Worst draft ever

[AirFlacco]

here's what the guy @ nfl.com has to write about draft grades :

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap200...r-all-32-teams

... Bc

Mc Shay listed Brooks as his fav pick @ 79

Liked Piss' Shazier followed by Tuitt as 3d and 4th favs.

I missed 2d fav pick.

I really don't know anything about Brooks but read that he only bench pressed 10 lbs at 225 lbs and our new WR pressed 20.

Mel gave Ravens a B citing CW, Jernigen and Brooks.

He gave Squeelers A- for Shazier, Tuitt and the RB.

He gave SF an A for getting Ward where they did. OZ tried to tradown down on the clock but gave up after 6 mins. Maybe he was trying to trade down for Ward????

[BcRaven]

You will never convince me that they couldn't spare a single pick above rd. 4 on a WR in this particular draft. That there wasn't a single WR they liked within range of the various pick slots in rds. 1-3.

Unless we are arrogant enough to think we will just keep finding Marlon Brown's.

I don't blame you for being frustrated, but I think there are reasons for the Ravens strategy. After our pick, just look at the offensive players taken : Ja'Waun James (OT - #19) I like the guy, but what a reach;
Cooks (WR - #20) many like him, but @ #17? Kelvin Benjamin (WR - #28) plus two QBs. Mosley was simply the best player at the time. Now let's play fantasy football...say one or two more QBs were selected before us. Maybe Zack Martin would have fallen into Ozzie's lap. Then he'd have a choice between Oline and ILB.
Many would have been happy with Martin, Jurnigan, and Brooks.
I won't list the offensive players we could have had in rounds 2 or 3 because Ozzie felt Jurnigan had a 1st round rating and Brooks had the credentials and filled a need too... Bc

[ursula]

You will never convince me that they couldn't spare a single pick above rd. 4 on a WR in this particular draft. That there wasn't a single WR they liked within range of the various pick slots in rds. 1-3.

Unless we are arrogant enough to think we will just keep finding Marlon Brown's.

I think BC did a good job answering you but I wan to answer your contention more broadly.

The Ravens could easily have picked a WR in any round. No question. You are totally right there.

It's just that they don't have your priorities on how to build a team. Never have really. To Ozzie & Co, WR is just a less valued position. Thus no WRs this year until the end.

And that's all there is to say. DL/LB>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>WR in the eyes of the team that you have chosen to root for. Other teams would have stacked their Board differently this weekend. The Packers for instance. But that doesn't mean the Ravens are wrong, it's just that each team has a personality and with that personality comes a set of priorities. Occasionally the team will pick a WR in the first three rounds, but only if they feel they have to.

You call the team arrogant for not picking WRs enough. Many other teams then must be arrogant for not prioritizing the defensive front seven enough. The thing is there are limited resources for all teams and your team just chooses to allocate it's resources differently that you do.

[bmorecareful]

I think BC did a good job answering you but I wan to answer your contention more broadly.

The Ravens could easily have picked a WR in any round. No question. You are totally right there.

It's just that they don't have your priorities on how to build a team. Never have really. To Ozzie & Co, WR is just a less valued position. Thus no WRs this year until the end.

And that's all there is to say. DL/LB>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>WR in the eyes of the team that you have chosen to root for. Other teams would have stacked their Board differently this weekend. The Packers for instance. But that doesn't mean the Ravens are wrong, it's just that each team has a personality and with that personality comes a set of priorities. Occasionally the team will pick a WR in the first three rounds, but only if they feel they have to.

You call the team arrogant for not picking WRs enough. Many other teams then must be arrogant for not prioritizing the defensive front seven enough. The thing is there are limited resources for all teams and your team just chooses to allocate it's resources differently that you do.

This is absolutely right. The Ravens just value the WR position very, very lowly. They want to be what they have always been--a team that plays great defense and special teams, while running the football as much as possible and passing only when necessary or when they can take the defense by surprise. You don't draft WRs high to make that scheme work. And with Kubiak on board, you don't need to take OL high early either--Kubiak has always been so successful with mid-to-late round linemen.

We can debate whether or not that strategy is still working, but historically the Ravens have done pretty well, and they're continuing to bet big on that trend continuing.

[GaTechRavens]

The other thing is that our need at WR isn't a "general" need, it's very specific: if there's a need at receiver, it's for a top tier #1 guy. Otherwise we're fine - we already have a deep group, and throwing a random mid-round pick into the depth chart isn't really going to change anything. As far as I'm concerned, the 1st round would have made much more sense from a WR standpoint than rounds 2-4...but since the top three receivers had already been taken, there were better options than WR out there.

[darb72]

My only problem with this draft and off-season in general is that we are one injury away from being totally screwed on offense. Lose a WR and you're throwing to Torrey and nothing else. RB is even worse since Rice will likely be suspended. Offensive line is screwed as I type this, so things likely aren't looking good for Joe's future health. The only place we have depth is TE, but we do have a ton of it there.

I like the draft as far as value. The top three guys are likely starters this season, or in the case of Jerrigan, capable backups. However, we won a Super Bowl because Joe threw the ball. We put the team on his shoulders and said, "win it for us." He did. And now we can't get him any help on that side of the ball? Really? Yes, we won Super Bowl XXXV with defense and a power running game. We won Super Bowl XLVII with the defense only playing well in two games, and Joe setting records.

Get the guy some freaking help.

[redmike34]

My only problem with this draft and off-season in general is that we are one injury away from being totally screwed on offense. Lose a WR and you're throwing to Torrey and nothing else. RB is even worse since Rice will likely be suspended. Offensive line is screwed as I type this, so things likely aren't looking good for Joe's future health. The only place we have depth is TE, but we do have a ton of it there.

I like the draft as far as value. The top three guys are likely starters this season, or in the case of Jerrigan, capable backups. However, we won a Super Bowl because Joe threw the ball. We put the team on his shoulders and said, "win it for us." He did. And now we can't get him any help on that side of the ball? Really? Yes, we won Super Bowl XXXV with defense and a power running game. We won Super Bowl XLVII with the defense only playing well in two games, and Joe setting records.

Get the guy some freaking help.

Defense only played well in two games???

No TDs allowed against Colts. Might have won in regulation in Denver without Trindon Holliday on the field; held Peyton to 21 points in his own building. Held Brady to 13 points in his own building. Allowed only six points to SF through 2.5 quarters in the SB before the power outage, and had Ngata not gotten injured, I think the overall showing would have been better.

I count that as three great defensive games, and over half of another one. YMMV...

[bacchys]

You will never convince me that they couldn't spare a single pick above rd. 4 on a WR in this particular draft. That there wasn't a single WR they liked within range of the various pick slots in rds. 1-3.

Unless we are arrogant enough to think we will just keep finding Marlon Brown's.

How much help do you think a WR drafted at the #17 pick or later would really provide a team this year?

[srobert96]

How much help do you think a WR drafted at the #17 pick or later would really provide a team this year?

The problem with this line of thinking is that we will never draft wr high. That is my only real complaint with the draft is that we need to invest more in the wr position with the look towards the future. Maybe a wr does not contribute a ton this year but they could be in a position to really help the team next year.

[bmorecareful]

Defense only played well in two games???

No TDs allowed against Colts. Might have won in regulation in Denver without Trindon Holliday on the field; held Peyton to 21 points in his own building. Held Brady to 13 points in his own building. Allowed only six points to SF through 2.5 quarters in the SB before the power outage, and had Ngata not gotten injured, I think the overall showing would have been better.

I count that as three great defensive games, and over half of another one. YMMV...

Pro Football Reference describes the defense's performance vs. the Broncos as average, and I think that's accurate. Holding Peyton to 21 points seems good on paper, in a way, although the average defense only allowed 22.75 points in 2012 (and the Ravens allowed 21.5)--and that's strictly by total points allowed divided by games, without removing points from defensive and special teams scores, so by points allowed it's probably a worse effort than average.

One might say that even holding the Broncos to a point total a little worse than league average is good, since they were so good on offense, but that point is probably negated by the frigid temperatures. So, all told, hard to call the Denver game anything other than a roughly average defensive effort that happened to feature 3 turnovers (and everyone should know by know that turnovers are essentially random.)

It's not possible to describe the Super Bowl effort as average or better; it was clearly a poor overall effort. The 49ers scored 6 points more than their season average or nearly 12 points more than the Ravens' average points allowed per game. That is a subpar defensive effort that can't be explained away by an injury or power outage, nor is it really fair to argue that it was a good effort because it was going well through half the game. Halftime adjustments matter.

All in all, PFR scores the defense as contributing -5.62 points worth of expected points to the 2012 playoffs, or slightly worse than average. Meanwhile, the offense contributed 42.97 points--a stupefyingly high total, one of the greatest 4 game stretches of offensive play in NFL history. (And that was achieved despite a relatively subpar rushing effort.)

The offense was clearly vastly more contributory to the 2012 Super Bowl win than the defense. Draw your own conclusions about what that means, but I don't see a factual argument to the contrary.

[bacchys]

The problem with this line of thinking is that we will never draft wr high. That is my only real complaint with the draft is that we need to invest more in the wr position with the look towards the future. Maybe a wr does not contribute a ton this year but they could be in a position to really help the team next year.

I disagree. That line of thinking means you take the best player available where you draft, and if that's a wide receiver then you draft a wide receiver.

But drafting a wide receiver *now* in expectation of that kid coming in and being Randy Moss is unrealistic. I don't doubt that the FO would draft a WR if that's who they think is the best value at that pick. I don't doubt they would have traded down to get a WR where they think the value matches the player if that had been possible. But drafting a WR just because you need a WR *now* (which I don't think we do, but that's a separate point) is just adding a body, not filling the need.

[redmike34]

Pro Football Reference describes the defense's performance vs. the Broncos as average, and I think that's accurate. Holding Peyton to 21 points seems good on paper, in a way, although the average defense only allowed 22.75 points in 2012 (and the Ravens allowed 21.5)--and that's strictly by total points allowed divided by games, without removing points from defensive and special teams scores, so by points allowed it's probably a worse effort than average.

One might say that even holding the Broncos to a point total a little worse than league average is good, since they were so good on offense, but that point is probably negated by the frigid temperatures. So, all told, hard to call the Denver game anything other than a roughly average defensive effort that happened to feature 3 turnovers (and everyone should know by know that turnovers are essentially random.)

It's not possible to describe the Super Bowl effort as average or better; it was clearly a poor overall effort. The 49ers scored 6 points more than their season average or nearly 12 points more than the Ravens' average points allowed per game. That is a subpar defensive effort that can't be explained away by an injury or power outage, nor is it really fair to argue that it was a good effort because it was going well through half the game. Halftime adjustments matter.

All in all, PFR scores the defense as contributing -5.62 points worth of expected points to the 2012 playoffs, or slightly worse than average. Meanwhile, the offense contributed 42.97 points--a stupefyingly high total, one of the greatest 4 game stretches of offensive play in NFL history. (And that was achieved despite a relatively subpar rushing effort.)

The offense was clearly vastly more contributory to the 2012 Super Bowl win than the defense. Draw your own conclusions about what that means, but I don't see a factual argument to the contrary.

I don't see why you're basing your argument on league average points allowed, unless you're arguing that the Broncos were a league average team. Overall, the Broncos averaged 30.1 ppg throughout 2012, and 32.5 at home. Even including Holliday's touchdowns, that's better than the average Bronco opponent in Denver when you consider that, while they allowed 35 points overall, they allowed that in 5+ quarters. So on average, the Broncos at home in 2012 scored 8.125 points per quarter, but against the Ravens just under seven per quarter.

Belittling how well the Ravens' defense did in the first part of the Super Bowl, IMO, is a bit disingenuous. If they hadn't done so well in the first half, the collapse in the second half would have been fatal instead of just inconvenient. Also, let's not forget that the offense pretty much disappeared at the same time the defense did in that game. Jacoby got the KO return TD to make it 28-6, but the offense only scored six points thereafter. Those halftime adjustments apparently cut both ways...