RavensBaltimore

Marlon is going to have to significantly improve to have a big year this year. SSS and injuries were not the only reason he had such little production last year. He still got far more offensive snaps than Aiken, yet Aiken had more catches, more TDs, and more yds than Marlon, and in the playoffs, Aiken had surpassed him as the #3 receiver, in regards to snap count. Torrey is gone this year, but we have a lot of talented rookies, a better ability to run 2 TE sets, and Camp, who showed the ability to get separation and make big catches before his injury last year, is healthy. There should be some great competitions at WR.

I hope the fact that Walker has been having trouble staying with Perriman says a lot more about Perriman than it does about Walker.

Yes, it seems like it may come down to Carter vs Camp. With the secondary woes of last year, I don't see the Ravens keeping 7 WRs. The 6 to me are - SSS, Perriman, Marlon, Aiken, Waller and then a choice between Camp/Carter with Butler on the outside looking in. Love Camp's heart and toughness but hard to choose that over Carter's speed and quickness.

 

Also, there's always the pre-season "injury" that puts a guy on IR

I think Camp was too good in the slot last year when he was actually on the field to cut. He didn't have many catches, but he showed the quickness to get separation, great hands, and a knack for moving the chains, as he caught a couple 3rd and long conversions in the game where he got injured. A guy who can get open in the middle of the field and move the chains could be a huge complement to the potential playmaking ability of Perriman on the outside. We may not want to keep 2 slot receivers though, but Carter will probably be mostly a punt returner this year. I think the most likely scenario is either Carter getting cut or someone getting stashed on IR.

If Carter gets a roster spot, the team is going to have to either keep 7 WRs or cut someone between Marlon, Kamar, Camp, and Waller. That's going to be a tough decision.

It doesn't matter if its Flacco specifically. I said on a weekly basis, and likely from this very organization, you will find players and/or coaches that get as "in their face" as Brady has gotten with refs, and to my recollection, zero of them have been thrown out of a game. Many have been fined/penalized, but then again, so has Brady.

 

That's the point. If this idea is to establish that Brady gets "preferential treatment" based on the idea that he and only he can get in a refs face and scream at them, then its simply false, because many players have done the same thing and faced the same fate Brady did.

 

This notion that Brady gets preferential treatment is largely unfounded. The only real argument is based on the rules established to prevent players from diving at a QBs lower body, which I agree Brady was a catalyst for, although I also don't blame the league, since its incredibly bad for business to have your star QBs out for the season with leg injuries caused by reckless players who aren't nearly as relevant. Its unavoidable in the sport naturally, but it can be deterred, which ironically is what we are talking about now.

 

There's people that literally think that Brady got preferential treatment from the "tuck rule", yet it had literally nothing to do with him, the rule was established long before that play made it famous, and Brady was arguably the biggest catalyst that caused the rule to be removed.

 

He whines on the field, he complains on the field, he begs for calls. I get it, and I don't like it either. But this idea he gets every call he wants all the time is laughable and baseless.

You did mention Flacco specifically in your original post that I responded to, and I doubt you can find something like that happening on a weekly basis. I see players yelling at refs all the time, but I can't remember any other time in the NFL where a player got in a ref's face like a baseball manager that turns his hat around backwards so he can get that much closer. He doesn't necessarily have to be ejected, but if most players did that, it would probably be a flag, and if a player makes contact with an official, which he may have, it's either an automatic flag or ejection. I'm not sure which one. I remember Suggs getting flagged for coming towards a ref with "malice in his heart" even though he never even came close to touching him. I've seen Harbaugh get multiple flags for much less, and I see it all around the league.

You can't technically prove whether or not Brady gets preferential treatment, but I've never seen anyone else ask for a flag, well after a play had ended, and get one, despite the fact that there was no apparent violation. I also see him getting away with blatant intentional grounding far more often than anyone else, and the defensive players seem to think he gets special treatment. Even Rodney Harrison, Brady's ex teammate, has mentioned Brady getting ridiculous, favorable calls. Even though it can't be proven, and it may be exaggerated, I wouldn't call it "baseless". People are just trusting their eyes.

1. The recipient of the text messages from the GM was, in fact, a coach. Therefore, by definition, he was involved in cheating.

 

2. Actually, it makes no difference at all, and you already knew that. You know this, because on a weekly basis, you see players other than Tom Brady screaming at refs from an extremely close distance. And yet, you'd likely have to do quite a bit of searching to provide even ONE name of a player who's been tossed from a game for screaming at refs, unless they made contact with them.

 

The next time the Ravens play a game (probably even a preseason game), I'll be more than happy to point out multiple times where a player on the field is screaming at a referee from a very close distance, and 0 of them will be ejected from the game. Same thing applies to coaches.

 

But again, you already knew this.

Anyone using common sense knows that yelling at someone, while at least giving them some space to move, is not the same thing as getting right up in someone's face, and either touching them or getting literally within an inch. Flacco never did the latter. If you think it's the same thing, next time you're having an argument with someone who's right in front of or next to you, try standing directly in front of them and put your face within an inch of theirs. See if it doesn't escalate the situation and make them extremely uncomfortable. Try it with a cop, a customer service agent, anyone. Let me know how it goes. And I guarantee you can't find any videos of Flacco doing that.

In the Browns situation, the GM was the catalyst, and it didn't have anything to do with the field of play, which was why their GM was suspended and not the coach. The Falcons had no players or coaches involved. With the Patriots, it was their qb who was directly responsible for the cheating, so it's different from the other 2 situations you cited.

Obviously, nobody knows if Pitta can hold up through an entire season, but if he decides he wants to try, I think there's a reasonable chance that he's our starting TE in Denver.

Like who?

 

Cleveland Browns cheated last season... how many of their players/coaches were suspended.

Atlanta Falcons cheated last season (and multiple seasons before that)... how many of their players/coaches were suspended.

 

Pretty important detail you're leaving out....... None of the players/coaches cheated on those teams.

There is a video that can be found easily on the internet that shows a QB who wears the #5 jersey for the Ravens yelling and screaming at referees during a professional football game.

 

He was NOT ejected from the game.

Seriously? Players scream at officials from a distance, as Flacco did, all the time, but Brady was right up in his face, violently screaming at him, and was so close you couldn't even tell if he made contact or not. That makes a huge difference, and I'm pretty sure you already knew that.

1. The "punishment should outweigh the crime" theory is just that... a theory. I'd argue that in society in general, especially in the legal system, standard protocol in moderns society is "the crime outweighs the punishment". In this specific case, you could make the case that the "reward" for Tom Brady and the Patriots is a SB ring. So... how exactly do you concoct a punishment that exceeds the reward of winning the SB? Particularly for a 35+ year old QB who's already won many of them? The opening volley, in that instance, would be a lifetime ban from football, banishment from the HOF, and basically a total stripping of the title from the player and from the team. I think we can both agree that punishment seems incredibly ridiculous and so outside the realm of possibliities that its not even worth discussing. But that would be the type of punishment that would essentially be the minimum punishment for exceeding the reward of winning the SB.

 

2. The point of me saying that harsh punishments rarely act as a deterrent was mostly intended to focus around levying harsh punishments for infractions that shouldn't warrant such a punishment, mostly because the infractions are minor. Me personally, I'd have a bigger problem with a player intentionally diving at a players knee than I would them deflating some footballs for their own benefit, yet ironically, the former is a standard 15 yard penalty and a fine, while the latter is being discussed in the realm of multi-game suspensions.

 

3. Imposing fair and strict punishments is important. My issue is... its not the publics job to determine what is fair and strict. If the public doesn't like the punishment, then they have two options... 1. do something about it (aka stop watching games) or 2. suck it up and move on with their lives. The public has no power to levy punishments in this case, nor do they probably have sufficient knowledge and insight to do so.

 

4. I said players should be allowed to use HGH because I literally think they should be allowed to use it. It shouldn't be illegal or banned by sports in general, which therefore would make it not cheating. It would as standard in sports as players using creatine or any of the other hundreds of legal over the counter, performance enhancing substances that players are already allowed to take in most sports.

1. The reward for deflating footballs was not winning the super bowl. It was a better chance at winning the super bowl, which is totally different. There are reasonable penalties that would outweigh that. MLB has significantly cleaned up its PED problem by imposing stricter testing and penalties, handing out season long suspensions for repeat offenders, proving that it works.  There will always be a few cheaters trying to get away with it, but they can make those players the exception rather than the rule by making the penalties significant.

2. All of that is completely subjective and your opinion, which is what you've been criticizing everyone else for. "shouldn't warrant such a punishment", "infractions that are minor", etc. Many people feel otherwise, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise.

3. This paragraph couldn't be more wrong. If the public had no power, do you really think do you think Goodell would have suddenly made Ray Rice's 2 game suspension indefinite the day the public saw the video? There were always NFL players committing domestic violence, but the NFL suddenly became much stricter on it and suddenly cared a lot more when a video went public. The fans on here aren't really claiming to have any power on the subject, anyway. They're just voicing their opinion, which is what I thought these boards are for.

4. I don't think the pure, injectable form of HGH is legal for anyone to obtain or take without a doctor's prescription, so I don't see how they could allow athletes to use it. It's a synthetic hormone that needs to be injected and causes drastic, unnatural changes, which is totally different than creatine or anything you get over the counter.

He obviously knew the rule after the accusation broke out.  There is no evidence that he knew about it beforehand.  The general bias is definitely a factor in this case.  The NFL's #1 priority is pleasing the people. The majority of the NFL fans hate Tom Brady and the Patriots and want to see them burn.  With the Ngata case, plenty of people have been busted for adderall before him, and it was WELL known that it was against the rules.  Who has gotten in trouble for slightly deflating their footballs in the past? Exactly.  It was hard to defend Ngata since that was CLEARLY an occurring problem in the NFL.  Those facts about fumbles are unarguably appealing, but I still don't 100% buy it.  Belichick's pet peeve is fumbling.  I have watched a lot of Patriots games, and when I see one of their RB's fumble I don't see that RB for the rest of the game, or at least a quarter.  if they are out of the top 5 in fumble percentage after this upcoming season, then please pull up the stats and prove me wrong, and I will gladly apologize. However, I do think they will be in the top 5, and even if they have been deflating footballs for years, how come it is just now being noticed? And the Patriots are one of the most well-prepared teams in the league, and that is what makes them as good as they are.  If those statistics are true, and the Patriots might have cut down 1 or 2 fumbles per season, then I think the draft picks taken from them might be higher.  Regardless, I said they are indeed cheating by doing this, and your argument just indicates that the cheating had slightly more affect than it appears.  Still, I would put this case on the same scale as the Falcons amplifying their home crowd noise.  I still think it is a minor cheat, and it shouldn't even be put in the same sentence as SpyGate. Listening in on the opponents plays is a major cheat. Football pressure and crowd noise are all secondary factors in the game of football.  How the players play, and the plays that are called are the primary factors.

If the Patriots gradually started fumbling less when Belichik became coach, you might have a point, but he was the coach for 7 years before the drastic and sudden change happened. Did it take him 7 years to realize that fumbles were bad?

The point about Ngata was that our fans can accept when a player has done something wrong, and saying "Brady didn't know any better", does not justify it in any way. There are comments and texts that strongly suggest he knew the rule, and even if he didn't, it's on him.

They should look at this "deflate gate" as how much did Tom Brady even know that this was so frowned upon in the league.

No they shouldn't, because that's completely irrelevant. Besides the fact that there is plenty of evidence Brady knew the rule and tried to cover it up, you can't allow people to come up with their own interpretations of how important the rules are. It's also impossible to enforce a rule based on how much the violator knew it was frowned upon.

Again, if this were the Ravens you would 100% agree.

Even if that's true, it would only be because of bias, which wouldn't make it right. You can't really look at the facts objectively and make a strong case in defense of Brady. And I'm not so sure your statement is true in the first place. When Ngata got suspended 4 games last year, the majority of our fans were not saying, "it didn't impact the game that much. It was only adderall." Some may have been saying that, but the vast majority of our fans were upset at Ngata and felt he should be accountable instead of pointing fingers.

When the the pressure of football ever been an issue in the NFL? I think it didn't have nearly as much affect on the game as most people think.

It was obviously an issue for Brady, and he has said so himself. Someone posted a link to the study I was referring to earlier. It says from 200-2006, the Patriots averaged 1 fumble every 42 touches, and the league leader was at 1 fumble every 56 touches. Since 2007, the Patriots have averaged 1 fumble every 74 touches, and the next team was still at 1/56. The statistical chances of that happening at any given time are "0.0001711874", or 1 in 5,842. But it didn't just happen at any given time. That huge statistical anomaly happened immediately after Brady proposed that every team be able to bring their own balls, and that wish was granted. That's not a cherry picked stat. It's a 15 year sample size, and they have had the same coach the whole time. Then, they get caught deflating the footballs. If you're objective, which you claim to be, how can you possibly look at those facts and say it didn't have a significant impact on the game? Are you clinging to the 0.00017 chance that it's a coincidence?

http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2015/the-new-england-patriots-mysteriously-became-fumble-proof-in-2007

But its never been about "allowing it". Nobody is suggesting that it should be tolerated and allowed. Everybody here expects punishment, and they're incredibly likely to get it.

 

What I'm saying is that there is a large group of posters on this blogs and others that will say that if the punishment isn't sufficient to THEIR LIKING (which is inherently subjective and thus irrelevant anyway), its the same as the NFL "allowing it", which is completely illogical.

 

If the NFL decided to fine Brady $1M for this, that's punishment. Just because thus punishment doesn't fit somebodies arbitrary (and generally baseless) opinion of what punishment should be doesn't mean that the fine isn't punishment. If the basis of the "their integrity is in question" theory is simply that the NFL didn't issue a punishment to the level that YOU would like, then that is 100% a YOU problem and has nothing to do with integrity whatsoever.

 

What people also shouldn't buy is this notion that dropping the hammer on somebody as punishment will automatically mean that nobody will ever do it again. We can stay right inside the sports industry, particularly at the college level, and see how overly harsh punishments can oftentimes backfire, and in the grand scheme of things, they rarely deter anybody from doing anything.

When I used the term "allow", I was talking about cheating in general, after you suggested players should also be allowed to use HGH. I never said anything about the type of punishment Brady should get, but I do believe that slapping a multi-millionaire on the wrist is basically the same thing as allowing it. I understand that what type of punishment is deserved is subjective, but as a rule of thumb, in all situations, not just this one, the punishment has to outweigh the reward, otherwise, there is no deterrent. 

Saying that harsh punishments rarely deter anybody from doing anything is just flat out wrong. You don't see nearly as many shots to a qb's knee's, horsecollar tackles, or defenders launching themselves into the head area of defenseless receivers because they are now 15 yd penalties. MLB has significantly cut down on steroid use because of the harsher penalties. You're never going to be able to stop everyone from cheating, but imposing fair, strict punishments does make a big difference.

And that would be true... if ticket sales and merchandise sales weren't increasing as well. Those two things have nothing to do with TV ratings.

 

The real interest in integrity, outside of people selectively choosing to play that card, is when it PERSONALLY affects you. When the integrity of the league has direct impact on you, that's when the outrage is actually warranted. When fans realize that the entire concept of watching the NFL is based on you obtaining entertainment from it, it makes it that much easier to add perspective to the fact that a person may choose to deflate some footballs to provide you with better entertainment.

 

Much in the same way that I'm in the minority (although I think deep down people don't actually care about this either) in that I don't care whether professional athletes use PEDs. I still to this day can't even fathom why HGH isn't legal and actually encouraged in all sports, especially when you consider all of the many health benefits that occur from using it (something the public chooses not to understand). In particular, certain aspects of it that boost injury recovery, which therefore means I get to boost my entertainment sooner, since injured players may be back on the field quicker.

 

The only truly valid argument (and I don't even buy that its valid) ever conceived for why HGH use is banned in professional sports is this laughable notion of protecting past records. Because their fathers and grandfathers couldn't use it, apparently its not fair that they can. Logically, that's completely ridiculous for dozens of reasons, but mostly, because society simply evolves.

The higher the tv ratings, the more famous and recognizable the players are, which means more people will want to see them in person and wear their jerseys, so it is all related.

Of course people are more interested in integrity when it affects them personally, but people are more interested in everything when it affects them personally. That concept is not exclusive to integrity.

If players could cheat at will and get away with it, then all sports leagues would turn into the WWE. People do watch for entertainment value, but a big part of the main attraction of the entertainment is the highest level of competition. When you constantly allow cheating, the competition becomes fake and gimmicky, and it ruins the whole thing. A scandal here and there will draw more revenue, but that doesn't mean that people actually want it. Murder cases draw higher news ratings, but that doesn't mean people want more homicides. Plus, the whole reason a high profile player getting caught cheating is such a big deal is that it's supposed to be a professional league with competitive integrity. If you allow it, everyone will do it, it won't get anyone's attention anymore, and it will become "sports entertainment", not an actual sport, and I think that's when ratings and revenue will start to drop.

The facts are is that there is no proof to back up your statement other than one statistic. The Patriots are a well coached team, and have always been good at being clean with the ball.  To say that the improvement of fumble percentage is due to deflated footballs is invalid.  An argument can easily be made that fumbling was obviously an issue for them at that time, and the Pats cracked down on that at practice.  You are jumping to conclusions.  To say they cut down such a problem just because their footballs were SLIGHTLY deflated, then you are obviously overestimating the effect of a football being slightly deflated.  The Pats actually did WORSE with the deflated footballs against the Colts.  It was until they used regulation balls that they started dominating in the second half.  So from common sense, and that fact, slightly deflated footballs are very minor in the grand scheme of things.

The Patriots have not always been clean with the ball in terms of fumbles. Like I said, they were average until after 2006, which was when Brady lobbied to be able to deflate the balls legally. It wasn't until then that the Patriots started leading the league by far in fewest fumbles, with no transition period. I never said there was "proof", but since the chances of that happening by chance are literally almost 0, I'm not jumping to conclusions at all. There may not be a 100% chance, but there is better than a 99% chance that something out of the ordinary caused that sudden change. Since it was directly after Brady tried to get deflating the ball to be legal, and he has now been caught deflating the ball, put 2 and 2 together. There is even a 1 in a billion chance that DNA matches are inaccurate, but no one questions that evidence because there is no absolute "proof".  The reference you gave with the Colts game means nothing, because one half of a game is way too small a sample size to say they did better without the ball being deflated.

Frankly, I don't even buy that the "integrity of the league" is really in question. Just because somebody says that the integrity is in question on a fanboard or in a media article doesn't actually mean its true. If the integrity of the league where actually as low as some people seem to think it is... then why is viewership and revenues increasing? What does it say about the consumer that they are willing to continue to use the product/service, despite having questions about the integrity of the company? I don't know about most of you, but if there's a company that I buy goods/services from and I question the integrity of their business, I cease doing business with them. As consumers, we have that choice, and we have the exact same choice in regards to the NFL. That's why makes me chuckle about all of this fake "outrage" that fans seem to have, going all the way back to the Rice/Peterson incidents and even further back than that. If people are really as outraged as they say, and they really view the league's integrity in such a low fashion, how can you then tune your TV to ANY NFL game on Sunday's? How can you buy and wear that jersey? How can you attend games? It makes no sense... except it does. The sense it makes is... YOU'RE NOT REALLY OUTRAGED. You don't really think the leagues integrity is that big of an issue, because if you did, you'd do something about it. For me, it all comes down to the simple fact that people like to use the media and the internet to express selective morality, which is convenient only when it benefits you do be moral.

There's a very basic concept that you seem to be missing. A lack of integrity actually helps increase ratings. Controversy causes drama, and drama attracts attention and gets people's interest. The more "outraged" people are, the more likely they are to pay attention to what's going on and follow the story. I can give you all kinds of example of times where business and media has used a lack of integrity to exploit emotions and generate more revenue. I'm not saying that the league is intentionally doing that, I'm just saying that your claim that people would stop watching if the integrity of the game was in question is very naive. If you don't think cheating affects integrity, then I'm not sure you understand the definition of the word.

Comparing PED's with deflated footballs is ridiculous. PED's literally help a player make their body inhuman. A deflated football hardly changes anything. Yeah Brady likes them slightly deflated, it is still the same weight, and it is still a football. I don't think Brady thought that it was a big deal at the time when he originally asked for his balls to be SLIGHTLY deflated. I know this will get neg voted since people on here HATE the Patriots, and their argument is it is "cheating." Yes, it is cheating, but it is not that big of a deal. It is a minor cheat. They should get punished, but being suspending is literally so stupid. The Patriots will get fined, and all of the media and exposure of this is punishment enough. Saying the argument that "If you don't suspend Brady then other teams will do it." No. This kind of media exposure and reputation tainting is a worse punishment than a fine, and teams HATE it. We should know, because we went through the same thing with Ray Rice. Did we get annoyed by it? Did we hate all of it? Yes. Why? Because IT IS A PUNISHMENT ON ITS OWN.

The facts suggest it's a bigger deal than you think. Before 2006, when Brady and Manning lobbied to be able to deflate the balls to whatever PSI they wanted, the Patriots were in the middle of the pack in terms of fumbles. Then, with no transition period, they suddenly led the league by a landslide in fewest fumbles. The chances of that happening, at that specific time, just by chance, are astronomically small. Are you telling me that significantly cutting down on fumbles because of an unfair advantage doesn't impact the game that much?

I guess we will finally put to rest the questions regarding if Flacco had round 1, A grade WR talent would he and the Ravens be able to develop it. I think that Ozzie has put the talent there one year before Flacco's contract will be reworked to see if he can take that talent and do something with it. We know the Ravens don't let dust settle on players too long and it's not outrageous to think the Ravens might look to make a change if Joe doesn't end up producing with this much talent around him and this good of a front line. I am not advocating they do it I am speculating that with the organizations history would the FO consider it.

Yeah, Ozzie decided to draft 2 pass catchers early to find out if he wants to keep his SB MVP winning qb that has won more total games and more playoff games than anyone since being in the league while piling up some all-time postseason records for both wins and stats, can run many different types of offenses, leads his team under pressure, and can make every throw with ease. If he doesn't instantly put up better regular season stats with 2 rookies, Ozzie will get tired of going deep into the playoffs and go look for a qb that better suits his fantasy team. That's not outrageous at all.

Do me a favor and tell me the last time we made it through a season with our starting secondary basically injury free...  I have faith it happens for some reason, but think about that.

I don't remember having significant injury problems to our secondary in 2013. Anyway, we don't need to stay injury free to avoid last year's situation. We can withstand 1 or 2 injuries, but last year we had 6 DBs on IR, plus Webb's injury, which was a fluke and too much to overcome. When was the last time we had 6 players on IR in one position group? The only way to combat that is to have 10 starting caliber DBs on the roster, which is obviously unrealistic.

Talking about concerns has a pretty deserving place in fan forums. We have a serious quality depth issue at an extremely important position that was the sole reason for the loss in Foxborough. Yes, it's something negative. It's also true. 

We didn't have a quality depth issue at CB last year. We actually had good starters and decent depth, but the starters got hurt,  the backups got hurt, and the backups to the backups got hurt. I don't care how much depth you have in August, nobody can withstand all that and still put a quality secondary out there. Like I mentioned above, the chances of all that happening again are extremely small, and the only way we could be prepared for that situation is if we had 8 or 9 quality CBs, which is not going to happen. If we have 5 CBs and a S on IR again, our secondary will not be good next year, but neither will anyone else's under those circumstances.

The "fired up" comment was just a PC media answer that Harbaugh gave when asked about Joe's response to the first 2 picks. When asked the question, Harbaugh started laughing, then asked Ozzie, "should I tell them what he said?" They apparently didn't think it was a good idea, so Harbaugh simply said, "he was fired up." I wonder what Flacco really said that had Harbaugh laughing and had Ozzie thinking it wasn't appropriate for us to hear.

Me too (but not about Mosley) . I freaked out, I focused the drops. There is just something unsettling about the Ravens taking offense in the first.  Read that scouting report on Andre Johnson that BmoreB posted, eerie how similar they are,that changed my whole perspective. 

It should make you feel even better that "concentration drops" and lack of polish on routes were on Odell Beckham Jr.'s scouting report as well, and he may have the best hands in the league. Also, most of Perriman's drops were early on. He didn't have any drops in his last 4 games or at pro day. Concentration drops are not the same thing as having bad hands. His scouting report also says he has a great catch radius and makes difficult catches look easy. Michael Irvin said nobody made more plays on 3rd and 4th down, so he seems to have great hands in big moments when it matters most.

Here's OBJ's scouting report:

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2014/profiles/odell-beckham?id=2543496

"JamesA119 Graham is not worth the contract he is getting anyway. he was a 3rd corner, not irreplaceable. You can't pay everybody. We also have a GM named Newsome. Hes got this." {{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}} Well that's the problem. I like Ozzie, but there appears to be this blind faith in his decisions. What happened with Spears, and Huff in free agency last year? Cody, Kindle, Dickson etc., in the draft? How about always losing players in their prime? - Ellerbe, Redding, Jarret Johnson etc., I think all these years we got away with it because we had the "equalizer" Ray Lewis. The Ravens are not alone in this regard. The Patriots seem to get away with it too because of their equalizer - Tom Brady.

You could cherry pick moves that didn't work out with every franchise.  Ozzie has one of the best track records at making the right decisions more often than not, which is why he is one of the best GMs in the league.  It's a good sign that the Ravens have lost a bunch of good players to free agency.  It shows that they are good at drafting and developing players, and because of the cap, they have more talent than they can afford.  Bad teams, like the Browns and Raiders, usually don't have that problem.

It really undermines the rest of the team to say that they got away with bad moves just because of Ray Lewis.  There were plenty of bad seasons with Ray, which proves that he alone was not the reason that the Ravens "got away with it."  It's also inaccurate to say the Patriots get away with bad moves because of Tom Brady.  The Patriots continued to win when Brady himself missed the whole season.  Franchises that win consistently do it because of consistent good decision making, not because of one player.