Shift in Offensive Philosophies?

**jd345** · 08-08-2012, 09:52 PM

Originally Posted by Terpsfan82

:word

That's why come playoff time his offenses always under achieve.

Playing devils advocate here...and for the record I think we could do better than Cam...in the playoffs we do not always underachieve...we have been to the AFC Championship game twice in the last four years...not many teams can lay claim to that kind of success. When we lose that one game...that one game that matters so much in the playoffs...that one game that hurts like hell to lose and ends our season... we as fans tend to overanalyze that singular individual gameplan and rightfully so...we pay for the seats and the players salary and we expect to win. But in hindsight realize that that type of gameplan is what got us to that all important game. After playing a full season and playoff games with that philosophy do we expect our team to come out and execute a gameplan full of plays that we have not run during the regular season...or are implementing right now in training camp? Do we have a separate playbook just for the AFC Championship game so teams can't play to our tendencies? Do we change our offensive philosophy for that one or two games? Our do we just need to be good enough to say...yep...you know our tendiencies...go ahead...try to stop them :) Once again, playing devils advocate here and can see both sides of the coin. We, behind our computer screens, can say change the gameplan in the last quarter of a playoff game so the opposing defense sees something totally new and unsuspected...only problem is it has not been practiced routinely throughout the year. Other option...keep going with got you to the playoffs the last four years and simply say...you are not beating me today...but have fun trying :)

**Jsmoove** · 08-08-2012, 10:03 PM

Originally Posted by TheJoeFlaccoShow

Yep, underachieved putting up 400 yds of offense and (should have been) 27 points on the road in the AFCC game last year.

NE defense sure found a way to beat us, or did they?

ne defense sure didn't lose the game either, we took our foot off the gas at points in this game because of Cam's playing it safe because we are on the road, a playoff game, hostile territory, against the games best Qb. Cam's way of thinking is good for the developing and progressing of young Qb from 1-3yrs joe is heading into his 5th season, cam's way of thinking has gotten joe as far as he can get but to take it to the next level Joe needs more than Cam or less of Cam if you know what i mean, i think we will see a difference with Joe's mechanics, decision making and demeanor due to the injection of Caldwell.

**jd345** · 08-08-2012, 10:30 PM

Originally Posted by Jsmoove

ne defense sure didn't lose the game either, we took our foot off the gas at points in this game because of Cam's playing it safe because we are on the road, a playoff game, hostile territory, against the games best Qb. Cam's way of thinking is good for the developing and progressing of young Qb from 1-3yrs joe is heading into his 5th season, cam's way of thinking has gotten joe as far as he can get but to take it to the next level Joe needs more than Cam or less of Cam if you know what i mean, i think we will see a difference with Joe's mechanics, decision making and demeanor due to the injection of Caldwell.

I was about to make a separate post about what you just brought up in the last line of your post. Caldwell, behind the scenes, will be the key to our success...if it happens (fingers crossed). Our offensive philosophy doesn't need to change, we have been highly successful, it just needs "tweaked." Caldwell, after working with Manning for so many years, knows how to develop a QB, or at the very least knows the qualities that an Elite QB posseses. Flacco is, in my opinion, about 75% developed. Caldwell, after working with Manning, knows what an elite QB looks like, the mechanics needed, the demeanor needed, the amount of studying needed, etc...This, hopefully, will be the needed tweak to get us over the hump. We can be assured that we have a QB coach that has worked and seen the best in the game in his prime (hate the Colts...disgusting to admit). In the next two years we should see the "ceiling" of what Flacco has to offer given the gameplan and philosophy we use here in Baltimore (hence the reason we might be waiting on his contract...we want to see where his "ceiling" is). GO RAVENS!

**Ravenous1** · 08-08-2012, 10:53 PM

Originally Posted by Jsmoove

I'll believe this when i see it, they said the same thing last season, then invested in a 11mil fullback, we still have those same pieces. I still suspect this to be a run first team, but there will be some differences I see Joe finally taking over the O this season, Cam won't give up full control, but we will see some of Caldwell's influence on Joe.

I think like someone else has said, we have heard this before only to see Cam go into turtle mode once the season gets started. I do agree with you that Caldwell will have a positive influence on Joe and expect that he will help Joe take more on field control of the offense. I think its important to recognize also that last season was one with many new and younger parts in the receiving corps, no OTA's and as a result I really felt that it took some time to get guys to know were they needed to be, develop timing and just get a grove going offensively through the air. I really do expect that to improve this year and as a result the air attack should be improved.

Far as Cam is concerned, I think that bringing in Caldwell was in essence sending him a message in addition to helping out Joe. Long time assistant, former HC and not a guy who strikes me of being afraid to call BS when the need arises. I think coach Harbaugh gets a NFL offense, I also think though like any head coach he has a lot on his plate in any given week especially right now. My thought is that Caldwell was also brought in to give John a continuous presence (sort of a proxy) were the offense is concerned and frankly to be that guy who can say to John that the gameplan in a given game needs to be adjusted a little earlier than maybe John or Cam might have done so in the past. Just a thought

**Haloti92** · 08-08-2012, 11:11 PM

Originally Posted by TheJoeFlaccoShow

Yep, underachieved putting up 400 yds of offense and (should have been) 27 points on the road in the AFCC game last year.

NE defense sure found a way to beat us, or did they?

Well...

NE gained an average of 428 yards per game of offense on the year, our defense held them to 330
NE scored an average of 32.1 points per game on the year, our defense held them to 23
NE allowed an average of 411 yards per game on defense on the year, we gained 398
NE allowed an average of 21.4 points per game on defense on the year, we scored 20
NE committed an average of 1.06 turnovers per game on the year, our defense forced 3
NE forced an average of 2.13 turnovers per game on the year, our offense committed 1

So you tell me if and where there was "underachievement."

Obviously our offense had one of its better games in the AFCCG, but there were still some conservative calls/moments in that game which can be second-guessed considering the stakes and who we were playing (not a low scoring offense and/or stout defense). I would mention them again if they hadn't been mentioned many times over and if doing so wouldn't bring back nauseating memories.

**Ravenous1** · 08-08-2012, 11:20 PM

Originally Posted by Haloti92

Well...

NE gained an average of 428 yards per game of offense on the year, our defense held them to 330
NE scored an average of 32.1 points per game on the year, our defense held them to 23
NE allowed an average of 411 yards per game on defense on the year, we gained 398
NE allowed an average of 21.4 points per game on defense on the year, we scored 20
NE committed an average of 1.06 turnovers per game on the year, our defense forced 3
NE forced an average of 2.13 turnovers per game on the year, our offense committed 1

So you tell me if and where there was "underachievement."

Obviously our offense had one of its better games in the AFCCG, but there were still some conservative calls/moments in that game which can be second-guessed considering the stakes and who we were playing (not a low scoring offense and/or stout defense). I would mention them again if they hadn't been mentioned many times over and if doing so wouldn't bring back nauseating memories.

I hear ya. I would not call it underachievement though. Think the offense did enough to win if a few guys executed better. NE played better defensively heading into the playoffs (while I will grant you not great). I do agree that the Offense took the foot off the throat/got conservative at times and hopefully thats something they address.

**Haloti92** · 08-08-2012, 11:34 PM

Originally Posted by Ravenous1

I hear ya. I would not call it underachievement though. Think the offense did enough to win if a few guys executed better. NE played better defensively heading into the playoffs (while I will grant you not great). I do agree that the Offense took the foot off the throat/got conservative at times and hopefully thats something they address.

Yeah, I wasn't really even saying the offense 'underachieved,' I was just saying that the defense definitively did not underachieve. And I also would say the offense definitively did not overachieve.

And the term "underachieve' is relative. It relates performance/output to expectations, but if your conservative style tends to consistently lead to production that is lower than your potential (by design) then people lower their expectations and that lowers the 'underachievement' bar. Or said another way, our offense regularly does well/better when the game situation indicates we HAVE to score, so one can reasonably claim we are not always (from opening kickoff to final whistle) trying as hard to score as we possibly could. Obviously, the rationale is that we don't want to make costly mistakes, etc, but that rationale can be taken too far, and I think it often is considering our talent. Personally, I think if Cameron could have been hypnotized or brainwashed into thinking that the entire game (every drive) we were down by 3-4 points with 5 minutes left in the game, we could have scored 35+ points against NE. Obviously that is just unprovable opinion, but I believe it.

**Captain Silver** · 08-09-2012, 02:35 AM

All I have to say about this continual promise of offense around here is:

Rory+Breaker_40e87d_3389763.jpg

**GOTA** · 08-09-2012, 05:36 AM

Originally Posted by Haloti92

Well...

NE gained an average of 428 yards per game of offense on the year, our defense held them to 330
NE scored an average of 32.1 points per game on the year, our defense held them to 23
NE allowed an average of 411 yards per game on defense on the year, we gained 398
NE allowed an average of 21.4 points per game on defense on the year, we scored 20
NE committed an average of 1.06 turnovers per game on the year, our defense forced 3
NE forced an average of 2.13 turnovers per game on the year, our offense committed 1

So you tell me if and where there was "underachievement."

Obviously our offense had one of its better games in the AFCCG, but there were still some conservative calls/moments in that game which can be second-guessed considering the stakes and who we were playing (not a low scoring offense and/or stout defense). I would mention them again if they hadn't been mentioned many times over and if doing so wouldn't bring back nauseating memories.

It looks like our offense playing one of its better games means we got up to the level of the average opponent for the the Pats defense.

**leachisabeast** · 08-09-2012, 06:13 AM

There is no question that our defense flat out played great in the AFCCG, our secondary was fucking awesome in that game it must be said. I wouldn't say our offense was all that great, we couldn't run the ball, and our offensive line couldn't picut up a goddamn backside bandit on max protection! (lol)

But Flacco and our receivers played pretty damn well under the pressure Flacco was put under by the Pats defensive line.

**wickedsolo** · 08-09-2012, 07:01 AM

Cam's offense goes through the RB. It did in San Diego and it has since coming to Baltimore as well. Not saying he can't or won't open it up a bit like they did against New England, but make no mistake about it, this offense is still going to be run through Ray Rice. That's just the way Cam's offense is designed. Signing Jacoby Jones gives them another viable deep threat to clear out the underneath for Boldin, Rice, and the TE's.

Furthermore, Rice is arguably the best player on this offense (IMO, it's Joe, but Rice is certainly a legitimate argument for that status), so they are going to get the ball into Rice's hands as much as possible. Why wouldn't they?

**leachisabeast** · 08-09-2012, 07:18 AM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

Furthermore, Rice is arguably the best player on this offense (IMO, it's Joe, but Rice is certainly a legitimate argument for that status), so they are going to get the ball into Rice's hands as much as possible. Why wouldn't they?

Lol you think Joe is our best player on offense? I mean yeah he's good, but statistically he isn't even in the top ten in his respective position, while Rice is debated as the best RB in the league. I think Joe has potential to become our best player, and a top 5 QB, but right now he hasn't shown that he is that great to this point.