rmcjacket23

Just now, Adreme said:

So the question is...what do the Ravens do with Carr?

Start him outside.

19 minutes ago, ByTheBay said:

Nailed it. This is why we may be a better team without Pitta. He had a huge amount of catches but they were mostly worthless gains with no YAC and minimal first downs achieved. Stats don't win games. 

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.

  21 hours ago, billiejean said:

  On 4/26/2017 at 6:39 AM, GENE2407 said:

  On 4/25/2017 at 9:48 PM, SCirish843 said:

  On 4/25/2017 at 8:38 PM, GENE2407 said:

Simple: the first 3 rounds make or break your draft. 95% of your best players are had in those rounds. For some reason, Ozzie is now in love with his multiple 4th and 5th rounders that turn out to be neat kick returners or special teams contributors. 1-3 is now reserved for "safe players" who are academic scholars and go to church 5 times a week.

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.

  14 hours ago, SCirish843 said:

  On 4/26/2017 at 6:39 AM, GENE2407 said:

  On 4/25/2017 at 9:48 PM, SCirish843 said:

  On 4/25/2017 at 8:38 PM, GENE2407 said:

Simple: the first 3 rounds make or break your draft. 95% of your best players are had in those rounds. For some reason, Ozzie is now in love with his multiple 4th and 5th rounders that turn out to be neat kick returners or special teams contributors. 1-3 is now reserved for "safe players" who are academic scholars and go to church 5 times a week.

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.

12 hours ago, bioLarzen said:

Well, to be honest, Brees also had Marques Colston - and made him a hug success - who was a 7th round pick - and Jimmy Graham was picked 25 spots after our Ed Dickson...

If you analyse the receiving corps Rogers and Brady have been throuwing to, you'll also find mid- and late round picks mixed in with the early round ones.

Investment is one part. The second part is grooming the talent you've acquired, the third part is putting the groomed talent into an offensive scheme where they can be utilized to their strength, and the fourth paret is a QB who can execute said schemes.

I don't think the question whether Flacco is on par with Brady, Brees or Rogers should even come up really, the answer is so obviously no. But he doesn't need to be. He is easily good enough to lead a successful offense if he has the guys, gets the necessary pocket time, and an OC who can create an offensive scheme and playbook which utilizes the offensive staff to their strengths. The main problem, I think is with the latter. And I've been more and more suspecting the WR coaching staff also fails to properly groom the drafted talent - but that's only a suspicion, of course...

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.

27 minutes ago, slowboater said:

What makes you think Cooks,Thomas and Graham would be "stars" with Flacco at QB? OK, so Pitta had a ton of receptions but no yardage. There are QB's like Brady, Rodgers, Brees and even Carr... and then are are QB's like Flacco, Dalton and Tannehill. People need to get real at the Ravens probably can't wait to get out from underneath Flacco's SB contract.

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.

Realistically if there are 7 or 8 players still on the board that we would grab at 16, what makes you think a team in the early 20s will trade up just to get a player that they could get if they stand pat? I'm really excited for this draft because simply, we can go in so many directions and whatever we do on days 1 and 2 will immensly help our team. It could be highly possible that 7 or 8 of the names mentioned will be there at 16 if there are 3 qbs to go in top 15. I dont see value in trading in any round unless we are trading UP in the 3rd because if we can get an extra 3rd this year i see us grabbing Krupp, Sidney Jones, and a C/G.

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.

1 hour ago, Tdot.to.Bmore said:

Drew Brees makes everyone on his team better. He does not have top WR talent and still puts up 5000k yards a year. Flacco does not.

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.

  1 hour ago, Ravensfansince03 said:

If Flacco is really worth $100,000,000, then we shouldn't need spend a 1st round pick on WR. The QB should be able to manipulate the receivers that he has. Just the fact that we are talking about going WR 1st round shows that there is desperation for a spark on offense. If anything I say go TE. 

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.

If Flacco is really worth $100,000,000, then we shouldn't need spend a 1st round pick on WR. The QB should be able to manipulate the receivers that he has. Just the fact that we are talking about going WR 1st round shows that there is desperation for a spark on offense. If anything I say go TE. 

I guess Drew Brees sucks then too...

  11 hours ago, SCirish843 said:

  12 hours ago, GENE2407 said:

Simple: the first 3 rounds make or break your draft. 95% of your best players are had in those rounds. For some reason, Ozzie is now in love with his multiple 4th and 5th rounders that turn out to be neat kick returners or special teams contributors. 1-3 is now reserved for "safe players" who are academic scholars and go to church 5 times a week.

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.

One thing is pretty clear- since 2012 the Ravens' MO of waiting until the mid and late rounds to draft a RB definitely has not worked out. I don't know what this year's plan is, but I really hope we don't wait until the 3rd or 4th round (or later) to address the position. If that happens AND we don't sign a legit, healthy veteran back before the preseason then we'll have yet another year of watching a one-dimensional offense that finishes in the bottom third of the league. The numbers don't lie- look at how Flacco & the offense do whenever they have a weak backfield.

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.

33 minutes ago, Drinkmore Beer said:

I had no problem with the Stanley pick, because after the Chargers snapped up Bosa, Stanley was the clear choice. Cam Robinson is no Stanley. If memory serves, in recent years most OL and DL from Alabama picked early have been busts.

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.

44 minutes ago, steelcityraven said:

I disagree.... I think we have quality at TE. Watson is proven. Pitta lead all TE's in receptions last year. He should only be better this year. Gilmore has shown that he can be a starting TE in this league and not just a blocking TE.

Then we have guys like Maxx, Boyle and Waller who have potential and in Waller's case has even shown some of that ability.

I think we are deep at TE both with quality and quantity. Heck we have two TEs who have posted 1000 yard seasons in this league. (yes they have had some injuries but so has Gronk, and Julius Thomas and Gates and so on... I wouldn't write them off) there are a lot of teams who just are not close to us in the quality of talent that we have at TE

I would be shocked and disappointed if we went TE- I think OJ Howard is really a top end talent but drafting him would create more dead money that we probably cannot afford to take on at this point.

(unless we are planning to use Watson and maybe even some other TEs as trade bait)????

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. 

49 minutes ago, JD08 said:

Just don't see why they even have us considering a TE, we have so many already....

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.

7 minutes ago, bigcatfrank1 said:

I agree with most of what you said, good comments.
You know my 2 additions , it could be a trade up or trade back kind of year.
Trade up for Fournette- which I know you absolutely do not agree with
Trade down take Robinson- which you seem to leave out of your equations.

who do you think the pick would be with a trade back and how far down do you think Oz would go?

All that said; Davis is my first guess at 16, I would agree most ratings at 15 and above look to be a player that the Ravens would take except the QB's.

I think if next listed order players are Ramczyk, Ross, Humphrey, Bolles, Tim williams, Peppers and Robinson the ones left on the board the Ravens trade down. I'm not sure Foster is in the list.
man anything can happen,

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.

3 minutes ago, frozen joe flacco fan said:

 

Talent issue or not, there's are reasons Joe threw to Dennis a lot in clutch situations. The two most obvious reasons are: 10 He was, next to Steve Smith, Sr. our most reliable "Go To" hands guy AND 2) he got separation by finding a dead spot in the zone coverages we faced a lot. I'd say they are both assets. More importantly, he has another asset that exceeds the other two, which is, he has the heart of a lion. They don't pay him to block or run deep patterns. They pay him to catch passes and he did that better than anyone else n the team. BUT, you got 1 out of 3 right. Speed is not his asset. His size, i.e., height, and his ability to get separation are assets. The very reason Joe had to dump off so many passes to his RBs and his FB was due to the inability of Aiken, Moore, Waller (a converted TE), Perriman and Wallace to get separation. You could count the number of open reads Joe missed during the season on one hand.

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.

19 hours ago, axisofeeble said:

"If"-If- Browns would part with 12 & 64 for Joe Flacco we should pull the trigger. Sign Kapernick and fix offense&defense through 9 draft picks, 6 WR,LB,WR,CB all before 77th pick. Even Cutler could be stop gap for a year or two.

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.

 

Please no OL in round 1. We did that with Michael Oher. How did that work out? Picked Lewis and Wagner in middle rounds. Neither was hyped, but played well. Unless another Ogden is out there, can't see bypassing all the excellent LBs, rushers, and receivers available to get a RT.

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.

They have at least 2 gaping holes on the O line with no quality starting caliber replacements. You have at least 5 adequate to above average receivers/hybrids already on the roster. Wallace, Perriman, Moore, Campanaro, Waller, Woodhead. The immediate need is O line or DB. If they draft another WR thinking this is the answer to their offensive ineptness, I would not expect any improvement in the record this year.

If they do not grab at least 1 RT early, Flacco is going to be on his back or throwing a lot of incompletions to the wasted first round picks (assuming they take a WR) all year again. I am prepared to be underwhelmed by their selection in the first round. Guessing they will do something bizarre like draft a safety or RB, when there is absolutely no need.

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.

11 hours ago, bigcatfrank1 said:

poor decision if they go the way you explain it.

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

3 minutes ago, OLD SCHOOL SMASH BALL said:

Or the ability of the qb to find the open read, and not have tunnel vision on his primary target, or.....to not see the safety to his left overloading the line, enroute to a safety blitz, but having blinders on, and not checking out of the play call, or calling a different protection

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.

43 minutes ago, Somerset Ravens said:

This thread is about advice to the Ravens OC. When you give advice as to what works for the Patriots when our weapons  have different talents does not make sense. Do you expect Dennis Pitta to succeed on the same type of plays that Gronk does? We need to run plays that maximize the talents that our players posess. You seem to be missing my point.

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. 

2 hours ago, Somerset Ravens said:

I was not talking about other teams. How did it work for us last year?

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.

19 minutes ago, Somerset Ravens said:

Run the ball.

On third down do not throw a pass short of a first down.

Run the ball.

Throw deep passes regularly.

Run the ball.

Show imagination on offense

Run the ball.

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.