The Raven

Me too, to be honest. I like what Webb brings to the table. I'd also like to see a secondary with minimal turnover for once.

Ideally you retain 75 percent of your draft class for their rookie deals and retain 33 percent in a second deal. That's my take. And, I'm not sure we're doing either.

I want to agree, but guards, I believe, have typically had smaller salaries when compared to tackles. I could be wrong but generally, tackles get paid more. So, I can see a big pay day for a guard driving tackle salaries up. On the other hand, front offices could be valuing top guards more than top tackles these days. In the age of the JJ Watt and Aaron Donald, lock down guards are probably worth more. You can always scheme help to tackles, but not to guards.

I like the comp pick strategy, but it relies on you to be hitting on 33 percent of your picks -- and here's the kicker -- and retaining them for the duration of their rookie deal. That second part has been our problem I think. I think you have to collect comps when you have so much cap invested in QB and in your red chip players.

If we cut Webb, sure, but otherwise, pass. Would like some youth at safety.

Elam's failure had little to do with the "position change" and everything to do with the fact that he was unable to cover, pursue, and tackle. It doesn't matter where you are in the secondary. If you can't do those three things, you're a liability.

Yupp.

This is a myth.

In 2017, free safety and strong safety are becoming synonymous, especially in the way we play defense. Both safeties have to be able to cover. Gone are the days where you can afford to have a goose at strong safety to allow catches with the consolation prize of a nasty hit. "Enforcers" are liabilities, and arguably, they always were. The fact of the matter, I think, is that the front office fell in love with Elam's college production and not his traits. Quality scouting is based on traits, not stats. Stats can be inflated by a system, by luck, or by playing inferior talent. In hindsight, Elam didn't really demonstrate any traits in college that indicated he'd be a quality cover safety. From what I remember, he was a roamer. Rarely was he a deep guy or in man coverage. He was just kind of a homing missile that followed the ball. Then he took bad angles and had poor tackling form, but boy oh boy he could destroy a guy. I kinda see this approach in other picks. Kamalei Correa fits the bill, as does Terrence Cody. We've made a lot of picks where the player's stats had good results, but I don't know if the scouts took a hard enough look at the actual traits that caused the results. When I look at Correa, I see a guy that benefitted from a confusing defensive scheme and from being too fast for college tackles to handle. I don't see the traits that actually indicate a quality edge player.

Lol yes please

I'd also be okay with it. I like Wagner but he's only worth paying if he you want him to be a RT in a primarily wide zone running game. He's mediocre in all other blocking schemes. His pass protection is solid and could warrant a pay day but his run blocking, taken as a whole, leaves a lot to be desired. And with Williams... In 2017, I don't believe in giving multi-year deals with a salary of more than $5 million to defenders who don't impact the quarterback position.

I'd be willing to take it if we manage to hold on to two of those three. As I've said time and time again in recent months, our inability to lock up rising stars after they finish their rookie contract is one big reason for recent struggles.

Too soon! lol Funny looking back. He was all of those things in college but just lost it in the NFL. Still not sure why

Thanks for the explanation there. I tend to agree with the thought that we're not counting on him to be a starter, but I'm not ruling out a big step forward.

That could suck. If I'm not mistaken, 2018 would be a contract year for him. I'm not sure how fifth year options work, so I could be wrong. If 2018 is the year he starts, and then he blows up, we could lose him as soon as he started contributing. I see Perriman as capable of being the chain mover type as long as he stops dropping easy balls. He has the burst and frame to do so.

If I can hop in on this discussion a little late, I'm expecting fewer 11 sets and more 12 and 21. I also expect more 22, when compared to recent years. The offensive coaching we have here now really likes tight ends and heavy sets. And the tight ends we have are all capable of contributing.

One more thing -- Nick Mangold next to Marshal Yanda would be any OL junkie's dream. The issue is that he is old and offensive lineman can fall of a cliff really quickly in some cases. I'd be for a one year deal but, frankly, our front office has a gross tendency to solve glaring problems with bandaids as opposed to getting a longterm upgrade. I'd like to find a center in the draft. But... I think there's value in bringing Mangold in for a year. Oh, and to hop on the Zuttah/Mangold debate, there is no doubt in my mind that Mangold is a better center, and at the very least, a better fit for our division and for our scheme. PFF is more reliable than some but still isn't perfect.

Yeah it's probably both of these

1. We already knew that he has bad footwork and a lazy throwing motion. Also note the interior pressure. Also also note that our line was a joke in 2015. 2. That book, which I'm not buying, doesn't mention pre-snap reads, as you said. It evaluates interceptable balls, YAC, sacks, etc... but not pre-snap reads, probably because it's not feasible to do so. Pre-snap Reads is the name of the website. Thanks for trying. And as Tank said, I'd love to see a 2014 analysis. Again, I maintain that Joe will do better if we simply get a line and running game that's on par with the teams that made the playoffs. Joe has won a Super Bowl. What has changed since then is the team around him. The receivers and line aren't nearly as good.

1. Who graded that? 2. How did they grade that? 3. Where can I read it? I'm not totally sure how it's feasible to grade pre snap reads, because there are a lot of variables the evaluator wouldn't know, but I'd like to read the report.

I think there's a slight difference. You can be smart but still make risky decisions. That's where I think Joe is. I'd rather have a guy that makes wiser decisions, because one in the hand is worth two in the bush. But, this is who we have. WCO worked for him under Kubiak, not sure why it stopped under Trestman/Marty. I think Kubiak's was a modified WCO with more intermediate and deep routes to open up the defense and attack downfield. Lot of three level routes. Trestman's WCO was all short crap. Marty is just all over the place. With Kubiak, it was clear that routes were tied to the QB's footwork. Generally, everything stems from the QB's footwork. Protection schemes and routes are both tied to the number of steps the QB takes. Off hand, I think the general rule is that a WR's route is three steps for every step a QB takes. And that was evident under Kubiak. Joe would throw the ball almost immediately upon hitting his landmark -- and we found success because of it. I don't want to suggest that Marty and Marc don't tie footwork to the routes, because I'm pretty sure that's just the NFL standard, but for whatever reason, I saw less timing.

See, this is the part where Flacco critics frustrate me. Who are we as message board nerds -- who oftentimes don't watch the All-22 tape -- to question the football intelligence and defense reading of someone who actually made it to the NFL? It's not as if the TV view even shows the defensive coverage. I know he's not even close to the best mind -- that's fair to say -- but what credibility do we have to judge it? Do you watch the All-22 tape? Can you tell me what coverage shell a defense is in on a given play? Because if you're going to definitively say that Flacco can't read a defense, you should be able to tell me what you saw in the defense. Otherwise, where is your credibility? When I have time to watch the All-22, I don't question Joe's ability to read a defense or his intelligence. I question his decision making. A lot of times, he holds the ball, waiting for the big play. Then he forces passes or takes unnecessary risks. He's not a WCO passer. He doesn't throw the ball in rhythm. He doesn't throw the ball on the break like other QBs do. He waits. And that results in a lot of check downs, picks, and incompletions down the field.

Oof. I want to drop him but it still stings.

Yeah. I second this, but I'll put an emphasis on the conservative play calling. Until Trestman and Marty got here, I never saw any offensive coordinator call so many five yard patterns. I'll also say that, when I was watching the playoffs, I saw a lot of receivers getting YAC. And ya know, I didn't realize how wide spread it was. Lots of teams have receivers that get YAC. Makes me wonder why we don't.

Speaking for myself, a lot of my unyielding Flacco homerism came not from his current play, but from where I thought he was heading. I think that explains my current frustration with Joe. When I saw his progression from 2010-2012, and then he had that playoff run, I thought he was truly going to be a top five guy. But it looks plainly like he's regressed since 2014. I do think that is due in large part to his crap supporting cast, but Flacco's crappy footwork and lazy throwing motion aren't the fault of anyone but himself.