billiejean

Are you serious? The Ravens haven't even been in the league for 30 years. Its clear that this is too complex of a concept for you to understand because your reply has absolutely no validity to the points that I was making. I would ask you to read my prior comment another few times to see if my arguments become a bit clearer. I know that comprehending anything over 4 lines of text can be a daunting task. And because of that I will restate one of my questions here with the hope you will be able to understand it if I separate it from my other points. WHY DON'T ANY TEAMS IN THE NFL IMPLEMENT YOUR DRAFTING STRATEGY?

Yea it looks like Ryan got a bit greedy. He has taken 3 players that are projected to be taken in the 2nd round. One in the 2nd, one in the 4th and one in the 5th. Of course they are just projections but thinking those guys will last that long seems a bit too optimistic.

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/

The other option would be to trade back but we would most likely have to give up a few early rounders to move up and get Fournette. I also don't think drafting him will automatically make our offense elite.

The only guy that I am not high on here is Z Banner. That guys is just never going to make it in this league. I don't mind everyone else but some of them are going to be gone before the round that you have us taking them.

Even if it was possible continue pose this question ever few days doesn't make it any more likely to happen. There isn't even a small chance that it could happen.

Really at this point I am not sure if we can label any games as "clear wins". We have gotten in the habit of playing down to our competition and in some cases (not many) playing up to it. Its always close and always extremely frustrating. I also have the 2011 loss to Jacksonville burned in my brain. We went 12-4 that year and barely missed the Superbowl. The Jags went 5-11.

Frank you gave me numbered points that were in response to my comment and from those responses I developed my comment, so I will break down some of your most egregious misinterpretations with direct quotes. your comment - 6. So you say 11-15, tell me which team would want less than the LA chargers? my response - ALLLLLLLL of the teams from 11 to 15 will want less than the Chargers because we are moving less spots. Assuming that the Chargers will move back for less than the teams at 11 to 15 is just not how things work. My commentary - This is not a point of view. This is a fact. The teams from 11-15 will want less compensation from than the the LA Chargers at 7. I will say Frank that if in fact the Chargers would be willing to swap spots with us for less than it would take to move up one spot to 15 that would be a shrewd move. your comment - 5. Gates, my point exactly, Ravens have 4 young TE's. my response - I mentioned Gates, but before I mentioned Gates I said they drafted a young TE in the very beginning of the second round last year and he put up close to 500 yards in his rookie season. They don't need any of our TEs. my commentary - in your prior comment you hypothesized that we could use one of our TE in a trade with the Chargers at 7 to cut down on the draft picks we would have to send them. I responded by bringing up Gates and the rookie they picked up early last year. In response to that response you said "5. Gates, my point exactly, Ravens have 4 young TE's." And as you can be seen above i reminded you about the young TE. Its clear that you are not reading (or maybe you are reading but not comprehending) my comments before you answer. You are confusing "points of view" with facts and it seems you are unable to differentiate between the two. These two facts I know are true. Teams from 11-15 WILL take LESS compensation than the team at 7 (Chargers), And the Chargers spent an early draft pick on a TE last year and he performed extremely well. Plus they have Gates so an offer to send one of our young TEs would not be as tantalizing as you think. But really thats a moot point because as I have stated there really isn't even a small possibility that we swap spots with the Chargers at 7. There are many other analogies that you have either misinterpreted about my response or clearly did not read. I am not going to go through all of them.

Yea terpmaniac not everyone can have a top 5 WR in this league like Antonio Brown or Odell Beckham. So if you are going to be upset until we get one than you may have to wait a while. Do you think Mike Wallace is going to say that that our receivers are terrible, and that they suck at running routes, and drop balls to often when a member of the media asks him what he thinks?? Seriously? We have never had a top 5 WR. In their last few SB appearances NE has not had a top 5 WR, Seattle has not had a top 5 WR in its appearances. Neither Odell Beckham or Antonio Brown have won a Superbowl. And in fact neither of them has gotten close. If you were upset that MW didn't throw his team mates under the buss when talking to the media NFL media appearances must get you pretty riled up because very rarely to coaches or players throw other coaches or players under the bus. And because it happens so infrequently, when they do throw fellow players or coaches under the bus, its a big distraction which no NFL teams want to have.

I like that kid too. Hes a great route runner, best body control I've seen in a while, good hands, and quick. His father had a long career in the NFL and his Uncle is Jeff Blake and it shows especially in his routes. Sure he has played lesser competition but so has C. Davis. And being the all time NCAA D1 career and single season receptions leader is nothing to sneeze at.

this is laughable. Not every team can have a top 10 receiver in the league. In fact 22 teams can not have a top 10 receiver. Do you really think that the FO is only focusing on the "good" in our receivers because one of the staff writers wrote a puff piece about our receiving core? I would also argue that having one of the WR you listed doesn't doesn't mean a team is on "top". Brandon Marshall has never made it to the post season and last year his numbers did even come close to Mike Wallaces. The Cowboys have only had 3 winning seasons in with Dez on their team. Julio Jones has been a part of only 2 winning seasons in his entire career. I am not saying we have a fantastic set of proven receivers and I don't think anyone in the FO is saying that. I will say I think you are underestimating MW potential. And I will also say that if he becomes our #3 receiver this year I will be surprised but he will be the best #3 receiver in the league but if thats what you think this team needs to win you are sorely mistaken.

FRANK why do you continue to argue about things that you clearly have very little background knowledge of. ALLLLLLLL of the teams from 11 to 15 will want less than the Chargers because we are moving less spots. Assuming that the Chargers will move back for less than the teams at 11 to 15 is just not how things work. Even assuming that the Chargers would be willing to move back for less because of their circumstances (as I mentioned before) is not logical either. No team is going to be willing to give up the 7th pick for less because of the fact that they are building for the future. That just doesn't make sense. I mentioned Gates, but before I mentioned Gates I said they drafted a young TE in the very beginning of the second round last year and he put up close to 500 yards in his rookie season. They don't need any of our TEs. We would very likely have to give up 3 early round draft picks to move up there. Now clearly not all early round draft picks become starters but they have the best chance to become starters. What you are saying is that you would rather have one starter at a position that isn't a huge need rather than 3 starters. Getting a solid running back but not being able to pick up a solid OT or C would negate the RBs supposed value. It just isn't a logical move for a team with so many needs. Not to mention that RBs get hurt quite frequently in the NFL and without quality starters in other positions on the offense an injured RB could mean the end of the season because of the need to rely so heavily on the guy.

Its not a contradiction. What I am saying is that you are getting a lesser player that most likely would have gone in the mid second round if this was the 2016 NFL draft. When there is a weak class teams that need a certain position are going to use a high pick on a player that would usually be drafted much later in a more robust class. The best way to get value in the first is to draft a position that is deep. And with so many needs that the Ravens have I would highly doubt that Robinson would be atop their board at 16. There are plenty of examples of needy teams over drafting OTs in a week class and it is not pretty. Erik Flowers, Andrus Peat, Justin Pugh, DJ Fluker, Reily Reif, Derrick Sherrod, Gabe Carimi. Saying that the Ravens board is going to fall like dominios and that the first 1-10 are no brainers is just not an accurate claim. QBs will throw a wrench into your dominoes and frankly this is one of the least certain (not that any of them are certain) drafts in a while. There will be a few Pass Rushers, WRs and possibly even a DB LB or RB that will most likely be at 16 that will be higher on our board than Cam. And I will try to explain this again. We have a lot of needs. The OT class is weak. Those two factors allow the Ravens to draft a player that deserves to get drafted at 16 or even higher than 16. Reaching for a guy in these circumstances would be a mistake. I wouldn't be totally bummed out if we picked Cam because I think if the FO picked him that he was the highest rated player on their board because I don't think they would reach for him. I just think there will be others there that will be higher on board than him. But clearly I have not done as much research as they have and could very well be underestimating the FOs opinion of the guy. If we were to take him it would solidify the tackle spots for 4 years btw. Assuming Stanely performs well the next few years we have the option to keep first round picks for a fifth year.

wow, with that kind of tape why wait until the 6th round? Don't you think others are looking at this kid? nice find CW You have to factor in the fact that the tape that you watched was a highlight reel. Everybody's highlight reel looks good. Hes an intriguing prospect but taking him any higher than the sixth round would be a mistake. There is a good chance that he may not end up getting drafted at all.

I dont know about that. The amount of money we would have had to spend to beat out Oakland just wouldn't be worth it, even now after his all pro season. Notice how he is the only lineman who is not a LT on this list. 1. Redskins offensive lineman Trent Williams: $13.2 million 2. Saints offensive lineman Terron Armstead: $13 million 3. Cowboys offensive lineman Tyron Smith: $12.2 million 4. Packers offensive lineman David Bakhtiari: $12 million 5. Chiefs offensive lineman Eric Fisher: $12 million 6. Bills offensive lineman Cordy Glenn: $12 million 7. Raiders offensive lineman Kelechi Osemele: $11.7 million 8. Browns offensive lineman Joe Thomas: $11.5 million 9. Eagles offensive lineman Lane Johnson: $11.3 million 10. Colts offensive lineman Anthony Castonzo: $10.95 million

Its way to early to take him at 16. Maybe if we traded back but this is an extremely week class which means that OL needy teams are going to draft those top 2 guys earlier than they probably should.

Just curious: do you know what pick package Ozzie should give up to trade up to, let's say #7? Well lets look at it from a different perspective, At #7 The Chargers are most probably looking for Safety or WR help. If they think that they can move down and still get a player that is on their board, then they may be motivated by additional picks this year and next. Sure the question is would Fournette be worth the sacrifice of lets say one of the extra #3's this year and a #2 next year /or even a throw in a player on the roster maybe a TE ( we have plenty) This is not out of the question. Its all about the deal. The Ravens, inside camp, if potentially make the play-offs especially deep, will not have very favorable picks next year. This could be the move of the next 2 years. Is Fournette the real deal? I say The Las Vegas Chargers for a reason, this team is in a very trepidatious time. The LV Chargers could be looking at 3 years from now, they know they are most probably not facing a potential "win it all" situation this year. This then could have major impact on a trade deal for a team such as the Ravens at 16, who would be very motivated if Fournette were to fall past #6. This is the primary reason, I say at #7, that OZ and the FO to look at certain scenarios. This happens all the time, sure a deal is not made when a team has to give up more than they are willing duh, what I am saying is would the Ravens look at this? I think I would, even make a call if I were them. Frank the Chargers are moving to Los Angelos. And I dont think any of your arguments used to legitimize your thought that the Ravens will consider trading spots with the Chargers are valid. I think it would be a good move for the Chargers to trade back. They could stack up more picks while potentially still being able to take the best OT in the draft. The fact that they are in a building year isn't going to make them lower the price for that pick. They will be asking for at least 2 early rounders (most likely more). If the Ravens were a RB away from winning the superbowl the trade up might make sense but giving up early round picks with all of the holes that we have just isn't logical at this point and I can assure you that Ozzy isn't going to give them a ring because he knows the price is too steep. Throwing in a TE wouldn't sweeten the deal much. They drafted a TE last year at 35 (he almost hit the 500 yrd mark) and already have Antonio Gates. If Fournette falls out of the top 10 the FO would certainly consider moving up but with the position we are in any early draft pick that we would have to give up is akin to selling the farm.

Oaklands offense (on paper) is going to be scary if Carr comes back healthy. The have a solid Oline, one of the best WR in the game and Marshawn running the ball (amusing he can get back into pro bowl form after the year off). Their defense looks scary too, but I would have said the same thing about their D last off season and they had a disappointing season.

You just aren't thinking about it rationally because you are assuming that the guy you take later in the draft is going to be worse than the guys taken ahead of him. But trading up or trading back isn't going to guarantee you a better or worse player. You are also assuming that every teams big board is exactly the same as all of the others, and that they are going to pick the best player available. If that were the case than yes all players drafted in front of us would be considered better prospects than those taken after us. But because every teams board is different and teams reach for needs, teams don't go in to the draft with the mindset that under no circumstances will they trade back in the first. And that is because the main factor when a team considers moving back is their board. If we are on the board and the FO was confident that the BPA on our board would still be there at pick 20 it wouldn't make sense not to try to trade back. In other words, and this is true especially in the earlier rounds but really is a applicable through out, a team is not going to trade back with the notion that they will be getting a lesser player The caveat to this of course is a scenario where the compensation that a team has offered is too good to pass up, But those types of scenarios usually take place in the first few picks of the draft. But trading back does not mean you are going to get "maybe good, solid players but not impact players". And your thought about our team being devoid of "STARS" doesn't factor into the FO decision to move back or move up.

Even if it was possible I can assure you that the front office is not pondering this type of deal. You can throw out as many outlandish scenarios as you want, but to think that the FO would actually act on one of them isn't in the realm of possibility.

Wallace is no slouch at receiver, even at his advanced age it would be hard for me to see both Moore and Perriman surpassing him on the depth chart. Another year with Joe and without Steve should increase his production. And we will be picking up some WR in the draft to come in and compete.

I know it was two years ago but the we had a pretty good season that year. And yes it has been two years since we have made it to the play offs which as Ravens fans we aren't used to but the whole selective memory thing is getting a bit old.

I think we should probably pump the brakes a bit on the bookend tackles. It was there Rookie years and they had some growing pains but towards the end Stanley was impressive. Lewis on the other hand not so much. When he did play tackle he was overwhelmed and didn't fair to much better at guard, but he was in and out of the lineup because of injury and its tough when you can't get into a rhythm. That said projecting him to play RT for years to come based on last season is probably a bit overly optimistic at this point. It is very possible that he never plays tackle and stays at guard.

Agree. Stay at #16. Even if there is a trade offer on the table which is VERY favourable for us? What do you have in mind Bio? It would REALLY have to be in our favor. With the Draft being so deep would a team be willing to make an unfavorable trade.? Put on your "OZ Hat" and lets me know what you're thinking. Would be interested to see some scenarios. Thank you. You trade back a few spots if you know who you want and believe that he will be there later. But staying put doesn't mean you are going to get a better player. It doesn't really mean anything. Lets say we were to trade back a few spots and the player that we drafted didnt pan out, and the team that traded with us drafted a stud. You can say we should have stayed put so we could have drafted the stud. But you cant make the assumption that the FO would have taken that guy if they didn't trade back. There arent any teams that go into the draft with the mindset that whatever happens no matter what they aren't going to trade back in the first. There are to many unknowns. You can come up with as many scenarios as you would like, but one of the biggest factors that will decide if we try to trade back is the FO board and who is left on it. The compensation is secondary.

There is certainly a change we go D. It just depends on how the board falls