Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Ravenseconbeast

John Clayton's take on Ravens (July 6th)

14 posts in this topic

Good article, Clayton is one of the best in the business and the discussion on average ages is always interesting. We probably dropped a year or two with the turnover.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanx for the link, good article. IMO, the Ravens will be a better team this season than last, so, waaaay better off than keeping the roster as it was with everyone being another year older.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very good article. It amazes me how little research so called experts do before they open their mouths to speak on a team. It's easy to see that the Ravens have added more to the team then they've lost. Of course there isn't any way of knowing if the product on field will be better, but the defense was poor last year. I find it funny how many people say the Ravens lost so much from that Super Bowl winning defense. Yes technically they are a Super Bowl winning defense, but that's not the formula you want to win with consistently.

 

The Ravens struggled to defend the run, age caught up to them, and both Cary and Pollard were liabilities in pass coverage. So this year they looked to upgrade each of those areas. I don't see the problem.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very good article. It amazes me how little research so called experts do before they open their mouths to speak on a team. It's easy to see that the Ravens have added more to the team then they've lost. Of course there isn't any way of knowing if the product on field will be better, but the defense was poor last year. I find it funny how many people say the Ravens lost so much from that Super Bowl winning defense. Yes technically they are a Super Bowl winning defense, but that's not the formula you want to win with consistently.

 

The Ravens struggled to defend the run, age caught up to them, and both Cary and Pollard were liabilities in pass coverage. So this year they looked to upgrade each of those areas. I don't see the problem.

 

I agree. Next to no research let alone decent thinking is done in the sports media industry now a days. Just the same headlines and "low lying" ideas.

 

Refreshing to see someone on ESPN write an article with sound information. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good article. Clayton has always been my most respected writer over there.

He wrote a good one about us last year around this time as well.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good article.  Like always, I gravitate to the comments.  I'm like Pavlov's dog.  

 

A lot of people said we are done already.  Boldin was a big loss.  Reed and Lewis.  They obviously haven't watched our regular season games where we constantly worry if those three still had it, because they were often inconsistent.  

 

Boldin in the post season was something special though.  If the 49ers think they are getting that Boldin for the entire year, they are in for a big let down.  

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good article, Clayton is one of the best in the business and the discussion on average ages is always interesting. We probably dropped a year or two with the turnover.

 

My projected starting 22:

 

Offense:

 

Flacco - 28

Rice - 26

Pitta - 28

Dickson - 25

McKinnie - 33

Osemele - 24

Gradkowski - 24

Yanda - 28

Oher - 27

Smith - 24

Jones - 28

 

Average age on offense: 26.8

 

Defense:

 

Canty - 30

Ngata - 29

Jones - 27

Suggs - 30

Brown - 23

McClain - 27

Dumervil - 29

Webb -27

Elam -21

Huff - 30

Smith - 24

 

Average age on defense 27

 

 

Average age of starters: 26.9

 

Of course we could end up starting some older veterans like Daryl Smith and Corey Graham, but we could also start younger players on offense like Doss and Juszczyk.

 

Either way though it will be over a year younger instead of a year older which is a very good thing for both next season and for the future.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Solid article as usual by Mr. Clayton, he manages to stay objective all the time unlike many so-called journalists. I think the turnover is a big reason why our team will be right in the thick of it all in the playoffs again this year. As Clayton points out, so many championship teams, including our '00 championship team, try to keep all of those pieces in place for the next year at the risk of hindering the team a few years down the road and it never seems to work. With all of the new blood on this team;be it veterans who haven't had the same taste of being a champion (Dumervil, Huff, Spears, D. Smith), guys who missed out on the run last year (Webb, McClain) or wide-eyed rookies; there are a lot of guys who will have no sense of complacency (not saying our other players/staff do have that sense, everyone who knows this team's personality knows that isn't the case). I think that's the key and I think the rest of the NFL will see it pay dividends this season as the Ravens battle for another championship. Now if you'll excuse me, John Clayton and I have some more devil horns to throw up \m/

Screen-Shot-2012-09-12-at-3.01.00-PM.jpg
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally someone in the media recognizes that we have added, not subtracted from our pool of talent.

 

It would seem that that anyone who looks at all of the moves made this off season should believe the Ravens have improved their chances at repeating a SB run.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agreed with everything except for the part where he used Joe's average salary ($20.1 million) as justification for why the Ravens couldn't resign young guys like Kruger and Ellerbe. The media needs to learn to look at the actual cap numbers in contracts rather than just averages, he's only going to count for $6.4 (I think?) million against the cap this year, its in two or three years that the cap numbers become huge; that's when we will need to extend Joe and restructure those numbers.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agreed with everything except for the part where he used Joe's average salary ($20.1 million) as justification for why the Ravens couldn't resign young guys like Kruger and Ellerbe. The media needs to learn to look at the actual cap numbers in contracts rather than just averages, he's only going to count for $6.4 (I think?) million against the cap this year, its in two or three years that the cap numbers become huge; that's when we will need to extend Joe and restructure those numbers.



Well in the case of Ellerbe/Kruger the long-term impact of Flaccos contract does become an issue as they would be signed to multi year deals as well. But yeah, we will also be restructuring Joes contract. I think the biggest reason we dudnt sign them is simply because Ozzue doesn't overpay.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well in the case of Ellerbe/Kruger the long-term impact of Flaccos contract does become an issue as they would be signed to multi year deals as well. But yeah, we will also be restructuring Joes contract. I think the biggest reason we dudnt sign them is simply because Ozzue doesn't overpay.

 

That would be the key thing, no one seems to notice that both of those guys got more than what they were worth, they just see that they signed with a different team. I feel that is how Free Agency is viewed now a days, its not how much you sign them for its the matter that you got them. Later when they underperform then they start talking about the money they are getting.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is just nice to see something non-negative from anyone at ESPN regarding the Ravens.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites