rmcjacket23

Barring any incidents or new revelations between now and Thurs, he's NOT falling out of the 1st round. All speculation at this point obviously, but I can tell you there's numerous analysts I've seen that fully expect him to fall into the 2nd, though still probably not far enough for him to be in the mid 40s when we pick.

Depends on how you measure "#1". In terms of targets they were basically equal. Boldin had more yardage, Torrey had more TDs. Regardless, that would only amplify my point, given that if Boldin was our #1, he averaged about 60 yards/game and had 4 TDs for the entire regular season. Those are much, much, much, much lower numbers than most of the "studs" he listed as players we needed to have in order to be good.

As usual, all depends on how we rate those players. By all accounts its a pretty weak OL class, so the FO may easily be looking at a handful of these first round guys and questioning whether they're significantly better than a 3rd or 4th rounder we could choose instead. If they don't think they are, I'm sure they'll steer clear of them in the first all together. My money is on WR or a defensive player, namely an edge player.

Well guys like Mike Wallace were our #1 (Torrey Smith) when we were winning the Lombardi, so not very intelligent to suggest we won't be on top without one. We're not trying to win a fantasy league or a Madden football game here.

Troll on kid. Troll on.

We don't need a RB who can take the team to the next level... its not a position that is required to have a player like that in order to win games. We can have 3 backs getting 10 carries each a game for all I care... as long as collectively the running game is doing better than what we saw last season, where it didn't matter who we put it out there because we couldn't get anything going. The first four games will have West as the lead runner with Woodhead as the passing down back. When Dixon gets back and gets in game shape, I'd expect to see him overtake West to the point where West likely won't play very much. Plus once Dixon is back, he's more capable of handling 3 down work, assuming he gets better in pass protection. He's much more versatile than West is.

We don't need another RB. We signed a passing down specialist back, and we have two guys who are more than capable of being quality RBs, though I don't find either particularly special. I wouldn't take Fournette for a plethora of reasons. For starters, he's your prototype two down RB. He's not a viable asset in the passing game, meaning you will perpetually need to employ another RB with a different skill set, thus using a second roster spot on a back to produce the value that one well-rounded RB could achieve on their own. And if that passing down back is a pure specialist (much in the way Woodhead is), you're basically committing to carrying 3 RBs at all times, which is not exactly ideal if you're in a tough spot with injured players later in the year. Most importantly, I don't really like bruising backs that actively seek contact. Everybody likes to pretend like "Beast mode" is the way to go, but those guys wear down and wear down fast, and seeking contact in the NFL is much different than seeking it in College. To me, Fournette is a one contract back. I can't give a guy like that $10M a year on a second deal when he's going to be 26-30 years old. I have no issue using a day 3 pick on a RB and seeing if they end up being a value play and outplay West, because I don't think West is anything special either. Its just brutally hard to get a quality ROI on a first round RB in this league anymore, especially when the Pro production dropoff from first round backs to like day 2 or even day 3 backs is so small.

Yup and then he went to Miami and used some more 1st round picks on skill position players that ended up sucking and he inevitably "resigned" because his teams weren't any good.

The NFL was different 25 years ago. But let's use your example - the Cowboys spent high draft picks on Dez Bryant, Felix Jones, DeMarco Murray, Julius Jones & signed high priced FA like Terrell Owens, etc. It wasn't until they drafted 3 x OL with their 1st Round picks did they actually become a play-off team. That OL didn't look so good when DeMarco Murray left did it? Everyone thought any RB could excel, unfortunately not only did that not happen but Tony Romo took a beating and got his collarbone broken .......twice. Enter Zeke Elliott and suddenly, playoffs again. I'll take the playmakers anyday. Actually it did look pretty good. They had a top 5 rushing offense in the league the year after Murray left in terms of YPC, and they had a RB that finished 4th in the league in rushing yardage. I wouldn't even call that good... I'd call it great. They also only allowed 2 sacks/game that season, which was below average at the league level, and they had the 10th fewest yards lost via sack. Only further proved by Demarco's 2015 nightmare season, where he averaged a full yard less per carry and was effectively benched later in the year. Then he goes to a team that has a very solid Oline (Titans) and he starts performing well again.

Would say Safety would fall into this category for at least 2017. There aren't any teams I know that have a third safety as good as Webb.

Depends on how good the corner/corners are, and how much depth the team has. Again, I look to 2014. Jimmy missed half the regular season and the entire postseason, and we beat Pittsburgh in Pittsburgh and came pretty close to beating NE in NE. We definitely missed him that game, but it certainly didn't stop us from being competitive. A player like Jimmy is pretty much the 2nd most valuable player on the team in terms of a player where we've seen the steepest drop off in production from replacement level players in previous years. But that doesn't mean the team is dead when he goes out.

Well you can get #1 RBs without using a first round pick. There's plenty of them in the league right now. So we have the ability to get a #1 RB any year that we want to.

Would cost at least a 2 and a 3 to move up from 16 to 8, and that includes giving up 16. Realistically, probably would require a 2018 first rounder.

In theory, a 2 and a 3. Realistically, probably a 2018 first rounder.

Leave them weaker? Certainly. Unable to overcome those injuries? Not even close. On literally any team in the league, there's maybe 1-2 players at most who the team literally can't compete without. We've had All Pro or even HOF players on this team miss significant time, and we still managed to win a lot of games. In most cases, the franchise QB is about the only player on the team that they can't afford to lose these days.

Just another idea that fans TALK about doing but rarely actually do. Lot of talking... very little walking. That's hypocrisy.

I think I remember something about the Ravens surely not having a home game in London as the stadium contract says all their home games must be in the Bank? Somebody with a better memory than me (not an especially high bar)? I could be wrong, but I don't believe it was specific to the Bank. I believe the Stadium Authority dictated that the game must be played within the State of Maryland, but not necessarily at the Bank. Could be wrong about that though. Regardless, I've heard similar premises from others in the media with better knowledge. Basically we don't have to expect to have an international home game anytime soon. If we go abroad, it will be on the road, which is obviously much more beneficial. Right time pretty much all the international games are reserved for the home teams that are transitioning into new stadiums (Rams, Raiders, Chargers) or for teams that have trouble selling tickets consistently (Bills, Jags, Bengals, etc.).

I wish there was this annual thing where we selected players from college. I also wish there were players that are able to play in the NFL but aren't on a team right now that we could sign whenever we want. Amusing sarcasm. There are also these things called injuries. These injuries have had a terrible impact on the Ravens in recent years. Watson, Suggs, J Smith, Perriman...the list goes on. When you also consider the Ravens have 1 playoff appearance in the last 4 years, and their combined record in that same span is below .500- the proof is right there that they are NOT a good team. Injuries are a crutch that bad teams use to convince themselves that they would be good without the injuries, which they likely wouldn't be. 2012 had a very injury riddled team, and in 2014, we were playing with literally like 4th and 5th string corners. When you surround yourself with good talent and reasonable depth, barring a long term injury to a franchise player like a QB, you can overcome injuries. Plus you missed the point of his sarcasm. His point was to throw shade on people who look at our roster right now and act like its final and there's nothing we can do to change it.

1. Which year specifically did the Ravens play five away games consecutively to open the season? Or better yet... what year did the Ravens ever play more than 3 consecutive road games at ANY POINT during the regular season? You literally just made this up. I assume that you're still somehow whining about 2015, when we play 5 of our first 7 on the road (which were not consecutively, of course), and included consecutive road stretches on the WC (which our coach asked for). I'll point out the same thing I pointed out to all the other clowns who think this was somehow a catastrophic problem... everybody ignores the fact that we didn't leave the city of Baltimore from Halloween to Thanksgiving (3 straight home games with a bye in the middle), or the fact that we got three straight home games in December, which rarely happens. How quickly fans dismiss the fact that no matter how you slice it, its 8 home, 8 on the road. 2. There's only two teams on our schedule in every single year that are "consistent with our schedule". That's 2 out of 16. The other 8 (excluding the six division games which are the same every year) are on a rotation and its the same rotation as our fellow division rivals. Those games have nothing to do with how good we were the previous year. If I were super serious about playing the "whine about the schedule" game with you, I'd gladly go look at all the other teams schedules and point out all the things those teams have to deal with that the Ravens don't. And I guarantee I could find something for every single one of them.

Can ALL of it be fixed? Of course not. But then again, you certainly don't need to fix all of it to make the playoffs. The difference between us making the playoffs last year vs not was basically one victory. So no, you don't need to upgrade all of those positions and fix everything to get ONE more victory.

And the trolls who think trading Flacco solves literally any problem have no business being fans of this team.

Them taking or not taking Foster will have nothing to do with Ray Rice. Fans are incorrectly applying the notion that we won't draft players with DV backgrounds and extending that to mean we don't take players with off-field issues at all, which of course isn't accurate.

Yeah I don't agree with this. Look at Thanksgiving until NYE. Packers in primetime, at Bengals in primetime, Ravens in primetime, Patriots, at Texans in primetime Four primetime games, two on the road, and the home games are GB, Ravens and Patriots. Good luck.

Just so we can put this whole "trade for Joe Flacco thing to bed", here's the salary cap perspective on IF a trade like this were to happen: The moment you trade Joe, his 2017 cap number INCREASES from $24.55M to $47.3M, so that's an increase of 22.75M. According to Spotrac, we have roughly $4.5M in cap space available right now. So that means that we would need to create $18.25M in cap space if we trade Joe. Note that all this does is get us to no cap space, thus not allowing us to sign our draft picks until we create more. So in order to do that, lets look at some possible cuts: Wallace: $4.75M - a must cut in order to make this move happen. Watson: $3M Arrington: $2.1M Cutting those three guys would be a must. That gets us halfway there. While most would say its not a big deal to could Watson or Arrington (which we will likely do anyway), the key here is to note that we have zero choice but to cut Wallace the moment we trade Joe. Still need to create about another $8.5M in space. Lets look at mixture of cuts there: Yanda: $1.55M Suggs: $1.05M Hurst: $1.8M Jensen: $1.8M West: $1.8M Mallett: $1M If we cut those six guys, we'll clear $9M in space, so that gets us there. So I guess if you REALLY want to trade Joe, it could happen. All you'd have to do is cut Wallace, Suggs, Yanda, Mallett (so now we have no QBs on the roster), West and Jensen (and a handful of other players we probably don't care about). And remember... this only gets us to break even. We can't use our draft picks yet, because we don't have the cap space to sign them. And we need to sign a QB as well. Outstanding team management there isn't it?

"IF" Browns would take Flacco &our 16th for their 1st&33rd we could FIX defense and sign Kapernick or even Cutler as stopgap REBUILD decent team. Flacco & our 16th,74th for 1st&12th would be DREAM scenario. Actually we couldn't afford to sign either of them or anybody. You'd have to cut most of our good players to be able to even afford to trade Joe. I strongly recommend you do some research on the salary cap and the impact of trades like the one you're proposing, because you sound very ignorant right now.