Haunted by Missing Ramsey....

[GrimCoconut]

59 minutes ago, Tank 92 said:

lol.  That game will provide fodder for some interesting convo on these boards, no doubt. But one game really won't provide much evidence of the impact of the decision. Give it a couple, three years and then I think you could get an honest read.

That's what I meant to say lol. Thanks for doing it for me. Yeah, we'll learn the true impact in a few years, maybe two. The real impact will be whether we re-sign these guys. That's where we've failed. Not retaining players for a second deal has finally started to hurt us. Retaining the wrong guys has also hurt. 

[PolishRifle]

2 hours ago, GrimCoconut said:

So Dallas wanted us to give up Bronson Kaufusi for what may be the best defensive player in the Draft? Hmm...that's a tough call, honestly.

They wanted us to give up Bronson Kaufusi AND Ronnie Stanley for Ramsey. Even if Ramsey turns out to be a pro-bowler, a franchise LT and one more chance at improving our pass-rush is alot to give up for a team, that can use to inject some youth into their roster. Losing Sizzle completely derailed our last season and losing Joe killed it. We depend ALOT on both of them.

Edited May 2, 2016 by PolishRifle

[Sense&Sensibility]

32 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Most likely there could have been.

The one thing I will say, and I'm glad people like McShay are pointing this out on TV now, is that there is a ton of analytics out there that support the notion that the draft almost quite literally is about quantity, not quality in the long run. It sounds odd to say that, because conventional wisdom says you should always try to get the best possible players you can. 

But long-run analysis basically shows that the teams who historically have yielded the best value from the draft picks are the one's who have the largest quantity of draft picks, regardless of round or position. Simply put... its a dart throw, and teams with the most darts to throw have a better chance at landing on something good. 

And I think the Ravens know this (we all know they love comp picks) and that's why they are hesitant to go out there and give up two or three draft picks for a single player, and especially top 4 round picks, where historically we get great value. Its why you always see teams like NE, Seattle, Baltimore, GB, etc. trading back so often. Part of it is because they pick so late often that the value gets better, but also because they know that quantity is important.

Well said.. this article by Barnwell I think hits the nail on the head when it comes to successfull drafting and the whole quantity vs quality debate. Good read...

http://espn.go.com/nfl/draft2016/story/_/id/15159462/successful-drafting-all-volume-nfl

[raven-flavored-ultron]

On 5/1/2016 at 9:13 PM, sflegend89 said:

Can we stop with the spin? The Front Office felt Ramsey was the better prospect, that's why they tried to trade up for him. Stanley was still a very good pick but Ramsey was the best defensive played in this entire class.

The guy struggled against good route-runners. He was an off-the-charts athlete for sure, but let's not act like the guy didn't have a not insignificant weakness. He wasn't Deion Sanders or Michael Haynes, some scouts said he'd have to play safety because he didn't possess elite cover skills, he could perhaps develop them, but then it becomes all about his potential. For every Patrick Peterson taken in the top 10 you've had a bunch of Terence Newmans, Morris Claibornes, Dee Milliners, Justin Gilberts and Mark Barrons. Now I would have been very excited had he slid to 6, because he has that potential and he plays a sexy position that we have desperate need at, but if obtaining him required giving up a second and third-round pick, then f-that. I'm not personally distressed in the least that we didn't get him and if Stanley turns out to be another Ogden or another Yanda, neither will anyone else. Looking at draft history it seems there is a higher probability Stanley is a transcendent lineman then there is that Ramsey is Revis, Polamalu or Ed Reed, just saying.

[Tank 92]

18 hours ago, GrimCoconut said:

That's what I meant to say lol. Thanks for doing it for me. Yeah, we'll learn the true impact in a few years, maybe two. The real impact will be whether we re-sign these guys. That's where we've failed. Not retaining players for a second deal has finally started to hurt us. Retaining the wrong guys has also hurt. 

yeah, we had a couple of stinker deals with Webb and Pitta.

It remains to be seen if KO pans out as an everyday LT, but no one else sticks out to me as being a 5th year player that we should have retained, at least at the $ that were paid.

[usmccharles]

16 minutes ago, Tank 92 said:

yeah, we had a couple of stinker deals with Webb and Pitta.

It remains to be seen if KO pans out as an everyday LT, but no one else sticks out to me as being a 5th year player that we should have retained, at least at the $ that were paid.

Mcphee would of been nice to keep but not at the money.  Im very worried about Brandon Williams.  Dallas will have a hard time keeping that Oline together. 

Edited May 3, 2016 by usmccharles

[Jaybirds]

3 minutes ago, usmccharles said:

Mcphee would of been nice to keep but not at the money.  Im very worried about Brandon Williams

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

[usmccharles]

Just now, Jaybirds said:

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

Yea, at some point we will need to pay some of these guys that perform, not every one of them but some. 

[Tank 92]

Just now, usmccharles said:

Yea, at some point we will need to pay some of these guys that perform, not every one of them but some. 

I'm thinking Brandon may be one of them, unless someone comes up with stupid money which is always a possibility. We won't overpay. 

[Jaybirds]

3 minutes ago, usmccharles said:

Yea, at some point we will need to pay some of these guys that perform, not every one of them but some. 

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. 

[rmcjacket23]

5 minutes ago, Jaybirds said:

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. 

Well the key would be to move on from these guys before they start to decline. I don't think you can loop Dumervil or Yanda into that, because they haven't really hit that point yet. I can only imagine what the reaction on these boards would be if we cut Dumervil and he goes and puts up double digit sacks somewhere else. Fans don't really handle us cutting guys and them playing well elsewhere very well.

Jimmy's not exactly a senior... he's 27. Moving on from your best corner while he's in his 20s isn't exactly smart.

Suggs probably has 1-2 years left and then he's gone. If you really look at it, there really isn't a ton of "seniors" left who are holding this team back. There's Monroe (who may be on his way out), Suggs (you could argue he's not holding us back at all) and there's guys like Steve Smith and Forsett, who are productive but everybody knows this is probably their last year here anyway.

The rookie contract turnover actually figures to become less of a problem going forward. The 2012 draft class (this offseason) really only had one player we wanted to retain... KO. And he got a contract that maybe 2-3 teams in the league were willing to pay. From the 2013 class, its Brandon Williams (will get paid highly) and Wagner (good deal, but RTs aren't expensive), so its not a case where we have four or five draft picks coming up for new deals.

We are in a position to be able to retain just about any of our own guys we want in the next 2-3 years. Just depends on whether we want them.

[usmccharles]

3 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Well the key would be to move on from these guys before they start to decline. I don't think you can loop Dumervil or Yanda into that, because they haven't really hit that point yet. I can only imagine what the reaction on these boards would be if we cut Dumervil and he goes and puts up double digit sacks somewhere else. Fans don't really handle us cutting guys and them playing well elsewhere very well.

Jimmy's not exactly a senior... he's 27. Moving on from your best corner while he's in his 20s isn't exactly smart.

Suggs probably has 1-2 years left and then he's gone. If you really look at it, there really isn't a ton of "seniors" left who are holding this team back. There's Monroe (who may be on his way out), Suggs (you could argue he's not holding us back at all) and there's guys like Steve Smith and Forsett, who are productive but everybody knows this is probably their last year here anyway.

The rookie contract turnover actually figures to become less of a problem going forward. The 2012 draft class (this offseason) really only had one player we wanted to retain... KO. And he got a contract that maybe 2-3 teams in the league were willing to pay. From the 2013 class, its Brandon Williams (will get paid highly) and Wagner (good deal, but RTs aren't expensive), so its not a case where we have four or five draft picks coming up for new deals.

We are in a position to be able to retain just about any of our own guys we want in the next 2-3 years. Just depends on whether we want them.

Yea, especially when some fans (or should I say "fan") wanted us to trade Doom this year, extremely smart move there.  I think Doom still has a few years left being pretty productive, but he isn't a number one rusher.  We haven't cut too many players that leave and go do great things anywhere else, im having trouble thinking of some but im sure you can name a couple.

[usmccharles]

20 minutes ago, Tank 92 said:

I'm thinking Brandon may be one of them, unless someone comes up with stupid money which is always a possibility. We won't overpay. 

I hope so, but if he tests FA it might be hard considering what the DL guys are getting paid.  Obviously it depends on how he does this year. 

[Jaybirds]

10 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Well the key would be to move on from these guys before they start to decline. I don't think you can loop Dumervil or Yanda into that, because they haven't really hit that point yet. I can only imagine what the reaction on these boards would be if we cut Dumervil and he goes and puts up double digit sacks somewhere else. Fans don't really handle us cutting guys and them playing well elsewhere very well.

Jimmy's not exactly a senior... he's 27. Moving on from your best corner while he's in his 20s isn't exactly smart.

Suggs probably has 1-2 years left and then he's gone. If you really look at it, there really isn't a ton of "seniors" left who are holding this team back. There's Monroe (who may be on his way out), Suggs (you could argue he's not holding us back at all) and there's guys like Steve Smith and Forsett, who are productive but everybody knows this is probably their last year here anyway.

The rookie contract turnover actually figures to become less of a problem going forward. The 2012 draft class (this offseason) really only had one player we wanted to retain... KO. And he got a contract that maybe 2-3 teams in the league were willing to pay. From the 2013 class, its Brandon Williams (will get paid highly) and Wagner (good deal, but RTs aren't expensive), so its not a case where we have four or five draft picks coming up for new deals.

We are in a position to be able to retain just about any of our own guys we want in the next 2-3 years. Just depends on whether we want them.

I agree Smith is needed, and he isn't that old.  I included him because of the bad combination of injured and expensive. 

But I think we're saying the same thing. We're keeping some older guys around because we cut a lot of the intermediate guys.  So we've got people approaching or past 30 that we're not going to build around, and we've got rookie contracts.  The guys in between are gone. 

[GrimCoconut]

13 hours ago, Tank 92 said:

I'm thinking Brandon may be one of them, unless someone comes up with stupid money which is always a possibility. We won't overpay. 

I don't think Brandon will be one of them but you never know. I'd be a bit surprised if we didn't make a push to keep him since he's the best player from the 2013 Draft. 

13 hours ago, Jaybirds said:

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

Willie Henry isn't really the same type of player. I guess Davis could be, but he's not close to the same talent. I think Williams sticks around because I think he offers a lot more than realized. Furthermore, I'd say Henry and Davis seal the fate of Guy, who is a free agent after this year. 

[Guest]

On ‎5‎/‎1‎/‎2016 at 7:12 PM, sflegend89 said:

Now that I've had a chance to process everything, it was a good draft, potentially a very good draft. But when you're picking at #6 Overall and have the best GM in the business it should be a GREAT draft. It really all comes back to not trading for Ramsey. We should've came into that war room with the mentality that we aren't leaving without Ramsey or Bosa, we were picking too high to not come away with an elite defensive playmaker when we needed one so desperately. If the Cowboys asking price was anything less than a 2nd or future 1st we made a monumental mistake by not pulling the trigger (And I think it was). There's so much to feel good about after this draft yet I'm still haunted by this massive missed opportunity. We're probably talking about giving up Stanley, Kaufusi, and Chris Moore to get Ramsey, I'm sorry I don't understand how that isn't an extremely easy decision.

We never pick that high. To have the ammo of the #6 pick in a trade for a player like Ramsey is down right unfair when you look at our roster. Ozzie/Eric behaved like we are truly a 5-11 roster rather than a playoff team who was riddled with injuries and is just a few IMPACT players away from competing for a SB. We lost track of just how good our roster already is and got caught day dreaming about sleepers in the mid rounds. I think this class will still be really good, but it could've been great and we dropped the ball. 

Missing Ramsey is not what bothers me. 

I really don't believe he is anything more than a competent hitter and believe he will be best placed at Safety, but he currently lacks ball skills.

The fact that our F.O. is said to have been extremely high on him makes the fire alarm all the louder.

[GrimCoconut]

4 minutes ago, Danny D said:

Missing Ramsey is not what bothers me. 

I really don't believe he is anything more than a competent hitter and believe he will be best placed at Safety, but he currently lacks ball skills.

The fact that our F.O. is said to have been extremely high on him makes the fire alarm all the louder.

I don't normally do this, but this isn't a very smart thing to say. I haven't read any report where anyone isn't extremely high on Ramsey. Like, every NFL evaluator out there thought he was the best defensive player in the draft. I read some reports questioning Bosa, but I really don't recall any questioning Ramsey to that extent. Almost everyone seemed to love Ramsey as a prospect. If you want to paint a picture of concern surrounding our FO, then I wouldn't use our high interest in Ramsey to illustrate that point.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, GrimCoconut said:

I don't normally do this, but this isn't a very smart thing to say. I haven't read any report where anyone isn't extremely high on Ramsey. Like, every NFL evaluator out there thought he was the best defensive player in the draft. I read some reports questioning Bosa, but I really don't recall any questioning Ramsey to that extent. Almost everyone seemed to love Ramsey as a prospect. If you want to paint a picture of concern surrounding our FO, then I wouldn't use our high interest in Ramsey to illustrate that point.

I'll tell you what I see in Ramsey.  He plays off the ball and allows NCAA receivers to make the catch and then relies upon his closing speed to make the tackle, sometimes heavily.  He can strip the ball at those times, but he lacks genuine close support ability.  Those traits will not transfer well into the NFL where the receivers are faster and even more elusive. He also doesn't come down with the ball when he should.  One day he will make a superior safety, but not right off.  Anyone drafting him to play corner in the NFL has a bit of a surprise coming.

Now if our F.O. wanted him for a corner and the evidence is they did due to our current glut at Safety you have to be underwhelmed. Noting, we have a current glut at Safety due to the fact that our F.O. butchered that position for us recently and is trying out an army to fill the void.  They wanted him for corner where this year we have grave concerns and that is a graver concern. We need new blood in the offices before they set us back even further.

[GrimCoconut]

Just now, Danny D said:

I'll tell you what I see in Ramsey.  He plays off the ball and allows NCAA receivers to make the catch and then relies upon his closing speed to make the tackle, sometimes heavily.  He can strip the ball at those times, but he lacks genuine close support ability.  Those traits will not transfer well into the NFL where the receivers are faster and even more elusive. He also doesn't come down with the ball when he should.  One day he will make a superior safety, but not right off.  Anyone drafting him to play corner in the NFL has a bit of a surprise coming.

Now if our F.O. wanted him for a corner and the evidence is they did due to our current glut at Safety you have to be underwhelmed. Noting, we have a current glut at Safety due to the fact that our F.O. butchered that position for us recently and is trying out an army to fill the void.  They wanted him for corner where this year we have grave concerns and that is a graver concern. We need new blood in the offices before they set us back even further.

Then a lot of FO are wrong because mostly everyone sees him as a CB right now who may/will eventually transition to safety in some years. 

[LosT_in_TranSlatioN]

15 hours ago, usmccharles said:

Yea, at some point we will need to pay some of these guys that perform, not every one of them but some. 

I wouldn't be. He's honestly the best player we have on defense. I think we'll be fine

[usmccharles]

2 hours ago, LosT_in_TranSlatioN said:

I wouldn't be. He's honestly the best player we have on defense. I think we'll be fine

Meaning? I think some of the quote may of been cut short. 

[usmccharles]

On ‎5‎/‎2‎/‎2016 at 10:30 AM, MissRay27 said:

Disappointed generally in the draft. The opportunity to get an impact player was squandered. We had a good draft, not an A++, one that puts Cincy and the Squeelers on high alert. Saying that, I think when the final 53 are counted we should have a good team.

You are right, wasn't an A++, just an A from basically every analyst out there.  But grading drafts after the day it happens are pointless, we have no idea who we just got, that's why the quantity in draft picks are very much important.  And an impact player doesn't have to be a guy who makes big hits and forces fumbles, what about a guy that might keep Joe upright for the next 10+ years. 

[redrum52]

On 5/1/2016 at 11:46 PM, Tank 92 said:

Haunted?  'cmon....really?

...Dez Bryant.  

 

This is a much different situation, but let Ramsey get a pick six against us.  I see the Forum being shut down, from all the traffic.  

 

OT.  I'm happy we get to play the Jags and Raiders.  I want some get back.

[uhhhh]

On 2-5-2016 at 7:14 PM, gtalk12 said:

As much as I'd love to have Ramsey, we have no idea how good our draft is...correct me if I'm wrong but when we had Ed Reed he wasn't exactly the guy we really wanted.....and by we I mean the Ravens. He was actually low on our list......draft picks miss more often then not, we get one every year.....relax and watch, what if Jalen ends up being ok and Stanley keeps Flacco's bombs falling with all the extra time he gives Joe? You wouldn't like that? Or the return of a dominating run game? Keeping the defense off the field and therefore making them more effective and fresh? Seriously, there are 2 ways to skin a cat.

Yup, you're right. Also in the 2003 draft Oz & Co. were trying to trade up to get Byron Leftwich who eventually went to Jacksonville. Something went wrong with the phones and they had to "settle" on Sizzle. Funny how things work out ☺

[gtalk12]

4 minutes ago, uhhhh said:

Yup, you're right. Also in the 2003 draft Oz & Co. were trying to trade up to get Byron Leftwich who eventually went to Jacksonville. Something went wrong with the phones and they had to "settle" on Sizzle. Funny how things work out ☺

see? we ended up with a HOF worthy OLB

[Edgar]

On 5/4/2016 at 10:29 PM, GrimCoconut said:

I don't normally do this, but this isn't a very smart thing to say. I haven't read any report where anyone isn't extremely high on Ramsey. Like, every NFL evaluator out there thought he was the best defensive player in the draft. I read some reports questioning Bosa, but I really don't recall any questioning Ramsey to that extent. Almost everyone seemed to love Ramsey as a prospect. If you want to paint a picture of concern surrounding our FO, then I wouldn't use our high interest in Ramsey to illustrate that point.

Several Analysts including chuckie and Louis Riddick bucked the more popular take on Ramsey.  Pointed out his poor effort away from the ball, his being out if position in zone coverage.

He relies on his athleticism which is substantial but he is not a playmaker on tape and he is not interested in tackling. 

[flynismo]

On 5/4/2016 at 10:09 PM, GrimCoconut said:

I don't think Brandon will be one of them but you never know. I'd be a bit surprised if we didn't make a push to keep him since he's the best player from the 2013 Draft. 

Willie Henry isn't really the same type of player. I guess Davis could be, but he's not close to the same talent. I think Williams sticks around because I think he offers a lot more than realized. Furthermore, I'd say Henry and Davis seal the fate of Guy, who is a free agent after this year. 

I simply cannot envision a scenario where we let Williams walk. I'd be shocked if we don't work out a deal long before he even sniffs a chance at FA

[JimmyBlack]

On 5/1/2016 at 11:21 PM, terps85 said:

The roster is/was not good enough to trade the entire draft for a corner, especially when a left tackle was guaranteed.

Let's give Stanley a chance.  Many had mocked him to us since January and he's the quality OLT with the work ethic and clean off-field record that every coach dreams of having on their team.  Tunsil may be a little better on tape but the intangibles of having a guy who we can plug into the OL and start right away outweigh all of the could-haves of drafting Bosa, Buckner, or Ramsey.

[JimmyBlack]

5 minutes ago, flynismo said:

I simply cannot envision a scenario where we let Williams walk. I'd be shocked if we don't work out a deal long before he even sniffs a chance at FA

Brandon Williams is that big run-stuffer that we definitely need to plug the holes.

[JimmyBlack]

On 5/4/2016 at 2:15 PM, uhhhh said:

Yup, you're right. Also in the 2003 draft Oz & Co. were trying to trade up to get Byron Leftwich who eventually went to Jacksonville. Something went wrong with the phones and they had to "settle" on Sizzle. Funny how things work out ☺

I'd say that this worked out well for us.  In Oz we STILL trust.