rmcjacket23

Murray has average 4.0 YPC (not that impressive) behind a dominant offensive line for a few years now. That's called a MAJOR red flag. He won't be a Raven. stats make it easy for conjecture, what you didn't address is the problem in the Ravens running game. At least I proposed my opinion on a decent solution. I will stick to it. What would you do? However I will add that there are a few RB's in FA that could help the Ravens in the same fashion. 1. Well its not so much about stats making it conjecture as it is just understanding what's happening. I mean why don't the Raiders want Murray back if he's a decent RB? Certainly not because of price tag. These are the questions fans need to ask themselves first and foremost... why is this player available and why wasn't he successful with his previous team? 2. What would I do? Pretty much nothing. If he hadn't gotten suspended, I'd give Dixon 20-25 touches a game. That's what I would do. His suspension changes things, and that's why we signed Woodhead. I'd also look how the draft plays out. I'm not even opposed on using the 1st round pick on a RB if a really good one presents itself because, again, we need playmakers on offense, and RBs certainly qualify there. Most likely would look to day 2-3 to add another RB. And if we add nobody, that's fine with me too.

A TE at #16 is certainly in play, though I wouldn't bet that we would go that route, because there's really only one that we would be interested there. We need playmakers. TEs who can catch passes and create mismatches would certainly qualify as a playmaker. I know fans like to pretend like we have a lot of good players or quality depth at TE, but the fact that we keep referencing how much depth we have is kind of the point. We have a lot of depth and nobody who can separate themselves from the pack and force significant playing time and create problems for the defenses. We've got guys that can block, and we've got guys that can catch. We don't have anybody who can do either.

When it comes to the draft the ravens will always go with the guy highest on their board. Which is the BPA. If they think they can trade back and still get that player then that is when they will make a trade. Whoever that guy is they are going to go with regardless of what position which is what he is saying. The board is already set up so it doesn't matter what position the player is if he is the BPA then he is getting selected. I don't think he is arguing with how the board is put together he is simply saying come draft time it doesn't matter because that whole hypothetical situation of these players are close, but this position is more of a priority. For example say this is our board and we are on the clock: (think of this list as how we are viewing actual players in the draft and not like they are the actual players) 1. Ed Reed 2. Todd Heap 3. Ben Grubbs 4. Anquan Boldin Now we need a Guard since Alex Lewis might be kicking out to tackle and this Ben Grubbs type of guard would be a great addition. We also need a receiver and this Boldin type of player would really benefit Joe. We don't really need a free safety, but we aren't going to pass on this Ed Reed type of player when we think he is the best player on the board. The trick with the "BPA" ohilosophy is that we don't know what factors in for the evaluation. For example: how much the guy's position is a need position for us - does that factor in? We don't know. Conventional wisdom says it has to, because in pretty much every year you can think of, our 1st round pick was at a position of "need". It might not be THE position of need necessarily, but its a position we want to upgrade.

A lot of what people are missing is if we do go ahead and pursue Claiborne that allows us to use our 1st round pick on a pass rusher or even inside linebacker. Reuben Foster will be sitting there to take over Orr or a pass rusher that could take over Doom. If we don't pursue Claiborne the obvious first round pick should be corner, as you stated tavon is impressive but is better suited for the nickel and Jimmy is a great number 1 but he always gets hurt. In my opinion this would be a good signing. No, it doesn't change anything. Again, signing a guy like Claiborne doesn't shift your priorities in any way. We're going to take the highest rated player on our board in the 1st round. It doesn't matter what position it is. Could be pass rusher, MLB, Corner, Safety, Offensive Line, TE, WR or even RB based on what I see. Signing Claiborne doesn't change that, because we aren't going to just start saying "we must have a corner, so we must take one here". That's how you end up drafting that doesn't turn into a good football player. Don't agree, you make it seem like there cannot be players, of similar level in competing positions, that are absolutely more important to add to a given roster. for that matter the Claibourne signing, if it happens, absolutely would have an effect on "priority". What it would not change is the choice of players who will be available for the Ravens at #16. Why do teams trade positions if they didn't want to improve an immediate need? (of course as Romo shows still can bite you I=A) Most teams don't trade up for the #1 QB or RB, why because they have solid filled positions. Not because he is the most talented player in the Draft, its a position decision. It happens all the time. So the 2 go hand in hand, one plus the other makes the best choice for the team. It s the most logical and the most historically. Also you say on "our board" so " position need" plays into that decision. Now sure one can argue which position is of the larger need, this seems to be the stronger of the argument that the post is referring to. All being said, no one expects the Ravens or any team to take a 2nd round prospect over a 1st round prospect just because of position. Not that it probably hasn't happened, I would say is a rarity 1. Don't see how signing somebody like Claiborne changes priority in the slightest. If you signed like a Stephon Gilmore to a monster contract, THEN it would change priority. Signing a low level FA to a small contract with little or no guaranteed money (which is what we would do) doesn't change priority in the slightest, because its essentially a year to year contract. Ozzie has told the public this probably thousands of times... the purpose of FA for the Ravens is to address certain positional needs so that the Ravens don't have to take a positional need in the 1st round. They use FA to make sure that the BPA strategy is still available in the draft. 2. When I reference "our board", it means the FO will design our draft board in a way that it eliminates certain positions for consideration from being the 1st round pick. For example, they almost certainly won't have a QB with a first round grade, because we don't want or need to address QB at that spot. Our rankings and ratings are put together based on a draft board we assemble to reflect positions we are interested in. In some years, that draft board probably narrows down to maybe 3-4 positions. This year, almost every position would be a viable choice, because we have so many positions we can upgrade. The entire purpose of FA for the Ravens (which is somewhat different than other teams) is that they don't have to assign a priority to certain positions per se in the first round of the draft. FA allows them to pick anybody at mostly any spot. I will also point out that not every team has the same strategy obviously, and different franchises view FA and the draft differently than others. There are franchises who view it quite the opposite as the Ravens, wherein they use the draft as a place to attempt to upgrade need positions.

Murray has average 4.0 YPC (not that impressive) behind a dominant offensive line for a few years now. That's called a MAJOR red flag. He won't be a Raven.

1. Doubt we would be able to retain all three. 2. Signing Barwin seems counterproductive to what we are trying to do at that position. 3. I'm not sure Mangold is an upgrade over Zuttah at this point. Retain all three? We don't have any of them yet. So we need to obtain before we retain. They are trying to improve at OLB. Connor Barwin is better than anyone we currently have on the roster for that position. His drop off last year was because the Eagles tried to make him a 4-3 end and move him away from his previous and very successful fun as a 3-4 OLB. This move would be hardly counterproductive. A healthy Mangold is better than Zuttah and that is the only question in the equation. How healthy is that ankle? Let's not forget that Zuttah was all sorts of banged up last year as well. 1. We're trying to get younger at OLB, and give the players we have on the roster the opportunity for more playing time. Dumervil was the best pass rusher we had on our roster just a week ago, and now he's not for that very reason. The 3-4/4-3 switch is also quite overblown, considering Barwin had basically one good pass rushing season in a 3-4 in Philly. He was your typical 5-7 sack/season guy save for one great season in 2014. Also ignores the fact that the defense we play the most is neither a 3-4 nor a 4-3, so it doesn't really matter what the base is. 2. Mangold hasn't been a very productive player for about two years now. Wasn't effective last year when he did play. Upgrade over Zuttah I guess, but that's not saying much. Much rather see a rookie or another veteran in there. Ultimately I think both are moot, because we probably would have already signed one or either of these guys if we were extremely interested.

Really, look at all the players in the draft that year and count how many showed some good production. Even the Seahawks don't have any picks from that draft left on their roster, and they won the Super Bowl that year. Why not compare it to all 32 teams in the NFL and see how that ranking stacks up. I don't have the time or desire to do that. All I know is that if you whiff big on your first two draft picks and at least one of them is a first rounder, then you didn't have a great draft. I think Juice was a reach at 4th round. We lucked out with Wagner and we didn't keep Simon. KLM, Mellette, and Anthony never did much of anything for this team. So essentially 3 players panned out for the Ravens. One is a starting DT that is one dimensional. A very good piece no doubt. The other was a starting RT that while healthy did a good job. The last one is a starting FB and like I said, a lot of teams wait to get these guys as UDFA's. Juice was a nice player, but does he really qualify as a player you drool over? So they had a 33% success rate in the draft. 3/9 players they kept and contributed. I guess it depends on what you consider a "whiff" to be. Obviously there are plenty of examples of teams that drafted poorly in round 1 and 2 and still had good drafts. The 2011 Seahawks used their first two picks on Olineman (James Carpenter and John Moffitt), neither of which has been very good in this league. They also drafted KJ Wright, Richard Sherman and Byron Maxwell in that same class, so I think they're happy with it.

Really, look at all the players in the draft that year and count how many showed some good production. Even the Seahawks don't have any picks from that draft left on their roster, and they won the Super Bowl that year. Why not compare it to all 32 teams in the NFL and see how that ranking stacks up. I don't have the time or desire to do that. All I know is that if you whiff big on your first two draft picks and at least one of them is a first rounder, then you didn't have a great draft. I think Juice was a reach at 4th round. We lucked out with Wagner and we didn't keep Simon. KLM, Mellette, and Anthony never did much of anything for this team. So essentially 3 players panned out for the Ravens. One is a starting DT that is one dimensional. A very good piece no doubt. The other was a starting RT that while healthy did a good job. The last one is a starting FB and like I said, a lot of teams wait to get these guys as UDFA's. Juice was a nice player, but does he really qualify as a player you drool over? So they had a 33% success rate in the draft. 3/9 players they kept and contributed. I will gladly take a look at the 2013 draft in detail at some point, though if I'm actually going to do this, how do I grind through the inherent vast subjectivity that comes with this? I mean its easy to just count the # of players still on the roster, but how does one precisely determine whether that player was any good or not? I can tell you just scanning through the teams and their draft picks that year, I don't see anybody who came out with more than 3-4 starters in a single draft class, with varying subjective interpretation of "quality". The "best" team that sticks out to me from that season was the Lions, who drafted Ziggy Ansah and Darius Slay, arguably their two best defensive players currently. They also picked up Larry Warford, who was a quality Guard who's now playing elsewhere, and Theo Riddick, who's a pretty good passing down RB. Green Bay is the "gold standard" for teams in the draft, since they practically never spend in FA and retain most of their players. They too had a pretty good draft that year. Carolina got two all-World DTs in the first two rounds and pretty much nothing else. Teams that most fans think draft well all the time, like NE, Denver, and Seattle, had really poor drafts that year.

1. Doubt we would be able to retain all three. 2. Signing Barwin seems counterproductive to what we are trying to do at that position. 3. I'm not sure Mangold is an upgrade over Zuttah at this point.

Are you kidding, Pitta was a 3rd down machine and more. Granted to they need more plays where they are at least throwing to the first down line. On third downs especially.. Kind of hard to tell statistically actually... Pitta had 41 targets on 3rd or 4th down in 2016. He converted 16 of those into 1st downs, which is roughly 39%. I guess that's not a terrible conversion rate, but I wouldn't call it spectacular either. For comparisons sake: Steve Smith: 17/28 conversions for 61%. Wallace: 12/35 conversions for 34% So by comparison, Pitta was targeted more frequently (though not a ton more than Wallace) in crucial downs, but he wasn't overly effective from what I see. Steve Smith was easily the most effective given relevant target volume.

Wasn't Arrington injured last year? Until he clear medical waivers they can't cut him without an injury settlement. I don't know that for a fact, but if he still is rehabbing, then there is not much the Ravens can do with him until he is cleared to play. Kendrick Lewis ended last year on IR. He was cut. Kendrick Lewis also passed a physical and recovered from his injury. Arrington has not yet done that. Where was it reported that he passed a physical? Players are cut all of the time from IR with injury settlement but I haven't heard or read anything like that for Lewis. Correct. And when you read that a player was cut, and he wasn't cut with an injury settlement, what do you think that means? Multiple tweets from Zrebiec telling people why they haven't cut Arrington yet, and why its more difficult to cut people with injury designation. For starters, its exactly what it sounds... you have to come to an agreement on compensation to cut an injured player. So you get less cap impact from cutting him when he's hurt vs when he's healthy. So you could just try to wait another month or two, see if he gets healthy, and then cut him for full impact.

When they need to. It needs to be soon. No it doesn't. If you don't need his cap space, then you gain literally nothing from cutting him. You don't just cut a bunch of players and pray that you can sign somebody else without knowing that you can. But you can cut a bunch of unproductive players and their is no rule that states you can't cut them until they pass a physical. Sure, you CAN cut players. But the point is you don't just cut players with no plan of how to spend that money. Why do you think we waited to cut Webb until we agreed to a deal with Jefferson? Do you think that was a coincidence? Here's why you don't do what you say you should do... because you cut Arrington, go into FA, look around, and determine that there's nobody you can sign or want to sign as a veteran Corner (which we need). So you cut that player, and then realize you can't replace him. So why did you cut him when you didn't even spend the cap money on anybody else? Again, there's no difference between him getting cut now and getting cut two months from now. It changes nothing.

Wasn't Arrington injured last year? Until he clear medical waivers they can't cut him without an injury settlement. I don't know that for a fact, but if he still is rehabbing, then there is not much the Ravens can do with him until he is cleared to play. Kendrick Lewis ended last year on IR. He was cut. Kendrick Lewis also passed a physical and recovered from his injury. Arrington has not yet done that.

When they need to. It needs to be soon. No it doesn't. If you don't need his cap space, then you gain literally nothing from cutting him. You don't just cut a bunch of players and pray that you can sign somebody else without knowing that you can.

Not likely. We probably needed to cut him just to afford to be able to pay some of the guys we signed.

When they need to.

Mallett is an upgrade over Hoyer in SF, and would do well in the Shanahan offense. He'd also do well in Denver or Houston, but the staff screwed up the QB position so badly 2 years ago there's no way they'll take him back and admit their buffoonery. 1. Certainly don't think he's an upgrade on Hoyer by any stretch. Actually don't see what skill set Mallett has that would be better than Hoyer's. Hoyer is obviously just a stop gap until Cousins goes there next year, so its not like a team would think Mallett is anything other than a placeholder. 2. Also don't see how Mallett is an upgrade over Siemian, and it certainly doesn't make sense to bring Mallett in when you have a 1st round pick in Lynch there also. Plus, either one of those teams can probably have Romo or Cutler if they want to, both of which are clearly better than Mallett by a wide range.

Well, Ngata was a much more effective pass rusher and played more snaps than Williams does. That's why Ngata got a contract bigger than what Williams just got... 6 years ago. DTs who can get to the QB get a lot more than what Williams got.

I would be worried about going into the season with those 3 OLBs and an addition of a UFA or late round pick. But I was also worried about going into the 2014 season with Wagner starting at RT, and into the 2016 season with Orr starting at ILB. Z is the most concerning for me. He needs to work on some different pass rushing. I have only seen him use the bull rush which hasn't been really effective for him. A few of his sacks he got his rookie season were due to good coverage. And two of them were manufactured using a stunt that had him twist inside. I think the stunt sacks were actually almost back to back in one of the Steelers game. He did get better at setting the edge last year but that is also a skill that is still a work in progress. Where does the FO think that Correa is going to be spending most of his time this year ? I haven't heard much about him. I'm not content with our outside rushers either, and I don't think the FO will add nobody. I just don't think they believe its something where we must use a high draft pick on one. I will also say that a lot of fans (myself included sometimes) visualize us as exclusively a 3-4 defense and that the OLBs are the only one's who can get to the QB in our defense. We play a lot more base nickel packages than anything, and that means that in pass rush situations your defensive lineman are expected to get to the QB also. So guys like Jernigan, Urban, Kaufusi, etc. are still expected to get pressure on the QB and get sacks. Those aren't necessarily edge rushers per se, but you can generate sacks from people other than edge rushers. And I think you're going to start to see the FO expect more in terms of pass rush out of our Dlineman as well. I'm also not of the mindset that you need like a dangerous Von Miller type rusher in order to be successful. Us rotating in 3-4 guys as edge rushers throughout a game and having a bunch of guys getting 6-7 sacks a year is just as effective in my eyes as one guy getting 15. With the way a lot more offenses are going up tempo, being able to rotate fresh rushers throughout the game is important, and in some ways, that means quantity can be as important as quality.

Taking a TE in the first two seems improbable as well. But there is certainly a much greater chance of us taking a TE early than a QB. Especially if a guy takes an unexpected fall down the board. Maybe so, and I don't anticipate we go that route. But if we cut Pitta and/or Watson, you've got a bunch of young guys who have been here a few years and haven't really developed into anything reliable. You could argue we'd be throwing in the towel on a guy like Maxx, but at the same time, you can't compound a bad draft pick by forcing him to play and not taking an upgrade when it becomes available. I grouped in TE because we're looking for offensive playmakers, and TEs can be just as big a playmakers as a RB or a WR. We need a reliable pass catcher and a playmaker on offense, and a TE could fit one or both of those areas. I don't expect it, but I wouldn't discount it.

Based on what I've heard from the FO and from some of the beat writers, I don't think the FO views RT as a big issue, at least compared to fans. I think they like some of the younger guys we have, and I also think the FO feels confident that they could use a mid-round pick on a Tackle and plug him in to compete/win the job right away. I think too often fans take stock after FA or the draft and say "we don't have a starter at this position defined right now... we need to add somebody". In most years I can remember, there's always at least 1-2 positions where heading into training camp we have no clue who the starter is going to be. Last year, we really weren't sure who was going to start at ILB with Mosley. Unfortunately, we're in the same predicament this year, but last years replacement was an internal player and was a lot better than most fans could have hoped for. RT, to me, is the position this year where we will see numerous bodies competing for a starting job in training camp, and the best man wins it. And while I think they will add an edge rusher in the draft, I also think the FO likes our young guys (ZaDarius and Judon) more than fans do, and are fine with our top 3 rushers being those two and Suggs for the time being. Its not ideal, and I think they know that, but I don't think they view OLB as a critical area right now either. I think they know they need a complement at WR, and that we need to add at least 1-2 corners. If I were a betting man, the focus in the draft will be WR, Corner/Safety, and Oline. I think they'll plug ILB internally.

I wouldn't check off safety just yet. I think it would be wise to look for a true FS. At this point in his career Weddle is better suited as a SS and SS is TJs natural position. Although those guys are better in coverage than most SS in the league it would still be a good idea to bring in (preferably through the draft) a young guy better suited for that center fielder roll. He would be able to learn from the vets with the hope that he could take over Weddles spot somewhere down the line. Menelik would be an interesting pick up. Does anyone no what Vollmers situation is? Is he recovering from an injury? We're not going to be done with Safety per se at this point, but I think it just drops down the priority list. Weddle is 32... he's no spring chicken. Drafting a safety makes total sense, but it could be more in the 3rd-6th round range and try to develop somebody. Its a need, but its probably more of a 2018-2019 need from what I see. We're still looking to get younger at that position for sure.

This is the issue with assigning positions to draft picks before the draft starts. It is just not realistic. If you think that Ozzy is going into the draft with a list of positions that he won't take in the first 4 rounds you are fooling yourself. You say we are set for years to come and than you say that you can only guarantee that he has 2 years of high quality play left, followed by saying we are set for years to come once again. And I didn't specify what round we would take a guy in. I am not sure if you realize this but both the safety and cornerback (sometimes converted to safety in nfl... Sean Davis) are the deepest positions in the draft. There are going to be good safeties available in each round. But again, if there is a safety that the Ravens covet, that falls in the draft, and represents a good value the FO will not hesitate to take him. And that applies to ALL of the rounds. Yes even the first. It would certainly be more of a need if we let Webb go which is a possibility. But regardless we are going to need to pick up a safety somewhere. Even if we do keep Webb. The only other safety we have on the team is Huff. Its funny because you're a guy that constantly criticized the depth during last season season (with good reason), yet you are ready to go into the season with only two safeties, one of which is 32 years old. Are you comfortable with a Brandon Trywick or Anthony Levine type guy starting if either one of those guys gets hurt. And the best part is that you point to SSS to support your premise that age is just a number. Did you forget that Steve missed 11 games in the last two years. Injuries happen. Some young guys would be extremely lucky to learn from TJ or Weddle even if they don't turn out to be Weddles replacement. Well, realistically, the "BPA strategy" is a modified strategy based on how we assemble our draft board. So in some years, yes, there are positions that we almost certainly wouldn't target in the first 2-3 rounds or so, because we have quality players and quality depth at the position (though I'll say the depth part is hard to have most of the time). This year however, outside of maybe QB (and kicker, and punter, and Long snapper), I don't see a position on our roster where we couldn't easily justify using a 1st round, 2nd round, or any round pick on. WR, RB, TE, Tackle, Guard, Center, Dline, OLB, ILB, Corner, Safety. Could use help at literally every single one of those positions without question. Most years, I could probably narrow down our 1st round pick to one of about 2-3 positions usually. This year, its as wide open as I can remember in a long time. Nobody should be surprised if we take a player from literally any position outside of QB. We need playmakers at every single level.

1. Only two players per team can be designated as Post June-1 cuts. 2. Watson, Arrington and Webb are all in the last year of their contracts with us, so the Post-June 1 cut has the exact same cap effect as a Pre-June 1 cut, meaning cutting those guys that late doesn't do us much good. Zuttah and Pitta would be the only two under consideration for that where a benefit would be made in the current year, and I'd consider Pitta unlikely, given that he has already been asked to take a paycut, meaning they are already addressing the situation. Zuttah as a Post-June 1 cut is the only one that makes sense to me. Historically, the Ravens shy away from this all together.

The QB needy teams mostly found better options. Even at this point, outside of maybe the Jets or Browns, I don't see a team where he's a better option than that team already has. There are teams that have backups better than him. That should tell you something. Ravens fans often overvalue our own players, and I've been saying for months that Mallett's market is almost non-existent as a potential starter.