What Are The Ravens Doing?

[smashmouth]

[quote name='ZIBBY28' post='185669' date='Apr 25 2009, 11:30 PM']i diasgree.. flacco wasnt the BPA on the boar last year, but we had a [i]need[/i] at QB so we had to take a "lesser" player to fill a need.[/quote]
This is true, the Ravens may have reached for Him based on need, but maybe they did think He was BPA, It diddnt turn out too shabby none the less.

[theFRANCHISE]

I choose to think about this year's draft philosophy as finding a way to beat the Steelers.

The Steelers beat us because they pressured the QB like hell. So what do we do? We draft an O-lineman to protect Flacco. Even if he doesn't start, that's still another big body as insurance.

We couldn't beat the Steelers because we couldn't keep Ben Roethlisberger contained. So what do we do? We draft a defensive end who has the motor to keep going even as Ben keeps the play alive.

Yes, we still need a playmaker at WR to help the passing attack -- but the key to beating the Steelers isn't through the air, but on the ground. In that initial meeting in Week 4, we dominated them for 3 quarters because of the ground attack. In our later meeting in Week 15, the ground attack was still the bread-and-butter of the offense. You can't beat a physical team like the Steelers through finesse (i.e. the vertical game); you punch them in the mouth with old-fashioned, smashmouth football (hence the rushing attack).

We were left one game away from the Super Bowl, and denied because of the Steelers. So, logic dictates that, to get to the Super Bowl, we'll probably have to beat the Steelers again. And if the Steelers aren't the team to stand in our way this coming season, they'll soon enough be the ones to do so again in the future. As long as the Steelers continue to win the division, they will remain the #1 obstacle on the path to a Super Bowl.

Eliminate the obstacle, eliminate all doubt.

[neepo13]

1) Flacco wont be getting the ball to that flashy wideout laying on his back, thats why we got Oher.
2) Did you watch the playoff games vs Tenn and Pitt last year? It could not have been more clear that we needed help along the defensive line in those games.

Ozzie made the right picks. Obviously, he's expecting Clayton, Williams, Smith or someone else on this roster now to be able to step it up next year.

[FerrariFan87]

[quote name='theFRANCHISE' post='185675' date='Apr 25 2009, 11:34 PM']I choose to think about this year's draft philosophy as finding a way to beat the Steelers.

The Steelers beat us because they pressured the QB like hell. So what do we do? We draft an O-lineman to protect Flacco. Even if he doesn't start, that's still another big body as insurance.

We couldn't beat the Steelers because we couldn't keep Ben Roethlisberger contained. So what do we do? We draft a defensive end who has the motor to keep going even as Ben keeps the play alive.

Yes, we still need a playmaker at WR to help the passing attack -- but the key to beating the Steelers isn't through the air, but on the ground. In that initial meeting in Week 4, we dominated them for 3 quarters because of the ground attack. In our later meeting in Week 15, the ground attack was still the bread-and-butter of the offense. You can't beat a physical team like the Steelers through finesse (i.e. the vertical game); you punch them in the mouth with old-fashioned, smashmouth football (hence the rushing attack).

We were left one game away from the Super Bowl, and denied because of the Steelers. So, logic dictates that, to get to the Super Bowl, we'll probably have to beat the Steelers again. And if the Steelers aren't the team to stand in our way this coming season, they'll soon enough be the ones to do so again in the future. As long as the Steelers continue to win the division, they will remain the #1 obstacle on the path to a Super Bowl.

Eliminate the obstacle, eliminate all doubt.[/quote]

Thanks for putting things in perspective, Franchise... I guess I too got caught up in the Boldin chatter and lost focus on what's important..... BUT NOT GETTING A PLAYMAKER AT WR IS A HUUUUUUUGE MISTAKE!!!

[FerrariFan87]

[quote name='neepo13' post='185690' date='Apr 25 2009, 11:48 PM']1) Flacco wont be getting the ball to that flashy wideout laying on his back, thats why we got Oher.
2) Did you watch the playoff games vs Tenn and Pitt last year? It could not have been more clear that we needed help along the defensive line in those games.

Ozzie made the right picks. Obviously, he's expecting Clayton, Williams, Smith or someone else on this roster now to be able to step it up next year.[/quote]

Yeah, I don't see it happening, sadly....

[theFRANCHISE]

Interestingly enough, less than 10 minutes after I make my post justifying this year's draft, Mike Preston [url="http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/football/bal-preston426,0,5186662.column"]posts an article[/url] justifying the selection of Michael Oher. NICE.

[baltiMORE RAVENS]

[quote name='FerrariFan87' post='185694' date='Apr 25 2009, 11:55 PM']Thanks for putting things in perspective, Franchise... I guess I too got caught up in the Boldin chatter and lost focus on what's important..... BUT NOT GETTING A PLAYMAKER AT WR IS A HUUUUUUUGE MISTAKE!!![/quote]

What WR would you have taken over Oher? No matter who you say, you are wrong.

[theFRANCHISE]

[quote name='FerrariFan87' post='185694' date='Apr 25 2009, 11:55 PM']Thanks for putting things in perspective, Franchise... I guess I too got caught up in the Boldin chatter and lost focus on what's important..... BUT NOT GETTING A PLAYMAKER AT WR IS A HUUUUUUUGE MISTAKE!!![/quote]
Believe me, I wanted Boldin (or any big name at WR) as much as the next guy, but at the end of the day, that would've been a short-term fix for what could've been a long-term problem -- that being, giving the QB enough opportunities to make plays. The issue isn't so much that Flacco doesn't have weapons, it's that he doesn't have time to utilize the weapons he already has. Once that problem is solved, then we can focus on giving him more nifty toys to play with on the field.

And really, as I alluded to earlier, putting another big body like Oher on that line eliminates the need for max protection schemes, which will allow the tight ends to run passing routes as opposed to blocking. L.J. Smith is a better receiver than blocker, so Oher will allow Smith to do more of what he does best. Heap, on the other hand, can do both, so his presence will force other teams to play him honest.

[scotchtape622]

Exactly. We have to good receiving tight ends, and now we can use them.

[MagicianCamille]

They should read the forums for advice on what to do in the draft. Joe Armchair KNOWS THINGS am I right.

[theFRANCHISE]

[quote name='MagicianCamille' post='185720' date='Apr 26 2009, 12:20 AM']They should read the forums for advice on what to do in the draft. Joe Armchair KNOWS THINGS am I right.[/quote]
But [i]I[/i] know more than Joe Armchair.

(J/k...lol).

[YABOY]

i'm not that happy about the draft picks i would have liked to see them draft a playmaker for flacco like hakeem nicks

[scotchtape622]

What many people don't understand is that WRs almost never play well their first year (this year was the exception, like it was the exception for rookie QBs). We satisfied a much more immediate need that would help the passing game and added depth and competition in the OLB position (assuming he is moving to OLB and not planning on gaining 40 lbs)

[smashmouth]

[quote name='YABOY' post='185752' date='Apr 26 2009, 12:41 AM']i'm not that happy about the draft picks i would have liked to see them draft a playmaker for flacco like hakeem nicks[/quote]
I think more then most was expecting a wideout with one of the first 2 picks. Seems like we wasnt high on too many of the WR that was left by the time the 20's picks rolled around. I believe we would have grabbed Crabtree ( of course.duh ) and Maclin, maybe DHB and def Pettigrew. But they were gone, and value wise grabbing Oher was great. 2nd round there wasnt anyone else really left, most teams was reaching by that point. Kruger was a exception as some believed He should have been a late 1st round or early 2nd rounder.

Ozzie is great at getting good "value" out of the draft. Maybe day 2 will make most a little happier.

[YABOY]

[quote name='smashmouth' post='185756' date='Apr 26 2009, 12:48 AM']I think more then most was expecting a wideout with one of the first 2 picks. Seems like we wasnt high on too many of the WR that was left by the time the 20's picks rolled around. I believe we would have grabbed Crabtree ( of course.duh ) and Maclin, maybe DHB and def Pettigrew. But they were gone, and value wise grabbing Oher was great. 2nd round there wasnt anyone else really left, most teams was reaching by that point. Kruger was a exception as some believed He should have been a late 1st round or early 2nd rounder.

Ozzie is great at getting good "value" out of the draft. Maybe day 2 will make most a little happier.[/quote]
i hope so because baltimore finally has a qb now get him somebody to throw to

[H8R]

[quote name='theFRANCHISE' post='185675' date='Apr 25 2009, 11:34 PM']I choose to think about this year's draft philosophy as finding a way to beat the Steelers.

The Steelers beat us because they pressured the QB like hell. So what do we do? We draft an O-lineman to protect Flacco. Even if he doesn't start, that's still another big body as insurance.

We couldn't beat the Steelers because we couldn't keep Ben Roethlisberger contained. So what do we do? We draft a defensive end who has the motor to keep going even as Ben keeps the play alive.

Yes, we still need a playmaker at WR to help the passing attack -- but the key to beating the Steelers isn't through the air, but on the ground. In that initial meeting in Week 4, we dominated them for 3 quarters because of the ground attack. In our later meeting in Week 15, the ground attack was still the bread-and-butter of the offense. You can't beat a physical team like the Steelers through finesse (i.e. the vertical game); you punch them in the mouth with old-fashioned, smashmouth football (hence the rushing attack).

We were left one game away from the Super Bowl, and denied because of the Steelers. So, logic dictates that, to get to the Super Bowl, we'll probably have to beat the Steelers again. And if the Steelers aren't the team to stand in our way this coming season, they'll soon enough be the ones to do so again in the future. As long as the Steelers continue to win the division, they will remain the #1 obstacle on the path to a Super Bowl.

Eliminate the obstacle, eliminate all doubt.[/quote]


I disagree, the DE (2nd rounder) hybrid will be a weak pass rusher at the NFL level. He has problems getting off of blocks and at LB (if he is moved) I don't see him causing a lot of comotion. We lost to the Steelers because we couldn't maybe from lack of protection for Joe, or LACK of a guy who was physical enough against Pitts Corners to establish the thought of us going deep score . We couldn't stop the slant pass or combat a hurry up offense. I felt we needed to pick up a physical CB to keep Hines Ward honest. We don't need a run stopper or a LB, we have a roster full of them. We needed a legitimate DE that can get to the QB, I don't fell like we got that at all.

[scotchtape622]

I disagree, Kruger is an excellent player, have you watched film of him?

[verrocchio]

what is the point of having Joe Flacco if he has nobody to throw to? Mason is 147 years old, and Clayton is a decent #2... Heap has fallen off the face. I mean who cares if Flacco has 10 seconds to throw if he has nobody to throw to. Maclin was there to be had, and we totally choked. we would've probably been the top team in the nfl imo if we made the move... instead we stayed totally stagnant while everyone else around us made great moves. tbh, I think we just dropped about 5+ spaces in the "power rankings"

[BloodRaven]

[quote name='verrocchio' post='185786' date='Apr 26 2009, 12:20 AM']what is the point of having Joe Flacco if he has nobody to throw to? Mason is 147 years old, and Clayton is a decent #2... Heap has fallen off the face. I mean who cares if Flacco has 10 seconds to throw if he has nobody to throw to. Maclin was there to be had, and we totally choked. we would've probably been the top team in the nfl imo if we made the move... instead we stayed totally stagnant while everyone else around us made great moves. tbh, I think we just dropped about 5+ spaces in the "power rankings"[/quote]

If you have 3-4 recievers running routes, slants, double moves etc and you have 10 seconds to throw someone will always be open.

I'll tag this page to see you eat your words.

[theFRANCHISE]

[quote name='verrocchio' post='185786' date='Apr 26 2009, 01:20 AM']what is the point of having Joe Flacco if he has nobody to throw to? Mason is 147 years old, and Clayton is a decent #2... [b]Heap has fallen off the face. I mean who cares if Flacco has 10 seconds to throw if he has nobody to throw to.[/b] Maclin was there to be had, and we totally choked. we would've probably been the top team in the nfl imo if we made the move... instead we stayed totally stagnant while everyone else around us made great moves. tbh, I think we just dropped about 5+ spaces in the "power rankings"[/quote]
Heap hasn't been used in passing situations because we've been forced to use him in max protection due to deficiencies in the offensive line. With Oher on the line, Heap can run more passing routes, in addition to L.J. Smith.

And to say that we would've been close to the top team in the NFL just by acquiring a receiver is a misconception; one player [i]does not[/i] make the difference in a team sport, especially with all the parity in the league. Besides, we can't really say we're a player away from the Super Bowl if we've lost at least two starters from last season (Bart Scott and Jim Leonhard); we can't say with complete certainty that their replacements will fare as well in their stead, even in the case of former starter Dawan Landry. We could only accurately say we were a player away if we returned all 22 starters -- and even then, parity would kick in.

[Reddawn36]

ok..... let me put this in perspective

we just got a QB.... and ppl are now complaining cause we didn't get him new weapons.... when what makes the ravens so great is defense and now everyone wants to go offense

so say you have an AK-47 .... and the ammo you've been using has been working perfectly fine

yet you decide to change it to say M-16 ammunition.... and it breaks

.....

To us, the ravens

WR = Luxury for a few different reasons... 1 they have an extremely high bust rate..... and we are a RUN FIRST TEAM so they won't have a use on every single down

OL = Nice Pick..... they will be on field just about every down, they allow flacco more time to throw therefore our current recievers get more time to get open..... and it will allow more of our recievers to get down field I.E. TE's

DE= BIGGEST PRIORITY IN DRAFT.... our leader in sacks was 8..... the eagles got that in one game..... we need more pressure with less blitz trevor pryce probably has great grandchildren by now (no offense to him) with more pressure on the QB with less of a blitz that makes our secondary better... and with their speed it will be like ungodly

LB = does anyone seriously think that this should be labeled a need? I mean we have so many

TE = Heap is getting older, wouldn't mind a replacement for him

DB = It wouldn't hurt us to get another one.... but shouldn't really be a need considering all the moves we've made this off season

[Reddawn36]

[quote name='theFRANCHISE' post='185798' date='Apr 26 2009, 01:47 AM']Heap hasn't been used in passing situations because we've been forced to use him in max protection due to deficiencies in the offensive line. With Oher on the line, Heap can run more passing routes, in addition to L.J. Smith.

And to say that we would've been close to the top team in the NFL just by acquiring a receiver is a misconception; one player [i]does not[/i] make the difference in a team sport, especially with all the parity in the league. Besides, we can't really say we're a player away from the Super Bowl if we've lost at least two starters from last season (Bart Scott and Jim Leonhard); we can't say with complete certainty that their replacements will fare as well in their stead, even in the case of former starter Dawan Landry. We could only accurately say we were a player away if we returned all 22 starters -- and even then, parity would kick in.[/quote]


uhm as much as i liked jim leonhard and all

your arguement is not completely true

jim leonhard was the backup to landry.... and was never labeled the starter... however we did lose 1 starter in bart scott but dawan landry is (and never lost his job..... he couldn't play due to spinal injury) our starting SS

however i do agree with your side w/ the "one player away"

[theFRANCHISE]

[quote name='Reddawn36' post='185799' date='Apr 26 2009, 01:53 AM']DB = It wouldn't hurt us to get another one.... but shouldn't really be a need considering all the moves we've made this off season[/quote]
You can never have too many defensive backs; their injury rate is pretty high (second only to running backs, I believe) because DBs have to react to receivers (instead of receivers reacting to them), therefore forcing them to (figuratively and literally) play faster than receivers. And any time you speed up, things get more dangerous. Besides, we all saw what happened when it boiled down to starting Fabian Washington and Frank Walker in the playoffs. Or even last year, when it was Corey Ivy and Derrick Martin. You can never have too many DBs.

[quote name='Reddawn36' post='185801' date='Apr 26 2009, 01:55 AM']jim leonhard was the backup to landry.... and was never labeled the starter... however we did lose 1 starter in bart scott but dawan landry is (and never lost his job..... he couldn't play due to spinal injury) our starting SS[/quote]
I know how Landry "lost" his job to Leonhard, but in terms of designating returning starters, I only list Leonhard as such because he started 14 games in Landry's place. We don't know for sure how Landry has recovered, and I believe the starting SS job is an open competition anyway, so it wouldn't be entirely accurate to call Landry the incumbent/returning starter.

[Reddawn36]

[quote name='theFRANCHISE' post='185807' date='Apr 26 2009, 02:03 AM']You can never have too many defensive backs; their injury rate is pretty high (second only to running backs, I believe) because DBs have to react to receivers (instead of receivers reacting to them), therefore forcing them to (figuratively and literally) play faster than receivers. And any time you speed up, things get more dangerous. Besides, we all saw what happened when it boiled down to starting Fabian Washington and Frank Walker in the playoffs. Or even last year, when it was Corey Ivy and Derrick Martin. You can never have too many DBs.[/quote]

This is true, i didn't say that it is something we should completely avoid.... and i stick w/ the "in ozzie we trust" if we draft a DB good for us if not not gonna lose sleep over it seeing as the pass rush can greatly help it

[quote name='theFRANCHISE' post='185807' date='Apr 26 2009, 02:03 AM']I know how Landry "lost" his job to Leonhard, but in terms of designating returning starters, I only list Leonhard as such because he started 14 games in Landry's place. We don't know for sure how Landry has recovered, and I believe the starting SS job is an open competition anyway, so it wouldn't be entirely accurate to call Landry the incumbent/returning starter.[/quote]


I consider him the starter up until someone dethrones him..... leonhard did not do that... he just filled in for him, but in fairness to any starter... whether it be ray lewis or dawan landry... they have earned that title until the coach or some1 else removes it from them

[futurerRaven]

im not scarred or panicking we are pretty set on defense right now and i dont think kruger is gaining 40 pounds its more like 20 to 25 also we still have good prospects on the bored at WR honesly most of the really good wideouts are second rounders and down

T.J. houshmandzadeh = 7th
marques colston = 7th
vincent jackson = 2nd
brandon marshall = 4th
anquan boldin = 2nd
wes welker = UFA
hines ward = 3rd
desean jackson = 2nd
eddie royal = 2nd
chad ochocinco = 2nd

[Fred Sanford]

Not to mention Wes Welker and Rod Smith were undrafted free agents.

[CustomUserName]

[quote name='Reddawn36' post='185799' date='Apr 26 2009, 01:53 AM']TE = Heap is getting older, wouldn't mind a replacement for him[/quote]

Heap at the beginning of the 08 season was our oldest offensive starter (Mason aside) and was only 28. He's in his prime, we don't need to be considering a replacement for at least 3-4 years.

[PSU RAVEN]

[quote name='ZIBBY28' post='185669' date='Apr 25 2009, 11:30 PM']i diasgree.. flacco wasnt the BPA on the boar last year, but we had a [i]need[/i] at QB so we had to take a "lesser" player to fill a need.[/quote]

Actually this is kinda of my point, flacco wasnt the BPA on the board last year, but had a [i]need[/i] at QB, however the RAVENS (and any other team) will claim that their pick was the BPA for them.

You know the pick was for need, I know it was for need but the teams never say it. It is always ..blah blah blah we had him rated on OUR board as a top pick. (even though no one else did)
Just like yesterday with Denver's coach Josh McDanials trying to justify why they gave up picks for a 2nd rounder

[RoflDogs]

[quote name='verrocchio' post='185786' date='Apr 26 2009, 01:20 AM'][b]what is the point of having Joe Flacco if he has nobody to throw to? [/b] Mason is 147 years old, and Clayton is a decent #2... Heap has fallen off the face. I mean who cares if Flacco has 10 seconds to throw if he has nobody to throw to. Maclin was there to be had, and we totally choked. we would've probably been the top team in the nfl imo if we made the move... instead we stayed totally stagnant while everyone else around us made great moves. tbh, I think we just dropped about 5+ spaces in the "power rankings"[/quote]


What's the point of throwing the ball to an elite receiver if you get sacked in less than a second?

[Ed_Reed20]

I'm not ecstatic with the way the draft has gone but I can't be mad that the Ravens got an elite tackle that could be on the team for 10 years. I know nothing about Kruger but the team would not have drafted him had they not thought he was good.

I would still like to see Ozzie draft a receiver though.