Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Bernard Pollard won't go with Ravens to the White House
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Baltimore Ravens
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
diamondbull424


Moderator
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 12988
Location: Baltimore, MD
PostPosted: Thu May 16, 2013 10:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SnA ExclusiVe wrote:

It's like I said earlier, why wouldn't his lack of coverage skills actually be MORE exploited when Ed Reed was here? Ed's coverage responsibilities had nothing to do with Pollard, so idk why you think just because Ed is gone that now somehow Pollard is going to be exposed more. That just doesn't make logical sense. Not one bit.

This doesn't make any sense to me. Even in the twilight of Reed's career (now) he's a guy that can be responsible for a deep half of the field. Reed excels in sitting in space and being able to make plays on the ball. Always has.

Pollard is absolutely horrid in zone coverage. So Chuck Pagano was smart and utilized Reed in a deep zone look on most plays while Pollard never had to see those same responsibilities. Pollard was instead the roaming safety. He attacked the run at the LOS and would on occasion man up with TEs. But as the playoffs wore on, with each game offenses were figuring out how to get Pollard into coverage as opposed to staying the roaming defender. The Super Bowl was an embarrassment where Pollard was getting exposed all night long in coverage.

In 2013 more teams will have figured out how to get those kinds of isolations on Pollard and we would have paid the price. We're better off without Pollard being back.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Flaccomania


Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 23191
Location: Parkville, MD
PostPosted: Thu May 16, 2013 10:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SnA ExclusiVe wrote:
Flaccomania wrote:
SnA ExclusiVe wrote:
Flaccomania wrote:
bmorecareful wrote:
Whether the allegations were true or not Pollard got threw under the bus as a release. Maybe not by the team directly but the media definitely had a slew of conspiracy theories that I seriously doubt harbaugh straightened out on a personal level with Pollard. Not saying he should have and quite honestly I don't care but to act like a mockery wasn't made of Pollard and his release is ridiculous. It was made out like everybody on the team was tired of his actions And the locker room was glad to see him leave. Now this may or may not have been true but nobody went out their way to say otherwise and the fact that specific events were used leads me to believe that their was some merit to the story.


http://www.baltimoreravens.com/news/article-1/John-Harbaugh-Releasing-Bernard-Pollard-Purely-A-Cap-Move/78952787-ba5e-46e6-aa50-b3035714c00c

John Harbaugh wrote:
“It’s a cap move, pure and simple,” Harbaugh said. “Bernard is another guy that I have tremendous respect for. We talked often. He was part of our leadership council.”


You honestly believe that? lol.


Why wouldn't I?

Why could it not be a bit of both? That A) His attitude was a potential problem they did not want to deal with after losing both Ray and Ed who could keep him in check, as well as B) they recognized his lack of coverage skills would be exploited once Ed was gone.

It's not an all or nothing type deal which I feel most people are trying to spin it as. If Pollard was this awesome player with a boisterous attitude, a lot more would be forgiven. But, he simply was in the best position for him next to Ed because they both were great at what the other lacked. Now that Ed left, Pollard would likely be exposed, much like he was in the Super Bowl.


It's like I said earlier, why wouldn't his lack of coverage skills actually be MORE exploited when Ed Reed was here? Ed's coverage responsibilities had nothing to do with Pollard, so idk why you think just because Ed is gone that now somehow Pollard is going to be exposed more. That just doesn't make logical sense. Not one bit.


Like c0 said above -- it's because we let Ed roam more as a true center fielder which allowed us to use Pollard closer to the LOS rather than in a traditional safety role. With Huff replacing Ed, while he has pretty good range, it's not on Ed's level (and Ed's instinct level allowed him to make up more ground as well). As a result, we wouldn't be afforded the same luxury with Pollard and he'd be more exposed in a coverage role. Granted, it may not be as obvious that it's due to Pollard and very well may have made Huff look bad (if we tried to get him to do the same things Ed did for us in center field) -- but regardless, it'd be because we're replacing Ed's coverage skills with a player with not the same range and in order to make up for that, you have to have your other safety take on some of that responsiblity -- something that Pollard struggles with.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SnA ExclusiVe


Joined: 01 Jun 2011
Posts: 27484
Location: Spokane, WA
PostPosted: Thu May 16, 2013 6:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So essentially you're both saying that Pollard is worse in coverage when asked to cover half the field rather than the entire field in man coverage while in the box?

That makes sense...

You guys don't think a younger, faster Michael Huff can play a Single-High safety hole as well as an older, hobbled, slower Ed Reed? I beg to differ.

Either way, releasing Pollard COULD HAVE been just a cap move, but it screams scapegoat to me for all the times Pollard voiced his opinion in the locker room. Either way, I still think Matt Elam is going to be better than Pollard, but the whole "he sucks in coverage and without Ed Reed here it was going to be exploited even more" argument doesn't hold water IMO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
diamondbull424


Moderator
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 12988
Location: Baltimore, MD
PostPosted: Fri May 17, 2013 2:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SnA ExclusiVe wrote:
So essentially you're both saying that Pollard is worse in coverage when asked to cover half the field rather than the entire field in man coverage while in the box?

That makes sense...

You guys don't think a younger, faster Michael Huff can play a Single-High safety hole as well as an older, hobbled, slower Ed Reed? I beg to differ.

Either way, releasing Pollard COULD HAVE been just a cap move, but it screams scapegoat to me for all the times Pollard voiced his opinion in the locker room. Either way, I still think Matt Elam is going to be better than Pollard, but the whole "he sucks in coverage and without Ed Reed here it was going to be exploited even more" argument doesn't hold water IMO.

No. I'm saying the Ravens were able to move Pollard around in the box (roam) to keep the offense from consistently getting a beat on where he was going to be- which made it harder to expose him in coverage... And we were able to get away with that because Ed Reed could cover a good 2/3 of the deep part of the field. Which Ed was able to do because of his instincts- which is more important than speed.

However we're also saying that even with how we were roaming Pollard around to 'protect' his coverage flaws, offenses were still figuring out ways to isolate him in coverage- be it man or zone- and expose him for big gains... Offenses were doing this all playoff long with increasing regularity. It was only a matter of time before that flaw was exposed in the regular season more as well. And with Ed Reed leaving that likelihood only further increased. So Pollard became very much expendable. And considering we could FTMP get better coverage quality and equally worse physicality from James Ihedigbo for a nice amount less- Pollard was cut.

In terms of scape goat. What is there to be a scapegoat about. This team just won the Super Bowl. On such a team, what is their to assign unfair blame over? Might Pollard have been a locker room cancer, sure. But the move was stated by all of the key front office decision makers as being just a cap move, nothing more. And that's backed up by the fact that Pollard was now replaceable.

I can't understand how people can blame the front office for not going to bat against the media to strongly defend Pollard. Why? They made their statements and moved on. Pollard is no longer a player on this football team... So why would it be their responsibly to continue to entertain the media's bloviations? This front office had and has more important things to do then to sit around sweating the media and really defend former players.

No, If Pollard feels disrespected because of the above circumstances, then he needs to grow up and realize that the NFL is indeed a business at its core. But a ring ceremony isn't the business side as much as the "game" side. You'd think he'd attend if only for the love of the game.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bmorecareful


Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 584
PostPosted: Fri May 17, 2013 11:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

diamondbull424 wrote:
SnA ExclusiVe wrote:
So essentially you're both saying that Pollard is worse in coverage when asked to cover half the field rather than the entire field in man coverage while in the box?

That makes sense...

You guys don't think a younger, faster Michael Huff can play a Single-High safety hole as well as an older, hobbled, slower Ed Reed? I beg to differ.

Either way, releasing Pollard COULD HAVE been just a cap move, but it screams scapegoat to me for all the times Pollard voiced his opinion in the locker room. Either way, I still think Matt Elam is going to be better than Pollard, but the whole "he sucks in coverage and without Ed Reed here it was going to be exploited even more" argument doesn't hold water IMO.

No. I'm saying the Ravens were able to move Pollard around in the box (roam) to keep the offense from consistently getting a beat on where he was going to be- which made it harder to expose him in coverage... And we were able to get away with that because Ed Reed could cover a good 2/3 of the deep part of the field. Which Ed was able to do because of his instincts- which is more important than speed.

However we're also saying that even with how we were roaming Pollard around to 'protect' his coverage flaws, offenses were still figuring out ways to isolate him in coverage- be it man or zone- and expose him for big gains... Offenses were doing this all playoff long with increasing regularity. It was only a matter of time before that flaw was exposed in the regular season more as well. And with Ed Reed leaving that likelihood only further increased. So Pollard became very much expendable. And considering we could FTMP get better coverage quality and equally worse physicality from James Ihedigbo for a nice amount less- Pollard was cut.

In terms of scape goat. What is there to be a scapegoat about. This team just won the Super Bowl. On such a team, what is their to assign unfair blame over? Might Pollard have been a locker room cancer, sure. But the move was stated by all of the key front office decision makers as being just a cap move, nothing more. And that's backed up by the fact that Pollard was now replaceable.

I can't understand how people can blame the front office for not going to bat against the media to strongly defend Pollard. Why? They made their statements and moved on. Pollard is no longer a player on this football team... So why would it be their responsibly to continue to entertain the media's bloviations? This front office had and has more important things to do then to sit around sweating the media and really defend former players.

No, If Pollard feels disrespected because of the above circumstances, then he needs to grow up and realize that the NFL is indeed a business at its core. But a ring ceremony isn't the business side as much as the "game" side. You'd think he'd attend if only for the love of the game.


In no way am I saying Pollard was good in coverage but alot of those big gains were just as much on Ray and Ed as it was on Pollard. Eds lack of tackling and Ray being slow as molasses was just as much to blame. Pollard got beat but outside of our corners and Ellerbe in spots our coverage was terrible man to man and Pollard was the guy that made the most plays. Plus he was injured since week 3, if u think his outspoken demeanor didn't have something to do with his release I think that ur being nieve. He is a better option than ihedigbo, I just think Harbs didn't feel like dealing with benching him for a rookie or telling him it was going to be an open competition cause our plan all along was to draft a safety high. To me its not a big deal but in the same situation I definitely can see myself feeling like the Ravens tried to play me. I don't think I could go and pretend to be cool with guys knowing they don't really like me. Its not just now that he is a former player, when the mutiny story came out during the season it wasn't properly addressed and with him getting cut and they stories coming back its something that probably could have been handled differently and Pollard is in his feelings about it but I can't say I blame him.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Flaccomania


Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 23191
Location: Parkville, MD
PostPosted: Fri May 17, 2013 12:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bmorecareful wrote:
diamondbull424 wrote:
SnA ExclusiVe wrote:
So essentially you're both saying that Pollard is worse in coverage when asked to cover half the field rather than the entire field in man coverage while in the box?

That makes sense...

You guys don't think a younger, faster Michael Huff can play a Single-High safety hole as well as an older, hobbled, slower Ed Reed? I beg to differ.

Either way, releasing Pollard COULD HAVE been just a cap move, but it screams scapegoat to me for all the times Pollard voiced his opinion in the locker room. Either way, I still think Matt Elam is going to be better than Pollard, but the whole "he sucks in coverage and without Ed Reed here it was going to be exploited even more" argument doesn't hold water IMO.

No. I'm saying the Ravens were able to move Pollard around in the box (roam) to keep the offense from consistently getting a beat on where he was going to be- which made it harder to expose him in coverage... And we were able to get away with that because Ed Reed could cover a good 2/3 of the deep part of the field. Which Ed was able to do because of his instincts- which is more important than speed.

However we're also saying that even with how we were roaming Pollard around to 'protect' his coverage flaws, offenses were still figuring out ways to isolate him in coverage- be it man or zone- and expose him for big gains... Offenses were doing this all playoff long with increasing regularity. It was only a matter of time before that flaw was exposed in the regular season more as well. And with Ed Reed leaving that likelihood only further increased. So Pollard became very much expendable. And considering we could FTMP get better coverage quality and equally worse physicality from James Ihedigbo for a nice amount less- Pollard was cut.

In terms of scape goat. What is there to be a scapegoat about. This team just won the Super Bowl. On such a team, what is their to assign unfair blame over? Might Pollard have been a locker room cancer, sure. But the move was stated by all of the key front office decision makers as being just a cap move, nothing more. And that's backed up by the fact that Pollard was now replaceable.

I can't understand how people can blame the front office for not going to bat against the media to strongly defend Pollard. Why? They made their statements and moved on. Pollard is no longer a player on this football team... So why would it be their responsibly to continue to entertain the media's bloviations? This front office had and has more important things to do then to sit around sweating the media and really defend former players.

No, If Pollard feels disrespected because of the above circumstances, then he needs to grow up and realize that the NFL is indeed a business at its core. But a ring ceremony isn't the business side as much as the "game" side. You'd think he'd attend if only for the love of the game.


In no way am I saying Pollard was good in coverage but alot of those big gains were just as much on Ray and Ed as it was on Pollard. Eds lack of tackling and Ray being slow as molasses was just as much to blame. Pollard got beat but outside of our corners and Ellerbe in spots our coverage was terrible man to man and Pollard was the guy that made the most plays. Plus he was injured since week 3, if u think his outspoken demeanor didn't have something to do with his release I think that ur being nieve. He is a better option than ihedigbo, I just think Harbs didn't feel like dealing with benching him for a rookie or telling him it was going to be an open competition cause our plan all along was to draft a safety high. To me its not a big deal but in the same situation I definitely can see myself feeling like the Ravens tried to play me. I don't think I could go and pretend to be cool with guys knowing they don't really like me. Its not just now that he is a former player, when the mutiny story came out during the season it wasn't properly addressed and with him getting cut and they stories coming back its something that probably could have been handled differently and Pollard is in his feelings about it but I can't say I blame him.


I don't think anyone is saying it has nothing to do with his attitude -- just that it's not the ONLY thing, and likely not the biggest thing either. I mean, let's face it -- Pollard has been here for what, 3 years? 2? I'm sure his attitude didn't all of the sudden show up. So, you'd have to assume that his football play was the largest part of it.

And back to the mutiny thing and it "not being properly addressed" -- do you mean that the Ravens didn't come out and give the details to the media? The Ravens handled the situation perfectly -- they kept it in house and didn't let it become a distraction and went on to win a championship. It's not the job of the team to come out and debunk every and any report the media makes that isn't 100% factual. It's the job of the team to win games, and the Ravens did just that. The media took the story and ran with it pinning blame on many people -- the Ravens came out and said it was a non-issue, it wasn't a mutiny but rather a discussion between team leaders and coaching, it was resolved, and the results speak for themselves. I don't know how the Ravens could have possibly handled it much better in the slightest.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SnA ExclusiVe


Joined: 01 Jun 2011
Posts: 27484
Location: Spokane, WA
PostPosted: Fri May 17, 2013 12:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bmorecareful wrote:
diamondbull424 wrote:
SnA ExclusiVe wrote:
So essentially you're both saying that Pollard is worse in coverage when asked to cover half the field rather than the entire field in man coverage while in the box?

That makes sense...

You guys don't think a younger, faster Michael Huff can play a Single-High safety hole as well as an older, hobbled, slower Ed Reed? I beg to differ.

Either way, releasing Pollard COULD HAVE been just a cap move, but it screams scapegoat to me for all the times Pollard voiced his opinion in the locker room. Either way, I still think Matt Elam is going to be better than Pollard, but the whole "he sucks in coverage and without Ed Reed here it was going to be exploited even more" argument doesn't hold water IMO.

No. I'm saying the Ravens were able to move Pollard around in the box (roam) to keep the offense from consistently getting a beat on where he was going to be- which made it harder to expose him in coverage... And we were able to get away with that because Ed Reed could cover a good 2/3 of the deep part of the field. Which Ed was able to do because of his instincts- which is more important than speed.

However we're also saying that even with how we were roaming Pollard around to 'protect' his coverage flaws, offenses were still figuring out ways to isolate him in coverage- be it man or zone- and expose him for big gains... Offenses were doing this all playoff long with increasing regularity. It was only a matter of time before that flaw was exposed in the regular season more as well. And with Ed Reed leaving that likelihood only further increased. So Pollard became very much expendable. And considering we could FTMP get better coverage quality and equally worse physicality from James Ihedigbo for a nice amount less- Pollard was cut.

In terms of scape goat. What is there to be a scapegoat about. This team just won the Super Bowl. On such a team, what is their to assign unfair blame over? Might Pollard have been a locker room cancer, sure. But the move was stated by all of the key front office decision makers as being just a cap move, nothing more. And that's backed up by the fact that Pollard was now replaceable.

I can't understand how people can blame the front office for not going to bat against the media to strongly defend Pollard. Why? They made their statements and moved on. Pollard is no longer a player on this football team... So why would it be their responsibly to continue to entertain the media's bloviations? This front office had and has more important things to do then to sit around sweating the media and really defend former players.

No, If Pollard feels disrespected because of the above circumstances, then he needs to grow up and realize that the NFL is indeed a business at its core. But a ring ceremony isn't the business side as much as the "game" side. You'd think he'd attend if only for the love of the game.


In no way am I saying Pollard was good in coverage but alot of those big gains were just as much on Ray and Ed as it was on Pollard. Eds lack of tackling and Ray being slow as molasses was just as much to blame. Pollard got beat but outside of our corners and Ellerbe in spots our coverage was terrible man to man and Pollard was the guy that made the most plays. Plus he was injured since week 3, if u think his outspoken demeanor didn't have something to do with his release I think that ur being nieve. He is a better option than ihedigbo, I just think Harbs didn't feel like dealing with benching him for a rookie or telling him it was going to be an open competition cause our plan all along was to draft a safety high. To me its not a big deal but in the same situation I definitely can see myself feeling like the Ravens tried to play me. I don't think I could go and pretend to be cool with guys knowing they don't really like me. Its not just now that he is a former player, when the mutiny story came out during the season it wasn't properly addressed and with him getting cut and they stories coming back its something that probably could have been handled differently and Pollard is in his feelings about it but I can't say I blame him.


I agree with this. Pollard was our best safety last year, without a doubt. Ed might've been doing his job in making QB's not throw at him, but Ed also blew A LOT of plays last year, whereas Pollard (IIRC) just didn't blow as many plays, and he made more plays than Ed did.

I'm not saying the only reason was his attitude, because Matt Elam's abilities on the field are much better and Elam's ceiling is much higher than Pollard's, but I'm saying Harbaugh certainly isn't being truthful when he says this was "purely a cap move, nothing else."

Lastly, if I'm Pollard and I just was released from my 3rd team in 6 years, after helping them win the Superbowl and making one of the biggest plays of the playoffs AND playing the entire playoffs with cracked ribs, etc. etc., I would be pissed off too!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coordinator0


Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Posts: 7615
PostPosted: Fri May 17, 2013 12:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SnA ExclusiVe wrote:
So essentially you're both saying that Pollard is worse in coverage when asked to cover half the field rather than the entire field in man coverage while in the box?

That makes sense...


Lining up in man coverage and zone coverage are completely different concepts. Come on, you know that. Lining up in man coverage isn't covering the entire field. At all. Playing the back-half requires more ground to be covered/responsible for than lining up in man coverage 9 times out of 10. Only 9 out of 10 because those Greg Mattison 3-man rush/epic pass-rush fail types are out there.

Quote:
You guys don't think a younger, faster Michael Huff can play a Single-High safety hole as well as an older, hobbled, slower Ed Reed? I beg to differ.


I think Huff will probably have more range than Reed at this point in their careers. He wasn't with the Ravens when they released Pollard though so they didn't know who would be playing FS for them. Like I mentioned before Huff will probably be lining up in man coverage quite a bit too so the other safety is going to be left in a position to cover the back-half. Pollard isn't a guy you want to ever be doing that. That's not Elam's main strength either but I don't think he's going to fail at it.

Quote:
Either way, releasing Pollard COULD HAVE been just a cap move, but it screams scapegoat to me for all the times Pollard voiced his opinion in the locker room. Either way, I still think Matt Elam is going to be better than Pollard, but the whole "he sucks in coverage and without Ed Reed here it was going to be exploited even more" argument doesn't hold water IMO.


Eh, it's hard to speculate about things going on behind the scenes. We really haven't heard anything to back those claims up either unless you count Mike Preston as a source. Laughing Again, Pollard sucked in coverage his whole career before he was paired with Reed. If he's used in a role similar role that he played with Houston and Kansas City he will fail again, and I think he (or any safety that was going to be playing next to huff) would have been used in that type of role.

For what it's worth I think Pollard ended up in a good situation in Tennessee with Michael Whiffin next to him. He's definitely the deep cover guy that Pollard needs to be next to so he can be used mostly near the LOS.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sp6488


Joined: 14 Mar 2005
Posts: 9436
Location: MD
PostPosted: Sun May 19, 2013 10:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A) even if Pollard being released was completely due to his attitude/mutiny, so what? If in any other industry you're difficult to deal with and you're let go, whose fault is that? Yours or your bosses?

B) the proof is in the pudding to some degree. If Pollard was so good and we only released him bc Harbs is an egomaniac, he would have received more than a 1 year/$2M deal from a non-contender.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Baltimore Ravens All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group