Stats: Greg Olsen Has The Potential To Be Even Deadlier With Our New Rookies

[panthers55]

5 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

When lined up as a tackle eligible? Yes, they can.

You clearly missed the point. They may be eligible but how many of our linemen have ever lined up as an eligible receiver and actually went out on a route and caught a pass. Now compare that to how many times Dixon has done it and tell me which one is more likely and which gives you the most flexibility. Just admit you didn't think it through when you made your post and move on. Instead of continuing to argue when you have no leg to stand on.

[Ricky Spanish]

Just now, panthers55 said:

You clearly missed the point. They may be eligible but how many of our linemen have ever lined up as an eligible receiver and actually went out on a route and caught a pass. Now compare that to how many times Dixon has done it and tell me which one is more likely and which gives you the most flexibility. Just admit you didn't think it through when you made your post and move on. Instead of continuing to argue when you have no leg to stand on.

OOOOOOOH I KNOW THIS ONE!

 

 

Kelvin Benjamin

[LinvilleGorge]

10 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

You clearly missed the point. They may be eligible but how many of our linemen have ever lined up as an eligible receiver and actually went out on a route and caught a pass. Now compare that to how many times Dixon has done it and tell me which one is more likely and which gives you the most flexibility. Just admit you didn't think it through when you made your post and move on. Instead of continuing to argue when you have no leg to stand on.

19 receptions if 478 snaps. Less 4% of his snaps.

Yeah, I'm sure our opponents' DCs stayed up at night wondering how they were going to contain Ed Dickson. Preparing for us to throw to the 2nd TE would be akin to preparing for Peyton Manning to run the footall. Yeah, technically he can, but is it actually gonna happen? Nah, probably not.

A lot of team were effectively using the 2nd TE as a blocker scheme against us by blue dog blitzing. When Dickson would stay in to block (which was almost always), they'd simply send a blitzer to neutralize his impact as an "extra" blocker. Now Dickson has to contend with a blitzer instead of helping out the OT effectively cancelling out our extra blocker.

*Well, to be completely fair, I didn't realize exactly how infrequently I just realized it was very infrequently. Even more infrequently than I had assumed.

[rayzor]

if they can capitalize on this opportunity using mccaffery/samuel/shep in the slot, i think we very well could be the hardest offense to stop.

1. dual threat QB/RB cam
2. dual threat RB/WR mccaffery
3. dual threat WR/RB samuel
4. dual threat TE/WR olsen
5. giant WR KB
6. powerback stewart

i mean this is going to be our core offense, right? i can't see too many defenses being able to shut down every option that is going to be available when this group is on the field.

[LinvilleGorge]

8 minutes ago, Cracka McNasty said:

OOOOOOOH I KNOW THIS ONE!

 

 

Kelvin Benjamin

legit LOL

[Saca312]

Issue with Cam in 2016 was that Olsen was his only reliable option. Every other receiver or checkdown option had drop issues or issues getting open.

Now with these additions, Cam can checkdown more often comfortably and have guys who can get open. 

The fact that most of these new additions are hybrid matchup nightmares and - as @rayzor said - this may be the deadliest offense to play against next year.

[pantherphan96]

Take Olsen out of the slot and we can get him 1v1 on a LB instead of being covered by a nickel. I think he has a good chance to surpass 1000 yards again even if CMC and Samuel eat into his production.

[LinvilleGorge]

9 minutes ago, Saca312 said:

Issue with Cam in 2016 was that Olsen was his only reliable option. Every other receiver or checkdown option had drop issues or issues getting open.

Well, KB was about the same as his rookie year. Actually posting a catch rate about three percentage points higher than his rookie year. Ginn was over eleven percentage points better. It was Funchess and Philly who really slipped... and Stew to be fair, but he had substantially fewer targets than those other guys.

*Not necessarily disagreeing that Olsen was his only reliable target, more so simply pointing out that was nothing new.

[Saca312]

1 minute ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Well, KB was about the same as his rookie year. Actually posting a catch rate about three percentage points higher than his rookie year. Ginn was over eleven percentage points better. It was Funchess and Philly who really slipped... and Stew to be fair, but he had substantially fewer targets than those other guys.

*Not necessarily disagreeing that Olsen was his only reliable target, more so simply pointing out that was nothing new.

Fair enough, but we never really had that Cotchery type of player that you knew could move the chains on 3rd down. Olsen tried his best, but even that hampered our offensive potential.

[panthers55]

34 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Ed Dickson: 478 snaps, 19 pass targets. That's less than 4% of the time that Dickson was on the field that he received a pass. It'd be interesting if anyone has compiled stats on the percentage of time a tackle eligible is targeted with a pass. I have a suspicion it wouldn't look much different than that. We were basically treating Dickson as a tackle eligible.

Your logic like your facts are close  but no cigar. He had 10 receptions on 19 targets for 134 yards. Let's assume he goes out on more routes than he is targeted. Since the question was who gives us more flexibility and makes the defense account for them? A second tight end or additional linemen? So if he gets targeted 50% of the time which is likely high, then he goes out for a pass at least 40 times or 10% and the defense has to account for him. Now again why would that give us more options and flexibility and be more valuable than having an extra lineman which allows a safety or linebacker to blitz or play up to the line instead of back in coverage? The answer is self evident to anyone who isn't just trying to save face at any cost. 

[LinvilleGorge]

14 minutes ago, Saca312 said:

Fair enough, but we never really had that Cotchery type of player that you knew could move the chains on 3rd down.

Right up until the SB... still hurts to think about. Yeah, he caught that first one, but damn it seemed like he let several catchable balls hit the turf that night which was unheard of for him.

[LinvilleGorge]

2 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

Your logic like your facts are close  but no cigar. He had 10 receptions on 19 targets for 134 yards. Let's assume he goes out on more routes than he is targeted. Since the question was who gives us more flexibility and makes the defense account for them? A second tight end or additional linemen? So if he gets targeted 50% of the time which is likely high, then he goes out for a pass at least 40 times or 10% and the defense has to account for him. Now again why would that give us more options and flexibility and be more valuable than having an extra lineman which allows a safety or linebacker to blitz or play up to the line instead of back in coverage? The answer is self evident to anyone who isn't just trying to save face at any cost. 

How many more goal posts would you like to try to move in order to try to prop up your argument?

Teams watch tape. They see our tendencies. They weren't worried about Ed Dickson as a receiver. They were blue dog blitzing us and making us pay for keeping in extra blockers far more often than we were gaining any perceived benefit from Ed Dickson running a route where he'd likely be the bailout option anyway and Cam would usually be running for his life well before he made it that deep into his reads.

Admit it, you had no idea that Dickson was only targeted on 4% of his snaps. Who would? It's an absurdly low percentage for an eligible receiver. Maybe even as low as that of a tackle eligible if anyone actually keeps track of that stat.

[panthers55]

4 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

How many more goal posts would you like to try to move in order to try to prop up your argument?

Teams watch tape. They see our tendencies. They weren't worried about Ed Dickson as a receiver. They were blue dog blitzing us and making us pay for keeping in extra blockers far more often than we were gaining any perceived benefit from Ed Dickson running a route where he'd likely be the bailout option anyway and Cam would usually be running for his life well before he made it that deep into his reads.

Admit it, you had no idea that Dickson was only targeted on 4% of his snaps. Who would? It's an absurdly low percentage for an eligible receiver. Maybe even as low as that of a tackle eligible if anyone actually keeps track of that stat.

Of course I knew how many times before I answered. I do my research and study things before I respond especially with posters like you who like to nitpick everything and try to find anything to argue about to save face when anyone disagrees.. You always do this kind of thing so of course I know the answers to everything I post as well as try to anticipate your argument in return. I do wonder why I try and discuss or respond to some of you who argue ad nauseum and never concede anything even when the answer is obvious to even casual fans.

[LinvilleGorge]

2 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

Of course I knew how many times before I answered. I do my research and study things before I respond especially with posters like you who like to nitpick everything and try to find anything to argue about to save face when anyone disagrees.. You always do this kind of thing so of course I know the answers to everything I post as well as try to anticipate your argument in return. I do wonder why I try and discuss or respond to some of you who argue ad nauseum and never concede anything even when the answer is obvious to even casual fans.

Then stop. I honestly forgot who you were, now I remember. The pot is really calling the kettle black on this on.