Ravens sign Drew Bennett

**highwater** · 07-26-2009, 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by StingerNLG

As for having Drew Bennett, we're replacing one receiver at the twilight of his career with another. Other than being another possession receiver in a roster full of possession receivers, what does Drew Bennett bring us that we don't have already?

Oh yeah, continued focus on our run game.

A somewhat depressing take, but undeniably accurate. Well, except that Mason is and has been better than Bennett.

I'm okay with the signing of Bennett, but it's strictly a depth move -- I don't think anyone is expecting him to step in here and put up the numbers that Mason has put up the past few years.

And being an incurable optimist, I still cling to the belief that Clayton will step up and surprise a lot of people this year. (But I also said the same thing about Patrick Johnson year after year, so what the hell do I know).

**StingerNLG** · 07-26-2009, 10:14 PM

Originally Posted by effo5231

Michael Oher is the player that puts us in position to run a more exotic offense. His being able to handle the pass rush without a TE or a back chipping in allows us to send more players out on routes. Now, that could be utilized via sending Heap out a lot more often, or the backs, or both. OR we could line up more guys off the line, outside the tackles. Common sense says we'll do both of these things.

You don't need great receivers to run 4 wides, in fact, if you have a game breaker at WR, you rarely need to flood the field with pass catchers, your game breaker will get open on his own. Its when your in the boat we're in, plenty of depth but not a lot talent, that you might want to send a bunch of guys out there and hope one of them can beat 1 on 1 coverage.

But you can't run 4 wides with receivers that can't get downfield or consistently catch the ball either. And while yes you don't need to run a lot of 4 wide when you have a game breaker at WR, you still need to run it a few times to keep the opponent from double-teaming said WR.

The problem is I don't want to be in this boat, and yet somehow we keep taking on water. It would be nice to have someone that you knew could go downfield and catch the ball more than once every 4-5 games. And if we are going to go after a name receiver, I'd love for it to be someone who wasn't that name on another team that no longer wanted them because they were too old or ineffective.

I keep coming back to this signing. I think if we are replacing our number 3 receiver, this would be a fine signing.

**Raveninwoodlawn** · 07-26-2009, 10:53 PM

Well, it doesn't matter at this point because he retired after 2 days.

I swear Oz...stop it with these lame ass band aids and spend what it takes to get a real, young WR in here. You sat here and dragged your feet all offseason and now you are gonna have to open the vault to a 35 year old Derrick Mason for a big extension, or get anally raped by the Broncos who know you are desperate.

We all better get on our knees and pray Clayton and Williams take huge leaps this year...however likely/unlikely that may be.

**bmorebirds_24** · 07-26-2009, 10:54 PM

This thread matters NO more boys. The dick face retired!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

**jonboy79** · 07-27-2009, 11:56 AM

4 WR's is a good way to lose a lot of games 41-38. It may be pretty on offense, but boy will that defense get tired quick.

**jonboy79** · 07-27-2009, 12:00 PM

4 WR's is a good way to lose a lot of games 41-38. It may be pretty on offense, but boy will that defense get tired quick.
It may also be a godo way to go if you already have the personnell in house and already KNOW that your Signal Caller is up to the challenge of having the Victory rest on his shoulders night in and out.

I don't think it's the way to go, and Super Bowl Champs tend to agree with me, historically.

**Ravenswarrior19** · 07-27-2009, 01:51 PM

From the looks of this thread, this was quite an intriguing conversation.

Shame that it, like Drew Bennett, has now vanished like a ghost.

I think Cam would like us to build a balance doffense with multiple options. We will have a strong foundation of power running behind a talented O-line (our biggest investment outside of Flacco). But we would like to have enough depth in pass-catchers that we can also spread the field. That way we are able to attack a defense's weakness.

It's similiar to the 2004 Pats. They were essential a power team behind Corey Dillon, but they could also go spread and dink n' dunk to a collection of middling recievers.

Everyone would love a superstar #1 reciever if we can get one, but our offensive foundation (and financial commitment) will be to Flacco and the O-line.

**effo5231** · 07-27-2009, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by Ravenswarrior19

I think Cam would like us to build a balanced offense with multiple options. We will have a strong foundation of power running behind a talented O-line (our biggest investment outside of Flacco). But we would like to have enough depth in pass-catchers that we can also spread the field. That way we are able to attack a defense's weakness.

It's similiar to the 2004 Pats. They were essential a power team behind Corey Dillon, but they could also go spread and dink n' dunk to a collection of middling recievers.

Everyone would love a superstar #1 reciever if we can get one, but our offensive foundation (and financial commitment) will be to Flacco and the O-line.

This, a thousand times this.

I was never suggesting that we suddenly become a cheap and less talented version of the Greatest Show on Turf, but rather that having a deep but uninspiring WR core and a talented O-Line could allow Cam to experiment with many different formations and approaches.

This theory that we'd lose shootouts all the time because we occasionally try to spread a team out is kind of silly.

**jonboy79** · 07-28-2009, 08:31 AM

Originally Posted by effo5231

This, a thousand times this.

I was never suggesting that we suddenly become a cheap and less talented version of the Greatest Show on Turf, but rather that having a deep but uninspiring WR core and a talented O-Line could allow Cam to experiment with many different formations and approaches.

This theory that we'd lose shootouts all the time because we occasionally try to spread a team out is kind of silly.

Yes you were. 4 WR's is not a "normal" set that should be desired to be run often. If you were suggesting we should get more production from the slot that is one thing, but you specifically wanted us using 4 WR's, when we have moderate at best talent at WR.

Do you realize your favrite passing team the Steelers' fourth WR had all of 6 catches all season. So between any injuries and players being tired, it can be assumed that not all came in 5 WR sets, but even if they did, that isn't even a catch a game.

**psuasskicker** · 07-28-2009, 09:46 AM

Originally Posted by jonboy79

Yes you were. 4 WR's is not a "normal" set that should be desired to be run often. If you were suggesting we should get more production from the slot that is one thing, but you specifically wanted us using 4 WR's, when we have moderate at best talent at WR.

Do you realize your favrite passing team the Steelers' fourth WR had all of 6 catches all season. So between any injuries and players being tired, it can be assumed that not all came in 5 WR sets, but even if they did, that isn't even a catch a game.

You know a lot of WRs get used in specific packages that don't necessarily have 4 WRs on the field...

- C -

**jonboy79** · 07-28-2009, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by psuasskicker

You know a lot of WRs get used in specific packages that don't necessarily have 4 WRs on the field...

- C -

That's my point, Effo was specifically talking about 4 WR sets, which I geel are unnecessary all but a once a game or so on average. I see no issue with a player like Marcus Smith entering the season as our 4th option at WR, partcularly if Kelley Washington is the 5th. Thus, we jsut need to bring in a single player that can compete for a starting job.