[News] Late For Work 4/21: Will Ravens Make Playoffs? Predicting Regular-Season Record

[bigcatfrank1]

WIth all I have said, my gut is Cam Robinson at #16.The board falls against the Ravens with the top WR and Rush options.

[20306cab]

The only reason the Steelers strength of schedule is weaker than the Ravens, is because they get to play the mediocre Ravens twice. Otherwise, I'd much rather play the Raiders and Dolphins, than the Chiefs and Patriots.

[billiejean]

  3 hours ago, bigcatfrank1 said:

  8 hours ago, bioLarzen said:

  On 4/21/2017 at 2:58 PM, bigcatfrank1 said:

If Fournette makes past 6 the Ravens might move up !

Just curious: do you know what pick package Ozzie should give up to trade up to, let's say #7?

Well lets look at it from a different perspective, At #7 The Chargers are most probably looking for Safety or WR help. If they think that they can move down and still get a player that is on their board, then they may be motivated by additional picks this year and next.

Sure the question is would Fournette be worth the sacrifice of lets say one of the extra #3's this year and a #2 next year /or even a throw in a player on the roster maybe a TE ( we have plenty) This is not out of the question. Its all about the deal.

The Ravens, inside camp, if potentially make the play-offs especially deep, will not have very favorable picks next year. This could be the move of the next 2 years. Is Fournette the real deal?

I say The Las Vegas Chargers for a reason, this team is in a very trepidatious time. The LV Chargers could be looking at 3 years from now, they know they are most probably not facing a potential "win it all" situation this year. This then could have major impact on a trade deal for a team such as the Ravens at 16, who would be very motivated if Fournette were to fall past #6.
This is the primary reason, I say at #7, that OZ and the FO to look at certain scenarios. This happens all the time, sure a deal is not made when a team has to give up more than they are willing duh, what I am saying is would the Ravens look at this? I think I would, even make a call if I were them.

Frank the Chargers are moving to Los Angelos. And I dont think any of your arguments used to legitimize your thought that the Ravens will consider trading spots with the Chargers are valid. I think it would be a good move for the Chargers to trade back. They could stack up more picks while potentially still being able to take the best OT in the draft. The fact that they are in a building year isn't going to make them lower the price for that pick. They will be asking for at least 2 early rounders (most likely more). If the Ravens were a RB away from winning the superbowl the trade up might make sense but giving up early round picks with all of the holes that we have just isn't logical at this point and I can assure you that Ozzy isn't going to give them a ring because he knows the price is too steep. Throwing in a TE wouldn't sweeten the deal much. They drafted a TE last year at 35 (he almost hit the 500 yrd mark) and already have Antonio Gates. If Fournette falls out of the top 10 the FO would certainly consider moving up but with the position we are in any early draft pick that we would have to give up is akin to selling the farm.

[rmcjacket23]

4 hours ago, bigcatfrank1 said:

I dont know how the front office actually feels about Fournette. I can tell you that from a play-by-play fan, I see a need for a top tier RB on the Ravens.
I am not giving up on West and Dixon, I just have not seen West make his jump to #1. Dixon is young and he had tremendous potential, is he the #1?
Obviously, though an incredible veteran, Woodhead is a band-aid and will not be around much longer.

WIll the Ravens have a shot at drafting a #1 RB in the next 2 years?

Well you can get #1 RBs without using a first round pick. There's plenty of them in the league right now.

So we have the ability to get a #1 RB any year that we want to.

[rmcjacket23]

4 hours ago, eze17 said:

I would also add that when teams lose their starting CB's it can take a definate toll on the overall play of said team...we need only to look at the Raven's overall D when we lose Jimmy Smith. Most teams only have 2, and if they're lucky 3 legitimate starters at CB, the rest are " do not use unless desperate" players who may hold their own in dime packages against mediocre WR's, but get torched by starters.

I could also make a case that losing your starting center can affect a team to a bigger degree than most other positions. Not all teams have a quality back-up who can come right in and not miss a beat. QB's like to have that solid guy they depend on, and iv'e seen plenty of occasions where losing a center can really hurt a team.

Depends on how good the corner/corners are, and how much depth the team has.

Again, I look to 2014. Jimmy missed half the regular season and the entire postseason, and we beat Pittsburgh in Pittsburgh and came pretty close to beating NE in NE. We definitely missed him that game, but it certainly didn't stop us from being competitive.

A player like Jimmy is pretty much the 2nd most valuable player on the team in terms of a player where we've seen the steepest drop off in production from replacement level players in previous years. But that doesn't mean the team is dead when he goes out.

[billiejean]

WIth all I have said, my gut is Cam Robinson at #16.The board falls against the Ravens with the top WR and Rush options.

Its way to early to take him at 16. Maybe if we traded back but this is an extremely week class which means that OL needy teams are going to draft those top 2 guys earlier than they probably should.

[Halshayeji]

On April 21, 2017 at 11:06 PM, Crusader said:

How can anyone even talk playoffs when Ravens don't even have a Offensive Line yet?. Am I the only one that remembers the horrors the last time Ravens lost their Center and the replacement could not handle the job?

Your definitely not the only one. We would like to upgrade at WR, CB, and Pass rush. We need two more starters on the Oline! and some quality depth considering Ducass beat out Jensen, Hurst, and Urschel...

i don't think the draft alone addresses those needs

Edited April 23 by Halshayeji

[bigcatfrank1]

  20 hours ago, bigcatfrank1 said:

I dont know how the front office actually feels about Fournette. I can tell you that from a play-by-play fan, I see a need for a top tier RB on the Ravens.
I am not giving up on West and Dixon, I just have not seen West make his jump to #1. Dixon is young and he had tremendous potential, is he the #1?
Obviously, though an incredible veteran, Woodhead is a band-aid and will not be around much longer.

WIll the Ravens have a shot at drafting a #1 RB in the next 2 years?

Well you can get #1 RBs without using a first round pick. There's plenty of them in the league right now.

So we have the ability to get a #1 RB any year that we want to.

so if that is true where is the #1 RB?

[bigcatfrank1]

  19 hours ago, bigcatfrank1 said:

WIth all I have said, my gut is Cam Robinson at #16.The board falls against the Ravens with the top WR and Rush options.

Its way to early to take him at 16. Maybe if we traded back but this is an extremely week class which means that OL needy teams are going to draft those top 2 guys earlier than they probably should.

you contradicted yourself, I agree that a trade back is probably an option and still get Robinson. However if your point is true that because of a week class teams will draft earlier, then why wouldn't the Ravens take Robinson at 16.

I just don't get it , all this talk about the bottom 20 are very, very close and then people want to argue that its too early to take one of them.

Some do not think he sits above Ramczyk but I think he fits the Ravens better. Maybe the Ravens do too.

Simple facts, the Ravens can really use a top, starting caliber RT. A young counter side to Stanley could solidify this line for 3 years.
Yanda and Lewis on the inside leaving the Center position TBD in house or maybe even later in the draft.

I will not be surprised if the Ravens take Cam at 16, again as I said if the Ravens board falls like dominos and it probably will. 1-10 are practically no brainers, we all have talked for months about them.

[bigcatfrank1]

  15 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

  20 hours ago, bigcatfrank1 said:

I dont know how the front office actually feels about Fournette. I can tell you that from a play-by-play fan, I see a need for a top tier RB on the Ravens.
I am not giving up on West and Dixon, I just have not seen West make his jump to #1. Dixon is young and he had tremendous potential, is he the #1?
Obviously, though an incredible veteran, Woodhead is a band-aid and will not be around much longer.

WIll the Ravens have a shot at drafting a #1 RB in the next 2 years?

Well you can get #1 RBs without using a first round pick. There's plenty of them in the league right now.

So we have the ability to get a #1 RB any year that we want to.

so if that is true where is the #1 RB?

BTW Jacket we have had this discussion before. I know you have good knowledge and some ( even I ) can appreciate it.
But I try not to make points without using specific Ravens players and potential players as examples or topics.
While prognosticating might not be your favorite thing, you tend to dance around actual examples of players when you contradict or comment.
My point is specifically about the #1 RB in the draft Fournette. You can plain disagree that he is worth it and that is fine, or you can give some decent points about the player and why. You could point out a couple of running backs later in the draft that, you think, may be better "starting" running backs.
You could say the Ravens dont need a running back so they will not go up and get the #1.
But to generalize is quite snipey.

[Crusader]

  On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Crusader said:

How can anyone even talk playoffs when Ravens don't even have a Offensive Line yet?. Am I the only one that remembers the horrors the last time Ravens lost their Center and the replacement could not handle the job?

Here comes the "they are pumped" on Skura comments

I don't know who Skura is but unless he is experienced at center he is not going to help this year. The learning curve is too great. JJ Watt is going to eat this offenses lines lunch.

[bigcatfrank1]

  20 hours ago, bigcatfrank1 said:

  20 hours ago, bigcatfrank1 said:

  On 4/22/2017 at 8:59 AM, bioLarzen said:

  On 4/21/2017 at 2:58 PM, bigcatfrank1 said:

If Fournette makes past 6 the Ravens might move up !

Just curious: do you know what pick package Ozzie should give up to trade up to, let's say #7?

Well lets look at it from a different perspective, At #7 The Chargers are most probably looking for Safety or WR help. If they think that they can move down and still get a player that is on their board, then they may be motivated by additional picks this year and next.

Sure the question is would Fournette be worth the sacrifice of lets say one of the extra #3's this year and a #2 next year /or even a throw in a player on the roster maybe a TE ( we have plenty) This is not out of the question. Its all about the deal.

The Ravens, inside camp, if potentially make the play-offs especially deep, will not have very favorable picks next year. This could be the move of the next 2 years. Is Fournette the real deal?

I say The Las Vegas Chargers for a reason, this team is in a very trepidatious time. The LV Chargers could be looking at 3 years from now, they know they are most probably not facing a potential "win it all" situation this year. This then could have major impact on a trade deal for a team such as the Ravens at 16, who would be very motivated if Fournette were to fall past #6.
This is the primary reason, I say at #7, that OZ and the FO to look at certain scenarios. This happens all the time, sure a deal is not made when a team has to give up more than they are willing duh, what I am saying is would the Ravens look at this? I think I would, even make a call if I were them.

Frank the Chargers are moving to Los Angelos. And I dont think any of your arguments used to legitimize your thought that the Ravens will consider trading spots with the Chargers are valid. I think it would be a good move for the Chargers to trade back. They could stack up more picks while potentially still being able to take the best OT in the draft. The fact that they are in a building year isn't going to make them lower the price for that pick. They will be asking for at least 2 early rounders (most likely more). If the Ravens were a RB away from winning the superbowl the trade up might make sense but giving up early round picks with all of the holes that we have just isn't logical at this point and I can assure you that Ozzy isn't going to give them a ring because he knows the price is too steep. Throwing in a TE wouldn't sweeten the deal much. They drafted a TE last year at 35 (he almost hit the 500 yrd mark) and already have Antonio Gates. If Fournette falls out of the top 10 the FO would certainly consider moving up but with the position we are in any early draft pick that we would have to give up is akin to selling the farm.

Agh, my bad. I stand corrected LA Chargers. Its the Raiders moving to LV.
1.Thanks for agreeing with me, without validating my arguments, that the Chargers may be motivated to move back which means they would trade with a team to move up. ( ie the Ravens)
2 early rounders- I guess you just couldn't bring yourself to saying they wont trade without a #1. So IF ( yes big IF) the Ravens were to go deep in the playoffs this year #1 next year isn't a very good position and maybe the best time to make a deal is now.
3 The Ravens just like all NFL teams will start with 52, they wont have holes they just will have weaknesses, sounds like you have decided which ones you are willing to live with.
4. I dont know what Oz will do, I wont assure you of anything other than what I might do and i would call them at #7 for Fournette.
5. Gates, my point exactly, Ravens have 4 young TE's.
6. So you say 11-15, tell me which team would want less than the LA chargers?
7. I said a couple of chickens for a rooster dude, not the farm, never said that

[Crusader]

Can't see that Jackson game as a clear win. Jackson use to playing there, Ravens are on the road, last time at home Ravens won by three points, and most of that production was SSS. Cleaveland wins will soon be hard to come by. 11 picks this year. Even a 6 year old can pick 5 good players that will give Ravens a hard time.Ravens can't afford to miss on any of these picks. No more Elam's or Browns. Please. We need a new hero.

[bigcatfrank1]

  20 hours ago, bigcatfrank1 said:

It really comes down to would the teams at 7- 12 move down. OZ can make any deal he wants, give up the farm no, but give up chickens for a rooster maybe.

I'd prefer taking Christian McCaffrey and retaining our draft picks. We could use everything Mac brings to the table: RB, WR, PR/KR.

Its an option, I wonder how much different each player will be for their prospective teams coming. There is always a risk, I just dont know if using the Ravens BPA rating that McCaffery would top Robinson or some of the other close choices.
I wouldn't be discouraged with McCaffery, he could learn from one of the best who is similar to his style, Woodhead.

I do think RB and RT are the 2 most important starting positions that the Ravens can focus on for the immediate situation looking at game 1. Things will change after the draft and as the 90 man fills, Just my opinion.

[rmcjacket23]

1 hour ago, bigcatfrank1 said:

BTW Jacket we have had this discussion before. I know you have good knowledge and some ( even I ) can appreciate it.
But I try not to make points without using specific Ravens players and potential players as examples or topics.
While prognosticating might not be your favorite thing, you tend to dance around actual examples of players when you contradict or comment.
My point is specifically about the #1 RB in the draft Fournette. You can plain disagree that he is worth it and that is fine, or you can give some decent points about the player and why. You could point out a couple of running backs later in the draft that, you think, may be better "starting" running backs.
You could say the Ravens dont need a running back so they will not go up and get the #1.
But to generalize is quite snipey.

We don't need another RB. We signed a passing down specialist back, and we have two guys who are more than capable of being quality RBs, though I don't find either particularly special.

I wouldn't take Fournette for a plethora of reasons. For starters, he's your prototype two down RB. He's not a viable asset in the passing game, meaning you will perpetually need to employ another RB with a different skill set, thus using a second roster spot on a back to produce the value that one well-rounded RB could achieve on their own. And if that passing down back is a pure specialist (much in the way Woodhead is), you're basically committing to carrying 3 RBs at all times, which is not exactly ideal if you're in a tough spot with injured players later in the year.

Most importantly, I don't really like bruising backs that actively seek contact. Everybody likes to pretend like "Beast mode" is the way to go, but those guys wear down and wear down fast, and seeking contact in the NFL is much different than seeking it in College. 

To me, Fournette is a one contract back. I can't give a guy like that $10M a year on a second deal when he's going to be 26-30 years old.

I have no issue using a day 3 pick on a RB and seeing if they end up being a value play and outplay West, because I don't think West is anything special either. Its just brutally hard to get a quality ROI on a first round RB in this league anymore, especially when the Pro production dropoff from first round backs to like day 2 or even day 3 backs is so small.

[bigcatfrank1]

  5 hours ago, bigcatfrank1 said:

BTW Jacket we have had this discussion before. I know you have good knowledge and some ( even I ) can appreciate it.
But I try not to make points without using specific Ravens players and potential players as examples or topics.
While prognosticating might not be your favorite thing, you tend to dance around actual examples of players when you contradict or comment.
My point is specifically about the #1 RB in the draft Fournette. You can plain disagree that he is worth it and that is fine, or you can give some decent points about the player and why. You could point out a couple of running backs later in the draft that, you think, may be better "starting" running backs.
You could say the Ravens dont need a running back so they will not go up and get the #1.
But to generalize is quite snipey.

We don't need another RB. We signed a passing down specialist back, and we have two guys who are more than capable of being quality RBs, though I don't find either particularly special.

I wouldn't take Fournette for a plethora of reasons. For starters, he's your prototype two down RB. He's not a viable asset in the passing game, meaning you will perpetually need to employ another RB with a different skill set, thus using a second roster spot on a back to produce the value that one well-rounded RB could achieve on their own. And if that passing down back is a pure specialist (much in the way Woodhead is), you're basically committing to carrying 3 RBs at all times, which is not exactly ideal if you're in a tough spot with injured players later in the year.

Most importantly, I don't really like bruising backs that actively seek contact. Everybody likes to pretend like "Beast mode" is the way to go, but those guys wear down and wear down fast, and seeking contact in the NFL is much different than seeking it in College. 

To me, Fournette is a one contract back. I can't give a guy like that $10M a year on a second deal when he's going to be 26-30 years old.

I have no issue using a day 3 pick on a RB and seeing if they end up being a value play and outplay West, because I don't think West is anything special either. Its just brutally hard to get a quality ROI on a first round RB in this league anymore, especially when the Pro production dropoff from first round backs to like day 2 or even day 3 backs is so small.

A lot makes sense, my only comments would be dont you think we are in the very situation that you describe?

I appreciate the added insight about Fournette, I am only looking at tape and general bio information. He looked very strong and impressive at combine. I dont know if his receiving skills are a huge issue that he couldn't move to another level.

I guess three big things I am concerned with with the RB squad of Dixon, West and Woodhead are
1. games 1-4
2. I think that West proved he is only a 2 down back.
3. Who is the "one" that take the squad to the next level in the next few years. I don't see West and obviously Woodhead lasting long.

The Ravens have proved both in successful years and over the past 3 years that they must have a good running game. The QB and team is really built that way.

Lastly, I cannot say that the Ravens chances of a Playoff run change with Fournette, 3rd round prospect or a late added FA. However I do think that the RB position is weak especially games 1-4 and barring an injury they are putting a lot of stock in a 5'8 200lb 32 year old multi-functional non-every down Flex back in Woodhead.

[rmcjacket23]

1 minute ago, bigcatfrank1 said:

A lot makes sense, my only comments would be dont you think we are in the very situation that you describe?

I appreciate the added insight about Fournette, I am only looking at tape and general bio information. He looked very strong and impressive at combine. I dont know if his receiving skills are a huge issue that he couldn't move to another level.

I guess three big things I am concerned with with the RB squad of Dixon, West and Woodhead are
1. games 1-4
2. I think that West proved he is only a 2 down back.
3. Who is the "one" that take the squad to the next level in the next few years. I don't see West and obviously Woodhead lasting long.

The Ravens have proved both in successful years and over the past 3 years that they must have a good running game. The QB and team is really built that way.

Lastly, I cannot say that the Ravens chances of a Playoff run change with Fournette, 3rd round prospect or a late added FA. However I do think that the RB position is weak especially games 1-4 and barring an injury they are putting a lot of stock in a 5'8 200lb 32 year old multi-functional non-every down Flex back in Woodhead.

We don't need a RB who can take the team to the next level... its not a position that is required to have a player like that in order to win games. We can have 3 backs getting 10 carries each a game for all I care... as long as collectively the running game is doing better than what we saw last season, where it didn't matter who we put it out there because we couldn't get anything going.

The first four games will have West as the lead runner with Woodhead as the passing down back. When Dixon gets back and gets in game shape, I'd expect to see him overtake West to the point where West likely won't play very much.

Plus once Dixon is back, he's more capable of handling 3 down work, assuming he gets better in pass protection. He's much more versatile than West is.

 

[Adreme]

5 hours ago, Crusader said:

I don't know who Skura is but unless he is experienced at center he is not going to help this year. The learning curve is too great. JJ Watt is going to eat this offenses lines lunch.

They decided to get rid of Zuttah on their own.  That means, that they must think they have an upgrade already on the roster which  means Center does not need a new starter.  This basically means the Ravens are looking for a new RT a possession receiver and a new OLB.  Those are the only true holes on the roster at the moment and everything else is just nice to have.

[billiejean]

11 hours ago, bigcatfrank1 said:

you contradicted yourself, I agree that a trade back is probably an option and still get Robinson. However if your point is true that because of a week class teams will draft earlier, then why wouldn't the Ravens take Robinson at 16.

I just don't get it , all this talk about the bottom 20 are very, very close and then people want to argue that its too early to take one of them.

Some do not think he sits above Ramczyk but I think he fits the Ravens better. Maybe the Ravens do too.
R
Simple facts, the Ravens can really use a top, starting caliber RT. A young counter side to Stanley could solidify this line for 3 years.
Yanda and Lewis on the inside leaving the Center position TBD in house or maybe even later in the draft.

I will not be surprised if the Ravens take Cam at 16, again as I said if the Ravens board falls like dominos and it probably will. 1-10 are practically no brainers, we all have talked for months about them.
 

Its not a contradiction.  What I am saying is that you are getting a lesser player that most likely would have gone in the mid second round if this was the 2016 NFL draft.  When there is a weak class teams that need a certain position are going to use a high pick on a player that would usually be drafted much later in a more robust class.  The best way to get value in the first is to draft a position that is deep.  And with so many needs that the Ravens have I would highly doubt that Robinson would be atop their board at 16.  There are plenty of examples of needy teams over drafting OTs in a week class and it is not pretty.  Erik Flowers, Andrus Peat, Justin Pugh, DJ Fluker, Reily Reif, Derrick Sherrod, Gabe Carimi.  Saying that the Ravens board is going to fall like dominios and that the first 1-10 are no brainers is just not an accurate claim.  QBs will throw a wrench into your dominoes and frankly this is one of the least certain (not that any of them are certain) drafts in a while.  There will be a few Pass Rushers, WRs and possibly even a DB LB or RB that will most likely be at 16 that will be higher on our board than Cam.  And I will try to explain this again.  We have a lot of needs.  The OT class is weak.  Those two factors allow the Ravens to draft a player that deserves to get drafted at 16 or even higher than 16.  Reaching for a guy in these circumstances would be a mistake.  I wouldn't be totally bummed out if we picked Cam because I think if the FO picked him that he was the highest rated player on their board because I don't think they would reach for him.  I just think there will be others there that will be higher on board than him.  But clearly I have not done as much research as they have and could very well be underestimating the FOs opinion of the guy.  If we were to take him it would solidify the tackle spots for 4 years btw.  Assuming Stanely performs well the next few years we have the option to keep first round picks for a fifth year.

Edited April 24 by billiejean

[billiejean]

10 hours ago, bigcatfrank1 said:

Agh, my bad. I stand corrected LA Chargers. Its the Raiders moving to LV.
1.Thanks for agreeing with me, without validating my arguments, that the Chargers may be motivated to move back which means they would trade with a team to move up. ( ie the Ravens)
2 early rounders- I guess you just couldn't bring yourself to saying they wont trade without a #1. So IF ( yes big IF) the Ravens were to go deep in the playoffs this year #1 next year isn't a very good position and maybe the best time to make a deal is now.
3 The Ravens just like all NFL teams will start with 52, they wont have holes they just will have weaknesses, sounds like you have decided which ones you are willing to live with.
4. I dont know what Oz will do, I wont assure you of anything other than what I might do and i would call them at #7 for Fournette.
5. Gates, my point exactly, Ravens have 4 young TE's.
6. So you say 11-15, tell me which team would want less than the LA chargers?
7. I said a couple of chickens for a rooster dude, not the farm, never said that

FRANK why do you continue to argue about things that you clearly have very little background knowledge of.  ALLLLLLLL of the teams from 11 to 15 will want less than the Chargers because we are moving less spots.  Assuming that the Chargers will move back for less than the teams at 11 to 15 is just not how things work.  Even assuming that the Chargers would be willing to move back for less because of their circumstances (as I mentioned before) is not logical either.  No team is going to be willing to give up the 7th pick for less because of the fact that they are building for the future.  That just doesn't make sense.  I mentioned Gates, but before I mentioned Gates I said they drafted a young TE in the very beginning of the second round last year and he put up close to 500 yards in his rookie season.  They don't need any of our TEs.  We would very likely have to give up 3 early round draft picks to move up there.  Now clearly not all early round draft picks become starters but they have the best chance to become starters.  What you are saying is that you would rather have one starter at a position that isn't a huge need rather than 3 starters.  Getting a solid running back but not being able to pick up a solid OT or C would negate the RBs supposed value.  It just isn't a logical move for a team with so many needs.  Not to mention that RBs get hurt quite frequently in the NFL and without quality starters in other positions on the offense an injured RB could mean the end of the season because of the need to rely so heavily on the guy.  

[Cawtious]

On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 10:36 PM, Halshayeji said:

Your definitely not the only one. We would like to upgrade at WR, CB, and Pass rush. We need two more starters on the Oline! and some quality depth considering Ducass beat out Jensen, Hurst, and Urschel...

i don't think the draft alone addresses those needs

The only thing Ducasse proved to me was Juan and Harbs struggled with who was the best player for the position and flat-out ignored what the tape showed. 

[bigcatfrank1]

  On 4/23/2017 at 11:16 AM, bigcatfrank1 said:

Agh, my bad. I stand corrected LA Chargers. Its the Raiders moving to LV.
1.Thanks for agreeing with me, without validating my arguments, that the Chargers may be motivated to move back which means they would trade with a team to move up. ( ie the Ravens)
2 early rounders- I guess you just couldn't bring yourself to saying they wont trade without a #1. So IF ( yes big IF) the Ravens were to go deep in the playoffs this year #1 next year isn't a very good position and maybe the best time to make a deal is now.
3 The Ravens just like all NFL teams will start with 52, they wont have holes they just will have weaknesses, sounds like you have decided which ones you are willing to live with.
4. I dont know what Oz will do, I wont assure you of anything other than what I might do and i would call them at #7 for Fournette.
5. Gates, my point exactly, Ravens have 4 young TE's.
6. So you say 11-15, tell me which team would want less than the LA chargers?
7. I said a couple of chickens for a rooster dude, not the farm, never said that

FRANK why do you continue to argue about things that you clearly have very little background knowledge of.  ALLLLLLLL of the teams from 11 to 15 will want less than the Chargers because we are moving less spots.  Assuming that the Chargers will move back for less than the teams at 11 to 15 is just not how things work.  Even assuming that the Chargers would be willing to move back for less because of their circumstances (as I mentioned before) is not logical either.  No team is going to be willing to give up the 7th pick for less because of the fact that they are building for the future.  That just doesn't make sense.  I mentioned Gates, but before I mentioned Gates I said they drafted a young TE in the very beginning of the second round last year and he put up close to 500 yards in his rookie season.  They don't need any of our TEs.  We would very likely have to give up 3 early round draft picks to move up there.  Now clearly not all early round draft picks become starters but they have the best chance to become starters.  What you are saying is that you would rather have one starter at a position that isn't a huge need rather than 3 starters.  Getting a solid running back but not being able to pick up a solid OT or C would negate the RBs supposed value.  It just isn't a logical move for a team with so many needs.  Not to mention that RBs get hurt quite frequently in the NFL and without quality starters in other positions on the offense an injured RB could mean the end of the season because of the need to rely so heavily on the guy.  

I have a point of view, you obviously argue because you know everything and know all the background of what is going to happen before it happens.
I never said any of what you said, especially anything about 3 starters instead of 1 starter which is an absolutely ridiculous observation.

What I said was exactly what I wanted to.
I am not assuming anything what I said was if Foursette was there at 7, I would make a call and I think Oz should too! He doesn't have to listen to me. Im sure he will listen to you. bwahahhahha

[bigcatfrank1]

  On 4/23/2017 at 10:30 AM, bigcatfrank1 said:

you contradicted yourself, I agree that a trade back is probably an option and still get Robinson. However if your point is true that because of a week class teams will draft earlier, then why wouldn't the Ravens take Robinson at 16.

I just don't get it , all this talk about the bottom 20 are very, very close and then people want to argue that its too early to take one of them.

Some do not think he sits above Ramczyk but I think he fits the Ravens better. Maybe the Ravens do too.
R
Simple facts, the Ravens can really use a top, starting caliber RT. A young counter side to Stanley could solidify this line for 3 years.
Yanda and Lewis on the inside leaving the Center position TBD in house or maybe even later in the draft.

I will not be surprised if the Ravens take Cam at 16, again as I said if the Ravens board falls like dominos and it probably will. 1-10 are practically no brainers, we all have talked for months about them.
 

Its not a contradiction.  What I am saying is that you are getting a lesser player that most likely would have gone in the mid second round if this was the 2016 NFL draft.  When there is a weak class teams that need a certain position are going to use a high pick on a player that would usually be drafted much later in a more robust class.  The best way to get value in the first is to draft a position that is deep.  And with so many needs that the Ravens have I would highly doubt that Robinson would be atop their board at 16.  There are plenty of examples of needy teams over drafting OTs in a week class and it is not pretty.  Erik Flowers, Andrus Peat, Justin Pugh, DJ Fluker, Reily Reif, Derrick Sherrod, Gabe Carimi.  Saying that the Ravens board is going to fall like dominios and that the first 1-10 are no brainers is just not an accurate claim.  QBs will throw a wrench into your dominoes and frankly this is one of the least certain (not that any of them are certain) drafts in a while.  There will be a few Pass Rushers, WRs and possibly even a DB LB or RB that will most likely be at 16 that will be higher on our board than Cam.  And I will try to explain this again.  We have a lot of needs.  The OT class is weak.  Those two factors allow the Ravens to draft a player that deserves to get drafted at 16 or even higher than 16.  Reaching for a guy in these circumstances would be a mistake.  I wouldn't be totally bummed out if we picked Cam because I think if the FO picked him that he was the highest rated player on their board because I don't think they would reach for him.  I just think there will be others there that will be higher on board than him.  But clearly I have not done as much research as they have and could very well be underestimating the FOs opinion of the guy.  If we were to take him it would solidify the tackle spots for 4 years btw.  Assuming Stanely performs well the next few years we have the option to keep first round picks for a fifth year.

You didnt mention a single player in the draft. what a swing and miss

[bigcatfrank1]

  On 4/23/2017 at 4:17 PM, bigcatfrank1 said:

A lot makes sense, my only comments would be dont you think we are in the very situation that you describe?

I appreciate the added insight about Fournette, I am only looking at tape and general bio information. He looked very strong and impressive at combine. I dont know if his receiving skills are a huge issue that he couldn't move to another level.

I guess three big things I am concerned with with the RB squad of Dixon, West and Woodhead are
1. games 1-4
2. I think that West proved he is only a 2 down back.
3. Who is the "one" that take the squad to the next level in the next few years. I don't see West and obviously Woodhead lasting long.

The Ravens have proved both in successful years and over the past 3 years that they must have a good running game. The QB and team is really built that way.

Lastly, I cannot say that the Ravens chances of a Playoff run change with Fournette, 3rd round prospect or a late added FA. However I do think that the RB position is weak especially games 1-4 and barring an injury they are putting a lot of stock in a 5'8 200lb 32 year old multi-functional non-every down Flex back in Woodhead.

We don't need a RB who can take the team to the next level... its not a position that is required to have a player like that in order to win games. We can have 3 backs getting 10 carries each a game for all I care... as long as collectively the running game is doing better than what we saw last season, where it didn't matter who we put it out there because we couldn't get anything going.

The first four games will have West as the lead runner with Woodhead as the passing down back. When Dixon gets back and gets in game shape, I'd expect to see him overtake West to the point where West likely won't play very much.

Plus once Dixon is back, he's more capable of handling 3 down work, assuming he gets better in pass protection. He's much more versatile than West is.

 

poor decision if they go the way you explain it.

[bigcatfrank1]

I remember last year when 3 regular members of the posts community argued and argued with me about the Ravens taking Stanley with their first pick in round 1.
And a host of anti- mid level receiver moves, the Ravens wouldn't pick up another mid aged FA -WR yet Oz pulled the trigger on Wallace quick.

yep, remember it well.

[billiejean]

12 hours ago, bigcatfrank1 said:

I have a point of view, you obviously argue because you know everything and know all the background of what is going to happen before it happens.
I never said any of what you said, especially anything about 3 starters instead of 1 starter which is an absolutely ridiculous observation.

What I said was exactly what I wanted to.
I am not assuming anything what I said was if Foursette was there at 7, I would make a call and I think Oz should too! He doesn't have to listen to me. Im sure he will listen to you. bwahahhahha

Frank you gave me numbered points that were in response to my comment and from those responses I developed my comment, so I will break down some of your most egregious misinterpretations with direct quotes. 

 

your comment - 6. So you say 11-15, tell me which team would want less than the LA chargers?

my response - ALLLLLLLL of the teams from 11 to 15 will want less than the Chargers because we are moving less spots. Assuming that the Chargers will move back for less than the teams at 11 to 15 is just not how things work.

My commentary - This is not a point of view.  This is a fact.  The teams from 11-15 will want less compensation from than the the LA Chargers at 7.  I will say Frank that if in fact the Chargers would be willing to swap spots with us for less than it would take to move up one spot to 15 that would be a shrewd move.

 

your comment - 5. Gates, my point exactly, Ravens have 4 young TE's.

my response -  I mentioned Gates, but before I mentioned Gates I said they drafted a young TE in the very beginning of the second round last year and he put up close to 500 yards in his rookie season.  They don't need any of our TEs.

my commentary - in your prior comment you hypothesized that we could use one of our TE in a trade with the Chargers at 7 to cut down on the draft picks we would have to send them.  I responded by bringing up Gates and the rookie they picked up early last year.  In response to that response you said "5. Gates, my point exactly, Ravens have 4 young TE's."  And as you can be seen above i reminded you about the young TE.

 

Its clear that you are not reading (or maybe you are reading but not comprehending) my comments before you answer.  You are confusing "points of view" with facts and it seems you are unable to differentiate between the two.  These two facts I know are true.  Teams from 11-15 WILL take LESS compensation than the team at 7 (Chargers),  And the Chargers spent an early draft pick on a TE last year and he performed extremely well.  Plus they have Gates so an offer to send one of our young TEs would not be as tantalizing as you think.  But really thats a moot point because as I have stated there really isn't even a small possibility that we swap spots with the Chargers at 7.  There are many other analogies that you have either misinterpreted about my response or clearly did not read.  I am not going to go through all of them.

Edited April 25 by billiejean

[billiejean]

On 4/23/2017 at 11:22 AM, Crusader said:

Can't see that Jackson game as a clear win. Jackson use to playing there, Ravens are on the road, last time at home Ravens won by three points, and most of that production was SSS. Cleaveland wins will soon be hard to come by. 11 picks this year. Even a 6 year old can pick 5 good players that will give Ravens a hard time.Ravens can't afford to miss on any of these picks. No more Elam's or Browns. Please. We need a new hero.

Really at this point I am not sure if we can label any games as "clear wins".  We have gotten in the habit of playing down to our competition and in some cases (not many) playing up to it.  Its always close and always extremely frustrating.  I also have the 2011 loss to Jacksonville burned in my brain.  We went 12-4 that year and barely missed the Superbowl.  The Jags went 5-11.

[rmcjacket23]

11 hours ago, bigcatfrank1 said:

poor decision if they go the way you explain it.

The poor decision is taking a two down RB in the first round...

[Bat-mite]

On 4/21/2017 at 10:45 AM, terpmaniac said:

Pittsburgh begins and ends with the Browns(again)! Does this not happen every year it seems?

Last few years we ended at Cincinnati.