How did we do?

[BigPlayReceiver]

BPR--
Years ago when I posted regularly on The Forum Whose Name Shall Not Be Mentioned ;), I started a series of threads loosely called The Great Perception Experiment. It got really painful reading posters who pissed and moaned about stuff throughout the year, but after a careful review of what they were saying, one realized that their comments/opinions/etc. seemed to bend with the prevailing winds of current wisdom and popularity, not with any seeming intelligent thought or analysis. So I asked posters to start putting their predictions for the Ravens upcoming season where their mouths were, and at different times of the year -- just after the draft, just after training camp/prior to pre-season, and then agin just after pre-season/prior to game 1. It was illuminating to watch how some opinions really followed the crowd as opposed to having any analytical integrity.

Human behavior and perceptions are incredibly powerful.
I deal with misperceptions every day at work, yet from time-to-time, I still fall victim to what you've described here.

When analyzing the probability of future value, I try to separate the product from the process (among other things).
At best, we each have 75% of "the information" on any selection and that's probably too high. So I can understand the disparate opinions on KO, Gino, Asa, etc.
The process though...we don't even have a 1/3 of the information when you account for intentional deception, vagueness and uncommunicated shifts in priorities.

[ActualSpamBot]

I didn't say they weren't good at picking talent. There are teams that are getting smarter at drafting at particular positions. Overall the Ravens are well built and they have the blueprint. I just wonder how progressive their scouting is compared to the other teams that have their own scouts.

I don't even understand what your wondering, or how it relates to your assertion that the team needs to change how it evaluates talent.

We are universally regarded as one of the top drafting teams in the NFL. Let's look at our track record:

In a 16 year history we've drafted or signed as UDFAs 15 different Pro Bowlers so far. If Webb had made the Pro Bowl this year like he deserved we would average 1 new Pro Bowler per draft.

In that same time frame we've drafted 4 guys who have put together Hall of Fame caliber resumes (Ray, JO, Reed, and Suggs), plus a running back who is currently on a Hall of Fame pace in Ray Rice.

We've drafted at least one All Pro player on offense, defense, and special teams since 2006 alone.

What more can we do from a player evaluation/ acquisition standpoint?

[seraph]

I don't even understand what your wondering, or how it relates to your assertion that the team needs to change how it evaluates talent.

We are universally regarded as one of the top drafting teams in the NFL. Let's look at our track record:

In a 16 year history we've drafted or signed as UDFAs 15 different Pro Bowlers so far. If Webb had made the Pro Bowl this year like he deserved we would average 1 new Pro Bowler per draft.

In that same time frame we've drafted 4 guys who have put together Hall of Fame caliber resumes (Ray, JO, Reed, and Suggs), plus a running back who is currently on a Hall of Fame pace in Ray Rice.

We've drafted at least one All Pro player on offense, defense, and special teams since 2006 alone.

What more can we do from a player evaluation/ acquisition standpoint?

Draft better than the Texans, Giants, Packers. Those teams seem to be more advanced than the Ravens in scouting.

What do you think of those teams in scouting compared to the Ravens?

[RavingMad]

If you want to believe Decosta, the article on the Ravens site all but says they didn't have Brewster as a draftable player.

More Decosta. This article paints the picture of tone and mood of the war room.

http://blogs.baltimoreravens.com/201...0%98wiped-out/


The other GM'S have up'd their game. Seems the brass was caught off guard and stunned.

[bmorecareful]

More Decosta. This article paints the picture of tone and mood of the war room.

http://blogs.baltimoreravens.com/201...0%98wiped-out/


The other GM'S have up'd their game. Seems the brass was caught off guard and stunned.

I do think this year was a bit different, as Ozzie and Eric DeCosta themselves said in that good article you've posted. The Ravens don't have much of an advantage anymore in terms of regional scouting, which in part is why they targeted more small-schoolers this year.

The Ravens normally draft players they have in their top 100 and they went well beyond that this year. They missed out on some players they wanted and had to get creative to find guys they liked about as much.

I don't think it's being overly negative to admit that this year's draft was a bit different and a tighter race with the other teams competing for the same talent. We still performed well and got a lot of good players.

[steelerhater]

All we know about teams' grades is that they liked the player they chose better than the other available players at that position at the time they chose. That is it. Even now, after the draft, there are reasons why teams would not tell the truth about where they had players graded.

We know the Ravens had Gradkowski graded higher than Jones, Blake and Molk. We don't yet know if they were "right" to do so, but time may tell. We also don't know if they had Gradkowski graded higher than Konz, because Konz was gone and after you take Gradkowski there is no reason after the fact to mention/admit that you had Konz rated higher, while there is a reason to claim you wanted Gradkowski more all along. We are dealing with human beings and human nature (and common sense).

As for Gradkowski, I have no problem with the player and think the intangibles (attitude, demeanor, work ethic, personality, etc) combined with the fact he has a year (most likely) to get coached up and mentored played a large role in his "grade." Some teams relish projects with good character, other teams are willing to ignore character for big conference or more NFL-ready bodies. I prefer the former approach if one has the latitude to let the guy learn as a back-up. I also think that by taking Gradkowski at #98, all we can conclude is that the Ravens were worried he might not be there at #130 (our next pick), which I don't think is an unreasonable assessment.

The most questionable pick in my mind is Pierce, but only if I assume they have an interest in keeping Rice around for more than a year or two. If the pick was made because that isn't likely to happen, then it makes sense. If they took Pierce to be a lesser-platoon/backup RB for years to come, I think he went too high, considering we can get FA RBs to fill that role for cheap.

The problem with that is that running back is one of the few positions that someone can come in and contribute right away. If they keep Rice for two more years, then draft his replacement in two more years.

[ActualSpamBot]

I think we draft significantly better than the Texans and our comparative records prove that. How many Hall of Famers can the Texans put on their draft success board? Andre Johnson potentially. Mario Williams is good but his numbers are pretty much the same as Peter Boulware's and we don't hang our hats on how awesome we were to draft him do we? Foster and Rice are comparable. Beyond that? Comparing us to the Texans is laughable.

Giants? Eli is making a case for Hall of Fame consideration, other than that who have they drafted in the last 16 years who is getting to the Hall? They're a very well coached team, and Eli is super clutch which is why they have 2 rings. But in terms of drafting, I don't think they've had the kind of historic success that Ozzie Newsome has.

Packers? Who on their roster is getting to the Hall? Darren Sharper was a great player for them and he has a shot. Finding Donald Driver in the 7th round is worth a tip of the hat. But frankly I don't think they're better at drafting than we are. I think Rodgers makes his receivers look great, but they win in spite of their defense, and their offensive line is crap. They've blown two high picks in a row on tackles and neither one could beat out Marshall Newhouse for the starting LT job.

[RavingMad]

I do think this year was a bit different, as Ozzie and Eric DeCosta themselves said in that good article you've posted. The Ravens don't have much of an advantage anymore in terms of regional scouting, which in part is why they targeted more small-schoolers this year.

The Ravens normally draft players they have in their top 100 and they went well beyond that this year. They missed out on some players they wanted and had to get creative to find guys they liked about as much.

I don't think it's being overly negative to admit that this year's draft was a bit different and a tighter race with the other teams competing for the same talent. We still performed well and got a lot of good players.

You're right. My concern is without this article with quotes from Ozzie himself as a reference, folks that took issue with the timing of picks are dismissed on this board. They just admitted they felt the need to do things that they normally don't do or wanted to do.

"creative quickly on the fly"

"never seen before"

Not good quotes and doesn't match Ozzie's philosophy.

[Raveninwoodlawn]

I just want to clarify my opinion and statement that the Ravens panicked and reached for 2 picks. From multiple reports (I know its a bad term here) the Ravens had 3 main targets and they believed one would fall to them and that is the guard from Wisconsin, the guard from Stanford, and ILB from Alabama. I 'm not saying they didn't have a back up plan in case the guys were gone, what I am saying is they changed their philosophy or got creative as Decosta said. Fearing that more targets would be taken they panicked and reached for guys/talent that could have been acquired later in the draft. I'm not saying that the Ravens didn't have Pierce and Gradkowski high on their board by position, I'm saying these guys and/or their comparable skill set were available later in the draft.
My point when it comes to small school players is you have to take into consideration their competition when you are scouting, analyzing and evaluating their skill set and talent. Seeing a player get push against lesser competition or seeing a RB run over less competition can cause them to shoot up your board.
When it comes to reasons why other teams didn't draft or target certain players/positions, there are so many nuances to take into consideration, for example--needs, roster and strategy (if too general I can be more specific in another post).

I think it's absurd to assume that 3 guys in the first round being gone made them trade up in the 3rd and make the selection they did in the 4th. Virtually every draft, the Ravens have a group of guys they really want...sometimes they fall, sometimes they don't. That does not mean that they are going to panic off of 3 guys in the first...2 of whom were longshots to begin with.

If you want to say they had a group of guys they liked in the 3rd that were being picked and they feared that they wouldn't get their man...I can see that (although it's obvious that the Ravens targeted Pierce early considering Harbs and Pierce were texting each other during round 1). But again, Thursday night was not the first time the Ravens missed on some of their top targets...this isn't something new.

BTW...I don't know what the problem with Pierce is...the only guy left on t he board at that point with his skillset was Lamar Miller who had some significant medical concerns and was so good the Canes took him out on short yardage. I agree that smaller schools require more scrutiny, but when you put up 27 damn TD's, dominate your level like he has when he was the only option, and fared ok when playing the big boys...and put that with his very impressive computer numbers...the guy is a beast. I've seen mediocre backs put up good stats on lower levels...they were nowhere close to Pierce's level. I'd like to know the comparable guy(s) left on the board when we drafted him.

As for Brewter...again, I don't know how you can rationalize that a guy who not a single NFL team thought well enough of to draft...even as the last pick, was close to a guy drafted in the 4th on teams boards. Most teams wind up cutting their 6th and 7th round picks...while you can strike gold there every now and then, those aren't prime picks. Sorry, there is no convincing me that all 32 teams are so happy with their centers that they wouldn't take a late round flyer on a guy who the media considered a mid round pick or that those WR's were fell just because no other teams needed big play guys on the outside.

Draft better than the Texans, Giants, Packers. Those teams seem to be more advanced than the Ravens in scouting.

What do you think of those teams in scouting compared to the Ravens?

This is ridiculous.

[Raveninwoodlawn]

More Decosta. This article paints the picture of tone and mood of the war room.

http://blogs.baltimoreravens.com/201...0%98wiped-out/


The other GM'S have up'd their game. Seems the brass was caught off guard and stunned.

Yeah, because I'm sure they forsall in the 1st round that all 150 on their board would be gone 7 rounds later.

I also think it's obvious that Brewster was not on their board at all...so there goes that argument.

[Raveninwoodlawn]

I do think this year was a bit different, as Ozzie and Eric DeCosta themselves said in that good article you've posted. The Ravens don't have much of an advantage anymore in terms of regional scouting, which in part is why they targeted more small-schoolers this year.

The Ravens normally draft players they have in their top 100 and they went well beyond that this year. They missed out on some players they wanted and had to get creative to find guys they liked about as much.

I don't think it's being overly negative to admit that this year's draft was a bit different and a tighter race with the other teams competing for the same talent. We still performed well and got a lot of good players.

I don't think anybody doubts that.

I do think it's pretty absurd to say they panicked by trading up for a very good RB who they liked since day 1 and that they reached for a C and instead should have drafted a free falling WR who fell 2 rounds later and wasted a draft pick on a center that wasn't even drafted by anybody.

[RavingMad]

Yeah, because I'm sure they forsall in the 1st round that all 150 on their board would be gone 7 rounds later.

I also think it's obvious that Brewster was not on their board at all...so there goes that argument.

Dude you stuck on this Brewster argument. I didn't even bring up Brewster as a reference. Wicked did. When can argue about undrafted Fa's another day. But my point is highlighted by Ozzie and Decosta themselves. They saw the flow of the draft and confirmed they had to QUICKLY ADJUST ON THE FLY. If that don't tell you that they figured they had to start reaching I don't know what will.

If you read the article, you can see why many wasn't on their board. They were so used to having so many still there late in the day... there board was limited. They underestimated the league. They know better now and admitted they got to adjust going forward.

It's ABSURD that folks here who BLINDLY follow/trust Ozzie and co. are more excited about the draft then Ozzie and co. LOL