Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

My favorite trope about the Ravens is how Lamar Jackson is soo lucky that he went to the Ravens who would put him in a position to succeed, and not another team where he wouldn't be successful. As if they didn't throw him out there with a 4-5 team with a remedial offense put together over a bye week and he saved everyone's neck by going 6-1.

They got all the credit last offseason for putting together a "track team" around Lamar by drafting Hollywood, Boykin and Hill. With Hollywood limited with injury, as a group, they hardly had more impact than a typical rookie class.

So, the credit went to the Ravens for putting really good TE's around Lamar so he could throw over the middle of the field. As if those TE's were not drafted for the admitted purpose of winning with Joe Flacco.

They say the Ravens have a great running game and that takes pressure off Lamar. Like it's not Lamar who takes pressure of the running game. Gus Edwards with his 5.3 YPC on 270 carries has to be an elite talent? Mark Ingram had a spike in productivity after leaving an elite O-line is because he went to an even more elite O-line?

They fire the OC from his 6-1 run, and trade away one of the TE's from the great TE group that carried him, they draft a better RB who proves the others weren't THAT special.... it'll switch to another narrative.

It feels like people are trying to too hard to rationalize Lamar's success. My opinion is that he would have been great with any team. You don't need some perfect situation or a genius scheme to make it work with a passing and running talent like him. I was so high on him before the draft because his talent and focus on his craft made it so that it'd be impossible for him not to effective. Lamar is more special than anything else in the Ravens' offensive "system".

Edited by wackywabbit
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, wackywabbit said:

My favorite trope about the Ravens is how Lamar Jackson is soo lucky that he went to the Ravens who would put him in a position to succeed, and not another team where he wouldn't be successful. As if they didn't throw him out there with a 4-5 team with a remedial offense put together over a bye week and he saved everyone's neck by going 6-1.

They got all the credit last offseason for putting together a "track team" around Lamar by drafting Hollywood, Boykin and Hill. With Hollywood limited with injury, as a group, they hardly had more impact than a typical rookie class.

So, the credit went to the Ravens for putting really good TE's around Lamar so he could throw over the middle of the field. As if those TE's were not drafted for the admitted purpose of winning with Joe Flacco.

They say the Ravens have a great running game and that takes pressure off Lamar. Like it's not Lamar who takes pressure of the running game. Gus Edwards with his 5.3 YPC on 270 carries has to be an elite talent? Mark Ingram had a spike in productivity after leaving an elite O-line is because he went to an even more elite O-line?

They fire the OC from his 6-1 run, and trade away one of the TE's from the great TE group that carried him, they draft a better RB who proves the others weren't THAT special.... it'll switch to another narrative.

It feels like people are trying to too hard to rationalize Lamar's success. My opinion is that he would have been great with any team. You don't need some perfect situation or a genius scheme to make it work with a passing and running talent like him. I was so high on him before the draft because his talent and focus on his craft made it so that it'd be impossible for him not to effective. Lamar is more special than anything else in the Ravens' offensive "system".

Lamar is the Ravens system. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. I know the vast majority of people who don't follow the Ravens won't look into it but the running game was awful before Jackson started playing. Like the worst in franchise history I believe. Then it was a complete and immediate turnaround. The team was (and still is) making defenses look foolish trying to stop runners that couldn't get anything going before that point. He opens up so much for the backs in that regard it's ridiculous. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wackywabbit said:

It feels like people are trying to too hard to rationalize Lamar's success. My opinion is that he would have been great with any team. You don't need some perfect situation or a genius scheme to make it work with a passing and running talent like him. I was so high on him before the draft because his talent and focus on his craft made it so that it'd be impossible for him not to effective. Lamar is more special than anything else in the Ravens' offensive "system".

I agree with everything you said except for this bit. 

Maybe you're just forgetting how bad some coaches are, but I don't think its a given Lamar would be anywhere near as good as he has been if he was drafted by a number of teams that have had incompetent coaching in the last couple of years (2018 Browns with Hue Jackson and Cardinals with Mike McCoy as OC immediately spring to mind).  Put Lamar in a boring power running, Norv Turner type vertical offense and I don't think that works out anywhere near as well as quick as it has.

Put him on more than half the teams with a similar opportunity and you'd probably be right, but not "any team" imo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, drd23 said:

I agree with everything you said except for this bit. 

Maybe you're just forgetting how bad some coaches are, but I don't think its a given Lamar would be anywhere near as good as he has been if he was drafted by a number of teams that have had incompetent coaching in the last couple of years (2018 Browns with Hue Jackson and Cardinals with Mike McCoy as OC immediately spring to mind).  Put Lamar in a boring power running, Norv Turner type vertical offense and I don't think that works out anywhere near as well as quick as it has.

Put him on more than half the teams with a similar opportunity and you'd probably be right, but not "any team" imo

Meh. Put him on those squads and he makes those coaching staffs look far better than they were at least.

In a Norv Turner deep route system, you’ve got a bunch of players running deep routes and it would open up plenty of running space for Lamar to take advantage of... which would force pass rusher to have to play more contain more and give Lamar more time to cook teams deep. I mean Joe Flacco in Cam Cameron’s system early in his career could find the occasional amount of space to break off a big run. Jackson also had far more advanced field vision than Flacco coming out of college. Flacco was very much a one/two read QB coming out who didn’t see the field but relied on his elite arm talent to thread the ball into a spot before the defender could react. While Jackson has top quality field vision and it was one of his elite skills (along with his feet) that had me place him as my 1a/1b talent in that class. My only true concern was/is his ball accuracy/velocity. But with velocity we’ve seen Brady/Brees improve that over time.

Whats more even without the thread of the RPO, Lamar in a boring offense would present legitimate advantage off PA. This is how Mike Vick made a living in the early part of his career before the RPO was added into the Atlanta playbook.

Success doesn’t always equate to MVP, but even with those Browns I'd bet we’d see more of a Ravens/Titans game type of Lamar where he's forcing a bunch of bad plays but is stat stuffing heavily.

Remember much of his reason for not looking as comfortable as a rookie had to do with the fact that he was getting 3rd string QB snaps behind Flacco and RG3, wasn’t even in the plans. On a bad team he’d at worst get 2nd string snaps and at best more of a 1b amount of snaps in a competition, allowing him to thrive sooner and build chemistry with receivers.

At least this is how I interpreted that statement. Success being he would’ve made any team/offense look far better than the pieces within it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, wackywabbit said:

My favorite trope about the Ravens is how Lamar Jackson is soo lucky that he went to the Ravens who would put him in a position to succeed, and not another team where he wouldn't be successful. As if they didn't throw him out there with a 4-5 team with a remedial offense put together over a bye week and he saved everyone's neck by going 6-1.

They got all the credit last offseason for putting together a "track team" around Lamar by drafting Hollywood, Boykin and Hill. With Hollywood limited with injury, as a group, they hardly had more impact than a typical rookie class.

So, the credit went to the Ravens for putting really good TE's around Lamar so he could throw over the middle of the field. As if those TE's were not drafted for the admitted purpose of winning with Joe Flacco.

They say the Ravens have a great running game and that takes pressure off Lamar. Like it's not Lamar who takes pressure of the running game. Gus Edwards with his 5.3 YPC on 270 carries has to be an elite talent? Mark Ingram had a spike in productivity after leaving an elite O-line is because he went to an even more elite O-line?

They fire the OC from his 6-1 run, and trade away one of the TE's from the great TE group that carried him, they draft a better RB who proves the others weren't THAT special.... it'll switch to another narrative.

It feels like people are trying to too hard to rationalize Lamar's success. My opinion is that he would have been great with any team. You don't need some perfect situation or a genius scheme to make it work with a passing and running talent like him. I was so high on him before the draft because his talent and focus on his craft made it so that it'd be impossible for him not to effective. Lamar is more special than anything else in the Ravens' offensive "system".

Yeah honestly this is why I took him in that Russell Wilson thread. Controversial, sure. But my takes are often I suppose.

No way I’m taking Russell Wilson at $35M over Jackson for $2M the next two seasons. Then you’re giving me whatever a 25/26/27 year old Lamar with further developed traits in his physical prime and at a time when many of the top QBs won their first SB ring... at likely $40m vs a Russell Wilson that is now likely to be on the downward aspect of his career arc, who is also making $35m?

Yeah I’ll be controversial on that analysis any day of the week and twice on Sundays. I say all this while having Russell Wilson as the best QB in the league currently (over Mahomes due to inferior help and increased durability though it’s more 1a over 1b than 1 vs 2).

Edited by diamondbull424
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, wackywabbit said:

My favorite trope about the Ravens is how Lamar Jackson is soo lucky that he went to the Ravens who would put him in a position to succeed, and not another team where he wouldn't be successful. As if they didn't throw him out there with a 4-5 team with a remedial offense put together over a bye week and he saved everyone's neck by going 6-1.

They got all the credit last offseason for putting together a "track team" around Lamar by drafting Hollywood, Boykin and Hill. With Hollywood limited with injury, as a group, they hardly had more impact than a typical rookie class.

So, the credit went to the Ravens for putting really good TE's around Lamar so he could throw over the middle of the field. As if those TE's were not drafted for the admitted purpose of winning with Joe Flacco.

Bingo bingo bingo. Lamar was basically so good last year that what going into the season everyone agreed was a a pretty meager offensive weapon core got retconned into the 'perfect situation' that retroactively made Lamar's success inevitable. You see it across the board with the way people talk about his supporting cast and especially the coaching element of it - Greg Roman isn't particularly fondly remembered by Bills or Niners fans who had him as OC, and he was so highly respected around the league that after he got fired in Buffalo he had to drop down to being a TE coach with us and was available for OC positions for 3 years with nobody biting before Harbs promoted him. Yeah he's a good fit for Lamar as an OC but it's pretty clear which one of them is doing more to burnish the other's reputation. 

Especially funny when you see people talk about how impressive, for example, a guy like Carson Wentz was when he was 'dragging' the Eagles to the playoffs at 8-8 with 'WR's off the street.' Particularly with Hollywood playing with a bum foot all year, how different really was Lamar's supporting cast from Wentz's? Both had good offensive lines, a great TE duo (with the Eagles having the best player of the group), a strong committee of RB's, and mostly bums at WR. But the way you hear it, Wentz was just being held back by his teammates whereas the Ravens made it impossible for him to fail by making guys like Nick Boyle, Willie Snead, and Seth Roberts important cogs in the passing game. 

Edited by BaltimoreTerp
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BaltimoreTerp said:

Bingo bingo bingo. Lamar was basically so good last year that what going into the season everyone agreed was a a pretty meager offensive weapon core got retconned into the 'perfect situation' that retroactively made Lamar's success inevitable. You see it across the board with the way people talk about his supporting cast and especially the coaching element of it - Greg Roman isn't particularly fondly remembered by Bills or Niners fans who had him as OC, and he was so highly respected around the league that after he got fired in Buffalo he had to drop down to being a TE coach with us and was available for OC positions for 3 years with nobody biting before Harbs promoted him. Yeah he's a good fit for Lamar as an OC but it's pretty clear which one of them is doing more to burnish the other's reputation. 

Especially funny when you see people talk about how impressive, for example, a guy like Carson Wentz was when he was 'dragging' the Eagles to the playoffs at 8-8 with 'WR's off the street.' Particularly with Hollywood playing with a bum foot all year, how different really was Lamar's supporting cast from Wentz's? Both had good offensive lines, a great TE duo (with the Eagles having the best player of the group), a strong committee of RB's, and mostly bums at WR. But the way you hear it, Wentz was just being held back by his teammates whereas the Ravens made it impossible for him to fail by making guys like Nick Boyle, Willie Snead, and Seth Roberts important cogs in the passing game. 

Yup. Especially since the Eagles had their own highly drafted rookie in JJ Arcega-Whiteside that he never got on the same page with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/5/2020 at 7:47 PM, drd23 said:

I agree with everything you said except for this bit. 

Maybe you're just forgetting how bad some coaches are, but I don't think its a given Lamar would be anywhere near as good as he has been if he was drafted by a number of teams that have had incompetent coaching in the last couple of years (2018 Browns with Hue Jackson and Cardinals with Mike McCoy as OC immediately spring to mind).  Put Lamar in a boring power running, Norv Turner type vertical offense and I don't think that works out anywhere near as well as quick as it has.

Put him on more than half the teams with a similar opportunity and you'd probably be right, but not "any team" imo

I'm not saying he would lead a historically efficient offense on any team or offense, but Lamar being as good as he is is 80+% a credit to himself as a player. If you put him on the Jets, as an example, he'd elevate the offense significantly over what it is now. In a boring offense, he would still "will" the team down the field. We saw it from his first preseason where there was no offense schemed up. We've seen some horrible offenses over the years and Lamar would not allow them to be the punt machines they were regardless of the scheme.

The point is that there is no special system that is needed for Lamar to be ++ quarterback. Any 15 year old who played madden can make something that works with his talents. This is contrary to the narrative that Lamar is "lucky" to have come to the Ravens system/supporting cast. That narrative is just a way for people to refuse to admit how special a prospect he was and a talent he has become.

To go back to the Jets, you still have "experts" and fans saying that they'd take Darnold over Jackson because he's not as dependent on the scheme or supporting cast. So why has the Jets offense been horrible? Because the scheme and supporting cast haven't been good enough. That's the logic I've seen too many times this offseason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QB's with the talent Lamar has can both be confined and elevated by the wrong/right coaching staff.

A coaching staff insisting on making Lamar work within the traditional conception of what a quarterback should be would obviously not have the success with Lamar as we have seen. The same would be the case with Mahomes, Wilson, Watson who are all great at working when structure breaks down. Lamar would most likely still be somewhat of an efficient passer, but without using him with playcalls to hurt the defenses with his legs, he would likely not have the same ability to find big holes in the defense. It is all pure guess work though.

We could say the same with Mahomes - what would he be without Reid, a guy just slinging the ball around at random? 

Speaking of Mahomes, people on twitter have too much time, and while they love Mahomes, they really hate Lamar. There are so many "takes" on Lamar not being able to do anything if he gets a lower leg injury. I mentioned, that what would Mahomes be with a weaker arm, if he took a sack and landed on his arm and got a bad shoulder/arm injury - I was told that those things are not the same and could not be compared.

I should just stop trying.

Another thing I without luck tried to argue, was how Lamar was not able to win from behind against the Titans, while Mahomes was able to do it against the Texans. This argument is weaker than the injury-argument, but people forget, that Mahomes got the Chiefs back on track based on two special teams play - a big return and a forced fumble recovery in the red zone.

Either people don't watch games all that closely, or they just ignore the facts to suit their point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^ I think Lamar in a traditional offense is something we’ve seen. His name was Michael Vick. He was able to drag those Falcons to the playoffs with less than stellar offensive talent.

Vick had better arm talent, but Lamar’s anticipation and field vision would lead him to have similar production... only in the modern NFL similar production would mean more passing yards than Vick had. We’re talking 3,000 and 1,000 type of production with likely somewhere in that 25 TDs range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, diamondbull424 said:

We’re talking 3,000 and 1,000 type of production with likely somewhere in that 25 TDs range.

And those are Kirk Cousins sort of numbers (if you translate some of the rushing yards to passing ones), which would make him good, but arguable if he is any better.  Even Baker Mayfield put up 3800 yd and 22 TDs in what everyone would agree was a down year.  

Maybe I'm reading too much into what wacky said, or maybe I'm not communicating my point clearly enough.  Lamar is very good, but there are some pretty bad coaches in the NFL (and that's with having lost a couple of the really terrible ones in the last couple of years), and so I think you'd be overselling Lamar somewhat to say that he's effectively scheme-agnostic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, drd23 said:

And those are Kirk Cousins sort of numbers (if you translate some of the rushing yards to passing ones), which would make him good, but arguable if he is any better.  Even Baker Mayfield put up 3800 yd and 22 TDs in what everyone would agree was a down year.  

Maybe I'm reading too much into what wacky said, or maybe I'm not communicating my point clearly enough.  Lamar is very good, but there are some pretty bad coaches in the NFL (and that's with having lost a couple of the really terrible ones in the last couple of years), and so I think you'd be overselling Lamar somewhat to say that he's effectively scheme-agnostic. 

Yeah I guess I’m still not understanding. Lamar is an elite talent. Put him in a worse offense and he’s going to instantly boost their rushing attack to a top 10 unit in the league off the jump. We saw this time and again with Vick, Steve McNair, and if we go back far enough Randall Cunningham.

But even then most teams aren’t running the ball as much as our squad in 2019, so there’s going to be far more possessions in the game for Lamar, which would equate to similar yardage as he put up this season... only difference is as opposed to having elite YPA numbers and elite TD/INT efficiency, he’s getting you something closer to 6.5-7 A/YPA and 25/14 type of numbers.

Its like in basketball, on a worse team a great player puts up the same bulk numbers but on more shot attempts typically. The QB, especially one with elite physical ability, such as Lamar has the most control over their production. Kirk Cousins is more reliant upon a system to create statistical achievement, Lamar puts so much pressure on a defense that it ultimately leads to creating greater passing lanes for him to exploit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, drd23 said:

And those are Kirk Cousins sort of numbers (if you translate some of the rushing yards to passing ones), which would make him good, but arguable if he is any better.  Even Baker Mayfield put up 3800 yd and 22 TDs in what everyone would agree was a down year.  

Maybe I'm reading too much into what wacky said, or maybe I'm not communicating my point clearly enough.  Lamar is very good, but there are some pretty bad coaches in the NFL (and that's with having lost a couple of the really terrible ones in the last couple of years), and so I think you'd be overselling Lamar somewhat to say that he's effectively scheme-agnostic. 

Agnostic would mean the scheme doesn't affect him. The question is not whether scheme or supporting cast affects his output at all. It's whether it does for Lamar more so than other QBs. He would not have just had an MVP season on any team. But, I'm still pretty sure he would have shown to be better than average QB just about anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, drd23 said:

And those are Kirk Cousins sort of numbers (if you translate some of the rushing yards to passing ones), which would make him good, but arguable if he is any better.  Even Baker Mayfield put up 3800 yd and 22 TDs in what everyone would agree was a down year.  

Maybe I'm reading too much into what wacky said, or maybe I'm not communicating my point clearly enough.  Lamar is very good, but there are some pretty bad coaches in the NFL (and that's with having lost a couple of the really terrible ones in the last couple of years), and so I think you'd be overselling Lamar somewhat to say that he's effectively scheme-agnostic. 

You need some additional numbers to put those in context. The 3800 yards is on 534 attempts, and the 22 TDs are alongside 21 INTs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...