Ravens at Bengals      Pro Bowl Voting      #RavensPumpkin      Game Rewind   

Jump to content


Photo

To Everyone Crying About Top Picks Going To Defense...


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#1 redrum52

redrum52

    MVP

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,467 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 August 2014 - 06:34 PM

Don't ask why this was on my mind, but I started thinking about previous drafts.  Everyone was complaining or saying or we don't help the offensive side of the ball, even though that's not true.  Added Steve Smith, who I'll admit is a stopgap, Daniels, and traded for Zuttah.  Last year was bad luck, injuries, people underperforming and unfortunately promoting Juan.  Some people were upset about the fact the offense wasn't addressed in the draft, but I doubt those same people were complaining in previous drafts about the lack of talent being addressed on defense in previous drafts.

 

After looking at one of the LFW article it stated that C.J was slated to be the first rookie starter since Ngata in 06.  Started thinking about the next drafts and realized in the very next draft, do you know what was done with the 2 of the first 3 picks?  O line(Grubbs and Yanda).  You know what the other pick was?  WR(Figurs).  This got me thinking, lets take a further look. 

 

2008 we all know who the first 2 picks were, making 2 of 4 first picks on offense.

2009 our first pick was Oher and the next 3 on defense.  In the teams defense, I think this was a terrible draft in general.

2010 2 of our 1st four picks were on offense, and I believe it would've been 3 if not for the Cowboys drafting Dez right before us. 

2011 the first pick was Jimmy, Torrey in the second, Jah Reid in the 3rd and Tandon in the 4th. 

2012 3 of the first 4 picks went to offense, KO, Pierce and Gino.

 

The past 2 drafts obviously have been defense heavy, but it's not as if they don't put in work on the offense.  Something I would also like to mention is that if you go through it, we get more production out of most of the late or early defensive picks than we do the Tandon Doss' or Tommy Streeters.

 

At this point we have a kind of stability on offense and need to do the same with our defense with all the turnover it's had.  I think next year you see more a of a balanced approach to how the Ravens draft.

 

I'd also like to add that with the "success" we have at drafting the skill position, I'd rather the approach Ozzie uses which is trading for players, or picking up FA's who he thinks will blend in well with the unit ala Jacoby, Boldin, Mason or now Steve Smith(please say the SR).


Edited by redrum52, 27 August 2014 - 07:12 AM.

  • 0

#2 Ravenseconbeast

Ravenseconbeast

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,746 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gaithersburg

Posted 26 August 2014 - 06:56 PM

Flacco has proven he works well with receivers with experience.  We got enough depth in defense to draft young D' but not enough depth in O' to give them a time to 'groom' a prospect.   

Ozzie made the right move this off season and its going to payoff this year(at the very least...marginally)


Edited by Ravenseconbeast, 26 August 2014 - 06:56 PM.

  • 0

#3 ravensdfan

ravensdfan

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,864 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Steeler Country PA

Posted 26 August 2014 - 07:35 PM

Don't ask why this was on my mind, but I started thinking about previous drafts.  Everyone was complaining or saying or we don't help the offensive side of the ball, even though that's not true.  Added Steve Smith, who I'll admit is a stopgap, Daniels, and traded for Zuttah.  Last year was bad luck, injuries, people underperforming and unfortunately promoting Juan.  Some people were upset about the fact the offense wasn't addressed in the draft, but I doubt those same people were complaining in previous drafts about the lack of talent being addressed on defense in previous drafts.

 

After looking at one of the LFW article it stated that C.J was slated to be the first rookie starter since Ngata in 06.  Started thinking about the next drafts and realized in the very next draft, do you know what was done with the 2 of the first 3 picks?  O line(Grubbs and Yanda).  You know what the other pick was?  WR(Figurs).  This got me thinking, lets take a further look. 

 

2008 we all know who the first 2 picks were, making 2 of 4 first picks on offense.

2009 our first pick was Oher and the next 3 on defense.  In the teams defense, I think this was a terrible draft in general.

2010 2 of our 1st four picks were on offense, and I believe it would've been 3 if not for the Cowboys drafting Dez right before us. 

2011 the first pick was Jimmy, Torrey in the second, Jah Reid in the 3rd and Tandon in the 4th. 

2012 3 of the first 4 picks went to offense, KO, Pierce and Gino.

 

The past 2 drafts obviously have been defense heavy, but it's not as if they don't put in work on the offense.  Something I would also like to mention is that if you go through it, we get more production out of most of the late or early defensive picks than we do the Tandon Doss' or Tommy Streeters'.

 

At this point we have a kind of stability on offense and need to do the same with our defense with all the turnover it's had.  I think next year you see more a of a balanced approach to how the Ravens draft.

 

I'd also like to add that with the "success" we have at drafting the skill position, I'd rather the approach Ozzie uses which is trading for players, or picking up FA's who he thinks will blend in well with the unit ala Jacoby, Boldin, Mason or now Steve Smith(please say the SR).

 

You don't have stability on offense when you are constantly adding an FA WR and/or TEs into the mix each season. That isn't stability, that is turnover. Now we're even adding O line FAs. Sorry, but that is NOT the definition of stability. 

 

So basically since 2012, counting the top 3 picks (after that it pretty much gets iffy on starting material) we've given the defense 6 of 9 picks.

 

Where are the results? I didn't see them in 2012. Certainly not last year. In preseason, it hasn't looked so great so far. Not to mention, we added a few FAs into the defense as well, you know, people like Dumerville. That is what people are complaining about. We shouldn't have a middle of the pack defense with that kind of commitment to defense. It better be Top 5 this season. That's all we're saying.


  • 1

 

Joe flacco picked up a fumbled ball off the ground like he just dropped the newspaper on the sidewalk by accident and flung it across the street square into the neighbor's open mailbox while being attacked by pit bulls on steroids - a Panther's fan

 

 

 


#4 GrimCoconut

GrimCoconut

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,083 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 August 2014 - 07:47 PM

You don't have stability on offense when you are constantly adding an FA WR and/or TEs into the mix each season. That isn't stability, that is turnover. Now we're even adding O line FAs. Sorry, but that is NOT the definition of stability.

So basically since 2012, counting the top 3 picks (after that it pretty much gets iffy on starting material) we've given the defense 6 of 9 picks.

Where are the results? I didn't see them in 2012. Certainly not last year. In preseason, it hasn't looked so great so far. Not to mention, we added a few FAs into the defense as well, you know, people like Dumerville. That is what people are complaining about. We shouldn't have a middle of the pack defense with that kind of commitment to defense. It better be Top 5 this season. That's all we're saying.

Who did we add on the OL from FA? Monroe and Zuttah were both trades. Technically speaking, we spent our 2014 4th and 5th round picks on OL in addition to the other guys we actually drafted and further invested into the OL by trading our pick next year for Zuttah. These are some big investments.

We've definitely invested into the offense. I agree with you to an extent. I think it's time to make a decision though, since I believe next year is the final year of Yanda's contract. We might need to draft a replacement for him or simply sign someone or even re-sign him. On top of that, I think we need to add a WR and will early next year. I'd project between rounds 1-3. I think we will go OLB, WR, CB/FS depending on how things play out with the secondary. Not necessarily in that order.
  • 0

#5 redrum52

redrum52

    MVP

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,467 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 August 2014 - 08:02 PM

You don't have stability on offense when you are constantly adding an FA WR and/or TEs into the mix each season. That isn't stability, that is turnover. Now we're even adding O line FAs. Sorry, but that is NOT the definition of stability. 

 

So basically since 2012, counting the top 3 picks (after that it pretty much gets iffy on starting material) we've given the defense 6 of 9 picks.

 

Where are the results? I didn't see them in 2012. Certainly not last year. In preseason, it hasn't looked so great so far. Not to mention, we added a few FAs into the defense as well, you know, people like Dumerville. That is what people are complaining about. We shouldn't have a middle of the pack defense with that kind of commitment to defense. It better be Top 5 this season. That's all we're saying.

No team can keep every starter, I'd assume you agree with that.  For the most part, we've had stability on offense recently and most of the pieces gone on offense were upgraded.  You can't do anything about Birk retiring and there it was no sure thing that Boldin was even re-signed if we didn't trade him.  At o line, they upgraded at LT and RT is still up in the air.  Kept Pitta, replaced Boldin with Smith, and I think Crockett or Daniels will be an upgrade over Dickson.  Picked up Zuttah who's better than Gino, added Marlon and kept Jacoby.  2012 key players went down on defense and if the offense took those kind of injuries I have a pretty good idea of how they'd perform considering what they put on the field last year.  And say what you will, but the defense did it's job during the playoff run. 

 

And you keep trying to discredit the defense for last year, though even in an off year they finished 12th?  That's not "middle of the pack", especially when carrying such a weak offense as they did last season.  You also need to consider the amount of turnover on that side of the ball.  They lost I think 5 or 6 starters on that side of the ball.  They had to be replaced somehow and the draft is one of the most efficient ways to do it.  Where's the accountability for the offense?  For all the picks invested in the offense prior, how often have they cracked the top 15?  Not only picks, but trades to acquire talent as well as FA pick ups?

 

All teams work together.  All it takes is one atrocious unit, like the offense was last year to drag a team down.  I think it was 2009 where the Chargers had the #1 offense and defense, but because of ST missed the playoffs.  If the offense was even marginal last year I believe they make the playoffs.  Edit: I just realized how worthless an analogy this is considering the point I'm trying to make.


Edited by redrum52, 26 August 2014 - 08:05 PM.

  • 0

#6 ravensdfan

ravensdfan

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,864 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Steeler Country PA

Posted 26 August 2014 - 08:12 PM

No team can keep every starter, I'd assume you agree with that.  For the most part, we've had stability on offense recently and most of the pieces gone on offense were upgraded.  You can't do anything about Birk retiring and there it was no sure thing that Boldin was even re-signed if we didn't trade him.  At o line, they upgraded at LT and RT is still up in the air.  Kept Pitta, replaced Boldin with Smith, and I think Crockett or Daniels will be an upgrade over Dickson.  Picked up Zuttah who's better than Gino, added Marlon and kept Jacoby.  2012 key players went down on defense and if the offense took those kind of injuries I have a pretty good idea of how they'd perform considering what they put on the field last year.  And say what you will, but the defense did it's job during the playoff run. 

 

And you keep trying to discredit the defense for last year, though even in an off year they finished 12th?  That's not "middle of the pack", especially when carrying such a weak offense as they did last season.  You also need to consider the amount of turnover on that side of the ball.  They lost I think 5 or 6 starters on that side of the ball.  They had to be replaced somehow and the draft is one of the most efficient ways to do it.  Where's the accountability for the offense?  For all the picks invested in the offense prior, how often have they cracked the top 15?  Not only picks, but trades to acquire talent as well as FA pick ups?

 

All teams work together.  All it takes is one atrocious unit, like the offense was last year to drag a team down.  I think it was 2009 where the Chargers had the #1 offense and defense, but because of ST missed the playoffs.  If the offense was even marginal last year I believe they make the playoffs.  Edit: I just realized how worthless an analogy this is considering the point I'm trying to make.

 

They finished 12th but the numbers were no better than the year prior. Just because everyone else did worse, doesn't mean we were necessarily better, except stopping the run. We did improve in that one area. The other numbers are the same or worse than the previous season.

 

You mean the playoff run where our defense allowed something like the 2nd most points for a successful SB run? You mean that defense did its job? Or are you referring to one play at the goal line - which I might add the defense allowed to occur anyway after giving up a big lead. 

 

Let me understand though - the defense gets a pass for injuries and starters lost - but dang! that offense. Which had significant injuries to starters. Okay. :)

 

So you don't think our offense is better than 2007? You don't think our 2008 draft improved our offense? Our team? 

 

Let's remember where we're starting from here :

 

Offense: just trying to get the starting pieces to build one.

Defense: Top defense just trying to keep talent in rotation as starters leave.

 

yeah, totally equal. Offense should have been Top 5 every year after 2008. smh


  • 0

 

Joe flacco picked up a fumbled ball off the ground like he just dropped the newspaper on the sidewalk by accident and flung it across the street square into the neighbor's open mailbox while being attacked by pit bulls on steroids - a Panther's fan

 

 

 





#7 redrum52

redrum52

    MVP

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,467 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 August 2014 - 08:28 PM

They finished 12th but the numbers were no better than the year prior. Just because everyone else did worse, doesn't mean we were necessarily better, except stopping the run. We did improve in that one area. The other numbers are the same or worse than the previous season.

 

You mean the playoff run where our defense allowed something like the 2nd most points for a successful SB run? You mean that defense did its job? Or are you referring to one play at the goal line - which I might add the defense allowed to occur anyway after giving up a big lead. 

 

Let me understand though - the defense gets a pass for injuries and starters lost - but dang! that offense. Which had significant injuries to starters. Okay. :)

 

So you don't think our offense is better than 2007? You don't think our 2008 draft improved our offense? Our team? 

 

Let's remember where we're starting from here :

 

Offense: just trying to get the starting pieces to build one.

Defense: Top defense just trying to keep talent in rotation as starters leave.

 

yeah, totally equal. Offense should have been Top 5 every year after 2008. smh

You're kind of proving my point.

 

I'll go by each point.  The 2nd most points part is kind of skewed to me.  They units did well against the Colts, Broncos and Patriots points wise.  Held the Colts to 9, Broncos 21 and Patriots to 13.  The Patriots and Broncos during the regular season were the number 1 and 2 scoring offenses at 34.8 ppg and 30.1.  You can't blame the defense for the ST errors against the Brocnos.  Not only that, they scored, got a key stop and another key TO to put the offense in FG position.  The SB, up until the black out and Ngata injury I think only allowed all of 6 points and had 2 TOs.  If that's not doing your job, I don't know what is.  You can keep claiming the 13 defense wasn't better, but it seems everyone else but you sees it.

 

Of course the offense is better, I didn't say that and don't know where you got that from.

 

Now where you prove my point, no I didn't expect the offense to just take off with new pieces because I understand it takes some time to gel, but then why doesn't a brand new defensive unit get a little credit then for finishing 12th?  For the most part the defense is consistent and you have an idea what to expect, which can't be said for the other side.  Just like the offense was being built when Flacco was drafted, I think that's what they're now trying to do with the defense, knowing that most of the old regime will be gone very soon.


  • 0

#8 Bruce_Almty

Bruce_Almty

    Pro Bowler

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,126 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 August 2014 - 09:01 PM

Stability is not really a word that applies when discussion an NFL roster. The ownership and FO may be stable, coaches can be stable but the players are not. Suggs, drafted in '03, Ngata '06, Yanda, '07, Rice & Flacco '08, Webb '09, & Pitta in '10, are the only tenured Ravens. That's 7 players and come Sat. at 4:00 pm the remaining 45 players will have 3 years or less history as a Raven. Except for the QB and a handful of core players an NFL roster will turn-over at 20~25% clip every year, and only half the teams have a true "franchise" QB that will be around 10+ yrs. As was mentioned by others, the roster is filled-out via the draft, trade, FA, UdFA. Oz and the FO are excellent at managing the roster and the salary cap. Given the numbers, is it any wonder owners and GMs say their team is in a win now mode? They have to win now bc in 3 yrs the roster will be very different.


  • 2

#9 ravensdfan

ravensdfan

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,864 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Steeler Country PA

Posted 26 August 2014 - 09:18 PM

You're kind of proving my point.

 

I'll go by each point.  The 2nd most points part is kind of skewed to me.  They units did well against the Colts, Broncos and Patriots points wise.  Held the Colts to 9, Broncos 21 and Patriots to 13.  The Patriots and Broncos during the regular season were the number 1 and 2 scoring offenses at 34.8 ppg and 30.1.  You can't blame the defense for the ST errors against the Brocnos.  Not only that, they scored, got a key stop and another key TO to put the offense in FG position.  The SB, up until the black out and Ngata injury I think only allowed all of 6 points and had 2 TOs.  If that's not doing your job, I don't know what is.  You can keep claiming the 13 defense wasn't better, but it seems everyone else but you sees it.

 

Of course the offense is better, I didn't say that and don't know where you got that from.

 

Now where you prove my point, no I didn't expect the offense to just take off with new pieces because I understand it takes some time to gel, but then why doesn't a brand new defensive unit get a little credit then for finishing 12th?  For the most part the defense is consistent and you have an idea what to expect, which can't be said for the other side.  Just like the offense was being built when Flacco was drafted, I think that's what they're now trying to do with the defense, knowing that most of the old regime will be gone very soon.

 

No they all see exactly what you see: 12th We rock!

 

I broke all the numbers down from season to season in another thread. Still that's what they said: 12th We rock! Even though the stats do not show any improvement, other than stopping the run. Ranking is ranking - it depends on how good or bad other units are where you rank. Yardage, points allowed - that didn't change overall. We just allowed more yards in the air and held better in the running game. Everyone else just did worse that season.

 

The point is we had no offense. 2008 we drafted the beginning pieces. We gave it one more draft and then ignored it.

 

Also, it isn't like we even drafted different positions on defense. We just used our top 3 picks both years for the same three positions. 

 

They've had time to gel. It's just preseason. Personally I don't think the talent is the problem. I think it's the DC. We'll see though. I'm just saying - they need to show results this year and not mediocre results.


  • -1

 

Joe flacco picked up a fumbled ball off the ground like he just dropped the newspaper on the sidewalk by accident and flung it across the street square into the neighbor's open mailbox while being attacked by pit bulls on steroids - a Panther's fan

 

 

 


#10 redrum52

redrum52

    MVP

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,467 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 August 2014 - 09:35 PM

No they all see exactly what you see: 12th We rock!

I broke all the numbers down from season to season in another thread. Still that's what they said: 12th We rock! Even though the stats do not show any improvement, other than stopping the run. Ranking is ranking - it depends on how good or bad other units are where you rank. Yardage, points allowed - that didn't change overall. We just allowed more yards in the air and held better in the running game. Everyone else just did worse that season.

The point is we had no offense. 2008 we drafted the beginning pieces. We gave it one more draft and then ignored it.

Also, it isn't like we even drafted different positions on defense. We just used our top 3 picks both years for the same three positions.

They've had time to gel. It's just preseason. Personally I don't think the talent is the problem. I think it's the DC. We'll see though. I'm just saying - they need to show results this year and not mediocre results.


I've put up some number's too but I'll just leave that alone. As for the draft, we lost 2 safeties and 2 ILB which explains those picks. Williams was needed seeing keno left and gave us flexibility on the line, same with Timmy.

The next part burns my soul cause I think I agree with you. Though Pees isn't a bad DC, I don't think he's getting all out of our guys like a Pagano or Rex could, but they are special coordinators when it comes to defense.
  • 0

#11 berad

berad

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,368 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:VA

Posted 26 August 2014 - 09:36 PM

This is a very interesting topic because there seems to be a distinct difference in philosophy when it comes to drafting offensive versus defensive players.

Using your time frame of 'since 2007', we've drafted a total of 65 players, 37 offensive and 28 defense. On the surface, looks like the Ravens the balance shifted towards the offense.

However, the average of 'round drafted' and 'pick drafted' tell something else. The average offensive player was drafted in round 4.27 while the average defender was picked in 3.68 - picks follow at 133.27 and 114.46, respectively.

The difference in those numbers is because the Ravens seem to target offensive players in much more significantly in later rounds than defenders. Out of the 15 players picked in the top 2 rounds in that span, 6 were offensive and 9 defensive. After the 2nd round, 31 were offensive and 19 defensive. The trend follows when you go later, as well.

Now, why is this? Do we value defenders more than offense, has that just been coincidence of the board stacking? I don't know (and here's where I venture away from solid fact and into my own interpretation, dive in at your own risk) but what I do know is that the Ravens are much more efficient at drafting defense later, meaning that the players they draft actually meaningfully contribute.

Using the 2nd round separator as a mark:

"Impactful" Players drafted after the 2nd round between 2007-2013:
OFF: Yanda, Figurs, McClain, Cousins, Dickson, Pitta, Harewood, Reid, Pierce, Gradkowski, Juszcyzk (projected), Wagner (projected)... 12

DEF: Barnes, Gooden, Zbikowski, Webb, Jones, Brown, McPhee, Jackson (projected), Tyson, Williams (projected)... 10

*"Impactful" as defined by me. Debatable, for sure: who's to say Nakamura/Reed/Doss wasn't impactful, for example... or that some of these guys actually deserve it.
**Didn't use this years' rookies because too much of an unknown.


SO, out of the 26 offensive players drafted after the 2nd round between 2007-2013, 14 were "impactful" - a 0.462 rate of 'success'

and out of the 17 defensive players drafted after the 2nd round between 2007-2013, 10 were "impactfuL" - a 0.588 rate of 'success'

In the first two rounds, the Ravens appear to be better at drafting offense, though. Using the same criteria:

OFF: Grubbs, Flacco, Rice, Oher, Smith, Osemele... 6

DEF: Kruger, Cody, Smith, Upshaw, Elam, Brown (future projected)... 6

Threw Brown a bone by including him because I think he'll be a productive starter down the road and was generous with Cody BUT the point stands, Ravens have hit a perfect 1.00 on their 6 offensive players in the first two rounds and 0.857 rate with their 7 defenders. You'll also notice that those offensive players are a good deal better than their defensive counterparts.

So what was the point of this long post and vague statistical criteria? Just a tangent on an interesting point raised by the OP and a workout for my Excel skills. I'd contend that the Ravens should draft offense earlier because they are better at it and the offense nets a more positive impact from it. This is, of course, unless they feel they hit a big time player like Mosley or Elam.


Edited by berad, 26 August 2014 - 09:42 PM.
pretty colors

  • 3
a9skd1.jpg

"Bring it. They want physical. They want to run against us. You know we'll be there."




#12 redrum52

redrum52

    MVP

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,467 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 August 2014 - 09:41 PM

This is a very interesting topic because there seems to be a distinct difference in philosophy when it comes to drafting offensive versus defensive players.


Thanks for this. I picked the first four rounds because usually much isn't expected from picks past there. I was going to get into the impact aspect but felt the post was already long enough. I agree as well that part of it might be a comfort level at knowing they draft better on one side of the ball as well. Good post.


Edited by berad, 27 August 2014 - 07:26 AM.
huge re-quote

  • 0

#13 berad

berad

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,368 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:VA

Posted 26 August 2014 - 09:43 PM

Thanks for this. I picked the first four rounds because usually much isn't expected from picks past there. I was going to get into the impact aspect but felt the post was already long enough. I agree as well that part of it might be a comfort level at knowing they draft better on one side of the ball as well. Good post.

 

Why thank you, I'll play around with it more tomorrow once my brain is done condensing lol. Good topic.


  • 0
a9skd1.jpg

"Bring it. They want physical. They want to run against us. You know we'll be there."

#14 GrimCoconut

GrimCoconut

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,083 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 August 2014 - 10:42 PM

Let's take a look at this as well from my numbers: 

 

2007: G, WR, G, LB, FB, QB, LB

2008: QB, RB, LB, S, G, WR, T, S, RB

2009: OT, OLB, CB, LB, TE, RB

2010: OLB, DT, TE, TE, WR, DT, OT

2011: CB, WR, OT, WR, CB, DT, QB, RB

2012: OLB, G, RB, C, S, CB, WR, DT

 

PURPLE: 1st round pick

BLUE: 2nd round pick

RED: 3rd round pick

 

I'm excluding the past two drafts, as it's clear that these two drafts were meant to reload the defense. But, before that? Let's really examine this: 

 

3 out of 4 (75%) of our 1st round picks between 2007-2012 went to the offense. 

3 out of 7 (43%) of our 2nd round picks between 2007-2012 went to the offense. 

6 out of 9 (66%) of our 3rd round picks between 2007-2012 went to the offense.

 

Aside the 2nd round picks, that's a pretty drastic lean towards the offensive side of the ball between 2007-2012. Again, I'm not counting 2013 and 2014 because those years were geared towards reloading the defense. And 3 out of the 4 times we kept our 1st round picks we used them on an offensive player. The idea that we don't invest in the offense is a false one. We do and we invest heavily. 

 

As for why does it seem like our offensive players bomb out, I think for a while it was a perfect storm of poor QB, poor position coaches, poor coordinating and possibly poor scouting. Now, we have a QB, we hopefully have better position coaches, and it seems we have a better coordinator. I think the scouting has improved. Let's see what happens next year and go from there. If the defensive movement continues or not. 


  • 0

#15 ravefan52

ravefan52

    MVP

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,046 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ

Posted 27 August 2014 - 12:59 AM

Ozzie clearly favors defense more and has a much better success rate doing so. People think we don't go offense because recent drafts are what you remember most and historically the majority of our most impactful picks have been on defense. I'd like to some more focus on the offense in upcoming drafts though especially considering how much we've restocked the defense with young talent. I think getting a top WR prospect to develop with Flacco during his prime would be the right choice. 

 

Part of the reason I think we've been drafting more defense is because there are more positions to fill on that side of the ball. We haven't and won't spend a high pick on a QB for awhile because of Joe and running backs don't go 1st round anymore (fewer 2nd rounders too). Centers, guards and tight ends also don't typically go high... And every position on defense goes early. The least probably being ILB, but we clearly value that position more than most teams.


Edited by ravefan52, 27 August 2014 - 01:03 AM.

  • 0

#16 Tru11

Tru11

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 586 posts

Posted 27 August 2014 - 04:10 AM

ozzie just stays true to his board. since all the rule changes favor the offense most teams in the league began stacking on that side in the draft which meant good defense player are being pushed down the draft and fall in ozzie lap. i highly doubt he would pass on a better offense player only because he favor defense...... i think people just like to use what is popular as a phrase. for instance even with flacco as our QB i highly doubt he would have passed if andrew luck would fall in our lap before that 2012 season.
  • 0

dq0w81.gif





#17 berad

berad

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,368 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:VA

Posted 27 August 2014 - 07:46 AM

Let's take a look at this as well from my numbers: 

 

2007: G, WR, G, LB, FB, QB, LB

2008: QB, RB, LB, S, G, WR, T, S, RB

2009: OT, OLB, CB, LB, TE, RB

2010: OLB, DT, TE, TE, WR, DT, OT

2011: CB, WR, OT, WR, CB, DT, QB, RB

2012: OLB, G, RB, C, S, CB, WR, DT

 

PURPLE: 1st round pick

BLUE: 2nd round pick

RED: 3rd round pick

 

I'm excluding the past two drafts, as it's clear that these two drafts were meant to reload the defense. But, before that? Let's really examine this: 

 

3 out of 4 (75%) of our 1st round picks between 2007-2012 went to the offense. 

3 out of 7 (43%) of our 2nd round picks between 2007-2012 went to the offense. 

6 out of 9 (66%) of our 3rd round picks between 2007-2012 went to the offense.

 

Aside the 2nd round picks, that's a pretty drastic lean towards the offensive side of the ball between 2007-2012. Again, I'm not counting 2013 and 2014 because those years were geared towards reloading the defense. And 3 out of the 4 times we kept our 1st round picks we used them on an offensive player. The idea that we don't invest in the offense is a false one. We do and we invest heavily. 

 

As for why does it seem like our offensive players bomb out, I think for a while it was a perfect storm of poor QB, poor position coaches, poor coordinating and possibly poor scouting. Now, we have a QB, we hopefully have better position coaches, and it seems we have a better coordinator. I think the scouting has improved. Let's see what happens next year and go from there. If the defensive movement continues or not. 

 

This is true, removing the past two drafts balances the numbers back towards the offense. In that case, of the 46 players taken, 28 were offense and 18 were defense. Still more offensive guys than defensive but the average round is very close with the average offensive player going in round 3.964 and the average defender going in round 3.889. Interestingly, the average pick is 120.286 and 120.5, respectively, which would seem counterintuitive; this is probably explained by the fact that the Ravens have tended to pick defenders very high and then wait a few rounds before selecting another. For example:

 

2008: Gooden (3, 71) and Zbikowski (3, 86) to Nakamura (6,208) - 122 picks between

2010: Kindle (2, 43) and Cody (2. 57) to Jones (5, 157) - 100 picks

2011: Smith (1, 27) to Brown (5, 164) and McPhee (5, 165) - 137 picks

2012: Upshaw (2, 35) to Thompson (4, 130) - 95 picks


  • 0
a9skd1.jpg

"Bring it. They want physical. They want to run against us. You know we'll be there."

#18 arnie_uk

arnie_uk

    Like a Boss!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,962 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 August 2014 - 08:05 AM

Let's take a look at this as well from my numbers:

2007: G, WR, G, LB, FB, QB, LB
2008: QB, RB, LB, S, G, WR, T, S, RB
2009: OT, OLB, CB, LB, TE, RB
2010: OLB, DT, TE, TE, WR, DT, OT
2011: CB, WR, OT, WR, CB, DT, QB, RB
2012: OLB, G, RB, C, S, CB, WR, DT

PURPLE: 1st round pick
BLUE: 2nd round pick
RED: 3rd round pick

I'm excluding the past two drafts, as it's clear that these two drafts were meant to reload the defense. But, before that? Let's really examine this:

3 out of 4 (75%) of our 1st round picks between 2007-2012 went to the offense.
3 out of 7 (43%) of our 2nd round picks between 2007-2012 went to the offense.
6 out of 9 (66%) of our 3rd round picks between 2007-2012 went to the offense.

Aside the 2nd round picks, that's a pretty drastic lean towards the offensive side of the ball between 2007-2012. Again, I'm not counting 2013 and 2014 because those years were geared towards reloading the defense. And 3 out of the 4 times we kept our 1st round picks we used them on an offensive player. The idea that we don't invest in the offense is a false one. We do and we invest heavily.

As for why does it seem like our offensive players bomb out, I think for a while it was a perfect storm of poor QB, poor position coaches, poor coordinating and possibly poor scouting. Now, we have a QB, we hopefully have better position coaches, and it seems we have a better coordinator. I think the scouting has improved. Let's see what happens next year and go from there. If the defensive movement continues or not.

you can't just remove two years like that. I could easily say 07 and 08 were used to retool the offense so you should be removing them as well.

Your using information bias to prove a point.
  • 0

#19 berad

berad

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,368 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:VA

Posted 27 August 2014 - 08:25 AM

you can't just remove two years like that. I could easily say 07 and 08 were used to retool the offense so you should be removing them as well.

Your using information bias to prove a point.

 

Also agree with this because the complaints were specifically about the past two seasons where the top 3 picks of both 2013 and 2014 were all defense - the top 4 in 2013 if you include Simon.


  • 0
a9skd1.jpg

"Bring it. They want physical. They want to run against us. You know we'll be there."

#20 GrimCoconut

GrimCoconut

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,083 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 August 2014 - 08:26 AM

you can't just remove two years like that. I could easily say 07 and 08 were used to retool the offense so you should be removing them as well.

Your using information bias to prove a point.


Sure you can. It's to show that the Ravens seemingly go through cycles where we refocus our draft attention. Cycles of defensive and offensive focus and then a rebalancing then a focus in the other direction. That's all. It's to show that we do focus heavily on offense at times despite popular belief suggesting otherwise.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users