Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 29 of 29
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    San Dimas, CA
    Posts
    7,801

    Re: Assessing our roster as it relates to our upcoming draft class



    Quote Originally Posted by Haloti92 View Post
    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.




  2. #17

    Re: Assessing our roster as it relates to our upcoming draft class

    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.
    Although Walsh's system of offense can compensate for lack of talent; however, defense is a different story. According to Walsh, talent on defense was essential and could not be compensated for. What did Walsh do in 1981? He acquired physical and talented players on defense.




  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    section 132
    Posts
    2,648
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Assessing our roster as it relates to our upcoming draft class

    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.




  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Blvd of Broken Dreams
    Posts
    2,228

    Re: Assessing our roster as it relates to our upcoming draft class

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabrosin View Post
    . . . 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.




  5. #20

    Re: Assessing our roster as it relates to our upcoming draft class

    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.







  6. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Balmer Merlin Hon
    Posts
    3,681
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Assessing our roster as it relates to our upcoming draft class

    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.




  7. #22

    Re: Assessing our roster as it relates to our upcoming draft class

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




  8. #23

    Re: Assessing our roster as it relates to our upcoming draft class

    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.
    -JAB




  9. #24

    Re: Assessing our roster as it relates to our upcoming draft class

    Quote Originally Posted by Bigfish View Post
    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.
    -JAB




  10. #25

    Re: Assessing our roster as it relates to our upcoming draft class

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    When was the last time we didnt have an udfa make the team as well?
    I was wondering the same thing. Seems like it's an annual event. Last year I can think of Jason Tucker and Deonte Thompson.




  11. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,857
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Assessing our roster as it relates to our upcoming draft class

    Quote Originally Posted by ballhawk View Post
    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.
    In my opinion, trading up for Vacarro would be awful strategy. He's gonna go in the 15-18 range likely, and we'd have to sacrifice a lot of our draft just to draft him when we can get a player just as good at 32 likely. Heck, Swearinger in the late 2nd round is a nearly equivalent prospect IMO.

    We'd have to give up a ton of draft stock to move up to get Lane Johnson. If you look at the teams in the 8-12 range, each one needs a LT, so he's not going past that point.




  12. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,857
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Assessing our roster as it relates to our upcoming draft class

    Quote Originally Posted by alien bird View Post
    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.
    IMO, anyone we draft in this draft, outside of committing a 3rd round or higher pick to get a top 6-7 QB in this draft, is just a less experienced version of Taylor. Sure, you might find a 5th rounder with more upside as a pocket passer, but I would rather have Taylor's athleticism and the little more experience that he brings.




  13. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Scaggsville, MD
    Posts
    1,057

    Re: Assessing our roster as it relates to our upcoming draft class

    Quote Originally Posted by LukeDaniel View Post
    In my opinion, trading up for Vacarro would be awful strategy. He's gonna go in the 15-18 range likely, and we'd have to sacrifice a lot of our draft just to draft him when we can get a player just as good at 32 likely. Heck, Swearinger in the late 2nd round is a nearly equivalent prospect IMO.

    We'd have to give up a ton of draft stock to move up to get Lane Johnson. If you look at the teams in the 8-12 range, each one needs a LT, so he's not going past that point.
    While I'd be absolutely thrilled to get Lane Johnson (or Fisher or Joeckel for that matter), I didn't include him on my list of reasonable possibilities. I don't think any of the three of them make it past the Chargers at the absolute latest... all three could be gone before Buffalo is even on the clock. If there are trades made at the very top of the draft, those are the players who will be involved.

    Vaccaro is also a pipe dream, but at least he's not generally expected to go before the Rams pick at 16. However, it seems unlikely that he'll still be around for the Rams' second pick at 22. The Steelers could take him at 17, the Cowboys at 18, the Bengals at 21... all very logical destinations. What's more, we're not even the most likely team to deal up for him... the 49ers have way more ammunition and perhaps more pressure, at least internally, to win now. If by some draft miracle he starts sliding into the mid-20s, we should be on the phones trying to go get him. If we could do it without dealing our second or third picks... say, trade our fourth and a fifth or sixth, with nothing next year involved... then let's do it. But the much more likely value play is to hold steady at pick 32 and take whatever impact player remains at LT (Menelik Watson?) or ILB (Arthur Brown? Kevin Minter?) or S (Jonathan Cyprien?), and then follow that up in the second round by moving up to get back into the next tier of players at those same positions (Terron Armstead, Kiko Alonso, Eric Reid/DJ Swearinger). The best case would be having a player with back-of-the-first-round talent make that sort of slide... if it happens, it's probably going to be a safety, where the top of the class all seems pretty solid. Players like Alonso and Baccari Rambo could certainly still be available in the third round as well, though we might have to make a similar move up for them at that point.




  14. #29

    Re: Assessing our roster as it relates to our upcoming draft class

    Since I'm depressed to see a thread about The Inaccurate Left Arm of God take up so much of the board's attention today, I thought others might also be interested in seeing this thread resurrected post-draft.

    So if we go by Luke's logic (his 40 locks, plus all drafts picks 5th round and up virtually assured to make the team), then we look like this:

    QB(2)- Flacco, Taylor
    RB (3)- Pierce, Rice, Leach
    TE (3)- Pitta, Dickson, Juszczyk (or in the RB slot, whatever)
    WR (3)- Doss, Torrey, Jacoby
    OL (6)- Osemele, Gradkowski, Yanda, Oher, Reid, Wagner
    ST (3)- Tucker, Cox, Koch
    DL (9)- Ngata, Cody, Tyson, McPhee, Art Jones, Spears, Canty, Dumervil, Williams
    LB (8) -Suggs, Upshaw, J. McClain, R. McClain, Bynes, McClellan, Simon , Brown
    CB (5)- Webb, J. Smith, Graham, C. Brown, A. Jackson
    S (4)- Huff, Ihedigbo, C. Thompson, Elam

    Which brings us to 46 total, of which 26 already are exclusively defensive players. Anybody know, in general, how that breakdown typically works? If we carry 26 defenders + 3 ST, that leaves room for only 24 offensive players. Which is about a 50/50 split... but it seems like when I tallied it up last year those numbers were reversed.

    We carried what, 9 OL last year and 6 receivers?




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland