rmcjacket23

"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.

And the same story is written about every franchise every year. If the biggest knock on our schedule this year is that we have to play the Steelers AT HOME after a London game, you're pretty much acknowledging that our schedule is favorable. And obviously we CAN afford to lose a game to a division rival. We do it every year, including years where we won the SB and were SB contenders. The idea of any team in our division going 6-0 frankly seems kind of silly at this point, and I would expect fans to know better by now. 5-1 is even a stretch in the last decade or so.

With the obvious caveat being that nobody has any clue who is going to be good at this point... Hensley's analysis isn't terrible, though I don't see us losing at Home to Indy. That's not a team I see much reason to be threatened by at this point... think they could easily be the worst team in their division this year. Something tells me the main reason he picked them to lose that game is because he doesn't see us going 8-0 at home, which I agree is a stretch. See no reason we can't win at least 5-6 home games though. Think Pittsburgh, Detroit and Houston will be the biggest tests there. Probably need to find a way to win 4-5 road games. Jags game is neutral site, so that helps. Cleveland obviously feels like a winnable game, but the rest of the road games are very tough based on what I see.

Who cares. Most fans don't buy a new jersey every year. I haven't bought a new jersey in like 10 years. If you watch games on TV, you're a revenue source for the NFL and for the Ravens. Whether you know it or not, you're sending money to the Baltimore Ravens every time you watch them play. If you think that not spending $100 every five years (of which the Ravens only actual get a piece of that in actual revenue and profit) on some jersey is somehow holding the Ravens accountable for anything, then not only are you incredibly naive and hypocritical, but you also have zero clue what "accountable" means.

LOL, fans are still buying tickets and merchandise. Do you really think they're having a tough time selling tickets? (Hint: an empty seat doesn't mean the ticket wasn't sold). Fans just talk about outrage. They rarely actually do anything about it.

Do you really think fans are holding the team accountable now? I guess the other side of that coin is... who's holding the fans accountable for anything?

Source?

I'm actually not sure what the NFL is doing on Christmas this year. Christmas Eve is Sunday, so I assume most teams will just play that day, with maybe one night game. The last week of the season is on the 31st (NYE), so not sure if they'll even play a MNF game for week 16, which would be on Christmas Day. They may just make the last MNF in week 15 on the 18th.

Well early leaks have the Giants hosting the Cowboys on SNF in week 1, so we won't be in that slot. Looks like Giants @ Redskins is also the primetime game on Thanksgiving this year, so we won't be playing on Thanksgiving either.

He was also a coward who made a bet not to post anymore if we won a game, and then didn't follow through on his end of the deal.

Good news is that its NOT possible. I'm sure you'll continue to bring it up though. Seems like a great use of time to constantly troll post about things that quite literally are impossible.

Actually, there's pretty much nothing redoing his contract would accomplish either. If you really think the team needs the money that badly, then donate your salary for the year to them. That's more justifiable than asking Joe to take a paycut from $6M. Wake up.

Well Perriman made it a whole season last year, so obviously quite reasonable to think he will play a whole season this year. Certainly not at any more risk of injury then any of the other guys who play for us this year.

And again, I can spit out example after example on an annual basis of why your statement is completely false. You can keep digging a bigger and bigger hole with these ridiculous, baseless premises if you want to, but it only makes you look less and less like you know what you're talking about. If that's what you're going for, then you're succeeding. Comes off as just a failed trolling attempt though, which I suspect is what you're really going for.

LOL, I certainly wouldn't rather run it 40 times if we're not good at it. Pretty much no scenario I see where that yields more points on the scoreboard. And at that point, you're not concerned about keeping Joe healthy, because we're not scoring which means we're not winning. And lets be clear... Joe's going to throw it 35+ a game in whatever offense we run, and that includes a more effective one at running the ball. Even in Kubiak's offense, he was throwing it 35 times a game. 40 might be a stretch, but there's no scenario where we go back to an offense where he's throwing it 25-30 times a game. Heck if Joe averages 5-6 yards per attempt, which is pathetic for a QB, he'd still be moving the ball better than a crappy running game will.

Also an irrelevant comment, since it doesn't start today and the bulk of teams offseason acquisitions haven't even been addressed yet. Most teams in the league, including some of last years really good one's, would fit into this same category. Certainly applies to everybody in our division.

1. If you're running the ball 30 times a game just for the sake of doing it, you're making your offense worse, not better. Newsflash: the running game wasn't effective when it did run the ball. The solution to that problem doesn't involve running it more. Teams can be incredibly effective running the ball 20-25 times a game. We weren't, and so we didn't run it more. I'm not knocking the coaching staff for that, because I wouldn't continue to trot out a running game that was ineffective. 2. Because the running game isn't effective, and teams know they can stop our running game with a base formation, play action is irrelevant. It achieves nothing. The entire concept is to get defenders to come towards the line of scrimmage to open up the field. When they don't do that because they don't have to, then you're not opening up anything. All you're doing is drawing up a play that takes longer to develop, behind an inconsistent offensive line (perhaps the biggest issue). Running it 40 or 50 times won't change that. If you want to fix the offense, you get better up front on the offensive line and especially in run blocking, where we struggled big time. That will open up plenty of things. The secondary fix is getting WRs who can actually run routes and get open in man coverage.

I really wish sometimes our fans actually knew what having a pathetic QB was. Then I remember Grbac and Boller.... how quickly some forget. You can focus on that, while I focus on the hopes of betterment. And one of these days, fans will actually establish hope that is actually realistic and supported with rare things like knowledge, intelligence, and understanding of what they're watching. That's what I hope for. I'll keep the hope for more victories for a later date when fans actually deserve it.

You clearly don't recall the history of the Ravens that well...

Yeah this isn't even remotely true.

Well we could certainly draft multiple receivers, but I see no scenario where they are both high picks that would play over Perriman this season. IF we did that, it would likely be one WR drafted in the first 2-3 rounds, with another drafted very late. The very late guy, obviously, is highly unlikely to even see the field at all or possibly not even make the team, since players in those rounds rarely pan out. Regardless of what happens on draft day, Perriman is going to play a lot this season (barring injury) and adding even a first round WR isn't going to change that. Plus, given what the team has already told us about the type of receiver they are looking for, they'll likely be targeting a bigger receiver who can work the middle of the field, which wouldn't change what Perriman does that much. And when you factor in that Mike Wallace is in the last year of his deal, it makes far more sense to invest more in Perriman than it does Wallace.

I completely disagree. A team with numerous holes is a team that should try to get....numerous picks. A team that values a different player than us because they have different needs. Perfect example Is the Raiders, a team that is a legit contender and some consider the only team that can challenge the Pats. They need help in the secondary so if a DB is available that they think will put them over the edge, they will want to move up and make that push. Each team is in a different situation. Its like you are comparing draft needs from the Browns to the Pats, every team has different needs therefore values players differently. This forum will explode if we trade back with Mwilliams or Corey Davis on the board, i might be one of those guys. But adding a RB and a LG (rookies) would in no way make our offense on par with our defense. You make valid points. It a matter of do you believe the Ravens have 'holes' or lack 'difference makers' I believe Ravens had 11 picks last year. There are multiple guys currently on the team at just about every position.But they are 'just guys'. Ravens need difference makers not picks to fill holes. Bengals beat us cause they have difference makers AJ Green, Benard, Boyd, Eifort Steelers win cause they have difference makers Brown, Bell We may split games with them, but they will win more games cause they have players that make the difference. I don't see that on the Ravens. In fact, they lost Smith Sr and Dummervil. If they can't win more than 8 games with them, you need top talent to replace them Would also point out that all of the players you listed are offensive players. Its great to have sexy playmakers on offense, and I'd love nothing more than to have them. But our defense is miles ahead of both of those teams at the moment, both in terms of playmakers and in terms of overall production. So there is a difference there. Its why a team like Pittsburgh, in my eyes, is dead money in the AFC until they increase their defensive talent and production and do it fast. They can have all the playmakers they want on offense, and they're simply not going to beat New England in the playoffs. Adding another offensive just makes a high powered offense a bit better. It doesn't solve the problems they have. I frankly have zero concerns about Cincinnati right now. That team has major issues in a lot of areas, and they aren't active enough spenders in FA to account for the people they lose. Doesn't really bother me that they beat us in week 17, and I'm well aware of our struggles against them in recent seasons. But that team isn't close to them that was competing for the division 2-3 years ago. They're weak on the offensive line, they don't have much of a pass rush anymore, their secondary is average, and they've lost a lot of receivers in recent years. And their RBs are vastly overrated for what they bring to the table.

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. First, It's highly unlikely that ALL 7 will still be on the board. But I'll play along. It's still gamble that not needed. What if we move back 2 spots? And Mike Williams turns out to be a beast. He goes to Titans who then would be another AFC team competing for a playoff spot with Ravens. Also, What if the Broncos trade with Skins. Now there are 2 AFC teams picking a player higher than you. IMO, trading back works when you already have a good team and need additional picks for depth and future. A team that missed the playoffs and have not won the divison should play the percentages and take the BPA Well trading back works in a lot more scenarios then just having a good team. Obviously it also works for a team that needs a lot of upgrades at a lot of positions. The Browns are going to take Garrett, who's clearly the best player in the class at the moment. That team will need a lot of luck to win ONE additional game next season, and that's after they get the best player in the draft. And until they get a viable QB, the same thing will happen year after year. The REAL way to play the percentages is to stick to the draft philosophy you have and trust your player evaluations. That's playing the percentages. If that means your evaluation says trade up, you trade up. If it says trade back, you trade back. If it says stay put, you stay put. The absolute worst thing any team can do is deviate from a draft philosophy or strategy to select a player they don't think is worthy of that draft slot... regardless of position.

1. Well 8 of the guys on that list were taken in the 4th round or later, including 5 taken in the 6th or 7th rounds. You'll have a very hard time finding quality football players drafted on this team in the 6th or 7th round throughout the history of the franchise, regardless of position. So you basically have a first rounder still on his rookie deal, and a 2nd rounder who played quite well and got a lucrative contract on his next team. 2. Some of the guys listed here actually did go sign with other teams, so by definition, they were given 2nd chances. If for some reason you thought that they would go to another team with a chance to start, that's an unreasonable expectation on your part only, since there's really no basis for that expectation. Basically I see a group of mid-to-late round draft picks who didn't play well here, and either were out of the league entirely or went somewhere else and didn't play well there either. Kind of hard to spin that as a Ravens problem, other than just being a poor draft pick.

For me, practice/training camp/preseason is where these types of players simply have to display those kinds of things. There isn't a team in the league (except maybe the Browns, who aren't even trying to win) who can put late round draft picks or "project" type players out there in real game situations and make sure that they learn how to play well on the job. The most likely outcome in that scenario is that those players never play well, and the coaches or FO personnel who decided to give them all that playing time get fired for it. As a coach or GM, I'd certainly never take that risk. I'm putting the guys out there who I think are the best players, not based on whether they might be a great player five years from now. I certainly agree that playing in the preseason or training camp is nothing like playing in a real game. But the reality is that when fans or analysts or media personnel ask for young players to get more snaps or more playing time, they're doing that from a position of absolutely zero risk. If that player doesn't pan out, nothing happens to the people that called for more playing time, more targets, etc. That blame strictly goes to the player and the coaches/decision makers, and they're the one's held accountable. Ultimately the Ravens should do what every other team in the league does... trust your talent evaluators. Trust your coaches to determine who the best players are, and give them the bulk of the playing time.