nj_ravens

Members
  • Content count

    126
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About nj_ravens

  • Rank
    Rookie
  1. It's not (all) about money. PFT reported that the Ravens and several other teams are having issues with getting their flights chartered. I'm sure this is a result of that.
  2. Do you like Matt Judon? Guess how we got him.
  3. OK, and what if all 7 of those players are on the board, and lets say for sake of example, Detroit (I picked them simply for easy math) wants to give us a 3rd rounder to move back 5 slots, as the draft chart says is approximately even.... you say we don't do it? That doesn't make ANY sense, because you can still get choice of 2 of those 7 AND another player in the top 100.
  4. You're mad at the female analysts, not because they have arguably less credibility since they didn't play football in their lives, or any other argument that could be deemed reasonable, but because you don't like their accent? Anyone who doesn't speak like you sounds like a 5 year old, eh? You have the one and true voice, all hail.
  5. 1.Try using that logic with some of the family members who lost loved ones to a drunk driver. " Well this guys ok because he didn't actually kill anyone that time". I cant argue on the legal process because its just plain idiotic. I myself involved with the Marine Corps for some time advocated for the harshest punishment possible every time an incident occured. For whatever reason our society has adopted the "boys will be boys" mentality on the issue. I agree it is much more damning to be involved in a domestic abuse situation than DUI/DWI and that is complete nonsense. One continuously claims lives by the thousands annually while the other still terrible is simply not on that level. 2.Either you are missing my point or purposefully ignoring it. I understand players are treated differently, but the Ravens are the ultimate hypocrites for taking a harsh stance simply because they screwed up with the Ray Rice fiasco. You and I both know if they had stopped the release of the second video (like they were attempting to do ) he still would have been on the team. He would have been no different then all the other legal cases they allowed to stay on the team. 1) "One continuously claims lives by the thousands annually while the other still terrible is simply not on that level." Which one is not on what level? I can't tell what point you're trying to make. Whether or not somebody gets hurt absolutely matters on the crime. Yes DUI is terrible and a danger to everyone. But let's make an analogy. If you illegally discharge a weapon, you might get probation or maybe jail time. Maybe a misdemeanor. If you illegal fire a discharge and injure someone, or illegally discharge a non registered weapon, or something, you're probably getting a felony. The course of events matter. Or even simpler. If you Jwalk, nothing is probably going to happen. If you run across the street with oncoming traffic and cause someone to swerve and hit someone, you're getting in a lot of trouble. 2) Here's my point that nobody is hitting on. DUI is a symptom of a bigger problem, alcoholism. Problems with drugs and alcohol are a personal problem that can be fixed. That is why teams are more willing to deal with that type of transgression, because the person can IMPROVE. The person can FIX himself. When it comes to DV, that person is generally a scumbag, and there isn't much you can do to fix it. There's nothing you can do to shake the image either. 3) You said "If the Ravens want to be politically correct and win the hearts and minds of the people they will never win another championship." and later went on to say they were hypocrits.. So are you saying we shouldn't bar DV offenders? What's wrong with trying to build a team of good people after having a few missteps along the way ?
  6. You assume: 1) That we would have a QB to throw to them 2) That apparently other teams don't play defense - nobody is open every play. Sorry. 3) That we would sign either of them, regardless of Joe's cap.
  7. "Are they giving up on Bronson Kaufusi?".... No. Also, i get the reference to not drafting Ramsey, but seriously what does it have to do with getting another corner?
  8. That doesn't mean the result is going to be the same.
  9. Yes, I've been saying this for 2 years. We went into last draft with what, four fourth-rounders and five fifth-rounders? I thought for sure they would be used to package up and move up a few spots in rounds 1, 2 and 3. Instead, we traded DOWN and picked up .......yes, more 4th and 5th rounders. We've got a whole roster full of 4th and 5th rounders now and completely bare of any top shelf talent. Well I wouldn't complain about those 4th rounders because they actually are all contributors. Your point may have been valid if all of those 4th and 5th rounders didn't kick butt. Or if you were talking about any year besides last year. Moore had ST tds, Lewis started at guard and tackle, Dixon and Judon are the future, Tavon Young is a starter. We cleaned house .
  10. imo too much math to have pratical apps. I would think that a HC or OC would auto sense what was happening. I must admit I know very little about fantasy and thought it just used a lot of stats. "imo too much math to have pratical apps." Really, Swift? Just because you don't get/can't do that math doesn't mean the analysis doesn't yield results that are practical. "I would think that a HC or OC would auto sense what was happening." Not all analytics and and stats need to be used in real time to be practical or useful in the real world. Everything will always come down to the coaches' guts when all is said and done. The way I envisioned the stat being used is to analyze your own team's efficiency over the course of a week, a few weeks, the season, etc and what to work on, and whether or not you have improved. "I must admit I know very little about fantasy and thought it just used a lot of stats. " It does use stats. It's all based on yards, attempts, and scores of an individual player, except "defense and ST" is listed as one position. Fantasy stats look at one player, while the "failed down" stat as I like to call it is more of a team stat.
  11. no I don't think so. It's just about # of players we let go vs players we sign, excluding cuts. The round designation is based on new contract signed by the other team. In addition to what you said, my question is I thought they were only dished out if the FA you lose is around the top salaries for that position. in the league or just FA class, not sure. But I was thinking if that plays into it, for determining the round, Juice is considered a rb right? cuz otherwise he might be at the top in terms of salary for fbs after FA It's only the top 32 contracts, or something like that, because there are only 32 comps. I do believe Juice would be a RB.
  12. no I don't think so. It's just about # of players we let go vs players we sign, excluding cuts. The round designation is based on new contract signed by the other team.
  13. There is exactly 0% chance this will happen. It's not even worth speculating. I disagree , the Skins could be in series desperation mode and their only options will be to franchise Cousins which they clearly don't want to do or find someone in trade or the open market. Don't forget the skins are an organization dumb enough to let a 5000 yard passer go over a few million dollars. I don't want Cousins in return id rather start fresh with a rookie on a rookie contract. Would be interesting if it happened, unlikely of course but something fun to think about. I just don't think Joe Flacco is ever going to be the answer again. Imagine what kind of team we could build if we find a quality QB and they are on a rookie contract. Of course thats easier said then done First of all, it takes 2 to tango. THE RAVENS WILL NOT TRADE FLACCO. No matter what the fans or the media thinks. They. Will. Not. 0% chance. There's only one scenario I can think of, where somebody sends over at least 2 firsts and 2 seconds. And even then, I don't know if Ozzie would do it. It would need to be a ransom. A heist. Who gives up that much for someone that the team is shopping for being ineffective? Nobody will ever offer that. 0% Now, let's say that it was an option. Paying Cousins the franchise tag would be less than playing Flacco's salary. Giving up resources to pay more money for an older QB who some people argue sucks, instead of franchising your QB who you are on the fence about, giving yourself another year to decide? I know the Rs are whacky but that's really dumb.
  14. Unfortunately.... our FO and HC stated after the season that they thought Joe's injury hurt him this year. I think that survival does (just as you mentioned) to people. They don't make the decisions that are best for the team but the best for survival. Get the ball out of your hand ASAP and hope for the best. That is what Joes season looked like. I guess that I get that from Joe's end... the problem that I have with it... is that if the FO and HC knew that he was unable to perform at the necessary level and that he was simply making survival decisions... why was it allowed to continue. Why not play Mallet a few games and give us a chance? That is in no way suggesting that Mallet is better then Joe -just say that Mallet is better then a 50% Joe- who cannot go through his progressions bc of the injury that he has or bc of the fear of exacerbating his injury. because where do you draw the line? was he 50%? Was he 65%? I don't think they knew, I think the HC and FO were speaking in hindsight. I don't know what % - I just know he wasn't 100% and couldn't go through his progressions. Wouldn't stand in the pocket and give plays the necessary time to develop and refused to manipulate the pocket enough to give a less then perfect play the chance to work. Not sure how any OC of offense for that matter can be successful when the QB is holding the offense hostage. Like I stated before. I am a Joe Flacco fan and when confident and healthy.... I think we have a guys who has and can win us super bowls. But when he is not healthy... why not give us a chance to win and at the same time allow him to get healthy and re-gain his confidence... not set him back! Again, my opinion is that because there was no reinjury, they didn't really know he was still not healthy until they watched him play for an extended period (hindsight). And even Joe said he wouldn't really know how he would feel until he went out there. If his problem was confidence, I STRONGLY disagree that BENCHING him would be beneficial for his confidence. If they had started Mallett week 1 and waited for Joe to feel better that would be a different story. But as soon as Joe decided he was ready for week 1, that option goes out the window. Agreed that benching him 1/2 way through the season would have been a disaster. I do think that he should have been evaluated more thoroughly in the pre-season. Allowed to play more to either get his rhythm back, to re-gain confidence and to give the coaching staff a better gauge on where Joe was at. Since that didn't happen.... the only option would have been to announce that he aggravated the knee further, play him on the injury list -assuring him that when healthy the position is his but at the same time... allowing us a chance to win and Joe a chance to heal. Confidence was an issue and that was evident in the way he would simply check down and not allow plays to develop (survival). But not confidence in his ability but in his health. He clearly looked uneasy in the pocket and I think his lack of confidence in his knee caused him to quickly check everything down and make decisions that were out of survival. I hear what you are saying and agree that just benching him would have been the wrong move... but I am also saying that knowing that Joe was coming off of a serious injury should have prompted us to do our homework more and we should have been more vigilant... not needing hindsight but honest evaluation based on preseason reps and game situations. We also should had the foresight, once we knew where he really was to be able to handle this without causing a storm of controversy and further damaging the credibility of our franchise QB...(which is ironically what we ended up doing anyways). Lets just hope that we can put the pieces around him this year to keep him upright and successful. "Since that didn't happen.... the only option would have been to announce that he aggravated the knee further, play him on the injury list -assuring him that when healthy the position is his but at the same time... allowing us a chance to win and Joe a chance to heal. " This is exactly my point. That is not an option. He didn't reinjure himself. I know we do some IR magic with low level roster guys but you can't just say your QB is hurt if he's not. Plus, then you get all the questions about "is it a full tear? Are you going to see dr andrews? blah blah" What your suggesting is a benching based on performance even if you word it some other way. Otherwise we agree.
  15. There is exactly 0% chance this will happen. It's not even worth speculating.