Passing Game
Huntley was afforded ample time and space (ATS) on 5 of 24 (21%) drop backs resulting in a pass or sack. With ATS, he was 4 of 5 for 73 yards (14.6 YPP).
He delivered the ball before pressure could develop (BOQ) 10 times (42%) with 8 complete for 52 yards (5.2 YPP). He was pressured 9 times (38%), on which he completed 5 of 7 passes for 53 net yards (5.9 YPP) including 2 sacks. In total, Huntley outperformed his opportunity set by 44 yards (actual 178, expected 134), which is 1.8 yards per play above expectation.
By number of pass rushers for the game:
3: None
4: 15 plays, 87 net yards, 5.8 YPP, 2 sacks
5: 7 plays, 86 yards, 12.3 YPP
6: 1 play, 5 yards
7: 1 play, 0 yards
The Ravens used 13 set blocks and 7 chip blocks spread among 24 plays resulting in a pass or sack, 0.83 per play. Hill led the team with 4 sets and 1 chip block.
Collectively, the offensive line had its best game of the season despite a mediocre opportunity set for Huntley.
OL Scoring
The Ravens ran 58 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 his best game since week 1 and completed the game for the first time since week 3. He allowed 3 pressures (bulled by DE Odeyingbo, Q1, 5:22; bulled by DL Hardy, Q2, 2:47; bulled/pancaked by Hardy, Q4, 9:58). He also was flagged for a false start. Of his 7 missed blocks, 4 were losses at the LoS. He had 5 blocks in level 2 and delivered 2 pancakes. He connected on 1 of his 2 pulls. He had 3 highlights, the most impressive of which was manipulation and maintenance of block on DE Odeyingbo to lead Huntley’s RL11 (Q4, 3:02).
Scoring: 58 plays, 48 blocks, 7 missed, 3 pressures, 1 false start, 40 points (.69 per play). That’s a C after adjustment.
Vorhees: Andrew had a solid game despite primary responsibility for a sack. He was party to 2 pressure events (bulled by DL Jarrett into Huntley, 2/3 sack, Q2, 1:16; bulled by stunting DT Dexter, ½ pressure, Q3, 12:14). Of his 5 missed blocks, 4 were losses at the LoS. He had 5 blocks in level 2 but did not deliver a pancake. He connected on all 5 of his pulls. He had 2 highlight combination blocks (Q2, 15:00; Q3, 12:55).
Scoring: 58 plays, 51 blocks, 5 missed, 1/2 pressure, 2/3 sack, 46 points (.79 per play). That’s a B- with adjustment.
Linderbaum: Tyler bounced back with his best game of the season. His only negative event was a shared pressure when bulled by the stunting DT Billings, Q3, 12:14. Of his 6 missed blocks, 4 were losses at the LoS. He had 6 blocks in level 2 and delivered 3 pancakes. He connected on 1 of his 2 pulls. He had 1 highlight combination block (Q3, 13:36).
Scoring: 58 plays, 51 blocks, 6 missed, ½ pressure, 50 points (.86 per play). That’s an A- after adjustment.
Faalele: Daniel had his best game since week 2 vs the Browns. He was party to 2 pressure events (bulled then beaten inside by DT Jarrett, pressure, Q2, 13:48; bulled by DT Billings to flush Huntley left, 2/3 QH, Q3, 3:47). Of his 4 missed blocks, only 1 was a loss at the LoS. He had 1 block in level 2 and delivered 1 pancake. He connected on 2 of his 3 pulls. He did not have a highlight.
Scoring: 58 plays, 52 blocks, 4 missed, 1 pressure, 2/3 QH, 48 points (.83 per play). That’s a B with adjustment.
Rosengarten: Roger had a fine outing versus the best Bears pass rusher, Montez Sweat. He was party to 2 negative events (bulled by DE Sweat, 1/3 sack, Q2, 1:16; stood up then backed up by DT Dexter, ½ penetration, Q4, 9:00). Of his 5 missed blocks, 2 were losses at the LoS. He made 5 blocks in level 2 and delivered 1 pancake. He connected on all 3 of his pulls. His highlight was a pull on which he made 2 level-2 blocks (Q2, 8:51).
Scoring: 58 plays, 51 blocks, 5 missed, ½ penetration, 1/3 sack, 48 points (.83 per play). This is an A- after adjustment.
Ken, fans like to post clips of Faalele ending up on the ground if only to support the narrative that he’s not NFL worthy, yet your analyses rarely point out such gaffes (which is a credit to your objectivity). The success on offense vs the Bears reflects your O-line grades. Yet your analysis of the defense suggests it wasn’t really a good game in terms of yardage despite the final score.
So, 2 questions:
1) If the Ravens were to make a change at guard (say, Emery Jones when he’s ready), who would you speculate would go to the bench?
2) Would you say the yardage-vs-score stats reflect the proverbial “bend-don’t-break” approach to defensive game planning?
Thanks, as always!
Thanks for reading, BF.
With regard to 1), I actually doubt Emery Jones will outplay either Vorhees or Faalele as of now. There are still good reasons to get him on the field before the end of the season so they can let him “fail forward” for 2026, since Faalele will probably sign elsewhere. There is reasonable expectation Jones could be a fit at either RG or RT and his build/length are more normal for a RG than LG. We may see some rotational play at some point this season, but as of now, I think both guards are working with some leash relative to replacement by Jones or Cleveland. It is possible the Ravens would acquire a guard at the trade deadline and he might replace either Vorhees or Faalele.
As to 2), The Ravens allowed some big plays in the game. They were hunting variance at the expense of expected yards, which is healthy for a defense, but when the opponent has good results on 3rd down and medium/long, the strategy looks bad. The team was massively bailed out by the play of Mike Green on the 2 drive-ending pressures to keep the game at 6-0 after a lopsided 1st quarter.
Now THIS is why I ask! Good perspectives, Ken.
If the Ravens were as desperate as their fans, changes would be made that could make the team worse in that there would be less continuity and stability, elements of team management that are clearly paramount. Your O-line grades remind all who read that it isn’t really as bad as it… looks(?).
On defense, it seems there is some experimenting going on with regard to player positioning and assignment. Understandable considering injuries. Gotta find out who can do what when options are limited.
Thanks!