[News] Eisenberg: Here's What Will Make Or Break Ravens' 2017 Draft Haul

[GENE2407]

  On 4/26/2017 at 6:39 AM, GENE2407 said:

  On 4/25/2017 at 9:48 PM, SCirish843 said:

  On 4/25/2017 at 8:38 PM, GENE2407 said:

Simple: the first 3 rounds make or break your draft. 95% of your best players are had in those rounds. For some reason, Ozzie is now in love with his multiple 4th and 5th rounders that turn out to be neat kick returners or special teams contributors. 1-3 is now reserved for "safe players" who are academic scholars and go to church 5 times a week.

That's a pretty gratuitous over-simplification of a team. The first 3 rounds make or break your draft because of the resources that go into those picks, but "95% of your best players" don't come from those rounds. The Ravens roster is built like all the others, 80% of starters are rounds 3-5 guys. If you take a guy in the 1st or 2nd and he's not a starter you're setting yourself up to fail as the guaranteed contract on those guys will haunt you. Ozzie, like a lot of GMs, are far more comfortable taking 5 or 6 shots in rounds 3-5 than take 1 shot in rd 1.

And 98% of them pan out to be nothing. At best, you got Jarret Johnson or Bart Scott. Those guys don't win you championships. Ogden, Lewis, Reed, Suggs, Sharper, McAlister, RRice, Flacco, Heap..........those are the guys who bring home the trophies. Ozzie needs to get over his stupid comp picks and hoarding of junk round picks (4th-7th) and get back to successful top picks. He was the best for 24 years. Since 2010, he's been awful.

Your logic is flawed. Basically giving up all of our picks from the 4th through 7th round would mean that we would have to look at UDFAs for depth. Is that really what you want? Youre a guy who continually talks about how bad our depth is in season. And you are probably thinking that we could snap up some veterans cuts to fill back up voids but its also an issue of price. Its much more expensive to bring in a bunch of veterans rather than using draftees. You are also assuming that moving up means you will get a better player. Which is just not true. And why would the FO trade up if the guy that they want is going to be there when its their turn. Really there is nothing about what you have said that is rational. Do you really think that you have invented a draft strategy that increases a teams chances of winning a Superbowl and that there haven't been any GMs or coaches in the history of the NFL that have come up with this key to success?? If so I think you may be overestimating your cognitive abilities when it comes to football. If GMs had thought of it why has it never been implemented? If it was a good strategy why do a total of ZERO teams in the NFL use it? How do you explain the following quote....

"The list of teams that have received the most compensatory picks since 1994 is pretty similar to the list of the best teams in football since 1994: The Ravens have received the most compensatory picks, and they’ve won two Super Bowls. The Packers have received the second-most, and they’ve also won two Super Bowls. The Patriots are fourth, and they’ve won five Super Bowls. The 10 teams that have had the most compensatory picks have won most of the Super Bowls since 1994, with a total of 14 titles for those 10 teams."

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/02/24/compensatory-picks-are-a-reward-for-smart-teams/

I'm saying finding anyone good in those rounds is extremely low.
(maybe our definition of "good" varies greatly). You might as well flip a coin when you get to those rounds. Seriously. Go look at the last decade of 4th-7th rounds. You'll be astounded by how many names you don't even recognize.

[GENE2407]

  On 4/26/2017 at 6:39 AM, GENE2407 said:

  On 4/25/2017 at 9:48 PM, SCirish843 said:

  On 4/25/2017 at 8:38 PM, GENE2407 said:

Simple: the first 3 rounds make or break your draft. 95% of your best players are had in those rounds. For some reason, Ozzie is now in love with his multiple 4th and 5th rounders that turn out to be neat kick returners or special teams contributors. 1-3 is now reserved for "safe players" who are academic scholars and go to church 5 times a week.

That's a pretty gratuitous over-simplification of a team. The first 3 rounds make or break your draft because of the resources that go into those picks, but "95% of your best players" don't come from those rounds. The Ravens roster is built like all the others, 80% of starters are rounds 3-5 guys. If you take a guy in the 1st or 2nd and he's not a starter you're setting yourself up to fail as the guaranteed contract on those guys will haunt you. Ozzie, like a lot of GMs, are far more comfortable taking 5 or 6 shots in rounds 3-5 than take 1 shot in rd 1.

And 98% of them pan out to be nothing. At best, you got Jarret Johnson or Bart Scott. Those guys don't win you championships. Ogden, Lewis, Reed, Suggs, Sharper, McAlister, RRice, Flacco, Heap..........those are the guys who bring home the trophies. Ozzie needs to get over his stupid comp picks and hoarding of junk round picks (4th-7th) and get back to successful top picks. He was the best for 24 years. Since 2010, he's been awful.

Your logic is flawed. Basically giving up all of our picks from the 4th through 7th round would mean that we would have to look at UDFAs for depth. Is that really what you want? Youre a guy who continually talks about how bad our depth is in season. And you are probably thinking that we could snap up some veterans cuts to fill back up voids but its also an issue of price. Its much more expensive to bring in a bunch of veterans rather than using draftees. You are also assuming that moving up means you will get a better player. Which is just not true. And why would the FO trade up if the guy that they want is going to be there when its their turn. Really there is nothing about what you have said that is rational. Do you really think that you have invented a draft strategy that increases a teams chances of winning a Superbowl and that there haven't been any GMs or coaches in the history of the NFL that have come up with this key to success?? If so I think you may be overestimating your cognitive abilities when it comes to football. If GMs had thought of it why has it never been implemented? If it was a good strategy why do a total of ZERO teams in the NFL use it? How do you explain the following quote....

"The list of teams that have received the most compensatory picks since 1994 is pretty similar to the list of the best teams in football since 1994: The Ravens have received the most compensatory picks, and they’ve won two Super Bowls. The Packers have received the second-most, and they’ve also won two Super Bowls. The Patriots are fourth, and they’ve won five Super Bowls. The 10 teams that have had the most compensatory picks have won most of the Super Bowls since 1994, with a total of 14 titles for those 10 teams."

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/02/24/compensatory-picks-are-a-reward-for-smart-teams/

Ok, list me all Ravens comp picks for the last 30 years. And don't blame me for laughing out loud when you put together your "top 10" list from these players.

[rmcjacket23]

  14 hours ago, SCirish843 said:

  On 4/26/2017 at 6:39 AM, GENE2407 said:

  On 4/25/2017 at 9:48 PM, SCirish843 said:

  On 4/25/2017 at 8:38 PM, GENE2407 said:

Simple: the first 3 rounds make or break your draft. 95% of your best players are had in those rounds. For some reason, Ozzie is now in love with his multiple 4th and 5th rounders that turn out to be neat kick returners or special teams contributors. 1-3 is now reserved for "safe players" who are academic scholars and go to church 5 times a week.

That's a pretty gratuitous over-simplification of a team. The first 3 rounds make or break your draft because of the resources that go into those picks, but "95% of your best players" don't come from those rounds. The Ravens roster is built like all the others, 80% of starters are rounds 3-5 guys. If you take a guy in the 1st or 2nd and he's not a starter you're setting yourself up to fail as the guaranteed contract on those guys will haunt you. Ozzie, like a lot of GMs, are far more comfortable taking 5 or 6 shots in rounds 3-5 than take 1 shot in rd 1.

And 98% of them pan out to be nothing. At best, you got Jarret Johnson or Bart Scott. Those guys don't win you championships. Ogden, Lewis, Reed, Suggs, Sharper, McAlister, RRice, Flacco, Heap..........those are the guys who bring home the trophies. Ozzie needs to get over his stupid comp picks and hoarding of junk round picks (4th-7th) and get back to successful top picks. He was the best for 24 years. Since 2010, he's been awful.

You have no idea what you're talking about. 98% of them don't 'not pan out' just like 95% of 1-3rd rounders make up your team which is another ridiculous claim you made. You realize you have to be bad to draft the guys you named? Ogden-4th overall, Mcallister-10th overall, Ngata-12th overall, Suggs-10th overall, Heap-31st overall(a 1st rd TE might as well be a top 10 pick at CB or DE value wise), Flacco-16th overall. The Ravens have been drafting in the mid-late 20s for the better part of the past 15 years. When we do have top half picks recently Ozzie has nailed those as well (Stanley at 6 and Mosley at 16). Getting HoFers like Lewis and Reed in the 20s is an extreme outlier and for you to assume we should just not draft the bad players and take all the good ones shows you know very little about scouting and development.

Buddy I've done the work, you haven't. Go find me all 4th and 5th rounders (in the ENTIRE draft) for the past 6 years. Then find me how many of those players made even a single pro bowl. It's very, very, very low. About 2%. That sucks. You're not finding great players in those rounds, so you better hope and pray we can in the first 3 rounds. This is not just the Ravens, this is everyone. That's all I'm saying.

1. The Pro Bowl isn't an accurate measurement of how good a player is. Hasn't been for quite some time now. Don't understand why fans still don't get this. It ain't the 90s anymore. Education has evolved.

2. Its not about finding "Pro Bowl" players in those rounds. Its about finding good players who can start and play well. That's what those rounds are for. If you look comparatively to other teams, the Ravens are as good as anybody in those rounds.

You're correct that your 6th and 7th round picks rarely amount to anything, and that's true league-wide. You hope that like one every few years turns into a productive player.

BUT... the major difference between the Ravens and other teams is that on many other teams, the players that rarely amount to anything can extend into the 4th and 5th rounds on other teams. That means that they've got maybe 3 draft picks in any given draft who have a shot to amount to even an average player. That's not the case with the Ravens.

We get quality starters in the 4th and 5th round consistently.

The Patriots have a 53 man roster just like every other team in the league. AT BEST, 10-15% of those players are actually great. You'd be hard pressed to name 5 actually great players on any single team in the league (especially given the subjectivity of "greatness", which certainly isn't going to be measured by a Pro Bowl popularity contest).

So this is a laughable notion to me. The purpose of those rounds isn't necessarily to even find "great" players. Its to find good players. Or solid role players who can do their job.

Bill Belichick has built a tremendous legacy based on how unimportant having a large volume of great players is to a team.

[rmcjacket23]

  21 hours ago, billiejean said:

  On 4/26/2017 at 6:39 AM, GENE2407 said:

  On 4/25/2017 at 9:48 PM, SCirish843 said:

  On 4/25/2017 at 8:38 PM, GENE2407 said:

Simple: the first 3 rounds make or break your draft. 95% of your best players are had in those rounds. For some reason, Ozzie is now in love with his multiple 4th and 5th rounders that turn out to be neat kick returners or special teams contributors. 1-3 is now reserved for "safe players" who are academic scholars and go to church 5 times a week.

That's a pretty gratuitous over-simplification of a team. The first 3 rounds make or break your draft because of the resources that go into those picks, but "95% of your best players" don't come from those rounds. The Ravens roster is built like all the others, 80% of starters are rounds 3-5 guys. If you take a guy in the 1st or 2nd and he's not a starter you're setting yourself up to fail as the guaranteed contract on those guys will haunt you. Ozzie, like a lot of GMs, are far more comfortable taking 5 or 6 shots in rounds 3-5 than take 1 shot in rd 1.

And 98% of them pan out to be nothing. At best, you got Jarret Johnson or Bart Scott. Those guys don't win you championships. Ogden, Lewis, Reed, Suggs, Sharper, McAlister, RRice, Flacco, Heap..........those are the guys who bring home the trophies. Ozzie needs to get over his stupid comp picks and hoarding of junk round picks (4th-7th) and get back to successful top picks. He was the best for 24 years. Since 2010, he's been awful.

Your logic is flawed. Basically giving up all of our picks from the 4th through 7th round would mean that we would have to look at UDFAs for depth. Is that really what you want? Youre a guy who continually talks about how bad our depth is in season. And you are probably thinking that we could snap up some veterans cuts to fill back up voids but its also an issue of price. Its much more expensive to bring in a bunch of veterans rather than using draftees. You are also assuming that moving up means you will get a better player. Which is just not true. And why would the FO trade up if the guy that they want is going to be there when its their turn. Really there is nothing about what you have said that is rational. Do you really think that you have invented a draft strategy that increases a teams chances of winning a Superbowl and that there haven't been any GMs or coaches in the history of the NFL that have come up with this key to success?? If so I think you may be overestimating your cognitive abilities when it comes to football. If GMs had thought of it why has it never been implemented? If it was a good strategy why do a total of ZERO teams in the NFL use it? How do you explain the following quote....

"The list of teams that have received the most compensatory picks since 1994 is pretty similar to the list of the best teams in football since 1994: The Ravens have received the most compensatory picks, and they’ve won two Super Bowls. The Packers have received the second-most, and they’ve also won two Super Bowls. The Patriots are fourth, and they’ve won five Super Bowls. The 10 teams that have had the most compensatory picks have won most of the Super Bowls since 1994, with a total of 14 titles for those 10 teams."

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/02/24/compensatory-picks-are-a-reward-for-smart-teams/

Ok, list me all Ravens comp picks for the last 30 years. And don't blame me for laughing out loud when you put together your "top 10" list from these players.

Well if you're going to do that, then you would need to compare that player to the player that we lost in order to get the comp pick AND factor in the cost difference between those two players.

Because if you're not doing that, then you're not accomplishing anything.

[billiejean]

5 hours ago, GENE2407 said:

Ok, list me all Ravens comp picks for the last 30 years. And don't blame me for laughing out loud when you put together your "top 10" list from these players.

Are you serious? The Ravens haven't even been in the league for 30 years. Its clear that this is too complex of a  concept for you to understand because your reply has absolutely no validity to the points that I was making.  I would ask you to read my prior comment another few times to see if my arguments become a bit clearer.  I know that comprehending anything over 4 lines of text can be a daunting task.  And because of that I will restate one of my questions here with the hope you will be able to understand it if I separate it from my other points. WHY DON'T ANY TEAMS IN THE NFL IMPLEMENT YOUR DRAFTING STRATEGY?