The Raven

3 minutes ago, Ravensfan23 said:

I'd rather stick with Webb for another year, add young guy like Jordan Poyer who could be the 3rd safety and compete to push Webb and also draft a guy like Lorenzo Jerome on day 3. 

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.

4 minutes ago, Willbacker said:

All just opinions here but to me a high football IQ plus great communication skills are what is needed to be a successful scout for ex a 50 yr old scout has to be able to fluctuate between talking to parents,coaches and the athletes with varying age differentials and different backgrounds. Also willing to travel and be gone from home for long stretches at a time which is a mindset of it's own

Also the scouting is definitely split into regional coverage with a chain where it works up to national scout and then on to Oz and Eric themselves and again back to opinion Oz probally does a lot of film watching,talking on the phone to scouts and coaches alike but probally doesn't do a lot of footwork but depends on his scouts (who he hires). Also there's private firms that can be hired to supply data that is also acquired which I believe the Ravens use.

Hopefully you find a good article cuz I'm curious myself.

I'm not sure if its the rookie deal part of it but to me its not getting that 2nd deal done. We need at least 2 out of 3 from Wagner,Williams or Juice to make the 2013 draft any sort of success. This has been my big gripe. Us not keeping our own that are going into their prime and redeveloping our identity with homegrown talent. Right now I'm thinking those 3 plus Aiken are our chances for comp picks and I'm hoping we can keep it to 2 and see what happens from there.

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.

15 hours ago, Ravensfan23 said:

I don't really think it will. Although it's the oline, Guard and Tackles are two very different positions in terms of compensation. I think Wagner's price has always been between 6M and 7M per year. The Ravens probably offered Wagner around 4yr 24.5Mil and Wagner's people probably feel he can get close to 35Mil over 5yrs. I wouldn't be surprised to see both Wagner and Juice signed next week at the combine. Once Wagner's agent gets around other teams and gets a sense of what his client is really worth, he and the Ravens will go back to the table. 

Wagner's agent will probably find out that Right Tackles just don't get paid like that regardless of the huge cap space some teams have. Wagner will probably get a handful of offers but none will be much higher than the 6.6M that Schwartz got last year  imo. I could see some team going to 7M for Wagner but I'm not sure that'll be enough to get him to leave Baltimore. I think the biggest issue will be the bonus money. Schwartz set the market at 20.7M guaranteed last year. Will the Ravens be willing to approach that number?

My guess on Wagner is that he stays and gets a 5yr 33.5M  

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.

1 hour ago, rmw10 said:

We'll likely never know the full details on what guys we passed on to try to save a comp pick, but I bet it does happen.  Sometimes it will work out and sometimes it won't, just like everything else in the NFL.  I know we passed on both Julian Edelman and Emmanuel Sanders to save the comp pick, $5M, and draft Campanaro instead.  In hindsight, you wish you could take that back.  On the same token though, there are instances where we do sign a guy like Dominique Foxworth, sacrifice the potential comp pick, and lose out because the player doesn't work out.

I've always been of the opinion that we shouldn't worry too much about comp picks, but I don't blame them for doing so either.  I just want the best possible player on the team.  If that means forgoing a comp pick, so be it.  If that means not spending the money and opting for a young player instead, so be it.

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.

3 hours ago, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

Jarius Byrd released by the Saints. 

Now, here's a guy I might actually be interested in. He's been terrible for a few years now so he might actually be really cheap considering the upside and pedigree. 

Its a definite risk, but he was a TERRIBLE fit for the Saints D. He's almost purely a single high, center field type guy.  

Normally I'd say I want more versatility.... but having Weddle here already might just make this the absolute best spot for Byrd to shine. He would allow Byrd to simply do what he does best. Sit back, read the QB, jump and make plays. 

And Weddle as a leader would keep him disciplined in his positioning and help him make judgements on route combinations and where the QB is going with the ball. 

 

Now if someone with a lot of money thinks they can get rookie in Buffalo Byrd out of him and overpays then no - not interested. 

But on a 1-2 year deal for $4-5m/yr I'd be willing to bet we can get the most out of him. 

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.

1 hour ago, Tank 92 said:

He played a great first half......second half? Not so great. 

TBH I don't really disagree with your statement about the OC and pass rush. But similar happens to Joe and I guarantee the banter here is "Flacco should have thrown the ball away and not taken the sack". and "he's an 8 year veteran, not a rookie. Can't he audible to run plays?"   Guarawnteeed. 

Yupp.

1 hour ago, Tru11 said:

It really is a switch of position cause a FS and a SS have different responsibilities.

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.

2 minutes ago, berad said:

Now that Mangold is a FA... sign him and trade Zuttah to the Jets for Sheldon Richardson lol

Lol yes please

Just now, redrum52 said:

I'd like to keep Wagner, but truth is, I probably wouldn't mind both of them walking.  I know it's not the brightest idea, but I'm not so sure we should pay Williams, even though he's a great talent.  Think some of that money should be used to pursue some edge talent in FA.

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.

Just now, redrum52 said:

I really don't even blame Ozzie for how poor that draft was as a whole.  We got Juice, Williams and Wagner in that crap shoot.  I'll take it.

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.

1 minute ago, redrum52 said:

Let's take a run at that Matt Elam guy.  Hard hitter, great range and sure tackler.  Need secondary help...

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

21 minutes ago, rmw10 said:

You have to exercise the 2019 option after the 2017 season.  So in theory, they could continue developing him throughout 2017 and see if they like the progress.  If so, they can exercise the option and they have him for 2 more seasons, although the option carries a pretty high price tag.

I think jacket is right though.  I'd be hard pressed to believe we're counting on him as a true starting option for 2017.

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.

13 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Yeah the reality is that the #3 WR on this team very rarely produces significant statistical value. In a pass heavy year like 2013, you'll get maybe 500-600 yards out of a #3 WR.

So if we assume that we're going to bring in a "chain mover" at WR, between that guy, Wallace, and Perriman, those 3 are competing for two prime spots as receivers on this team.

I'm not suggesting we should discount anybody, because obviously injuries happen and you need depth at the position, but if Perriman is going to take a step forward and start seeing "starting" WR-type snap counts, I don't think he's going to do that while Wallace is on the team, or unless we actually don't succeed in getting a "chain mover" type player.

I think 2017 is going to be another year of development for Perriman, with an eye on being a full time starter in 2018.

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.

On 2/24/2017 at 10:39 PM, rmcjacket23 said:

Well there's also Chris Moore and the draft. And the chain mover doesn't have to be in the slot, just like running a 3 WR set frequently isn't a guarantee either. If we become more effective and committed to the running game, you may see far less of that.

Even in a high pass volume season, the 3rd receiver is only going to see maybe half the offensive snaps.

Remember, we utilize the TE quite a bit in the passing game, and there's no season I'm aware of in Ravens history where the 3rd receiver has been overly productive.

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.

23 hours ago, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

I do like PFF but grading individual OL is highly subjective. Sometimes I strongly agree with their rankings and sometimes I just don't get what they see that I don't. 

However, in this case a few things... the Jets OL as a whole was a flaming 💩. Idk if anyone could have played well surrounded by that group. 

It's about better fit. Mangold is better suited for what I think we want our OL to be. Zuttah may be more athletic but Mangold can move people and battle the monster DT's and NT's that killed us all too often last season. 

And I think he's more of a leader. More cerebral. With a 2nd yr LT, LG maybe rookie LG or RT... it's a young line. I wouldn't mind a grisly, war tested vet to come on board and lead the troops. 

 

Its not a perfect solution. And like I said I'm not sure how interested I am. But just looking at PFFs rankings and comparing where the fall on the list isn't really convincing. 

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.

1 hour ago, BmoreBird22 said:

A lot of poor ball placement from Flacco recently could be a massive reason.

8 minutes ago, Tank 92 said:

Or the massive reason could be that the receivers either fall down(Pitta), turn their backs anticipating contact(Wallace, Aiken) or were just old, slow and injured(SSS).

Yeah it's probably both of these

27 minutes ago, ellicottraven said:

Sorry. I thought I provided the link.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/film-room/2016/film-room-joe-flacco

http://presnapreads.com/pre-order-the-2016-pre-snap-reads-quarterback-catalogue/

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.

Just now, ellicottraven said:

I'm not saying I am a great judge of football intelligence. I just read what's written about these things. In response I would simply ask you to also read this. Also he ranked 25th out of 35 pre snap read QB rankings. That to me is a direct reflection of film study and football intelligence, because defenses don't use a formation and just stand there. They deceive and its up to the QB to figure it out.

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. 

19 minutes ago, Tru11 said:

Dont decision making and football intelligence go hand in hand?

agreed though that he is not a WCO passer.
was wrong to turn him into 1 TBH.

waste of his big arm as well.

 

 

 

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.

2 minutes ago, ellicottraven said:

I think he regressed starting 2013. Kubiak's offense and scheme and strong running game just covered for Joe Flacco's football intelligence. Yes it does boil down to that. I think he's got the arm, but he's got really bad footwork and consequently is inaccurate. But, most important factor is his inability to read defenses. He gets entrapped too often by smart defenders.

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.

11 hours ago, rmw10 said:

First "rumor" is out.

 

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

7 hours ago, Tank 92 said:

Thanks for enlightening me. In reading this it seems the facts point to the obvious(to most) reasons for sub par passing game performance. Poor receivers, lack of YAC, conservative play calling and injuries. 

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.

On 2/2/2017 at 11:13 PM, ellicottraven said:

The best way to judge a QB is to ask the people that don't have vested rooted interests how they feel about the QB. Sadly, the majority of football fans don't think Joe is half as good as some of us Ravens homers do. But, I think a good number of former blind Flacco homers are slowly coming around to the idea that Flacco may not be an elite or even a top 7-8 QB after all.

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.