing more than you love winning.
We definitely know that Joe is working probably harder than anyone on our team.
WE also definitly, probably, in all likelyhood, and arguably know that MaLoR is really good at casting doubt on his own sentences by putting too many qualifiers in them, debatably but definitively.
" Surgeon General's Warning: Do not stare directly at Al Davis. Do not think about Al Davis. Do not make any sudden movements when near Al Davis."
--Simmons
"Just win baby. Yeah, I stole that."
--Jon Gruden
by jackmca on May 7, 2010 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I’m totally expecting Joe to have a fantastic year. I don’t know if he’ll make the Pro Bowl. If Manning, Brady and Rivers have decent years, their name recognition alone will get them in over Joe. Joe would need to be truly great to make the Pro Bowl, but that’s not outside the realm of possibilities.
sup guys, haven't been around in a while
I read an article on him, I heard that Joe couldn’t tell you where a bar in Baltimore is if you asked him
"We're only going to score 17 points?"
what about the bar in that cheesy commercial where they tie him to a chair?
cringe-worthy
" Surgeon General's Warning: Do not stare directly at Al Davis. Do not think about Al Davis. Do not make any sudden movements when near Al Davis."
--Simmons
"Just win baby. Yeah, I stole that."
--Jon Gruden
Hell of a right up
To actually go and take the info and stats, and put them in graph form really helps to explain your theory.
All in I give your “science project” an A.
"I kill myself in small amounts"
by StuckInUtah on May 7, 2010 12:15 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
I meant WRITE up
"I kill myself in small amounts"
by StuckInUtah on May 7, 2010 12:17 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Great article man. Really good stuff.
" Surgeon General's Warning: Do not stare directly at Al Davis. Do not think about Al Davis. Do not make any sudden movements when near Al Davis."
--Simmons
"Just win baby. Yeah, I stole that."
--Jon Gruden
All I want to know is...
How long did this take??? Great stuff though Hawk, I always look forward to your posts.
Congratulations to Joe Haden!!! now you get to be run over by Anquan Boldin for the next three years!! -Me
I believe your spreadsheet should say "Brodie Croyle" in Week 1
But other than that, great job. That was a good read.
Did Cutler really have a 7.9 rating against us that game?
I think that is a guy who should really be in trouble right now.
Good bye Big Walt.
3 interceptions for 94 yards will do that to you.
You have to hate losing more than you love winning.
when the yards off INTs is competing with your yards off completions, you have a problem
" Surgeon General's Warning: Do not stare directly at Al Davis. Do not think about Al Davis. Do not make any sudden movements when near Al Davis."
--Simmons
"Just win baby. Yeah, I stole that."
--Jon Gruden
He is an asshole and I would probably wish diabetes on him if he didn't already have it.
Kinda like Rivers.
Who is the biggest jerk?
Cutler, Rivers, or Roethlisberger?
They say the empty can rattles the most...
Rivers
F*****T is offensive, even when blanked out, who knew?
by Zachary Beard on May 7, 2010 9:45 PM EDT up reply actions
Yup.
But Cutler beats him at moping.
"All by their heads, he places crowns."
"God I'm excited for those two to fail miserably." - SBNation writer Andrew Sharp on Josh McDaniels and Tim Tebow.
Quitter's People United Member #18
by Tempestuous Binary on May 8, 2010 6:37 AM EDT up reply actions
Rapethisberger by far
Cutler is a bitch, Rivers is a punk, but neither is a rapist.
Good bye Big Walt.
I thought that Flacco had a better year than he did in 08
It just looked like he was playing through a few injuries near the end of the year and it screwed up his productivity.
Lifelong Arizona Cardinals/Chicago Bears fan.
I can't stand fair-weather/bandwagon fans, stick with your team, throughout the good and the bad.
I do think the injuries hurt last year
But he also has alot to work on. His awareness looks terrible at times, especially when the rush is coming from his blind side. He needs to watch Peyton to work on that stuff, no one feels it more than he does. Joe needs to work on stepping up in the pocket after his 5 step drops to buy more time. And the one thing I cannot stand is when he throws off his back foot. Man, 50% of passes over 25 yards last year were off his back foot it seemed like. That results in a ball that stays in the air for too long. Can anyone name me one deep ball last year that The WR caught in stride? No it did not happen, they were nearly all jump balls. The TD he threw to Mason in the Tennesse playoff game, he needs to go back and watch that play 100 times, because that was the most beautiful pass I have ever seen.
Here’s to hoping Zorn has a huge impact on Joe. And I think he will.
You have to hate losing more than you love winning.
And the one thing I cannot stand is when he throws off his back foot.
I think his injury played a major factor in this as he was not comfortable stepping into his throws. I think he’ll improve tremendously in this area in 2010.
He does need to work on pocket presence, thats for sure, but I do think the injuries had something to do with his his regression in that area during the second part of last season. He just did not look comfortable.
Yes, the injuries were definitely a part of that. But if you watch the KC and SD games (before he was injured) the TD passes to Clayton against KC and the TD to Kelly were both thrown off the back foot and were in the air for very long. Yes, they were Touchdowns, but you cannot get used to those mechanics. We all know Joe has the arm strength to be able to make the completion from his back foot, but arm strength does not equate to accuracy. Stepping into his throws will keep the ball lower, which will not allow for the CB to have enough time to recover on an open WR, plus it gives way more accuracy. There is a time where the back foot throw is needed with a pass rush in your face, but Joe did it way too much last year.
Again, the TD pass against Tennessee in the playoffs was picture perfect. If he can repeat throws like that, man he could take his game to another level.
Here is the link for anyone to see it again. perfection. He feels the rush, steps up in the pocket and freaking launches the most beautiful spiral ever. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktWwRkuEVKs
You have to hate losing more than you love winning.
this is a class project
there is no way anyone would go out of there way to go through all this without earning some type of credit. im taking business statistics II for the 4th time over the summer at Towson, Bal_Hawk can you please do my homework?
"When you go in the lions den you don't tippy toe in, you carry a spear, you go in screaming like a banshee, you kick whatever doors in, and say, 'where's the son of a bitch. If you go in any other way your gonna lose." - Brian
its terrible
ive pushed this 300 level class all the way til my final semester
"When you go in the lions den you don't tippy toe in, you carry a spear, you go in screaming like a banshee, you kick whatever doors in, and say, 'where's the son of a bitch. If you go in any other way your gonna lose." - Brian
R-squared
Let me preface by saying that, like everyone else, I really liked this article and thought it was extremely well written.
Now, those R-values are pretty low. From a statistical point of view I don’t think those trend lines can really tell you anything significant. Any “trend” where the data fit is less than 90% ( R-squared = 0.90) has questionable validity. I don’t remember exactly where they draw the line, it might even be more like 99% is expected.
But with that being said, theres only so much you can do with only 16 data points, and for a couple of analyses, especially Yards and QB Rating, the trend is clearly visible even without the trend line.
I’m not trying to debunk your theory, I just wanted to point out that it can be risky to put faith in trend lines when the data shows poor agreement via R-squared values.
They say the empty can rattles the most...
That’s true, and another reason why I couldn’t definitively confirm my argument. The coefficient of determination (R^2) is extremely low in this analysis. Even using logarithmic and polynomial trend lines, the highest coefficient I got was around 0.3. The problem is with the randomness of the game of football and the limited number of games in a season. A quarterback can throw four interceptions one week versus an agressive defense and none the next week versus a weak defense.
I disclosed the R^2 values to show that the analysis is far from definitive proof. However, I believe that the equations for determining a trend are still telling and useful in this analysis. If you understand them, you know that trends put less value on outside the average values and more value on “normal” data. Therefore, they provide a decent approximation of trends happening in real life situations. The coefficient of determination is based on perfection, and rightly so since it’s a mathematical tool used every day. However, I’m willing to look past the low R^2 values in this case and examine the basic analysis for what it is… “a very good approximation.”
Good explanation
I’m sold.
I was trying to think of some other things that might be interesting to look at. I bet the percentage of pass attempts in which Flacco checked down to Rice increased over the course of the season. By the end it seemed like that was all he wanted to do. Of course, that too was likely incluenced by his hip deal.
They say the empty can rattles the most...
Thi story is being passed around already!
I sent it to the lead football Czar at SB Nation and it is up on their NFL Front Page (scroll down a bit).
I also sent it to the Ravens PR Dept. to see and even forward to Joe. How great would that be for BAL_Hawk and The Beatdown if Flacco would respond to this story!?
aka 'Rexx'
tell 'em we got Al Davis here on the thread and this story was the inspiration for cutting JaMarcus Russell
" Surgeon General's Warning: Do not stare directly at Al Davis. Do not think about Al Davis. Do not make any sudden movements when near Al Davis."
--Simmons
"Just win baby. Yeah, I stole that."
--Jon Gruden
if the same is done over a 5 year period
we all would be able use the trend as fact of “decline or on the rise” in relation to the progression of a season or seasons. Lets face Joe was hurt with the black & blue hip and foot & toe injuries. QB’s are one of the few positions that are played every down with out sub.
Great write-up Bal_hawk
It really epitomizes the quality of stories that SBNation really tries to instill in all of its blogs.
F*****T is offensive, even when blanked out, who knew?
I’m not sure, but wasn’t there a trend in increasing QB pressure over the season? Why do you choose not to include sacks and QB pressure? I remember our receivers took too long to get open and we kept everybody back to block. We didn’t start out throwing screen passes all game to Rice; it was more of a symptom of our offense. What do you think BAL_Hawk?
Could you have included yards/pass/game or something as well? Some of the main factors that affect a QB rating are time in pocket and efficiency percentage for each down. 3rd down is probably important.
I’m not a real big fan of this story, sorry. I respect your opinion. I’m sure it took you a while, but I think there are several factors here not discussed. Also, it could be edited to at least half the length and made less passive.
I’m not man enough to take on such a complicated issue. I really enjoy reading stories on this blog. I’m Just trying to offer some constructive criticism.
by PurpleNorangeNbeer on May 7, 2010 11:37 PM EDT reply actions
I thought the QB rating graph
pretty much told the story. You can look at that graph week to week and tell pretty much who won every game.
The premise of the article was to analyze Flacco’s success against opposing defenses versus opposing quarterbacks’ success versus the Ravens defense on a week-by-week basis in order to discover the connection between those factors and the Ravens success throughout the season if there was one. The quarterback rating is an all-inclusive, calculated statistic that does a good job of summarizing a quarterback’s overall performance in a given game. In effect, it takes into account all the factors that you mentioned since those factors contribute to an overall performance, which is what I was after in this article.
A good quarterback rating means that the quarterback was having success versus the defense, and conversely, a bad rating means that the defense was has success versus the quarterback. This analysis would be meaningless if we didn’t have a common factor at each data point, and that’s why I analyzed Flacco versus the opposing defenses (Flacco being the constant) and opposing quarterbacks versus the Ravens defense (the Ravens defense being the constant). Therefore, I believe that the quarterback rating was the perfect statistic to analyze in order to discover the plausibility of my original argument, the premise of the article. The analysis of yardage, touchdowns and interceptions was really a supporting point. It wasn’t entirely necessary but was interesting and added a level of understanding. Analyzing more statistics would have been unnecessary and cumbersome.
No, QB ratings do not take into account QB pressure and sacks. Other than that, it does a good job, I agree. Flacco’s rating toward the end of the season has four outliers, two high and two low, not a steady drop. I don’t see the trends of your analysis.
Your sample size is only 18 games, which is almost nothing from a statistical standpoint, and even though there is a relative rise and drop in offensive v. defensive play, the teams we played were different. Our guys got injured. Our opponent’s guys got injured.
With a game relying so much on team play, I think a similar argument could be made for our O-line v. opponent’s O-line, or something like that. What about our inability to get QB pressure toward the end of the season? There was only low interception rate for opposing QB’s weeks 4-8. The rest is relatively constant. Our secondary played fairly well, but there is a reason we got a pass rusher for our first pick in the draft.
Sorry for being such a pain in the ass. I find your article very interesting. I’m done trying to ruin it.
by PurpleNorangeNbeer on May 8, 2010 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m not really following your logic… and have no idea what specific contentions you have.
In terms of overall performance, the rating takes pressure, sacks, scheme (really everything) into account because a quarterback’s performance rises or falls as a result of the billions of factors that go into every play. A quarterback could have a great day because he has a high completion percentage and no interceptions or because he throws several touchdowns. Either way, it’s a successful day versus the defense. The rating condenses each game’s performance into a single statistic that is an accurate indicator of how successful a quarterback is in that game. Therefore, the quarterback rating is the perfect statistic for this analysis. Remember that we’re looking at how the overall performances effect the whole season… not how certain statistics effect specific games.
a = (((Comp/Att) * 100) -30) / 20
b = ((TDs/Att) * 100) / 5
c = (9.5 – ((Int/Att) * 100)) / 4
d = ((Yards/Att) – 3) / 4
a, b, c and d can not be greater than 2.375 or less than zero.
QB Rating = (a + b + c + d) / .06
by PurpleNorangeNbeer on May 8, 2010 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Really, this has nothing to do with the analysis. You’re arguing that the quarterback rating isn’t an inclusive enough statistic? That doesn’t have anything to do with me. I didn’t formulate it. I’m guessing you think that I should have included other statistics in the analysis because the rating isn’t inclusive enough. I’ve already explained why I didn’t… twice.
The quarterback rating is an all-inclusive, calculated statistic that does a good job of summarizing a quarterback’s overall performance in a given game. In effect, it takes into account all the factors that you mentioned since those factors contribute to an overall performance, which is what I was after in this article.
In terms of overall performance, the rating takes pressure, sacks, scheme (really everything) into account because a quarterback’s performance rises or falls as a result of the billions of factors that go into every play… The rating condenses each game’s performance into a single statistic that is an accurate indicator of how successful a quarterback is in that game.
Since you continued arguing the same point after I made those explanations, I’m guessing that you didn’t understand them. I’m not saying that the rating uses sacks, pressures or whatever in the calculation. I’m saying that the quarterback rating is an indicator of overall performance, which is what I was interested in. Obviously, pressure, sacks, hurries and the billions of other factors affect the quarterback. However, all of these factors manifest themselves in the quarterbacks performance, which is primarily determined by his passing statistics. That is why the people who invented the passer rating only used passing statistics in the formula. They understood that pressure, sacks, hurries and all of the other billions of factors affect the quarterback and ultimately, manifest themselves in passing statistics. Again, that’s also why the quarterback rating is the perfect statistic for analyzing overall performance.
You can stop typing like you are writing a medical journal. Do you talk like that? You said above that the QB rating statistic “does a good job” at summarizing a QB’s statistics in a game. You claim it has nothing to do with you because you didn’t formulate it—I guess to acknowledge its imperfection. And even though you now think it is all-inclusive and perfect, your sample has outliers which make stats unreliable. I guess there is no way for you to argue without being disrespectful.
by PurpleNorangeNbeer on May 8, 2010 6:36 PM EDT up reply actions
As far as “outliers” go, trend estimation allows for them. In fact, that’s what makes it such a powerful tool in this type of statistical analysis. It can take a wide range of data and compute an accurate model showing the direction of the data. I could go on, but it sounds like you’re getting irritated. I never meant to be disrespectful.
No hard feelings. I appreciate the work that went into this article. I still totally disagree with you, but I’m THAT GUY this time, I guess. I’m sure I will enjoy reading the next one.
by PurpleNorangeNbeer on May 9, 2010 11:34 AM EDT up reply actions
he got hurt down the stretch
Flacco was clearly liming down the stretch after about week 13ish or soo thats why it started going down he was playing hurt and still doing better than most other qb’s in the league and now he has more weapons because teams double mason + heap and watch clayton drop it last year boldin wount drop it and if they double him and give mason 1v1 he’s still just quick enough to beat them and hes super smart…
by shangs_assassin on May 7, 2010 11:45 PM EDT reply actions
Awesome, awesome article, man!
"All by their heads, he places crowns."
"God I'm excited for those two to fail miserably." - SBNation writer Andrew Sharp on Josh McDaniels and Tim Tebow.
Quitter's People United Member #18
by Tempestuous Binary on May 8, 2010 6:40 AM EDT reply actions
this article is pure intelligence. like Raleigh Theodore Sakers.
" Surgeon General's Warning: Do not stare directly at Al Davis. Do not think about Al Davis. Do not make any sudden movements when near Al Davis."
--Simmons
"Just win baby. Yeah, I stole that."
--Jon Gruden
Another stats challenge
I’d love to see you do an analysis based upon how much Joe spread the ball amongst receivers. My memory from watching games is that at the start of the year Joe was spreading the ball around (unpredictable) and all over the field. As the season wore on, he became dependant on (addicted to) Mason and Rice and the passing game therefore became very predictable. Take away those two (see Cincy or Colts games) and the pass offense disappeared. I would guess the correlation is higher in this analysis.
"What we've got here is failure to communicate."
great job
and thats coming from a cincy fan =)
"wherever Brad St. Louis is and Shayne Graham is about to be." -R.F. Mehl
Wow, Impressive
At the end of the day (err, I should say, the season), I think it came down to Flacco’s injury, opposing defenses “gaming” Flacco better and the Ravens relying more and more on the run as the season progressed.
I agree the R-squared values are crap, except that for Flacco’s yards where the R-squared is 33, that is very good for only 18 statistical data points. With such a small data sample, trends can really only do one of three things: stay the same, increase or decrease. To try to judge how much they increase or decrease or extrapolate any type of correlation is purely conjecture. The take-away is “abc” increased while “xyz” decreased; to try to say that abc decreased at the same rate or as much as xyz increased is a bit of a stretch.
Point is, Flacco regressed (harsh term, but for lack of a better term and I am by no means being critical of him as I believe he did a fine job) while the defense progressed. Rather I should say Flacco’s numbers regressed…
Great job, nonetheless, BH. The only thing I might consider adding would be to look at number of running plays/number of passing plays for the the first three quarters of each game; also look at yards gained per play, again for the first three quarters of each game. I would consider tossing the fourth quarter numbers because of two variables whose weight seem to increase in the fourth quarter: “garbage time” stats/trying to catch up/sitting on a lead -I believe the first three quarters are going to be closer to the game plan and be more “natural” data while in the fourth quarter the game plan can get tossed depending upon if you are trying to sit on a lead or if you are trying to play catch-up; and also fourth quarter fatigue I think can unnaturally skew some of the data.
Like I said, great job and props to you for getting your story passed around to other sites.
Thank you! Here’s a note about the R values that’s not necessarily a response to your comment…
I wouldn’t even make this comment for fear of sounding like a medical journal again, but I think there’s a little confusion about the interpretation of R values. I probably should have just left them off the graph because I don’t believe the average reader can surmise the truth from these comments and probably thinks the analysis is flawed.
The analysis is not flawed because of the low R values. The R value only tells us how closely the data points included are to the trend line and in this case, have nothing to do with the accuracy of the analysis. Ranging from 0-1, the R value tells you how closely the data is to your trend line. A value of 1 means that every data point is exactly on the trend line. A value of 0 means that there is no trend. Any value at all means that there is a trend no matter how small.
The lines shown in the graphs are perfectly calculated trend lines (by proven equations). The low R values mean that the system is too random to predict future results. The higher the R value, the higher the likely hood that future data will follow the trend. Since the NFL is about the most random system you could imagine, low R values are expected. However, that doesn’t mean that we can’t use past accumulated data to make an accurate estimation of the trend for analysis.
There’s the math lesson for today. I hope that clears things up.
Of Course
You got it. And also, obviously, the larger the data sample, the “truer” the trend line and therefore the higher the R value. I agree it is tough with only 18 data points- I was just impressed that the one with Flacco’s yardage had a relatively high value: 33 (I mean .33, but I always used to use these as percentages, not decimals; I know, toh-meh-toe, toe-…) given the small data set.
I agree, we need to end this math lesson before folks start running for the hills from The Beatdown…
After writing this, no one has the right to question your fandom
Well done
"We're only going to score 17 points?"
I’m seriously glad you didn’t pull out MATLAB when we were discussing McGahee last year.
Water covers 2/3 of the Earth's surface. Ed Reed covers the rest.
Used to Love
MATLAB back in college. I think we used an “education” version (meaning free or reduced cost and some limited functionality) and it came on two or three 3.5" floppies.
Matlab does have some nice advanced features, but I always enjoy using Maple. It’s kinda dumbed down, but faster for simple math.
Not Familar
with “Maple”, but then when I say back in college, I mean late ’80’s… twenty (urgh-!) years ago…
Objectively speaking as possible IMO the only thing that Flacco lacks is.........
Experience and the development of what I call field generalship. There is no doubt that he has all of the tools. In every category I think he and Carson compare well. The only area where I give Carson as slight edge is his experience. I think he did more with less than about every QB in the league and in 6 or 7 games he took command of the team and engineered drives that were almost unstoppable. He did it against your D twice last year and was the difference.
NO, I did not come here to tout Carson. My point is that Flacco has similar strengths and once he develops that confident understand of how everything works and how to work a Defense he has all pro potential. He may struggle, like Carson might, to integrate the new weapons he has but once that happens the O will be beastly – for both teams. As for this season I think the team that most quickly makes their QB/WR combination get into sync will have the edge. Both of our Ds will be strong. Your is stronger in the front 7 and ours is stronger in the back 7.
Honestly I think both Carson’s and Joe’s best years are ahead of them. Man, this is going to be a real dog fight for the next several years and Pittsburg still has teeth as well. The Browns are a year or two away but I expect them to crawl into contention as well by 2012. These are interesting times.
"If we always agree, one of us is not necessary"
I agree with just about everything you say. Carson is a better QB then Joe, today. The QB that gets in sync with his receivers the quickest has an edge. Yes ,Carson beat the Ravens twice but luck was involved in the one in Baltimore. Not making excuses but Ray Lewis will not change anything about the way he hits people over the middle. When he hit Cinco and almost took his head off at the end of the game, that is just one of those plays that was unlucky for the Ravens. When the 2 collided, Rays helmet is the first thing to hit Cincos’ helmet. As much fun as that was to watch, it is a bad break for the Ravens. Carson throws a winning TD, game over.
There is no doubt Joe’s best years are ahead of him (injury free) because he has not hit his prime. Carson on the other hand has, this is his prime. He needs to do something now or soon. I am sure Joe Flacco’s best years are ahead of him, not so sure Carson Palmers’ are. Good Luck!
"We don't report the murders just the beatings!"
There is no doubt Joe’s best years are ahead of him (injury free) because he has not hit his prime. Carson on the other hand has, this is his prime. He needs to do something now or soon. I am sure Joe Flacco’s best years are ahead of him, not so sure Carson Palmers’ are. Good Luck!
correctomundo.
"Cam, we're not going to have any issues because we're going to be winning."
--Joe Flacco
"Just win baby. Yeah, I stole that."
--Jon Gruden
I can accept all of that - no prob;em. Wiyj one exception.
Ray is, and I have said it several times, in the past, the best LB over the past 10 years. When you talk about luck I just don’t but it. Ray made is name with big hits and intimidation. I have no problem with that. But every tactic has positive and negative sides. If you are going to go for the big Sportcenter moment you open yourself up to the possibility of making an error and having it cost you. This is the second time I can remember where going for the big hit and having it backfire. I remember a couple of years ago when Ray, rather than just make a good hard tackle, Ray decided to pickup and body slam TJ Houshmanzahah. He made a good play but got overly agressive. TJ held onto the ball and just bounced to his feet while Ray hurt his shoulder and missed several games. This hurt your team. In the game last year he did the same thing. He got very agressive and rather than just make a good hard tackle he got overly agressive, his hit was a bit high and his helmet hit Ocho’s. That is dangerous and illegal per the rules. It was a legit penalty and luck had nothing to do with it. It was simply a bad play by Ray – simple as that. His bad play gave Carson another chance and Carson took advantage of it. On the TD play in that game Ray bit on a play fake and made another mistake moving two steps the wrong was and the WR open for the TD. That loss was all on Ray because of two bad plays. Go back and look at the film. You will see that I am right.
Ray’s style is part of who he is. He intimidated people and his play many many times served the Ravens well, but it also can be a negative. If Ray had just made a hard hitting tackle he would not have missed several games a couple of years ago and it probably caused you to lose that game last year.
Lets make a deal. Lets agree that what happens on the field between the Bengals and Ravens is just a part of the game. Lets agree not to blame luck or the refs for a loss.
Whoever wins wins and that is that – no excuses. Can we agree on that? You have swept us before and I didn’t think it was luck. I don’t think it was luck last year either it was just two of very few bad plays by Ray.
"If we always agree, one of us is not necessary"
Lets agree not to blame luck or the refs for a loss.
No way man. I have watched alot of football over the last 5 years and I have never seen a team that gets screwed over by the refs more than the Ravens, and this is not just my Raven bias coming out. There is a reason that the Ravens have consistently been the team most involved in controversial calls discussions on ESPN and NFL Network. The refs 100% call games different against the Ravens. I saw some of the worst refereeing in my life during last year during Ravens games. The refs can and HAVE lost games for the Ravens.
You have to hate losing more than you love winning.
OK MaLor, I just want to make sure that I understand what you are saying.
Are you saying that that there is an organized conspiracy among some “powers to be” that include a plethora of different refs to deliberately try to keep the Ravens from winning games by being intentionally unfair?
Or
Are you saying that it a random pattern of undeliberate bad calls that defies the laws of ?randomness and statistical probability stacked up against the Ravens.
If the first is true that is quite a serious charge and an incredible conspirace theory that I would think that with allof the story hungry investigative journalists out there that they would have picked up on that by now or at least the Ravens organization would have begun some kind of investigation. If you have real statistics to back this up, and that is the only path to credibility, there is a real best seller in this for you.
If the second is true is pretty well flies in the face of the laws of probability. I will grant that due to the fact that there are only 16 games in a regular season that the law of large numbers may not apply due to the lower relative number of data points.
There is a third possibility. Is it possible that you are seeing something that really is just perceptual and that you are simply seeing what you want to see. That would be the simplest possibility. According to the precept of Occam’s Razor, in the absence of concrete evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation is usually the right one.
MaLor, we have gone around a bit but generally I think we both try to keep it relatively real so I accept the fact that you truly believe this, but I find it difficult to accept. As for me I think fans of all teams think theirs is constantly being screwed by bad luck and bad calls when it is actually just human error and is simply a part of the game and occurs on a reasonably even basis. If I didn’t know you better I would think that this smacks of poor sportsmanship and excuse making.
"If we always agree, one of us is not necessary"
This
Are you saying that that there is an organized conspiracy among some "powers to be" that include a plethora of different refs to deliberately try to keep the Ravens from winning games by being intentionally unfair?
You have to hate losing more than you love winning.
I just do not think you understand where Ravens fans come from. Alot of stuff plays into us thinking this way. One, you can ask nearly every Raven fan out there and you will get the same sense that the refs are out to get us. Two, the Ravens have been the talk of the most refereeing controversies over the last few seasons.
Yes, I do think the league has more respect for other teams than the do ours. We are a fairly new franchise in a small fan base. We are not one of the “money makers” of the NFL and I think the league knows this. What does the league want to see each year, Colts Patriots or Ravens Patriots/Colts?
If I didn’t know you better I would think that this smacks of poor sportsmanship and excuse making.
It really is not. Have the Ravens players themselves lost games because of performance? Of course. But we have seen our fair share of refs making some of the worst possible calls in league history during our games. Ticky tack calls that I NEVER see other teams get.
This is a tough theory to explain to you simply because you are not a Ravens fan and do not get the gist of what I am trying to say. So I will leave at the idea that the Ravens do indeed lose games because of the refs and because of the league.
You have to hate losing more than you love winning.
gotta side with JungleJOhn on this one
While you may be right that we have lost game due to refs, so have other teams. San Diego fans aren’t still crying over the Hoculi (spelling) call in 09, so what gives us the right to gripe about our officiating? Bad calls happen, it’s a fact. MaLoR, you probably see more bad calls for the Ravens than for other teams because you WATCH the Ravens far more than you watch any other team. As far as the leage/refs being “out to get us,” it would help if we weren’t really a bunch of overly-aggressive bullies, but we are and we like it that way. That’s going to affect the way refs call games and bad calls may result.
I’m not denying the mountain of bad calls we got last year, especially in the first Pats game, but in your argument you fail to recognize that we had the most penalized secondary in the LEAGUE and 95% of those calls were legit, because guys got beat and started hitting receivers early. When you develop the sort of reputation that we did last year, refs are going to be trigger-happy with the flags. It could happen to another team too if they had our style of play and our reputation.
"Cam, we're not going to have any issues because we're going to be winning."
--Joe Flacco
"Just win baby. Yeah, I stole that."
--Jon Gruden
Hell, make me a believer and I will write the book.
"If we always agree, one of us is not necessary"
I think that having penalties hurt the Ravens and the impression of the referees calling bad games consistently is a function of being a perennially defensive team. Game-changing penalties are rarely called against an offense. A false start or delay of game doesn’t change a game the way a 50 yard pass-interference call does. The Ravens have won games with their defense over the years, and in big games against good teams, they have relied on the defense to give up virtually no points. When they play teams like the Colts, Patriots and Steelers, it’s extremely difficult for them to keep them from scoring, and they usually try to overcompensate by playing crazy. Unfortunately, that may lead to a good, aggressive play but it may also lead to a penalty.
Now, I do believe that the Ravens have a reputation with the referees, especially after some of the run-ins and melt-downs that they’ve had. I don’t think that the referees are being unfair necessarily but have made their share of bad calls (but every team gets bad calls). I do think that they keep a very close eye on the Ravens… especially on defense. It’s like the “Tom Brady” rule. The referees were only calling penalties on plays that were technically roughing the passer but were certainly paying more attention when Brady was on the field. The referees watch the Ravens defenders very closely, and that’s the cost of being an aggressive and historically undisciplined defense.
That’s an area where Harbaugh has help tremendously, in my opinion. The Ravens are slowing changing their reputation. Everyone makes fun of Harbaugh for his speeches about men of integrity, but I believe that it’s working. The Ravens have played more disciplined since Harbaugh was hired and have really improved from 2008-2009. Just think about all of the referee debacles that they had in Harbaugh’s first season. They were much better last season. As long as they run a hard-charging defense, they will probably be scrutinized to an extent. That’s the price of being an aggressive defense, but it really wasn’t that bad last season and should continue to get better.
completely agree with everything you said
"Cam, we're not going to have any issues because we're going to be winning."
--Joe Flacco
"Just win baby. Yeah, I stole that."
--Jon Gruden
BAL_Hawk, OK I get it and I can see where you are comming form
As a Bengals fan I do know that when we play the Ravens and the Steelers I am as much worried about injuries as I am about the win. I think that the Ravens probably do get more scrutiny than some other teams, and the logic makes sense due to the overall persomality of your D. Ray makes no secret of the fact that he isn’t just out there to make a play – he wants to put a hurt on the opponents. No, I didn’t say try to injure players. There is a difference. When a player gets hurt he becomes less effective during that game but still comes back next week to play the next one.
This is a legit philosophy and I have no problem with that. In fact the Bengals are moving in that direction as well. I think the Ravens fans enjoy that style and have become used to it. That is ok – no problem there either. I love a good big hit just as much as you guys do. IMO you just have to recognize that every philosophy of play has its pluses and minuses. The minus for Ravens style football is the this very agressive style of play does, and should, draw added attention from the refs because these big punishing hits by their nature borderline on causing injuries. The scrutiny protects both the hitter and the hitee.
Chad and Ray are friends. Imagine what would have happened if Chad on that high hit got his neck broken. Would Ray be better or worse for it – even if that was an AFC Champ. game and it was the winning play? Football is a tough game and it should be, but this isn’t the lions against the Christians. It isn’t and shouldn’t be life threatening and more that it need to be. Limits have to be set and enforced. When a style of play flirts with the limit there needs to be closely held enforcement. Ray, or anyone else for that matter, can’t be allowed to initiate helmet to helmet contact – intentionally or unintentionally. This game is tough enough without over the top agressiveness. Between Ray getting injured and the costly penalties I am not sure he, and the team, wouldn’t be better served just making the play and not playing too close to the edge.
Your explanation makes absolute sense. Yea, I saw Brady point his fingers at players when they brushed his knees with their hands. I wouldn’t mind at all watching Brady walking in circles after a big (and legal) hit so dizzy he can’t find the sidelines. I respect what he has done but he is way too much of a primadonna for my tastes.
I asked for a few guys here to, just between us, give up on the excuses, claims of luck and bad refereeing. The added scrutiny is to be expected and needs to be accepted as part of the game when you play the aggressive style that the Ravens do. The outcome of a game should hinge on smart, tough athleticism and football skill not on who can beat the other guys up the worst. Fans can go to the MMA for that.
"If we always agree, one of us is not necessary"
I just read your novel and….. give me a break. Please stop coming here and telling us and RAY LEWIS how to tackle, it doesn’t shed you in a good light. i have read PB’s beginning comment on the only way RAY LEWIS knows how to play the game - that is high octane – high motor. there is no way Ray is trying to injure ANYBODY! if Rays’ tackle of the forementioned last game of the season on Chad, is off-center by 8 inches Rays helmet hits Chads shoulder pads and there is NO PENALTY! i mean please!
Watch the hit again, Rays shoulder pad hits Chad’s upper chest. No heads collided with anything. Chad’s helmet was thrown off because of the whiplash from the hit. There should have been no penalty.
Also on the game winning TD catch, the Bengals reciever grabbed Carr’s face mask and turned him around. That’s how he got so wide open. The Ravens should have won that game.
Raiders
I have said this before, but Raiders get the short end of the stick more than any other team. Not that I watch a lot of Raiders games (I do not), but to (contradict) MaLoR’s point, I think the Raiders are involved in more referee controversy discussions than the Ravens, but the Ravens are a close second.
For the Raiders, I think it stems from Al Davis being such a pain the a$$ of the NFL for decades, the whole Ben Davidson late spearing against Len Dawson of the Chiefs (which cost the Chiefs the playoffs that year), etc, etc. I do not believe there was ever a memo from Pete Rozelle to the refs along the lines of, “all calls go against the Raiders, yada yada yada”, BUT I would not be surprised if there was a conversation between Rozelle and the head of officiating, circa early ’70’s, along the lines of, “Ya know, I just got off the phone with Al, what a pain he is let me tell you; and I have noticed that Raiders are crossing the line a bit… maybe tell your boys they need to do a better job of keeping the Raiders in check so that we do not have anymore Davidson incidents…”
“Sure thing boss, anything you say. Any chance you can up our meal money from $5 a day to $6…?”
Now, to the Ravens: A lot of people, including NFL officials, were not happy with the Ravens coming into existence, for a variety of reasons, too numerous to go into here. That is strike one. There was of course, the whole Baltimore fan reaction to the Colts leaving and of course the subsequent Baltimore not getting either the Jags or Panther expansion teams -I think at one point Baltimore had shut down the NFL fax machines due to over-loading… -strike two (I know, chronological order messed up -sue me). THEN you get the whole Ray Lewis incident, then the Jamal Lewis trial (and there were few other minor incidents also) -strike three. Do I believe Paul Tagliabue ever sent out an official memo about how Ravens games should be “officiated”? No. But I could see a situation where Tagliabue just happens to be in the hallway with the head of officiating and he just laments the fact that, “I never really wanted Baltimore to have a team, and now with Cleveland getting a team we have to have a season with an odd number of teams which is just a logistical nightmare; we have to have another expansion derby to get to an even number of teams -the owners are going to b!tch about having to split the pie even more ways… the Lewises… Why couldn’t Baltimore have taken my advice and built a museum? Nooooo, they just had to have their own football team… Why couldn’t they just root for the ’skins…? Fine, they have a franchise. And a pretty good defense, But you know, Baltimore does not deserve the success… If only there was someway to keep them in check and send them a message…”
“Sure thing boss, anything you say. Any chance you can up our meal money from $50 a day to $60…?”
While I grant you I went over the top, I do believe there is subliminal bias on the refs part against Baltimore for a variety of reasons, including the ones I have laid out. -it is human nature on the refs part: a bang-bang play, okay, too close to call, but probably the Ravens fault (or not the other team’s fault in case of no-calls).
Now, I will admit, that over the past two years, with Harbaugh in charge, it seems that the number of just blatant “Michael-Jordan-taking-four-steps-on-his-home-court-no-foul” calls have reduced noticeably. So I will buy that Harbaugh has helped to rebuild the Ravens reputation -especially with moves like shipping McAlister out. I would also think that it also has something to do with Godell coming into office where he sat down and said something along the lines of, “Okay, new sheriff in town. I do not care what my predecessors said or did, I am wiping the slate clean -everybody starts fresh.”
“Sure thing, boss. Now about meal money…”
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Baltimore Beat Down
Related FanShots on Baltimore Beat Down
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SB Nation on YouTube
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Sadly, the Pro Bowl may continue to exist and be held in New Orleans
- Giants’ Coughlin nowhere near retirement at age 65
- Seahawks trade for Kellen Winslow; hope to make 2-TE sets more productive
- All reports positive after Peyton Manning’s first organized team activity in Denver
- Ryan Tannehill won’t start right away, according to Dolphins’ owner
