Low Risk / High Reward Signings

[@SumthingObvious]

Earl Thomas was a good signing. Who are the other guys on this roster that have been taken in FA that have produced though? We basically have none. Carr? That’s the only one that has produced for this team that is still currently on it.

Weddle did (think he was a cut tho like Crabtree).... Jefferson has produced....first year was rough but we can see that Pees was using him in a role that didn't really fit what he really brings...

Snead was a FA signing that has been a solid signing.... John Brown was a decent FA was only a 1 year deal... Forsett was a FA signing that produced for a time.

where have you been the last 20 years? This team has and historically been built through the draft and UDFA's.... a splash signing here and there to bolster but this isnt a team that is moving and shaking at the start of FA. If there is a player they want they will go get them..... Jefferson, Thomas, Ingram in the last two FA periods. I am thankful for a team that builds their team through the draft and does what they can to keep their own (they usually have a solid track record of doing so).

[Ravens4Real]

Show me a player the Ravens have picked up this offseason from someone's garbage heap that is expected to start. Can you name any? If not, I fail to see what you're railing against here.

These are just camp bodies that will fill a roll. If they work out, even better.

How exactly do you know none of them will start? None of them have all pros in front of them to compete against. Every one of these guys have either average NFL starters in front of them or complete unknowns.

[InigoMontoya]

How exactly do you know none of them will start? None of them have all pros in front of them to compete against. Every one of these guys have either average NFL starters in front of them or complete unknowns.

They could wow everyone and start. Sure. My point was that none of these players is *expected* to start. They're off the scrap heap, but they're not expected by anyone to play.

[JimZipCode]

These dudes are near the end of their careers and simply aren’t very good football players. They need to stop signing these types of guys.

If I'm not mistaken, DeCosta has still only added one guy over 30 to the roster.

• The old man of the free-agent additions is McPhee, who just turned 30 at the end of this past season. One year deal.
• Earl Thomas was still 29 when he signed his deal, though he has since had his birthday (last week).
• Ingram turned 29 this past December.

I fucking LOVE that. Ozzie had a lot of trust & affection for the older player. Too much, in my opinion. DeCosta seems to have a colder, clearer eye about age and productivity. The only guy over 30 that DeCosta has signed, there are extremely solid reasons for making an exception: a player who spent years here, whom they know very well, and who knows exactly what the expectations are and what the area is like. No question whatsoever about "fit" or about "adjustment period" or anything like that. Also zero commitment, a cheap one-year deal.

It looks like, for the most part DeCosta simply isn't going to sign anybody over 30. Maybe an exceptional case like McPhee once in a while. Maybe a stop-gap rental to cover an in-season injury. Hell, I suppose an eye-popping name could shake loose at pass rusher come final cutdowns, like Dumervil did back in '13: a guy too good to pass up. But otherwise, seems like DeCosta just isn't looking to add older players to the team. The only old guys we'll have on the team are the home-grown ones we've decided to keep.

That's awesome. I think this, all by itself, is going to make us a more resilient, less brittle roster. A little more injury-resistant. A little more upside. A little tougher in November & December. A little better.

[Laxdad24]

As far as Ray and Bostic goes ...I’m in. They fit a need and Ray is young. With Wink here I fully trust this team to field the BEST they have to offer. McPhee is a joke. Wink prob liked him when he was here and wants to see if he can squeeze a few sacks outa him. To that same thinking ..I don’t think Wink is as high on Bowser and T Will as many on this board. I could see us grabbing some other late / camp cuts at the LB spot.

Floyd is better than every receiver not named Snead on this team. Moore is a JAG , Roberts is a ST guy. The rookies are just that ..unproven rookies. Last yrs draft picks at WR are a bad reminder of how much that regime didn’t value offense.


“You gonna do something .....or just stand there and bleed” Wyatt Earp

[JimZipCode]

Floyd is better than every receiver not named Snead on this team.

Floyd used to be better than every receiver not named Snead on this team. I doubt it's still true. Maybe very early in OTAs, as the young players get their feet under them.

[GreatWhiteNorthRaven]

We have not failed to consistently win over the last 4 years because of our depth signings.

We have failed to consistently win over the last 4 years becasue of the lack of elite talent.

These types of signings do nothing to address the elite talent, therefore, they are not at the ready for or against why we have had up and down years.

These were depth signings and camp bodies. I just happen to like them because they fit the scheme, which is something I've argued about Ozzie in recent years (he wasnt bringing in guys that fit our scheme all of the time - sometimes, yes).

I just honestly can't see how someone would dislike these. But hey can't please everyone i guess.

[GreatWhiteNorthRaven]

I'd also add that there's a very real possibility none of these guys make the team lol. Which is why it's low risk.

But the upside is there and I'd rather roll the dice with these guys than UDFA's.

[JimZipCode]

...not proven as a player at several spots...

I just want to point out this language. Usually:

"not proven as a player" = "young with upside"
"proven as a player" = "old"

I think that teams are usually better when they give extended opportunities to guys who are "not proven as a player," even to the extent of making spots theirs to lose (cf Ronnie Stanley in '16), than when they insist on only starting guys who are "proven as a player". Especially in football, where the productive span is so short for a player.

There's a zillion exceptions. QBs nowadays seem to last forever; at least, the HOF-level ones. WRs bust with extremely high frequency. Maybe pass rushers too? So what I'm saying, don't bother to list all the old guys who are good players. I'm aware. It's still the percentage play to assume that young players are likely to improve and older players are likely to decline.

Every Hall of Famer was once a quy who was not proven as a player.

[Doctor]

I just want to point out this language. Usually:

"not proven as a player" = "young with upside"
"proven as a player" = "old"

I think that teams are usually better when they give extended opportunities to guys who are "not proven as a player," even to the extent of making spots theirs to lose (cf Ronnie Stanley in '16), than when they insist on only starting guys who are "proven as a player". Especially in football, where the productive span is so short for a player.

There's a zillion exceptions. QBs nowadays seem to last forever; at least, the HOF-level ones. WRs bust with extremely high frequency. Maybe pass rushers too? So what I'm saying, don't bother to list all the old guys who are good players. I'm aware. It's still the percentage play to assume that young players are likely to improve and older players are likely to decline.

Every Hall of Famer was once a quy who was not proven as a player.

I don't disagree, and if Kenny Young and Peanut flourish in an expanded role, Jon Bostic wouldn't see the field...but if Young looks lost, or Peanut doesn't take another step (or someone gets hurt), I'd be glad to have Bostic as opposed to no one.

[GreatWhiteNorthRaven]

I don't disagree, and if Kenny Young and Peanut flourish in an expanded role, Jon Bostic wouldn't see the field...but if Young looks lost, or Peanut doesn't take another step (or someone gets hurt), I'd be glad to have Bostic as opposed to no one.

Last year when Mosley was hurting (around the Carolina game). Wink used a rotation of the 3. I think a rotation would work really well with Bostic. All 3 would be playing ST's and you'd have 3 compliemntary skillsets. That's the reason I like the signing (if they ink him - I dont think he's inked yet).

Wink can rotate based on situation, which he showed the ability to do. if this was Dean Pees' defense I'd hate it because you know Dean would put him out in hook coverage and expect him to make a play.

[GreatWhiteNorthRaven]

I guess here's my question. We lacked depth and even camp bodies at ILB and OLB.

So who did you guys, who don't like these moves, want to see?

Rather than bitch, let's find some solutions. What should they have done differently?