Strategy for first round pick.

**jonboy79** · 02-24-2013, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by Shas

This sounds dangerously close to a "drafting for need" strategy, and it's hard for me to imagine Ozzie going this route. Where I think I differ from you is the premise the suggestion there are gaping needs this year that didn't exist in past years. I think you may be under stating the holes in past year.

Last year they lost two key free agents in Ben Grubbs and Jarrett Johnson. The hole at LG last year I would argue was more glaring than ILB or DT this year. Yet Ozzie didn't trade up, he traded down in the first round and still found Upshaw to replace JJ and Osemele to replace Grubbs. He then traded up to get Pierce to replace Ricky Williams. Ozzie was patient and position himself in need positions to fill holes.

I could point out past drafts where they had significant holes they would have to fill, and did so without trading up. Two years ago it was wide receiver (Torrey Smith for Derrick Mason). And other recent examples include tight end (Dickson and Pitta for Todd Heap), running back (Ray Rice for Willis McGahee) or corner (Lardarius Webb for Chris McAlister). I can't see why this year needs to be different in being patient and finding quality players in the second and third rounds.

like it or not, "drafting for need" is what every single team in the NFL does every April, Ravens included. The NUANCE is the difference. It's dumb to be locked into taking your biggest need in the first round, your second biggest need in the second, etc. The key is VALUE. Trading up to get the guy you like that fills the hole you have at an acceptable value point is a quite good philosophy, particularly when you have 11 picks.

Fact of the matter is, I'd rather they move up and target their guys then stay put and deal with what is left...

**leachisabeast** · 02-24-2013, 04:03 PM

The cap situation is pretty much the same as it was last year, people are just worried about the Ravens using the exclusive tag, which I highly doubt they use. I just don't see them counting 24 million to the cap, and I'm not even sure if that's possible without cutting so many good players as well as not re-signing anybody. You'd have a team of rookies and undrafted players/special team aces. I don't care how good the QB is, you are not winning with a team like that.

I'm still pretty sure a deal gets done this week and the holes will be filled in FA. I expect McKinnie and Ellerbe back, Reed is 50/50, Kruger probably has a 10 % chance of being back, while Cary a 0.00001 % chance. So I think we go into FA signing for argument sakes the following....

Pat Simms, NT, Bengals
Kenny Phillips, FS, Giants
Erin Henderson ILB, Vikings

The following players are either retiring or will be cut:
Matt Birk
Ray Lewis
Brenden Ayanbedajo
Vonta Leach
Jameel McClain

That fills the immediate holes on paper, and will allow Ozzie to go for the BPA approach. These are the kind of FAs that Ozzie goes for. Solid under the radar type players who can make a difference, but wont be expensive at all.

I would expect the Ravens to probably trade back into the 2nd and take an OT like Menelik Watson given the above scenario.

**bmorecareful** · 02-24-2013, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by Shas

This sounds dangerously close to a "drafting for need" strategy, and it's hard for me to imagine Ozzie going this route. Where I think I differ from you is the premise the suggestion there are gaping needs this year that didn't exist in past years. I think you may be under stating the holes in past year.

Last year they lost two key free agents in Ben Grubbs and Jarrett Johnson. The hole at LG last year I would argue was more glaring than ILB or DT this year. Yet Ozzie didn't trade up, he traded down in the first round and still found Upshaw to replace JJ and Osemele to replace Grubbs. He then traded up to get Pierce to replace Ricky Williams. Ozzie was patient and position himself in need positions to fill holes.

I could point out past drafts where they had significant holes they would have to fill, and did so without trading up. Two years ago it was wide receiver (Torrey Smith for Derrick Mason). And other recent examples include tight end (Dickson and Pitta for Todd Heap), running back (Ray Rice for Willis McGahee) or corner (Lardarius Webb for Chris McAlister). I can't see why this year needs to be different in being patient and finding quality players in the second and third rounds.

Am I? I don't think so. Most of the examples you cite are very different from the situation we're seeing this year. They lost Ben Grubbs, but signed B. Williams as a "glue guy" who would start if necessary--and he had played very well in Cincinnati the year before prior to breaking his ankle. They had a contingency plan. In retrospect we can say that it didn't work, but at least they could plaster over the hole in the roster--and the same is true for so many other moves they've made over the last few years. They went into the draft without glaring needs anywhere, and even if their draftees stepped up to become starters it was because they proved better than the contingency plans that had already been made.

The same is true for JJ. We drafted Upshaw, but without Suggs' injury how much does he see the field last year? Kruger was ahead of him on the DC as the likely starter at SAM LB. That wasn't a pick to fill an immediate need, it was another "how could a guy like this fall" pick.

Torrey Smith was drafted as a future starter at WR, not an immediate starter, when we had Boldin and Lee Evans (another shrewd "glue guy" pickup that didn't happen to work out). Dickson and Pitta both sat behind Heap for a year and were groomed instead of being asked to start as rookies. Webb played behind Foxworth and Fabian Washington, both highly regarded FA pickups.

The problem is that we can't do anything in free agency this year. We can't sign B. Williams as a contingency plan for the OL, or trade for Lee Evans, or give draftees a year to sit while they're groomed behind established veterans. Ray Lewis is gone; Ed Reed is likely gone; we probably can't re-sign McKinnie or Ellerbe. You're talking about roster holes that we have very little flexibility.

**leachisabeast** · 02-24-2013, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by bmorecareful

The problem is that we can't do anything in free agency this year. We can't sign B. Williams as a contingency plan for the OL, or trade for Lee Evans, or give draftees a year to sit while they're groomed behind established veterans. Ray Lewis is gone; Ed Reed is likely gone; we probably can't re-sign McKinnie or Ellerbe. You're talking about roster holes that we have very little flexibility.

Again, I think you are exaggerating the cap situation. The only way this happens is if we use the exclusive tender on Flacco. Can't see that happening.

**jonboy79** · 02-24-2013, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by leachisabeast

Again, I think you are exaggerating the cap situation. The only way this happens is if we use the exclusive tender on Flacco. Can't see that happening.

exclusive, non-exclusive... doesn't matter. We won't be able to make any FA moves of note prior to the draft unless Flacco has a long term deal.

Again, anyone who doesn't think Flacco has all the leverage is fooling themselves. Anyone who wants the FO to pinch every penny they can is ill informed. Pay the man what he wants, get a friendly structure and move on with life.

**leachisabeast** · 02-24-2013, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by jonboy79

exclusive, non-exclusive... doesn't matter. We won't be able to make any FA moves of note prior to the draft unless Flacco has a long term deal.

Again, anyone who doesn't think Flacco has all the leverage is fooling themselves. Anyone who wants the FO to pinch every penny they can is ill informed. Pay the man what he wants, get a friendly structure and move on with life.

There is a big difference between 14.6 and 24 million. I think with the right roster moves, we'd just about be able to get some guys in.

Again, I know a lot of you guys love the idea of trading up and making crazy moves like Bmorecareful mentioned, but its not happening as long as Ozzie is GM.

The deal is going to get done anyway, yall need to stop worrying about this.

**The Excellector** · 02-24-2013, 04:19 PM

Joe Flacco: Show me the money!

Joe Linta: Show me the money!

Joe Flacco: I love black people!

Joe Linta: I love black people!

**JoeCool5** · 02-24-2013, 04:21 PM

I echo an earlier post that said we really need to see how things play out with Flacco's deal. I think there will be a real sense of urgency from the team to get a deal done before March 4th. The problem is neither Joe Linta (Flacco's agent) nor the team has done a deal of this magnitude. Granted, the Ravens have done big contracts before but not for a QB. And Linta does not have any other high-profile clients. I, like all of you, are praying that a long-term deal gets done before we have to impose any kind of tag. Only then can we project what the rest of the offseason will look like.

**leachisabeast** · 02-24-2013, 04:22 PM

Pay Flacco, and draft Tavon Austin. You will see what happens.

**The Excellector** · 02-24-2013, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by leachisabeast

Pay Flacco, and draft Tavon Austin. You will see what happens.

An unfair advantage.

**alien bird** · 02-24-2013, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by jonboy79

Trading up to get the guy you like that fills the hole you have at an acceptable value point is a quite good philosophy, particularly when you have 11 picks.

Fact of the matter is, I'd rather they move up and target their guys then stay put and deal with what is left...

This is a sticky wicket. If the Ravens trade from 32 to say 23 to get that guy, it would cost them (according to the draft value chart) their 3rd and 4th round picks. Sure, they have eleven, but 4 of them can't be traded, so trading too many for one move is going to negate the ability to move around in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th rounds - especially if you've just traded your 3rd and 4th rounder. Exactly where are they going to move then? They would be left with waiting for a guy to fall into their laps, instead of having the ability to move up a couple of spots to get the guy they want.

Those 3rd and 4th rounders are crucial. Just look at the last four drafts: Webb, Pitta, Dickson, Reid, Doss, Pierce, Gradkowski, Thompson. There are some impact players on that list.

**jonboy79** · 02-24-2013, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by leachisabeast

There is a big difference between 14.6 and 24 million. I think with the right roster moves, we'd just about be able to get some guys in.

Again, I know a lot of you guys love the idea of trading up and making crazy moves like Bmorecareful mentioned, but its not happening as long as Ozzie is GM.

The deal is going to get done anyway, yall need to stop worrying about this.

Sure, but the exclusive tag is currently slated to be $20.6m and will decrease if Tom, Big Ben, Stafford, and Bradford restructure prior to 1 week before the draft, when it is officially calculated. With the moves that have been made currently, AND assuming Bobbie Williams is cut and ALL RFA's get tendered, and nothing else, the $14.6 puts us over the cap. No chance of making moves unless they extend/restructure/cut Boldin,JOnes, Leach, Ngata or Suggs.

I know it will get done, but it is CRITICAL that it gets done by the first few days of FA.