BR News

[News] 2017 Ravens Free Agency Rumor Mill

203 posts in this topic

Hopefully that does not mean we offered more than others for Claiborne like we did with B Will. We need to draft a CB in first 2 rounds.

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tenders for Huff and Rolle have been withdrawn. Seems like the move to create the cap space for Claiborne?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  4 hours ago, bigcatfrank1 said:

Don't agree, you make it seem like there cannot be players, of similar level in competing positions, that are absolutely more important to add to a given roster. for that matter the Claibourne signing, if it happens, absolutely would have an effect on "priority". What it would not change is the choice of players who will be available for the Ravens at #16.

Why do teams trade positions if they didn't want to improve an immediate need? (of course as Romo shows still can bite you I=A)
Most teams don't trade up for the #1 QB or RB, why because they have solid filled positions. Not because he is the most talented player in the Draft, its a position decision.
It happens all the time.
So the 2 go hand in hand, one plus the other makes the best choice for the team. It s the most logical and the most historically.

Also you say on "our board" so " position need" plays into that decision.

Now sure one can argue which position is of the larger need, this seems to be the stronger of the argument that the post is referring to.

All being said, no one expects the Ravens or any team to take a 2nd round prospect over a 1st round prospect just because of position. Not that it probably hasn't happened, I would say is a rarity

When it comes to the draft the ravens will always go with the guy highest on their board.  Which is the BPA.  If they think they can trade back and still get that player then that is when they will make a trade. Whoever that guy is they are going to go with regardless of what position which is what he is saying.  The board is already set up so it doesn't matter what position the player is if he is the BPA then he is getting selected.  I don't think he is arguing with how the board is put together he is simply saying come draft time it doesn't matter because that whole hypothetical situation of these players are close, but this position is more of a priority. 

 

For example say this is our board and we are on the clock: (think of this list as how we are viewing actual players in the draft and not like they are the actual players)

1. Ed Reed 2. Todd Heap 3. Ben Grubbs 4. Anquan Boldin

Now we need a Guard since Alex Lewis might be kicking out to tackle and this Ben Grubbs type of guard would be a great addition. We also need a receiver and this Boldin type of player would really benefit Joe.   We don't really need a free safety, but we aren't going to pass on this Ed Reed type of player when we think he is the best player on the board.

huh?

Basically, you said two things. Which is what I am saying.

If you read McJackets response it didnt say that. He said and I quote that " it doesn't shift priorities in anyway"

also says "we are going to take the highest rated player on our board"

my points have't changed,
first if we acquire a CB in free agency it could and very probably will influence which player is selected in round #1. Additionally It will depend on ALL the players available at that time, rating (board), skill and position.

Not just the highest rated player!
If you were to poll Coach, Oz, Eric, owner, and all the coaches I am positive that you would get 4-5 BPA opinions at each pick from 1-200.

So yes BPA, rating, skill, position, match to the team philosophy, player personality, and consensus will all be factors

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  4 hours ago, bigcatfrank1 said:
  On 3/10/2017 at 8:47 AM, rmcjacket23 said:
  On 3/10/2017 at 0:35 AM, YorkCountyRaven said:
  On 3/9/2017 at 4:43 PM, rmcjacket23 said:

You're still missing the point entirely.

1. Nobody is saying that signing a FA corner takes away from drafting 1 or 5 of them. Still have no idea why you keep coming back to this.

2. You shouldn't be looking at what Wright got last year, because that's when he was coming off a good season. He was actually pretty good, or at least, above average, in 2015. That's why we paid him like that last season. He was signed for peanuts during the 2015 season after he was cut by the 49ers. That's what the market is for average corners. Its not nearly as robust as you think it is.

3. Sure, Webb, Jimmy and Young are good picks. That's 3 respectable corners in, what, 8 years? There's also Chykie Brown, Asa Jackson, Marc Anthony, and Tray Walker (unlucky on this one). So for every 1 corner we drafted that panned out, another one didn't.

You could argue that's due to where they were drafted, but no team can commit a day 1 or 2 pick on a corner every year and be successful. Heck, the guy you are arguing against us signing was a very high draft pick who was viewed as a "can't miss" prospect by many. There's busts just littered among day 1 picks in recent years at the corner position.

Again, goes back to my point... tons of risk.

If you think drafting corners is the way to go, I agree, and signing one won't change that. It MAY mean that you draft somebody else instead of a 6th round corner who's extremely unlikely to pan out, because lets face, we aren't using two top 3 round picks on a corner. Maybe one of those goes to a corner, but we aren't going to pull a Steelers and draft like 4 corners in the first 3 rounds like they've done recently. That hasn't panned out well for them thus far either.

4. Nobody is even remotely suggesting that we aren't trying to build through the draft. What you're neglecting is that our drafts haven't been very good lately (main reason why we are in this mess) and that a team that has like 10 positions they want to upgrade can't possibly do it in a draft, or two drafts, or maybe even three drafts. Half of your draft class is going to be irrelevant when its all said and done... that's just how the NFL works.

A lot of what people are missing is if we do go ahead and pursue Claiborne that allows us to use our 1st round pick on a pass rusher or even inside linebacker. Reuben Foster will be sitting there to take over Orr or a pass rusher that could take over Doom. If we don't pursue Claiborne the obvious first round pick should be corner, as you stated tavon is impressive but is better suited for the nickel and Jimmy is a great number 1 but he always gets hurt. In my opinion this would be a good signing.

No, it doesn't change anything. Again, signing a guy like Claiborne doesn't shift your priorities in any way.

We're going to take the highest rated player on our board in the 1st round. It doesn't matter what position it is. Could be pass rusher, MLB, Corner, Safety, Offensive Line, TE, WR or even RB based on what I see.

Signing Claiborne doesn't change that, because we aren't going to just start saying "we must have a corner, so we must take one here". That's how you end up drafting that doesn't turn into a good football player.

Don't agree, you make it seem like there cannot be players, of similar level in competing positions, that are absolutely more important to add to a given roster. for that matter the Claibourne signing, if it happens, absolutely would have an effect on "priority". What it would not change is the choice of players who will be available for the Ravens at #16.

Why do teams trade positions if they didn't want to improve an immediate need? (of course as Romo shows still can bite you I=A)
Most teams don't trade up for the #1 QB or RB, why because they have solid filled positions. Not because he is the most talented player in the Draft, its a position decision.
It happens all the time.
So the 2 go hand in hand, one plus the other makes the best choice for the team. It s the most logical and the most historically.

Also you say on "our board" so " position need" plays into that decision.

Now sure one can argue which position is of the larger need, this seems to be the stronger of the argument that the post is referring to.

All being said, no one expects the Ravens or any team to take a 2nd round prospect over a 1st round prospect just because of position. Not that it probably hasn't happened, I would say is a rarity

1. Don't see how signing somebody like Claiborne changes priority in the slightest. If you signed like a Stephon Gilmore to a monster contract, THEN it would change priority.

Signing a low level FA to a small contract with little or no guaranteed money (which is what we would do) doesn't change priority in the slightest, because its essentially a year to year contract.

Ozzie has told the public this probably thousands of times... the purpose of FA for the Ravens is to address certain positional needs so that the Ravens don't have to take a positional need in the 1st round. They use FA to make sure that the BPA strategy is still available in the draft.

2. When I reference "our board", it means the FO will design our draft board in a way that it eliminates certain positions for consideration from being the 1st round pick. For example, they almost certainly won't have a QB with a first round grade, because we don't want or need to address QB at that spot. Our rankings and ratings are put together based on a draft board we assemble to reflect positions we are interested in.

In some years, that draft board probably narrows down to maybe 3-4 positions. This year, almost every position would be a viable choice, because we have so many positions we can upgrade.

The entire purpose of FA for the Ravens (which is somewhat different than other teams) is that they don't have to assign a priority to certain positions per se in the first round of the draft. FA allows them to pick anybody at mostly any spot.

I will also point out that not every team has the same strategy obviously, and different franchises view FA and the draft differently than others. There are franchises who view it quite the opposite as the Ravens, wherein they use the draft as a place to attempt to upgrade need positions.

I think you just validated both of my points, I agree with most of your explanation.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

example, some on this site have said to take the TE at #16. I absolutely disagree, unless 48 players are taken before #16.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

example, some on this site have said to take the TE at #16. I absolutely disagree, unless 48 players are taken before #16.

aka as sarcasm.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 52liveforever said:

When it comes to the draft the ravens will always go with the guy highest on their board.  Which is the BPA.  If they think they can trade back and still get that player then that is when they will make a trade. Whoever that guy is they are going to go with regardless of what position which is what he is saying.  The board is already set up so it doesn't matter what position the player is if he is the BPA then he is getting selected.  I don't think he is arguing with how the board is put together he is simply saying come draft time it doesn't matter because that whole hypothetical situation of these players are close, but this position is more of a priority. 

 

For example say this is our board and we are on the clock: (think of this list as how we are viewing actual players in the draft and not like they are the actual players)

1. Ed Reed 2. Todd Heap 3. Ben Grubbs 4. Anquan Boldin

Now we need a Guard since Alex Lewis might be kicking out to tackle and this Ben Grubbs type of guard would be a great addition. We also need a receiver and this Boldin type of player would really benefit Joe.   We don't really need a free safety, but we aren't going to pass on this Ed Reed type of player when we think he is the best player on the board.

Well the obvious answer for Ozzie is #2.  When in doubt. add another tight end.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Pitta did not restructure, I'm almost certain we would have drafted OJ Howard. However, Pitta restructured and UW cornerback Sidney Jones is hurt. So its sounds like to me its simple. WR Mike Williams which most likely he won't be there so Derek Barnett or Charles Harris. Second we could trade back and pick the Tackle Ramczyk from Wisconsin to fill Wagner. Any of these players, I'd be excited about.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought , trade back 5 or 6 spots get an extra 3rd, draft Hasaan Reddick in the first, take S Jones with the extra 3rd he can set and rehabilitate for this year

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, The Beak said:

Just a thought , trade back 5 or 6 spots get an extra 3rd, draft Hasaan Reddick in the first, take S Jones with the extra 3rd he can set and rehabilitate for this year

You think he'd drop to the 3rd? He's top 15-20 in the draft, idk if he'd fall that far, even if he will have to sit out the first year. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

example, some on this site have said to take the TE at #16. I absolutely disagree, unless 48 players are taken before #16.

A TE at #16 is certainly in play, though I wouldn't bet that we would go that route, because there's really only one that we would be interested there.

We need playmakers. TEs who can catch passes and create mismatches would certainly qualify as a playmaker.

I know fans like to pretend like we have a lot of good players or quality depth at TE, but the fact that we keep referencing how much depth we have is kind of the point. We have a lot of depth and nobody who can separate themselves from the pack and force significant playing time and create problems for the defenses.

We've got guys that can block, and we've got guys that can catch. We don't have anybody who can do either.

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need playmakers, TE Howard at 16 would be good. We then could cut 2-3 of the benchwarmimg TE's we have. Pitta better be cheap this year. A starting QB would be even better, but we are stuck at that position.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I highly doubt we pick Howard at 16 even if he is there. We need corners and need to address one of these spots in the first 2 rounds and this draft has plenty of good options.

With Jones hurt we'll either trade back and grab Conley or stay and take a pass rusher. Then get another corner on day 3.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, BigUgly said:

Well the obvious answer for Ozzie is #2.  When in doubt. add another tight end.  

You're right man we need those 7 tight end sets. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  On 3/13/2017 at 6:52 PM, bigcatfrank1 said:

example, some on this site have said to take the TE at #16. I absolutely disagree, unless 48 players are taken before #16.

A TE at #16 is certainly in play, though I wouldn't bet that we would go that route, because there's really only one that we would be interested there.

We need playmakers. TEs who can catch passes and create mismatches would certainly qualify as a playmaker.

I know fans like to pretend like we have a lot of good players or quality depth at TE, but the fact that we keep referencing how much depth we have is kind of the point. We have a lot of depth and nobody who can separate themselves from the pack and force significant playing time and create problems for the defenses.

We've got guys that can block, and we've got guys that can catch. We don't have anybody who can do either.

SO you are saying that Howard is in play as the top 16th player on the Ravens board. Just say it Mac. no reason to beat around the bush.

I dont quite agree, there will be plenty of players available to the Ravens at #16 that will be better suited for the team at this point. I predict it will be the Ravens choice at #16 to pick a player who fills immediate need, style of play, dominance and can fill the starter level at the position asap.

Beside the fact that the Ravens TE depth is solid, there is no way to know if a Rookie can come in and compete at the starting level we agree on that.

With the retention of Pitta or Watson, even Gilmore, Waller or Boyle it would be doubtful to take over a starting position. These guys are Pro athletes, I think you give them less credit than deserved.

Again, its obvious that you disagree with me that the Ravens will not look at certain positions with the #1 pick. I guess we are about to find out this draft if that is so. There are many rated players to be chosen at 16, yes it will depend on the first 15.

However moving all players in and out the Ravens will pick past Howard for a CB, Edge, LB, WR, OL.
I say there are 10 players above him, maybe more at "clock time"

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Claiborne thing has drug out too long. If he wanted to be here, and the Ravens had the highest offer, then he should have signed. Clearly he is waiting for something else to happen or, like Jefferson who signed here, he may opt to take a lesser deal with a team he wants to play for. There is no other reason why he would be dragging his feet on signing with the Ravens if they have the highest offer (which is what most media outlets are reporting). I would think playing with Weddle and Jefferson as safeties and Smith and Tavon Young as supporting corners would entice cornerbacks to play with such a high quality secondary but apparently not. I believe he is holding out that the Cowboys sign him instead of Carr to a long term contract, but I don't believe they will do that deal.

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  23 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:
  On 3/13/2017 at 6:52 PM, bigcatfrank1 said:

example, some on this site have said to take the TE at #16. I absolutely disagree, unless 48 players are taken before #16.

A TE at #16 is certainly in play, though I wouldn't bet that we would go that route, because there's really only one that we would be interested there.

We need playmakers. TEs who can catch passes and create mismatches would certainly qualify as a playmaker.

I know fans like to pretend like we have a lot of good players or quality depth at TE, but the fact that we keep referencing how much depth we have is kind of the point. We have a lot of depth and nobody who can separate themselves from the pack and force significant playing time and create problems for the defenses.

We've got guys that can block, and we've got guys that can catch. We don't have anybody who can do either.

SO you are saying that Howard is in play as the top 16th player on the Ravens board. Just say it Mac. no reason to beat around the bush.

I dont quite agree, there will be plenty of players available to the Ravens at #16 that will be better suited for the team at this point. I predict it will be the Ravens choice at #16 to pick a player who fills immediate need, style of play, dominance and can fill the starter level at the position asap.

Beside the fact that the Ravens TE depth is solid, there is no way to know if a Rookie can come in and compete at the starting level we agree on that.

With the retention of Pitta or Watson, even Gilmore, Waller or Boyle it would be doubtful to take over a starting position. These guys are Pro athletes, I think you give them less credit than deserved.

Again, its obvious that you disagree with me that the Ravens will not look at certain positions with the #1 pick. I guess we are about to find out this draft if that is so. There are many rated players to be chosen at 16, yes it will depend on the first 15.

However moving all players in and out the Ravens will pick past Howard for a CB, Edge, LB, WR, OL.
I say there are 10 players above him, maybe more at "clock time"

I don't know if he's in play or not. The connection is there, and he's considered a universal first round prospect by many. He's a playmaker with freakish size and is a matchup nightmare. Would stand to reason that any team in the league would love to have him.

If the Ravens actually selected a player that would fill an immediate need (of which TE still qualifies there in my eyes), that would be a stark deviation from what we normally do, so I'm not sure what the basis for that expectation is.

You say that you don't know if a rookie can come in and compete at a starting level. That applies to 100% of positions. If we draft a Corner, Safety, Pass Rusher, MLB, Olineman, WR, etc., there's zero guarantee he can be a starter right away. Many of those positions I would argue its almost implied that he won't be a starter, based on the learning curve of the position.

Frankly it doesn't matter what you, I, or anybody else rates a player. Its pretty frequently that the FO rates players much differently than fans or the media does, oftentimes to our benefit.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Claiborne thing has drug out too long. If he wanted to be here, and the Ravens had the highest offer, then he should have signed. Clearly he is waiting for something else to happen or, like Jefferson who signed here, he may opt to take a lesser deal with a team he wants to play for. There is no other reason why he would be dragging his feet on signing with the Ravens if they have the highest offer (which is what most media outlets are reporting). I would think playing with Weddle and Jefferson as safeties and Smith and Tavon Young as supporting corners would entice cornerbacks to play with such a high quality secondary but apparently not. I believe he is holding out that the Cowboys sign him instead of Carr to a long term contract, but I don't believe they will do that deal.

Pretty sure Claiborne realizes that very little is going to change before the draft, and that it doesn't matter at all if he signs now or a month from now, because the market pretty much is what it is at this point.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have injury issues with our number one corner. So we want to bring in a guy that has missed more games than he's played in his career to injury?????? Um......hmmm

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now