balfan23

Yeah - it is tough to just boot somebody ... they really have to be cited for breaking the rules. Being extraordinarily obnoxious alone isn't grounds for dismissal. The thing is so many people who the majority of posters find obnoxious are also hyper critical of the team to a ridiculous fault. Start removing them and the cries start to pour in about being a homer site, not allowing for contrarian opinions, etc. I guess a rule could have been specifically created that your posts need to be in readable English. That would have done the trick. I kind of like the reddit concept ... they remove posts if enough people neg it, don't they. If you make it a large enough count,. It allows the posters themselves to judge what needs to be removed and doesn't need to be justified by some specific rules violation.

Given one was selected #1 overall and the other selected in the 3rd round - I'd say yes. If Garrett plays to expectation and their production is even near comparable, the Williams will probably be the steal of the draft.

I don't think this approach is obsolete - though, I know a lot of teams seem to feel it is. But here's the thing ... if we take that approach, here's something that Joe and the rest of the offense need to understand. When you play defense first, rule #1 NO TURNOVERS! Especially not ones where you force the ball into coverage when you are already in position to score. Rule #2, you can't have holding penalties or take sacks that take you out of FG range. That's something we've done a lot of lately, it would seem. I'm in general a Joe supporter, but that's the one major sticking point I have with his play of late. I'm not worried so much about how many yards he has or what his completion rate is ... it is the number of bad decisions - almost rookie like mistakes - that result in turnovers that take points off the board. I know this turns him into the dreaded "game manager", but I don't care what people call it or how it reflects on him. If it results in winning, that's all that matters.

The time finally came where the FO knew it was time to act to get our edge rushers of the future. After we got Bowser, I thought ... well, we need O line still and a WR would be nice ... but man, if Williams is still there when we pick again - I don't care what other positions we need - this is a steal! I know it may be premature ... but I really feel like we've just picked up the guys who will produce more than half the teams sacks over the next 5-10 years. Welcome Tim ... get out there and Play Like a Raven!

I noted that when Louis Riddick commented on Bowser, he said his team tended to put him too often in coverage, rather than letting him cut loose and get after the QB ... something he said he'll get plenty opportunity to do when he joins the Ravens. The sense is that he didn't compile the kinds of stats that are sought after 1st round edge rush talent, at least in part because of the way he was utilized, but that the skill is there for him to be a very effective pass rusher going forward.

Spot on. What jumped out at me was Pees' comments during Humphrey's introductory presser: "You guys in the press have been around me long enough to know - we like to pressure, we like playing man coverage, get up in your face and there have been some times last year ... in those last 4 games, we weren't able to do that. That's why this guy is sitting here beside me. ... At the line of scrimmage, this guy is absolutely phenomenal. ... I am so excited that we're going to be able to do some things that we've been wanting to do ...but could never do for a whole season". So a lot of this speaks to the frustration of not being able to keep Jimmy on the field. He clearly feels that this pick brings stability at corner and moves us in the direction of being able to get more aggressive with our secondary.

I basically never do ... but with the boards shutting down, I'm taking the opportunity to let a choice few know what I think, as I've basically had to remain silent and struggle to think if there is a valid rules based reason why I can just start eliminating some of these horribly annoying posts.

Wait - you said "I give up", yet posted 3 more times ... promises, promises.

When virtually every one on the forum is watching the announcements on TV, we're all in sync and commenting on the same picks as they are announced. When tweets come out 2 picks ahead of the discussion and someone posts them - when they KNOW that people are waiting to hear it on TV ... then that's being a spoiler. It wasn't a "rule" per se ... just a plea for following the draft in that way. Can't say I remember who was doing that ... can you?

Well, what this basically says is that the draft philosophy of reaching for need is better than taking the best player available. Our FO and most successful ones don't agree. I think the writer embellishes a bit ... not sure I'd really call Juice a key offensive player. I just don't feel like we're going to lose a lot from his departure. Yes, Wagner was key and needs to be replaced. But do we get his replacement in the draft by selecting someone like Robinson or Ramczyk instead of Humphrey, if we have Humphrey rated significantly higher? Organizations that do such things don't succeed. If Humphrey meets the FO's expectation, he will be starting. Did this writer even watch our team play last year, or did he only look up some stats to quote for the article? The lack of depth in our secondary was ultimately our Achilles heel and come the end of the season, our edge rush pretty much disappeared. Both positions were clear needs. Bottom line - as Ozzie said, the draft ends, but our roster is by no means set. We will (hopefully) aggressively pursue players who can help NOW at the positions most needed (O line and WR). These were picks for the future, because that;s what good organizations do - draft for the future. If this is an organization moving in the wrong direction - it is not because they drafted only defensive players in the early going.

What Gruden said - does it make logical sense? I'm not sure why I'm bothering to ask you, but I'd say yes. Discredit him with whatever you can drag up, I really don't care. If you think anyone we're going to select at #16 is without flaw, then you're dreaming. Heck, you generally can't draft someone #1 overall without a number of things that need to be worked on. "Are you listen to urself?" Speaking of headaches ... many are caused by your posts. There will be a lot I will miss when these boards close. Your posts won't be among them.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. Were there specific players that it was known we were shooting for that gave us the cold shoulder and went elsewhere? If there was no one specifically stated by the team that we sought and missed out on, then I don't see how we got outmaneuvered by another team. That is .. unless you're saying you know who the cream of the crop is and we didn't get any of them. I find that really hard to believe, given that only the most plugged in people who have 18 hours a day for 6 months to devote to player evaluation even know who half of these guys are.

Yeah he did ... I loved his comment at the end .. in answer to "How are you feeling" - "I'm feeling like a Baltimore Raven, that's how I'm feeling!"

Another part of what allowed me to have this pick grow on me was the way CBs went flying off the board in the late 1st and early 2nd. I really thought that pass rusher was going to be a more challenging need to fill and I wanted it filled in the 1st round with either Barnett or Reddick. Of course, to get either of those two would have required a trade up. Given some of the pass rush help we were able to get later in the draft, failing to trade up (presumably for a pass rusher) may have been a blessing in disguise. The impact of the addition of Humphrey, Bowser and Williams should be felt almost immediately. I'm of the mind that you'd be hard pressed to see these needs more effectively addressed.

I noted Jon Gruden really emphasizing something that I had not thought of but seems to make sense. Almost every college player coming out needs work on something. Virtually no one comes out 100% NFL ready. According to Gruden, you cannot select a player high who needs to work on how to tackle, because the CBA prohibits significant contact in practices. If a player is not a good tackler coming out of college, you can expect that to be an issue that will linger - possibly forever. One guy he blasted on this front is Hooker. Yes, he's an amazing athlete and has a ton of talent, but has bad tackling habits that he doesn't see being able to be adequately addressed given the guidelines of the CBA. When you look at the report on Humphrey, it would seem like the things he needs to work out can be worked on, such as downfield coverage and tracking of the ball. It doesn't seem like he needs to be coached up on how to lay the wood. So - I'll take that as a good thing. Hopefully he can get these issues fixed and quickly. It also is helpful that we've got a nice set of safeties to help on deep coverage. I know we don't want to rush him, but I'd like to see him making on impact on this defense ... sooner rather than later.