Jaybirds

That's the problem with rebuilding, you have to know when to let the seniors go. We're adding new blood every year, and we're still trying to hang onto the Super Bowl vets. So the intermediate 4- and 5-year guys are getting squeezed out. Elam and Pitta aren't helping. But eventually we need to move on from Suggs, Dumerville, Jimmy Smith, and Yanda. Otherwise, we need to accept the rookie contract turnover.

Okay, thanks for the clarification. I had heard compliments about Dixon's blocking, but maybe that was more during passing plays than FB duties.

Between Carl Davis and now Willie Henry, I'd say he's pretty much gone. I'd like to be wrong. But.... yeah.

He's the end defender in a four-front line. So either our nickel package, or that new 4-3 defense we just drafted but are in denial about. Jernigan W. Henry Williams Kaufusi Suggs Mosley Correa Jimmy Smith Wright Webb Weddle I probably have the SAM all wrong. But that's the general idea.

Ozzie did say in interviews that we tried to trade back into the 2nd round. When that didn't happen, we tried to trade back into the third. So I think it's okay to say we had too many picks. But that's a nice problem to have. When things didn't go according to plan, we got some steals in the 4th round.

Am I crazy to think Dixon could take over Juice's role? I'm reading that a lot of people like Dixon for his receiving and blocking skills. I'm sure we got him to compete for Forsett's job. But he sounds like what we want at FB as well.

It's difficult for me to call anyone his doubters, when he's the guy who said 3 above average years. Believing him when he said that isn't "doubting".

Sorry, I didn't bring them up to compare talent. We were looking for guys who could bring some extra energy to the team, on the field and in the clubhouse. I think those two definitely have an extroverted personality. I think their attitude could be contagious. The active duty Navy officer could also have leadership skills. Just a hunch.

When you get a chance, check out videos on Correa and Young. We drafted energy. I think Kaufusi might count as well.

If we want to think of it that way, then there may have been someone even better than Kaufusi in the third round. We don't know where he ranked on our board, or if anyone we wanted in the 2nd dropped to the next day.

I have heard that we did try to trade back into the 2nd round. When that didn't work we tried the next day to get two picks in the third, again with no success. Safe to say we would have missed Kaufusi completely.

Apologies. I missed that. But suddenly my whole day looks much brighter. (ESPN still has him on our depth chart)

I wouldn't be too mad if that Levine cut turned into Kyle Arrington or Asa Jackson instead. But right now I agree with all the rest.

I think the two knee braces may have been a warning flag as well. Stanley seems like a pretty awesome guy, on and off the field. The front office said he was ranked higher (heh heh) than Tunsil already. Let's stop acting like he's a consolation prize.

I'm not sure what you're looking for here. Do you want playmakers? Do you want guys the fans will worship? Do you want personality? If we're just talking about playmakers, then the rest doesn't really matter. As for our playmakers: Flacco, Suggs, Wallace and Weddle are proven playmakers. You could almost add Tucker to the list to be honest. Judon, Reynolds, Dixon and Young were all playmakers last year in college. Let's see how their game translates. And that's not including Correa, Kaufusi, Pitta/Maxx at tight end, and someone claiming the RB job. There's definitely some what-if guys on that list. But we have more playmaking potential for next year than we did last year. That need has been addressed.

Stanley was introduced. Young just drove up and introduced himself. There's a video of a press conference where Harbaugh says Kaufusi is in the back of the room. Alex Lewis, I assume, is still at the store....

I think that's exactly what we did. We aren't sure about Perriman, we added Wallace and Moore. We aren't sure about Suggs, we got 4 new pass rushers. Forsett and Dixon. We didn't draft a QB, but we signed the guy from Villanova as soon as the draft was over. Pitta.... yeah, we got backups for Pitta recently. I think Pitta is a better comparison to Jack than Perriman. Would you have drafted Pitta this weekend in his present state? Honest question. Maybe he has a great year. Maybe he isn't walking next year. Is that upside worth a second round pick? Maybe I missed something. You said Jack's knee is "going to degenerate". I thought it "is degenerating", but I'm not a doctor.

Sorry, that's the point I was trying to make. If he doesn't live up to his billing, but we still win, it will be okay. I'm expecting the final outcome won't actually depend on his play. It's more about how we remember his time here overall. Andrew added the part about him playing a significant part in our Super Bowl run. I wasn't assuming that at all, and I wasn't trying to say that.

The character score may help with more than just bad PR. I'm guessing it also gives us a better than average clubhouse environment. It seems like those guys would also be easier to coach up if we needed to. That seemed to be a theme this year: raw talent, high motors, lots of ambition to improve. Having said that, I remember Bisciotti was not pleased that winter when we had so many arrests. So maybe I'm being optimistic.

I don't know. I see Smith being that unproductive. But I see Aiken being the next guy up in that case. I could be wrong though. If Perriman is healthy and Smith is not, then Perriman/Wallace would be a legitimate threat for 800 yards each. I think my projection for Moore is assuming Perriman isn't suited up for all 16 games either.

I guess I'm thinking more about targets. 800 to 1,000 yards implies to me that he's Flacco's first look. I'm not sure if that's what you're trying to say. But he'd pretty much have to bump Smith AND Wallace to get enough catches to make it happen. Maybe Smith isn't 100% all season, seems likely even. And maybe Wallace doesn't quite work out. But like I said, I'd be seriously impressed if Perriman jumps both of them in his first year. Not upset, but definitely impressed.

So a little bit less than Kamar Aiken last year. Not sure how that compares to our other guys. Sounds like roughly a well-used #2 target?

I'm sure they're recruiting from the same pool of talent as some of colleges with bigger sports programs. But what they do with them is entirely different. Their entire purpose is to create military officers. The war has died down enough that maybe they don't need everyone to go that route, and Reynolds certainly provides value as an NFL player. But that's not their primary mission at all. I don't think anyone would choose an academy over a school with better program if they're trying to make it to the NFL.

Not for next year. After SSSr and/or Wallace are gone, then yeah definitely. I mean... unless you think he's going to take a job from one of those two in his first full season? I would be impressed.

Oh, sorry. It's an interview after Day 1 with John Eisenberg, Sarah Ellison, and Ronnie Mink. They're giving their grades on Stanley ("typical ozzie", "safe pick"). Mink asks about skipping Tunsil and The Video's impact. Ellison suggests the Ravens weren't surprised. She goes to explain that "nfl teams" have the three grades. She figured Tunsil and Stanley were probably close as players, but then Stanly was probably higher on medical (no games missed) and character. Eisenberg pointed that a lot of other teams also passed on Tunsil, so we probably weren't the only ones that would have taken Stanley over him. Everyone just nodded and took it for granted that Ellison was right about the three grades. And that really surprised me. I don't know if they're evenly balanced, so a healthy boyscout could score higher than a psychotic pro-bowler. But aside from Alex Lewis, it really does go a long way towards explaining the guys we took (like Keenan Reynolds) and the guys we skipped (Tunsil, Jack). Or how Correa was higher than Spence. It's also interesting to me that positional need isn't one of the top three factors. I guess we already knew that. But I think we still habitually start with looking at what we need (secondary, ILB) and then wondering why we don't just go get it. It doesn't look like a big part of our scoring system.