When DeCosta Speaks...

[TL24x7]

...people listen.

Well, I do for sure. In this interview he addresses amongst other things: Ray Lewis, Greg Mattison, why the Ravens didn't select a WR in the draft, who players in the '09 draft class compare to and why Lardarius Webb and Paul Kruger are nothing like David Pittman and Dan Cody, respectively.

CLICK HERE (http://www.profootball24x7.com/column_view.php?cid=11&id=3484&view=archive)

[baltimore_hokie]

that's some good stuff, eric really gave some candid answers that i wasn't expecting. for example, the questions about martin i thought the response would be that they don't see him a bust yada yada, but he was up-front and said some good stuff. i also like what he has said about the UDFA's like ellerbe.

[Rxdoxx]

Yep, really good stuff.

Lots of insight into the thought process behing the scenes

And let’s keep in mind that the NFL is a tough, physical game and it’s important to have a demeanor to match. We’ve learned that that can be more important than whether or not a corner can flip their hips quickly.
And the difference between Kruger/Cody, and Ellerbe is looked at as a potential roster stronger than just a camp body.

Definitely refines how I look at some players.

[elland]

that's some good stuff, eric really gave some candid answers that i wasn't expecting. for example, the questions about martin i thought the response would be that they don't see him a bust yada yada, but he was up-front and said some good stuff. i also like what he has said about the UDFA's like ellerbe.

Martin? It would be Pittman and you are rigth!

[baltimore_hokie]

you're right, my bad

[Jeremiah W]

I am always sort of shocked at how candid he comes off in interviews. He may not tell you everything you want to hear but does not sugar coat, spin or bs very much if at all and really gives some insight into how he really thinks about almost anyone you ask him about.

I think he has done a better job as director of college scouting than Phil Savage did. Actually I think it is obvious that he has, especially on O.

[caliraven]

I don't think DeCosta is blowing smoke. The Ravens have been cultivating their receiving core as they did the O-Line a few years back. Demetrius displayed all the tools to be a top #1 WR in his rookie season. Now that he's got the spurs out, he'll have a chance to live up to his potential. To me, he can be analogized to a Tori Holt. We'll see. I am admittedly a huge #87 fan.

Maybe Marcus Smith catches short passes and displays his ex-RB skills and 220lb frame breaking tackles and plays, Justin Harper using his height on intermediate routes, Wheelright perhaps can develop into a Colston-like player and money red zone receiver, perhaps Figurs as the Jermaine Lewis speed guy.

Mark Clayton as the savvy veteran amongsth all the youth, using all the wisdom learned from Mason along with his superior speed, quickness, and illusivenes.

With Flacco throwing the ball, this receiving core that has been so scrutinized by those of us not privy to practice could be one of the league's best.

[Mr. Mojo Rizon]

But Tenn drafted Britt who impressed them in mini camp. Tenn has only drafted 3 WRs in the first round in their history and Kevin Dyson was one of them.

This is irrelevant. Has Tennessee drafted as well as the Ravens? Just because Fisher thought Britt was worth the 30th pick why should the Ravens think he's worth the 26th pick?


Britt impressed everyone with his pass routes. Fisher said we needed a weapon which is what Ravens needed but didnt get. Fisher did and also got one of the fastest and strongest TEs in the draft.

Another meaningless statement. Didn't the Ravens need a right tackle too? What if said right tackle allows the Ravens to get their backs or tight ends out in patterns more regularly because Oher can handle his assignments without help?

Like others on this board I think DeCosta is candid and I think he addressed the question concerning wide receiver in the interview. So if he doesn't tell you what you want to hear he's blowing smoke but if he said what you want to hear he is forthcoming?



Break on through to the other side

[jonboy79]

He has been blowing smoke and the company line for a long time. He had no intention on taking any WRs in this draft, Pettigrew if he fell but he didnt but they still could have had them if they wanted to.
.

Trap, I can't agree. I think he put's it best himself. BTW, I think he is incredibly honest when talking to fans and media, perhaps to honest.

Eric Decosta said, in this interview,
" You can’t take your 120th ranked player in Round 3 just to fill a need especially if that player isn’t as good as Marcus Smith. "


They would have upgraded the position if they ever were in a position to, value wise.

When we picked, there was never value at the WR positiona, especially when you consider we have a half dozen lumps of clay in house.

The bottom line, I think he says it all when he mentioned they really wanted Brian Robiskie in the 2nd. MANY of us had him pegged as a Ravens-type player of good value around oru second pick...

Too bad he went early in the second.

After the second round, players available were no better then Marcus Smith, Justin Harper, Ernie Wheelright, etc.

[JimZipCode]

He has been blowing smoke and the company line for a long time. He had no intention on taking any WRs in this draft, Pettigrew if he fell but he didnt
I'd have liked to see the Ravens come out of this draft with a Hakeem Nicks or Kenny Britt. But I can't complain. A solid O-line is much more important than one WR, makes a bigger difference across-the-board: running game and passing game. SB teams are built on the O-line. Oher is going to make a big difference for this team.

We also needed a pass-rusher, and a young corner. No complaints about this draft at all.

Receivers are nice; but Tom Brady has shown you can have a devastating NFL offense with just average guys-off-the-street playing receiver. (So did Joe Montana, up thru 1984.) Also, call me stupid, but I really believe in Marcus Smith. It's insane because he had ZERO catches last year; but he really looked like a receiver to me. I also think the UFA from Maryland might turn out to be a player.

I think there's some talent in the Ravens receiving corps. The real improvement in the passing game is going to have to come from Joe -- and that was going to be true whether we drafted a receiver or not.

[caliraven]

I think the knocks on Mark Clayton are mostly bogus. He had a solid rookie year, breakout 2nd year, down 3rd year with injuries and personal problems, and a strong year last year as he and Joe and Cam got acquainted. At his age, Derrick Mason was still just a special teams guy. Mark Clayton is on schedule and will prove worth every bit of that 22nd pick.

The idea that Flacco has nobody to throw to is ridiculous. An offense is an evolution. The Ravens offense is rounding into form nicely to be top 10 across the board (rushing, passing, scoring, time of pos).

[jonboy79]

I'm quite sure they knew Willie wasn't coming back. Everyone has seen that Adam Terry is not a starting RT in this league. Oniel Cousins isn't ready to be thrust in as a sterter either. Nicks and Britt were always out of range, They were almost certainly going to grab a RT in the first round, unless they got within range for their favorite... Pettigrew.

[elland]

I'm quite sure they knew Willie wasn't coming back. Everyone has seen that Adam Terry is not a starting RT in this league. Oniel Cousins isn't ready to be thrust in as a sterter either. Nicks and Britt were always out of range, They were almost certainly going to grab a RT in the first round, unless they got within range for their favorite... Pettigrew.

Agreed. When we drafted Oher it was like BPA and then kind of need too. Now I think it migth be need first and then BPA. Remember they tryed to sign Smith and later Pace.

[Mr. Mojo Rizon]

Ok, but just watch Nicks and Britt this year.

Two guys we could have had where we were or traded down for better value.

Nicks wasnt that far down from 26.

I know Oher will be great, maybe the greatest but we aint going nowhere w/o weapons.


Can't wait to see what the Carolina pothead who can't push away the munchies does this year...

And don't you think that they have a pretty good idea of Britt's value? The Ravens' offensive assistant coach Van Steeg coached Britt at Rutgers. Oher will perform at near Pro Bowl levels and be a mainstay at right tackle for many years to come while Nicks and Britt manage to be average and that's assuming Nicks can stay away from the Michael Phelps peace pipe.

And since when isn't a "great" RT not a weapon?

Oh and let's not forget the Ravens played in the AFC Championship game despite not having "weapons." I guess that equates to "we ain't going nowhere." :eyes:



Try to run, try to hide

[Stealthbirds80]

Agreed. When we drafted Oher it was like BPA and then kind of need too. Now I think it migth be need first and then BPA. Remember they tryed to sign Smith and later Pace.

I second this. That side of the line has been a turnstyle for many years and now we have a guy who won't leave for free angecy after an above average year and suck in Jacksonville. Jokes aside, what Decosta spoke of many of us on the board pretty much felt and he was real about it. I think leading up to the draft WR was the talk b/c who thought that Pettigrew or Oher would be there the twenties. BPA strikes again and we have another mainstay on the OL. We should see more of a wide open offense once the line gels. No more TE (notice I didn't mention Heap *HINT*) staying in to block on crucial third and long plays or the right side getting destroyed by one pass rusher when the TE goes out to pass. I really thought we were getting Robiskie in the 2nd after our 1st pick, but that all falls on what the other 31 teams do like he said. Great draft IMO and great interview. This is the first time I see a common theme amongst almost every draft pick we got with toughness and adversity being that common theme. It also slipped my mind that Kruger was a QB before too. I knew about some of the others being QB's before and I'm guessing that most of the draft picks have a certain "big picture" point of view and also should have a great concept of team. I remember an interview someone did about Ed Reed last year I believe with a league scout. They said the awesome thing about Ed is that besides knowing what the offense might be doing, he also knows what all ten other guys on the defenses responsibilty is (line, LB's, and of course secondary) at any given time including the variables ( "if they do this we do that"). He has that QB perspective on the field which makes him nearly un-readable in coverage. Imagine having any unit with that sort of unison being it offense, defense, or special teams. I think this is what they are going for and should bode well in the future for us.

[baltimore_hokie]

yeah, and we needed someone to hand the ball off to in '96. i can't believe we took ogden over lawrence phillips.....

[awalt]

Best news to me in this interview was acknowledging that the Ravens really didn'yt have a good defense against the underneath passes. I have said for quite some time Ryan took chances and our over the middle short defense suffered. I look forward to seeing some improvement in this area, it's a big reason why teams could drive on us late in the game.

[baltimore_hokie]

he can catch, but he had 0 TD's his senior year?? TE is not nearly the problem that RT was and we wouldve had to trade up before 20 to get pettigrew. this draft was solid and our passing and running game will benefit from it, i don't get all the negativity.

[jonboy79]

he can catch, but he had 0 TD's his senior year?? TE is not nearly the problem that RT was and we wouldve had to trade up before 20 to get pettigrew. this draft was solid and our passing and running game will benefit from it, i don't get all the negativity.

I think TE is our single weakest roster areas.
That said, if we did not draft Oher, I would have felt fairly similar about RT, and that is a more important position.

We are going to have real trouble at TE if Qionn doesn't get better quick. Last year should remind us what happens when we get basically nothign out of hte TE spot. 6 OL all the time, Ngata playing offense... Scary thoughts.

[Dave Lap]

Oh my.

Lookie who else impresses at mini camp with his polished skills and separation ability as advertized up to the draft.

Eric didnt like him either. Note the way he separated on the last catch - very similar to his college hi light vids.

http://www.nj.com/giants/index.ssf/2009/05/wide_receiver_hakeem_nicks_imp.html

The film I saw of Nicks and Britt:

Nicks looked good. Great hand eye coordination. He seems like the kind of guy where you can heave it in his direction and he'll come down with it more often than not. Of course he's is 6 feet tall and doesn't have sprinters speed. He has the potential to be another Derrick Mason, I think.

Britt looked good but didn't wow me. I love his size and speed of course but in the film I saw he looked like he was able to catch over the middle and take the hit in college. Not sure about the pros...For his size he was able to catch the low throws well. He didn't show me that hand eye coordination that I like to see in a 1st round pick. He may have it, but I didn't see it in the clips I checked out.


I think the Ravens liked these guys, just not enough at their given draft spot.

I thought Decosta summed it up pretty well here:

"We tried to address the position in the draft and if the right player was there we would have chosen him. But that said we can’t artificially fabricate a wide receiver. If you bring in an unworthy guy you build a false sense of expectation. Last year folks thought we were crazy for not giving D.J. Hackett a closer look yet one year later he’s out on the street looking for a job. We could have drafted someone in the second round and the initial exhilaration would have been high among fans. But the next year they would be questioning why the player didn’t play well. "

[Dave Lap]

Great posts everyone. Im not arguing vs you. I've been wrong a lot lately.

Sure Oher is a mainstay. Sure he is a weapon. But he isn't a weapon for J0e to throw to.

Hey Trap,

You may well be right and we'll be wishing we went after Nicks or Britt. It's always a tough call projecting how players will do out of college.

[Dave Lap]

yeah, and we needed someone to hand the ball off to in '96. i can't believe we took ogden over lawrence phillips.....


Excellent point....

[srobert96]

He has been blowing smoke and the company line for a long time. He had no intention on taking any WRs in this draft, Pettigrew if he fell but he didnt but they still could have had them if they wanted to.


Yea, Ravens needed a tackle too and Oher was a top 10 pick who fell because SF who was gonna take him took Crabtree instead when he fell because OAK took the Terps DHB.

But Oz could have traded up for Pettigrew but wanted Oher more who was a better value there being a top 10 pick originally.

Yea, joe will have more time but no one two throw to. 0 x 0 still equals nothing.

Ravens have been cultivating this group for years with Clayton going up and down and DEm Wills being injured.

The drift at the top is that Ravens are highly depending on DEM WILLS being injury free.

If he isnt, still no weapons while Britt stars.


It could be that after Crabtree and Maclin there was no one the Ravens thought was any better than what they have on their roster. There was not a receiver on the board that should have been taken over Oher.

Taking a receiver in the 2nd or third round likely would not have helped much this year as very few receivers make an impact in their first season.

[Rochardrik]

Can't wait to see what the Carolina pothead who can't push away the munchies does this year...




May I ask a question? Where does this come from?.... As opposed to getting trashed on alcohol, convening at Denny's to eat everything on the menu, throwing up on the way out, falling face first in it...."man did we have fun".... but that dope smoking, fritos muncher... "what a dick"


I'm just sayin'

[Mr. Mojo Rizon]

Can't wait to see what the Carolina pothead who can't push away the munchies does this year...




May I ask a question? Where does this come from?.... As opposed to getting trashed on alcohol, convening at Denny's to eat everything on the menu, throwing up on the way out, falling face first in it...."man did we have fun".... but that dope smoking, fritos muncher... "what a dick"


I'm just sayin'

Can't say, sorry :kewl:

[Mr. Mojo Rizon]

Eric gave me the same line. He said that if we didnt take these players this year we would be complaining about it next year.

Seems like more smoke. Said the same thing about Dwan Edwards and Dan Cody.



With a mind like TRAP's, why worry if DeCosta is the heir apparent to Ozzie? We have TRAP! :261695:



There's blood on the streets it's up to my ankles

[Rxdoxx]

Agreed. When we drafted Oher it was like BPA and then kind of need too. Now I think it migth be need first and then BPA. Remember they tryed to sign Smith and later Pace.

I don't see (or want to see) leaving BPA.

Means we need good coaches who can be flexible as opposed to rigid system guys.

I don't remember all the ins and outs of 2002 but going to try to use that year as an example.
Ed Reed was BPA and from what I heard was the last of our top picks at that slot.
We started Ethan Brooks and Bennie Anderson... we had needs far above a safety, but the BPA fell that way... if we had ended up with a different BPA, we have a different team.

It is kind of like getting a surprise package. All you know is that you are getting something really good. Good coaches will adjust things and the team will be a little different from maybe what we are used to, but if the true needs can be bubble-gummed over, we are a stronger team.

So BPA this year gets us Oher. Cam has shown great flexability, so we should be stronger. We can continue to look at the weakness, but I'd rather look at the new strength and enjoy seeing some things happen/exploited that we weren't capable of doing last year.
So I don't ever want to see BPA end. It may change the team focus or emphasis from what we were used to, but I'll live with that.

Never want to see a coach who beleives his system is better than the players (ala Greg Williams who let Antonio Pierce and Ryan Clark go), just give me coaches who can tweak things to players strengths and I'll be a lifer BPA.

[awalt]

Again I'll say it....football is won in the trenches. If we have as strong an OL for the next 5 years that we HOPE we have with these young athletic guys, of which Oher could be one of the gems, this team will win a LOT of games and go deep in the playoffs.

[Jeremiah W]

The Ravens seem much more agressive in moving up or down to get the guy they want than most teams. That is the only way to get both BPA and fill needs when the other GMs can see what they are most of the time.

[Rxdoxx]

And if there is a hands down BPA that we don't need, we usually trade to someone who wants him.
Last year rumors were swirling that is Ellis fell we would trade down with the Saints. NE beat us to it but we still found a partner who wanted LB Derrick Harvey.
So we have seen the best of both worlds, we either get the BPA for ourselves or drop down for a new BPA value and scarf up some extra.
Kind of the safety valve when the consensus BPA is where we really have no need at all.
I like it

[jonboy79]

BPA is a farce.
We pick players in positions of need, when the value is good. We won't reach for a player, that is all we won't do. But we don't select a great player that will not fit in with our roster in the next few years.

Someone else mentuoned it, if there is a clear BPA that we can't find a place for, we trade. True BPA we'd select the player and figure it out later. I prefer the Ravens method.
People say BPA all the time, yet we seem to always pick for need....
But I agree, we won't pigeon-hole ourselves on specific needs and tie them to certain selections. We see what is available in front of us, if a trade up has value, we select the guy we really want. IF not, we sit tight and see who drops, if we don't l;ike who drops, we move back.... Very infrequently will you see the Ravens take a true BPA that has no roster need.

[Dave Lap]

BPA is a farce.
We pick players in positions of need, when the value is good. We won't reach for a player, that is all we won't do. But we don't select a great player that will not fit in with our roster in the next few years.

Someone else mentuoned it, if there is a clear BPA that we can't find a place for, we trade. True BPA we'd select the player and figure it out later. I prefer the Ravens method.
People say BPA all the time, yet we seem to always pick for need....
But I agree, we won't pigeon-hole ourselves on specific needs and tie them to certain selections. We see what is available in front of us, if a trade up has value, we select the guy we really want. IF not, we sit tight and see who drops, if we don't l;ike who drops, we move back.... Very infrequently will you see the Ravens take a true BPA that has no roster need.

Agree with most of what you said. Raven's draft philosophy/logistics is very complex and can't be carved in stone as it changes according to each draft and each player, regardless of what they SAY their draft philosophy is. I would NOT go so far as to say that BPA is a farce though.

It's very seldom that we have no roster need for a position and that the BPA is availabe at that position when it's our turn to pick. This year the one position we didn't need was QB. There were no QB's availabe when we picked in May who were BPA. So putting that theory to the test did not come up this year and rarely does.

It kind of came up last year though when we took Ray Rice even though MaGahee and McClain were here. That pick was pretty close to a BPA in my opinion. We sure needed a lot of other postions more.

The draft where we took Ogden over (rb)Lawrence Phillips was recently cited by a poster as an example of taking the BPA over a need.

[Jeremiah W]

BPA is a farce.
We pick players in positions of need, when the value is good. We won't reach for a player, that is all we won't do. But we don't select a great player that will not fit in with our roster in the next few years.

Someone else mentuoned it, if there is a clear BPA that we can't find a place for, we trade. True BPA we'd select the player and figure it out later. I prefer the Ravens method.
People say BPA all the time, yet we seem to always pick for need....
But I agree, we won't pigeon-hole ourselves on specific needs and tie them to certain selections. We see what is available in front of us, if a trade up has value, we select the guy we really want. IF not, we sit tight and see who drops, if we don't l;ike who drops, we move back.... Very infrequently will you see the Ravens take a true BPA that has no roster need.

That definity applies to day one picks, but I can think of a lot of day 2 guys we took at spots we seemed over stacked. This year Peerman comes to mind. Drew also, we have 4 TEs on the roster even though none of the proven ones are healthy right now. Nakamura was sort of a suprise pick at the time. The LB from TCU also was not a player of need but was the BPA left on the board I guess.

[jonboy79]

That definity applies to day one picks, but I can think of a lot of day 2 guys we took at spots we seemed over stacked. This year Peerman comes to mind. Drew also, we have 4 TEs on the roster even though none of the proven ones are healthy right now. Nakamura was sort of a suprise pick at the time. The LB from TCU also was not a player of need but was the BPA left on the board I guess.

One poster above... Rice was a need. We needed a playmaker on offense, a backup RB, we had no idea MCLain would be a ballcarrier, etc...

I agree on Peerman and Nakamura, to an extent, but they also were good ST's players, which is alwyas a need... But, they were picks looking deep into the future on their respective sides of the balls. Day 2 as you mentioned is not the time to pass on a guy you really like. You can usually find a spot for a day 2 gem. Allen Patrick is another guy who fits in here.

Now I disagree bigtiem with Phillips and Drew. Both were MONSTER needs. TE is, IMO, the weakest spot on the roster. ILB wouldn't have been far behind without the selection of Phillips. Even with Drew we are horrendously thin at TE. Quinn may go back on IR, and it would not be surprising at all for LJ or Heap to as well.

[Jeremiah W]

One poster above... Rice was a need. We needed a playmaker on offense, a backup RB, we had no idea MCLain would be a ballcarrier, etc...

I agree on Peerman and Nakamura, to an extent, but they also were good ST's players, which is alwyas a need... But, they were picks looking deep into the future on their respective sides of the balls. Day 2 as you mentioned is not the time to pass on a guy you really like. You can usually find a spot for a day 2 gem. Allen Patrick is another guy who fits in here.

Now I disagree bigtiem with Phillips and Drew. Both were MONSTER needs. TE is, IMO, the weakest spot on the roster. ILB wouldn't have been far behind without the selection of Phillips. Even with Drew we are horrendously thin at TE. Quinn may go back on IR, and it would not be surprising at all for LJ or Heap to as well.

I thnk we needed another body at TE and ILB but did not need to draft them over say a C or a FB that were more obvious needs.
We do have McLain and Ayanbedejo that can back up at ILB, maybe Barnes could, but we did and do have a ton of LBs as well as the undrafted types are available like Ellerbe or Jammel McClain and Edgar Jones, and if we just needed one more guy we would not have cut Nick Greison when we did.

The BPA approach in the later rounds is much more sound than early because you can always cut day 2 picks without wasting much and you are not wasting any money by having them sit and watch or do some time on the P squad. Webb in round 3 was taken when plenty of WRs, LBs and TEs were available.

[jonboy79]

I thnk we needed another body at TE and ILB but did not need to draft them over say a C or a FB that were more obvious needs.
We do have McLain and Ayanbedejo that can back up at ILB, maybe Barnes could, but we did and do have a ton of LBs as well as the undrafted types are available like Ellerbe or Jammel McClain and Edgar Jones, and if we just needed one more guy we would not have cut Nick Greison when we did.

The BPA approach in the later rounds is much more sound than early because you can always cut day 2 picks without wasting much and you are not wasting any money by having them sit and watch or do some time on the P squad. Webb in round 3 was taken when plenty of WRs, LBs and TEs were available.

FB is not a draftable position for most teams, we already have one of the more well regarded FB's in the game, garnering a Pro Bowl last year. I'm nto sure ow that is a need, it simply shifts him back to his natural position. McClain is not a long term ball carrier.
We NEEDED another body at LB, it appears Kruger is goign to be a DE here, so Phillips was a need, for sure. He's twice the palyer Ellerbe is.
Nick Greisen was not in any long term plans. I had thoguht they would keep him, apparently the new regime doesn't consider him good enough to be in the short term plans. I will defer to them.

Webb filled a HUGE need as well. People complained that we were lacking in physical corners, while Webb is small, tough is a word that will be thrown around abotu him for a while for here to come. I think he fits into this system VERY well. I wouldn't be surprised if he overtook Smith in our Suggs package as well. Much more electric.

[Dave Lap]

One poster above... Rice was a need. We needed a playmaker on offense, a backup RB, we had no idea MCLain would be a ballcarrier, etc...
.


The argument I'm trying to adress is wether the Ravens draft more for need or if they (as they say they do) draft the BPA.

I'm not saying it's clearly one or the other but when they drafted Rice they skipped over much higher needs at that time: offensive line and wide receiver. So was Rice a "need" pick? I know it can be argued that back up RB was a "need" but it certainly wasn't a top need. Therefore I think it was more of a BPA pick.

Listening to the Ravens after the draft pretty much confirmed that for me. Apparently he was one of their 4 star guys and there weren't many on their board. I forget the exact designation they used (it wasn't 4 star) but it was one that meant they felt he had exceedingly good immeasurables as well as skills.

[jonboy79]

JON - Not farce. Oher was definitely the best player on the board. SF would have taken him at #10 if Big Al hadnt screwed up taking DHB. A top 10 pick fell all the way down to #20.

Ray should have been the first player taken in 97 draft. He fell and he was clearly the BPA. We also needed a MLB. Ogden was the BPA - period. We had a strong line at the time but he became a need when Wally left and they moved him over to LT.

Now, after the first round it becomes different, especially in the middle to late rounds you draft for need.

Eric told us last ear that Rice was his favorite player in the draft. His 2d favorite player was a TE named Stevens. That was a need. He knew what was gonna happen to our TE position in 08.

He said he thought he could get Stevens in the 4th round, so they took Rice in the 2d, and I think Cousins in the 3d?

But Tenn took Stevens so Eric didnt get him.

BTW, he turned out to be a bust. He didnt play hardly at all and Tenn took one of the biggest and best blocking TEs after Pettigrew.

So much for Erics 2d favorite player.

But players taken after the first round are often need like Patrick Johnson, Dwan Edwards was a 2d rounder, Kruger this year - all needs and Ravens would have taken Robiskie had he been there - another need.


IN no way, shape or form would the Ravens have ever drafted a QB or HB in the first round last year. I'm sure there are other positions worthy of the slot they would have avoided due to lack of need.
BPA is a formula of which one of the major categories is positional need. They will select a player of marginally lower talent at a high need position over one who is a marginally better prospect at a stacked position. Early in the draft they simply would not select a player that has zero chance of seeing the field for a few years. Later on in the draft, they may select the best players they see available, but you better believe they will still fill a need, especially in rounds 3,4 and 5...
Rounds 6 and 7 you may see an actual BPA.
Oher was BPA, no doubt about it, but they traded up for him... that tells yoiu something. They didn't want any of the other BPA's coming up, once Pettigrew was gone.

I wouldn't give up on Stevens just yet. Leading up to the Zbikoski pick I was chanting his name over and over in the draft day thread... Maybe Tenn heard me. We have since heard Oz and Deco would have certainly taken him over Zbi if he were available.
BPA may not be a compelte farce, but you better believe positional need(particularly early in the draft) is one of the most important factors in determining said BPA value.

[awalt]

If the first game were tomorrow, we probably wouldnt have a TE to suit up.

Well that's not true as we know Drew or Jones could play if it the first game was tomorrow...

But it's not - Preston is overreacting a little IMHO although the points are valid. When he penned that it was still May, three months from then will be late August, we will still be in training camp, and three months is a major chunk of a season of football. Broken bones heal in 12 weeks.

Guys are supposed to be healing and taking it easy this time of year. Their bodies need time to mend. If you are expected to be fully healthy in May, when do you heal, or do you just release guys that are hurt in the offseason?

Give it time. It's a slow news time so Preston is fishing for a story. I actually think if there WAS a game tomorrow LJ or Heap would play. But there's a lot of time for them to heal and see what we have.

[jonboy79]

Since the news on Quinn, I have thoguht that TE was our weakest roster spot. I'm not sure if Pres-tone agreeiing with me validates me or not however.
I feel like if Healthy, Quinn could easily have been our best TE.

[awalt]

LOL- Drew? Come on, man. He is a project at best and hasnt even played the position that long. He was a late round pick. You want to start the season with him?


No, but you forgot or misread what I was replying to. You said we had no one to suit up. I merely suggested that was not true.

My point that you missed was not that we would be in good shape if Drew or Jones started, but that we had THREE MONTHS and that it is much less of an issue that these guys are nursing injuries today. That's a long time for players to heal.

[Jeremiah W]

The tackle situation was much more serious last year and much closer to game time, and that worked out.

I think by the time camp comes around we will have about 7 or 8 guys on the roster that could step in and play TE in a pinch. Plenty of our defenders have TE type bodies, and Nagta does not, but has looked half decent moving in space anyway.

Heap made it through a whole year even though he got beat up, but this year it looks like he will have a lot of help, and may not have to tangle with as many DEs.

There are always a few TEs on the wire at the end of camps as well that can play. It is an easy spot to find a live body, and there is not a lot of drop off from a beat up starter to a fresh free agent.

[Rxdoxx]

It has been a great discussion on Ravens/BPA with differing points of view, and can't really say anyone is right or wrong, just that there is truth in the points that others bring up.

I think the picture is muddled and will always be muddled whenever we leave the consensus BPA.... meaning the top maybe 5-8 overall picks. After they go, then the skill/potential/production/position gaps between players becomes a lot closer and we can't be as definitive about an OL vs a DL.

We have been fortunate in a very real sense that we don't have a top 8 pick very often :) So a strong case can be made that we take the BPA, and a strong case can be made that we fill need. And it comes down to splitting hairs, we are both right.

About the only thing we can put as a solid base is that the Ravens don't reach regardless of need. They will trade either up or down to keep themselves in their value range. Sure, need influences their picks or lack of need as does trusting their evaluation of player rankings. We can say that they pick for how they percieve value, and since they have their own separate evaluation system. once we are out of the elite cream of the crop, we will never have a cut and dried answer.. just an awesome impressive track record of "bottom-feeding", and a ton of discussion from us fans.

[srobert96]

Speaking of TEs, this is all the more reason to trade up for Pettigrew. Nice piece from Mikie Prestone.

If the first game were tomorrow, we probably wouldnt have a TE to suit up.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/football/bal-sp.preston02jun02,0,2266464.column

How would you feel about RT right now had the Ravens drafted Pettigrew instead of Oher?

I would be more concerned with RT having only injury prone Terry. I will start to worry about the TE position if they are still injured during camp.

[baltimore_hokie]

How would you feel about RT right now had the Ravens drafted Pettigrew instead of Oher?

I would be more concerned with RT having only injury prone Terry. I will start to worry about the TE position if they are still injured during camp.

i was thinking the EXACT same thing this morning. we would be in a whole bunch of shit, but i guess some people if we had britt out there to watch flacco get put on his ass repeatedly? we have two TE's that our solid when healthy, and our first game isn't for a long ass time...

[jonboy79]

How would you feel about RT right now had the Ravens drafted Pettigrew instead of Oher?

I would be more concerned with RT having only injury prone Terry. I will start to worry about the TE position if they are still injured during camp.

I'm the biggest Pettigre hound, btu I agree with yoru question. RT would be a bigger problem then TE is now. That said, maybe we would have gotten Loadholt or Britton in the second, and.... who knows how the rest of the draft would have gotten.

[baltimore_hokie]

I'm the biggest Pettigre hound, btu I agree with yoru question. RT would be a bigger problem then TE is now. That said, maybe we would have gotten Loadholt or Britton in the second, and.... who knows how the rest of the draft would have gotten.

and i would be much more scared having loadholt out there with pettigrew than oher out there with heap/LJ/syp (whoever is the least banged up). i think we are looking to far into their health right now, oher was no doubt the best pick we could have made.

[awalt]

But like I said, he always treats receivers as an afterthought.
Well you can always argue the quality of our draftees in hindsight, which is always 20-20, but Ozzie hardly treats WRs as an afterthought in the draft:

4 WRs drafted 2006-2008
EIGHT WRs drafted 2004-2008

That includes a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th round pick.

Maybe they all suck maybe they haven't had the surrounding cast maybe they haven't had the right offensive scheme to maximize their talent maybe they have had poor coaching and OC. But 8 WRs in 5 years including 3 day 1 WRs is hardly an afterthought.

[awalt]

Um, if you want to get picky, lets go back to all Ozzie's drafts, not just the 5 years.

Ozzie has had 12 drafts since 1997. Lets say there were 6 rounds/players taken for each draft. I know there were some years with more but lets say 6 rounds pr yr. So 12x6 equals 72 players drafted. So only 3 day 1 draftees were WRs. Only 8 of 72 were WRs total. Thats not many compared to all the other positions. Now add up all the D guys Oz drafted especially in the first round.

Yup, thats an after thought for WRs.



I went back to 2004 as that was recent history. Your analysis seems to suggest you don't think he drafted anyone else in any year prior to 2004, which is false. It would not have been 8 WRs in 72 picks. He picked 3 WRs in 2002, 1 in 2000, 1 in 1999, 1 in 1998, and 1 in 1996. There were three more day one picks, a 1st rounder, and 2 second-rounders. So that makes 6 day one picks. It also makes 15 picks in 103 selections (the actual number of picks we had) through 2008, or 1 in 7. That's pretty good for ONE POSITION in the draft, after all we need attention at all the other positions too - and it certainly doesn't justify the blief that the position has been ignored.

By contrast, in our "player rich" position of LB, Ozzie has selected 12 LBs in the draft 1996 - 2008. That's 3 LESS than WR. If he has ignored WR in the draft he has probably ignored every other position as well.

As an FYI, in the years 1996-1998 Ozzie obviously picked less WRs (although he did not ignore the position), as we had two of the better WRs in the league in Michael Jackson and Derek Alexander.

One last point - if we go back to recent history, signing Mason as a FA also was a recognition we needed help at WR.

Like I say, you can argue the quality of our picks, whether it was the players or something else, but the facts really don't back up that the position has been ignored, especially in the draft.

[festivus]

Ok, w/o looking up the details I was saying 6 players for year, I stated their might have been more but went with 6. You were more thorough, but when I say it was an afterthought I think of first round picks.

Continuing to lose ground, Trap now turns the debate from (a) generally neglected, past (b) not drafted recently and (c) not drafted ever to (d) not drafted in the first round.

Keep going Trap! You'll find your point eventually!

[awalt]

Well I consider a Day 1 draftee 1st three rounds to be very capable of being a long term starter, or better. But since you refocused the question down to WRs drafted the first round, here are some interesting statistics to ponder:

From 1996-2005, 45 WRs have been drafted in the first round, more than any other position (seems to lead credence to the argument that you have to draft WRs in the first round to be competitive).

BUT! Let's look how they turned out:

3 are superstars (at least a chance or better at the Hall of Fame)- Marvin Harrison, Randy Moss, Torry Holt

7 had solid careers worthy of a first round pick - Keyshawn, Reggie Wayne, Larry Fitzgerald (who could be HOF if he plays long enough IMHO), Eric Moulds, Santana Moss, Braylon Edwards, Roddy White (could move up if he keeps playing well)

15 are players who start but really have not lived up to first round pick: Terry Glenn,Eddie Kennison,David Boston,Peter Warrick,Plaxico Burress,Travis Taylor,Rod Gardner,Donté Stallworth,Ashley Lelie,Javon Walker,Andre Johnson
Roy Williams,Lee Evans,Michael Clayton (LSU), Mark Clayton (OK)

Now you may disagree with some of these, like Andre Johnson or Roy Williams, but collectively there are only 4 Pro Bowls in the group (Boston, Glenn, Walker, Johnson 1 each), and no one in this group has averaged more than 3 TDs a year. Very mediocre stats, very few Pro Bowls, very few Super Bowls.

9 are "scrubs" - not even starters - Ike Hilliard,Kevin Dyson,Troy Edwards,David Terrell,Koren Robinson,Bryant Johnson,Reggie Williams,Michael Jenkins, Troy Williamson

11 are total busts - (WARNING - reading this list of former first round stars may bring tears to your eyes) - Yatil Green,Reidel Anthony,Rae Carruth,Marcus Nash,Sylvester Morris,R. Jay Soward,Freddie Mitchell,Charles Rogers,Rashaun Woods, Mike Williams, Matt Jones

So what does this tell us?

35 of the 45 WRs drafted in the first round have failed to live up to expectations.

Busts outnumber superstars by almost 4 to 1.

34 of the 45 have failed to make a single Pro Bowl.

The three superstars have 16 Pro Bowl appearances, the other 42 have only 12.

Also we learn:

Bad teams and bad organizations tend to opt for receivers in the first round more often than good teams. Of the 45 wideouts selected in the first round since 1996:

* 22 were picked by teams with losing records the previous year
* 15 were picked by teams with winning records
* 6 were picked by teams with more than 10 wins
* 12 were picked by teams with more than 10 losses

Only 3 of these 45 WRs have won a Super Bowl.

Which means teams are more likely to get to the Super Bowl if they DUMP a 1st round WR! 5 teams achieved this -->

Koren Robinson left Seattle the year before they got in (2001)
Plaxico at Pitt
Eddie Kennison at SL
Reidel Anthony at Tampa
Terry Glenn at NE

So in summary, if your head is spinning by all this:

Selecting a wide receiver in the first round is the single-worst decision your team can make on draft day. This recent history shows that first-round wide receivers have a shockingly high chance of bombing in the NFL. Just a handful of first-round wideouts over the past 10 years have flourished.

Not only does drafting a wide receiver bode poorly for your future, it bodes poorly for your past, too: Struggling teams are more likely than good teams to seek salvation in the form of a fleet-footed wideout (Hello, Matt Millen!) More often than not, all these teams find is continued failure.

Interestingly, the last five Super Bowl victors all went on to championship glory soon after losing or dumping their most recent No. 1-pick wideout.

The routine failure of wide receivers is particularly shocking when you consider that they have been drafted more often in the first round than any other position over the past 10 years. Apparently, NFL GMs and coaches continue to cling to the belief that a mesmerizing wide receiver is the key to future success.

Just say no to WR in the first round.

[jonboy79]

Andre Johnson has 33 TD's in 5 years. He should absolutely be bumped up a tier, at least with Roddy White and Braylon Edwards, but besides that, the post is spot on.

[Ravenswarrior19]

Awalt, That was a killer post! :worthy:

[Dave Lap]

Awalt, That was a killer post! :worthy:

That was a fun read and some great research.

[Raveninwoodlawn]

Trap, I just don't get your argument. Are you saying that we haven't invested in the WR spot at the expense of another position? And please tell me you didn't use the Lions as an example of what we should have done as far as using multiple first rounders in a row on WR's.

Oz has had 16 1st round picks

If we break them down by position, this is what we get...

QB 2
RB 1
WR 2
TE 1
OL 3
DL 1
LB 3
CB 2
S 1

That is neglecting the WR position?

And don't forget that the first 2 years here, WR was the strongest position on the team.

The team did not like Nicks...and it was being reported that the team was souring on him about a week or 2 before the draft...and I don't know where they had Britt on thier board, but I know personally, I didn't like him as a first rounder at all.

I have no problem with us shoring up our OL as opposed to taking 2 iffy prospects at WR...it isn't like we passed up on Crabtree here.

[psuasskicker]

Ok Houston but at least Walt and I aren't being sarcastic to one another or name calling but I still say 15 out of 103 isnt many.

15 / 103 = 14.5%

WRs are typically 5 or 6 players on the 53 man roster.
5.5 / 53 = 10.4%

In the first round:
2 / 14 = 14.3%

WRs are typically 2 of 22 starters on the field.
2 / 22 = 9.1%

If anything, this data suggests Ozzie drafts a disproportionately high number of WRs, both in the first round and across the entire draft.


From 1996-2005, 45 WRs have been drafted in the first round, more than any other position (seems to lead credence to the argument that you have to draft WRs in the first round to be competitive).

BUT! Let's look how they turned out:

I feel your point man, but your rankings are WAY screwed up...

Reggie Wayne - 8k rec yds, 53 TDs over eight years. Dude's elite.
Larry Fitzgerald - Almost 6k rec yds, 46 TDs over five years. Just had probably the greatest post-season ever by a WR. He's one of if not the best in the game. Elite.
Moulds - 10k yards, 50 TDs, elite.
Andre Johnson - Over 6k yards, 33 TDs on a horrid team. Realize that if you translate his 851 yds over 9 games in '07 to a full year, it's over 1,500 yards. Arguably the best WR in the game right now. Elite. (PS - Johnson has avg'd 5.5 TD/yr on a team that's avg #22 in scoring offense in the six years he's been there.)

Plaxico, Javon Walker, Roy Williams, Boston and Lee Evans belong in the "solid" category.
Walker was extremely productive before injuries hurt him.
Plax has almost 8k yards and over 50 TDs. He's certainly been a solid pick.
Boston avg over 60 YPG when he played. Career derailed by injuries.
Evans avg almost 1k yds per season.
Roy almost 60 YPG on one of the worst teams in history and unquestionably the worst in the last decade.

You're way too negative on these guys...it's not realistic. You're almost expecting all first round picks to be super-stars. In the past five years there have been 159 first round picks (160 minus the Pats lost pick). There aren't that many super-stars in the game. Some of those guys will inevitably turn out to be role players. That doesn't mean they aren't worthy of a first rounder.

You were also too high on some. Warrick and Travis Taylor are busts...scrubs at best. I would actually lump all your players remaining in that middle category into the "scrub" category except Glenn, Kennison, Stallworth, Clayton and Clayton.

New numbers:
Elite - 7
Solid - 12
Mediocre - 5
Scrub - 13
Bust - 11


Which means teams are more likely to get to the Super Bowl if they DUMP a 1st round WR! 5 teams achieved this -->

Sorry man, but this is simply biased due to terrible sample size. Ten year window, 5-10 WRs you're talking about. Not at all enough to say relevantly that "teams are more likely to get to the SB if they dump than pick."

They're also misrepresented. First, they're wrong. Won Superbowls:
Holt, Keyshawn, Harrison, Wayne, Plaxico
Irrelevant if they won on a different team than drafted them.

More importantly, you have WRs that won vs. the ones that left and teams went. You need to do went went or won won. Went went is more relavent. Eight of them have been to SBs.


Selecting a wide receiver in the first round is the single-worst decision your team can make on draft day.

Sorry, even if you take everything you said in your post as a fact, all that doesn't support this conclusion. Certainly not if you use my assumptions above. Your conclusions suggest it is a bad decision. But you have no comparative data to show production rates for other positions, nor compare the importance of those positions. Is selecting a WR in the first round really a worse decision than selecting a PK in the first round?


Interestingly, the last five Super Bowl victors all went on to championship glory soon after losing or dumping their most recent No. 1-pick wideout.

What?

How soon is "soon?"

NYG three years afterwards... That's soon?

I would bet a LOT of money that I could come up with no less than one other position that was true of.

Equally true: Interestingly, the seven of the last eight franchises that have won the SB have done so with a 1st round WR on their roster.


I understand your point, and don't disagree with a watered down version of it. WRs in the first round are exceptionally risky...I've argued this point myself. However, it's nowhere near as extreme as you're making it out to be.

- C -

[baltimore_hokie]

when you look at the great WR's in this league, almost all of them (except for Megatron Johnson) have good, or great, QB's to get the ball to them. brandon marshall was a fourth rounder and turned into a stud with cutler, roddy white was decent until he had matty ice throwing to him, randy moss was only decent for several years without culpepper or brady throwing to him, and the list goes on and on. we haven't had a great QB until now, and i think ozzie is banking on the guys we are developing and/or drafting in the near future to be like those guys.

[psuasskicker]

when you look at the great WR's in this league, almost all of them (except for Megatron Johnson) have good, or great, QB's to get the ball to them. brandon marshall was a fourth rounder and turned into a stud with cutler, roddy white was decent until he had matty ice throwing to him, randy moss was only decent for several years without culpepper or brady throwing to him, and the list goes on and on. we haven't had a great QB until now, and i think ozzie is banking on the guys we are developing and/or drafting in the near future to be like those guys.

Roddy White had 1,200 yards in '07 with Harrington and Redman as his primary passers.

Andre Johnson's had two years with 1,100+ with Carr throwing the ball. Schaub is mediocre at best and he's putting up 1,500 now.

Calvin Johnson as you mentioned.

Derrick Mason's had 1k yards with us in more than one year.

Fitzgerald and Boldin have had McCown and Leinart throwing them passes.

Santana Moss had a 1,400+ yd season with Brunell.

For the most part you're right, but it's a mutually beneficial relationship. Look at Brady's numbers before he got great receivers vs. after. McNabb's when he had TO vs. not. Great WRs make QBs look better, just like great QBs make WRs look better.

Great WRs do not make their QBs great.

But, great QBs do not make their WRs great...

- C -

[psuasskicker]

PSU - Great posts with the numbers and I meant to mention that some of the names Walt mentioned are not busts. You beat me to it.

I must be missing something here but 14.5% out of a 100% isnt much.

Now if you said 50%, that would be a lot. 60% would be greater.

Thanks Trap.

Though I think you missed the point on my notes regarding your thread. You seemed to be arguing that Oz wasn't drafting enough WRs. My numbers are showing that he's drafting more WRs per pick than WRs roster spots take on a team, and that he's drafting more WR first rounders than WRs start on a team. i.e. It's indicating Ozzie is drafting too many, not too few.

- C -

[shaslers]

BPA is a farce.
We pick players in positions of need, when the value is good. We won't reach for a player, that is all we won't do. But we don't select a great player that will not fit in with our roster in the next few years.

Someone else mentuoned it, if there is a clear BPA that we can't find a place for, we trade. True BPA we'd select the player and figure it out later. I prefer the Ravens method.
People say BPA all the time, yet we seem to always pick for need....
But I agree, we won't pigeon-hole ourselves on specific needs and tie them to certain selections. We see what is available in front of us, if a trade up has value, we select the guy we really want. IF not, we sit tight and see who drops, if we don't l;ike who drops, we move back.... Very infrequently will you see the Ravens take a true BPA that has no roster need.

Yes and no. The missing piece of the puzzle is a discussion of the work they do prior to the draft. As they are evaluating players and stacking the board, they rank players based on ability, but also, importantly by need. So, for instance, in 2009, they are going to rank OTs and CBs higher than QBs and RBs, even if all of them got the same grade, whereas the same QB and RB may have ranked higher in 2008 based on their draft needs from that year.

Once they've stacked their board, they stay true to it.

That's how they always seem to pick a good player, who generally fits a need in the first round.

A player who is less of a need, like Rice, can still be the pick, because of where he is on their board. If they have him ranked as a top-30 talent and he's still there in the second, then they will take him even if he is not a need position. If they get to the second round and none of the players available at that spot are rated that highly -- or if a bunch of them are equal and there is a good chance one will still be there later -- they will trade back.

So it's not really Best Player Available. It's Best Value Player Available. Value considers positional need...ability...and how well a player fits the style of play they want at that position (ie, 1 or 2-gap DT? Tall, strong or small, quick receiver? Big, downhill runner or fast, outside runner?) It allows them to pass on players who fit a need, but are not a value at that spot. And it allows them to take a player who does not fit an obvious need, but is too good a value to pass up.

So in that sense, it's neither BPA nor is it picking for need. It's not either, or, it's both. All driven by a very systematic approach to scouting, grading, and ranking players before the draft starts.

[jonboy79]

Yes and no. The missing piece of the puzzle is a discussion of the work they do prior to the draft. As they are evaluating players and stacking the board, they rank players based on ability, but also, importantly by need. So, for instance, in 2009, they are going to rank OTs and CBs higher than QBs and RBs, even if all of them got the same grade, whereas the same QB and RB may have ranked higher in 2008 based on their draft needs from that year.

Once they've stacked their board, they stay true to it.

That's how they always seem to pick a good player, who generally fits a need in the first round.

A player who is less of a need, like Rice, can still be the pick, because of where he is on their board. If they have him ranked as a top-30 talent and he's still there in the second, then they will take him even if he is not a need position. If they get to the second round and none of the players available at that spot are rated that highly -- or if a bunch of them are equal and there is a good chance one will still be there later -- they will trade back.

So it's not really Best Player Available. It's Best Value Player Available. Value considers positional need...ability...and how well a player fits the style of play they want at that position (ie, 1 or 2-gap DT? Tall, strong or small, quick receiver? Big, downhill runner or fast, outside runner?) It allows them to pass on players who fit a need, but are not a value at that spot. And it allows them to take a player who does not fit an obvious need, but is too good a value to pass up.

So in that sense, it's neither BPA nor is it picking for need. It's not either, or, it's both. All driven by a very systematic approach to scouting, grading, and ranking players before the draft starts.

I won't disagree at all. Value is the key word there, and positional need and "fit" in yoru system are very important parts of that.

[Rxdoxx]

So it's not really Best Player Available. It's Best Value Player Available. Value considers positional need...ability...and how well a player fits the style of play they want at that position (ie, 1 or 2-gap DT? Tall, strong or small, quick receiver? Big, downhill runner or fast, outside runner?) It allows them to pass on players who fit a need, but are not a value at that spot. And it allows them to take a player who does not fit an obvious need, but is too good a value to pass up.

So in that sense, it's neither BPA nor is it picking for need. It's not either, or, it's both. All driven by a very systematic approach to scouting, grading, and ranking players before the draft starts.

Very nice! so it is BVPA :)

[Dave Lap]

Yes it is.

This has been a great discussion w/o the usual smak and I learned a lot from PSU and Walt.

You know, so often, these threads turn into name calling and pissing contests. It's really refreshing to hear someone say that they learned something from someone else.

No one is right all the time. It's OK to say, "yeah good point. I hadn't thought of that". It doens't mean we're less of an expert or a fan. It just means we're willing to listen and learn as well as make good points.

[awalt]

You know, so often, these threads turn into name calling and pissing contests. It's really refreshing to hear someone say that they learned something from someone else.

No one is right all the time. It's OK to say, "yeah good point. I hadn't thought of that". It doesn't mean we're less of an expert or a fan. It just means we're willing to listen and learn as well as make good points.

Oh there was some name calling - trap it's "awalt" not "Walt" :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Nice to meet ya...

[CDiPiranha]

Ah, he is blowing smoke.

The FO looks at WRs as an after thought. Eric said Nicks and Britt werent as good as Pettigrew and Oher and he was right.

But Tenn drafted Britt who impressed them in mini camp. Tenn has only drafted 3 WRs in the first round in their history and Kevin Dyson was one of them.

Britt impressed everyone with his pass routes. Fisher said we needed a weapon which is what Ravens needed but didnt get. Fisher did and also got one of the fastest and strongest TEs in the draft.

http://seahawknationblog.com/2009/05/kenny-britt-among-rookies-who-impressed-at-first-nfl-minicamp/



Trap, while what you say in regards to our front-office may or may not be correct, also understand OUR situation compared to TENNESSEE'S situation...

Tennessee is more than satisfied with its OLine from tackle-to-tackle, while it should've been obvious that we were worried about our OT situation (particularly RT, with Ol' Willie on the way out).

It has been shown both here and in Tenn that the level of talent at the wideouts isn't as important as the trenches or the RB group. Recall that it was last yr that the Titans also needed to add to their wideout group to increase the talent level...

but instead they went RB and selected Chris Johnson out of ECU.

Trap, I think that the Ravens made the proper move with Oher, even though I reeeeeally loved Hakeem Nicks and thought Kenny Britt was also rather intriguing.

In future seasons we'll see how things turn out for both teams.


.02 from "Unpaid-Scout"C DiP

[effo5231]

Yea, I heard Fisher say they were satisfied with their o-line so they could splurge on Kenny Britt.

But now that we dont even have a TE if the first game was tomorrow, unless you consider a rookie project a TE, we still need Pettigrew.

I gotta think we could have plugged a hole like Oz did during our SB year and the following year on the right side. Until 08, the last time we went deep in the POs was 01 with a cheap line, especially across the middle with Muli, Flynn and Mitchell.

Just my humble freaking opinion.

But the first game isn't tomorrow is it? We've got months for Heap and Smith to be ready... Heck, this time last year if the first game were tomorrow we'd be going in with Kyle Boller at QB.

Meanwhile answer this, which player is more involved in every play, your TE or your RT? The answer is obvious... but for some reason you'd be more comfortable with some street body in at tackle then a (admittedly low) draft pick in at TE. I don't understand that logic.

[jonboy79]

And I thought I owned the crown for pimping the importance of a blocking TE...
As much as I think we need a blocking TE, and as much as I LOVE Pettigrew as a player, I STILL think we did better with Oher. Knowing what we know now(Willie Anderson's retirement) I would have placed Oher well in my top 10 of a Ravens bigboard. I may have even placed Britton above Pettigrew(who I think I had around 12).
Trap, I can't say I disagree with where you are coming from, but Terry/Cousins as RT and swign tackle is a bit scary to me. I'm glad things ended up how they did, though I wish we had gotten Anthony Hill from NC in the middle rounds.

[effo5231]

Again, we have no TE.

This is simply untrue.

Heap and Smith should both be ready for camp, and opening day. An injury that keeps you out in June is not the same as an injury that keeps you out in December.

[Jeremiah W]

Hope you are right. Heaps back has been hurting since the POs and he hasnt even practiced yet or not much.


JON - Yea, youre right. It is hard to argue with Oher but all we kept hearing during the off season is we have to get Joe some weapons and we didnt. Like you say, even in the middle rounds would have been great. It would have been nutten.

Mason is a year older and his shoulder is still banged up at this point.

Clayton isnt a deep threat and DEM WILLs is always hurt and Marcus hasnt proven a thing other than getting hurt for his entire rookie season.

If we play Squeelers 3 times again this year, we are gonna lose 3 more times because Joe has no weapns - nada, nothing, zip, zero.

Now, if Cards should come down in their demands by the 15th trading deadline and Oz somehow secures Boldin, a off season of Oher and Boldin would make me higher faster than Phelps bong.


This has been a fun discussion and Ive been wrong a lot lately but it is just how I feel.

Just my freaking humble opinion.

That does not sound like a humble opinion. That is more like a strong but stubborn take on one aspect of the offense. It is a new year and we do not know who will be healthy by steeler week. Without Big Ben we would beat them by 14 every time.
I never felt like we did not have a chance with what we had vs the Steelers. We had the lead late in the 4th quarter in both regular season games and a chance to win with 4 minutes left in the playoff game. The Ravens were getting 30 ppg over the last 10 weeks and won 2 road playoff games. It does not need to get much better to be good enough, but upgrading one of the O lie spots can make as much difference as a WR or TE, and it is a lot less likley that any rookie WR or TE would out perform Heap and Smith or Mason and Clayton in the short term, than a top T that was projected as a LT over a fat RT that was cut but the Bungles.

[CDiPiranha]

That does not sound like a humble opinion. That is more like a strong but stubborn take on one aspect of the offense. It is a new year and we do not know who will be healthy by steeler week. Without Big Ben we would beat them by 14 every time.
I never felt like we did not have a chance with what we had vs the Steelers. We had the lead late in the 4th quarter in both regular season games and a chance to win with 4 minutes left in the playoff game. The Ravens were getting 30 ppg over the last 10 weeks and won 2 road playoff games. It does not need to get much better to be good enough, but upgrading one of the O lie spots can make as much difference as a WR or TE, and it is a lot less likley that any rookie WR or TE would out perform Heap and Smith or Mason and Clayton in the short term, than a top T that was projected as a LT over a fat RT that was cut but the Bungles.


Jeremiah, I think you're spot-on buddy.

It simply amazes me how fans talk about our Ravens sometimes like we were a 6-win team and thoroughly outmatched against the top teams in the league last yr. The top AFC team (the Titans) and the #2-seed AFC team (the Steelers) we played them on pretty much even terms. Now, we ended up losing more of them than we liked, but the key thing to recall is that WE WERE RIGHT THERE IN EACH GAME!!! What happened near the end of those contests in my opinion has more to do with which team executed better at that particular time than it has to do with which team is better (or worse) overall.

My sincere belief is that our Ravens basically stopped Tennessee from getting a ring (just like we did in 2000) and allowed Pittsburgh the honor of doing so.

In all honesty, we weren't the best team or better team in probably any of those matchups against Pitt or Tenn -- but the difference between us and either of those two teams was sooooo razor-thin that we could compete with them on even terms AND WIN pretty much anywhere or any of the games we played. To me, with what we brought to the table last yr, I think that's all you could ask for -- just strap up and lets play.

To close, I think the key thing for all to realize is that despite our youth at QB and tons of injuries last yr, WE WERE RIGHT THERE TO WIN EACH GAME!!! In my world, if you build yourself into a deep-playoff contender, then all you can do is play those meaningful games in January (and hopefully February) and hope that you come out on the winning end.

I think this team will be fine.


.02 from "Unpaid-Scout"C DiP

[psuasskicker]

But now, we dont even have a TE if the first game was tomorrow, unless you consider a rookie project a TE, we still need Pettigrew.

Yeah. Except it's not. It's almost three months from now...


I really dont think anyone in town would be complaining if we took Pettigrew.

You can say that all you want but it's not true. Someone else would be complaining we didn't take Oher, or a WR, or someone else. Everyone wants different things...there was no one in this draft that everyone would have been happy we landed.

But regardless, you have no idea if we were targeting Pettigrew or not or where we wanted him. It's not like we traded up with him on the board and we just didn't take him. We might have been targeting him and not been able to put enough together to go up as high as we had to. We might have said "If he's still on the board at #23 (or wherever) we'll go get him." Who the hell knows, but it's not fair at all to say we should have taken him...we never had the chance.

It's like saying that it sucks that Ozzie didn't go up and get Crabtree. Who cares? We never had the shot at him. Move on...

- C -

[psuasskicker]

Speaking of Shannan, that TE put us over the hump.

This is hilarious...

- C -

[shaslers]

Value is the key word there, and positional need and "fit" in yoru system are very important parts of that.

It really starts with identifying, not only positions of need, but types of players who fit that position. For instance, they used to look for slow, bulldozing linemen, then they switched philosophies and focused on athletic linemen. A guy like Mulitalo, who was once valued would not get picked by the Ravens in any of the last three or four drafts. It's meant also picking linemen earlier, because the league values athletic linemen more than guys like Flynn and Pashos and Mulitalo.

There is an interesting story done by Football Outsiders (http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:8J3kmv3-FCsJ:www.law.mercer.edu/academics/handouts/NY%2520Times%2520Article%2520--%2520Ravens%27%2520Draft%2520Team.pdf+ravens+newsome+debate&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a) on how the Ravens draft. In it, Ozzie is quoted as saying, "“A lot of people spend time trying to find things without knowing exactly what they’re looking for. We start by saying, ‘This is what we would like to have in a linebacker, in a left tackle.’ Then the picture becomes clear.”

In that sense, the Ravens are completely about need. More so than most teams, in fact. The difference is that they are better than most teams, once they have identified a player who could be a fit, at assigning to value to that player. As the story relates, they look at a player like Dawan Landry and see the potential for their system. And they are smart enough to slot him as a fifth round value, rather than panic. They could have grabbed Nate Salley in the fourth round of the '06 draft, to fill a need a safety. Or taken Landry a round early. Instead they saw more value in another player they liked, and took Demetrius Williams in the fourth, and still got Landry later. That's what makes they better.