Our Offense Clearly Misses Clayton

[bauer77]

[quote name='EnVy_CaLiBeR' timestamp='1294101615' post='592506']
Lol!

[b]If anything our offense misses Gaither[/b].
[/quote]


Never thought i'd hear that said on this forum, especially after everyone was calling him a "cry baby" and wanted him traded/cut when we could have.

I'm glad someone else agrees with me though lol

[codizzle]

[quote name='flynismo' timestamp='1294089839' post='592219']
Clayton sucked just as bad for STL as he did for us. He caught 50% of his targets before getting hurt ... which is exactly what we've come to expect from him. Now get off his nuts.
[/quote]
love it lol

[Romo Ravens]

[quote name='Irish Girl' timestamp='1294103826' post='592575']
Well Coach Harbaugh came out and said that their offense wasn't as good as it has been earlier in the season and in Kansas City they O players and Cam Cameron will do a better job. BUT, the players "took the blame on their shoulders", and said it was their fault.
[/quote]

He's been saying the same thing after every week this season. You really think that Cameron is smart enough to beat a defense that has Flowers, Carr, Berry, Hali, Jackson, amongst other play makers? If we win, it'll be because of turnovers by the defense and Rice having a nice day on the ground. Nothing is going to change from here on out with the offense until next season, and what do you expect the players to say? Of course they're going to put the blame on their shoulders, it's not like they're going to come out and say the their OC has no business calling offensive plays, although I hope Mason and others lash out at him come the offseason

[AZravensfan]

[quote name='EnVy_CaLiBeR' timestamp='1294101615' post='592506']
Lol!

If anything our offense misses Gaither.
[/quote]


+1 for that we definitely do miss Gaither.

Lol @wanting Clayton, he had ample opportunity here for us and was never a real factor. I am glad hes gone and the core we have now is much better than he was or ever will be.

Still wierd to me how some of us dont see that these "prevent offense and defense"schemes are what keeps making our games this close. Not talking about the division games because that just the way they go, it is a rivalry and our division is rough. We have great players with leadership its pretty obvious to me that a coaching change in philosophy needs to be made. I don't care if we get rid of Cam or not but he has to be a bit more creative and aggressive with leads. I do want to put some of it on Harbaugh to, he should see the problem and address it(which he may be doing behind close doors).

[ravensfan160]

[quote name='Jamal' timestamp='1294085932' post='592133']
No offense, but thats just not a very smart thing to say.

Boldin and Housh>Clayton. all day.

We could have Andre Johnson and Cam would probably have trouble utilizing him.
[/quote]
A lot of you seem to be thinking that we traded away Clayton for Boldin, Housh, and Stallworth. In essense, we only replaced Clayton with Housh. Outside of that 1st Steelers game and a handful of other plays the entire year Housh hasn't done anything for us. Seattle would rather pay the guy $8 million NOT to play for them. If anything, I think his big mouth has forced Cam to play him over Stallworth for fear of Housh becoming a disruption.

So yes, I would take Clayton over Housh if it meant more 3 receiver sets of Boldin, Mason, and Stallworth. Those 3 guys compliment each other a heck of a lot better than Boldin, Mason, and Housh.

[EnVy_CaLiBeR]

[quote name='bauer77' timestamp='1294127222' post='592890']
Never thought i'd hear that said on this forum, especially after everyone was calling him a "cry baby" and wanted him traded/cut when we could have.

I'm glad someone else agrees with me though lol
[/quote]
I think everybody was looking at the negative aspects of keeping him but no one can deny that the man is a force on the line when healthy.

[757RavensFan]

Honestly, I miss Kelley Washington more than I miss Clayton. Kelley Washington always came up w/ the big 3rd down catch.

[grantkyle2003]

I dont miss clayton one bit, he was here what 4-5 years? Didnt produce crap for us, Also in some games I was surprised he was on the field because his play made me think he was inactive. Sure he was good in st louis but in a division like that even demetrius williams would be a star. how funny would it be to have d williams and clayton the staritng 2 recievers for the rams?

[Jamal]

[quote name='ravensfan160' timestamp='1294147253' post='592927']
A lot of you seem to be thinking that we traded away Clayton for Boldin, Housh, and Stallworth. In essense, we only replaced Clayton with Housh. Outside of that 1st Steelers game and a handful of other plays the entire year Housh hasn't done anything for us. Seattle would rather pay the guy $8 million NOT to play for them. If anything, I think his big mouth has forced Cam to play him over Stallworth for fear of Housh becoming a disruption.

So yes, I would take Clayton over Housh if it meant more 3 receiver sets of Boldin, Mason, and Stallworth. Those 3 guys compliment each other a heck of a lot better than Boldin, Mason, and Housh.
[/quote]
Well I'll agree that getting Housh is not something I agree with in hindsight. I would have much rather see what we had in David Reed.

But with that being said, our offense doesn't miss Clayton one bit. Your making him out to be some deep threat, when we all know he isn't. He wasn't exactly a good compliment to Mason either.

[grape drank]

[quote name='edreedfromtheu' timestamp='1294086600' post='592144']
You all say "Cam doesn't know how to use this receiver or that receiver."

Ummm... how else do you use receivers but to give them routes to run?

I think the big difference here might be the.... QUARTERBACK.

Sam Bradford sure seemed to be able to get Clayton the ball in a place where he could catch it without having to jump 3 feet in the air all the time, getting led right into a defender.

I know you all LOVE Flacco, but really... how else is Cam supposed to use Boldin? He runs the routes... he's stated himself that he's been wide open and not gotten the ball. I don't see how that is CAM'S fault. Sounds more like the quarterback to me.

If anything, I still think Cam has tried to use the receivers entirely too much, and hasn't run the ball as much as we should. Can I pray that he was saving it all for the playoffs? Sure, but I doubt that's the case.
[/quote]


He gives Boldin the wrong routes though. He sends boldin on flys, and posts and deep routes. But boldin doesnt run a sub 4.4 nor is he 6'4". Boldin is better utilized over the middle, for example slants and ins/outs etc.

[noy]

[quote name='Ed_Reed20' timestamp='1294094714' post='592349']
How in the world was trading Clayton "premature and greedy" when the team had already secured a better deep threat?

How exactly do you know Clayton could have equaled or bettered Houshmandzadeh's production had he been in the same position? Yes, Houshmandzadeh's TDs have come on well-thrown balls but T.J. still had to run the routes and reel the ball in. The game-winning grab against the Steelers wasn't easy. There's no guarantee Clayton would have made that play.
[/quote]

All you do is ask questions in hopes for some concrete "fact". Maybe you should realize that this is an opinionated board with opinionated answers that actually lack concrete fact because they are [b]OPINIONATED[/b] . I could counter by simply saying, how do you know Clayton wouldn't have been as effective as Housh? You don't. But you'd probably point to his statistics as a Raven, as you weigh most arguments on the numerical facts, of which I would say those were all at a time when he played as a #2, and without Boldin as a compliment receiver. Then I'd go back to my initial theory and we could do that dance all day. What a stimulating discussion that was!

I think I explained my position clearly. It was greedy because Ozzie saw the "deal" Housh was tagged with, and he loves his draft picks. He was getting "experience" and, yet again, another possession receiver and giving up speed and a player who already knows the system well. Call me nuts, but usually when you want to win a Super Bowl, with as many pieces as we currently have in place, you don't give up guys who already know the system for even experienced vets.

I believe we have too many big name WRs for Cam to put on the field. James Walker of ESPN called it at the beginning of the season when the team signed Housh, and initially I was skeptical. But, all signs seem to point in that direction. We have too many experienced receivers of the same ability, which could cause confusion on what routes they should be running and how effective they are at running them (because, like you have said many times, Cam isn't using them correctly). Having a bunch of receivers that can do one similar skill well is not as good as having receivers that have different skill sets. Sometimes, quality doesn't beat out variety; attacking in multiple ways makes one less predictable. For an explanation on that, look at Bltravens first post.

I completely disagree with that statement on the game winning grab against the Steelers. That was, most definitely, a throw and catch play. The safety pulled off to the left to cover Boldin, and the corner bit on the outside move by Housh because he had been running routes to the outside for almost the entire game. In other words, that play was effective by design, not by the talent of TJ, as talented as he is. I wouldn't suggest challenging me on it, since I have NFL Rewind and reviewed the play a minute ago.

Bottom line, there is no guarantee either way that Clayton would or wouldn't have been as effective as Housh. But considering the amount of production we have out of TJ, I don't think the investment was worth it and was ultimately a step back for our receiving core. I believe this especially because Clayton was making his debut as a slot receiver. Nobody in this forum can tell me he would have been poor because nobody has seen him at the position (and nobody has seen what he can do with two elite receivers in Mason and Boldin on the field with him). Clayton has the ability, as we saw in 2006 and as he produced very well for the Rams before injury.

[TDubbs]

HAHA yes i do miss a wideout with unreliable hands and a prone to injury, how many games did he play this year? I love our WRs they are downright dirty, we just havent used them to their abilities at all. If we can get them more involved they can absolutely rip it up.

[Ed_Reed20]

[quote name='noy' timestamp='1294166050' post='593195']
All you do is ask questions in hopes for some concrete "fact". Maybe you should realize that this is an opinionated board with opinionated answers that actually lack concrete fact because they are [b]OPINIONATED[/b] . I could counter by simply saying, how do you know Clayton wouldn't have been as effective as Housh? You don't. But you'd probably point to his statistics as a Raven, as you weigh most arguments on the numerical facts, of which I would say those were all at a time when he played as a #2, and without Boldin as a compliment receiver. Then I'd go back to my initial theory and we could do that dance all day. What a stimulating discussion that was!
[/quote]

I completely understand this a message board. Why you the feel the need to call me out when I challenge you on points you make is beyond me. If you can't back up a claim, why make it? If it's your opinion, so be it but don't state something and then get flustered when you're challenged.

[quote]
I think I explained my position clearly. It was greedy because Ozzie saw the "deal" Housh was tagged with, and he loves his draft picks. He was getting "experience" and, yet again, another possession receiver and giving up speed and a player who already knows the system well. Call me nuts, but usually when you want to win a Super Bowl, with as many pieces as we currently have in place, you don't give up guys who already know the system for even experienced vets.
[/quote]

What "deal" was Houshmandzadeh "tagged with"? He was a highly productive FA Ozzie felt could help this team and T.J. has. Clayton, for all his speed and knowledge of the Ravens' system, never developed into the #1 WR or even a consistently productive one some thought he could be after his '06 campaign. That wasn't his fault entirely but certainly a good part. He may have flourished in Houshmandzadeh's role in this offense but he didn't show very much during his time here to suggest he'd have significantly outproduced Houshmandzadeh in my opinion.

[quote]
I believe we have too many big name WRs for Cam to put on the field. James Walker of ESPN called it out at the beginning of the season when the team signed Housh, and initially I was skeptical. But, all signs seem to point in that direction. We have too many experienced receivers of the same ability, which could cause confusion on what routes they should be running and how effective they are at running them (because, like you have said many times, Cam isn't using them correctly). Having a bunch of receivers that can do one similar skill well is not as good as having receivers that have different skill sets. Sometimes, quality doesn't beat out variety; attacking in multiple ways makes one less predictable. For an explanation on that, look at Bltravens first post.
[/quote]

From a chemistry standpoint, I'd agree there are too many big-name WRs. Matt Ryan doesn't have a lot of players he throws to but has very good chemistry with the few he does throw to. However, I disagree that at this point in the season, the coaches would be confused on what routes they WRs are running because they supposedly do similar things. Personally, I don't even agree that the main WR trio is [i]that[/i] similar, their lack of deep speed aside.

Mason works the sidelines routes as well as any WR in the game. Houshmandzadeh is a quality route runner too but has a little more physicality and athleticism to his game. Boldin on the other hand, thrives working inside and with the ball in his hands. Mason gets his comeback routes but that's literally the only staple route this team runs that caters to the WRs strengths.

I'll always go back to Cam preferring to throw fade routes to Q at the goal-line in the two games against the Steelers as opposed to slants or bubble screens(plays he excelled at in Arizona). It just goes to show he has little idea when it comes to his personnel.

Also, what has stopped him from getting Stallworth more involved in the game-plan? Are reverses and deep passes are the only ways he knows how to get him involved? I feared that wasn't the case a number of weeks ago but it's painfully obvious I'm right now. You say Mason, T.J. and Q are similar; the one WR who isn't a possession guy and possess speed has two catches on the season. I wouldn't have been able to fathom that even after Stallworth got hurt in pre-season.

[quote]
I completely disagree with that statement on the game winning grab against the Steelers. That was, most definitely, a throw and catch play. The safety pulled off to the left to cover Boldin, and the corner bit on the outside move by Housh because he had been running routes to the outside for almost the entire game. In other words, that play was effective by design, not by the talent of TJ, as talented as he is. I wouldn't suggest challenging me on it, since I have NFL Rewind and reviewed the play a minute ago.

Bottom line, there is no guarantee either way that Clayton would or wouldn't have been as effective as Housh. But considering the amount of production we have out of TJ, I don't think the investment was worth it and was ultimately a step back for our receiving core. I believe this especially because Clayton was making his debut as a slot receiver. Nobody in this forum can tell me he would have been poor because nobody has seen him at the position (and nobody has seen what he can do with two elite receivers in Mason and Boldin on the field with him). Clayton has the ability, as we saw in 2006 and as he produced very well for the Rams before injury.
[/quote]

I'm aware the game-winning catch was a "throw and catch" play as I've seen the play on YouTube many times myself btut I don't think Clayton would have sold that route as well. Really, debating whether he could have or not is pointless as we'll never know.

I'll never believe bringing in Houshmandzadeh was a "step back" so ultimately that's just something we'll have to agree to disagree on.

[Ravens549]

[quote name='Ed_Reed20' timestamp='1294088368' post='592182']

Cam has used the WR "too much"? That's interesting, especially when you consider the Ravens have [b]run the ball more this season than they did last year[/b].
[/quote]
Agreed!
Everyone is always crying out RUN THE BALL!

Yet when we did in the Bengals game, everyone was booing. They stopped the run because our passing game fell apart. We cannot run if we cannot first develop a passing game.

[ravensfan160]

[quote name='Jamal' timestamp='1294153851' post='593001']
Well I'll agree that getting Housh is not something I agree with in hindsight. I would have much rather see what we had in David Reed.

But with that being said, our offense doesn't miss Clayton one bit. Your making him out to be some deep threat, when we all know he isn't. He wasn't exactly a good compliment to Mason either.
[/quote]
Clayton is clearly faster than Housh theres no denying that. I didn't compare Clayton to Mike Wallace. I was comparing him to who he replaced. And while Clayton never lit up the stats sheet neither are our new "flashy" receivers. Sometimes an old pair of jeans are just better than a new pair. Joe and Clayton had their timing all worked out. Instead, he's had to learn on the fly with Housh coming in right before the season. And what seems to be our offenses biggest problem right now? Its largely a timing and a comfort issue in the passing game IMO.

If anyone wants a great example of what I'm talking about just look at the Patriots dumping Randy Moss. They actually got better.

Adding Boldin was the right move. I just think in hindsight we would have been better off with Clayton instead of Housh, regardless of what Housh's career stat sheet is. This league isn't about what you did in the past its what you're capable of now.

[noy]

[quote name='Ed_Reed20' timestamp='1294168714' post='593228']
I completely understand this a message board. Why you the feel the need to call me out when I challenge you on points you make is beyond me. If you can't back up a claim why make it? If it's your opinion, so be it but don't state something and then get flustered when you're challenged.



What "deal" was Houshmandzadeh "tagged with"? He was highly productive FA Ozzie felt could help this team and T.J. has. Clayton, for all his speed and knowledge of the Ravens' system, never developed into the #1 WR or even a consistently productive WR some thought he could be after his '06 campaign. That wasn't his fault entirely but certainly a good part. He may have flourished in Houshmandzadeh's role in this offense but he didn't show very much during his time here to suggest he'd have significantly outproduced Houshmandzadeh in my opinion.



From a chemistry standpoint, I'd agree there are too many big-name WRs. Matt Ryan doesn't have a lot of players he throws to but has very good chemistry with the few he does. However, I disagree that at this point in the season, the coaches would be confused on what routes they're running because of they supposedly do similar things. Personally, I don't even agree that the main WR trio is [i]that[/i] similar, the lack of deep speed aside. Mason works the sidelines routes as well as any WR in the game. Houshmandzadeh is a quality route runner but has a little more physicality and athleticism to his game. Boldin on the other hand, thrives working inside and with the ball in his hands. Mason gets his comeback routes but that's literally the only staple route this team runs that caters to a WRs strengths.

I'll always go back to Cam preferring to throw fade routes to Q at the goal-line in the two games against the Steelers as opposed to slants or bubble screens(plays he excelled at in Arizona). It just goes to show Cam has little idea when it comes to his personnel.

What has stopped him from getting Stallworth more involved in the game-plan? Are reverses and deep passes are the only ways he knows how to get him involved? I feared that wasn't the case a number of weeks ago but that appears to be the case. You say Mason, T.J. and Q are similar; the one WR who isn't a possession guy and he has two catches on the season.



I'm aware the game-winning catch was a "throw and catch" play as I've seen the play on YouTube many times myself but I don't think Clayton would have sold that route as well. But really, debating whether he could have or not is pointless as we'll never know.

I'll never believe bringing in Houshmandzadeh was a "step back" so ultimately that's just something we'll have to agree to disagree on.
[/quote]

You aren't challenging, you're asking for clarity on things that should not need clarifying. Sorry, but your posts are irritating to read as you ask more questions than you give opinion. Clayton beat Stallworth for the #3 spot. That is fact and you saying Stallworth is "a better deep threat" is absurd because you're challenging people who have vast experience evaluating personnel positions. Or is your ambiguous "better deep threat" not Stallworth?

What deal? TJ was a bargain. Ozzie loves getting something for less. He couldn't help himself.

So, when did using Clayton's expectations of being a great #1 become useful in evaluating his possible performance as a slot receiver? Housh has been a good #1 and #2 receiver, but his season at #3 has been sub par. Different receivers fit different roles. Unless Cam has an epiphany of how to use three #1 receivers in the playoffs, I think we'll be seeing more of the same. And I see you're using Clayton's history against him. So you believe his #2 history affects his slot abilities even with the acquisition of Boldin and Clayton being pushed to #3? That clears things up.

But that is the most important thing that makes them indifferent; the lack of deep speed. If you don't have safeties looking back, then all they have to do is concentrate on what's in front. The point is TJ, Mason and Boldin all excel on short-medium level passes, but it takes more creative play calling for them to get open deep because of the lack of speed. The receivers can be stubborn and tell you otherwise, but there is a reason why Wallace and Jackson, two of the fastest players in the league, have had so much success; not to mention, made their offenses much more dynamic. Currently, our only real deep threats are our tight ends, and that's just because they're big targets. Clayton was no Wallace/Jackson, but he had the speed to keep defenses honest in covering him down field. Imagine what that could have done in opening Anquan up in the middle of the field.

I agree with the frustration of Stallworth not being on the field, but I think that factors in with having too many big names on the field. The front office doesn't pay Mason, Boldin and Housh to sit on the sidelines. They expect to be starters and on the field. But that's purely speculation, and it is ultimately on Cam to man up and admit there are more situations needed for Stallworth to be on the field. But I don't think he should have been put in the position to think about that in the first place.

I thought Cam was the biggest problem, but I'm starting to come around to the idea that the personnel just isn't right for this to be a consistent offense. Not that they aren't good as players, but that they aren't a right fit together. Stallworth is waiting on the side, but if we didn't have Housh, Cam would be forced to play Stallworth or Clayton, which I think would have made this a great offensive unit.

[Irish Girl]

[quote name='Romo Ravens' timestamp='1294128449' post='592893']
He's been saying the same thing after every week this season. You really think that Cameron is smart enough to beat a defense that has Flowers, Carr, Berry, Hali, Jackson, amongst other play makers? If we win, it'll be because of turnovers by the defense and Rice having a nice day on the ground. Nothing is going to change from here on out with the offense until next season, and what do you expect the players to say? Of course they're going to put the blame on their shoulders, it's not like they're going to come out and say the their OC has no business calling offensive plays, although I hope Mason and others lash out at him come the offseason
[/quote]
They plan on stepping it up and they will. Have faith in the Ravens.

[Romo Ravens]

[quote name='Irish Girl' timestamp='1294175163' post='593312']
They plan on stepping it up and they will. Have faith in the Ravens.
[/quote]

When Flacco has barely 130 yards throwing and no TD's, and Reed has two picks, don't say I told you so. It's going to be the same story as every week this season. It can only get better next year though.

[Ed_Reed20]

[quote name='noy' timestamp='1294175149' post='593310']
You aren't challenging, you're asking for clarity on things that should not need clarifying. Sorry, but your posts are irritating to read as you ask more questions than you give opinion. Clayton beat Stallworth for the #3 spot. That is fact and you saying Stallworth is "a better deep threat" is absurd because you're challenging people who have vast experience evaluating personnel positions. Or is your ambiguous "better deep threat" not Stallworth?

What deal? TJ was a bargain. Ozzie loves getting something for less. He couldn't help himself.

So, when did using Clayton's expectations of being a great #1 become useful in evaluating his possible performance as a slot receiver? Housh has been a good #1 and #2 receiver, but his season at #3 has been sub par. Different receivers fit different roles. Unless Cam has an epiphany of how to use three #1 receivers in the playoffs, I think we'll be seeing more of the same. And I see you're using Clayton's history against him. So you believe his #2 history affects his slot abilities even with the acquisition of Boldin and Clayton being pushed to #3? That clears things up.

But that is the most important thing that makes them indifferent; the lack of deep speed. If you don't have safeties looking back, then all they have to do is concentrate on what's in front. The point is TJ, Mason and Boldin all excel on short-medium level passes, but it takes more creative play calling for them to get open deep because of the lack of speed. The receivers can be stubborn and tell you otherwise, but there is a reason why Wallace and Jackson, two of the fastest players in the league, have had so much success; not to mention, made their offenses much more dynamic. Currently, our only real deep threats are our tight ends, and that's just because they're big targets. Clayton was no Wallace/Jackson, but he had the speed to keep defenses honest in covering him down field. Imagine what that could have done in opening Anquan up in the middle of the field.

I agree with the frustration of Stallworth not being on the field, but I think that factors in with having too many big names on the field. The front office doesn't pay Mason, Boldin and Housh to sit on the sidelines. They expect to be starters and on the field. But that's purely speculation, and it is ultimately on Cam to man up and admit there are more situations needed for Stallworth to be on the field. But I don't think he should have been put in the position to think about that in the first place.

I thought Cam was the biggest problem, but I'm starting to come around to the idea that the personnel just isn't right for this to be a consistent offense. Not that they aren't good as players, but that they aren't a right fit together. Stallworth is waiting on the side, but if we didn't have Housh, Cam would be forced to play Stallworth or Clayton, which I think would have made this a great offensive unit.
[/quote]

I don't ask more questions than I give opinions. If my posts are so irritating, why respond?

Yes, Clayton was working ahead of Stallworth as the team's #3 WR in pre-season. I don't see how me saying Stallworth is a better deep threat is [i]absurd[/i] though when Donte''s career yards per catch is over a full yard more than Clayton's. He showed pretty good speed on [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vmsg5cjoT2g"][u]this play[/u][/url] and has done the same on his reverses so an argument can definitely be made he's better going deep than Clayton.

To your second paragraph, affixing numbers to a WR's name doesn't mean his role or the routes he runs are [i]that [/i]different. Houshmandzadeh is third on the depth chart here but he's routinely lined up outside the hashes and made plays too(some Clayton often struggled with). Just because T.J. is the #3 WR and hasn't produced a big season doesn't mean he doesn't fit that role in my opinion. Had Mark still been here, being behind Q and Mason doesn't necessarily mean he'd be in the slot every time he stepped on the field. And whether he lined up outside or in the slot, if he was called to run a slant, it'd still be the same route. You speak of his potential "slot abilities" like being in that position would have transformed him as a player.

Obviously Mason, Boldin and Houshmandzadeh aren't paid to sit on the sidelines but if we're talking about pay, Stallworth is being paid twice what T.J. is this season. Did the front office bring Donte' in to have more carries than catches? Had Houshmandzadeh not been signed, Stallworth would have definitely had a bigger role. Still, I don't see why Donte's role has been so limited this season.

The personnel not meshing in your opinion doesn't change that Cam has foolishly had the WRs do things they don't excel very often this season, especially in key situations.

Regardless, in this entire debate, the issues with the o-line nor Joe have been touched. Whether Stallworth had a bigger role or Clayton was still here, the o-line would still struggle and Joe would still have holes in his game. I'll always believe even with a somewhat overcrowded WR corps, this offense hasn't fulfilled it's potential consistently. What can't be denied though is the WRs, their abilities and routes they've run haven't been the only issues on offense this season.

[Bltravens]

This really comes down to our lack of other dimensions, and corners being able to cover our WRs and DC being able to account for the same 3 WRs and designing coverages to be able to stop 1 guy, which in turn stops all the WRs on our team. Scouting department NEEDS to find the thinner burner in the slot to actually make corners think twice about sitting on routes and sitting in coverages. I know "Jamal" is high on that Titus Young kid from Boise and in all honesty I didnt watch much college ball this year but maybe that kid can help us out in the mid rounds.

[darklight1216]

[quote name='Ed_Reed20' timestamp='1294178683' post='593387']
Obviously Mason, Boldin and Houshmandzadeh aren't paid to sit on the sidelines but if we're talking about pay, [b]Stallworth is being paid twice what T.J. is this season.[/b] Did the front office bring Donte' in to have more carries than catches? Had Houshmandzadeh not been signed, Stallworth would have definitely had a bigger role. Still, I don't see why Donte's role has been so limited this season.
[/quote]
I'm pretty sure that he is not. Seattle is paying TJ to play for the Ravens. I want to say it's somewhere around 7 mill, but I'm not sure.

[Ed_Reed20]

[quote name='darklight1216' timestamp='1294188467' post='593537']
I'm pretty sure that he is not. Seattle is paying TJ to play for the Ravens. I want to say it's somewhere around 7 mill, but I'm not sure.
[/quote]

I should specified. The Ravens are paying Stallworth twice what they're paying Houshmandzadeh.

[flynismo]

[quote name='noy' timestamp='1294166050' post='593195']
All you do is ask questions in hopes for some concrete "fact". Maybe you should realize that this is an opinionated board with opinionated answers that actually lack concrete fact because they are [b]OPINIONATED[/b] . I could counter by simply saying, how do you know Clayton wouldn't have been as effective as Housh? You don't. But you'd probably point to his statistics as a Raven, as you weigh most arguments on the numerical facts, of which I would say those were all at a time when he played as a #2, and without Boldin as a compliment receiver. Then I'd go back to my initial theory and we could do that dance all day. What a stimulating discussion that was!

I think I explained my position clearly. It was greedy because Ozzie saw the "deal" Housh was tagged with, and he loves his draft picks. He was getting "experience" and, yet again, another possession receiver and giving up speed and a player who already knows the system well. Call me nuts, but usually when you want to win a Super Bowl, with as many pieces as we currently have in place, you don't give up guys who already know the system for even experienced vets.

I believe we have too many big name WRs for Cam to put on the field. James Walker of ESPN called it at the beginning of the season when the team signed Housh, and initially I was skeptical. But, all signs seem to point in that direction. We have too many experienced receivers of the same ability, which could cause confusion on what routes they should be running and how effective they are at running them (because, like you have said many times, Cam isn't using them correctly). Having a bunch of receivers that can do one similar skill well is not as good as having receivers that have different skill sets. Sometimes, quality doesn't beat out variety; attacking in multiple ways makes one less predictable. For an explanation on that, look at Bltravens first post.

I completely disagree with that statement on the game winning grab against the Steelers. That was, most definitely, a throw and catch play. The safety pulled off to the left to cover Boldin, and the corner bit on the outside move by Housh because he had been running routes to the outside for almost the entire game. In other words, that play was effective by design, not by the talent of TJ, as talented as he is. I wouldn't suggest challenging me on it, since I have NFL Rewind and reviewed the play a minute ago.

Bottom line, there is no guarantee either way that Clayton would or wouldn't have been as effective as Housh. But considering the amount of production we have out of TJ, I don't think the investment was worth it and was ultimately a step back for our receiving core. I believe this especially because Clayton was making his debut as a slot receiver. Nobody in this forum can tell me he would have been poor because nobody has seen him at the position (and nobody has seen what he can do with two elite receivers in Mason and Boldin on the field with him). Clayton has the ability, as we saw in 2006 and as he produced very well for the Rams before injury.
[/quote]



You call it greedy ... I call signing a former Pro Bowl WR for vet minimum and trading away the first round bust who was due to make over 3x as much as said Pro Bowl reciever a damn smart move.

As for TJ's game winning TD catch against PIT; TJ says that he freelanced away from the route that was drawn up. In other words, it was due to his experience and skill that he was able to get open and make that play. So ... it's your word vs. TJ's. I'll believe his version of the events over somebody with NFL Rewind and an opinion. No offense.

[flynismo]

[quote name='ravensfan160' timestamp='1294173722' post='593289']

Adding Boldin was the right move. I just think in hindsight we would have been better off with Clayton instead of Housh, regardless of what Housh's career stat sheet is. This league isn't about what you did in the past its what you're capable of now.
[/quote]

And what exactly is Clayton capable of now? He played no better this season than he has at any point for us ... which, if you haven't heard, wasn't particularly well.

Fun fact: Clayton caught 50% of his targets in STL before going on the IR. For those who don't know ... that is horrible. It means that the only reason he put up any yardage at all is because STL had no other options so they just kept throwing him the ball anyway.

[justifythegame]

[quote name='ravensfan160' timestamp='1294085375' post='592116']
But after watching our offense struggle for 16 games to move the ball downfield it seems obvious. While Clayton may not have been the type of player we hoped for when we drafted him, he was a fairly explosive receiver with good if not great deep speed. You all probably know the numbers he put up in St Louis before his injury.

The fact is he complimented Derrick Mason very well. The two guys we replaced him with don't. Boldin would compliment Mason well if we actually used him. But we don't. On top of that, his best asset is going over the middle which is something our offense never does. As for Housh, he's just a bigger slower version of Mason. Stallworth has been a complete waste of space. I can't believe how we've use him. Or should I say NOT used him.

Our offense hasn't been the same without Clayton.
[/quote]
If clayton was on this team, he would be filling Stallworth's place right now, which is the bench. Im happy that Clayton got to go to another team where is can play up to his potential more. Stallworth and Housh would benefit in the same way, but Clayton being on this team wouldn't have helped us and it wouldn't have helped clayton, this offense uses 2 WRs most of the time, and Joe Flacco is content dumping the ball off and avoiding picks no matter how many times boldin gets seperation.

[flynismo]

[quote name='Ravens549' timestamp='1294169450' post='593231']
We cannot run if we cannot first develop a passing game.
[/quote]



I take it you weren't around for Jamal Lewis' days here.

[noy]

[quote name='Ed_Reed20' timestamp='1294178683' post='593387']
I don't ask more questions than I give opinions. If my posts are so irritating, why respond?

Yes, Clayton was working ahead of Stallworth as the team's #3 WR in pre-season. I don't see how me saying Stallworth is a better deep threat is [i]absurd[/i] though when Donte''s career yards per catch is over a full yard more than Clayton's. He showed pretty good speed on [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vmsg5cjoT2g"][u]this play[/u][/url] and has done the same on his reverses so an argument can definitely be made he's better going deep than Clayton.

To your second paragraph, affixing numbers to a WR's name doesn't mean his role or the routes he runs are [i]that [/i]different. Houshmandzadeh is third on the depth chart here but he's routinely lined up outside the hashes and made plays too(some Clayton often struggled with). Just because T.J. is the #3 WR and hasn't produced a big season doesn't mean he doesn't fit that role in my opinion. Had Mark still been here, being behind Q and Mason doesn't necessarily mean he'd be in the slot every time he stepped on the field. And whether he lined up outside or in the slot, if he was called to run a slant, it'd still be the same route. You speak of his potential "slot abilities" like being in that position would have transformed him as a player.

Obviously Mason, Boldin and Houshmandzadeh aren't paid to sit on the sidelines but if we're talking about pay, Stallworth is being paid twice what T.J. is this season. Did the front office bring Donte' in to have more carries than catches? Had Houshmandzadeh not been signed, Stallworth would have definitely had a bigger role. Still, I don't see why Donte's role has been so limited this season.

The personnel not meshing in your opinion doesn't change that Cam has foolishly had the WRs do things they don't excel very often this season, especially in key situations.

Regardless, in this entire debate, the issues with the o-line nor Joe have been touched. Whether Stallworth had a bigger role or Clayton was still here, the o-line would still struggle and Joe would still have holes in his game. I'll always believe even with a somewhat overcrowded WR corps, this offense hasn't fulfilled it's potential consistently. What can't be denied though is the WRs, their abilities and routes they've run haven't been the only issues on offense this season.
[/quote]

If you say so? Because, you know, you're not biased or anything.

That's some great information for a fantasy owner, but I think I'll trust the coaches evaluations on the real-time skill of the receiver than by the stat comparisons of past seasons. Donte running reversals shows his ability to turn the corner and beat guys (mainly linebackers) across the field laterally, not beat safeties/corners deep. He's fast, don't get me wrong, but are those reversals something Clayton couldn't do and be just as successful on? Stallworth hasn't done anything special, but yes, that's because he has barely been on the field to prove otherwise. Like I said before, Cam needs to man up.

OK, Clayton may not have just been in the slot. But that still doesn't take away from the fact that he would have had better receivers on the field with him. And I'm not talking about slants, I'm talking about going [b]deep[/b]. As the route gets longer, it is no longer just about technique and skill, speed is a big factor and Clayton [i]is[/i] faster than TJ. I think we all have the memory of Clayton beating Leon Hall for a stellar grab for a TD from Flacco.

You are basing Clayton on a history of, what we all know as, a poor Raven's passing attack. This can be contributed to the lack of receiving depth, and also the revolving door of QBs we've had; he didn't exactly come into an environment for him to thrive. In his 5 games with the RAms, with what looks to be a future star QB, he earned 63% of the yardage he had with us in 2009.

When Flacco got here, Claytons average receptions shot up, exceeding anything he had previously accomplished. Even his down year of 2009, he had a better average than any of his years before Flacco, indicating an improved ability for the deep ball. Of course, this was when our running game was full steam ahead, so this contributed to his overall yardage taking a hit, along with his inconsistency to be successful being the only other receiver on the field with Mason. But in comes Boldin, and who knows what could have been?

[quote name='flynismo' timestamp='1294212176' post='593741']
You call it greedy ... I call signing a former Pro Bowl WR for vet minimum and trading away the first round bust who was due to make over 3x as much as said Pro Bowl reciever a damn smart move.

As for TJ's game winning TD catch against PIT; TJ says that he freelanced away from the route that was drawn up. In other words, it was due to his experience and skill that he was able to get open and make that play. So ... it's your word vs. TJ's. I'll believe his version of the events over somebody with NFL Rewind and an opinion. No offense.
[/quote]

Sure, he was a [i]first round[/i] bust, but that still doesn't mean he couldn't have contributed to the team given the new personnel. Just because he was expected to be a quality first rounder doesn't mean he actually was one. And just because he wasn't one doesn't mean he couldn't have taken a slide down the depth chart but have been successful.

And I wonder if the FO even asked Clayton to take a pay cut?

Signing, even the best of veterans, doesn't mean much when we have similar caliber players already filling the need. ER20 had to use TJ's "athleticism", and his "route running" to create a gap between him and Mason/Boldin. I think he was stretching, because both guys have those characteristics. Actually, I think Mason is a better route runner.

He freelanced away from the route drawn up? Really? That's interesting, considering Flacco pump faked in TJ's direction, when TJ was the only receiver in the area. Actually, this [url="http://www.nfl.com/videos/baltimore-ravens/09000d5d81b19016/Playbook-Houshmandzadeh-and-Ravens-offense"]link[/url] analyzes the play. It's interesting how the first analyst gives TJ all the praise, yet Mike Mayock proves that the TD was a result of Cam's play calling due to the blocking scheme and Flacco's first look in his progression. How can Flacco "sense" TJ when it was a designed play? I had a good chuckle at that. I find it amusing you are only defending TJ on that one play. Who cares? Fact is, you cannot prove to me Clayton couldn't do it, unless you really think, "I don't think he can sell routes as well" is a legitimate argument. How do you know his speed wouldn't have compensated for his mediocre technique on the play? You don't.

At the very least, Ozzie must have picked up Stallworth as a deep threat and to be [u]on the field[/u]. So why pick up TJ who, as we have seen, expects to be on the field making a big contribution? Why put your offensive coordinator in the position of having to satisfy not just two, but three pro bowl receivers. Maybe greed was a strong word, so I'll replace it with overeagerness. Perhaps he thought with a plentiful option at WR, Cam would be like a kid at a candy store. Surprise! It didn't work! Cam seems to be confused!

I don't think either side can prove if Clayton would or wouldn't have been effective, but it's still not a case of "no way" like you guys are talking about.

[ryan23945]

haha i cant believe u said that either

[Alexir]

Stallworth needs more reps so underneath routes can develop when he goes deep. Or just hit him with a quick slant. I really hope we keep him next year. Joe and him really had some chemistry in the off season.