Ozzie isn't perfect (but I'd keep him!)

**BillickFan** · 05-28-2013, 11:53 PM

I followed a trail on the Hard Knocks thread to look at our draft history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimo..._draft_history

WTF happened in '98, '04 & '05? In those 3 drafts, Duane Starks was the only significant contributor that I saw. There were a few short timers, but Starks was the only guy that stuck around for a while & made a contribution. Maybe Adam Terry as the 2nd best choice from those 3 years.

Don't get me wrong, I'd take Ozzie over 100% of the other GM's out there, but looking back w/some historical perspective it's truly amazing what a crap shoot the draft really is. Ozzie's the best & we've had entire draft classes that are filled with nothing special. How bad must the Browns, Cardinals, etc. draft classes look in retrospect?

**ballhawk** · 05-29-2013, 12:16 AM

3 bad drafts out of 17 ain't bad bro.

**elland** · 05-29-2013, 12:32 AM

Originally Posted by BillickFan

I followed a trail on the Hard Knocks thread to look at our draft history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimo..._draft_history

WTF happened in '98, '04 & '05? In those 3 drafts, Duane Starks was the only significant contributor that I saw. There were a few short timers, but Starks was the only guy that stuck around for a while & made a contribution. Maybe Adam Terry as the 2nd best choice from those 3 years.

Don't get me wrong, I'd take Ozzie over 100% of the other GM's out there, but looking back w/some historical perspective it's truly amazing what a crap shoot the draft really is. Ozzie's the best & we've had entire draft classes that are filled with nothing special. How bad must the Browns, Cardinals, etc. draft classes look in retrospect?

Terry as the second best choice from those drafts? Why.. he was never a regulary starter.. why not Clayton or Edwards.. And JB was in my books a better pick than Starks.

**leachisabeast** · 05-29-2013, 01:12 AM

ok......

**HoustonRaven** · 05-29-2013, 06:30 AM

I see what the OP is trying to say but I still don't understand why people expect perfection.

Every GM has bad drafts. It can't be avoided. Where a stellar GM shines is (1) limiting those bad drafts and (2) still fielding a good team in spite of those drafts.

So yes, Ozzie isn't perfect. But he shouldn't be held to that standard.

**GOTA** · 05-29-2013, 07:41 AM

The only fair thing to do is look at how every other team drafted during the same time frame and come up with list of teams who did better.

**JohnBKistler** · 05-29-2013, 07:47 AM

Ozzie missed on the QB...both with Grbac and with Boller.

He also blew out the salary cap in 2001, but it was the result of building the 2000 Championship team, so he certainly gets a pass on that error, at least in my book.

But missing on the QB was his biggest mistake of the early part of the "aughties". You miss on that position (or the head coach), and not much else matters. It is actually a testament to him (and Billick) that they were as competitive as they were 2002-2005.

Now he's got both his QB and coach, and the future is very bright.

**Filmstudy** · 05-29-2013, 08:03 AM

Originally Posted by BillickFan

I followed a trail on the Hard Knocks thread to look at our draft history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimo..._draft_history

WTF happened in '98, '04 & '05? In those 3 drafts, Duane Starks was the only significant contributor that I saw. There were a few short timers, but Starks was the only guy that stuck around for a while & made a contribution. Maybe Adam Terry as the 2nd best choice from those 3 years.

Jason Brown was easily the 2nd best selection.

**srobert96** · 05-29-2013, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by JohnBKistler

Ozzie missed on the QB...both with Grbac and with Boller.

He also blew out the salary cap in 2001, but it was the result of building the 2000 Championship team, so he certainly gets a pass on that error, at least in my book.

But missing on the QB was his biggest mistake of the early part of the "aughties". You miss on that position (or the head coach), and not much else matters. It is actually a testament to him (and Billick) that they were as competitive as they were 2002-2005.

Now he's got both his QB and coach, and the future is very bright.

It is amazing the amount of success the Raven's have had without a QB. Most GMs would not survive that many years without a true franchise QB.

**DonNMass** · 05-29-2013, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by BillickFan

I followed a trail on the Hard Knocks thread to look at our draft history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimo..._draft_history

WTF happened in '98, '04 & '05? In those 3 drafts, Duane Starks was the only significant contributor that I saw. There were a few short timers, but Starks was the only guy that stuck around for a while & made a contribution. Maybe Adam Terry as the 2nd best choice from those 3 years.

Don't get me wrong, I'd take Ozzie over 100% of the other GM's out there, but looking back w/some historical perspective it's truly amazing what a crap shoot the draft really is. Ozzie's the best & we've had entire draft classes that are filled with nothing special. How bad must the Browns, Cardinals, etc. draft classes look in retrospect?

Perfection isn't required or reasonable. 400 hitters aren't perfect either, but people in all fields are eventually measured by their total volume of work over the long-haul. Ozzie is a component of a very effective front office, albeita very big piece. And people also learn as they gain experience, and I'm sure Ozzie and his staff has learned a lot in those 10-15 years.

His navigating through this off-season places him, to me anyway, in a class by himself.

**JimZipCode** · 05-29-2013, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by ballhawk

3 bad drafts out of 17 ain't bad bro.

The question is, what is a reasonable success rate to expect?

Bill Polian, who might be the best ever, once said in an interview that if you hit on 50% of your draft picks you'd never miss the Super Bowl. Vinny Cerrato, who was a clown as a GM, said on the radio a few weeks ago that it's like a batting average, if you hit .300 in the draft then you're doing very well. I don't necessarily trust Cerrato's judgement and standards, but he does know the industry standards and he speaks the lingo.

So then: Cerrato sets the floor and Polian sets the ceiling. We should expect somewhere between 30% and 50% of the draft picks to "pan out". And I guess we should have higher expectations of the higher round picks than of the lower.

But what does it mean to "pan out"? A first rounder who becomes a Super Bowl MVP has obviously delivered. But a 4th-rounder who becomes a spec teams ace, like Marcus Smith, may also be a successful pick. Third corners, third WRs, situational pass rushers – there are a lot of contributors to a successful team.

So – I dunno. When I looked at this a couple months ago, I counted 4 weak drafts out of 17: 1998, 2004, 2005, 2010. Of those 4, 2005 and 2010 weren't really "bad", they were mediocre / below-average. (Assuming Dickson or David Reed or Arthur Jones make a contribution this season.) 1998 and 2004 were really bad. So say 2-1/2 bad drafts out of 17: not bad.

The situation looked different in 2006, when we were coming off of consecutive weak drafts and it seemed like the magic might be entirely gone. But 2006-7-8 were fine drafts, really the foundation for the current run of winning seasons.

**BcRaven** · 05-29-2013, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by GOTA

The only fair thing to do is look at how every other team drafted during the same time frame and come up with list of teams who did better.

Right, the Ravens draft should be compared relative to other teams. Considering how low the Ravens drafted, were you not thrilled to get Elam, A. Brown, and B. Williams in the first 3 rounds, after winning a Super Bowl? I sure was. Thanks Ozzie... Bc