Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 87
  1. #31

    Re: Boldin Replaced by Durmervil and Huff?



    Quote Originally Posted by Raveninwoodlawn View Post
    Sure...if you turn specific statements like "I dont agree woth this move" into "we are going to suck" in your own mind.

    Some people get so incredibly defensive and appalled that someone dares to disagree with a single move, that those people completely go off the deep end and turn it into a bunch of "you dont believe in this team or Ozzie" nonsense.
    Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

    This is a funny statement considering your are doing the same thing you are accusing me of.




  2. #32

    Re: Boldin Replaced by Durmervil and Huff?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Excellector View Post
    I am basing it off of what Boldin did under Cameron. That's what we're really used to. It won't be hard for Stokely to match that, or even do better than that. The Ravens have a better offensive line and coordinator. That production can be duplicated and surpassed.
    So what should we expect from Joe since what we're used to is what he did under Cameron?

    Only Joe, Pitta, and Torrey should be expected to benefit from Caldwell?

    That better coordinator turned Boldin back IMO a star just 6-7 months ago.


    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.




  3. #33

    Re: Boldin Replaced by Durmervil and Huff?

    Quote Originally Posted by Money227 View Post
    Actually...I think it will diminish greatly when the Ravens continue to win football games.
    The proof will be in the pudding, I agree with that.

    I'll say this also...look at the original post on this thread. It wasn't started by one of the dissenters...and the other threads weren't either. The original posts in these threads invites this discussion.

    I


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
    Last edited by Raveninwoodlawn; 08-12-2013 at 06:05 PM.
    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.




  4. #34

    Re: Boldin Replaced by Durmervil and Huff?

    Quote Originally Posted by dscola31 View Post
    This is a funny statement considering your are doing the same thing you are accusing me of.
    Not really. The first paragraph in that post was the epitome of twisting words completely around.

    Who has expressed or implied that the team is going to stink, or that we aren't going to win games? Who has even said that Ozzie's moves were dumb or even that they didn't make sense.

    What I, and others have said, is that in our opinion, other moves may have just made more sense to us.


    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. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,535

    Re: Boldin Replaced by Durmervil and Huff?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bigfish View Post
    TL's inspiration must have come from reading the board.

    http://russellstreetreport.com/sayin...-right-choice/

    That pretty much sums it up.
    +1

    The Boldin issue is quickly becoming the days when Boller was debated on an almost weekly basis.
    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.




  6. #36

    Re: Boldin Replaced by Durmervil and Huff?

    Quote Originally Posted by Raveninwoodlawn View Post
    Not really. The first paragraph in that post was the epitome of twisting words completely around.

    Who has expressed or implied that the team is going to stink, or that we aren't going to win games? Who has even said that Ozzie's moves were dumb or even that they didn't make sense.

    What I, and others have said, is that in our opinion, other moves may have just made more sense to us.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
    But what I said was people I have spoken to. Meaning diferent fans of the team. This is not the only place Raven fans exist so you taking what I said personally and getting defensive is again, ironic being that you are accusing me of doing the same thing.




  7. #37

    Re: Boldin Replaced by Durmervil and Huff?

    If we kept Boldin and still lost Pitta
    i believe Boldin would have been actually diminished by more attention toward him in the short passing game.so its done




  8. #38

    Re: Boldin Replaced by Durmervil and Huff?

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    +1

    The Boldin issue is quickly becoming the days when Boller was debated on an almost weekly basis.
    Boller to Demetrius Williams should have been one of the greatest QB-WR combos ever!




  9. #39

    Re: Boldin Replaced by Durmervil and Huff?

    Quote Originally Posted by dscola31 View Post
    But what I said was people I have spoken to. Meaning diferent fans of the team. This is not the only place Raven fans exist so you taking what I said personally and getting defensive is again, ironic being that you are accusing me of doing the same thing.
    You also said "and posters". I'm assuming that you mean message board posters.

    As for those others you communicate, I can't speak for them other to say I don't think they are too knowledgable. But I do know that based on thing like ticket sales practice attendances and the TV ratings of our preseason game, Boldin or not, this city is still extremely excited about this team and not anticipating a year where we "suck".


    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. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The Land of Verdite
    Posts
    13,367
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Boldin Replaced by Durmervil and Huff?

    Quote Originally Posted by Raveninwoodlawn View Post
    So what should we expect from Joe since what we're used to is what he did under Cameron?

    Only Joe, Pitta, and Torrey should be expected to benefit from Caldwell?

    That better coordinator turned Boldin back IMO a star just 6-7 months ago.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
    They don't need Boldin to be a star as much as they needed to improve the defensive front, which I think was Ozzie's point. With this defense, if the offense puts up 25-30, which they are still very capable of, it's a wrap.
    "When questioned, the Elders explained that they were in search of magical powers. However, they're actually searching for the whereabouts of a certain ring. This ring is a legendary treasure that long ago was known to exist"




  11. #41

    Re: Boldin Replaced by Durmervil and Huff?

    Quote Originally Posted by B-more Ravor View Post
    Not sure why that really matters, though? IMO, it doesn't matter when each particular move was made, but where they are now Cap-wise - or, more importantly, where they are on 8/31 when they have to be fully under the Cap.

    Said differently, they didn't trade Boldin so that they would have $6M to use that instant, but to use over the next several weeks and months. It's all part of the puzzle, that money added to what they already had, and then used for the various parts over the next couple of months.

    It's an issue of the combination of signings, not just one specific signing, that Ozzie appears to be alluding to.
    It matters in the context of the argument that Ozzie and others are establishing.

    That one thing led to the other. That without one thing there could not have been the other. In the case of Canty the former statement (as well as the latter) is definitely false.




  12. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,535

    Re: Boldin Replaced by Durmervil and Huff?

    Quote Originally Posted by Haloti92 View Post
    It matters in the context of the argument that Ozzie and others are establishing.

    That one thing led to the other. That without one thing there could not have been the other. In the case of Canty the former statement (as well as the latter) is definitely false.
    It's a combination of the "sum of the parts" and being in the position to capitalize.

    I agree, we didn't need to get rid of Boldin to get Canty *or* Doom *or* Huff etc.

    But we did need to get rid of him to (1) be in the position to revamp our defense (2) to be in a position to allow an opportunity like Doom to be capitalized one (3) sign the rookies and (4) react quickly and smartly should we have any injury issues.

    I remember the numerous threads on these boards about the space we had going into camp, with critics saying we needed to spend that money. Well, Pitta going down is why you leave a little wiggle room so you can go out and snag a Stokley / Clark.

    Are they going to be world beaters? No, of course not. But they don't have to be. We're only talking 900 yards and 4 TD's (Boldin's output in the regular season). They are roll players at this point in their careers and I imagine our coaching staff is smart enough to use them that way.
    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.




  13. #43

    Re: Boldin Replaced by Durmervil and Huff?

    FWIW, I may not be speaking for them (the others who think other moves may have been more prudent), but I know for myself, I fully expected this team, even before Stokley and Clark post Pitta injury to be a good team and make the playoffs.

    We felt the lack of a guy like Boldin or a suitable replacement may have an impact on seeding and how far we go. That's all.


    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.




  14. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,535

    Re: Boldin Replaced by Durmervil and Huff?

    Quote Originally Posted by Raveninwoodlawn View Post
    FWIW, I may not be speaking for them (the others who think other moves may have been more prudent), but I know for myself, I fully expected this team, even before Stokley and Clark post Pitta injury to be a good team and make the playoffs.

    We felt the lack of a guy like Boldin or a suitable replacement may have an impact on seeding and how far we go. That's all.
    I 100% agree with you here.
    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.




  15. #45

    Re: Boldin Replaced by Durmervil and Huff?

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    It's a combination of the "sum of the parts" and being in the position to capitalize.

    I agree, we didn't need to get rid of Boldin to get Canty *or* Doom *or* Huff etc.

    But we did need to get rid of him to (1) be in the position to revamp our defense (2) to be in a position to allow an opportunity like Doom to be capitalized one (3) sign the rookies and (4) react quickly and smartly should we have any injury issues.

    I remember the numerous threads on these boards about the space we had going into camp, with critics saying we needed to spend that money. Well, Pitta going down is why you leave a little wiggle room so you can go out and snag a Stokley / Clark.

    Are they going to be world beaters? No, of course not. But they don't have to be. We're only talking 900 yards and 4 TD's (Boldin's output in the regular season). They are roll players at this point in their careers and I imagine our coaching staff is smart enough to use them that way.
    Boldin's regular season stats are irrelevant. We don't win the Superbowl if Boldin is putting up regular season stats. 0% chance. No one here who is complaining about letting Boldin go are doing so because they are fearful of losing the regular season stats.

    Revamp the defense is an entirely relative term. Again, that could have been done with Boldin here. It just would have required a couple less FAs. Doom and the rookies could have been signed with a Jameel McClain and Leach release (at the time).

    As for reacting to injuries and having wiggle room. I would say that when you start off voluntarily creating a big hole on the offense, saying you did it to possible patch another hole that might be created by injury doesn't make much sense. We also do not have to cut all our cap space we will ever possibly need in the month of March.

    The whole debate comes down to two arguments 1) did we voluntarily subtract more from the offense than we gained from the more marginal additions to our defense, and 2) could we have found most or all of that cap space in way less painful moves (Jameel, etc.).

    If the situation was actually (as opposed to erroneously claimed) that we had to choose between Boldin and Dumervil + Canty + Huff. I would choose Dumervil + Canty + Huff. Because Dumervil and Canty especially, but also somewhat Huff, are goind to be great additions at spots where we were lacking. So I am well aware of the necessity to weigh the gains and losses, i.e. the sum of the parts.

    But if Boldin was let go to afford Jameel, Leach, Spears, Reed, and maybe Smith, then I think the loss absolutely outweighs the marginal gains of that handful of players (above their replacements). Obviously you and others disagree.
    Last edited by Haloti92; 08-12-2013 at 06:41 PM.




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