New Beginnings

**ExiledRaven** · 02-17-2008, 03:39 PM

Well, after looking around here is my take on things.

If Matt Ryan is there at #8, I think you're absolutely foolish not to take him.
Odds are against Matt Ryan being there between Miami (maybe), Atlanta (more likely), or the Patriots trading with a team (but might it be Baltimore?).

Assuming Ryan is gone, who will be around?

These appear to be the potentials: Clady, McKelvin, Jenkins, Ellis, Gholston, Derrick Harvey, Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie, Merling, and whatever WR you'd want in the draft. One or more of them will be available, along with Brohm likely being around as well.

The question is which of them will be around? It's hard to tell. If the choice is defense, I am in love with both Ellis and Gholston. check out this video: http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d806b10be Ellis seems to be able to do everything Trevor Pryce can do in terms of 3-4 DE, or playing a pressure DT in the 4-3. Gholston's first step is truly frightening and he reminds me a lot of Suggs coming out of college. Imagine having to deal with Pryce, Suggs, Gholston, Barnes, and Bart scott on the field at the same time. The only true problem with Gholston is his position (DE or OLB) and the presence of Jarrett Johnson and Antwan Barnes.

Then second round there are a lot more options, but I am not sure QB is the best value there - unless there is something more on Flacco. He's solid, but I'm not overly impressed yet.

A big value would be Dennis Dixon and the end of the 5th or in the 6th. Of course that depends on what kind of QB the team will use going forward.

Very tough decision, but like I said before, if Matt Ryan isn't there at #8
(or there isn't a trade up to #7 if NE swaps with us, ie Ryan didn't go to ATL), I'm not sure a QB will be in the cards first day for the Ravens. However, looking at what else is out there on the defensive side of the ball, I'm not too terribly worried. Clady is also a great option, depending.

Controversial pick: Mendenhall at 8, then you run things like the saints with two backs on the field. I could understand that as well.

**ravens10** · 02-17-2008, 04:05 PM

Hey factmeister.. is your last name possibly "Hofmeister"? I have a friend at my highschool who has that name. I was just wondering.

**Rxdoxx** · 02-17-2008, 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

Probably the most compelling line from that article is this:

"Of the 89 picked in the first round over the past 50 years, only 18 made the “hit” list, a mere 20 percent. Included in that group are just seven of the 17 taken first overall: Terry Bradshaw, John Elway, Steve Young, Troy Aikman, Carson Palmer and the Mannings, Peyton and Eli, who earned his spurs last week. The middle group is just that — in the middle with 24 members, including three Super Bowl winners: Jim Plunkett, Doug Williams and Jim McMahon. More than a few in this category, many from the last five years, got a temporary pass to allow them more time to develop."

Gee, I thought the 1994 6th pick in the 1st round was a Qb named Dilfer, and in 79 there was the 7th overall called Phil Simms.

Maybe I don't understand what the "hit" list is, if someone like Dan Marino (27th in the 1st) isn't on it, then is it talking about winning a SB?

Anyway, my take on the original topic...
I'm not real willing to risk the chaos/downsliding/recovery needed when a high draft QB busts (50% of the time). I say just get to the playoffs and roll the dice. Too much has to go right, and more than adequate depth is needed for the injuries that do occur. And the Ravens are thin at a couple of spots.
We need a DE, Price ain't real young. We need a CB, CMac was drafted in 1999?? Samari in 1998! I'm not saying that they can't still play, but we saw the drop-off when they didn't. A young guy at either of those 2 positions would get mentoring, help keep the vets fresh, and be better than what we saw last year, plus be ready to step-in in a couple of years as the starter.

But I do like a Poindexter type flyer on Dennis Dixon :)

**HoustonRaven** · 02-17-2008, 08:02 PM

Rx,

The writer spells out what he considers a hit and miss. Winning a SB doesnt necessarily mean you made his hit list (see Palmer). Conversely, just because you did win a SB, doesnt make you a "hit" either (Dilfer & Simms). Marino, Im sure is being included in his count, even if he is not specifically mentioning him by name.

And the point you raise is my issue with jonboy and his definition of what makes a successful QB. If you take this list to heart and include the middle of the pack QB's, then a case can be made (I guess) that almost 50% of those QB's picked first round can be considered "successful". However, that means you're lumping in a lot of QB's who are mediocre into that "successful" category.

**jonboy79** · 02-18-2008, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

Rx,

The writer spells out what he considers a hit and miss. Winning a SB doesnt necessarily mean you made his hit list (see Palmer). Conversely, just because you did win a SB, doesnt make you a "hit" either (Dilfer & Simms). Marino, Im sure is being included in his count, even if he is not specifically mentioning him by name.

And the point you raise is my issue with jonboy and his definition of what makes a successful QB. If you take this list to heart and include the middle of the pack QB's, then a case can be made (I guess) that almost 50% of those QB's picked first round can be considered "successful". However, that means you're lumping in a lot of QB's who are mediocre into that "successful" category.

1. I have never in my life seen a stat this low for this "category". It is generally considered 50% I have multiple times sseen studies done, I'm not scouring the internet for them, at around 47% etc. Maybe I'm wrong. Also simple perception shows recent drafts as being better. Obviously scouting has gotten superior since the 50's. I'd like to see the last 20 years studied. The criteria are tough, so everyones list would be different.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/ins...22/banks_risk/

there is fifteen years ago, until '02.. funny part, is add in '03 and '04 and you have 1 for 3 and 3 for 3 so it increases a bit, but still right around 50% for the last 15ish years.

**HoustonRaven** · 02-18-2008, 11:06 AM

jonboy, definitely agree with you about the last 15 years and maybe that lends itself to your point. If you go back to 1990, it is about a 50% success rate. Maybe the scouts are finally getting it right?

Anywho, I still think its a crap shoot going after that "sexy" 1st round draft pick QB. It's a lot of cap money for someone who hasnt proven himself and may take years to make a splash.

**UKRavenStockers** · 02-18-2008, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

jonboy, definitely agree with you about the last 15 years and maybe that lends itself to your point. If you go back to 1990, it is about a 50% success rate. Maybe the scouts are finally getting it right?

Anywho, I still think its a crap shoot going after that "sexy" 1st round draft pick QB. It's a lot of cap money for someone who hasnt proven himself and may take years to make a splash.

But the cap hit really isn't that great for a QB at #8 compared to any other position. The first year will be pretty much the same for everyone and it'll only go over the top based on incentives in most situations, in which case you'd be happy to shell out that cap space if he's meeting those incentives.

**Rxdoxx** · 02-18-2008, 05:21 PM

Drafting a QB at #8 has its own set of problems. That would make 4 QB, and I really don't want to see Troy let go before he has the chance to prove himself. The hight, while not "ideal" doesn't concern me greatly, what QB really looks over the linemen? Maybe over their shoulders a little better ;) but the O and D line are usually as tall or taller than the QB. They throw in lanes, and Troy throws in lanes.
Anyway, drafting a QB probably means #9 or Kyle is history. One is the starter, Troy the sub, and whoever we get is the clip-board toting learner.

Just read TL's article and agree, the way to go is a DE but hopefully not a tweener DE/LB... an honest down stance beast for the line. Get a rotation started, keep the d-line fresh and maybe we keep the havoc/push going as strong at the end of the game as we do early. Then blitzes are our option, not a necessity.
Don't know if Ellis or Long will drop that far, I'm sure Dorsey won't. Gholston???

**Rochardrik** · 02-19-2008, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by jonboy79

Sexy? That's what I'm looking for? No I'm looking for Wins. On a 5-11 team, we had the #6 overall defense. I think we lost the game on offense. There is nothing that would turn the fate of this franchise more then a great QB. At this point I'll settle for average.

Sure, we can just as easily get our Franchise QB by drafting one late and letting him develop. Ok so we drafted one late last year, draft three more this year, three more next year and three the year after. From all of that, I bet we have one good QB 5 years from now. Or, we could draft a day 1 guy and have a 50% chance at having a good one by 2009... We don't have time to Fart around and take day 2 guys that maybe sort could one day be, we need to tzke a guy who SHOULD be. There is no such thing as a sure thing, there are simply odds, and you play them when they are good.

If you play any poker, the more times you get someone to chase you down with 1in 3 odds or worse the better you'll do. You will lose from time to time, but over time, if you are on the positive side of the odds, you will win.
So back to football, Brady is the 2-9 that flopped 2, 2, 9. Just becuase it hits doesn't mean you should model your game after it. You can chase flushes and "live cards" all night, I'll play my early two pair aggressive every time.

Given the "current landscape" in the NFL, the only go as far as your QB can take you. I like watching playoff games, perhaps even Super Bowls.

Comparing the "probability odds" in cards to drafting a qb and who will or will not pan out is like comparing peaches to frogs. There is NO correlation!

**jonboy79** · 02-19-2008, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by Rochardrik

Comparing the "probability odds" in cards to drafting a qb and who will or will not pan out is like comparing peaches to frogs. There is NO correlation!

Why is that? Odds can be based on correlations... there is plenty of data from which to make a coorelation. The odds that a card comes out can be calculated exactly, mathematically, and that is different, but there is a pure random factor as to which exact card comes out.

**Rochardrik** · 02-20-2008, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by jonboy79

Why is that? Odds can be based on correlations... there is plenty of data from which to make a coorelation. The odds that a card comes out can be calculated exactly, mathematically, and that is different, but there is a pure random factor as to which exact card comes out.

Because you're dealing, on the one hand, with an inanimate object, with a constant value, as compared to a human being, NONE of which, no matter how similar on the surface, are exactly, or even close to being alike!.....GEEEEEESH!