Jump to content
coordinator0

Baltimore Ravens 2019 Offseason Tracker

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, drd23 said:

idk about that, especially with the Cowboys.  Jerry Jones seems mighty high on Tony Pollard

Even with Pollard, they are mighty thin at the position, unless Alfred Morris still has more left.

Runningbacks are just "easy" to replace, so I am in line with those who view Dixon/Edwards as potential cuts or have a late conditional trade value

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think cutting Levine is just as bad. A top 3 special teamer on the Ravens and one of the most impactful DBs last year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Danand said:

I think cutting Levine is just as bad. A top 3 special teamer on the Ravens and one of the most impactful DBs last year

Yup. And this is the guy's reasoning- "He’s also 32 years old and still relegated to role-specific duties,"

He says "and still relegated" like it's some knock against him as a player. Levine's unique skill set allows him to take up a special *and valuable role within the defense. Great defenses are frequently built on the backs of "role-specific duties".

It says in the article that they all host a podcast together too...I'm sure that's great.

With Ken now gone and Michael Crawford still just a freelancer they pay(Poorly I'm sure) for an article every now then. I really see no reason to frequent to their site, the quality has just gotten too bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, DreamKid said:

Yup. And this is the guy's reasoning- "He’s also 32 years old and still relegated to role-specific duties,"

He says "and still relegated" like it's some knock against him as a player. Levine's unique skill set allows him to take up a special *and valuable role within the defense. Great defenses are frequently built on the backs of "role-specific duties".

It says in the article that they all host a podcast together too...I'm sure that's great.

With Ken now gone and Michael Crawford still just a freelancer they pay(Poorly I'm sure) for an article every now then. I really see no reason to frequent to their site, the quality has just gotten too bad.

I can't remember if they had a young guy on there as well, who got another job. That one was truly annoying listening to with way too many "hot takes" and too much hindsigth and "I told you so", arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Danand said:

I can't remember if they had a young guy on there as well, who got another job. That one was truly annoying listening to with way too many "hot takes" and too much hindsigth and "I told you so", arguments.

Sounds awful. 

Hopefully the Lamar era brings in some new talented analysts into the space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, DreamKid said:

Sounds awful. 

Hopefully the Lamar era brings in some new talented analysts into the space.

I believe Logan Levy was/is his name

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Danand said:

I believe Logan Levy was/is his name

Oh, that was Beatdown's old All-22 guy. I didn't know he had a podcast. On twitter he definitely came off as pretty abrasive. Yea he left for some other venture and was replaced by Spencer Schultz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, DreamKid said:

Oh, that was Beatdown's old All-22 guy. I didn't know he had a podcast. On twitter he definitely came off as pretty abrasive. Yea he left for some other venture and was replaced by Spencer Schultz.

I didn't follow him that closely, but I believe his All-22 analysis were on point. Abrasive, as in arrogant? 

He just had a lot of those "I don't agree with this, how do these idiots have a job, morrons, if they did what I said they should, they would have won" takes And I grew tired of that fast. Then Ken McKusick and Michael Crawford as you mentioned are much more analytical and rational/thoughtfull when going through games and decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm refusing to click that Lamar Jackson thread in NFL Gen. Wont do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Danand said:

I didn't follow him that closely, but I believe his All-22 analysis were on point. Abrasive, as in arrogant?

Yea, his analysis was generally fine. There was a little arrogance there, but more than anything he was just charmless. Twitter and low level podcasting has tricked many desperate people into thinking they have a palatable personality. 

8 hours ago, Danand said:

He just had a lot of those "I don't agree with this, how do these idiots have a job, morrons, if they did what I said they should, they would have won" takes And I grew tired of that fast.

I got the impression that he had never played football himself. And in America there's this weird thing where people who haven't actually done something, then like to position themselves as the leading authority or critical expert on the said thing- often with a mocking/forceful disposition. I kind of view him within that group.

8 hours ago, Danand said:

Then Ken McKusick and Michael Crawford as you mentioned are much more analytical and rational/thoughtfull when going through games and decisions.

Two very easy going guys that have a genuine love of the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McFarland's cap stuff is the only reason I go to that site anymore. Everything else is as you guys mentioned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a question for Ken McKusick, but he didn’t really get into a thorough discussion about it.

With the IR juggling where teams stash talented young players with a small injury just so they can keep them, instead of letting them be on the practice squad, I believe there should be an opportunity for a development contract.

Ofc this would be limited in numbers, but with more and more sophmores going into the draft/other players who need a year or two to develop, I think it would be a good idea to have a development contract that would “protect” a player from being grabbed from a team just to be cut the next week like we see, when teams want a player to give some insight about offense/defensive scheme from their old team.

My suggestion would be something like:

An X amount of players can be signed to a development contract for 2 years. This would mean, that they can not be signed by another team and they have the same opportunities for practice as the practice squad.

Players on a development contract can’t be used on gamedays and can’t be elevated to the active roster during the season (this is to avoid it being a type of IR designation list)

If a player is elevated from his development contract after the first year, he can’t go back on a development contract and would be on the same terms as other players.

A player elevated should happen before the start of training camp. If the player goes into training camp in his second year on a development contract, the team will have to wait another season before being able to use the player.

 

This would essentially be a “safe” practice squad type of contract, that would give teams an opportunity to develop players that otherwise would be cut.

 

In addition with the “success” of joint practices, I think we should move towards a 2 games preseason. The season could also begin a week earlier with another bye week incorporated.

That extra week of rest would benefit the players, and the NFL would essentially only miss 1 gameday, which would be a preseason game with low ratings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Danand said:

I had a question for Ken McKusick, but he didn’t really get into a thorough discussion about it.

With the IR juggling where teams stash talented young players with a small injury just so they can keep them, instead of letting them be on the practice squad, I believe there should be an opportunity for a development contract.

Ofc this would be limited in numbers, but with more and more sophmores going into the draft/other players who need a year or two to develop, I think it would be a good idea to have a development contract that would “protect” a player from being grabbed from a team just to be cut the next week like we see, when teams want a player to give some insight about offense/defensive scheme from their old team.

My suggestion would be something like:

An X amount of players can be signed to a development contract for 2 years. This would mean, that they can not be signed by another team and they have the same opportunities for practice as the practice squad.

Players on a development contract can’t be used on gamedays and can’t be elevated to the active roster during the season (this is to avoid it being a type of IR designation list)

If a player is elevated from his development contract after the first year, he can’t go back on a development contract and would be on the same terms as other players.

A player elevated should happen before the start of training camp. If the player goes into training camp in his second year on a development contract, the team will have to wait another season before being able to use the player.

 

This would essentially be a “safe” practice squad type of contract, that would give teams an opportunity to develop players that otherwise would be cut.

 

In addition with the “success” of joint practices, I think we should move towards a 2 games preseason. The season could also begin a week earlier with another bye week incorporated.

That extra week of rest would benefit the players, and the NFL would essentially only miss 1 gameday, which would be a preseason game with low ratings.

In thought about something similar before, but in the end it would cause more problems. Unless those protected young players are paid extra salary. We don’t want the NFL controlling players and their opportunities anymore than they currently do IMO. While one player such as Lasley might be signed for information and then released another player such as James Harrison might equally take his opportunity to another team and turn into a superstar. If anything, I’d rather just increase the roster size to 55 players. Those additional bodies could go a long way.

I am intrigued by the idea of the two bye weeks however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×