Very Interesting read on "late for work."

[mmcclend]

Ravens Searching For Playmaker Like Odell Beckham Jr.

One of the things the Ravens’ struggling but improving offense could use right now is a playmaker.

CSNMidAtlantic.com’s Clifton Brown says to look no further than the Ravens’ opponent last week to see what a true playmaker looks like.

“The Ravens need more of their playmakers stepping up the way Giants wide receiver Odell Beckham Jr. stepped up for the Giants on Sunday,” he wrote. “Consider that Beckham had 211 yards receiving in the second half Sunday. … Ravens wide receiver Breshad Perriman has 172 yards receiving the entire season.”

 

-Sarah Ellison 

 

I guess maybe I wasn't that far off on my analysis. Everybody outside this board sees we lack playmakers. 

[rmcjacket23]

3 minutes ago, mmcclend said:

Ravens Searching For Playmaker Like Odell Beckham Jr.

One of the things the Ravens’ struggling but improving offense could use right now is a playmaker.

CSNMidAtlantic.com’s Clifton Brown says to look no further than the Ravens’ opponent last week to see what a true playmaker looks like.

“The Ravens need more of their playmakers stepping up the way Giants wide receiver Odell Beckham Jr. stepped up for the Giants on Sunday,” he wrote. “Consider that Beckham had 211 yards receiving in the second half Sunday. … Ravens wide receiver Breshad Perriman has 172 yards receiving the entire season.”

 

-Sarah Ellison 

 

I guess maybe I wasn't that far off on my analysis. Everybody outside this board sees we lack playmakers. 

Yup, now all we gotta do is lose like 10 games, get a top 10 pick, and hope that one exists in the draft for us to grab.

Though the comparison of a 3rd year WR to a rookie WR is a bit odd, obviously.

[trevorsteadman]

Perriman still has time to turn into that playmaker. He is in his FIRST SEASON. Most receivers don't produce #1 numbers until their third year. Beckham is one of those outliers... Also Perriman has probably been the most consistent player in getting open. His problem is drops and getting his feet in bounds. Perriman may be the guy down the road but like every other thread on these boards everybody freaks out if a player doesn't have a pro bowl performance in their first year....

Doesn't help when only one player was in their regular spot last week (Zuttah) and had 3 down. 

[trevorsteadman]

Just now, rmcjacket23 said:

Yup, now all we gotta do is lose like 10 games, get a top 10 pick, and hope that one exists in the draft for us to grab.

Though the comparison of a 3rd year WR to a rookie WR is a bit odd, obviously.

Lmao I just posted the same thing at the same time... Like seriously... 

[mmcclend]

1 minute ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Yup, now all we gotta do is lose like 10 games, get a top 10 pick, and hope that one exists in the draft for us to grab.

Though the comparison of a 3rd year WR to a rookie WR is a bit odd, obviously.

Yeah she went a bit far on that part but her point(like mine) is very valid. I know, as fans, sometimes it's hard to handle the truth but it is what it is. WE ARE NOT A BAD TEAM, but we are average until we can draft and develop playmakers. 

[rmcjacket23]

3 minutes ago, mmcclend said:

Yeah she went a bit far on that part but her point(like mine) is very valid. I know, as fans, sometimes it's hard to handle the truth but it is what it is. WE ARE NOT A BAD TEAM, but we are average until we can draft and develop playmakers. 

Right but this isn't some new revolutionary concept that NFL teams desire playmakers on their team. Its actually a pretty obvious statement that we have known for probably about 5 years now... we've known we lack playmakers at certain position for awhile now. We also know that we have won without said playmakers, so its not necessarily a barrier to victory. 

Identifying the problem is the easy part...solving the problem is what's far more difficult. 

Edited October 18, 2016 by rmcjacket23

[trevorsteadman]

1 minute ago, mmcclend said:

Yeah she went a bit far on that part but her point(like mine) is very valid. I know, as fans, sometimes it's hard to handle the truth but it is what it is. WE ARE NOT A BAD TEAM, but we are average until we can draft and develop playmakers. 

We lost by 4 points when our top 7 contributors (not including Weddle) were down with injuries. I knew this was going to be a loss going into the game. We were probably the most injured team talent wise going into last week and we played well we were just a couple plays from winning.

We have playmakers contributing early. Young, Lewis, and Stanley are all playing well from the most recent draft. Our problem is a lot of our main core guys are aging and seem to get injured more often than not now... 

[rmw10]

This isn't something new.  Some people may think we have one, but most people around here recognize that we don't have a true game changer anywhere on this team right now.

[mmcclend]

Just now, rmcjacket23 said:

Right but this isn't some new revolutionary concept that NFL teams desire playmakers on their team. Its actually a pretty obvious statement that we have known for probably about 5 years now.

Identifying the problem is the easy part...solving the problem is what's far more difficult. 

Yeah exactly. It's funny though because last week nobody thought we had that problem remember? im confused, it seems like you agree with me now but argued this very point all last week. Hmmm. 

 

[MTRavensFan]

2 minutes ago, rmw10 said:

This isn't something new.  Some people may think we have one, but most people around here recognize that we don't have a true game changer anywhere on this team right now.

Yeah, I think we recycle this topic every year for about a month before the draft.

[mmcclend]

3 minutes ago, rmw10 said:

This isn't something new.  Some people may think we have one, but most people around here recognize that we don't have a true game changer anywhere on this team right now.

Trust me I know, and maybe you know. But if you look at my other thread 80% of posters here are in denial about it. 

[rmcjacket23]

Just now, mmcclend said:

Yeah exactly. It's funny though because last week nobody thought we had that problem remember? im confused, it seems like you agree with me now but argued this very point all last week. Hmmm. 

 

Which point did I argue? When did I once say that we had plenty of playmakers?

If I recall, you went off on like 10 different tangents that had nothing to do with this before your topic was closed (which is probably why it was closed).

[jboy19]

I dont anybody ever said we don't need playmakers? 

[mmcclend]

8 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Which point did I argue? When did I once say that we had plenty of playmakers?

If I recall, you went off on like 10 different tangents that had nothing to do with this before your topic was closed (which is probably why it was closed).

Tangents? lol nope was arguing with like 30 of you guys who disagreed when I said we haven't drafted playmakers recently(led by you). If you didn't disagree with me why are we arguing? It's okay to be wrong at times, you've made good points but it is what it is. 

[OLD SCHOOL SMASH BALL]

No Alpha dogs under this coach. He has to have subordinates, no one else with an opinion. It was pretty clear un the arrogant tone in all of his press conferences. 

Somebody needs to eat humble pie. The hc decisions, and the player selection, even when to play them should be under question, because this ship is sinking fast

[mmcclend]

1 minute ago, OLD SCHOOL SMASH BALL said:

No Alpha dogs under this coach. He has to have subordinates, no one else with an opinion. It was pretty clear un the arrogant tone in all of his press conferences. 

Somebody needs to eat humble pie. The hc decisions, and the player selection, even when to play them should be under question, because this ship is sinking fast

Well said. One of the most objective things I've heard on this board. 

[mmcclend]

It's interesting how last week everybody disagreed with me so emphatically on this very point but now since Sarah agrees with me everybody on here has known that we lack playmakers. Maybe it takes insiders to pull people out of denial. 

[rmcjacket23]

12 minutes ago, mmcclend said:

Tangents? lol nope was arguing with like 30 of you guys who disagreed when I said we haven't drafted playmakers recently(led by you). If you didn't disagree with me why are we arguing? It's okay to be wrong at times, you've made good points but it is what it is. 

LOL, no. Lets add some "truth" to what's actually happening here:

1. This is the second thread you're created discussing "playmakers". The first one was shut down, likely because it wasn't going anywhere even remotely constructive. To me, it seems like trolling to dry to get the original thread you created back out there, and a poor attempt at that, since I don't suspect this will be open long. Especially when the title of the post is referencing an article on this very website that everybody else can already read and comment on there.

In said thread, I made a grand total of ONE post, of which you did not respond to. That post was also on page 5 of 6 pages, so I can't be even vaguely accused of "leading" anything. That statement by you is just flat wrong and supported by nothing. The thread was closed 4 hours after I responded to it.

2. If you committed the 10 seconds to go back and read my post, you'll notice most of the things you claim that I said weren't said... at all. They can't even be vaguely construed as such.

I was challenging you on some of your completely unrelated notions, such as the fact that other teams have had much better drafts than us. I specifically asked for examples of this, which you did NOT provide. Why you didn't provide that I'm still not sure, but it would appear to be easy if you are so confident that our drafts have been so poor compared to others.

I also asked you to determine how many "playmakers" you would expect a single NFL draft to yield for a team, of which you didn't answer either. I made the claim that if you landed one a year it would be a good draft, while getting 2 in any single draft is very rare and hard to do. 

As I acknowledged in that post, when you whiff on several high draft picks, the public automatically thinks your drafts suck. They don't care if you hit a homerun with a 4th round NT, because you whiffed on the 1st rounder. 

That masks some of the impact.

If you'll notice, at no time did I even vaguely say that we didn't need playmakers and that we had plenty of them.

Many posters on these boards will allow you to get away with exaggerating what they say and trying to push it into your own agenda, but I'm not one of them. Have no issue undressing another poster for being so blatantly wrong in what they say. If there's one thing we know for sure, calling something "the truth" doesn't actually make it "the truth". 

Edited October 18, 2016 by rmcjacket23

[MTRavensFan]

22 minutes ago, jboy19 said:

I dont anybody ever said we don't need playmakers? 

Nope, don't remember that.

The real question is what to do about it, which is what I believe we were discussing -  OP was critical of our drafting strategy,  I merely pointed out a few we drafted who turned into playmakers (Flacco, Pitta, Rice), and a few we've recently drafted who were the definition of a playmaker in college (Dixon, Reynolds)  who haven't yet produced at an NFL level.

Didn't say we don't need playmakers,  not at all, got blasted by OP anyway. Just trying to have an in-depth discussion on how to fix it instead of merely complaining. 

[rmcjacket23]

9 minutes ago, mmcclend said:

It's interesting how last week everybody disagreed with me so emphatically on this very point but now since Sarah agrees with me everybody on here has known that we lack playmakers. Maybe it takes insiders to pull people out of denial. 

It appears you didn't bother reading their posts then, because most (not all) weren't disagreeing with the desire for playmakers. They were disagreeing with some of the other assumptions and claims you made that may or may not have even been related to having playmakers on the team.

[rmw10]

8 minutes ago, mmcclend said:

It's interesting how last week everybody disagreed with me so emphatically on this very point but now since Sarah agrees with me everybody on here has known that we lack playmakers. Maybe it takes insiders to pull people out of denial. 

Or maybe you were just arguing with the few and not the masses.  If you've been around here long enough, you'd know this has been a common thought around these boards for years now.

[MTRavensFan]

Just now, rmcjacket23 said:

It appears you didn't bother reading their posts then, because most (not all) weren't disagreeing with the desire for playmakers. They were disagreeing with some of the other assumptions and claims you made that may or may not have even been related to having playmakers on the team.

+1000

[jboy19]

14 minutes ago, mmcclend said:

Well said. One of the most objective things I've heard on this board. 

Sorry, but this is going to bug me if I don't say something. Individual perceptions of other's emotions/personality/tone are by definition subjective. 

[mmcclend]

3 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

LOL, no. Lets add some "truth" to what's actually happening here:

1. This is the second thread you're created discussing "playmakers". The first one was shut down, likely because it wasn't going anywhere even remotely constructive. To me, it seems like trolling to dry to get the original thread you created back out there, and a poor attempt at that, since I don't suspect this will be open long. Especially when the title of the post is referencing an article on this very website that everybody else can already read and comment on there.

In said thread, I made a grand total of ONE post, of which you did not respond to. That post was also on page 5 of 6 pages, so I can't be even vaguely accused of "leading" anything. That statement by you is just flat wrong and supported by nothing. The thread was closed 4 hours after I responded to it.

2. If you committed the 10 seconds to go back and read my post, you'll notice most of the things you claim that I said weren't said... at all. They can't even be vaguely construed as such.

I was challenging you on some of your completely unrelated notions, such as the fact that other teams have had much better drafts than us. I specifically asked for examples of this, which you did NOT provide. Why you didn't provide that I'm still not sure, but it would appear to be easy if you are so confident that our drafts have been so poor compared to others.

I also asked you to determine how many "playmakers" you would expect a single NFL draft to yield for a team, of which you didn't answer either. I made the claim that if you landed one a year it would be a good draft, while getting 2 in any single draft is very rare and hard to do. 

As I acknowledged in that post, when you whiff on several high draft picks, the public automatically thinks your drafts suck. They don't care if you hit a homerun with a 4th round NT, because you whiffed on the 1st rounder. 

That masks some of the impact.

If you'll notice, at no time did I even vaguely say that we didn't need playmakers and that we had plenty of them.

Many posters on these boards will allow you to get away with exaggerating what they say and trying to push it into your own agenda, but I'm not one of them. Have no issue undressing another poster for being so blatantly wrong in what they say. If there's one thing we know for sure, calling something "the truth" doesn't actually make it "the truth". 

I didnt respond to you because I've been arguing with you for a week now when all you do is mimic my points in your own way. Or you get personal(over the Internet)when you hear something you don't like because you know you can hide behind the mods while I get warning points. It's a waste of time. You're clearly in denial and there's no getting through to you, so you get ignored and will continue to get ignored from this point on. Simple as that. 

[mmcclend]

2 minutes ago, jboy19 said:

Sorry, but this is going to bug me if I don't say something. Individual perceptions of other's emotions/personality/tone are by definition subjective. 

Don't be sorry for stating your opinion. And you're right, good point. 

[rmcjacket23]

1 minute ago, mmcclend said:

I didnt respond to you because I've been arguing with you for a week now when all you do is mimic my points in your own way. Or you get personal(over the Internet)when you hear something you don't like because you know you can hide behind the mods while I get warning points. It's a waste of time. You're clearly in denial and there's no getting through to you, so you get ignored and will continue to get ignored from this point on. Simple as that. 

And this is what I expected all along. When you get challenged on your opinions... you run and hide behind the ignore button, and then make gross generalizations that have nothing to do with me. None of the things you just said actually happened.

You might want to ask some of the other board members you trust if they think I'm the one who "hides behind the moderators". I think you'll find I'm a preferred customer of the moderators, and not in a good way. Many suspensions, countless warning points. 

 

[mmcclend]

Just now, rmcjacket23 said:

And this is what I expected all along. When you get challenged on your opinions... you run and hide behind the ignore button, and then make gross generalizations that have nothing to do with me. None of the things you just said actually happened.

You might want to ask some of the other board members you trust if they think I'm the one who "hides behind the moderators". I think you'll find I'm a preferred customer of the moderators, and not in a good way. Many suspensions, countless warning points. 

 

If you wanna debate hop on RSR and we can go at it. 

[rmcjacket23]

3 minutes ago, mmcclend said:

If you wanna debate hop on RSR and we can go at it. 

Why? I can debate it right here. That's what this is for. Its a discussion thread. 

It seems to me like you're not interested in discussing anything, and certainly not interested in defending your own opinions when challenged on them. Heck, you might even be able to convince me with examples that you are right, because I myself haven't done that much of the research on it. But I'm not making such claims... you are. Is it such a stretch to think that you would make a claim and actually have data or information to back it up with?

If you were actually interested in discussing/debating a topic, that's kind of the most important part. Anybody can just make blanket and obvious statements and pray nobody challenges them on it, but that's certainly not discussion or debate.

Edited October 18, 2016 by rmcjacket23

[BmoreBird22]

31 minutes ago, OLD SCHOOL SMASH BALL said:

No Alpha dogs under this coach. He has to have subordinates, no one else with an opinion. 

Steve Smith Sr. anyone? 

[MTRavensFan]

I think the major fallacy in all of this is the OP's assumption that "playmakers"  can't also be team players. It's just not true,  good players have to be both. Just look at Chip Kelly 's epic fail in Philly with a collection of primadonnas.