New Beginnings

[factmeister]

The Ravens now under a new coaching staff can go in one of 2 directions.
The most popular way is to do some rebuilding while attempting to motivate the veterans for a return to the 2006 season form.
I would prefer that we follow the Ernie Accorsi lead Giants blueprint of 2004 and go out and get a franchise QB for future SB runs.
If we take that approach, then we can plan ahead for the 2010/11 seasons when our new QB should begin to hit his stride.
Troy Smith is too short to win a SB.
In fact,no QB has won it who is shorter than 6'4",since Kurt Warner at 6'3" according to the Pro Football encyclopedia.
I would certainly offer any veteran including Suggs with his 8M cap hit to move up in the draft to get Matt Ryan(unless Brian Brohm is his equal).
Remember,the Giants in effect gave up Merriman to get Eli Manning.
It is far better to rebuild possibly a year too soon,than a year too late.
To quote Herm Edwards,"you play to win the game".
I say you rebuild to win Superbowls
Next year we will be facing franchise QB's in 3/4 of our games.
The Steeler fans think that they dodged a bullitt,when their team lost to us,thereby possibly moving us behind Atlanta in the draft.
I would rather lose next year with Matt Ryan on the bench than watch us still struggle with that extra immediate impact player in the draft.I say let's go for it.

[Mista T]

I would agree with your logic except for two very big exceptions:

(1) the Ravens have too many other 1st and 2nd round draft needs, with an aging defense, ineffective pass rush, and mediocre OL

(2) I don't think that Ryan is a prospective franchise QB. There should be better QB values in the lower rounds, e.g. Brennan, Flacco, possibly André Woodson.

[HoustonRaven]

Hi factmeister, welcome to the boards. Im going to allow you to see my surly attitude right away ...


The Ravens now under a new coaching staff can go in one of 2 directions.
The most popular way is to do some rebuilding while attempting to motivate the veterans for a return to the 2006 season form.

Most popular? And how do you both rebuild and keep veterans under the cap era?


I would prefer that we follow the Ernie Accorsi lead Giants blueprint of 2004 and go out and get a franchise QB for future SB runs.
If we take that approach, then we can plan ahead for the 2010/11 seasons when our new QB should begin to hit his stride.

How do you make a spash in the QB market this year when we're in cap jail? We're restructuring Heaps contract so we can sign Suggs. After that, we 're tapped out. Most mock drafts have us picking a QB in the first round, I will give you that, but in order to do so, it's going to take more then just the re-working of a TE. Some veterans are going to have to either restructure or retire. With the office's statement that they think they have a solid core team, rebuilding in that manner is not in the cards this season.


Troy Smith is too short to win a SB. In fact,no QB has won it who is shorter than 6'4",since Kurt Warner at 6'3" according to the Pro Football encyclopedia.

Wasnt aware of the height requirement to win the SB. Smith's future is unknown, but he played with one of the largest offensive lines while at Ohio State. There havnt been any 6'10" SB winning QB's either. That stat is completely anecdotal and dismisses Troy's other on-field talents.


I would certainly offer any veteran including Suggs with his 8M cap hit to move up in the draft to get Matt Ryan(unless Brian Brohm is his equal). Remember,the Giants in effect gave up Merriman to get Eli Manning. It is far better to rebuild possibly a year too soon,than a year too late.

Maybe you missed it in the papers but we're keeping Suggs next year, even if it has to be via franchise tag. The $8 Million cap hit is going to happen regardless. NOw we may get a home town discount from Suggs since he says he wants to stay a Raven, but it wont count much towards cap savings.


To quote Herm Edwards,"you play to win the game". I say you rebuild to win Superbowls

In the cap era, when has rebuilding ever truly be the reason for a SB win? Take a peek at the last 5 SB champions -- Pats, Colts, Steelers, Bucs, Giants. 4 out of 5 of those teams specifically did NOT rebuild and instead relied upon key free agent signings and building the franchise around key long-term players (Giants being the only team coming off a rebuild in 2002). I guess you can say we rebuilt, but being winning the SB so close to our inaugural year, how can you make that argument? When we tried a team-gutting in 2003, it wasnt a very good experiment. Since the beginning of the cap, the teams that opt for cap management tend to make the playoffs more consistently over the teams that blow themselves up due to cap issues.

[ExiledRaven]

Pretty fair assessment Houston.

And it's not Drew Brees' (6') fault that his defense is terrible. The colts had the same problem. And it's not like a whopping 2 more inches is what made Steve Young and Joe Montana superstars.

I thought Bob Sanders was too small to play safety, hence him being in the middle second round?

Barry Sanders was too short, same with Maurice Jones-Drew.

It's going to be interesting. Smith has potential, but it's a big uncertainty as to if he can take it to the next level. However, it is exciting to see that he has "it" in terms of being a great leader and the ability to generally stay calm in the pocket. I'm excited to see what happens with the new coaching staff to evaluate players, scheme etc.

Fact is, there are a lot of nice building blocks on the team right now. Most of the problems, outside everyone freaking out about QB, are depth related. So getting that De, CB - they'll be rotation or 3rd/4th cb. Going to be an exciting draft and offseason. I'm stoked at the quality of the staff.

[HoustonRaven]

ER & T ... agree with you both.

Its just as much a crap shoot and statistical even if we go late for a QB then if we go early for one.

Brady was a late pick, Manning was an early pick .... and I can site a ton of other examples.

We do have a solid core of players and can make a run IF we stay clear of injuries and our excellent on-paper coaching staff becomes an excellent on-field coaching staff.

[BArellano]

It simply doesn't make any sense to draft a QB at 8 this year. Matt Ryan will be gone, and Brohm is not worth the 8th pick. And who's to say they would turn into this "franchise quarterback" that everyone talks about anyway. The odds of a DE or CB pick working out are far greater. Plus, Troy at least deserves a chance to prove himself. The height argument is BS. A few inches do not make a great QB. Let him play, and he'll finish the argument for us.

[jonboy79]

How do you make a spash in the QB market this year when we're in cap jail? We're restructuring Heaps contract so we can sign Suggs. After that, we 're tapped out. Most mock drafts have us picking a QB in the first round, I will give you that, but in order to do so, it's going to take more then just the re-working of a TE. Some veterans are going to have to either restructure or retire. With the office's statement that they think they have a solid core team, rebuilding in that manner is not in the cards this season.
.


The first year cap hit for a QB picked at 8 would likely be VERY Clsoe to $2m. The cap hit for a CB or DE at that same pick would be VERY close to $2m. We could draft a Long Snapper at the position and the cap hit would be the same. The only difference beign a QB makes is is in Guarantees, late year salaries, and performance bonuses.

The FO has completely FAILED if we are sittign after the draft with no QB better then Colt Brennan taken... Day 1 QB or bust. Maybe, Maybe , MAYBE I won't be too disheartened if one of the top 7 slips to the end of three and we select one there. Booty or Woodson with "basically" a 4th round pick isn't so bad. I think I'd rather Finnerty trot out ther ein purple then Colt Brennan...

[HoustonRaven]

The FO has completely FAILED if we are sittign after the draft with no QB better then Colt Brennan taken... Day 1 QB or bust. Maybe, Maybe , MAYBE I won't be too disheartened if one of the top 7 slips to the end of three and we select one there. Booty or Woodson with "basically" a 4th round pick isn't so bad. I think I'd rather Finnerty trot out ther ein purple then Colt Brennan...

Why is it a failure? Because we didnt make a "sexy" pick?

Look at the higher end QB's in this league and its a whos-who of when they were drafted. There is no rhyme or reason. We can just as easily get a franchsise QB in the 5th round as we can in the 1st if this trend continues.

Given the current landscape in the NFL, I would be happier with a Day 4 QB at a discount then a cap-buster day 1 QB. Both are just as untested.

[jonboy79]

Why is it a failure? Because we didnt make a "sexy" pick?

Look at the higher end QB's in this league and its a whos-who of when they were drafted. There is no rhyme or reason. We can just as easily get a franchsise QB in the 5th round as we can in the 1st if this trend continues.

Given the current landscape in the NFL, I would be happier with a Day 4 QB at a discount then a cap-buster day 1 QB. Both are just as untested.



Sexy? That's what I'm looking for? No I'm looking for Wins. On a 5-11 team, we had the #6 overall defense. I think we lost the game on offense. There is nothing that would turn the fate of this franchise more then a great QB. At this point I'll settle for average.

Sure, we can just as easily get our Franchise QB by drafting one late and letting him develop. Ok so we drafted one late last year, draft three more this year, three more next year and three the year after. From all of that, I bet we have one good QB 5 years from now. Or, we could draft a day 1 guy and have a 50% chance at having a good one by 2009... We don't have time to Fart around and take day 2 guys that maybe sort could one day be, we need to tzke a guy who SHOULD be. There is no such thing as a sure thing, there are simply odds, and you play them when they are good.

If you play any poker, the more times you get someone to chase you down with 1in 3 odds or worse the better you'll do. You will lose from time to time, but over time, if you are on the positive side of the odds, you will win.
So back to football, Brady is the 2-9 that flopped 2, 2, 9. Just becuase it hits doesn't mean you should model your game after it. You can chase flushes and "live cards" all night, I'll play my early two pair aggressive every time.

Given the "current landscape" in the NFL, the only go as far as your QB can take you. I like watching playoff games, perhaps even Super Bowls.

[ExiledRaven]

Well, frankly, the scary thing you hear leading into the draft and they talk about Flacco being "one of the few QBs in this class that can make all the throws" disturbs me a bit.

There are also some unknowns. It's safe to say we've all written off Steven McNair. The team clearly has not, what if he's all worked out and ready to go? Then you've got three pretty solid guys plus you're still got Finnerty sitting around who would, at least, be a very solid long term backup plan.

Let's face it, there is a real chance that the Ravens might not go QB at all day one, depending on the evaluation of Mac9, Boller, and Smith. Who knows, they might think they'll find something in those three.

Time will tell.

[HoustonRaven]

jonboy,

I play poker as well and ANY QB can be tagged with that analogy, no matter when they were drafted. The early drafted QB's are having just as much success and failure as the ones drafted late -- and that's my whole point.

And your odds argument doesnt fly either, IMO. There are no better odds of success in drafting early than drafting late when it comes to the current QB market. Only difference is cost.

This may be a moot argument anyway. We shall see!

[jonboy79]

jonboy,

I play poker as well and ANY QB can be tagged with that analogy, no matter when they were drafted. The early drafted QB's are having just as much success and failure as the ones drafted late -- and that's my whole point.

And your odds argument doesnt fly either, IMO. There are no better odds of success in drafting early than drafting late when it comes to the current QB market. Only difference is cost.

This may be a moot argument anyway. We shall see!


Except that your statement was flat out innacurate. Roughly half of first round QB's work out. That much is infrequently argued. Those 2nd day QB's that have morphed into solid starting QB's has been roughly 1 per year for the last decade. That is about 15% or so. I think there is a big difference in those numbers. If not, we should play poker some time.

[RavenScallywag]

Can I play court jester for a minute?

A DAY 4 PICK! At 3 rounds Day 1, 4 rounds Day 2, we're talking a 11-15th round pick! I think the equivalent there would be us taking Juan Dixon from MD and converting him into a RB. :banana:

All kidding aside, I'm personally rooting for 2nd/3rd round QBs. I'm not crazy about a QB in round 1, unless we trade down and honestly I'm not in love with Brian Brohm at QB. Brohm may well be a good QB in time, but I just think his status is heightened by where he played. Flacco and Henne seems like great picks, I'd be intrigued with a Woodson, Booty, or Ainge pick. Colt Brennan would be awesome in name only (Merging the Colts and Ravens), don't want him here other than that.

If the top 7 are gone, I'd be okay with us taking a shot on a Dennis Dixon or Anthony Morelli as a project pick, but mainly because they are low risk, high reward. If we go into next season with the same 3 at QB, I won't be suprised or angry...I don't want us to throw money at any FA QB, and by trading, we handcuff ourselves in the future, in terms of money and draft picks.

[HoustonRaven]

Except that your statement was flat out innacurate. Roughly half of first round QB's work out. That much is infrequently argued. Those 2nd day QB's that have morphed into solid starting QB's has been roughly 1 per year for the last decade. That is about 15% or so. I think there is a big difference in those numbers. If not, we should play poker some time.

You need to define your terms then .... what meats the standard or "working out" or "solid starting QB's"?

For every Manning, Bledsoe, McNair, McNabb, Vick there are gems like Ryan Leaf, David Klingler, Dave Brown, Rick Mirer, Heath Schuler, Jim Drunkenmiller, Tim Couch, Akili Smith, Cade McNown, Patrick Ramsey .... need I go on ?

So yes, lets please play poker. My prefered game is Omaha high-low.

[jonboy79]

You need to define your terms then .... what meats the standard or "working out" or "solid starting QB's"?

For every Manning, Bledsoe, McNair, McNabb, Vick there are gems like Ryan Leaf, David Klingler, Dave Brown, Rick Mirer, Heath Schuler, Jim Drunkenmiller, Tim Couch, Akili Smith, Cade McNown, Patrick Ramsey .... need I go on ?

So yes, lets please play poker. My prefered game is Omaha high-low.


You still miss the point, while you are standing on top of it. For every Bledsoe there is a Mirer... but for every Brady there are nearly a dozen other guys in his shoes... You might as well lump all 4th or later QB's together, including UDFA's, and you'll have everything from Kurt Warner, to drafted guys that never saw a roster. But what you are going to see is literally DOZENS of failures for every success.
My point, is, has been, and will be that we need help at QB ASAP. We have a geriatric ex-MVP that from what I can tell is dunksy, A never has been ex first round pick about to complete his second contract, and a late day 1 rookie from last year, who despite wild inaccuracy, showed some poise, and lead a previously DEFEATED team to a late season victory. We cannot afford to hope and pray or whatever. There are no available vets, and I hope we never pick this high again. We need to use our opportunity to take that franchise QB we are always pining over.

[HoustonRaven]

You still miss the point, while you are standing on top of it. For every Bledsoe there is a Mirer... but for every Brady there are nearly a dozen other guys in his shoes... You might as well lump all 4th or later QB's together, including UDFA's, and you'll have everything from Kurt Warner, to drafted guys that never saw a roster. But what you are going to see is literally DOZENS of failures for every success.
My point, is, has been, and will be that we need help at QB ASAP. We have a geriatric ex-MVP that from what I can tell is dunksy, A never has been ex first round pick about to complete his second contract, and a late day 1 rookie from last year, who despite wild inaccuracy, showed some poise, and lead a previously DEFEATED team to a late season victory. We cannot afford to hope and pray or whatever. There are no available vets, and I hope we never pick this high again. We need to use our opportunity to take that franchise QB we are always pining over.

I think you might want to go back and read my posts. I agree with 99%everything you say here.

Im not advocating a high pick, late pick or any pick for that matter. Im a "best player available" guy and believe over time, that has proven to give a team the best chance at success, IMO. Over the past 17 years, QB's in the early rounds are having as much success as QB's drafted in the later rounds.

[factmeister]

If we want to be a possible playoff team,then skip the QB pick which is risky and play for 2008.
However,if you want to make a run at the SB,then take the chance,and go all out to get Matt Ryan.
Yes the Chargers,Colts and Bengals,missed with Smith,Klinger,Leaf,and George before getting their Palmer,Manning,and Rivers.
If we want to be one and done like the Buccaneers,then go for an average NFL veteran, or keep what we have.
If we go for it,then we should clean house and look to hit our stride in 3 years like the Giants.
This means clearing cap space for 2010.
The Giants developed their off. line after Eli came on board.
I don't think that we should invest the next 2 seasons playing Troy Smith,
unless Cam Cameron thinks that he can be the first 5'11"QB to win a SB.
Again,the recent SB qb winners are 6'-4".
Lack of height is not a problem for other positions,but qb. may be an exception.
Doug Flutie had the skills to make a poor team average,but not win a SB.
I say let's do it right and build for 2010 with Matt Ryan.
Remember,big Ben isn't going anywhere.
It's truly an arms race where we are coming up short.
Matty Ice with his exceptional work ethic ,leadership and accuracy could be a real threat to match big Ben's Steeler's offense for the next decade.

[HoustonRaven]

I really wish you would clarify your your position instead of simply repeating your first post.


If we want to be a possible playoff team,then skip the QB pick which is risky and play for 2008.
However,if you want to make a run at the SB,then take the chance,and go all out to get Matt Ryan.

How does picking Ryan (or any one player) give us a SB chance? By that logic, you're basically saying that because we picked Jamal Lewis in 2000, that gave us a chance at the SB. Sure, he was damn valuable that season, but one player does not make a team a SB contender.


Yes the Chargers,Colts and Bengals,missed with Smith,Klinger,Leaf,and George before getting their Palmer,Manning,and Rivers.
If we want to be one and done like the Buccaneers,then go for an average NFL veteran, or keep what we have.
If we go for it,then we should clean house and look to hit our stride in 3 years like the Giants.

huh? Again, what do you base this on?


This means clearing cap space for 2010.

Again, please show me examples of when a cap gutting resulted in a SB contending team? The Pats, Colts, Steelers etc remain contenders every year because they specifically do NOT have cap purges. They are the examples we shold be follwing, not teams that "rebuild" every 3-4 years due to cap issues.


I don't think that we should invest the next 2 seasons playing Troy Smith,
unless Cam Cameron thinks that he can be the first 5'11"QB to win a SB.
Again,the recent SB qb winners are 6'-4".

So? Again, what does height have to do with it .... there were two dudes on Ohio State O line that were 6'5" and Troy had no more or less batted balls then other QB's. He has very sound mechanics. Plus, who said we were going to use him anyway? Harbaugh has stated publicly it will be an open job -- maybe you missed that in the papers as well?


Remember,big Ben isn't going anywhere.

What does another teams QB have to do with the cost of coffee at Starbucks? Last time I checked, QB's dont play head to head during games. I might be wrong on that one but QB's play against a defense.


It's truly an arms race where we are coming up short.

Does Adam Shefter know you stole his line from NFL Access the other night?


Matty Ice with his exceptional work ethic ,leadership and accuracy could be a real threat to match big Ben's Steeler's offense for the next decade.

Clearly you like Ryan. He is a talented QB, no doubt there. But take a quick look at 99% of the mock drafts and you will see we have almost no shot at getting Ryan, given our current cap situation. No one player is EVER worth the kind of cap gutting you'd need to move down and snag him. We would be cutting off our nose in spite of our face and there are many other QB's in this draft that will fit well in our system.

[RavenScallywag]

Going after Ryan represents a decision that stakes the next 5-6 years of our football team...

First, to move from 8th to 3rd (he's expected to fall no further than Hotlanta)..Using the draft pick value chart that is generally used in evaluating draft pick trades (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft06/news/story?id=2410670) the 3rd pick is valued at 2200 points, whereas our pick is valued at 1400. Even if we throw in our 2nd round, we're still 300 points short. So that trade would likely be 3rd pick for our 1st, 2nd, and next year's 1st round pick in the draft. So right away, not only is this draft class staked heavily on Matt Ryan, but so is next year's, with no 1st round pick (Think of the 2004 draft that netted us Dwan Edwards, DVD, and 5 others that are currently either out of the league or headed there). Moving into the 1st round, or up in the first round, is a major handcuff in the next year's draft and those effects are felt years after, as can be shown by our depth in DL this year.

Secondly, by investing that heavily in Ryan, you are also making personell decisions for the next 5-6 years. Boller, gone. McNair, gone. Troy Smith, probably gone in a few years if he thinks he can be a starter...only stays if we up the money a bit, ala Garrard. You're also saying that down the road, when the bulk of his contract hits, you won't be so eager to consider a Day 1 QB, among other things. Case in point, look at Cleveland now. Yes, they want to resign Derek Anderson, but they also won't break the bank because in 2-3 years, that'd be two QBs with huge salaries, and they know they can't afford to do it. Getting Matt Ryan in here basically assures us that he's going to be our guy for the next 5-6 years, unless we want to screw up our finances.

As we can see with Billick, that kind of move will handcuff the QB's success or failure with a coach. If Ryan doesn't develop well, Harbaugh is gone in a few years. No one came out and said Billick's firing had anything to do with Boller's failure to develop, but I think we can all agree that was somewhat of a factor in it.

My point in all of this is I'm not so sure about Ryan's future. He's hands down the best QB this year, but I wonder if his stock is improved because he's better than the Andre Woodsons and Brian Brohms. If we make a move like that, I want to know that the QB is of the pedigree of an Eli Manning, Peyton Manning, Carson Palmer, etc. If you want proof of taking chances on a high first round QB that didn't pan out, look at Byron Leftwich. In 2003, we almost took him at #7. 5 years later, he can't even cut it in Atlanta's QB desperate situation. Moving up to take a QB there is a huge risk, so we better do our HW and be prepared to stake our future on this guy if we're going to do that

For those reasons, I am certain we won't be taking Ryan at #3. And with that ruled out, I am also certain we won't take a QB at #8. We'll look for a lower risk QB prospect.

[HoustonRaven]

Well said RS ...

I just watched OTL on ESPN and they had a great piece on Flacco at U of Deleware. I was very impressed and QB's like he show that in this era of football, you're just as easily going to find a decent QB in the later rounds as you will in the first couple of rounds.

The Mannings, Palmers et all of the world are one in a million.

[4G63]

If the top 7 are gone, I'd be okay with us taking a shot on a Dennis Dixon or Anthony Morelli as a project pick, but mainly because they are low risk, high reward.

Dennis Dixon would be a great pick IMO. He's gonna sit out next year anyway so he'll have 2 solid years of rehabbing the knee. His upside is unbelievable......and he wouldn't cost much!

[jonboy79]

Well said RS ...

I just watched OTL on ESPN and they had a great piece on Flacco at U of Deleware. I was very impressed and QB's like he show that in this era of football, you're just as easily going to find a decent QB in the later rounds as you will in the first couple of rounds.

The Mannings, Palmers et all of the world are one in a million.

Flacco certainly has quite a bit of potential, he is probabloy the highest risk pickint he whole draft. He will easily be gone by mid 2nd, and he has a long road to success in the NFL. He probabaly has the highest ceiling in the whole draft though. He has potential to be among the better players in the league at it's most important position. or he could cmpletely FAIL moving to a pr-style offense, reading fast NFL defenses.

DO you really believe this stuff you constantly put n this board? You act like an UDFA has the same likelyhood of becoming a solid pro QB as des the #1 overall. We all know abotu busts, and understand that QB's bust more then others, but that's simply becuase of all the QB's that have come into the league in the last decade, a dozen or so are good. probably 10% of QB's that make it to an NFL training camp become successful starting QB's. Roughly 50% of first round QB's become successful starting QB's. Do you not understand this difference? Do you not understand why this is?

The Mannings and Palmers of the world, certainly are 1 in a million, but they are a pretty high percentage of those top of the first round picks, where the Tom Brady's of the world were everymen cming out of cllege, that ascended up to stardom like 1 in 100 do... if that...

[HoustonRaven]

DO you really believe this stuff you constantly put n this board?

No. I like to make stuff up. :insane:


You act like an UDFA has the same likelyhood of becoming a solid pro QB as des the #1 overall.

I never made that claim.


We all know abotu busts, and understand that QB's bust more then others, but that's simply becuase of all the QB's that have come into the league in the last decade, a dozen or so are good. probably 10% of QB's that make it to an NFL training camp become successful starting QB's. Roughly 50% of first round QB's become successful starting QB's. Do you not understand this difference? Do you not understand why this is?

Yes, I do. Because I can read and actually know something about the past of the NFL. Go back and check your numbers. I dont know where you get 50% or what your definition of "successful" is. Go back to the beginning of the league and you will discover the success rate is far less then what you keep spewing. Dont believe me? Maybe an outside source in a recent article will give you that much needed QB education: "Do the Math: Drafting a QB Does Not Equal Success" (http://www.examiner.com/a-1208590~Do_the_math__Drafting_a_quarterback_doesn_t_always_equal_NFL_success.html)

Probably the most compelling line from that article is this:

"Of the 89 picked in the first round over the past 50 years, only 18 made the “hit” list, a mere 20 percent. Included in that group are just seven of the 17 taken first overall: Terry Bradshaw, John Elway, Steve Young, Troy Aikman, Carson Palmer and the Mannings, Peyton and Eli, who earned his spurs last week. The middle group is just that — in the middle with 24 members, including three Super Bowl winners: Jim Plunkett, Doug Williams and Jim McMahon. More than a few in this category, many from the last five years, got a temporary pass to allow them more time to develop."

Again, without you defining what "success" is, your argument is weak at best.

Not sure why you feel you need to take things so personal, especially when you've either chosen to ignore my premise or ignore league history to fit your argument.

Keep it in the realm of facts and not personal attacks on me, por favor. :thumbup:

[RavenScallywag]

I think i'm highly guilty of playing devil's advocate...

See, in the same breath as me saying taking a QB high is a huge risk and we probably shouldn't take the risk, I also curse expecting a Day 2 pick to become Tom Brady. That said, I wouldn't completly agree with the statement that a first round QB is more likely to be a good starter than a 4th or 5th round pick. Draft status has a number of intangible factors that raise or lower it. Troy Smith dropped to end of Round 5 because he was "too short" and he blew his last game as a senior. Colt Brennan will probably be drafted higher than he should be because of how many TDs he threw. Personally, I like the idea of taking Flacco. Yes, I know he has a long road ahead of him, but quite a few QBs do. A second round pick is still a bit risky, but certainly much less risky than using a first on someone we're not sure about.

[ExiledRaven]

Well, after looking around here is my take on things.

If Matt Ryan is there at #8, I think you're absolutely foolish not to take him.
Odds are against Matt Ryan being there between Miami (maybe), Atlanta (more likely), or the Patriots trading with a team (but might it be Baltimore?).

Assuming Ryan is gone, who will be around?

These appear to be the potentials: Clady, McKelvin, Jenkins, Ellis, Gholston, Derrick Harvey, Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie, Merling, and whatever WR you'd want in the draft. One or more of them will be available, along with Brohm likely being around as well.

The question is which of them will be around? It's hard to tell. If the choice is defense, I am in love with both Ellis and Gholston. check out this video: http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d806b10be Ellis seems to be able to do everything Trevor Pryce can do in terms of 3-4 DE, or playing a pressure DT in the 4-3. Gholston's first step is truly frightening and he reminds me a lot of Suggs coming out of college. Imagine having to deal with Pryce, Suggs, Gholston, Barnes, and Bart scott on the field at the same time. The only true problem with Gholston is his position (DE or OLB) and the presence of Jarrett Johnson and Antwan Barnes.

Then second round there are a lot more options, but I am not sure QB is the best value there - unless there is something more on Flacco. He's solid, but I'm not overly impressed yet.

A big value would be Dennis Dixon and the end of the 5th or in the 6th. Of course that depends on what kind of QB the team will use going forward.

Very tough decision, but like I said before, if Matt Ryan isn't there at #8
(or there isn't a trade up to #7 if NE swaps with us, ie Ryan didn't go to ATL), I'm not sure a QB will be in the cards first day for the Ravens. However, looking at what else is out there on the defensive side of the ball, I'm not too terribly worried. Clady is also a great option, depending.

Controversial pick: Mendenhall at 8, then you run things like the saints with two backs on the field. I could understand that as well.

[ravens10]

Hey factmeister.. is your last name possibly "Hofmeister"? I have a friend at my highschool who has that name. I was just wondering.

[Rxdoxx]

Probably the most compelling line from that article is this:

"Of the 89 picked in the first round over the past 50 years, only 18 made the “hit” list, a mere 20 percent. Included in that group are just seven of the 17 taken first overall: Terry Bradshaw, John Elway, Steve Young, Troy Aikman, Carson Palmer and the Mannings, Peyton and Eli, who earned his spurs last week. The middle group is just that — in the middle with 24 members, including three Super Bowl winners: Jim Plunkett, Doug Williams and Jim McMahon. More than a few in this category, many from the last five years, got a temporary pass to allow them more time to develop."

Gee, I thought the 1994 6th pick in the 1st round was a Qb named Dilfer, and in 79 there was the 7th overall called Phil Simms.

Maybe I don't understand what the "hit" list is, if someone like Dan Marino (27th in the 1st) isn't on it, then is it talking about winning a SB?

Anyway, my take on the original topic...
I'm not real willing to risk the chaos/downsliding/recovery needed when a high draft QB busts (50% of the time). I say just get to the playoffs and roll the dice. Too much has to go right, and more than adequate depth is needed for the injuries that do occur. And the Ravens are thin at a couple of spots.
We need a DE, Price ain't real young. We need a CB, CMac was drafted in 1999?? Samari in 1998! I'm not saying that they can't still play, but we saw the drop-off when they didn't. A young guy at either of those 2 positions would get mentoring, help keep the vets fresh, and be better than what we saw last year, plus be ready to step-in in a couple of years as the starter.

But I do like a Poindexter type flyer on Dennis Dixon :)

[HoustonRaven]

Rx,

The writer spells out what he considers a hit and miss. Winning a SB doesnt necessarily mean you made his hit list (see Palmer). Conversely, just because you did win a SB, doesnt make you a "hit" either (Dilfer & Simms). Marino, Im sure is being included in his count, even if he is not specifically mentioning him by name.

And the point you raise is my issue with jonboy and his definition of what makes a successful QB. If you take this list to heart and include the middle of the pack QB's, then a case can be made (I guess) that almost 50% of those QB's picked first round can be considered "successful". However, that means you're lumping in a lot of QB's who are mediocre into that "successful" category.

[jonboy79]

Rx,

The writer spells out what he considers a hit and miss. Winning a SB doesnt necessarily mean you made his hit list (see Palmer). Conversely, just because you did win a SB, doesnt make you a "hit" either (Dilfer & Simms). Marino, Im sure is being included in his count, even if he is not specifically mentioning him by name.

And the point you raise is my issue with jonboy and his definition of what makes a successful QB. If you take this list to heart and include the middle of the pack QB's, then a case can be made (I guess) that almost 50% of those QB's picked first round can be considered "successful". However, that means you're lumping in a lot of QB's who are mediocre into that "successful" category.



1. I have never in my life seen a stat this low for this "category". It is generally considered 50% I have multiple times sseen studies done, I'm not scouring the internet for them, at around 47% etc. Maybe I'm wrong. Also simple perception shows recent drafts as being better. Obviously scouting has gotten superior since the 50's. I'd like to see the last 20 years studied. The criteria are tough, so everyones list would be different.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/don_banks/news/2003/04/22/banks_risk/

there is fifteen years ago, until '02.. funny part, is add in '03 and '04 and you have 1 for 3 and 3 for 3 so it increases a bit, but still right around 50% for the last 15ish years.

[HoustonRaven]

jonboy, definitely agree with you about the last 15 years and maybe that lends itself to your point. If you go back to 1990, it is about a 50% success rate. Maybe the scouts are finally getting it right?

Anywho, I still think its a crap shoot going after that "sexy" 1st round draft pick QB. It's a lot of cap money for someone who hasnt proven himself and may take years to make a splash.

[UKRavenStockers]

jonboy, definitely agree with you about the last 15 years and maybe that lends itself to your point. If you go back to 1990, it is about a 50% success rate. Maybe the scouts are finally getting it right?

Anywho, I still think its a crap shoot going after that "sexy" 1st round draft pick QB. It's a lot of cap money for someone who hasnt proven himself and may take years to make a splash.

But the cap hit really isn't that great for a QB at #8 compared to any other position. The first year will be pretty much the same for everyone and it'll only go over the top based on incentives in most situations, in which case you'd be happy to shell out that cap space if he's meeting those incentives.

[Rxdoxx]

Drafting a QB at #8 has its own set of problems. That would make 4 QB, and I really don't want to see Troy let go before he has the chance to prove himself. The hight, while not "ideal" doesn't concern me greatly, what QB really looks over the linemen? Maybe over their shoulders a little better ;) but the O and D line are usually as tall or taller than the QB. They throw in lanes, and Troy throws in lanes.
Anyway, drafting a QB probably means #9 or Kyle is history. One is the starter, Troy the sub, and whoever we get is the clip-board toting learner.

Just read TL's article and agree, the way to go is a DE but hopefully not a tweener DE/LB... an honest down stance beast for the line. Get a rotation started, keep the d-line fresh and maybe we keep the havoc/push going as strong at the end of the game as we do early. Then blitzes are our option, not a necessity.
Don't know if Ellis or Long will drop that far, I'm sure Dorsey won't. Gholston???

[Rochardrik]

Sexy? That's what I'm looking for? No I'm looking for Wins. On a 5-11 team, we had the #6 overall defense. I think we lost the game on offense. There is nothing that would turn the fate of this franchise more then a great QB. At this point I'll settle for average.

Sure, we can just as easily get our Franchise QB by drafting one late and letting him develop. Ok so we drafted one late last year, draft three more this year, three more next year and three the year after. From all of that, I bet we have one good QB 5 years from now. Or, we could draft a day 1 guy and have a 50% chance at having a good one by 2009... We don't have time to Fart around and take day 2 guys that maybe sort could one day be, we need to tzke a guy who SHOULD be. There is no such thing as a sure thing, there are simply odds, and you play them when they are good.

If you play any poker, the more times you get someone to chase you down with 1in 3 odds or worse the better you'll do. You will lose from time to time, but over time, if you are on the positive side of the odds, you will win.
So back to football, Brady is the 2-9 that flopped 2, 2, 9. Just becuase it hits doesn't mean you should model your game after it. You can chase flushes and "live cards" all night, I'll play my early two pair aggressive every time.

Given the "current landscape" in the NFL, the only go as far as your QB can take you. I like watching playoff games, perhaps even Super Bowls.
Comparing the "probability odds" in cards to drafting a qb and who will or will not pan out is like comparing peaches to frogs. There is NO correlation!

[jonboy79]

Comparing the "probability odds" in cards to drafting a qb and who will or will not pan out is like comparing peaches to frogs. There is NO correlation!


Why is that? Odds can be based on correlations... there is plenty of data from which to make a coorelation. The odds that a card comes out can be calculated exactly, mathematically, and that is different, but there is a pure random factor as to which exact card comes out.

[Rochardrik]

Why is that? Odds can be based on correlations... there is plenty of data from which to make a coorelation. The odds that a card comes out can be calculated exactly, mathematically, and that is different, but there is a pure random factor as to which exact card comes out.

Because you're dealing, on the one hand, with an inanimate object, with a constant value, as compared to a human being, NONE of which, no matter how similar on the surface, are exactly, or even close to being alike!.....GEEEEEESH!