2020 Baltimore Ravens Offseason Tracker

[DreamKid]

52 minutes ago, BaltimoreTerp said:

Only thing I can think of is that Bynes wanted guaranteed playing time and thinks if we bring in a Day 1 or day 2 draft pick that his opportunities will be limited just given how little we play in base packages to begin with. 

 

13 minutes ago, coordinator0 said:

This Bynes thing is odd. That looks like it is a minimum deal. He must have wanted to leave. I can't imagine the team didn't want him back, especially at that price.

Maybe performance incentives were included in both ours and the Bengals' contract offer, and Bynes felt more confident in securing said bonus money outside of our platoon at the position?

He knows the position is devalued across the league and within our defense especially. Plus, he knows if we aren't happy with the job being done- we're not afraid to make a switch mid season. As he just replaced someone himself last year. 

Bynes already has a ring, so maybe nailing down that extra money could be really important to him at this later stage of his career. 

Still, he seemed like such a logical rock to place at the center of a core that will be young and unproven going forward. Disappointed we didn't meet his asking price, if it was a money issue.

[AngusMcFife]

1 hour ago, BaltimoreTerp said:

Yeah for that price I think this is the only big head scratcher for me from EDC this offseason, unless for whatever reason Bynes just didn't want to be here, which would be surprising. Maybe he was miffed we offered Fort more than him? 

Either way, seems like maybe they think that beefing up the D-Line is the biggest key to unlocking better ILB play, or that they still really like the potential of Alaka or Board to step up - but we heard a lot of hype about Board a year ago and then he wasn't up for it leading to the need for Fort and Bynes in the first place. Even if Wink is approaching this thinking about Chuck Clark or Deshone Elliott as de-facto off-ball LB options in a lot of packages, hard to see what the downside would have been of having a steady hand in Bynes to work with as well.

Only thing I can think of is that Bynes wanted guaranteed playing time and thinks if we bring in a Day 1 or day 2 draft pick that his opportunities will be limited just given how little we play in base packages to begin with. 

When we go away from base packages, though, we usually remove a DL from the field, not necessarily a ILB. Our standard nickel packages will just as likely be 2-4-5, rather than 3-3-5. Although we did use 3-3-5 a decent amount. 

[DreamKid]

Pierce is gone, Bynes is gone, Brockers fell through, McPhee is in limbo, and we have no proven body at SS.

If some meaningful boosts aren't added. Or if guys like Elliot, Alaka, and Mack can't step up. Our run defense is looking shaky once again, so we better hope Lamar and Co. can continue to cook big leads going forward. 

 

[AngusMcFife]

1 hour ago, DreamKid said:

Weird weird move. Bynes had a legit plus/good season at off ball last year. He has a history with the club, bargain for his level of play. I'm not getting the logic behind losing him to a AFCN rival at that price tag.

It forces us to pursue LB more seriously in the draft, and what other proven options are left in FA?

Off ball is the least important position on defense, by far, and it's devalued even more within our system. So this isn't some major blow. It is odd though. 

Is it correct to label Bynes as the off ball LB in the Ravens system last year? When he was on the field with Peanut, I would assume Bynes was the MIKE and Peanut was WILL. Bynes definitely was the best ILB at run defense last year. LJ Fort is even lighter than Bynes, and didn't play that many snaps, so I don't think he was MIKE with Bynes on the field either.

I'm also not sure we can generalize that off ball LB is not important in the Ravens scheme. Last year, yes it was downgraded in importance because we had bad players at that position. But if you were to insert a good player at that spot, suddenly it would become a lot more important.  

[coordinator0]

18 minutes ago, DreamKid said:

Pierce is gone, Bynes is gone, Brockers fell through, McPhee is in limbo, and we have no proven body at SS.

If some meaningful boosts aren't added. Or if guys like Elliot, Alaka, and Mack can't step up. Our run defense is looking shaky once again, so we better hope Lamar and Co. can continue to cook big leads going forward. 

 

...Clark?

[Danand]

8 minutes ago, coordinator0 said:

...Clark?

Was thinking the same. 

I really want another safety in this draft because there are so many I like. Winfield, Chinn, K'Von Wallace, Prescott Burgess as allround types then there are Brandon Jones and Antoine Brooks as box safeties, and probably some more I forgot on top of my head

[DreamKid]

8 minutes ago, coordinator0 said:

...Clark?

In base, but how often are we in that?

Wink wants 3 Safeties on the field anytime he can reasonably force it and last year that meant Elliot(short lived) and then Carr were coming in to take over a shifting down Clark's role. We need another starting caliber player for sure.

[coordinator0]

7 minutes ago, DreamKid said:

In base, but how often are we in that?

Wink wants 3 Safeties on the field anytime he can reasonably force it and last year that meant Elliot(short lived) and then Carr were coming in to take over a shifting down Clark's role. We need another starting caliber player for sure.

I see your point now. For what it's worth I think Clark can play any role well, whether he's shifted down or in the base set. Not sure I would define it as a need at SS. More of a shifting secondary position. I think Smith will be taking a lot of those kinds of snaps this season, he's getting on the field somehow. Clark moves back more often to a more "traditional" safety role. Then there's Elliot and Marshall as players with upside that could be used one way or another for that extra secondary spot. I guess I just don't see it as a true need that has to be targeted.

[Danand]

What you guys want is Winfield, 100% and we should take him at 28. He would allow Wink to do whatever he want. Let Thomas blitz, cover the deep, cover the middle, take out the flat, have a snack, and Clark could do his thing and Winfield would be versatile enough to handle whatever assignment.

[ravens5520]

55 minutes ago, Danand said:

Was thinking the same. 

I really want another safety in this draft because there are so many I like. Winfield, Chinn, K'Von Wallace, Prescott Burgess as allround types then there are Brandon Jones and Antoine Brooks as box safeties, and probably some more I forgot on top of my head

I like Brooks for one of our 4ths. Offers on tape what we expected from Jefferson 

[DreamKid]

4 minutes ago, coordinator0 said:

I see your point now. For what it's worth I think Clark can play any role well, whether he's shifted down or in the base set. Not sure I would define it as a need at SS. More of a shifting secondary position. I think Smith will be taking a lot of those kinds of snaps this season, he's getting on the field somehow. Clark moves back more often to a more "traditional" safety role. Then there's Elliot and Marshall as players with upside that could be used one way or another for that extra secondary spot. I guess I just don't see it as a true need that has to be targeted.

I agree, Clark can contribute from anywhere. I just don't see Wink taking him out of his 2019 role at this point. Especially with him now wearing the green dot. He wants him down around the front able to relay and communicate with ease. His nose for the ball is exceptional, and he can carry TEs at a high level now too. Unless we identify someone who can outperform him on passing downs in the middle of our D, I think he's there to stay. 

Jimmy taking on Safety looks will open us up to the same issues we saw last year. He'll be more physical than Carr, but outside of Marlon CBs really aren't built to take on some of the corralling duties of safeties. Jefferson and Carr were victimized by physical and talented rushers/carriers, and those lapses led to many big plays. We need someone at Safety opposite Thomas that can produce reliably against the run and cover, when Clark is taking on backer duties. They aren't easy to come by. Which is why I identify it as a true need at SS specifically. And it's why the team pursuing Jamal Adams made so much sense, even after Clark's emergence. 

28 minutes ago, Danand said:

What you guys want is Winfield, 100% and we should take him at 28. He would allow Wink to do whatever he want. Let Thomas blitz, cover the deep, cover the middle, take out the flat, have a snack, and Clark could do his thing and Winfield would be versatile enough to handle whatever assignment.

Winfield will go way higher than people initially expected on Draft Day, 100%.

[coordinator0]

27 minutes ago, DreamKid said:

I agree, Clark can contribute from anywhere. I just don't see Wink taking him out of his 2019 role at this point. Especially with him now wearing the green dot. He wants him down around the front able to relay and communicate with ease. His nose for the ball is exceptional, and he can carry TEs at a high level now too. Unless we identify someone who can outperform him on passing downs in the middle of our D, I think he's there to stay. 

Jimmy taking on Safety looks will open us up to the same issues we saw last year. He'll be more physical than Carr, but outside of Marlon CBs really aren't built to take on some of the corralling duties of safeties. Jefferson and Carr were victimized by physical and talented rushers/carriers, and those lapses led to many big plays. We need someone at Safety opposite Thomas that can produce reliably against the run and cover, when Clark is taking on backer duties. They aren't easy to come by. Which is why I identify it as a true need at SS specifically. And it's why the team pursuing Jamal Adams made so much sense, even after Clark's emergence. 

I think Jimmy will be taking on passing downs/assignments from the middle of the D too. That's actually where I see him getting most of his snaps, not necessarily at safety. It's why I'm not seeing a big immediate need. There are more than enough talented bodies to take the available snaps. We just have to hope for health and durability... but that's no different than any other year. 

Now looking forward that's definitely something to consider. Smith is only on a one-year deal and neither Elliot or Marshall are anybody you can really rely on. But if we're talking about a first or second round draft pick made in a few weeks that's dipping into luxury territory to me. 

[DreamKid]

2 minutes ago, coordinator0 said:

But if we're talking about a first or second round draft pick made in a few weeks that's dipping into luxury territory to me. 

Even if it's a hybrid player like Simmons(Impossible, I know), Dugger, Chinn etc? In that scenario we get a player that can (In theory) take over Clark's money backer duties, which would let us keep Chuck in a more traditional Safety role within our Nickel and Dime packages. 

I think that's a two birds with one stone move the FO could be high on. 

[coordinator0]

43 minutes ago, DreamKid said:

Even if it's a hybrid player like Simmons(Impossible, I know), Dugger, Chinn etc? In that scenario we get a player that can (In theory) take over Clark's money backer duties, which would let us keep Chuck in a more traditional Safety role within our Nickel and Dime packages. 

I think that's a two birds with one stone move the FO could be high on. 

It's a small, small bird right now though. Especially given the other needs on the team - front seven and OL. If it's a plus value pick and players at positions of need aren't available sure, but that's kind of the same thing with every draft/pick. 

It's hard seeing any trade done before Clowney signs, especially if that is the asking price for Ngakoue. So the Ravens just need to sign Clowney and get things over with.

[BareYourTeeth]