Flacco: What was the plan when he was drafted?

**The Excellector** · 09-19-2017, 03:27 PM

Long-term, I think they wanted a QB who was capable enough to just make a few plays to get the offense over the hump, while the defense led the way. I don't think they ever had plans of Flacco becoming the face of the franchise or some sort of force to be reckoned with around the league.

**HbgPARavenfan** · 09-19-2017, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by Money227

The original plan was trading their entire draft class to the Rams for the #2 pick in order to draft Matt Ryan.

Glad we didnt.

Ryan and Rivers are perennial losers. That's who they are. That's who they've been since college. They will inevitably find a way to snag defeat from the Jaws of Victory.

It is Known

**Money227** · 09-19-2017, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by The Excellector

This too. Bisciotti wanted Ryan and basically told Newsome and DeCosta to get him by any means necessary. Ozzie and DeCosta talked Bisciotti into Flacco, who could be had for far less, and who they felt had a higher ceiling. Albeit not as pro ready. Bisciotti yielded.

The Rams also asked for the Ravens' 2009 2nd round pick (ended up being Paul Kruger) which was the deal breaker. I'm personally happy the deal didn't go through.

**Money227** · 09-19-2017, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by HbgPARavenfan

Glad we didnt.

Ryan and Rivers are perennial losers. That's who they are. That's who they've been since college. They will inevitably find a way to snag defeat from the Jaws of Victory.

It is Known

I think that's a little harsh, but I agree that not trading has certainly worked out for the Ravens.

**The Excellector** · 09-19-2017, 03:33 PM

Ryan would not have been nearly as successful here in Baltimore, playing far more often in the elements, against far better defenses and with significantly less surrounding talent for the early years of his career. On the flip side, imagine if Atlanta had drafted Flacco.

**Money227** · 09-19-2017, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by The Excellector

Ryan would not have been nearly as successful here in Baltimore, playing far more often in the elements, against far better defenses and with significantly less surrounding talent for the early years of his career. On the flip side, imagine if Atlanta had drafted Flacco.

I agree completely that Joe was much better suited to playing in the AFC North. Where I disagree a bit is that I think Ryan is better suited playing the style of ball they play in the NFC South. I think both franchises are happy with how it worked out.

**bravens23** · 09-19-2017, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by HotInHere

Also as I recall he had taken hardly any snaps under center at Delaware. It's truly amazing the way they developed him his rookie year. Protected him with a monster running game and defense, gave him simple half-field reads, that deep out to Mason, and everybody's favorite safety blanket, Todd Heap.

Rode that formula all the way to the AFCC.

Actually, that was before the current slotting system. Back then, you had ridiculous amounts of money being paid to top picks, and they were forced to play right away because of it. Guys like Jamarcus Russell and Vince Young all played day 1, ready or not. It's a little easier to afford to sit a guy like Goff now. If he had been drafted ten years earlier, he would have started day 1.

Not really.

You might have paid a guy like Bradford a ton of money on his rookie deal, but at that particular time, there wasn't a gigantic pay jump between Contract #1 and Contract #2. So the incentive to play him was the same, because the pay increase simply wasn't there.

These days, the reason you pretty much have to play a 1st round pick early is because IF they turn out to be good, you can't afford to waste a year or two of them on a rookie deal. The prime design of ANY franchise is to get a franchise-level QB on a rookie deal, so you can load up the rest of the talent around him and win a SB before he gets paid $25M a year.

Basically, if you took somebody like Goff or Wentz and let them sit for 2 years behind a veteran, they wouldn't even start to be good until at least year 3-4 of their rookie deal, which means you've wasted the prime "value" years of them. Basically, you'll have them for 2 years before you have to give them like a $15M a year pay bump.

So while the rookie QBs back then were getting "paid more" in terms of not having a rookie wage gap, the amounts they were being paid were also pretty close to market level rates for the upper echelon QBs, so it didn't matter if they couldn't play for a year or two... there wasn't much lost value there.

Now, in general, this tends to be a moot point. Most of your good 1st round QBs are going in like the top 5-10 picks these days, and the teams that are picking there typically don't have a respectable veteran on their roster to even play QB, so it doesn't make sense to make these guys sit anyway.

Eagles thought the same thing last year... lets let him sit behind Bradford and develop. Then the quickly realized that Wentz was a little further along than they suspected, and the value of him sitting wasn't there. Deshaun Watson is in a similar mold, and I suspect you'll see Trubisky before Thanksgiving also.

**JimZipCode** · 09-19-2017, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by The Excellector

Ryan would not have been nearly as successful here in Baltimore, playing far more often in the elements, against far better defenses and with significantly less surrounding talent for the early years of his career. On the flip side, imagine if Atlanta had drafted Flacco.

If the Ravens and Falcons had flip-flopped QBs, and somehow the Ravens also had got Ray Rice in that draft; and their drafts the next couple years had remained the same; then the Ravens would have 2 or 3 SB trophies from 2008-16, and the Falcons would still have zero.

**Ravenswintitle** · 09-19-2017, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by Money227

I think that's a little harsh, but I agree that not trading has certainly worked out for the Ravens.

It sounds like someone who doesn't watch other teams. If not for a shitty kicker the Chargers would be undefeated. Pitiful luck. Ryan still looks as good as last year, despite Shanny leaving.

**bravens23** · 09-19-2017, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by Ravenswintitle

It sounds like someone who doesn't watch other teams. If not for a shitty kicker the Chargers would be undefeated. Pitiful luck. Ryan still looks as good as last year, despite Shanny leaving.

How is having a bad kicker considered to be "bad luck"?

Failure to execute on your job responsibilities isn't, nor should it ever be considered, "bad luck".

**Ciurca** · 09-19-2017, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by Money227

..ended up being Paul Kruger...... I'm personally happy the deal didn't go through.

OT, but I'm surprised Kruger is out of the NFL. No one has signed him this year, correct?

**Money227** · 09-19-2017, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by bravens23

How is having a bad kicker considered to be "bad luck"?

Failure to execute on your job responsibilities isn't, nor should it ever be considered, "bad luck".

You pick the weirdest things to nitpick on. Either way, his point is that it's not accurate to simply say that Rivers and Ryan are "perennial losers" and leave it at that.