Wednesday, March 07, 2007


Will everyone just be quiet about Mike Anderson! From a person who watched him every day during Summer Camp ’06, he wasn’t all that impressive. Now I will admit that practice is practice and obviously the Ravens’ talent evaluators have a much keener eye than me when it comes to who or who isn’t an impact player in the NFL, but clearly Mike Anderson isn’t the answer to the Ravens woeful rushing attack.

Should he have been given the ball more frequently in ‘06? Sure! But don’t confuse his per carry average with efficiency. Those 39 carries that resulted in a 4.7 ypc average got a boost from that 34 yard jaunt against the Raiders when the outcome of the game was hardly in doubt. Without that carry, Anderson’s ypc fall to 3.9. Then when you consider that he often ran with 6 in the box on first, second or third and long, the average becomes less meaningful.

It doesn’t excuse the Ravens choice to barely use him after giving him $3 million in ’06, but don’t buy into the notion that he’s the answer. There are some that once thought Anthony Wright was the answer when Kyle Boller went down.

Anderson is no more than an expensive insurance policy at this point – perhaps that’s all he’ll ever be in Baltimore.

Remember Jason Brookins?


ravcol said...

Actually, the firm of Allen, Brookins and Williams in 2001 (1500 yards) was superior to Lewis, Anderson and Smith (1468) of 2006. If memory serves 2001 was the last year the Ravens won a playoff game. Terry Allen, dredged from the ashbin of history, had 106 yards against the Dolphins in the post season. In 2001 the Ravens were 11th in total rushing (1810, 113/gm, 3.7 ave) vs 25th in 2006 (1637, 102/gm, 3.4 ave). The difference was in how Billick utilized them. If Anderson had seen the same carries as Brookins we all might be smiling right now...and the only restructuring talk regarding Jamal would be on his ankles.

Mike (SP) said...

Chester Taylor Syndrome.......Samething Happened to Chester that is now Happening to Anderson.

Never will truly know how well they could of been. Unless they all were put in the same situation.

Harryos29 said...

Harryo29 March 7th
Did I see the name PRIEST HOLMES in the Ravens plans? We will never know (here we go again) the What-if ...What-if the Ravens let Jamal go after 2001 and Kept Priest? I think most of his sucess in KC was due to the Road-Grader Offensive line he ran behind for 33 TD's in three years?
I guess its apples and oranges. but Mike Anderson, truly a CHARACTER guy (semper fi) had an advantage in the DENVER system that did not materialize here in Baltimore.
p.s. I loved PHIL Jackmans' comments in the PRESSBOX where he said "The Miami Dolphins and Giants will be giving up an OCTOBER HOME date to Play a regular season Game in LONDON, but " the Ravens will not budge on an August 4th Scrimage to let STING wail at M&T Bank Stadium"
Harry O'
Sykesville, Md

Diggydiggydoc said...

ravcol, you're not taking into consideration how much better the Ravens offensive line was in 2001. I think Ozzie knows more than you people, including TL.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, right. The same genius group of "talent evaluators" who couldn't even see that Lewis had bone spurs. I think you have grown accustomed to hearing yourself take, Tony. Maybe you ought to take the same advice being doled out to Lewis now - shut up.

Tony Lombardi said...

Sorry there Anonymous cyber muscles...I'm paid to do have a choice. You don't have to listen or read. And since when is a talent evaluator a doctor? And if the Ravens knew about the alleged bone spurs that supposedly slowed Jamal down and they STILL opted not to play Mike Anderson, what does that say about Anderson.

To me it says Anderson isn't all that good or the Ravens blew it by signing him or both.

But I'm sure Mr. Anonymous knows more than me for sure and apparently the men who have dedicated their lives to the NFL.

Thanks for the laugh.

Anonymous said...

What's the matter -- you need somebody else to tell you what you should be able to see with your own eyes? You're the joke, dude. Lewis sucked. Anderson made more of his limited opportunities than Lewis did in 2006. Most people were able to see that. Not you? LOL. You don't know enough about football to see that? Take off the purple glasses, pal. You're either some shill for the Ravens or else you're simply all about trying to get money out of your so-called expertise; neither of which has anything to do with telling the truth. "Those who know don't speak; those who speak don't know".

Tony Lombardi said...

The point of this topic is to suggest that Mike Anderson is probably not as good as his per carry average might suggest. But we'll never know how he may have played in '06 because he never got the chance. 39 carries hardly qualifies as a chance.

No one here said Jamal was good or even efficient. In fact most of my columns on the topic and post game analysis suggest the opposite. But if Anderson couldn't take snaps away from Jamal despite all of this and the bone spurs, what does that say about Anderson? Really!

To me, purple goggles or no purple goggles, it says that Anderson was worse. Why would Brian Billick sacrifice the success of the team? If Anderson was genuinely better and could really help the club more, wouldn't he have been in there?

Wouldn't he then be given a shot at the starting job now that Jamal is gone?

It can't be that Anderson is a malcontent. The man is built on character made of granite. He's a rock solid guy.

No. 31 said...

I am a fan of Jamal Lewis'. I will forever wonder how successful he could have been had the Ravens had a passing game from 2003-2005. It would have been fun to watch him take on the secondary more frequently.

Be that as it may, Jamal wasn't good in 2006. He hasn't been good for a while and even as a fan who owns two Jamal jerseys, I found it hard to understand why Anderson didn't see the field more. But I have to agree with TL. I don't think the coaches would hold back an all around good guy (Anderson) to prove a point when there was so much at stake.

For some reason they didn't trust Anderson. And these are coaches who spend hours and hours and hours with these players. They see things that the average fan doesn't. And I'll go with the coach's view over the fan's view every time. And in this case I'll side with TL over Mr. Anonymous.

Anonymous said...

Why don't you all get a clue -- the SAME PATTERN was there with Priest Holmes and, to a lesser extent, with Chester Taylor. Don't you see the obvious common denominator? If it were ONLY Anderson we were talking about, it would be one thing. But this coaching staff has repeatedly chosen to run Lewis despite the qualities of competing RBs, to the detriment of the team as a whole. Nobody is going to convince me that Priest Holmes was used properly; or that Taylor was used properly; or that Anderson was used properly.

And to add insult to injury, Lewis -- despite being catered to his whole career with the Ravens -- has done nothing but whine about how HE was under-used during 2006 with the Ravens. (The ONLY claim Lewis might have in that regard is in the Indy game, in which he only touched the ball 13 times desite having a decent first half running and catching out of the back field.)

If you want to play "Emperor's New Clothes" when it comes to the total mismanagement of Holmes, Taylor, and Anderson, then that's your choice. But you have no business setting yourself up as any sort of authority on the Ravens or football.

No. 31 said...

Dear Anonymous,

Let us help you: