budman

Campanero at a Kid's Day Party??? Hope he doesn't hurt himself.

Am I the only one who can't get the Steve Smith video play? Tried in Chrome, Firefox and IE (no ad-blocker or flash-blocker in the last two)- it won't play for me :(

I cant either

I didn't know that Teddy Bruschi was Flacco's Dad!!! Lol

19 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

I won't knock the guy for advocating for legitimate marijuana usage. In fact, I'd support it, because when you really look at the actual facts, its silly why its still treated the way that it is.

That being said... not really a great look for a player who is consistently injured and has had his work ethic in his profession questioned. Not a great look for a guy who is facing legitimate and tough competition for his job.

I understand he's still in the medical protocol due to his injuries, so I'm not going to bash him for doing this instead of showing up to OTAs. I'm just saying that from a public relations standpoint, this isn't a guy people want to be hearing this from.

Its a great cause to advocate for, and I support that, but at the end of the day, if he doesn't start focusing more on his actual career (professional football player), he won't have it any longer. And when that happens, literally nobody is going to listen to him advocate for NFL policy changes if he isn't in the league anymore.

Agree 100%

I think the Ravens have it right. The list should be a short list of what is not reviewable instead of what is. It will eventually be changed. There is just something about not getting a call right when the capability to do so is there that irks people.

2 hours ago, fusuymada said:

I think that history will show Monroe will be viewed as a man with a lot of courage and determination. The problem with marijuana is that it has become so stigmatized that the appropriate research has never been done. With the appropriate research the chemicals that assist with pain management can be isolated from those that may cause other issues that people have concern with. I like many, do not believe this is negative publicity. When you show up on twitter with a gas mask on your face smoking dope, then your an idiot. When you donate close to $100,000 to fund research that helps people avoid opiates and the myriad of issues that come with them from addiction to organ damage to constipation, and create a website to help debunk and promote the cause then you are a person of conviction with great intent. And this isn't just about football players. It is about my family members addicted to prescription pain meds because doctors are casually prescribing them to treat hangnails, stubbed toes and bruised knees. I applaud Monroe and think the Ravens should kick in and support him instead of trying to drag him down over it. Monroe has never failed a single drug test in his entire career and has never been associated with or has been a promoter of smoking dope for recreational purposes though many indicate that his actions are just a cover to allow players to smoke pot. Far from the truth. He could do that for far less than $100,000, having a website in his name promoting it, and being as outspoken as he is. Kudos to Monroe and people should embrace him and his cause instead of having on your 1950's "Reefer Madness" blinders and sticking your head in the sand and hoping that opiates and marijuana will all just go away. Isn't going to happen so lets get it researched, figured out and lets deal with facts not just propaganda put out by industries who have something to fear with medicinal marijuana (pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, alcohol companies, etc....)

I don't recall hearing anything or even reading anything about the Ravens "dragging him down" over it.

There is just no way the NFL lets medical pot be used. No way for a long time.

Just now, WNC-Raven said:

Thank god. I feel like we have been in the position to make positive changes to our roster but have been overly restrained by the darn cap ever since we won the SB in 2012. Ironic thing is they let a lot of good players walk so that wouldn't happen and it did anyway.

The only 2 that I see that we should of kept (imo) is Osemelee and McPhee. The rest just didn't warrant the money they were asking.

Just now, bioLarzen said:

Sometimes FO's do it on purpose, to stash free cap space for a future period. The Raiders seem to have done just this, the Panthers, the Jags... So, it's not always a bad strategy... although not an automatic winner, either

Right. It's not always bad. The Raiders and Jags look like they could contend this year after the last (a lot) of years.

Just now, rmcjacket23 said:

Well, with guys like Pitta and Monroe... we already know the answer. They'll likely be gone soon and the cap problems will go away. Joe's cap situations isn't going to dramatically increase any longer... it will go up, but the cap will rise annually by significantly more than Joe's deal will increase.

The cap problems were bigger issues in the last 2-3 years than they will be going forward. We only gave out one significant long term extension between the 2011 and 2012 draft classes.

Agree. I guess to have 20,30million or more in Cap space like some teams came in with this year, means that your team must stink for a few years and do nothing major about it.

4 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

And thats fine, but the problem people have with the article is his "what went wrong" section just factually isn't accurate.

His implication that our cap situation is a mess is a complete joke and isn't supported by any factual information whatsoever. For starters, he claims we only have like $1.6M in cap space, which I literally have no idea where he got that number from. Even after signing all of our draft picks (we've signed most, except for the costliest one in Stanley), we will have probably 6 times that amount to spend. We've been north of $5-6M I believe ever since Joe's extension, so its not like this is some sort of new revelation.

People would take his article more seriously if he actually pointed out some of the more "questionable" areas on this team, such as the fact that it doesn't appear we upgraded our Cornerback position much outside of adding a 4th round rookie, and that, while we did add Weddle who's a proven player, we are also shifting Webb to safety full time and there are obvious concerns there.

Or point out that we haven't replaced Daryl Smith and have question marks at linebacker, and that our receiving core is largely depending on an aging veteran and a rookie recovering from significant injuries.

There's plenty of "questions" this team still has. Just seems to me that making up salary cap problems that don't really exist isn't the best way to go there.

I get ya. The only parts that rang true were the situations we were in when we extended Flacco , Yanda, Pitta and even Monroe. Our cap is o.k now but what happens later? Didn't Pittsburgh have that problem too?

Just now, rmcjacket23 said:

Did he? Pretty sure that was the biggest knock on his article... completely misunderstanding of our cap situation.

The why we did's and what we had to do's seemed about right.

25 minutes ago, 757RavensFan said:

After reading Barnwell's AFC North off-season report card, I would never take ANYTHING he says serious.

He did get our cap situation right. So there's that.

8 minutes ago, 757RavensFan said:

Yeah but I wouldn't add a player for depth purposes with a 1st round pick.  Especially a RB.

But we're talking about McShay and his 2017 draft predictions.  We're wasting key strokes at this point. LOL

 

Agree. Besides, we will be picking last next year. lol

If Dixon has half the season a lot of analysts are expecting him to have, there's no way we pick a RB in the 1st round next year.  SMH!

Good point, but it seems we like multiple players at all positions. We are carrying how many now? 6or 7?

12 minutes ago, gametyme said:

IMHO I def take the risk on Jack at 36, no question in my mind. Be no different than Authur Brown if it don't work out but if it does work out Jack will be off the charts good.

Not to mention that we would only be paying him 2nd rd money also.

Just now, rmcjacket23 said:

It feels almost inevitable that Ozzie will take one of the many Alabama defensive players left in the 2nd round, and frankly, none of them are that impressive to me.

Ragland fills a "need" at ILB, but every analyst I've seen has said he's not great in pass coverage, so I'm not sure if that kind of player is really helpful to us or not.

I agree with you, it just seems like it could go that way. Also I keep wondering if Myles Jack is there @36 do we take a chance? Maybe he last for the rookie contract?

Look for Ozzie to land Ragland or Cyrus Jones. Both available, both 'Bama boys.

11 hours ago, MdPride1 said:

Man I'm sorry but Ozzie needs to be fired. Only drafted 1 pro bowler since 2009, which is CJ Mosley. I don't care what you guys say, a rookie LT is not going to be an upgrade. Even if we put Stanley at Guard, we drafted a damn Guard with the sixth pick. You could've found a free agent olineman. We don't pick in the top 10 every year so draft a difference maker. Should've gave up whatever Dallas asked for to go grab Ramsey. I guess we will be picking in the top 10 again next year..

Too bad you have No idea what you are talking about.

13 minutes ago, The Mom Gene said:

I still don't believe we move back.  How often do we get this chance?

Exactly

Just now, rmcjacket23 said:

All relative to how great the deal is. If we are in love with Tunsil, and Tennessee wants him, maybe we ask for more than just a 2nd rounder. What if its the first rounder they acquired next year? Do that deal then?

Maybe its both 2nd rounders this year? Maybe its a 2nd this year and a 2nd next year?

We can be as greedy as we want in that spot, but there's a lot of combination of deals that long term would likely yield us a great quantity of better players.

I get it. I would just hate to trade out and miss out on maybe the next Ogden or Watt or Woodson. It's all a risk though, I get it.

Just now, rmcjacket23 said:

In my opinion, if Ramsey or Tunsil is there, they aren't moving back no matter what. I'd be borderline tempted to add Bosa to that list as well.

Only if those 2 or 3 guys are gone to I think they look to move back.

I would agree with that 100%. Just hope that if they are there, we are not tempted by a "great" deal and trade out. 2 of those 3 will probably be there. imo

2 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

All depends.

If we did that deal with the Titans and moved back to 15, you're pretty much guaranteed to get a high 2nd round pick and maybe another late rounder. So that would put you with 3 top 36 picks.

Lets play it out:

A: Trade back from 6 to 10 with the Giants. Realistic ask would be a 3rd rounder (#71 overall) and a 4th rounder (#109 overall).

B: Trade back from 6 to 15 with the Titans. Realistic ask would be their top 2nd rounder (#33 overall), with us throwing in maybe a very late round pick.

So you move back 5 spots later in scenario B, but you get a pick that's almost 40 spots better, and you'd again now have three top 36 picks in a draft that many analysts suggest is high in depth, particularly at certain positions we are looking to address.

To me, it would all depend on who is left on the board when we pick.

I get it and agree. However in the back of my mind I keep thinking that if we move back too far, more picks might not yield a player that is as good as the one we passed on. Just don't feel good about it (not that that means a thing). I guess imo we should just stick at #6 and see.

Just don't like Mayock's trade scenario. 15 is going too far back. 8-10 maybe, but I would lie it if we stay put at #6.

12 minutes ago, 757RavensFan said:

Why the assumption that he'll be here for a long time?  With the high demand for an elite LT (if he turns out to be one), a team with

a ton of cap space can get him after his rookie deal.  It's not like it hasn't happened to us before.

Long as at least 1 or 2 seasons without missing games which is our problem now. Not years they get too expensive. It was supposed to be a derogatory remark on our current state at LT