Page 15 of 19 FirstFirst ... 1314151617 ... LastLast
Results 169 to 180 of 219
  1. #169

    Re: Ravens NOT signing Brockers

    Quote Originally Posted by TDL1000 View Post
    I'm glad they were able to get out of the deal just wish they had more options at this point.
    Should've signed Schobert. A young FA who could grow with the defense. Last offseason the splash move was signing a 30 year old safety and this offseason a 33 year old lineman.

    Sent from my SM-J700T1 using Tapatalk
    Actually I'd rather have the space now then before because we will get much more bang for our buck. Wolfe will probably be just as good and get a fraction of the contract. Poe who in my opinion is better just signed a one year deal with the boys. There is still Snacks out there if we need a pure run stuffer. As well as Shelby Harris. Dareus is still out there available on a prove it deal.

    Then there is the draft. Paying 10m for a run stuffer is always a dumb idea unless he is a transformative player which Brockers was not. The question is does his cap money give enough to make a couple of moves or because his deal was backloaded and most of the guys left probably are looking at 1yr deals are we sort of stuck paying the same (in the shortterm) for a lesser version. I dunno but I want to take our chances there is enough good players out there we should be able to nab at least one and at the very least we'll save a bunch of money in future years.





  2. #170
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    15,221

    Re: Ravens NOT signing Brockers

    Quote Originally Posted by Pshawww View Post
    Sweet baby Jesus this board is getting salty and I love it
    Me too. I'm seeing posters grow right before my eyes.






  3. Re: Ravens NOT signing Brockers

    I didn't really like Brockers anyway, I'm glad we gave him the Ryan Grant treatment
    You guys wanna hear a funny joke?

    DEAN PEES............That is all





  4. Re: Ravens NOT signing Brockers

    EDC is in over his head





  5. #173
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Westminster, Md
    Posts
    918

    Re: Ravens NOT signing Brockers

    https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...leonard-floyd/

    This is the reason why I believe the Ravens are up to something. They could have easily waited to give Brockers a physical by their teams doctor's when they are allowed to. What was the rush to make this decision
    ? There was to be another deal in works....





  6. #174

    Re: Ravens NOT signing Brockers

    Quote Originally Posted by boller4president View Post
    Actually I'd rather have the space now then before because we will get much more bang for our buck. Wolfe will probably be just as good and get a fraction of the contract. Poe who in my opinion is better just signed a one year deal with the boys. There is still Snacks out there if we need a pure run stuffer. As well as Shelby Harris. Dareus is still out there available on a prove it deal.

    Then there is the draft. Paying 10m for a run stuffer is always a dumb idea unless he is a transformative player which Brockers was not. The question is does his cap money give enough to make a couple of moves or because his deal was backloaded and most of the guys left probably are looking at 1yr deals are we sort of stuck paying the same (in the shortterm) for a lesser version. I dunno but I want to take our chances there is enough good players out there we should be able to nab at least one and at the very least we'll save a bunch of money in future years.
    Seems to me The Ravens wanted to add more pass rush juice to their defensive line and get faster without substituting their ability to defend against the run. Having Micheal Pierce and Brandon Williams start at the same time may have been great at defending against the run and keeping the inside linebackers clean along with occupying space to allow others to get after the quarterback but neither could get after the passer consistently. They probably would get worn down faster then a defensive linemen that is 280 or 300 pounds as well. So The Ravens potentially signing Micheal Brocker would have not only gave them a solid run defender but he also could get after the passer better than some if not all of our defensive linemen last year if not mistake. Brocker versatility would have been beneficial as well because Micheal Pierce and Brandon Williams are better suited as nose tackles. Having a guy like Brandon Williams lining at the 3 technique isn't ideal for him atleast not consistently.


    Derek Wolfe( PFF grade is 68.9 overall in 2019) has only had 3 healthy seasons in his eight year career and he may have had a career year sack wise last year but sacks numbers don't always mean the player is better or tell the a whole story.He also wouldn't be versatile or as stout against the run as Brocker if not mistake. Dontari Poe( PFF grade was 71.2 overall in 2019) had 4 sacks last year and hasn't been a bad player throughout his career but he wasn't better than Micheal Brocker last year according to PFF. Damon Harrison or Snack Harrison(PFF grade was 63.2 overall in 2019) isn't the type of defensive linemen The Ravens would envision having to start along side Brandon Williams and he had a down year last year.


    Marcell Dareus( PFF grade was 62.6 overall in 2019) is again another guy I don't think The Ravens ideally want starting next to Brandon Williams because he's nothing but another big defensive linemen that doesn't have the ability to get after the passer consistently at this point in his career atleast not as well as Micheal Brockers to my understanding. Overall the only defensive linemen you mention that had a better overall grade than Brockers who could have been just as versatile was Shelby Harris(PFF Grade was 76.8 overall in 2019)but he was re-signed by The Broncos yesterday.

    I don't think anyone should panic over The Ravens missing out on Micheal Brockers(PFF was 74.6 overall in 2019) but I don't think it's wise to brush it off by saying he was just a run stopper it's no big deal. Brocker would have been helpful for The Ravens but the players you mention outside of Shelby Harris don't seem like upgrades from Micheal Pierce or even Micheal Brockers for that matter. Some if not most of them didn't have a healthy 2019 season and weren't as good as in years past in 2019.





  7. #175

    Re: Ravens NOT signing Brockers

    Quote Originally Posted by jhoff66 View Post
    https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...leonard-floyd/

    This is the reason why I believe the Ravens are up to something. They could have easily waited to give Brockers a physical by their teams doctor's when they are allowed to. What was the rush to make this decision
    ? There was to be another deal in works....
    The way this virus is going around in America and the fact that The NFL draft is coming up soon there really is no telling when The Ravens team doctor could examine Micheal Brockers and it's not easy to wait on this matter because The Ravens could end up drafting a player that may be potentially just as good or better than Micheal Brockers and by that time The Ravens themselves could change their contract offer to Brockers which could force his hand because by that time most players don't receive big contracts after the draft.

    It's smart for Brockers Agent to push for a deal to be finalize because at the end of the day it is his or her job to make sure their client receives the best contract offer available. I bet The Ravens wish they could have waited on this matter but it's possible it was Brockers agent that was pushing for the deal to get done and it's also makes sense alot of sense to have other options available just in case the deal breaks though which was the case since The LA Rams had a deal available for Brockers.





  8. #176

    Re: Ravens NOT signing Brockers

    Quote Originally Posted by jhoff66 View Post
    https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...leonard-floyd/

    This is the reason why I believe the Ravens are up to something. They could have easily waited to give Brockers a physical by their teams doctor's when they are allowed to. What was the rush to make this decision
    ? There was to be another deal in works....
    There was. It was Suh, but that fell through and he returned to Tampa.

    There’s still options, such as Dareus. But I think Suh was their first choice.





  9. Re: Ravens NOT signing Brockers

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazz1988 View Post
    Seems to me The Ravens wanted to add more pass rush juice to their defensive line and get faster without substituting their ability to defend against the run.
    Good post Jazz.

    What about Mike Daniels to fit that run stuffer with pass rush ability role?

    He was very good in his prime and it's been injuries more than a drop of in talent that have hurt him. He's only 30 so, while it might be age, it could also be a run of bad luck. He's injured one foot, then the other, then an arm in the past 2 years but he's apparently played well when he has been on the field. (PFF 70.1 last season) In a poll on this Detroit Lions site only 13% of their fans didn't want him back at any price which suggests that he was pretty good despite the injuries. https://www.prideofdetroit.com/2020/...s-mike-daniels

    We've seen Suggs and Yanda return from injuries to play well at more advanced ages. I'm not saying he's that good but he has a higher upside than anyone else on the market if he returns to form.





  10. #178

    Re: Ravens NOT signing Brockers

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazz1988 View Post
    The way this virus is going around in America and the fact that The NFL draft is coming up soon there really is no telling when The Ravens team doctor could examine Micheal Brockers and it's not easy to wait on this matter because The Ravens could end up drafting a player that may be potentially just as good or better than Micheal Brockers and by that time The Ravens themselves could change their contract offer to Brockers which could force his hand because by that time most players don't receive big contracts after the draft.

    It's smart for Brockers Agent to push for a deal to be finalize because at the end of the day it is his or her job to make sure their client receives the best contract offer available. I bet The Ravens wish they could have waited on this matter but it's possible it was Brockers agent that was pushing for the deal to get done and it's also makes sense alot of sense to have other options available just in case the deal breaks though which was the case since The LA Rams had a deal available for Brockers.
    Steve's got a jet....an exam shouldn't have been a big deal.

    Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
    Way Down South in New Orleans





  11. Re: Ravens NOT signing Brockers

    Shelby Harris resigned with Denver for 1 year $3.5 million.





  12. #180

    Re: Ravens NOT signing Brockers

    Quote Originally Posted by TuxRavens View Post
    Shelby Harris resigned with Denver for 1 year $3.5 million.
    I guess we weren't very interested.
    Although Walsh's system of offense can compensate for lack of talent; however, defense is a different story. According to Walsh, talent on defense was essential and could not be compensated for. What did Walsh do in 1981? He acquired physical and talented players on defense.





Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Link To Mobile Site