310 replies to this topic

[SportsGuy]

Some think the game has changed and that the RT is more valuable than the LT.

[bnickle]

Also, while Oz could easily be throwing off the scent, it's notable that he talked about shoring up the interior of the line. Makes it seems like they already have a plan and potentially the players in place at the tackle positions.

[JordanKough]

As bad as Oher was, I'd be fine with taking a really talented RT with our pick if we don't like our guy.

 

But I'd say if it is a RR we end up trading back.  I'm starting to think this might end up being the kind of draft we trade back in anyway given the many areas it feels like we need help.

[SportsGuy]

As bad as Oher was, I'd be fine with taking a really talented RT with our pick if we don't like our guy.

 

But I'd say if it is a RR we end up trading back.  I'm starting to think this might end up being the kind of draft we trade back in anyway given the many areas it feels like we need help.

Trading back is always an option for the Ravens.

 

HOWEVER, i think adding a real impact talent is also something they want to do and if that player is there when they draft, they will take him IMO.

[JordanKough]

I just think there are a lot of spots for impact this year.  We need help at FS, ILB, DE, C, OT, and WR.  And even tossing into that OLB if Suggs walks away.  That's a lot of needs...and that's also assuming Monroe and Pitta both stay too.

 

Of course you need impact guys at spots like OT/WR/FS, but I think you could really find a DE/ILB/C that could contribute substantially in the right setting.  

 

If we traded back in the first, added a 3rd and got starter quality players at DE/ILB/C I'd not be upset with that if we really thought those guys could contribute as rookies.  

[esporter]

They're so rarely in position to take a true impact player, I'd really like to see them get someone who can come in and be a stud early on (as opposed to trading back to fill more holes). We have a history of finding guys, solid contributors, in every round of the draft and as UDFAs, but it feels like it's been a while since we've drafted a true difference maker. This team could use one at WR or on the OL.

 

Seems like it's a must in the modern NFL to get multiple great years out of young guys before they become expensive. 

 

 

[Mackus]

I'm starting to wonder is Suggs may come more cheaply if we actually cut him and let him go see what types of deals he can get in free agency, and then we match if we are so inclined.

 

The $4.6M remaining prorated bonus from his last deal will count against the 2014 cap no matter what we do.  Cut him, keep him for his final year, or extend him, that $4.6M isn't going away and can't be shifted.  So that's a sunk cap cost.  Right now, I think Suggs and the Ravens probably differ quite a bit on what his value should be going forward.  I think it's entirely possible that Suggs thinks his value is higher than even any of the other 31 teams out there might think.  So cut him lose, and let him go see what's out there.  We may actually end up saving money compared to an extension, because if nobody else is willing to pay him the 5/$30-35M type deal I think the Ravens would consider paying him right now (or at least I would), then the Ravens wouldn't even have to give him that big of a deal as a free agent. 

 

Obviously there is risk that someone would overpay him.  If Suggs would agree to the type of extension I'd been mentioning, I sign him up and don't worry about it.  But if you do cut him lose, I wouldn't sever all ties.  I think even if they cut him after not agreeing to terms, it's possible they do agree to a deal down the road once Suggs has fleshed out his market value a bit more.  That's sort of what they did with Leach last season, actually.

 

I doubt they'd do it, but the Ravens could be pretty sneaky about it and wait until two or so weeks into free agency.  Most of the big deals will be signed by then, and teams with a ton of cap space may have already spent a lot of it, driving down a potential Suggs contract even further.

[Mike in STL]

ESPN: Jamison Hensley: Why the Ravens should hire Norv Turner

 

http://espn.go.com/b...ire-norv-turner

[Roll Tide]

One thing missing in this thread is mentions that the Ravens plan to add a big bodied RB to the mix either in the draft or free agency. They have said they want to get bigger in the running game.

[Roll Tide]

Question to the draft gurus here. It is my understanding that had San Diego lost the Steelers (not Ravens) would've gotten the sixth seed in the playoffs. If that's the case how on earth are they picking in front of them in the draft at #15?

[bnickle]

Question to the draft gurus here. It is my understanding that had San Diego lost the Steelers (not Ravens) would've gotten the sixth seed in the playoffs. If that's the case how on earth are they picking in front of them in the draft at #15?

The draft tiebreaker is based on SOS. The weaker your SOS the higher you pick. So of the 8-8 teams we finished with a higher strength of schedule than Pitt and Chicago. We tied with Dallas(there will be a coin flip to determine who drafts 16th and 17th). We finished ahead of the Jets and Dolphins

 

 

Ironically, had we finished 7-9 we would have finished ahead of most of the other 7-9 teams ( NY, STL, and Tenn). We would have drafted 11th.  

 

 

 

Kind of a weird way to break the tiebreaker for the draft, but that's what they do.

[Mackus]

Question to the draft gurus here. It is my understanding that had San Diego lost the Steelers (not Ravens) would've gotten the sixth seed in the playoffs. If that's the case how on earth are they picking in front of them in the draft at #15?

 

The draft and playoff tiebreakers aren't the same, especially when it gets into multi-team tiebreakers for a playoff spot.

 

Reminder: The first tiebreaker is strength of schedule. The second is division record if teams are in the same division. The final tiebreaker is conference  record if teams are in the same conference.

[JordanKough]

Kind of a weird way to break the tiebreaker for the draft, but that's what they do.

 

The NFL having effed up tiebreakers?  So shocking, lol...I don't think their tiebreakers make a ton of sense to me in general.

[Mackus]

Kind of a weird way to break the tiebreaker for the draft, but that's what they do.

 

I think it makes sense.  If two teams finished 8-8, the team that played the harder schedule can be considered the better team, so they should pick later.

[JordanKough]

I think it makes sense.  If two teams finished 8-8, the team that played the harder schedule can be considered the better team, so they should pick later.

 

But why is it different than the playoff tiebreakers?  I mean shouldn't they be the same?  It's just like the rules at times, they keep wanting to add new wrinkles, but tiptoe around and won't make big changes in name.  So you just get these convoluted results (or rules) at times that could easily be cleaned up IMO.

[BSLChrisStoner]

Baltimore Ravens.com: Kyle Juszczyk has to be a huge part of offense
http://www.baltimore...b4-8fdd8051cdb7

[Mackus]

But why is it different than the playoff tiebreakers?  I mean shouldn't they be the same?  It's just like the rules at times, they keep wanting to add new wrinkles, but tiptoe around and won't make big changes in name.  So you just get these convoluted results (or rules) at times that could easily be cleaned up IMO.

 

Playoff tiebreakers you are trying to determine the best team, not the worst.  Also, in playoff tiebreakers you don't have to deal with teems from separate conferences.

 

The draft tie-breakers make sense.  I don't get the argument against them.  Look at all the teams with the same record.  The team who got that record against the hardest competition, is probably the best team, and as such should draft last amongst those teams.    The team who played to that record against the easiest competition is probably the worst team, and should get the higher draft pick.

 

There may be other ways you could figure out an answer to the same question - point differential for example - but I don't think the tiebreakers need to be the same.

[JordanKough]

I don't disagree with any of your logic in general.  But if how you find the best team, isn't just an inverted version of how you find the worst team, I think your just trying to be more cute than you need to be on one end or the other.

 

I'm not saying they have to be the same.  I'm just saying, if you think you have the best way to value a team best to worst, do it both ways.  A complicated system just reflects to me the more random nature the NFL wants, so they can say they have parity.

 

It's not really a big thing to me.  I just think continuity after change is something the NFL is terrible at.  Obviously not everyone agrees, and I don't need them to, it's more like I think there are inconsistencies in everything the NFL touches.  The rules, officiating, tie breakers, re-seeding playoffs.  But as long as the fans are watching the NFL more, I guess it doesn't matter.

[Mackus]

The conference part is what makes it unable to just be inverted.  Because the tie-breakers for playoffs, after head-to-head, are all about conference record.  To find the best teams in the conference, they weight what you did against your conference over what you did overall.  Once that's past, they do then go to strength-of-schedule.  Well, strength of victory first, but you can see why they eliminate strength of victory when they are instead searching for the worst team instead of the best.

 

I could see an argument that they should just do the tie-breaker based on strength of schedule for the playoffs, rather than conference record, but they want to treat what you do within your division and then within your conference as more important than what you do against the other conference.

[JordanKough]

Totally agree on that assessment good point about the conferences I wasn't thinking about that as clearly.

 

OTOH, I'm all for reseeding the whole playoffs, and I wouldn't care much if it was done through both conferences personally.  I'm sure that puts me in the minority.  

 

But wins are king in the NFL...

 

Unless you're talking about a division or conference which is all part of the inconsistency that exists in the NFL right now, IMO.