The new offense: who will it benefit the most?

**psuasskicker** · 06-07-2008, 07:46 PM

Originally Posted by purplepoe

I like your posts Fanman so please don't take this personally.

I don't think it's a lock that this offense will improve from last year. Everyone can bitch and moan about the old scheme but when it comes down to it, this team lacks talent on offense. Will a new scheme bring some new energy and possibly some improvement? Maybe. But I don't think it's a lock by any means.

None of our WR would start on any of our division rivals.

Our tackle situation is sketchy at best.

And I won't even begin to address the QB situation.

The fact that this offense has basically died when Heap has been out should alarm everyone. We don't have any difference makers in the passing game (QB and WR) and the protection will again be suspect.

So while I'm very interested to see Cameron's scheme implemented, I'm not sold at all that this offense will somehow transform into a legitimate unit.

PP

The Sarcasmman in me wanted to respond with just an "It's a lock this O will improve cause it couldn't get any worse."

PP, your post is good but I also think there's a chicken and egg situation here. The question is, how much of the last few years of lack-of-production was due to lack of talent vs. due to a terrible system and coaching?

The QB situation is of course spotty at best. We all know what Boller is. Flacco shouldn't start. And Smith is a huge question mark.

The OL tackles are of course questions. The interior of the line should be very good though.

Backfield players are solid.

The real question I have is, how good are our receivers? I think it can be claimed they wouldn't start for any of our rivals, but I don't believe that's automatically the case. We've run terrible schemes with a terrible QB for a few years now. I think it's very possible that if we get consistently solid QB play, that our receivers would also look solid.

That, to me, is the key. I don't think the new system will benefit any one unit more than another. It'll benefit the whole offense simply because it shouldn't be an open book. It's the coaching that should benefit individual units, and honestly I think the unit that will benefit most from this staff is the QB. There's a lot of excellence at QB development here...

- C -

**camdenyard** · 06-07-2008, 11:17 PM

What will benefit our tight ends, is staying healthy.

It might help if we don't have a QB who specializes in throwing hospital passes to Heap.

**UKRavenStockers** · 06-08-2008, 11:08 AM

Originally Posted by camdenyard

It might help if we don't have a QB who specializes in throwing hospital passes to Heap.

Not saying that isn't the case, but the fact remains that our TEs are a pretty decent set and probably need the least help of any unit our offence if they can stay on the field, so I don't see that Cameron's offence will help the tight ends more than it will other areas of the offence.

**Jeremiah W** · 06-08-2008, 05:45 PM

I really think playcalling and gameplanning on O makes a whole lot more difference than it does on D where talent almost always dictates production.

Good OCs can make things happen with just a few good players on O if they can exploit the advantages the O has with the simple things like presnap movement, false cadence, audibles and basic deception.

Predictable and prudent does not get it done. You can not saunter up to the line of scrimage with 7 seconds and use any presnap gamesmanship to tip the coveage or defensive assingments, keep the line from getting a great jump, or draw more offsides than false starts.

SD did not, have much more talent when Cam and LT won the 1 seed, than we do. Good playcalling, sustained drives, wears the opponent down and produces 4th quarter rushing TDs.

It is so totally different for every aspect of the game if the offense is producing drives, and even just FGs instead of 3 and outs and turnovers. Last year we almost never got to play with the lead, where we can ignore the run and just unleash the mad blitz packages and pass rush specalists.

Just think back to 2006. That O was not very good on the ground, and McNair only had about 4 good games, but they did not take sacks, turn the ball over, and they converted a lot of key 3rd downs. That was all the "aging defense" needed to be back to #1 in almost every catagory.

It is not too hard for me to imagine Willis getting 1500, 12 tds and 4.5 ypc, Heap getting 75 catched 10 tds, 1000 yards, and getting 140 catches, 10 tds and 2000 yards from the wr trio of Mason Clayton and Williams. That will be enough for the division at least with the talent we have on D.

Despite the futility, frustration and injuries last season, the O was not all that bad at some things. The turnovers, penalties and horrible redzone conversion rate rightfully overshadowed a solid rush attack between the 20s, and a suprisingly resiliant and consitant Mason, with 100 catches.

Offenses can turn it around a lot faster than defenses can, because a few players can be enough to create and exploit mismatches.
How bad were the Clowns in 2006 on offense? If they can turn it around, there is no doubt we can as well now that we have an OC with a clue about how to create and exploit mismatches.

**purplepoe** · 06-08-2008, 05:59 PM

Originally Posted by Jeremiah W

I really think playcalling and gameplanning on O makes a whole lot more difference than it does on D where talent almost always dictates production.

Good OCs can make things happen with just a few good players on O if they can exploit the advantages the O has with the simple things like presnap movement, false cadence, audibles and basic deception.

Predictable and prudent does not get it done. You can not saunter up to the line of scrimage with 7 seconds and use any presnap gamesmanship to tip the coveage or defensive assingments, keep the line from getting a great jump, or draw more offsides than false starts.

SD did not, have much more talent when Cam and LT won the 1 seed, than we do. Good playcalling, sustained drives, wears the opponent down and produces 4th quarter rushing TDs.

It is so totally different for every aspect of the game if the offense is producing drives, and even just FGs instead of 3 and outs and turnovers. Last year we almost never got to play with the lead, where we can ignore the run and just unleash the mad blitz packages and pass rush specalists.

Just think back to 2006. That O was not very good on the ground, and McNair only had about 4 good games, but they did not take sacks, turn the ball over, and they converted a lot of key 3rd downs. That was all the "aging defense" needed to be back to #1 in almost every catagory.

It is not too hard for me to imagine Willis getting 1500, 12 tds and 4.5 ypc, Heap getting 75 catched 10 tds, 1000 yards, and getting 140 catches, 10 tds and 2000 yards from the wr trio of Mason Clayton and Williams. That will be enough for the division at least with the talent we have on D.

Despite the futility, frustration and injuries last season, the O was not all that bad at some things. The turnovers, penalties and horrible redzone conversion rate rightfully overshadowed a solid rush attack between the 20s, and a suprisingly resiliant and consitant Mason, with 100 catches.

Offenses can turn it around a lot faster than defenses can, because a few players can be enough to create and exploit mismatches.
How bad were the Clowns in 2006 on offense? If they can turn it around, there is no doubt we can as well now that we have an OC with a clue about how to create and exploit mismatches.

Good players make good offenses.

Cam didn't have much more talent in SD than what he has here? He had a pro bowl QB in Brees who's proven in NO that he wasn't just a product of the system. He then had Rivers who has succeeded with and without Cameron.He had easily the best offensive player in the league in LT. He had easily the best TE in the game at the time in Gates. And he had a very solid OL to top it off. The WRs were average at best.

And you're telling me what we have here in Baltimore isn't far off from that?

I know I'm coming off as a pessimist here but really, some of your projections are quite ambitious.

Put me in the camp of players make offensive and defensive units succeed or fail.

Might we see a slight improvement in the offense? Sure. But IMO not nearly what you have projected.

PP

**Jeremiah W** · 06-08-2008, 06:14 PM

Breeze was being treated like Boller before Cam coached him up. LT had some nice numbers but had not had spectacular numbers befroe Came got there. Gates was undrafted hoopster out of a no name hoops school. Talented sure, but they had no name O linemen, rookies and young guys, no name WRs, but they made it work because they were still very deceptive and tough to contain the few mismatches they did have because they complimented eachother very well.

I am not at all saying it does not matter who you put out there on O, but I am saying it makes a big difference because on O you can dictate the personell, pace of action and can isolate the mismatches you want to.
On D, if you have a dominant DL-man he may be versatile enough to move around and still draw double teams, but pretty much every one else who is good is going to be easily identifiable and avoidable. Teams did not throw at Samari all the time in 2006 because he sucked, it was because that was the better option.

**purplepoe** · 06-08-2008, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by Jeremiah W

Breeze was being treated like Boller before Cam coached him up. LT had some nice numbers but had not had spectacular numbers befroe Came got there. Gates was undrafted hoopster out of a no name hoops school. Talented sure, but they had no name O linemen, rookies and young guys, no name WRs, but they made it work because they were still very deceptive and tough to contain the few mismatches they did have because they complimented eachother very well.

I am not at all saying it does not matter who you put out there on O, but I am saying it makes a big difference because on O you can dictate the personell, pace of action and can isolate the mismatches you want to.
On D, if you have a dominant DL-man he may be versatile enough to move around and still draw double teams, but pretty much every one else who is good is going to be easily identifiable and avoidable. Teams did not throw at Samari all the time in 2006 because he sucked, it was because that was the better option.

Brees was a rookie in 01 and played in 1 game. In 02, the year Cam came in was the year Brees started. So Brees had his down years with Cameron as well as good. Brees began to play well when he started to be surrounded by better players.

But they had big time talent. And that's where we disagree. I just don't see it on our team. And IMO it's not because of Billick's system.

Cameron coached a 1-15 team last year. He didn't forget how to run an offense, he just had awful players.

Now, we clearly have alot more talent than Miami and I'm not saying we're gonna finish 3-13 or anything like that.

I just don't think a new system equals the immediate success that you think it will.

The only guy that can create legit mismatches (IMO) is Heap and he MUST be on the field to do that.

PP

**psuasskicker** · 06-08-2008, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by Jeremiah W

SD did not, have much more talent when Cam and LT won the 1 seed, than we do.

:insane:

Let's put aside the fact that:
- Tomlinson >>> McGahee
- SD OL >>> our OL (our interior might be as good, our tackles certainly are not)
- Brees/Rivers >>> Boller and probably Smith unless he winds up a world-beater
- Gates >>> our TEs
(I'll admit our WRs are better than theirs, but their back is a better pass-catcher than ours.)

Last year, the non-Cam Cameron led SD Charger offense was #5 in scoring in the NFL with 25.8 PPG, vs. the non-Cam Cameron led Ravens offense was #24 with 17.2 PPG.

In Cam's tenure with SD, they averaged 25.0 PPG. The last three years ('04-'06) where they had the real influx of talent they scored 28.3 PPG.

Even if you say on an absolute value basis that Cam's offensive system was worth 2.5 PPG (28.3 vs. 25.8), adding that production to our offense would put us at #22 in the NFL in '07 with 19.7 PPG. Even double that difference and give us 22.2 PPG and we're still only at #16.

To suggest that the talent on SD's offense is even close to the talent on our offense is ridiculous. If Smith winds up being the next Peyton Manning, you may be close. But we're a LOOOOOOOOOONG way from seeing that happen...

- C -

**Jeremiah W** · 06-08-2008, 07:02 PM

I am not saying we will instantly be a top 10 O just becuse we upgraded the OC, a lot in my view, but all we have to do is cut down on the turnovers and put a few more points up to be a very good football team.

The 2006 O was not exactly tearing it up, but they were getting it done. I expect us to have better talent and much better playcalling than we did then(provided they stay as healthy as they did in 2006), and another chance with a home playoff game.
McNair really did help during the 06 regular season, but he was not performing at a higher level than a competent QB, (Boller or Troy Smith or yet to be named veteran free agent familiar with the offense,) could not match, and in the playoff game, Steve flat out stunk it up and cost us the game.

**purplepoe** · 06-08-2008, 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by Jeremiah W

I am not saying we will instantly be a top 10 O just becuse we upgraded the OC, a lot in my view, but all we have to do is cut down on the turnovers and put a few more points up to be a very good football team.

The 2006 O was not exactly tearing it up, but they were getting it done. I expect us to have better talent and much better playcalling than we did then(provided they stay as healthy as they did in 2006), and another chance with a home playoff game.
McNair really did help during the 06 regular season, but he was not performing at a higher level than a competent QB, (Boller or Troy Smith or yet to be named veteran free agent familiar with the offense,) could not match, and in the playoff game, Steve flat out stunk it up and cost us the game.

You have stated that you can see McGahee getting 1500 yds and 12 TDs.

Heap getting 1000 yds and 10 TDs

The rest of the WRs Corps getting 2000 yds and and additional 10 TDs.

In my eyes that saying pretty damn close to top ten. It's career years for pretty much every offensive skill player.

PP

**Real Fan Dan** · 06-08-2008, 10:40 PM

This first year the position that will benefit most will be the backs. They're gonna get a lot of dump off passes as our line folds. Use of the shotgun will buy a little time but only if it's a QB other that KB. Kyle does not have the ball handling skills to handle a shotgun offense. A little later in the year, as the line gells and they bench Boller, we may see a little more downfield passing. Right now we just don't have the talent at Tackle, QB or WR to do much regardless of what offense we run. We'll see some progress towards the end of the year and next.

**Rxdoxx** · 06-09-2008, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by Real Fan Dan

This first year the position that will benefit most will be the backs. They're gonna get a lot of dump off passes

I got no arguement with that thinking....
To borrow from the Lone Ranger.... "Return with us to the thrilling days of yesteryear..." hey diddle diddle Mitchell up the middle :) And wasn't Lydell at or near the top in receptions a couple of those years?

I'm still leaning towards TE, but can sure see what you are saying, and with Rice to plug in to give Willis a blow, it is possible our backs could have the most receptions as a unit. We got the beef in the middle to pound some, and the uncertainty at the tackles to require more check-downs to the backs.