Page 13 of 19 FirstFirst ... 391011121314151617 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 195 of 272
  1. #181

    Re: Ravens are signing Brandon Stokely



    Quote Originally Posted by Raveninwoodlawn View Post
    Wow.

    Very dramatic.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
    Very consistent




  2. #182
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    over by the dental floss bush
    Posts
    17,949
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Ravens are signing Brandon Stokely

    Panic? Most seem pretty happy with the move. 😳


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    World Domination 3 Points at a Time!




  3. #183

    Re: Ravens are signing Brandon Stokely

    Quote Originally Posted by Bigfish View Post
    Wow, this thread has exploded overnight and after reading pages of posts it stinks of mass panic. If I didn't know better you would think this is a thread from fans of a perennial bottom dweller, not the Super Bowl champs. Drop the torches and pitchforks and disperse the angry mob, at least until we even play a game that counts. Man, what a bunch of downers. If by some freak twist of fate the team doesn't win a game all year you won't have to lower your expectations.
    What else are we going to do until the regular season starts?

    (By the way it's our only real issue.)




  4. #184

    Re: Ravens are signing Brandon Stokely

    Quote Originally Posted by Ravenswintitle View Post
    Panic? Most seem pretty happy with the move. 😳


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Yup. People hear/read what they want to.

    But you know, disagreeing with a single move out of 30 that Ozzie made means that we think the season is doomed lol.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
    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.




  5. #185

    Re: Ravens are signing Brandon Stokely

    Quote Originally Posted by Bigfish View Post
    Very consistent
    Predictable too.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
    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.




  6. #186

    Re: Ravens are signing Brandon Stokely

    Quote Originally Posted by alien bird View Post
    More like Stokely, Dumervil, Canty, Huff and Smith.
    This is a wrong-headed way of thinking about the way personnel works in the NFL. It makes no sense to say that "if we would have kept Boldin we wouldn't have gotten blah blah blah..." Those actions are not dependent on one another; the team could have kept Boldin and signed every one of those guys, or NOT kept Boldin and signed some or none of those guys, or signed DIFFERENT guys, etc. etc...

    Trading Boldin freed up 4.5m in cap space. They could have freed up that amount by releasing Jacoby Jones and not re-signing David Reed, or by releasing Jameel McClain and not signing Marcus Spears, or by any number of other personnel moves. Also, do you seriously think Ozzie made the Boldin trade in anticipation of making ANY of those other moves? He had NO WAY of knowing Dumervil and Huff were going to get cut by their respective teams. He had NO WAY of knowing for sure he was going to be able to sign any of the street FAs.

    The Boldin decision should be evaluated as good or bad based on what was known when the decision was made, and not anything that came later (which obviously could not have been known.) IMO it was a bad decision at the time it was made, but obviously it looks and feels much worse now.




  7. #187

    Re: Ravens are signing Brandon Stokely

    Quote Originally Posted by bmorecareful View Post
    This is a wrong-headed way of thinking about the way personnel works in the NFL. It makes no sense to say that "if we would have kept Boldin we wouldn't have gotten blah blah blah..." Those actions are not dependent on one another; the team could have kept Boldin and signed every one of those guys, or NOT kept Boldin and signed some or none of those guys, or signed DIFFERENT guys, etc. etc...

    Trading Boldin freed up 4.5m in cap space. They could have freed up that amount by releasing Jacoby Jones and not re-signing David Reed, or by releasing Jameel McClain and not signing Marcus Spears, or by any number of other personnel moves. Also, do you seriously think Ozzie made the Boldin trade in anticipation of making ANY of those other moves? He had NO WAY of knowing Dumervil and Huff were going to get cut by their respective teams. He had NO WAY of knowing for sure he was going to be able to sign any of the street FAs.

    The Boldin decision should be evaluated as good or bad based on what was known when the decision was made, and not anything that came later (which obviously could not have been known.) IMO it was a bad decision at the time it was made, but obviously it looks and feels much worse now.
    Good post.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
    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.




  8. #188
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,506

    Re: Ravens are signing Brandon Stokely

    Quote Originally Posted by bmorecareful View Post
    This is a wrong-headed way of thinking about the way personnel works in the NFL. It makes no sense to say that "if we would have kept Boldin we wouldn't have gotten blah blah blah..." Those actions are not dependent on one another; the team could have kept Boldin and signed every one of those guys, or NOT kept Boldin and signed some or none of those guys, or signed DIFFERENT guys, etc. etc...

    Trading Boldin freed up 4.5m in cap space. They could have freed up that amount by releasing Jacoby Jones and not re-signing David Reed, or by releasing Jameel McClain and not signing Marcus Spears, or by any number of other personnel moves. Also, do you seriously think Ozzie made the Boldin trade in anticipation of making ANY of those other moves? He had NO WAY of knowing Dumervil and Huff were going to get cut by their respective teams. He had NO WAY of knowing for sure he was going to be able to sign any of the street FAs.

    The Boldin decision should be evaluated as good or bad based on what was known when the decision was made, and not anything that came later (which obviously could not have been known.) IMO it was a bad decision at the time it was made, but obviously it looks and feels much worse now.
    Disagree.

    Of course we didn't know those specific players would become available.

    But Ozzie knew, as he does every year, players that fill need would become available.

    That was the original point.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  9. #189

    Re: Ravens are signing Brandon Stokely

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Disagree.

    Of course we didn't know those specific players would become available.

    But Ozzie knew, as he does every year, players that fill need would become available.

    That was the original point.
    Part of what he, myself and others are also saying is that Ozzie could have got that money elsewhere as well.

    Everything we did this offseason was not just dependent on trading Boldin.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
    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.




  10. #190
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,506

    Re: Ravens are signing Brandon Stokely

    Quote Originally Posted by Raveninwoodlawn View Post
    Part of what he, myself and others are also saying is that Ozzie could have got that money elsewhere as well.

    Everything we did this offseason was not just dependent on trading Boldin.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
    Ozzie all about value. I think on that point we can all agree.

    No player gave us more value than Boldin. Sure, it could have been done other ways but not as efficient and with more bang for the buck.

    If done any other way, you'd have to most likely get rid of one person, possibly two, out of that list.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  11. #191

    Re: Ravens are signing Brandon Stokely

    I think that we're going to end up with about 7 or 8 statistical #3s on this team. What we had better be able to do well is run the damn ball.
    "On their way to the podium, the Ravens FO is going to collectively step over my dead body and select...Breshad Perriman." -- Me, the day before the Draft

    Settle down. John Harbaugh and Joe Flacco's Baltimore Ravens can beat any team, anywhere.

    Having fun talking football and tech stuff on Twitter @BigPlayReceiver




  12. #192

    Re: Ravens are signing Brandon Stokely

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Disagree.

    Of course we didn't know those specific players would become available.

    But Ozzie knew, as he does every year, players that fill need would become available.

    That was the original point.
    No, it was not the original point; you're moving the goalposts. The posts I was responding to SPECIFICALLY responded to the criticism that we "traded Boldin for Stokely" (which was also wrong, obviously) by making the claim that we traded Boldin for Stokely and the defensive FAs we signed.

    That's not true. We didn't "trade" Boldin for anything other than a 6th round pick. The Ravens could have made some or all of those moves and kept Boldin, albeit with the necessity of making other moves.

    Of course Ozzie knew that he'd be able to sign/trade for guys and might have to make other personnel moves to free up cap space. Making that point is stating the obvious; it's a bridge WAY too far to say that he NEEDED to get rid of Boldin to make the moves he wanted to make.




  13. #193
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    6,147
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Ravens are signing Brandon Stokely

    Schefter reporting Dallas Clark plans to sign somewhere next week. Obviously lots of people think we would be a logical spot due to our need and Caldwell connection, including stokley.




  14. #194

    Re: Ravens are signing Brandon Stokely

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post

    No player gave us more value than Boldin. Sure, it could have been done other ways but not as efficient and with more bang for the buck.
    I have no idea what your definition of "value" or "bang for buck" is here, but these statements are the ones people are disagreeing with (assuming you mean cutting/trading Boldin gave us these things)
    Last edited by Haloti92; 08-11-2013 at 03:43 PM.




  15. #195
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,506

    Re: Ravens are signing Brandon Stokely

    Quote Originally Posted by bmorecareful View Post
    No, it was not the original point; you're moving the goalposts. The posts I was responding to SPECIFICALLY responded to the criticism that we "traded Boldin for Stokely" (which was also wrong, obviously) by making the claim that we traded Boldin for Stokely and the defensive FAs we signed.

    That's not true. We didn't "trade" Boldin for anything other than a 6th round pick. The Ravens could have made some or all of those moves and kept Boldin, albeit with the necessity of making other moves.

    Of course Ozzie knew that he'd be able to sign/trade for guys and might have to make other personnel moves to free up cap space. Making that point is stating the obvious; it's a bridge WAY too far to say that he NEEDED to get rid of Boldin to make the moves he wanted to make.
    It was MY original point.

    No goal posts were moved at all.

    And nobody said Boldin NEEDED to be moved.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




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