rmcjacket23

Well I'm not certain that we are a better team without Pitta, given the players we have on our roster currently. But this certainly is a case of fans overvaluing receptions in a BIG way.

That's a pretty gratuitous over-simplification of a team. The first 3 rounds make or break your draft because of the resources that go into those picks, but "95% of your best players" don't come from those rounds. The Ravens roster is built like all the others, 80% of starters are rounds 3-5 guys. If you take a guy in the 1st or 2nd and he's not a starter you're setting yourself up to fail as the guaranteed contract on those guys will haunt you. Ozzie, like a lot of GMs, are far more comfortable taking 5 or 6 shots in rounds 3-5 than take 1 shot in rd 1. And 98% of them pan out to be nothing. At best, you got Jarret Johnson or Bart Scott. Those guys don't win you championships. Ogden, Lewis, Reed, Suggs, Sharper, McAlister, RRice, Flacco, Heap..........those are the guys who bring home the trophies. Ozzie needs to get over his stupid comp picks and hoarding of junk round picks (4th-7th) and get back to successful top picks. He was the best for 24 years. Since 2010, he's been awful. Your logic is flawed. Basically giving up all of our picks from the 4th through 7th round would mean that we would have to look at UDFAs for depth. Is that really what you want? Youre a guy who continually talks about how bad our depth is in season. And you are probably thinking that we could snap up some veterans cuts to fill back up voids but its also an issue of price. Its much more expensive to bring in a bunch of veterans rather than using draftees. You are also assuming that moving up means you will get a better player. Which is just not true. And why would the FO trade up if the guy that they want is going to be there when its their turn. Really there is nothing about what you have said that is rational. Do you really think that you have invented a draft strategy that increases a teams chances of winning a Superbowl and that there haven't been any GMs or coaches in the history of the NFL that have come up with this key to success?? If so I think you may be overestimating your cognitive abilities when it comes to football. If GMs had thought of it why has it never been implemented? If it was a good strategy why do a total of ZERO teams in the NFL use it? How do you explain the following quote.... "The list of teams that have received the most compensatory picks since 1994 is pretty similar to the list of the best teams in football since 1994: The Ravens have received the most compensatory picks, and they’ve won two Super Bowls. The Packers have received the second-most, and they’ve also won two Super Bowls. The Patriots are fourth, and they’ve won five Super Bowls. The 10 teams that have had the most compensatory picks have won most of the Super Bowls since 1994, with a total of 14 titles for those 10 teams." http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/02/24/compensatory-picks-are-a-reward-for-smart-teams/ Ok, list me all Ravens comp picks for the last 30 years. And don't blame me for laughing out loud when you put together your "top 10" list from these players. Well if you're going to do that, then you would need to compare that player to the player that we lost in order to get the comp pick AND factor in the cost difference between those two players. Because if you're not doing that, then you're not accomplishing anything.

That's a pretty gratuitous over-simplification of a team. The first 3 rounds make or break your draft because of the resources that go into those picks, but "95% of your best players" don't come from those rounds. The Ravens roster is built like all the others, 80% of starters are rounds 3-5 guys. If you take a guy in the 1st or 2nd and he's not a starter you're setting yourself up to fail as the guaranteed contract on those guys will haunt you. Ozzie, like a lot of GMs, are far more comfortable taking 5 or 6 shots in rounds 3-5 than take 1 shot in rd 1. And 98% of them pan out to be nothing. At best, you got Jarret Johnson or Bart Scott. Those guys don't win you championships. Ogden, Lewis, Reed, Suggs, Sharper, McAlister, RRice, Flacco, Heap..........those are the guys who bring home the trophies. Ozzie needs to get over his stupid comp picks and hoarding of junk round picks (4th-7th) and get back to successful top picks. He was the best for 24 years. Since 2010, he's been awful. You have no idea what you're talking about. 98% of them don't 'not pan out' just like 95% of 1-3rd rounders make up your team which is another ridiculous claim you made. You realize you have to be bad to draft the guys you named? Ogden-4th overall, Mcallister-10th overall, Ngata-12th overall, Suggs-10th overall, Heap-31st overall(a 1st rd TE might as well be a top 10 pick at CB or DE value wise), Flacco-16th overall. The Ravens have been drafting in the mid-late 20s for the better part of the past 15 years. When we do have top half picks recently Ozzie has nailed those as well (Stanley at 6 and Mosley at 16). Getting HoFers like Lewis and Reed in the 20s is an extreme outlier and for you to assume we should just not draft the bad players and take all the good ones shows you know very little about scouting and development. Buddy I've done the work, you haven't. Go find me all 4th and 5th rounders (in the ENTIRE draft) for the past 6 years. Then find me how many of those players made even a single pro bowl. It's very, very, very low. About 2%. That sucks. You're not finding great players in those rounds, so you better hope and pray we can in the first 3 rounds. This is not just the Ravens, this is everyone. That's all I'm saying. 1. The Pro Bowl isn't an accurate measurement of how good a player is. Hasn't been for quite some time now. Don't understand why fans still don't get this. It ain't the 90s anymore. Education has evolved. 2. Its not about finding "Pro Bowl" players in those rounds. Its about finding good players who can start and play well. That's what those rounds are for. If you look comparatively to other teams, the Ravens are as good as anybody in those rounds. You're correct that your 6th and 7th round picks rarely amount to anything, and that's true league-wide. You hope that like one every few years turns into a productive player. BUT... the major difference between the Ravens and other teams is that on many other teams, the players that rarely amount to anything can extend into the 4th and 5th rounds on other teams. That means that they've got maybe 3 draft picks in any given draft who have a shot to amount to even an average player. That's not the case with the Ravens. We get quality starters in the 4th and 5th round consistently. The Patriots have a 53 man roster just like every other team in the league. AT BEST, 10-15% of those players are actually great. You'd be hard pressed to name 5 actually great players on any single team in the league (especially given the subjectivity of "greatness", which certainly isn't going to be measured by a Pro Bowl popularity contest). So this is a laughable notion to me. The purpose of those rounds isn't necessarily to even find "great" players. Its to find good players. Or solid role players who can do their job. Bill Belichick has built a tremendous legacy based on how unimportant having a large volume of great players is to a team.

Yeah but that's not really the point. His assertion was that if you have a highly paid QB (which includes basically any starter not on a rookie deal), you don't need to invest in quality pass catchers in the draft or in FA (via high draft picks or large FA acquisitions), because that QB should make anybody who he throws to look good. So when the Packers use 3 2nd round picks on WRs, they're wasted draft picks in his eyes, because they could have just drafted like 5th or 6th rounders and Aaron would make them great. Same with the Saints, who've used two high picks on WRs in recent years. According to him, those are wasted draft picks. The reality is that's not how it works.

Mostly because I've actually watched them play. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the QB throws the football. He doesn't catch it, he doesn't win contested catches in tight spaces, he doesn't get separation from DBs who half the time are grabbing him and holding him to prevent him from doing so. There are QBs like Brady and Rodgers who's statistics take a MASSIVE dip when their stud players aren't out. Not exactly a coincidence. Something tells me the Ravens aren't that interested in getting out from under his contract, given that they just signed him to an extension last offseason and 2016 wasn't even close to his worst year. There's what fans think, and then there's reality.

Not everyone's draft board and grading system is the same. One team may think there's 7-8 guys left at that spot, and another might only like 1-2 of them. That's why somebody would trade up or down. Teams aren't drafting players based on what mock draft predictors or TV analysts are saying. They all do their own grading with their own draft boards.

Well he had a first round pick in Brandin Cooks, now has a top tier WR like Michael Thomas to throw to, and also played with Jimmy Graham who put up quality numbers with Seattle. As is normally the case, the real answer is in the middle. There's not a single QB in NFL history who has produced without quality talent around them. That includes Brees, Brady, and any other QB the ignorant fans think just make receivers look good. My point overall with to dismiss this notion that teams that have highly paid QBs don't need to use quality draft picks on receiving targets around them. The Saints have a very highly paid QB, and they've used a 1st (one they traded up to get) and a 2nd on receivers in recent years. The top 3 receivers on Green Bay... all 2nd round picks. That's called making a high investment in the position.

Yeah because we only have like 6 of those.... Pitta, Gilmore, Williams, Waller, Boyle, Watson.... Sometimes ya just gotta wonder about stuff.... I mean, really? Well, in his defense, we're not really sure if any of those guys are any good or not at this point.

I guess Drew Brees sucks then too...

That's a pretty gratuitous over-simplification of a team. The first 3 rounds make or break your draft because of the resources that go into those picks, but "95% of your best players" don't come from those rounds. The Ravens roster is built like all the others, 80% of starters are rounds 3-5 guys. If you take a guy in the 1st or 2nd and he's not a starter you're setting yourself up to fail as the guaranteed contract on those guys will haunt you. Ozzie, like a lot of GMs, are far more comfortable taking 5 or 6 shots in rounds 3-5 than take 1 shot in rd 1. And 98% of them pan out to be nothing. At best, you got Jarret Johnson or Bart Scott. Those guys don't win you championships. Ogden, Lewis, Reed, Suggs, Sharper, McAlister, RRice, Flacco, Heap..........those are the guys who bring home the trophies. Ozzie needs to get over his stupid comp picks and hoarding of junk round picks (4th-7th) and get back to successful top picks. He was the best for 24 years. Since 2010, he's been awful. "Getting over the comp picks" doesn't make any sense, because Ozzie doesn't get to choose his comp picks or what round they're in. Pretty clear you don't understand how comp picks work. If you did, you'd realize that they come from losing players to FA. The only ways you can start reducing the amount of comp picks you get is by either signing a whole bunch of FAs (which pretty much never leads to Championships), or by resigning your own guys. If you start nailing 3-4 of your draft picks every year, then its impossible to sign all of them. At best, you'll sign 2, which means you'll be getting comp picks for the rest if they sign large deals. Where do you think the bulk of those "junk round picks" come from? COMP PICKS. This ain't rocket science folks. He's not swapping first round picks for like 10 4th rounders.

Justin Forsett is literally just another guy in terms of NFL RBs, and he had success here. The ball carrier has very little to do with our struggles to run the ball.

He wouldn't need to be Stanley, because he'd be playing an easier position. That's the point. Depends on how you define "early". Most of the first rounders at those positions have done just fine. Alabama gets a bad rap for having a lot of players that appear to be "busts", but that's also because they're sending a much bigger volume of players into the draft than most other teams. When you've got 10 guys getting drafted every year, not all of them are going to pan out.

I seriously doubt both Watson and Pitta make this team. You're not likely to cut the young guys like Maxx or Gillmore, because you gain nothing financially from doing so. I think Pitta and Watson are competing for one roster spot. My hunch is the only reason we haven't cut Watson is 1. we don't need the space yet and 2. he may not yet be medically cleared, so we can't outright release him without some sort of an injury settlement. I ultimately don't think we will go TE in round 1, but if we're looking for playmakers in the passing game and both the receivers we like are gone, Howard makes some sense. All of our TEs bring something to the table, but none of them are true playmakers.

Well we have like 10 offensive lineman on the roster also... does that mean we shouldn't take one of them? We have quantity. What we're not sure of is if we have quality. That applies to a lot of positions on this team right now.

I don't think we'd have to trade down for Robinson. We could probably just take him at 16. If we're trading down, it might be for another Olineman, or for one of the many DE/OLBs that would be available in the early/mid 20s. My guess is if we trade down it would be because the two WRs we deem worthy of that pick are gone, and maybe the top 1-2 Olineman are gone as well. I consider this unlikely. If there aren't any Olineman taken in the top 15, I think we'll take one, simply because we'd be getting the best guy at a group of positions in the entire draft based on how we grade them. That's pretty rare to do in the middle of the 1st round.

1. If we're focused just on 2016, Pitta was just as much of a "hands guy" as Wallace, since their drop rates were the same and both were ahead of Steve Smith's. And I would also point out that he and Wallace were targeted almost the exact same amount, so there really wasn't much favoritism between the two. 2. The main reason why Joe targeted him on those throws is because Pitta was the open man. One main reason he's the open man is because he's sitting down in the zone BEFORE the line of gain. Defenses will gladly allow a guy to get open 5 yards from the LOS when he needs 8 for a first down... they'll give up that reception all day long. So while Dennis caught that pass, its still 4th down, which means we didn't accomplish that much. You could argue that its beneficial to complete that pass so maybe we're in a better FG position or punt position, but that's not exactly what they pay Dennis to do. Its not a coincidence that the complaints about throwing short of the line of gain revolve around "check downs" to the TEs and the RBs. You didn't see a lot of instances where we were completing passes to Steve or Wallace short of the line of gain, because they were running routes beyond that line and simply weren't getting open and/or Joe didn't aggressively push it down field to them enough, among other reasons. 3. I would also point out that, in terms of the percentage of receptions that lead to first downs, Pitta's was far and away the lowest number out of our top three guys (Steve and Wallace). Like a TON lower. So it tells us that he's catching passes, which is great and cute and all, but he's not moving the chains and his YPC numbers are abysmal, which means we're not getting much out of him catching those passes.

I already clearly outlined in another thread how financially this doesn't work from a salary cap perspective. Not only could you not afford to sign other either of those QBs, you'd have to cut a lot of players in order to make that trade. Guys like Wallace, Yanda, Suggs, etc. would all have to be cut from the team in order to make this trade work.

1. We drafted Oher to be a franchise LT, so different position entirely. 2. We did just draft Stanley, who looks to be pretty good.

1. A quality RT even interior lineman certainly doesn't need to be found exclusively in round 1 or even round 2. Could very easily see somebody taken in round 3 or 4 and come in play right away and play just fine. The guy we just let walk for a boatload of cash did this exact thing. 2. I don't think anybody can honestly say that Camp, Waller, or even Moore at this point have any track record whatsoever of being above average pass catchers in the NFL. They actually have to show that on the field at some point before they can come close to being given that label. 3. We're obviously not taking a first round pick just to fill an immediate need. Almost impossible to build a contending football team that way. You pick a player who you think can be a quality player for you for a decade. If that's a safety, so be it. Eric Weddle ain't going to be here much longer, and if you wait to draft a safety until you absolutely need one, you'll be screwed, because its not really a position you can just walk off the bus and play well in as a rookie. We could use upgrades at every single group of positions on this team, with the exception of QB. We are NOT set at Safety, Corner, ILB, OLB, Dline, WR, TE, or RB. We could use a better player and every single one of those positions, both now and certainly in the future. You take the best guy that's there. Fans need to stop kidding themselves thinking that we're a draft away from being a SB contender.

The poor decision is taking a two down RB in the first round...

1. Assumes that there is an open read on those types of plays, which the film would tell you is rarely the case. The open read, in most third and long situations, is the guy he's throwing it to that's short of the sticks. There's a reason he's the open read. 2. In said cases, he's rarely the primary target. 3. I agree on the lack of blitz recognition, but that's not frequently an issue on 3rd and long, because teams didn't bring exotic blitzes that often there.

This is the part of the game where you are challenged to provide specific plays (or even play) that "maximizes Pitta's talent" no a third and long play... The easy part is saying "just draw up a play that maximizes talent". Saying it is the easy part. The part's that actually hard, and what separates coaches from fans, is figuring out exactly what that play is. Dennis Pitta isn't as talented as Gronk, and I'd have a hard time personally identifying what kind of play on a crucial third and long can be devised to play to Pitta' strengths. Best I could come up with is throwing him a jump ball over the middle in the seam, likely between two defenders. All that requires is an incredibly accurate throw, and the toughness to come down with the catch and likely get sandwiched while doing it. All while hanging your already somewhat fragile TE out to dry over the middle of the field. Speed isn't his asset. Size isn't his asset. The ability to separate isn't his asset. It seems like you're starting to realize the point that everybody is making... its a talent issue, not a playcalling issue.

Not very well. But then again, its not much different than what we did in prior years, and when it worked out, nobody complained about it. We can do the opposite and just throw into crowded coverage beyond the sticks and pray for something to happen. Will certainly see an uptick in incompletions and interceptions doing that. I referenced other teams for a specific purpose. There aren't any exotic play calls for third and long. The elite of the elite offenses do the same thing. They get the ball to a playmaker and ask him to make a play. The difference between them and us isn't the play call. The difference between them and us is the ability to make that play via the talent of the players.

Will point out that 100% of the teams in the league rather routinely throw passes to receivers short of the line of gain on 3rd down, mostly because opposing defenses also know where the line of gain is and usually flood that area with defenders, thus making it difficult to get completions there. In particular, QBs like Brady and Brees have made quite a career off throwing to receivers short of the line of gain and getting yards after the catch... which is a radical concept to our receiving core based on what I saw last season.

1. It only leaves the Oline as unaddressed after the first round. There's zero chance we don't take 1 Olineman in the entire draft, and my money is on us taking one in the first four rounds. Given that we're likely looking specifically for a Guard or RT, you can easily find a starter in that spot on day 2 or even day 3 in most drafts, and I think this one is no different. My point is that you don't have to take one in round 1 just because the class is weak. 2. Would also point out that there are guys on the roster that the FO likes who they at least publicly think can fill those roles. We aren't likely to get two starting Olineman out of this draft, meaning at least one of our starters are likely coming from an existing roster player, or a FA.