Archived

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

redrum52

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

41 posts in this topic

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).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

You can use the data to support trends that indicate a greater probability that the Ravens will likely shift to a more balanced draft next year and then move to focusing on the offense thereafter. That's what their history shows more than anything. Also, as others stated, it could be related more to draft position. I'll examine that later if I have time or you can. It would be interesting to see how we draft based upon where we're drafting.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is everyone arguing about? What are the points trying to be made?

 

The Ravens have drafted well to:

 

1. build our O Line (Yanda, KO, Wagner - 3/5 contributors)

2. build our D Line (Upshaw, McPhee, Williams, Ngata, Tyson, Timmy, Suggs - 7/9 contributors)

3. land a franchise QB

4. build our CBs (Smith, Webb, Jackson - 3/4 contributors)

5. build our RBs (Rice, Pierce, Lorenzo - 3/3 contributors)

6. build our ILBs (Mosley, Brown - 2/3 contributors)

7. build our Ss (Elam & Brooks - 2/4 contributors)

8. build our WRs/TEs (Smith, Brown, Camp, Pitta, Gilmore - 5/8 contributors)

 

I ordered these in what I think are the positions of most importance to winning championships. What else do you want the Ravens to do in the draft??

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is everyone arguing about? What are the points trying to be made?

The Ravens have drafted well to:

1. build our O Line (Yanda, KO, Wagner - 3/5 contributors)

2. build our D Line (Upshaw, McPhee, Williams, Ngata, Tyson, Timmy, Suggs - 7/9 contributors)

3. land a franchise QB

4. build our CBs (Smith, Webb, Jackson - 3/4 contributors)

5. build our RBs (Rice, Pierce, Lorenzo - 3/3 contributors)

6. build our ILBs (Mosley, Brown - 2/3 contributors)

7. build our Ss (Elam & Brooks - 2/4 contributors)

8. build our WRs/TEs (Smith, Brown, Camp, Pitta, Gilmore - 5/8 contributors)

I ordered these in what I think are the positions of most importance to winning championships. What else do you want the Ravens to do in the draft??

I don't think anyone is arguing here. At least I'm not and I don't think berad or arnie are either. We're just discussing trends as far as I can tell and possible courses of action the Ravens may take as a result of past behavior.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can use the data to support trends that indicate a greater probability that the Ravens will likely shift to a more balanced draft next year and then move to focusing on the offense thereafter. That's what their history shows more than anything. Also, as others stated, it could be related more to draft position. I'll examine that later if I have time or you can. It would be interesting to see how we draft based upon where we're drafting.

 

Good point, but I can't say with any certainty that it's a trend or just coincidence with how the board stacks that given draft. Correlation / Causation thing.

 

But, like you said, doesn't mean there won't be probabilities of what the team is likely to do, one way or the other.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point, but I can't say with any certainty that it's a trend or just coincidence with how the board stacks that given draft. Correlation / Causation thing.

But, like you said, doesn't mean there won't be probabilities of what the team is likely to do, one way or the other.

Yeah I mean we definitely go BPA but I think the philosophy is overblown to an extent. While we certainly do, there's enough evidence to support the fact that we go BPA at positions of need to immediately and long term benefit the team. I'm putting in numbers during my downtime at work. I might have something later.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I mean we definitely go BPA but I think the philosophy is overblown to an extent. While we certainly do, there's enough evidence to support the fact that we go BPA at positions of need to immediately and long term benefit the team. I'm putting in numbers during my downtime at work. I might have something later.

Yes, I think BPA is a little too broad. The Ravens draft the Best Player Available on THEIR Board. And their board is probably created based on positions of future need.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I think BPA is a little too broad. The Ravens draft the Best Player Available on THEIR Board. And their board is probably created based on positions of future need.

Current and future need. Also, to those who state that we never draft for the offense, you could strongly argue that we've addressed the offense in the draft by investing our picks into players. Since 2007, we sent a 2007 3rd and 7th and 2008 3rd round pick for RB McGahee, a 2010 3rd and 4th round pick for WR Boldin, a 2013 4th round pick for WR Lee Evans, a 2014 4th and 5th round pick for LT Eugene Monroe, and a 2015 5th round pick for C Jeremy Zuttah. I think we made two defensive trades during that time, both for CB. A 4th for Washington and a 5th for Wilson.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

but by ignoring the re tooling of the d and included the retooling of the offense in 07, some 7 years ago, your not showing that recent investment has been heavily defense orientated.

While old investment (id consider 7 years old) was heavily offense orientated. If you remove one you should remove both abd you will be left with the sand which in between, which is a clear mix.

I think if you were to go back even further, say 2000, you'd find that we invested in d then, then had a mix for a number years, then a mix, then o, then a mix then the recent invest in d, now we will likely have a mix, then a heavy o investment.

Thats explained by the simple fact out initial heavy invest in offense in 07 will likely all move on at one time, so we need an equally heavy invest at one time.

Then this heavy invest of d the past 2 years, the majority will move on within a couple seasons of each other and again we will need another heavy investment to replace the outgoings.

We had lost 2 starting safety's 2 starting mlbs, our starting nose tackle in cody more or less busted, we lost redding all in one go more or less, thus heavy invest to replace.

Its likely smith flacco yanda monroe, all similar stages of their football life will go in short time frame thus need replaced in one bang.

Its a viscous circle. You should be doing a mix right from the start so the new pieces just slot right in, one out one in, like a rotation. Rather than a more or less full reinvestment in a couple seasons which has happened our offense in mid 2000s and now out defense.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Current and future need. Also, to those who state that we never draft for the offense, you could strongly argue that we've addressed the offense in the draft by investing our picks into players. Since 2007, we sent a 2007 3rd and 7th and 2008 3rd round pick for RB McGahee, a 2010 3rd and 4th round pick for WR Boldin, a 2013 4th round pick for WR Lee Evans, a 2014 4th and 5th round pick for LT Eugene Monroe, and a 2015 5th round pick for C Jeremy Zuttah. I think we made two defensive trades during that time, both for CB. A 4th for Washington and a 5th for Wilson.

Good point. A lot of people put a major emphasis on the draft, but there are multiple ways to build a football team. I would say the way we landed Monroe and Zuttah was better than drafting. We got young players who will contribute hopefully for the next 5+ years, who are proven, while giving up late draft picks.

 

Along the same lines, the Ravens obviously covet their draft picks, but building your team solely on the draft does not necessarily correlate to success - interesting read:

 

http://ravensall-22.blogspot.com/2014/08/do-baltimore-ravens-really-value-their.html

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but by ignoring the re tooling of the d and included the retooling of the offense in 07, some 7 years ago, your not showing that recent investment has been heavily defense orientated.

While old investment (id consider 7 years old) was heavily offense orientated. If you remove one you should remove both abd you will be left with the sand which in between, which is a clear mix.

I think if you were to go back even further, say 2000, you'd find that we invested in d then, then had a mix for a number years, then a mix, then o, then a mix then the recent invest in d, now we will likely have a mix, then a heavy o investment.

Thats explained by the simple fact out initial heavy invest in offense in 07 will likely all move on at one time, so we need an equally heavy invest at one time.

Then this heavy invest of d the past 2 years, the majority will move on within a couple seasons of each other and again we will need another heavy investment to replace the outgoings.

We had lost 2 starting safety's 2 starting mlbs, our starting nose tackle in cody more or less busted, we lost redding all in one go more or less, thus heavy invest to replace.

Its likely smith flacco yanda monroe, all similar stages of their football life will go in short time frame thus need replaced in one bang.

Its a viscous circle. You should be doing a mix right from the start so the new pieces just slot right in, one out one in, like a rotation. Rather than a more or less full reinvestment in a couple seasons which has happened our offense in mid 2000s and now out defense.

I don't think I ever said that we invest heavily in the offense every year. I'm pointing to a trend of exactly what you said. We go through cycles where we invest heavily on offense, then balance, then shift to defense, then balance, repeat.

Another thing to note is that we've recently invested our draft picks in trading for offensive players more than defensive. McGahee, Boldin, Evans, Monroe, Zuttah. Those trades include multiple 3rd, 4th, 5th and one 7th round pick. That's also investing your draft picks into the offense even if you're not directly drafting them. You're still adding talent at the position by sacrificing rookie talent that you can develop.

I plan on looking at free agency next. So far today that's all I got.

I'm not ever saying we shouldn't invest on offense. I actually want us to take a WR with our first round pick or even second next year. I'd even be happy with a RB like Gordon in those top three picks. I am saying that we do invest in the offense just as much as the defense, but we go through cycles and seem to invest our draft picks to trade for offensive players more than taking them high.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites