Assessing our roster as it relates to our upcoming draft class

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Haloti92

David Reed is in pseudo-lock territory, imo (whether everyone likes it or not). I think after the deal he got, he will be on the team. The deal wasn't anything special, but it wasn't minimum and had some guaranteed money. Indicates to me he has a spot on ST almost sewn up.

---

I tend to agree. I didn't put him in with the 39, but I would think that he and Harewood are 40 and 41 right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Haloti92

David Reed is in pseudo-lock territory, imo (whether everyone likes it or not). I think after the deal he got, he will be on the team. The deal wasn't anything special, but it wasn't minimum and had some guaranteed money. Indicates to me he has a spot on ST almost sewn up.

---

I agree.

I'm about ready to write him off as ever being a significant contributor at WR, but he has turned into a pretty good special teams gunner.

Nice job. Those guys on the bottom need to read this and come ready to compete. As far as trying to figure out what Ozzie is going to do I'm lost. I agree, it's one of the best years to burn a few picks to trade down, so I do expect there's going to be a deal made on draft day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Haloti92

David Reed is in pseudo-lock territory, imo (whether everyone likes it or not). I think after the deal he got, he will be on the team. The deal wasn't anything special, but it wasn't minimum and had some guaranteed money. Indicates to me he has a spot on ST almost sewn up.

---

I tend to agree with this. I would also think that Tyrod Taylor is no lock. In a draft with 12 picks, it's entirely possible the Ravens use one of those picks to upgrade that backup QB position. Seriously, is anyone comfortable with Taylor running the offense - even in the short term? His skill set is quite different from Flacco's, but to say that he's on the roster as a change of pace "package" QB, you're just fooling yourself. The Ravens have shown no inclination to use him in any "package". If the Ravens decide to use a 5th-7th rounder on a more traditional backup QB, then Taylor could easily be on the outside looking in.

I read somewhere that the Ravens still have every draft pick from the last 3 drafts still on the roster with the lone exception of Kindle.

I'd like to see Ozzie make a bold move in the first and move up for a Vacarro, Austin, or one of the LT's. Its been years since we had an impact first rounder. Seems like a good year for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gabrosin

. . . We, as Ravens fans, get worked up over the potential of the guys near the bottom of the roster. We want to get value out of our draft picks, we want to see undrafted gems surprise us and become valuable contributors, we want to assume that young guys who have repeatedly cracked the roster are going to stay there and show consistent improvement.

But there has to be an element of realism there too. There are no superstars in the list of guys you have competing for those last six roster spots. They're just a bunch of guys. A lot of maybes. One or two might go on to a productive NFL career, here or somewhere else, but most of them are going to wash out. Good enough to compete, but not good enough to contribute. Their presence alone is not a reason to trade up in a draft class lacking elite talent.

. . . .

But the bottom of the roster is just that: the bottom of the roster. Taking in fewer rookies in order to preserve space for that list of players is NOT a better plan than bringing in a full set of a dozen new players and forcing them to compete. Yeah, we might lose some guys, even players we spent draft picks on. Not a big deal. Most late picks do wash out. It's not a significant loss to us... as long as we make smart decisions and stick with those players who showed talent and determination during the competition phase of deciding our roster.

---

Here there be wisdom.

While Gabrosin makes some great points and that is the way it used to go all the time. There must have been a shift of philosophy and a point made to keep more draft picks over vet players, and try to focus more on targeting needs in the draft by moving around. There has to be something to the high number of picks to stick. There is a ton of value in competition and you do not want the roster set before camp, but it has to hurt to burn a resource as valuable as a draft pick just because you did not put enought thought and strategy into how you were going to use them. That roster comp can come from undrafted guys who always seem to find a way to get a guy or 3 on the final 53.

Excellent thread, Luke--anyone who wants to understand the Ravens draft policy needs to keep all this in mind.

But I think it might be more fruitful to look at things from a different perspective. IMO what is far more important than where or when a player was drafted is how long he's locked up (cheaply) for. (Which is to some extent a function of when he was drafted, but it's still a different focus.)

I think the Ravens' long term strategy is to draft players they see making major contributions (as starters, rotational guys or ST keystones) NLT the end of their second year. Then you get at least 2 productive (& cheap!) years from that player. After 4 years, the best of them will hit the FA market to ca$h in; Oz waves bye-bye, collects the comp pick, & plugs in a guy drafted 2 years before who's now ready to step up. Outside of maybe a dozen key players who get signed long-term, the roster is likely to turn over completely in 3-4 seasons. The main idea is to get at least 2 productive years out of each player you sign cheap.

In such a situation, the guys under the gun are the short-timers: If they have 2 years or less remaining on their contract, they'd better be immediately productive in their intended role. If not, Oz will pick up someone (FA or camp cut) who can hold down the job while a rookie's being trained up. At most they might get a 1-year contract as a final audition (e.g., Harewood).

So I think that the players with an inside track to a roster spot will be this year's draft class, followed by last year's. The guys that really need to make an immediate impression are the 2011 draftees who haven't already nailed down a role.

To add to the mix there's always the wildcard undrafted free agent that manages to win a roster spot.

When was the last time we didnt have an udfa make the team as well?

Personally i love our depth, but i dont really have a problem with either scenario. If we dont trade up high we have a good many picks which will greatly enhance our chances of hitting on a prospect. Lets make no mistake, as good as ozzie is, the draft is still a crap shoot. More picks = greater odds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bigfish

To add to the mix there's always the wildcard undrafted free agent that manages to win a roster spot.

---

Sorry i should read the whole thread before posting.