Results 85 to 93 of 93
-
-
Re: The case for (or against) Ed Dickson
Garrett Graham is still a primarily receiving TE and a mediocre blocker. He's 6-3 245 for crying out loud...the same size as Daniels and smaller than Dickson. Yet they were in the same formation when they both were healthy in 2 TE sets.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HDAlthough 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.
-
Re: The case for (or against) Ed Dickson
-
03-26-2014, 10:38 PM #88Pro Bowl Poster
- Join Date
- Apr 2008
- Location
- Portland
- Posts
- 2,327
Re: The case for (or against) Ed Dickson
Seems like at this point the Ravens should just wait and see if the draft turns up a TE they like. If not then Daniels or Dickson will probably still be available.
-
03-26-2014, 10:46 PM #89
- Join Date
- May 2010
- Location
- Greensboro, North Carolina
- Posts
- 10,031
- Blog Entries
- 3
Re: The case for (or against) Ed Dickson
JJ was supposed to be #2, I'll give you that but our #3 receiver was supposed to be Thompson, who is also an UDFA and a very inexperienced player in his own right. So, yes you can make the case Brown only saw the field because of injury but how do you explain the team having big plans for Thompson.
-
Re: The case for (or against) Ed Dickson
I'd like to know what injury forced the team to start the Denver game with Marlon Brown on the field...the very first play of the season with a healthy Jacoby.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HDAlthough 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.
-
03-26-2014, 11:34 PM #91
Re: The case for (or against) Ed Dickson
Exactly. When Brown was finally healthy he had at least Thompson, Reed, Mellette and LaQuan ahead of him (with Jacoby and Torrie already up there).
OTOH, with Pitta out and Dickson banged up and sitting during TC/PS, Furstenberg couldn't overcome Clark and Shianco (sp?).
I mean if he is so good and such a sure fire NFL TE, why did he last on our PS for so long? Remember when we released him prior to adding him to the PS - he was NEVER going to clear waivers, teams like Pitts and Buff, etc, etc were going to scoop him up.
And.......nada.
-
03-26-2014, 11:39 PM #92
Re: The case for (or against) Ed Dickson
-
03-27-2014, 12:07 AM #93
Re: The case for (or against) Ed Dickson
Those are clearly the exception, not the rule.
The Ravens have been one of the best teams when it comes to UDFAs, but even out of those who have made the team over the years (1-3 a year on average probably), how many have become legitimate starters?
Starters - Holmes, Bennie Anderson, Will Demps, Mike Flynn, Kemo, Bart Scott, Jameel, Ellerbe, Bynes, Tucker
Lesser guys - Lionel Dalton, Randy Hymes, Ricard, Katula, Cox, McClellan.
I'm sure there are a few that are escaping me.
So, over 17 seasons, out of the 10-20 UDFAs they sign after the draft and the couple more sign to the PS during the season, that's 10 guys that started and a handful of guys who saw significant time. So, that's 17-20 guys out of 255 UDFAs over the years(that's a conservative 15 players per year for 17 years) = 6.67% who ever turn into anything.
And, heck, 3 of those are LS and a PK.
And, of those - not counting the specialists - only Demps, Anderson and Brown started as rookies.
Now, perhaps, Furstenburg will buck that trend, but clearly the odds are that he won't, so bringing up the exceptions isn't really much support for saying that he will.Last edited by B-more Ravor; 03-27-2014 at 01:36 PM.
Bookmarks