[News] What Mike Mayock's Gut Tells Him Ravens Will Do At No. 16

[sizzlingdoom]

  14 minutes ago, sizzlingdoom said:

He would've been a top 10 pick without the issues and transfer. You are hilarious though. Obviously you like to hear yourself talk, think you know more than others, and are trying to defend our putrid drafting that even the front office admitted has fallen off a cliff. LOL. Carry on though. LOL. Keep sounding like an ignorant donkey
"In the end, this feels like fans trying to justify something they can't understand to themselves. Understand to themselves.....LOL. Nice."
Even if you had valid points, which you don't, you would still sound like the biggest tool on here. HAHA Carry on though. Keep making yourself feel good. It is entertaining

1. Again, great opinion statement. Nothing that can be vaguely described as factual, and would be lovely if it had any substance or basis to it. But hey, far more fun to make opinion statements and pray that nobody challenge you on them right? 

2. Seems quite ironic to accuse somebody else of thinking they know more than others, given that your entire premise is based on the concept that you know how to evaluate players more than NFL FO personnel do. If there's anything certainly worth laughing out loud at, its certainly that notion. Its like the guy wearing his varsity jacket at the Applebees at age 40 who thinks he can still play QB better than half the NFL. 

3. Yeah, because the fans who like to tell themselves bedtime stories about how John just wants "choir boys" and won't take players with "character concerns" aren't telling themselves those fairy tales to make themselves feel better.

Again, just a case of fans trying to justify to themselves something they simply can't understand.

 

HAHAHAHA. I can't understand any of it. This whole football thing. Can you just send me your info so I'll never be misinformed again ever. Its so confusing LOL

[rmcjacket23]

1 minute ago, RaRaRavens said:

Just to name the first that come to mind:

Justin Houston

Alshon Jeffrey

Vontaze Burfict (Went undrafted, could have had him without wasting a pick. But we didn't even consider him as was reported later. He was an early 1st round projection and our FO (again my gut tells me it was largely due to the opposition from Harbs) didn't even try to get him to our practice squad. And I know what you're gonna say, he's a dirty player who gets flagged a lot, but at least he plays with an edge, is a game changing defender and puts fear into his opponents' hearts. That can't be said about many of our defenders.)

Keenan Allen

Noah Spence

And which member of the organization told you that we passed on these players specifically due to character concerns?

Or, again, because a mock draft analyst said they would be good players, you just assume that the reason we didn't take them is because of character concerns, and not the fact that we may not have thought they would be very good?

I mean I'm honestly just looking for some sort of source or any validation whatsoever from you guys that has any factual basis whatsoever of why we didn't draft these players.

If it is what you say it is, this shouldn't be that hard to provide.

[rmcjacket23]

7 minutes ago, sizzlingdoom said:

It's been happening for more than half a decade. Not a year or two which would lead to speculation.
Clearly we're all not as intelligent as you though!!!HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Please though, keep informing us. I don't think we could do without your inside info! LOL.
O you pragmatic and realistic fan.......HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

If its been happening for more than five years, then that list of all those players the FO admitted to not drafting due to character concerns shouldn't be that hard to provide now should it?

I mean if I were going to be a responsible, rational fan that created this type of narrative, I'd at least invest a couple minutes into being able to support it.

At the very least...

[rmcjacket23]

7 minutes ago, RaRaRavens said:

Just to name the first that come to mind:

Justin Houston

Alshon Jeffrey

Vontaze Burfict (Went undrafted, could have had him without wasting a pick. But we didn't even consider him as was reported later. He was an early 1st round projection and our FO (again my gut tells me it was largely due to the opposition from Harbs) didn't even try to get him to our practice squad. And I know what you're gonna say, he's a dirty player who gets flagged a lot, but at least he plays with an edge, is a game changing defender and puts fear into his opponents' hearts. That can't be said about many of our defenders.)

Keenan Allen

Noah Spence

Without going off into a massive tangent on Burfict, he's also a player who isn't actually on the football field that often for various reasons (missed 22 regular season games the last 3 years). I think you might want to keep in mind how this fanbase responds to players who miss a handful of games over a few years (very negatively), let alone a guy who's only on the field about half the time.

And no, he isn't the kind of player who "puts fear into his opponents hearts". This ain't a Gladiator fictional movie. NFL players aren't actually scared of other NFL players. 

[RaRaRavens]

31 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

And which member of the organization told you that we passed on these players specifically due to character concerns?

Or, again, because a mock draft analyst said they would be good players, you just assume that the reason we didn't take them is because of character concerns, and not the fact that we may not have thought they would be very good?

I mean I'm honestly just looking for some sort of source or any validation whatsoever from you guys that has any factual basis whatsoever of why we didn't draft these players.

If it is what you say it is, this shouldn't be that hard to provide.

Harbaugh has repeatedly stated in the past, that he does not want his team anything to do with players with past problems. If you want to play ignorant then just read this article: http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/11002821/baltimore-ravens-coach-john-harbaugh-very-concerned-field-incidents.

Let me quote: "Harbaugh has taken a lot of pride in how he transformed the Ravens' bad-boy reputation since taking over as coach in 2008. He even stopped using all-black uniforms for a couple of seasons because of the image it presented.".

If that does not convince you that Harbaugh has something to do with the FO no touching players with "character concerns" with ten-foot pole - no matter how talented they are - then you are just willfully naive.

[RaRaRavens]

47 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Without going off into a massive tangent on Burfict, he's also a player who isn't actually on the football field that often for various reasons (missed 22 regular season games the last 3 years). I think you might want to keep in mind how this fanbase responds to players who miss a handful of games over a few years (very negatively), let alone a guy who's only on the field about half the time.

And no, he isn't the kind of player who "puts fear into his opponents hearts". This ain't a Gladiator fictional movie. NFL players aren't actually scared of other NFL players. 

You are right about the missing time being unacceptable, though you can't deny Burfict's sheer talent and play making ability when he is on the field.

 

As for the fear part, I can not agree with you. I'm not talking about afraid-for-your-life kind of afraid-to-play-against-this-player fear. My point was, when a receiver runs over the middle and just violently gets lit up when catching the ball, he won't run that route again with so much confidence. Every week we see receivers drop quite easy catches because a DB like Earl Thomas was just in the vicinity. We witnessed it ourselves during the haydays of Suggs - when Suggs had flat out punished the QB for 3 quarters with vicious hits, the QB would at one point just rush his throws and force INTs when he thought that Suggs just even might get to him. That is also fear. That is what I'm talking about. And that is what has been all but gone pretty much since 2012. In my opinion, largely due to Harbaugh's ban of the badboy mentality.

Edited March 1 by RaRaRavens
Grammar

[rmcjacket23]

2 minutes ago, RaRaRavens said:

Harbaugh has repeatedly stated in the past, that he does not want his team anything to do with players with past problems. If you want to play ignorant then just read this article: http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/11002821/baltimore-ravens-coach-john-harbaugh-very-concerned-field-incidents.

Let me quote: "Harbaugh has taken a lot of pride in how he transformed the Ravens' bad-boy reputation since taking over as coach in 2008. He even stopped using all-black uniforms for a couple of seasons because of the image it presented.".

If that does not convince you that Harbaugh has something to do with the FO no touching players with "character concerns" with ten-foot pole - no matter how talented they are - then you are just willfully naive.

1. Not a very smart article to reference to validate your point, considering it has literally nothing to do with the draft process whatsoever, nor is there even a vague reference to it. That article, specifically, was about a brief period of time where we had multiple arrests for players that were ALREADY ON THE TEAM, and how John wanted to clean up existing players so that the franchise didn't get an even further bad image.

2. What is REALLY happening here is that fans are extending something that the FO actually did say and applying it at a much broader scale to, for the 10th time, explain something that you can't understand.

The FO is specifically on record as to have said that they won't touch players with DOMESTIC VIOLENCE backgrounds, and rightfully so, given the beating they took in PR because of the Ray Rice issue and the handling of it. They also said that they would be more closely evaluating character issues among new players going forward. 

Neither of those things, of course, indicate that they simply won't draft players with character concerns. That's a stretch that YOU and other fans are making, because you want to be able to explain why the FO didn't take a player that you liked or that mock analysts liked. 

In fact, here's an article where the FO addresses all of these things and tells you exactly how they look at things:

http://www.baltimoreravens.com/news/article-1/Ravens-Will-Take-Chances-On-Some-Players-With-Character-Issues-Just-Not-Ones-With-Domestic-Violence/63f34b4e-b5e5-468a-8bc0-e0d567b64b3d

And naturally, I've completely avoided going down the rabbit hole that is the risk of everything you guys are asking for. Its naturally easy for fans to ask to take more risks, because fans face 0% of the responsibility for those risks. You don't lose your job if you take several risks and they don't pan out... the FO staff does.

Thought one of the last points in that article puts things in perspective with one player... Randy Gregory. Prototypical case of a player with all the talent in the world that would certainly qualify as a guy with "character concerns". And imagine that... those concerns appeared to be more than real.

Always easy for fans to show the guy who had character concerns that did OK... that's convenient. Much more difficult for a fan to understand the risks associated with that type of pick, and understand the consequences that come from being wrong, especially when you face zero of the criticism.

[rmcjacket23]

3 minutes ago, RaRaRavens said:

You are right about the missing time being unacceptable, though you can't deny Burfict's sheer talent and play making ability when he is on the field.

 

As for the fear part, I can not agree with you. I'm not talking about afraid-for-your-life kind of afraid-to-play-against-this-player fear. My point was, when a receiver runs over the middle and just violently gets lit up when catching the ball, he won't run that route again with so much confidence. Every week we see receivers drop quite easy catches because a DB like Earl Thomas was just in the vicinity. We witnessed it ourselves during the haydays of Suggs - when Suggs had flat out punished the QB for 3 quarters with vicious hits, the QB would at one point just rush his throws and force INTs when he even thought that Suggs might get there. That is also fear. That is what I'm talking about. And that is what has been all but gone pretty much since 2012. 

We didn't have that in 2012 either. Nobody was afraid to go over the middle against us. You have to go back to at least 2008-2010 to find a time where teams were actually "afraid" to play our defense based on some of the things we could do.

That did not even remotely apply during a SB run, especially when that defense just simply wasn't very good. And that's further proof of the point that its not a requirement to have a defense or a player like that in order to be good in this league.

 

[RaRaRavens]

Just now, rmcjacket23 said:

1. Not a very smart article to reference to validate your point, considering it has literally nothing to do with the draft process whatsoever, nor is there even a vague reference to it. That article, specifically, was about a brief period of time where we had multiple arrests for players that were ALREADY ON THE TEAM, and how John wanted to clean up existing players so that the franchise didn't get an even further bad image.

2. What is REALLY happening here is that fans are extending something that the FO actually did say and applying it at a much broader scale to, for the 10th time, explain something that you can't understand.

The FO is specifically on record as to have said that they won't touch players with DOMESTIC VIOLENCE backgrounds, and rightfully so, given the beating they took in PR because of the Ray Rice issue and the handling of it. They also said that they would be more closely evaluating character issues among new players going forward. 

Neither of those things, of course, indicate that they simply won't draft players with character concerns. That's a stretch that YOU and other fans are making, because you want to be able to explain why the FO didn't take a player that you liked or that mock analysts liked. 

In fact, here's an article where the FO addresses all of these things and tells you exactly how they look at things:

http://www.baltimoreravens.com/news/article-1/Ravens-Will-Take-Chances-On-Some-Players-With-Character-Issues-Just-Not-Ones-With-Domestic-Violence/63f34b4e-b5e5-468a-8bc0-e0d567b64b3d

And naturally, I've completely avoided going down the rabbit hole that is the risk of everything you guys are asking for. Its naturally easy for fans to ask to take more risks, because fans face 0% of the responsibility for those risks. You don't lose your job if you take several risks and they don't pan out... the FO staff does.

Thought one of the last points in that article puts things in perspective with one player... Randy Gregory. Prototypical case of a player with all the talent in the world that would certainly qualify as a guy with "character concerns". And imagine that... those concerns appeared to be more than real.

Always easy for fans to show the guy who had character concerns that did OK... that's convenient. Much more difficult for a fan to understand the risks associated with that type of pick, and understand the consequences that come from being wrong, especially when you face zero of the criticism.

Draft process considers all those things as well, so it's very valid article to reference the philosophy.

 

And I am aware about your article, actually when you look at the comments under it you see me praising they change in direction. But when you look at the interview where Biscotti said that Ravens will (again) be taking chances with players with minor past problems, Harbaugh and Oz had the longest face ever as if someone had a very serious conversation with them just now. 

 

That's why I think it was direct command from B to change this BS mentality of only taking safe sure and goodygood players, and I think it's the right move.

[rmcjacket23]

1 minute ago, RaRaRavens said:

Draft process considers all those things as well, so it's very valid article to reference the philosophy.

 

And I am aware about your article, actually when you look at the comments under it you see me praising they change in direction. But when you look at the interview where Biscotti said that Ravens will (again) be taking chances with players with minor past problems, Harbaugh and Oz had the longest face ever as if someone had a very serious conversation with them just now. 

 

That's why I think it was direct command from B to change this BS mentality of only taking safe sure and goodygood players, and I think it's the right move.

LOL, I'm seeing the same thing as you and I'm not nearly drawing the same conclusions.

I certainly don't think it has much to do with Bischotti at all, particularly considering that would stray far away from how he normally runs this team. The only "edict" that I can foresee him giving the team is the one that he already told everybody about... he's not touching guys with DV backgrounds.

I'm not going to try to pretend to draw body language expressions or try to contrive something that isn't there. I take people at what they say. If they lie to me, so be it, because I have nothing else to go by from a stranger than their words.

As I addressed in my earlier post, I think fans legitimately underestimate the risk factors associated with these types of thoughts, and I actually think it can be quite difficult to justify the reward exceeding the risk in some of these situations.

 

[steelcityraven]

Round 1: Takkarist McKinney- OLB- UCLA (great athlete / great motor)

Round 2. TreDavious White-CB- LSU- (a Jimmy Smith type-plug and play)

Round 3. JuJu Smith-Schuster-WR-USC- (athlete, playmaker, with good size and maybe be very under rated- he can start now)

Round 3. Rasul Douglas- CB- WVU- (very physical and big CB- good in press and good athlete- still raw but well worth the pick at end of round 3)

Round 4. Devonte Fields-OLB- Louisville (very under rated- He and McKinney can be our future replacing Suggs and Dum- we have Judon but never have enough pass rushers and that is what Mr. Biscotti wants)

Round 5. Zach Banner- G- USC (behemoth - at 6'8 261 and moves very fluidly for his size. He has a slower first step and sometime would get beat to the outside but sliding him in at G would prevent that and placing him beside Ronnie Stanley would make quite an impressive wall to protect Flacco for years to come. Plus Banner is a nasty run blocker who would fit well in Greg Romans system)

Round 6. Ronnell Pumphrey- RB- SDST (speed. He is an electric playmaker who can make you miss and move the chains. He would make our offense more explosive and dangerous. He is a little on the frail side but he would not be an every down back playing with Kenneth Dixon (who will see he brunt of the work) Pumphey is a perfect change of pace / make a play guy with good hands and a lot of make you miss).

[Drew P]

59 minutes ago, steelcityraven said:

Round 5. Zach Banner- G- USC (behemoth - at 6'8 261 and moves very fluidly for his size. He has a slower first step and sometime would get beat to the outside but sliding him in at G would prevent that and placing him beside Ronnie Stanley would make quite an impressive wall to protect Flacco for years to come. Plus Banner is a nasty run blocker who would fit well in Greg Romans system)

Round 6. Ronnell Pumphrey- RB- SDST (speed. He is an electric playmaker who can make you miss and move the chains. He would make our offense more explosive and dangerous. He is a little on the frail side but he would not be an every down back playing with Kenneth Dixon (who will see he brunt of the work) Pumphey is a perfect change of pace / make a play guy with good hands and a lot of make you miss).

I save these replies for the draft thread but Banner is a sloth and the action inside between the tackles is actually faster.

Also, his name is Donnell Pumphrey and I cant see the FO selecting  a runt when they need day one plug in and play guys.

[steelcityraven]

  1 hour ago, steelcityraven said:

Round 5. Zach Banner- G- USC (behemoth - at 6'8 261 and moves very fluidly for his size. He has a slower first step and sometime would get beat to the outside but sliding him in at G would prevent that and placing him beside Ronnie Stanley would make quite an impressive wall to protect Flacco for years to come. Plus Banner is a nasty run blocker who would fit well in Greg Romans system)

Round 6. Ronnell Pumphrey- RB- SDST (speed. He is an electric playmaker who can make you miss and move the chains. He would make our offense more explosive and dangerous. He is a little on the frail side but he would not be an every down back playing with Kenneth Dixon (who will see he brunt of the work) Pumphey is a perfect change of pace / make a play guy with good hands and a lot of make you miss).

I save these replies for the draft thread but Banner is a sloth and the action inside between the tackles is actually faster.

Also, his name is Donnell Pumphrey and I cant see the FO selecting  a runt when they need day one plug in and play guys.

Banner is a mauler in the run game -watch the film on him and albeit the action maybe faster on the inside (which I do not agree with) I will it doesn't matter either way bc at G he would have help on either side. Where at T he typically will not. Banner is not lazy and actually very fluid for a enormous guy. - While he is not as athletic as KO he reminds me a lot of a larger Alex Lewis who played well for us at G.

Yes it is Donnell not Ronnell Pumphrey... typo... thanks but either way... we do not need a plug in and play RB... Kenneth Dixon is clearly going to be our workhorse. The coaching staff is very high on Dixon and they should be but Dixon lacks the explosiveness on passing downs to turn those sort completions into home run threats. Pumphrey is a great compliment to Dixon.

The only way we grab a plug in and play RB is if Dalvin Cook falls to 16 or if we grab Jamal Charles of off FA (and I still don't see Charles being much more then a complimentary back to Dixon)

Just curious what your thoughts on McKinney and TreDavious White are? and what do you think of Jabrill Peppers in round 1?