Passing Game
Jackson was afforded ample time and space (ATS) on 2 of 30 (7%) drop backs resulting in a pass or sack. With ATS, he was 2 of 2 for 39 yards (19.5 YPP).
He delivered the ball before pressure could develop (BOQ) 11 times (37%) with 9 complete for 72 yards (6.5 YPP). He was pressured 17 times (57%), on which he completed 6 of 16 passes for 58 net yards (3.4 YPP) including 1 sack. In total, Jackson outperformed his opportunity set by 26 yards (actual 169, expected 143), which is 0.9 yards per play above expectation.
By number of pass rushers for the game:
3: None
4: 8 plays, 68 yards, 8.5 YPP
5: 13 plays, 62 net yards, 4.8 YPP, 1 sack
6: 3 plays, 0 yards
7: 5 plays, 39 yards, 7.8 YPP
8: 1 play, 0 yards
The Vikings rushed 5+ on 22 of 30 (73%) dropbacks resulting in a pass or sack, the highest total I can recall over the past few years. On those plays, the Ravens gained 4.6 net YPP, including 1 sack. The Ravens used 21 set blocks and 7 chip blocks spread among 30 plays resulting in a pass or sack (0.93 per play). Hill led the team with 7 set blocks and Ricard had 5 set blocks and 1 chip block.
Collectively, the offensive line had a poor performance vs. a relentless blitz. They surrendered 10.5 pressures, 2 QH and ½ sack. They were flagged for just 1 false start.
OL Scoring
The Ravens ran 65 scored snaps (excludes accepted penalties which result in no play, kneels, spikes, and special teams plays that result in a run or pass).
Stanley: Ronnie had another solid game which was the best among the offensive linemen. He was party to 3 negative events (beaten inside by LB Pace, QH, Q1, 7:48; released OLB Turner inside, ½ penetration, Q2, 3:04; beaten outside by Turner, pressure, Q3, 8:39). Of his 7 missed blocks, 4 were losses at the LoS. He had 2 blocks in level 2 and delivered 1 pancake. He connected on his only pull. He had no highlights.
Scoring: 65 plays, 55 blocks, 7 missed, ½ penetration, 1 pressure, 1 QH, 49 points (.75 per play). That’s a C+ after adjustment.
The Ravens had Joe Noteboom inactive and dressed Carson Vinson for the first time this season as the backup LT. The move may have portent, since Noteboom was not on the injury report at any time during the week and presumably was a healthy scratch.
Vorhees: Andrew ended a streak of good play with his worst game of the season including regular struggles with Javon Hargrave. He was party to 5 pressure events (beaten inside by LB Cashman, ½ pressure, Q2, 0:24; bulled then shed by DT Hargrave, pressure, Q3, 2:10; beaten inside by Hargrave, ½ pressure, Q3, 0:48; beaten outside by Hargrave, ½ sack, Q4, 6:31; fails to pick up stunt by Turner, 1/3 pressure, Q4; 5:36). Lamar also ran him out of a pressure (Q2, 10:51) when he was beaten outside by OLB Greenard. His false start stalled the Ravens third drive. Of his 13 missed blocks, 9 were losses at the LoS. He had 3 blocks in level 2 and did not deliver a pancake. He connected on his only pull. He had a highlight combination block on Hargrave then LB Wilson (Q1, 14:49).
Scoring: 65 plays, 47 blocks, 13 missed, 2.33 (1 + 2 x ½ + 1/3) pressures, ½ sack, 1 false start, 37.33 points (.57 per play). That’s an F even after adjustment (0.10 short of a passing grade).
Amid the difficult outing, Andrew extended his streak to 15 consecutive pulls made.
Linderbaum: Tyler had no answer for DT Javon Hargrave after playing his best 2 games of the season vs the Bears and Dolphins. He allowed shares of 6 pressures (bulled by Hargrave, pressure, Q1, 4:38; failed to block either LB Cashman or Hargrave, ½ pressure, Q1, 4:33; bulled by Hargrave, pressure, Q2, 5:01; bulled by blitzing LB Wilson, pressure, Q3, 11:54; bulled by Hargrave, ½ pressure, Q3, 10:29; beaten left by Hargrave, ½ pressure, Q3, 0:48). Of his 10 missed blocks, 4 were losses at the LoS. He had 5 blocks in level 2 but did not deliver a pancake. He connected on his only pull. He had 2 highlights, the more impressive of which was maintenance of a 10+ yard L2 block on LB Wilson on Mitchell’s 22-yard run (Q2, 3:47).
Scoring: 65 plays, 49 blocks, 10 missed, 4.5 (3 + 3 * ½) pressures, 40 points (.62 per play). That’s still an F with adjustment.
Faalele: Daniel had his worst game since the opener in Buffalo. He shared in 2 negative events (beaten outside by OLB Greenard, QH, Q3, 10:38; failed to handle stunt with Rosengarten, 1/3 pressure, Q4, 5:46). Of his 13 missed blocks, 5 were losses at the LoS. He had 3 blocks in level 2 and delivered 1 pancake. He scored 3 of 4 pulls, including 1 courtesy point as a trailer. His highlight was a pair of blocks at the LoS on DL Allen and LB Pace (Q2, 10:08).
Scoring: 65 plays, 50 blocks, 13 missed, 1/3 pressure, 1 QH, 46.33 points (.71 per play). That’s a D with or without adjustment.
Rosengarten: Roger was again solid despite accumulating a high total of missed blocks. He shared in 4 pressures (allowed PD by Greenard, pressure, Q1, 14:55; failed to maintain engagement with OLB Van Ginkel to allow PD, ½ pressure, Q2, 10:08; bulled by Greenard, ½ pressure, Q3, 10:29; failed to handle stunt with Faalele, 1/3 pressure, Q4, 5:46). Lamar also ran him out of another shared pressure when beaten outside by Greenard (Q2, 10:51). Of his 11 missed blocks, 6 were losses at the LoS. He made 3 blocks in level 2 and delivered 1 pancake. He connected on 1 of 2 pulls. He blocked OLB Turner past the play, then helped on LB Pace to help lead Henry’s RR14 (Q3, 1:29).
Scoring: 65 plays, 50 blocks, 11 missed, 2.33 (1 + 2 * ½ + 1/3) pressures, 45.33 points (.70 per play). This is a C after adjustment.
Ken, this is eye-opening (as usual) since the game was not as close as the score would indicate, yet it would be fair to say the defense outperformed the offense on the whole. Part of THAT might be Lamar was somewhat less accurate than usual, illustrated by your ATS numbers but also, perhaps, due to the obvious and justifiable discomfort he had with the O-line play, also supported by your on-point scores.
I might sound typical of the Ravens fans concerns when I ask this, knowing the answer will be a resounding “No way”, but in your opinion, would this be an appropriate time, with Browns and Jets upcoming, for an experimental change-for-the-sake-of-change approach, at least rotationally? Could ANY combo of Bullock, Cleveland, Vinson, or Emery Jones REALLY be any worse than Faalele and Vorhees? The sense here is that the collective guard play is making center AND tackles worse by their off-script efforts to compensate.
I can’t begin to claim I know what I’m talking about, but what comes to mind are the late changes made to the 2012 O-line: Oher to RT to make room for McKinnie at LT. Defense and skill players are putting it together. The O-line is the only thing holding this team back in MY opinion. Please weigh in, and thanks!
Thanks for reading. Lamar was less accurate than usual, but not relative to pressure and after consideration for drops (3 in this game–Likely, Andrews, Flowers, plus a 4th ball that was well behind him but could have been caught by Bateman for a TD).
I can say from experience that there is definitely a chance Jones, Cleveland, Vinson, and Bullock could all be worse than the incumbents at their respective positions. Cleveland is a vet, but for the other 3, the typical starting level of play is below what Vorhees and Faalele are providing now. That said, there is value in seeing what the player can do as early as possible and allowing him to “fail forward”, so I would not be opposed to a “soft switch” where Jones (say) rotates in for Faalele or Vorhees for 1 series per half.
The 2012 situation was extremely dire in terms of Oher’s play at LT and weak LG play as well that the team had to make a change despite significant concerns about McKinnie’s work ethic. By comparison, Vorhees has aggregate to about a D+ for the season with 5 good games in the last 7 since a disastrous start. Faalele has average on the C/C- border for the year and is still PFF’s 17th-ranked pass blocker among 57 guards if you’re looking for other support. I don’t expect either to be fully replaced without more poor play.
I did overlook the drops, Ken, so that better clarifies ATS. The “soft switch” approach would at least satisfy the need to find out, if only to stop me, and perhaps other fans, from complaining about answers to the guard problem existing on the current roster but being ignored by the coaches, which really would make ZERO sense if true.
The aggregate scores of the guards don’t instill confidence if they do indeed make the playoffs, but I’ll take Vorhees grade improvement as a sign there’s hope. Hard to see Faalele improving but… anything’s possible.
Thanks, Ken. Good stuff!
One thing I can be fairly sure of is that the Ravens coaches are looking for solutions they think will work. Last year, we heard the question all season…”Why is Ben Cleveland in the doghouse?” with regard to his lack of playing time. Cleveland had played well enough that I believed he’d earned a chance to fail (a tip of the iceberg relative to what coaches see every day in practice and the positional room), but for some (probably valid) reason he never got a shot. The mere fact he spent the entire season on the roster but never started is damning evidence that he never earned the role.
There needs to be an adjustment to the grading, because not all missed blocks are created equal.
Also, I think replacing just one of Vorhees or Faalele would make this OLine tremendous. I think you see Linderbaum having tough games because he has to worry about helping both Vorhees and Faalele. If he could trust just one of the guys on the inside, he would be free to do better in his own matchups and also focus on helping just one of the guards. That in turn would help everyone. At this point Emery Jones, Ben Cleveland, or Corey Bullock should be given a shot.
Appreciate you taking the time to read and respond.
All missed blocks aren’t scored the same, particularly if they cause a pressure or run tackle for loss, which have negative points assessed. I also differentiate between losses at the LoS and other misses in the article and use that as part of the basis for the adjustment. I want the methodology to be replicatable so folks can score along with the film if they like.
I’ve made the point with PFF that multiple levels of missed tackle would be appropriate as well, but that also creates more grading complication.
I would agree there have been times when the guards have let down Linderbaum this season, but I don’t think it’s the primary issue. Tyler is simply having a bad year as a pass blocker, particularly when handling big/athletic opponents. Opposing DCs know to go after him in search of 1-on-1 matchups and are adjusting scheme to get it done. In particular crowding of the LoS to stop the run and dare Lamar to pass (the current in-vogue strategy to defend the Ravens) is creating many more 1-on-1 matchups for Linderbaum and he’s not winning as often.