A Quick Breakdown of Our Underfunded Offense

[JoeyFlex5]

I'm not sure we'll be able to get Beckham Jr. Lots of teams after us could use a WR.

yea i just checked out the draft order, doesnt seem likely we could trade back to any of those teams to get OBJ, there are plenty of teams who i could see accepting a trade back offer from us, but if we were to do that one of the teams in between would most likely snatch him up.

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

There IS a high correlation between salary and performance. That's why better players get paid more.

The median spending for offenses is about $51 million. If I remember right, the high is about 71 and the low around 40. The median is about the average for 2014.

Marlon is an undrafted rookie, and despite being good for a UDFA, is still not worth much. Owens is a question mark for this year, and there are plenty of productive players on vet minimum across the league. I adjusted for all rookie contracts when I looked at draft value. Alshon Jeffery and AJ Green are still on their rookie contracts too, you know... It's not that skewed - it's an estimation just to show that we haven't indulged in our offense the way most teams do.

But is there a correlation between the teams who have spent the most on their offense having better performing offenses? And then IF that correlation is there have the high spending, high performing offenses had a history of winning more, specifically winning Super Bowls?

Without the actual data in front of me and just going off the top, I don't think the Seahawks had a comparatively high investment in their offense, I know the ravens didn't, I wouldn't think the giants did either.

The teams id think of as having high investment in their offenses - broncos, falcons, eagles, lions, patriots - have had success winning games, but not in winning the big game when it matters.

Again I could be wrong bc I don't have the data, but if this were to hold true it would go on to show that investing highly in your offense is NOT a formula for winning a Super Bowl... And since that's every teams goal it would go on to say that by not investing highly in our offense we are following a better model for sustained success.

It's a good thing, not something that needs to be changed.

[hawkprey]

But is there a correlation between the teams who have spent the most on their offense having better performing offenses? And then IF that correlation is there have the high spending, high performing offenses had a history of winning more, specifically winning Super Bowls?

Without the actual data in front of me and just going off the top, I don't think the Seahawks had a comparatively high investment in their offense, I know the ravens didn't, I wouldn't think the giants did either.

The teams id think of as having high investment in their offenses - broncos, falcons, eagles, lions, patriots - have had success winning games, but not in winning the big game when it matters.

Again I could be wrong bc I don't have the data, but if this were to hold true it would go on to show that investing highly in your offense is NOT a formula for winning a Super Bowl... And since that's every teams goal it would go on to say that by not investing highly in our offense we are following a better model for sustained success.

It's a good thing, not something that needs to be changed.

I'm not sure if you bring up the Seahawks and Giants because they are the recent other SB winners or because they're both at the top of the league in offense $... because they are. What the Giants were in 2011, I have no idea. But in their case, I think they actually have some offensive players whose salaries ballooned over the last year or two and they generally haven't invested quite as much in their O.

 

The Seahawks have a lot of highly paid O-linemen and Miller and Lynch both have big contracts too. They also have more room because they spend little on their QB.

 

I don't think it's how you spend your money as long as you're doing so.

[Static]

So our offense is bad because we deciede not to pay out the butt for our players? I don't follow. Big players get big money but salary does not translate into performance.

[Poes Crows]

Your preamble on what Osmele provided is highlit in Warning Red to the Masses below.

 

One can't be wrong in one's premise and believe anyone is going to spend an iota of time trying to decipher mish mosh.

Osmele started 16 games in our Championship year.

 

Clearly the Raven Front Office is being careful with Offensive personnel salaries in regard to Flacco's looming salary hit. Thats the price of signing a top QB in the Salary Cap era. 

 

Maybe you're onto something I just can't see.  Offer your services to the Raven Front Office and even if they also don't find it intriguing, they certainly need some help.

 

I'm saying 8-8 at best and that is with a healthy Osmele.

What's up?

 

I wanted to address the idea from another topic that our offense is finally "stacked" - outside of the quarterback that is. I wanted to address the "no excuses for Joe" excuse by taking a look at how our team is built. Even though our offensive players are just fine, better than ever even, I think too many people here are ignoring the wealth of talent that the rest of the league still offers. 

-------------------

 

So let's be fair to Joe try to figure out how much talent we have around our centerpiece. If I could rank our players individually and by position, I'd put Torrey 30th best, Pitta 12th best, Monroe 9th best... and so on, then look at every other team and take forever.

 

Instead, let's make this easy and a little less subjective and assume all players are being paid what they're worth (minus a certain Super Bowl MVP). We know that contracts do fluctuate in their cap hit from year to year, but let's assume that as a whole they all even out for 2014.

 

I should mention that players on rookie contracts are are almost always being paid well below their value. A $2 million rookie is usually a better performer than a $2 million veteran. That's where draft stock comes in. Draft stock is the rights to underpay an unproven player. So before we look at team salary, let's add the value of our rookie contracts by their draft stock.

 

Here's what our offensive players on their rookie contracts are worth draft-wise:

 

Torrey: 320

Osemele: 300

Pierce: 170

Reid: 165

Gino: 108

Jusczcyk: 42

All others: probably under 40 combined.

 

Total: 1105 (or about pick 14 in the draft). Call rookie contracts "everyone since 2011", and the average accumulation over that time for the average team (16th slot, 1/2 of all players drafted are on offense) is 3500:

 

3500 -> Subract the value of QBs, subtract "busts" no longer playing (Doss, Reed for us)

        ->add that the value of picks decreases geometrically and not arithmetically

=by my estimation, at least 3000 if not 3300.

 

The conclusion: over the last 4 years, we have drafted about 1/3rd the talent that the AVERAGE team spent on offense. Last year's draft was so defense-heavy that 52 non-QB offensive players were drafted before we selected one. 

 

You could say that many of the league's rookie contract players are actually not worth what they cost to draft, and you'd be right. But when you look at the above group, have these guys really been such steals? Half of these players have added nothing to the offense and due to injuries, Osemele and Pierce have only given us half a good year each.

 

Now let's look at the total amount we spend on offensive players outside of the QB position (including rookie contracts, since that's the data I have available). You can see for yourself here: http://overthecap.com/offensebreakdown.php?Year=2014

 

The Ravens are spending... the 5th fewest amount on offense outside the QB position. (You'll have to do the math based on their info). $5 million under the average.

 

Now, you could say that our offensive cast as a whole is playing above its salary cap value. Based on last year, and with with Ray Rice making 8.8 million, I don't see that being possible. But to each his own dumb opinion.

 

We could say that RBs don't really have a big impact on the passing game, and discount Rice's and all other RB salaries. With Rice out of the picture, our WR/TE/OLs are probably playing over their salary value, but the Ravens are spending the 2nd fewest on these remaining positions - barely edging out the Raiders - to help Flacco. 

 

 

After analysis, in order to reach league average, we'd still have 5 million dollars to spend. But not just on a $5 million veteran. Based on our draft stock debt discussed earlier, we could use it on paying the 3rd or 4th overall draft selection. By my estimation, we would need to draft a Jake Matthews or a Sammy Watkins before the draft even starts just to break even. Then, we'd have to continue drafting on offense to keep pace with the rest of the league.

 

--------------------

To conclude, even after a productive offseason, we still hold one of the most barren (or "discount") offensive casts in the league. It feels like we are flooded with talent, but that's just relative to team history. Hopefully this has been a more logical approach than the "name players we have" approach, and the good news is... defense. 

 

Please discuss your feelings on the offense's collective value/skill/ability this coming year given a realistic look at what we have. Or just note that I am right and move along. Thank you!

[hawkprey]

Your preamble on what Osmele provided is highlit in Warning Red to the Masses below.

 

One can't be wrong in one's premise and believe anyone is going to spend an iota of time trying to decipher mish mosh.

Osmele started 16 games in our Championship year.

 

Clearly the Raven Front Office is being careful with Offensive personnel salaries in regard to Flacco's looming salary hit. Thats the price of signing a top QB in the Salary Cap era. 

 

Maybe you're onto something I just can't see.  Offer your services to the Raven Front Office and even if they also don't find it intriguing, they certainly need some help.

 

I'm saying 8-8 at best and that is with a healthy Osmele.

I guess the Broncos didn't get the message because they spend the 3rd most on WRs, TEs, RBs and O-line. How much you pay and draft for your offensive personnel has almost nothing to do with how much your QB makes. It's a decision on how to build the team. We could've drafted 100% offensive players in the last 4 years and not be paying a cent more overall.

 

I also never said there was anything wrong with our approach financially. I'm just explaining what it is.

[1/28/01]

Osemele

[B-more Ravor]

I think it a bit of a mistake - and definitely misleading - when you simply compare any given year's Cap number and say that that is an indication of "spending".

 

It's misleading because on offense many of the players are younger and on rookie contract, hence cheaper, and even most of the veterans - Flacco, Pitta, Monroe - are early in the their deals and also cheaper.  Really, on offense, only Rice and Yanda are in the big money portions of their deals.

 

OTOH, on D, you've got Ngata, Suggs and Webb taking up a large portion of Cap space because they are later in their deals.  Yes, Suggs just got a new deal, but his Cap number this year still contains bonus prorations from his prior deal.

 

In fact, over the last 5 years, they've signed more sizeable long term deals with offensive players than with players on the D. 

 

So, I'm sorry, but IMO you can't call it "underfunded" when just taking a snapshot of one year, without any context as to the actual contracts and where the players are in their respective contracts.

[hawkprey]

I think it a bit of a mistake - and definitely misleading - when you simply compare any given year's Cap number and say that that is an indication of "spending".

 

It's misleading because on offense many of the players are younger and on rookie contract, hence cheaper, and even most of the veterans - Flacco, Pitta, Monroe - are early in the their deals and also cheaper.  Really, on offense, only Rice and Yanda are in the big money portions of their deals.

 

OTOH, on D, you've got Ngata, Suggs and Webb taking up a large portion of Cap space because they are later in their deals.  Yes, Suggs just got a new deal, but his Cap number this year still contains bonus prorations from his prior deal.

 

In fact, over the last 5 years, they've signed more sizeable long term deals with offensive players than with players on the D. 

 

So, I'm sorry, but IMO you can't call it "underfunded" when just taking a snapshot of one year, without any context as to the actual contracts and where the players are in their respective contracts.

You could also say that the cap is going to grow next year, and when Monroe and Pitta make more of their money, they'll grow with cap. Or you can say that they'll never actually make that money because they'll restructure when their cap hit gets too big. Most players on big contracts never wind up seeing their full salary. So unfortunately you can't really look at future contracts with any stability. Then there's the idea that as players gain experience in their second contract, they become more valuable. So Pitta's and Monroe's current salaries are somewhat accurate to their worth (compared to the 5 year average).

 

That's why I can't get too involved with numbers. This is just a basic outline. If you want another point of reference, last year we had the 8th smallest salary around Joe in 2013. Next year we should be higher, but still below average. The point is we don't have "everything you could ever ask for", so everyone needs to keep that in mind this year.

[Bltravens]

Thought the purpose of this thread was to point out the lack of top end draft picks spent on offense as compared to defense?

Didn't think it had anything to do with contracts handed out.  But I could be wrong.

[beanfigger]

Thought the purpose of this thread was to point out the lack of top end draft picks spent on offense as compared to defense?

Didn't think it had anything to do with contracts handed out. But I could be wrong.

Those kind of go hand-in-hand for the most point. The first and second round stars on our team are mostly defensive players, so they wins up with the biggest contracts. We have much less success hitting it big on early offensive player draft picks.

[Bltravens]

Those kind of go hand-in-hand for the most point. The first and second round stars on our team are mostly defensive players, so they wins up with the biggest contracts. We have much less success hitting it big on early offensive player draft picks.

This is the problem I've thought for a long time.  We're just a better organization at scouting defensive talent and knowing who fits and how to develop them than offensive.

[Ravenseconbeast]

Kind of find it funny how the same folks that scapegoated Cam Cameron, are seeking the very talent Cam has made in LSU.

OBJ,Jones,Mettenburg went from being a 2nd/3rd day players to 1st round talent

Give credit to where credit is due, Cam got some talent.

[beanfigger]

Kind of find it funny how the same folks that scapegoated Cam Cameron, are seeking the very talent Cam has made in LSU.

OBJ,Jones,Mettenburg went from being a 2nd/3rd day players to 1st round talent

Give credit to where credit is due, Cam got some talent.

Cillege is the perfect situation for Cam. Anyone who doubted his ability to develop players is insane. He has shown he is great at bringing players, especially QBs, to the brink of greatness. The problem is that those players tend to plateau with him after a few seasons. They need someone else to help them take the next step. That was the problem with him; he had taken Joe and the offense as far as he could. They needed some new blood to step in and take them further.

[52520Andrew]

Cillege is the perfect situation for Cam. Anyone who doubted his ability to develop players is insane. He has shown he is great at bringing players, especially QBs, to the brink of greatness. The problem is that those players tend to plateau with him after a few seasons. They need someone else to help them take the next step. That was the problem with him; he had taken Joe and the offense as far as he could. They needed some new blood to step in and take them further.

 

Exactly, Cam helped develop Brees, Rivers, and Flacco. He doesn't seem to be able to give them the reins when it is thier time to shine but no question he can develop players. 

[flynismo]

You can say what you want, but if most qbs had a choice, I don't think they would always want the pressure on themselves. A good defense and run game are just about as good to a qb as viable options at wr. The o line is still a work in progress, but depending on how Steve Smith plays and the health of the team, this should be the best offense Joe has had to work with. If the line holds up, there better be improvement. Same goes for the defense. The cost doesn't matter, but if you get into it, a Decent amount is being spent on offense. Joe, Pitta, Yanda, Rice and Monroe. Torrey will be next. If Boldin wasn't traded he would be on the list as well.

The price doesn't matter, it's about finding the talent. Look at the Seahawks defense.

that is a good point. a good defense or run game can help a QB a lot.

but the defense has zero affect on how well a QB can do his job. The OL and WR/TE can make or break any QB. As you said....see Seattle -- and what they did to Peyton.

[BloodRaven]

Cash =/= Talent

[The Raven]

Kind of find it funny how the same folks that scapegoated Cam Cameron, are seeking the very talent Cam has made in LSU.

OBJ,Jones,Mettenburg went from being a 2nd/3rd day players to 1st round talent

Give credit to where credit is due, Cam got some talent.

 

You're completely missing the point just to slam Cam critics. We wanted Cam out due to his scheme and play calling, not his ability to develop players. C'mon.

[Ravenslifer]

This is the problem I've thought for a long time.  We're just a better organization at scouting defensive talent and knowing who fits and how to develop them than offensive.

 

I think the other point that was raised was that we, especially recently, tend to avoid spending higher picks on offensive skill positions - when we do draft offense high, it's usually linemen.  So we really aren't hitting on many top offensive prospects that will get bigger contracts - that changed with Rice, Flacco, now Pitta and eventually Torrey Smith.  And I think we have avoided offensive players recently because the FO is worried about another bust (because let's face it, there have been a lot of WR busts in our history).  However, I think with the recent successes they've had, with the guys I've named plus bringing in Jacoby and finding Marlon Brown, I think they're more comfortable than ever with what they're looking for in offensive skill position players.

[The Raven]

I don't think the main point here is how much money we've invested in offense. The main issue, to me, is how few quality draft picks we've invested in offense. Our offense isn't necessarily underfunded as far as cost goes. It's underfunded in terms of draft value and acquired talent. 

[B-more Ravor]

Thought the purpose of this thread was to point out the lack of top end draft picks spent on offense as compared to defense?

Didn't think it had anything to do with contracts handed out.  But I could be wrong.

 

 

In part, yes.  But, the below part of the OP also uses 2014 Cap numbers as part of the value equation.

 

I was just pointing out that a one year snapshot of Cap numbers can be misleading when you aren't considering where the players are in their respective careers and contracts.

 

 

 

Now let's look at the total amount we spend on offensive players outside of the QB position (including rookie contracts, since that's the data I have available). You can see for yourself here: http://overthecap.com/offensebreakdown.php?Year=2014

 

The Ravens are spending... the 5th fewest amount on offense outside the QB position. (You'll have to do the math based on their info). $5 million under the average.

 

Now, you could say that our offensive cast as a whole is playing above its salary cap value. Based on last year, and with with Ray Rice making 8.8 million, I don't see that being possible. But to each his own dumb opinion.

 

We could say that RBs don't really have a big impact on the passing game, and discount Rice's and all other RB salaries. With Rice out of the picture, our WR/TE/OLs are probably playing over their salary value, but the Ravens are spending the 2nd fewest on these remaining positions - barely edging out the Raiders - to help Flacco.