Should Ravens focus on building an Elite Offense or Defense?

[RavensRegime]

Defense.

[ALPHA]

We can have both if we keep building our trenches, our oline is on the verge of needing a rebuild and we have no pass rush.

[ellicottraven]

24 minutes ago, ALPHA said:

We can have both if we keep building our trenches, our oline is on the verge of needing a rebuild and we have no pass rush.

Agreed. We need to focus on building the stoutest trenches in the NFL period. I say we start by drafting a stud Center and Guard prospect in this upcoming draft.

[RAYvenFan20]

Yes

[Moderator 3]

Just now, RAYvenFan20 said:

Yes

Gotta go with this?  

 

Score more points, give up fewer points, win more games.  Simple, isn't it.

[Halshayeji]

On December 30, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Rav'n Maniac said:

I may be going against the grain here a bit but, I want to see us build a beast of an offense. Something that will strike fear into the hearts of opponents and force their backs to the wall. A true scoring machine that can dominate games on the ground and through the air.

A strong offense with a efficient defense is something we've never had here and could be just what we need to string a couple more championships together. 

I absolutely get where your coming from and can't fault you for wishing that. Heck who wouldn't like a high flying offense that attacks opposing defenses weakness. I hate to use this example but the pats have been a model of that. If their opponent has good CB they throw to the TEs all day, if the opponent is has good linebackers they'll pass outside or screens, if the opponent has an elite secondary theyl run all over you. Unfortunately, that model is almost impossible to replicate.

the thing with a high flying offense is that you need an elite QB, RB, LT, and WR. That's half your cap space right there and if any of the 4 gets hurt then your offense becomes one dimensional and crippled so it's a risky proposition to say the least. Elite defensive players are a bit cheaper cap wise and more consistent. Usually an elite D can take a few injuries and still be top 10. Don't look at our D because we had no depths what so ever at CB but in general that's why Defense is more reliable.

just look at the past SB winners, they all have too 10 defenses and the high flying offenses that force their D to compensate (cap wise) usually win a lot of regular season games then fail in the playoffs because they face good offenses and elite defenses. 

[DomMcRaven]

2013 Broncos offense = elite offense

2013 Seahawks defense = elite defense

I think that made it clear for me. 

[Neal Could Block the SUN!!]

Whether we draft for D or O, can we still trust in Ozzie?

 

Not sure that any of the present powerhouse teams follow the "best player available" approach to the draft.  Perhaps instead looking at our needs and deciding which players are available and building based on strengthening weakness will serve us better.  How many years of decent drafts filled with "the best player at the time" can we continue through and still not be a solid team?

 

[Hardbaugh]

The Ravens can't build an elite offense because of the limitations the guy who touches the ball on every play has.

 

End of story.

[Neal Could Block the SUN!!]

2 minutes ago, Hardbaugh said:

The Ravens can't build an elite offense because of the limitations the guy who touches the ball on every play has.

 

End of story.

Well let's hang on a second before we post these types of statements......

 

I mean if Flacco read the play book, this team would be much more capable.

[trevorsteadman]

1 hour ago, Hardbaugh said:

The Ravens can't build an elite offense because of the limitations the guy who touches the ball on every play has.

 

End of story.

Yeah it can't be because the team underachieved on the o-line that limited the Ravens to the bottom 5 in the league in rushing and the team is yet again in the bottom 5 of the league at paying wide receivers yet again for how many consecutive years in a row?

But yeah let's continue to bash on the quarterback and only the quarterback.

So annoying to hear the quarterbacks get too much praise during wins and too much blame during losses.

[Neal Could Block the SUN!!]

2 hours ago, trevorsteadman said:

Yeah it can't be because the team underachieved on the o-line that limited the Ravens to the bottom 5 in the league in rushing and the team is yet again in the bottom 5 of the league at paying wide receivers yet again for how many consecutive years in a row?

But yeah let's continue to bash on the quarterback and only the quarterback.

So annoying to hear the quarterbacks get too much praise during wins and too much blame during losses.

The line about underpaying wide receivers is just ridiculous.  You're point than is that had the team ponied up the money on WR's that Flacco would suddenly be a contender? 

So money solves everything, right? 

moving on.....

[trevorsteadman]

2 hours ago, Neal Could Block the SUN!! said:

The line about underpaying wide receivers is just ridiculous.  You're point than is that had the team ponied up the money on WR's that Flacco would suddenly be a contender? 

So money solves everything, right? 

moving on.....

No the idea is keeping players who are producing on the team instead of having a carousel of players at the position. Look at the teams that are consistently doing well on offense each year. It is because it is the same quarterback and same weapons year in and year out. Chemistry needs to be built. The team needs to pay someone for long term. Wallace produced well here there is no reason to let him go unless you want to create a new hole to fill. 

Money doesn't solve everything. But the front office has failed to draft a quality wide receiver. The safest bet is to go to a player such as Garcon who has produced well his entire career pretty much and bring him here. Because the team knows he can play with the best. 

The team has done pretty well at finding young playmakers at the defensive side of the ball, but has yet to find too many on the offensive side of the ball the last few drafts. 

The fact the team has been near the bottom of the league in paying their playmakers for as long as I can remember is proof the team lets players go that they need to commit to, as well as going after playmakers to stay long term. The carousel at wide receiver needs to stop. 

[rossihunter2]

6 minutes ago, trevorsteadman said:

The safest bet is to go to a player such as Garcon who has produced well his entire career pretty much and bring him here. Because the team knows he can play with the best.

how is that different to any other kind of player carousel? he's not going to be here long either so your advocating the thing you're complaining about

[trevorsteadman]

1 minute ago, rossihunter2 said:

how is that different to any other kind of player carousel? he's not going to be here long either so your advocating the thing you're complaining about

Not necessarily. If you sign him to a 3 year deal that isn't a short term contract. He is 30 years old and probably can safely say he has at least 3 good years left in him if not longer. It all depends on how you define short term.

[rossihunter2]

2 minutes ago, trevorsteadman said:

Not necessarily. If you sign him to a 3 year deal that isn't a short term contract. He is 30 years old and probably can safely say he has at least 3 good years left in him if not longer. It all depends on how you define short term.

but what you're advocating is essentially getting rid of wallace for garcon because there's no way we can keep both really which is the very player turnover you were just complaining about

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

2 hours ago, trevorsteadman said:

Not necessarily. If you sign him to a 3 year deal that isn't a short term contract. He is 30 years old and probably can safely say he has at least 3 good years left in him if not longer. It all depends on how you define short term.

Mason. Boldin. SSS. Wallace. now Garcon.

I dont necessarily agree with your premise. But your solution is exactly what you just described the problem being.

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

5 hours ago, Neal Could Block the SUN!! said:

The line about underpaying wide receivers is just ridiculous.  You're point than is that had the team ponied up the money on WR's that Flacco would suddenly be a contender? 

So money solves everything, right? 

moving on.....

I mean - i didnt agree with everything he said - but his point about money was pretty obvious... well unless you have problems understanding things.

Better players tend to make more money. Or, you spend more money to keep better players. Therefore, generally speaking, the teams spending more money on WRs are doing so to keep really good receivers, or because theyre taking a chance on a WR in FA coming off of being really, really productive.

Obviously, just spending more money for the same players you already have wasnt the point. The fact that you think pointing that out, means you can "move on" as if you proved something, or won the argument.... hilarious.

[trevorsteadman]

7 hours ago, rossihunter2 said:

but what you're advocating is essentially getting rid of wallace for garcon because there's no way we can keep both really which is the very player turnover you were just complaining about

No I want Wallace to stay. I am advocating him staying because he performed well and getting rid of him adds another hole to fill. 

 

4 hours ago, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

Mason. Boldin. SSS. Wallace. now Garcon.

I dont necessarily agree with your premise. But your solution is exactly what you just described the problem being.

I want Wallace to stay. I would say otherwise if the market was better but the only better alternative is Alshon Jeffery and I don't think the team touches even close to that salary cap. Would be nice if the team invested a high draft pick in another receiver and hopefully hit gold. They have struggled recently. Not too many receivers on the market you can sign for more than 3 years. Most of the big names other than Jeffery are over 30 and you don't want to sign anyone above 30 for longer than 3 years.

[atomicfront]

Seems like our needs are Center, Right Tackle, Running Back, Outside Linebacker, Wider Reciever and Cornerback.  And if Webb is released we need a safety.  So we have needs all over the place. I would focus on improving the offensive line and get another legit cornerback.  If you have offensive line that can protect the quaterback you will have a productive offense.  And when Jimmy Smith was out the defense was hurting.  

[atomicfront]

On 1/9/2017 at 10:43 AM, Neal Could Block the SUN!! said:

Whether we draft for D or O, can we still trust in Ozzie?

 

Not sure that any of the present powerhouse teams follow the "best player available" approach to the draft.  Perhaps instead looking at our needs and deciding which players are available and building based on strengthening weakness will serve us better.  How many years of decent drafts filled with "the best player at the time" can we continue through and still not be a solid team?

 

 

We don't draft best player available.  We needed a Left Tackle urgently this year and we drafted one.  The thing is with all the injuries you have and free agency every position besides Punter, Kicker and Quarterback is a need.  You can't draft a Corner back at pick 16 if there are no first round quality Corner backs available.  You can only trade up or down if that is the position you are in and you want a corner back.  

[trevorsteadman]

6 minutes ago, atomicfront said:

 

We don't draft best player available.  We needed a Left Tackle urgently this year and we drafted one.  The thing is with all the injuries you have and free agency every position besides Punter, Kicker and Quarterback is a need.  You can't draft a Corner back at pick 16 if there are no first round quality Corner backs available.  You can only trade up or down if that is the position you are in and you want a corner back.  

I truly believe Ronnie Stanley was the best player on the board when the team picked at #6. I hated the pick because no one wants to see a LT taken at #6, but seriously everyone that I wanted more was taken. I really think BPA and need lined up perfectly last year at #6, but still wanted Bosa and Ramsey before. 

[rossihunter2]

46 minutes ago, trevorsteadman said:

No I want Wallace to stay. I am advocating him staying because he performed well and getting rid of him adds another hole to fill. 

 

I want Wallace to stay. I would say otherwise if the market was better but the only better alternative is Alshon Jeffery and I don't think the team touches even close to that salary cap. Would be nice if the team invested a high draft pick in another receiver and hopefully hit gold. They have struggled recently. Not too many receivers on the market you can sign for more than 3 years. Most of the big names other than Jeffery are over 30 and you don't want to sign anyone above 30 for longer than 3 years.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you were saying that you wanted someone like Pierre garçon to be brought in as a free agent but my problem with that is he costs salary cap space which we won't want to spend on both him and Wallace - which is why I said what I said that by bringing in garcon you essentially get rid of Wallace 

[trevorsteadman]

5 minutes ago, rossihunter2 said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but you were saying that you wanted someone like Pierre garçon to be brought in as a free agent but my problem with that is he costs salary cap space which we won't want to spend on both him and Wallace - which is why I said what I said that by bringing in garcon you essentially get rid of Wallace 

Not necessarily. You could probably bring in Garcon right now for 4-5 million a year. The team was spending 3-4 a season on Steve Smith. Spending a little bit more cash for a little bit younger of player isn't that out in left field.

And even still then the Ravens aren't investing much more than they have in the past which is still an issue. 

Edited January 11 by trevorsteadman

[rossihunter2]

30 minutes ago, atomicfront said:

 

We don't draft best player available.  We needed a Left Tackle urgently this year and we drafted one.  The thing is with all the injuries you have and free agency every position besides Punter, Kicker and Quarterback is a need.  You can't draft a Corner back at pick 16 if there are no first round quality Corner backs available.  You can only trade up or down if that is the position you are in and you want a corner back.  

 

22 minutes ago, trevorsteadman said:

I truly believe Ronnie Stanley was the best player on the board when the team picked at #6. I hated the pick because no one wants to see a LT taken at #6, but seriously everyone that I wanted more was taken. I really think BPA and need lined up perfectly last year at #6, but still wanted Bosa and Ramsey before. 

Well the needs of a team obviously has an effect on where players fall on the board - need is obviously a factor in BPA - the team does always stick to BPA but it's a common misconception that need and other considerations don't impact the value of a player on the draft board - for example if a qb is the pure best player on the board but you have Joe flacco, he's still not going to be the BPA pick on the board because need plays apart - that doesn't mean that we've got away from BPA so you are both right (and wrong) to a certain extent.

it is the ravens' common adage that they stick to the board - but some fans assume that need has no impact on the board when it would be crazy for it not to - so if we don't draft the "need" guy that either means the guy we picked we feel had amazing value at that spot or that the quality of players of a "need" were way below the pick value

[rossihunter2]

Just now, trevorsteadman said:

Not necessarily. You could probably bring in Garcon right now for 4-5 million a year. The team was spending 3-4 a season on Steve Smith. Spending a little bit more cash for a little bit younger of player isn't that out in left field.

I dunno, you could be right, and I personally think garçon is gonna get paid more than that (quite probably by Washington before he hits the market if I'm honest) but even so there's an opportunity cost to everything here - if you spend that money you aren't spending it elsewhere on other position groups that might also require free agent / cap casualty signings - and of course there is the opportunity cost of potentially losing a comp pick

[DomMcRaven]

39 minutes ago, trevorsteadman said:

I truly believe Ronnie Stanley was the best player on the board when the team picked at #6. I hated the pick because no one wants to see a LT taken at #6, but seriously everyone that I wanted more was taken. I really think BPA and need lined up perfectly last year at #6, but still wanted Bosa and Ramsey before. 

IIRC, I believed Ozzie wanted to trade up to #4 to get Ramsey, but DAL was like "Nah we good though."

[rossihunter2]

7 minutes ago, DomMcRaven said:

IIRC, I believed Ozzie wanted to trade up to #4 to get Ramsey, but DAL was like "Nah we good though."

They wanted our 3rd round pick and we only offered a 4th - then they got worried that we would take zeke and blew up the whole potential deal

[DomMcRaven]

1 minute ago, rossihunter2 said:

They wanted our 3rd round pick and we only offered a 4th - then they got worried that we would take zeke and blew up the whole potential deal

That I remember. I remember reading that we wanted Zeke (I though it was a smokescreen at the time) and that's what did it for them. Stanley is a consolation prize though.

[rossihunter2]

21 minutes ago, DomMcRaven said:

That I remember. I remember reading that we wanted Zeke (I though it was a smokescreen at the time) and that's what did it for them. Stanley is a consolation prize though.

In hindsight, and I know zeke was a great pick, I think I'm glad we got Stanley over the others: bosa would have been amazing, Ramsey has been really inconsistent and tavon might have even played better, Zeke is a running back who would have been running behind a line that didn't run block well all year - all this while Stanley came on really strong - I feel so good about that pick though

 

this is the first time I can remember the top 10 picks in the draft all being successful picks like this (take out Jared goff at 1)