After letting the loss set in i have a question. On the 4th & 1 where we got the pass intercepted why did we call a formation with no RB? it seems to me that it showed the Ravens it was a pass play all the way and they could put more men in coverage that way. If we had at least a RB they had to respect the fact we might run it. If we could have scored there the game may or may not have turned out different but it was just a moment to me that i just don't understand. can anyone explain to me why that formation was called.
have a question about game against Ravens
Posted 09 January 2013 - 07:59 AM
I think they've called "all in" to score at least 1 TD and tried to call an aggressive passing play. There was nothing to loose, too bad it failed. At that time Ravens succeeded almost anything, and we didn't. I think an Arians-like long passing play'd made more sense, but just my 2 cents.
Posted 09 January 2013 - 08:47 AM
i suspect you'd have to call Clyde Christensen for an answer to that question.
"There's more than one way to skin a cat." Why do we even need one way? Who's out there skinning cats? And why do we need more than one way to do it? Isn't one enough?
Posted 09 January 2013 - 09:01 AM
Exactly. Clyde was calling the plays and that play call was pretty dumb.
I guess we had been telegraphing the run all day, so he probably figured, heck why not the pass too?
Posted 09 January 2013 - 09:03 AM
In theory it is supposed to force the Ravens to play Man to Man across the board and exploit a blitz package to "the big play." Our line was not equipped to handle their 'man' responsibilities even without going empty backfield....thus Luck probably forced the issue like he and other rookies have done many times before. I am trying to visualize that specific play......whether Luck did force it...or aim it as I like to say.
If someone can capture and post we could discuss even more as to actual blocking assignments etc.????
Change is good!