Training Camp 2018 discussion

[DreamKid]

2 hours ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

When Flacco was in his early years did we have a prospect backing him up, or a veteran?

Troy Smith was a young QB prospect, and we had no need to draft another prospect once Flacco proved himself. 

2 hours ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

When Russell Wilson was in his early years, did he have a veteran backing him up or a prospect?

Again, Wilson was the second prospect. Drafted with criticism when Flynn was just signed. Then during his rookie season he proved he was the man and there was no need for another prospect.

Both of your examples proved my point........

You acquire young upside QBs until one shows to a significant degree that they can carry a franchise, then you can solely roster a veteran to back up that proven QB. 

[berlin calling]

nobody who wants LJ to succeed and have a long career with this team should want him starting a game this season imo. just accept that RG3 would give this team a better chance to win should Flacco be hurt. thats not taking anything away from Jackson rather than acknowledge he could use some time to sharpen his tools he has. i'd actually be afraid early success would convince him he doesn't need to work on his first and foremost craft, throwing the ball. i'm sure he can sling it just as good as Flacco but he doesn't possess any reliable precision. yet. 

[sp6488]

2 hours ago, DreamKid said:

Troy Smith was a young QB prospect, and we had no need to draft another prospect once Flacco proved himself. 

Again, Wilson was the second prospect. Drafted with criticism when Flynn was just signed. Then during his rookie season he proved he was the man and there was no need for another prospect.

Both of your examples proved my point........

You acquire young upside QBs until one shows to a significant degree that they can carry a franchise, then you can solely roster a veteran to back up that proven QB. 

He preceded Flacco.  The Ravens then went with Marc Bulger as the backup

[DreamKid]

5 minutes ago, sp6488 said:

He preceded Flacco.  The Ravens then went with Marc Bulger as the backup

What makes you think I don't know that?........................

The point was that we carried 2 young QB prospects until Flacco had proved himself. Pretty obvious. Don't know how you missed that.

[DreamKid]

28 minutes ago, berlin calling said:

just accept that RG3 would give this team a better chance to win should Flacco be hurt.

Why? You're convinced of that, after like 4 quarters of play from Jackson? With 2nd string lineman and skill players?

LJ is an elite running threat, RG3 is elite in no area. Griffin has shown nothing to warrant that level of confidence. Woodrum had a better case to play over Mallet last season than Griffin does over Jackson. 

I'm really starting to pick up some "Grrfffin stiiilll haz potentiall, and couldd be betar thun alll our Qbs" vibes from the fan base lol. 

33 minutes ago, berlin calling said:

i'd actually be afraid early success would convince him he doesn't need to work on his first and foremost craft, throwing the ball.

That's a character judgement, which is unfounded.

35 minutes ago, berlin calling said:

i'm sure he can sling it just as good as Flacco but he doesn't possess any reliable precision. yet.

What are you talking about?

[DreamKid]

 

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

2 hours ago, DreamKid said:

Troy Smith was a young QB prospect, and we had no need to draft another prospect once Flacco proved himself. 

Again, Wilson was the second prospect. Drafted with criticism when Flynn was just signed. Then during his rookie season he proved he was the man and there was no need for another prospect.

Both of your examples proved my point........

You acquire young upside QBs until one shows to a significant degree that they can carry a franchise, then you can solely roster a veteran to back up that proven QB. 

The Seahawks didn't have a first prospect! Matt Flynn wasn't a prospect, he was already a veteran in the league for 4+ years at that point. And when Wilson won the job, they didn't go with another prospect to back him up - they went with a veteran.

Flacco and Troy Smith were the two prospects, but the Ravens always kept around the 3rd QB as a veteran, even in those first couple of years and then once Troy Smith was off of his rookie/minimum deal we went with vet minimum contracts on guys like Bulger, Schaub, Mallett, etc.. 

In any event, I'd bet a solid amount of money that the Ravens don't draft a high prospect next year with Lamar Jackson, and instead go with a veteran to back him up assuming we move on from Flacco. This also depends with Lamar's progression as a passer. More than likely what I see happening is that if we're able to keep RGIII, he stays on the roster next year. If Flacco somehow finds it in him to be an NFL QB this year and returns next year, then the following year I find it increasingly likely Lamar will be competing with a 6th or 7th round QB and that's about it.

[DreamKid]

2 minutes ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

The Seahawks didn't have a first prospect! Matt Flynn wasn't a prospect, he was already a veteran in the league for 4+ years at that point. And when Wilson won the job, they didn't go with another prospect to back him up - they went with a veteran.

Flynn wasn't a prospective QB for the Seahawks when they signed him, with perceived upside? GTFO, and of course they went with a veteran. After they identified Wilson as the future of their franchise. 

8 minutes ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

Flacco and Troy Smith were the two prospects, but the Ravens always kept around the 3rd QB as a veteran, even in those first couple of years and then once Troy Smith was off of his rookie/minimum deal we went with vet minimum contracts on guys like Bulger, Schaub, Mallett, etc.. 

cause Flacco was a proven QB........ 

Just take your L. You have no argument. Teams unsure of their QB room don't then continue to pursue prospects at the position? Yea, back out with that.

Flacco failing doesn't legitimize Jackson, it just makes him the presumed starter and our biggest investment at the position. The club would be insane to not double down on a higher end prospect at least (3rd-4th Round) to secure a higher chance at hitting on the sport's most valuable position. 

Of course in the event Flacco is gone we would host a veteran in some fashion, but the veteran would just get the Rex Grossman treatment. Making way for the two prospects ahead of him to get all the snaps. If he wasn't completely blasted into irrelevance by a 2nd year Jackson that is. You're putting too much on the idea of a veteran, and aren't analyzing the situation properly. 

20 minutes ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

In any event, I'd bet a solid amount of money that the Ravens don't draft a high prospect next year with Lamar Jackson, and instead go with a veteran to back him up assuming we move on from Flacco. This also depends with Lamar's progression as a passer. More than likely what I see happening is that if we're able to keep RGIII, he stays on the roster next year. If Flacco somehow finds it in him to be an NFL QB this year and returns next year, then the following year I find it increasingly likely Lamar will be competing with a 6th or 7th round QB and that's about it.

If Flacco performs we most likely won't draft another QB high or low.

As long as Flacco gets us to the playoffs in an acceptable fashion, he isn't going anywhere...... for years. He has a huge arm so it will take longer for it to noodle out. We didn't invest enough in Jackson to throw away a playoff QB. Fans need to wrap their head around the possibility of Jackson not starting for a long long time.

[DreamKid]

 

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

1 hour ago, DreamKid said:

Flynn wasn't a prospective QB for the Seahawks when they signed him, with perceived upside? GTFO, and of course they went with a veteran. After they identified Wilson as the future of their franchise. 

No, he wasn't. He was already a veteran! He had been in the league for 4 years. 

"After they identified Wilson as the future of their franchise" -- so what does that make Lamar Jackson, a 1st round pick? Remind me, why didn't the Ravens draft a QB in the other rounds in 2008 when we drafted Flacco? Were we dumb, or had we already identified him as the future? Why didn't we invest in other QB's this year? Are we dumb, or did we identify Lamar as the future?

1 hour ago, DreamKid said:

cause Flacco was a proven QB........ 

After one season in which he threw 14 TD's and 12 INT's??? You've got to be joking.

1 hour ago, DreamKid said:

Just take your L. You have no argument. Teams unsure of their QB room don't then continue to pursue prospects at the position? Yea, back out with that.

We aren't unsure about our QB room. In fact, I'd say we're so sure about our QB room that we've already established options no matter what happens:

1. Flacco pans out? We can re-sign him and let Lamar sit another year.

2. Flacco doesn't pan out? We cut him and move onto Lamar Jackson 

3. Flacco gets injured but Lamar isn't viewed as ready? RGIII steps in.

We've already got our short term and long term bases covered with our current situation. Does that mean we can't take fliers on guys in the 6th or 7th round in the next couple of years and add some camp arms while RGIII and Lamar take the 1 and 2 spots? Absolutely not, but implying we should cut all ties with vets like RGIII for camp scrubs is absurd.

1 hour ago, DreamKid said:

Flacco failing doesn't legitimize Jackson, it just makes him the presumed starter and our biggest investment at the position. The club would be insane to not double down on a higher end prospect at least (3rd-4th Round) to secure a higher chance at hitting on the sport's most valuable position.

The club would be insane to waste resources like that after trading up to let Lamar develop. Ask the Packers how drafting Brian Brohm worked out for them in the 2nd round of 2008 vs. Matt Flynn in the 7th round.

1 hour ago, DreamKid said:

Of course in the event Flacco is gone we would host a veteran in some fashion, but the veteran would just get the Rex Grossman treatment. Making way for the two prospects ahead of him to get all the snaps. If he wasn't completely blasted into irrelevance by a 2nd year Jackson that is. You're putting too much on the idea of a veteran, and aren't analyzing the situation properly. 

If Flacco is gone and RGIII is gone and all we're left with in our QB room is Jackson and low round prospects, with no veteran leadership of any kind - we've completely failed as an organization.

1 hour ago, DreamKid said:

As long as Flacco gets us to the playoffs in an acceptable fashion, he isn't going anywhere...... for years. He has a huge arm so it will take longer for it to noodle out. We didn't invest enough in Jackson to throw away a playoff QB. Fans need to wrap their head around the possibility of Jackson not starting for a long long time.

More insanity on your part. We also didn't invest a 1st round pick in Jackson to not play him for half of his career because some fans think Joe Flacco, despite 10 years of evidence, is somehow not a below-average starter in the NFL. The only scenario where Jackson doesn't play over Flacco in at-most 3 years time is a situation where we trade him for our 1st round pick back, because otherwise you've wasted resources for literally no reason other than to motivate a bad QB to actually give a damn.

[DreamKid]

5 minutes ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

Remind me, why didn't the Ravens draft a QB in the other rounds in 2008 when we drafted Flacco?

We had Troy Smith on the team.

6 minutes ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

Why didn't we invest in other QB's this year? Are we dumb, or did we identify Lamar as the future?

We have an established QB in Flacco.

7 minutes ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

We aren't unsure about our QB room. In fact, I'd say we're so sure about our QB room that we've already established options no matter what happens

If Flacco was gone, we would be. Which was the scenario you put forth.

10 minutes ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

The club would be insane to waste resources like that after trading up to let Lamar develop.

It would be insane to use a 3rd or 4th round pick on a QB if the position is unsettled? Keep hammering that nail Lennie.

13 minutes ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

If Flacco is gone and RGIII is gone and all we're left with in our QB room is Jackson and low round prospects, with no veteran leadership of any kind - we've completely failed as an organization.

Veterans aren't always leaders, again you're putting too much on it. There will always a veteran QB around in some form, but they won't hold any importance over Jackson and another investment at the position.

18 minutes ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

More insanity on your part. We also didn't invest a 1st round pick in Jackson to not play him for half of his career because some fans think Joe Flacco, despite 10 years of evidence, is somehow not a below-average starter in the NFL. The only scenario where Jackson doesn't play over Flacco in at-most 3 years time is a situation where we trade him for our 1st round pick back, because otherwise you've wasted resources for literally no reason other than to motivate a bad QB to actually give a damn

No, you use a resource on Jackson because QB is the most important position by far and our starting QB is getting older and stacking question marks. Jackson is a safety net and also a valid shot at a QBOTF. 3 years is a long time. The irrational take is thinking Decosta will toss away a contending QB in Flacco for no reason other than "it's time", because of the 2nd round pick we traded to get Jackson lol.

Do you understand that you don't get to have an opinion on Joe Flacco taken seriously? I've seen you call his playoff success a fluke, his injuries an invalid excuse, and embarrass yourself while drowning in hyperbole regarding him. I'm not even a Flacco apologist, I've been disgusted with his play the last couple years. You take it too a ridiculous level though, and I question your motivations for doing so. You seem needy with your takes. Which is why I never bother dipping into the same recycled Flacco talk you love driving around here. 

Besides, we're now getting into hypothetical scenarios where decisions have been made based on levels of play we can't possibly predict. There's no point in extending a discussion under those parameters.

[DreamKid]

 

[DreamKid]

 

[DreamKid]

 

[DreamKid]

You don't want to activate Elliot, dude has them hands.