Signings, Cuts, Trades

[rossihunter2]

Hey Rossi, give me your best case scenario for our first round pick and your worst case scenario in the event there is no trade partner to move back and we must make a pick in the first. Curious.

hard to say what a worst case would be because value is all over the place for everyone but for me it would be Greg Rousseau - a guy who’s been highly touted but I don’t even think is really worth a day 2 pick let alone a day 3 pick

best case (with guys who realistically have a chance to make it to 27) we end up with our pick of Rashad Bateman, Terrace Marshall jr, Landon Dickerson, Creed Humphrey, and Jaelan Phillips - if we’re satisfied with the medicals then we take Phillips, if not then I’d take Bateman but would have no qualms about the ravens taking Marshall or either of the Cs

teven Jenkins would be amazing if he was there too but I just don’t see a world in which he makes it past the steelers at 24

 

[rossihunter2]

I only looked at the Ravens vs Chiefs comparison.

Based on a quick scan from this site:
https://www.lineups.com/nfl/nfl-targets

Teams that seem to spread the ball somewhat "evenly" among at least three different targets:
Cincinnati (the gold standard for this)
Carolina
Dallas
Jacksonville (very wide spread)
New England (very wide spread)
NY Giants
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Washington

The first thing you'll notice is that there aren't many "good" teams on this list. Now I'm taking a subjective view in some ways, and others can peruse that website and see if they disagree in spots.

There's plenty of teams who have two "go to" guys and then there's a sharp drop off in targets to the third. There are other teams, like Arizona, Green Bay, LA Chargers, Houston, and Chicago, who literally have one player dominating a ton of targets, and there's like a 3-4 target per game drop off to the next closest guy on the team. Some of these stats are actually quite staggering.

I would say, in general, from the list above, there's three things going on:
a) some of these teams have horrible or non-spectacular receiving/pass-catching groups, so they really have no choice but to spread it around (New England, Philadelphia, Jacksonville, Washington).
b) I don't think any one of these teams as a real sort of "alpha" WR who's significantly better than the rest of the group.
c) A lot of these teams have very pass-heavy schemes, at least from 2020. Cincinnati, Dallas, Giants, Pittsburgh, and others are either built to throw the ball a ton intentionally, or had to out of necessity. So one could expect a wider distribution of players getting significant targets with a larger volume scale.

what were the bucs like after they added AB?

 

[rmcjacket23]

Very interesting take for sure. Can you give me an idea of how many targets/receptions Hill/Kelce had vs Brown/Mandrews? Thanks.

From last year alone (Receptions/Targets/Target share %):

Brown: 100/58/25.5%
Andrews: 88/58/22.4%

The next closest Raven in terms of target share was Snead, at 12.2%. There's a decent drop off after that.

Hill: 135/87/22.1%
Kelce: 145/105/23.7%

The next closest Chief in terms or target share was Hardman, at 10.1%. Hardman, Watkins, Robinson and CEH all had very similar target shares. Right around the 9-10% range.

I also don't have the data to prove this, but I would bet the Ravens have one of the lowest target share % for RBs in the league. We're around 15-16%. Like CEH had nearly as many receptions as our entire RB group combined last year. I've been beating the "more screens, use the RBs more in the passing game" drum since Lamar arrived.

 

[rmcjacket23]

what were the bucs like after they added AB?

Brown's target share was the highest on TB on a per game basis for the entire season. He, Godwin, and Evans were all in that 7-8 target/game range.

 

[RavensMania]

I only looked at the Ravens vs Chiefs comparison.

Based on a quick scan from this site:
https://www.lineups.com/nfl/nfl-targets

Teams that seem to spread the ball somewhat "evenly" among at least three different targets:
Cincinnati (the gold standard for this)
Carolina
Dallas
Jacksonville (very wide spread)
New England (very wide spread)
NY Giants
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Washington

The first thing you'll notice is that there aren't many "good" teams on this list. Now I'm taking a subjective view in some ways, and others can peruse that website and see if they disagree in spots.

There's plenty of teams who have two "go to" guys and then there's a sharp drop off in targets to the third. There are other teams, like Arizona, Green Bay, LA Chargers, Houston, and Chicago, who literally have one player dominating a ton of targets, and there's like a 3-4 target per game drop off to the next closest guy on the team. Some of these stats are actually quite staggering.

I would say, in general, from the list above, there's three things going on:
a) some of these teams have horrible or non-spectacular receiving/pass-catching groups, so they really have no choice but to spread it around (New England, Philadelphia, Jacksonville, Washington).
b) I don't think any one of these teams as a real sort of "alpha" WR who's significantly better than the rest of the group.
c) A lot of these teams have very pass-heavy schemes, at least from 2020. Cincinnati, Dallas, Giants, Pittsburgh, and others are either built to throw the ball a ton intentionally, or had to out of necessity. So one could expect a wider distribution of players getting significant targets with a larger volume scale.

Thanks for posting. Interesting website btw, I will definitely take a look.

BTW, without looking at the numbers, I would think that Terry McLaurin is far and away better than the rest of the Skins receivers.

 

[rmcjacket23]

Thanks for posting. Interesting website btw, I will definitely take a look.

BTW, without looking at the numbers, I would think that Terry McLaurin is far and away better than the rest of the Skins receivers.

Not as big of a gap as you'd think. He need miss one game though.

These stats shouldn't be wholly in a vacuum though. Injuries play a factor. Julio Jones was 4th on the Falcons in targets, and had considerably less than Hurst and Gage. That's not happening with a healthy player. Same thing in Houston. Cooks had almost 45 more targets than Fuller. Fuller missed like 5-6 games. In some cases, its better to just look at target averages on a per game basis.

Andrews had 12 less targets than Hollywood... Andrews missed two games with COVID. On a per game, they're practically identical.

That's kind of my whole point about us adding an early WR... what are you expecting from him? I understand its not all about statistics, but that's also one of the more significant measuring sticks, and me personally, I think fans want us to add a stud WR because they want a WR who's going to put up good stats.

Let's make some assumptions:
1. Hollywood and Andrews targets remain the same. Lets call them 7 per week (up just slightly)
2. We don't increase passing usage for our RBs, who collectively average 3 targets per week.
3. Duvernay sees basically no change in his volume. He gets 2 targets per week.

Right there, that's 19 pass attempts per game earmarked for players already on the roster, and who would see nothing more than normal volume. Most of us are advocating for more RB usage, and more Duvernay usage (or at least, I am).

400 pass attempts/season = 25 attempts per week, on average. That means, on average, you have 6 targets available. Those 6 targets would be available for any draft pick or picks you acquire + Watkins, who I guarantee we didn't sign to throw the ball to twice a game.

Even 5 targets for a week for any rookie is going to translate into something like 50-55 catches in a rookie season. You're talking 600-700 yards and maybe a couple TDs, most likely. And that's likely on the high-end with a high-end receiver brought in (first rounder).

Is that a bad stat line? No, but I think fans will complain about it nonetheless. I think fans think a first round WR is going to come in here and post thousand yard seasons right away. I don't see it happening.

There's only two ways a rookie is going to make a "splash" in my eyes:
1. You take targets away from Hollywood and/or Andrews, which I don't know if that's good or bad for the offense at this point.
2. You throw the ball a heck of a lot more than 400 times a year.

 

[rossihunter2]

Brown's target share was the highest on TB on a per game basis for the entire season. He, Godwin, and Evans were all in that 7-8 target/game range.

so that would suggest that would fit as another example of a team that spread the ball around to more than 2 weapons?

i also think it's interesting that pre-hopkins it looked like the cardinals really wanted to be the kind of offence that spread the ball around among multiple targets - and they now run 3-4 deep at the position - im not expecting hopkins to not dominate targets but i think it's interesting that they've set themselves up as an offence to be able to spread the ball around more

and quickly scanning the site now - would the falcons not fit as an offence that spreads the ball around to 3+ targets? Ridley, Gage, Jones, Hurst...

and the bills before john brown was injured? diggs was obviously getting a ton of receptions (more than anyone else in the NFL) but with 2 other receivers getting tons of targets per game too

 

[rmcjacket23]

so that would suggest that would fit as another example of a team that spread the ball around to more than 2 weapons?

i also think it's interesting that pre-hopkins it looked like the cardinals really wanted to be the kind of offence that spread the ball around among multiple targets - and they now run 3-4 deep at the position - im not expecting hopkins to not dominate targets but i think it's interesting that they've set themselves up as an offence to be able to spread the ball around more

and quickly scanning the site now - would the falcons not fit as an offence that spreads the ball around to 3+ targets? Ridley, Gage, Jones, Hurst...

and the bills before john brown was injured? diggs was obviously getting a ton of receptions (more than anyone else in the NFL) but with 2 other receivers getting tons of targets per game too

So candidly, I only looked at total targets, where per/game targets would have been better.

I sort of excluded Atlanta because Julio missed so much time that I kind of just "assumed" that, if he were fully healthy, he and Ridley would dominate shares. I honestly don't know what their "go forward" approach will be. Looking back to 19, when Jones was healthier, he was three targets per/game above anybody else, so he would have been closer to the Hopkins line than the "spread around" line. So its hard for me to really translate what 2020 would have been if he was healthier.

Buffalo, on a per game basis, is still very heavy on Diggs. He's like 3.5 targets more per/game than anybody else.

Tampa, agreed, is a good example of a 3 man group that's spread pretty evenly.

As I go back and look through, if you did it on a targets/game basis, there's probably considerably more teams who have a more balanced 3-guy approach, assuming the guys who missed significant time would have kept up their time share.

 

[rossihunter2]

So candidly, I only looked at total targets, where per/game targets would have been better.

I sort of excluded Atlanta because Julio missed so much time that I kind of just "assumed" that, if he were fully healthy, he and Ridley would dominate shares. I honestly don't know what their "go forward" approach will be. Looking back to 19, when Jones was healthier, he was three targets per/game above anybody else, so he would have been closer to the Hopkins line than the "spread around" line. So its hard for me to really translate what 2020 would have been if he was healthier.

Buffalo, on a per game basis, is still very heavy on Diggs. He's like 3.5 targets more per/game than anybody else.

Tampa, agreed, is a good example of a 3 man group that's spread pretty evenly.

As I go back and look through, if you did it on a targets/game basis, there's probably considerably more teams who have a more balanced 3-guy approach, assuming the guys who missed significant time would have kept up their time share.

well i think that last point's important because the idea is that those teams are trying to build corps that are 3+ strong in order to spread the ball around more - it doesnt really matter if it extrapolates or not because when they were there they were getting those targets

with diggs i think you have to take into account that he was targeted a very high amount and yet the other 2 guys on his team still had significant target shares - i guess the question is, does it have to be an even spread to be an example of spreading the ball among 3+ receivers or is it more that there has to be a baseline target share and it doesnt necessarily matter if one guy has a significant bump vs the rest of his team - idk the answer - but i do tend to think that the bills were spreading the ball around beyond just their 1 guy even though he led the league in targets

 

[rmcjacket23]

well i think that last point's important because the idea is that those teams are trying to build corps that are 3+ strong in order to spread the ball around more - it doesnt really matter if it extrapolates or not because when they were there they were getting those targets

with diggs i think you have to take into account that he was targeted a very high amount and yet the other 2 guys on his team still had significant target shares - i guess the question is, does it have to be an even spread to be an example of spreading the ball among 3+ receivers or is it more that there has to be a baseline target share and it doesnt necessarily matter if one guy has a significant bump vs the rest of his team - idk the answer - but i do tend to think that the bills were spreading the ball around beyond just their 1 guy even though he led the league in targets

Well in Buffalo's case, they're a notorious 3 or sometimes even 4 wide group. I don't even know that they have a FB on the roster, and if I recall, they ran like almost no 12 personnel (1 back, 2 TEs) and I think they like led the league in 10 personnel with no TE sets. In the divisional round game against the Ravens, they played pretty much exclusively either 10 or 11 personnel. They had three WRs that played at least 64% of snaps, and four that played 45%

I don't know that teams will want to, or can, mimic that.

That's pretty much what you see from Pittsburgh or Buffalo. There's pros and cons to it, and the con, of course, being a very subpar running game and a very one-dimensional offense.

 

[rossihunter2]

Well in Buffalo's case, they're a notorious 3 or sometimes even 4 wide group. I don't even know that they have a FB on the roster, and if I recall, they ran like almost no 12 personnel (1 back, 2 TEs) and I think they like led the league in 10 personnel with no TE sets. In the divisional round game against the Ravens, they played pretty much exclusively either 10 or 11 personnel. They had three WRs that played at least 64% of snaps, and four that played 45%

I don't know that teams will want to, or can, mimic that.

That's pretty much what you see from Pittsburgh or Buffalo. There's pros and cons to it, and the con, of course, being a very subpar running game and a very one-dimensional offense.

i think partly though that's because neither of those teams had a running game that they ended up like that - which obviously would suggest you're right that teams wouldn't want to copy those tactics

but in terms of target shares they're still spreading the ball around to multiple receivers

and i think it's probably worth pointing out that this is the style of offence that the cardinals have been trying to run since kingsbury became their HC

 

[BoredMarine13]

Well that was also on a short term deal, which means you didn't think JuJu was a long term option either.

Plus, $9M really isn't a lot in the WR market. That's like back end top 30 WR money. It's clearly what you would pay a WR2 on pretty much any team.

Nah the one year deal had more to do with a Covid reduced salary cap. Players knew the money would come back next year and were looking for one year prove it deals.

Ravens we’re clearly adamant about adding some quality WRs. Like i said , the “ we’re happy with our guys” talk is all smoke and mirrors to assist in adding to the WR group via trade or an early draft selection.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Deebo813]

Cmon guys lets not convince ourselves that our offense is anything like kc.. yes both brown and hill and short and fast... andrews and kelce are both big targets.. mahommes and lamar are both electric in their own way. Thats literally it. None of our players can replicate what theyre doing at all. Even if we threw the ball as much as them it still wouldnt look as good. We are good at what we do so just leave it at that

 

[rmcjacket23]

Nah the one year deal had more to do with a Covid reduced salary cap. Players knew the money would come back next year and were looking for one year prove it deals.

Ravens we’re clearly adamant about adding some quality WRs. Like i said , the “ we’re happy with our guys” talk is all smoke and mirrors to assist in adding to the WR group via trade or an early draft selection.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OK, but I'm not sure its relevant whether there's a reduced cap or not. The Ravens would have actually preferred multi-year deals, because they can push the cap hit out further. They really couldn't afford to pay a WR $9M on a one year deal. So it actually amplifies my point.

If you're adamant about adding quality WRs, then you pretty much have to do it in FA, because the draft isn't reliable. There's no reasonable action you can take to guarantee you'll get the WRs you want, that they'll be there for you, etc. I've largely taken trade possibilities off the board, because I don't see quality WRs anywhere in the league that would even be available for trade.

Short of making a gigantic trade up in the draft to get the guy you want, its entirely possible that the "early draft selection" comes on day two, and its a player that is comparable to a Miles Boykin or a Devin Duvernay, which ironically, are the players people think we need "upgrades" on.

The actual act of adding quality receivers isn't surprising. We lost both Snead and Dez. Before signing Watkins, we basically only had four receivers on the roster, which included Boykin, Duvernay and Proche (who got essentially no playing time as a WR). So on sheer body count alone, we needed more receivers. And you're not going to intentionally just add marginal receivers.

Besides, the "smoke and mirrors" argument is always overrated by fans. They think GM's intentionally lie all the time to make other teams think differently. That may work with a high draft pick, but I seriously doubt there are teams that are going to get to like #24 and be like "o man, we better trade up ahead of Baltimore to grab Marshall, because they're going to take him", just based on something Eric said. Teams don't care that much in that area. Half the teams in the league may not even have a first round grade on the guy. These guys are closer to 2nd round picks than they are top of the draft guys.

We have a plethora of places we can get better players. When the time comes, we'll pick the player on the top of our board at that spot. And if there's nobody with a #1 grade, we'll trade down. There are much bigger needs than WR, especially on a team that throws the ball less than anybody in the league basically.

 

[rmcjacket23]

Cmon guys lets not convince ourselves that our offense is anything like kc.. yes both brown and hill and short and fast... andrews and kelce are both big targets.. mahommes and lamar are both electric in their own way. Thats literally it. None of our players can replicate what theyre doing at all. Even if we threw the ball as much as them it still wouldnt look as good. We are good at what we do so just leave it at that

Yes, because the coaching is different. Schematically, we do a lot of similar things. Coaching and QB play is the biggest delta, not WR talent or "lack of resources". That's the point of the argument.

People think adding more or better receivers will make us more comparable to KC. It will have a lot less impact than better QB performance as a a passer and better coaching in the pass game will.

 

[BoredMarine13]

OK, but I'm not sure its relevant whether there's a reduced cap or not. The Ravens would have actually preferred multi-year deals, because they can push the cap hit out further. They really couldn't afford to pay a WR $9M on a one year deal. So it actually amplifies my point.

If you're adamant about adding quality WRs, then you pretty much have to do it in FA, because the draft isn't reliable. There's no reasonable action you can take to guarantee you'll get the WRs you want, that they'll be there for you, etc. I've largely taken trade possibilities off the board, because I don't see quality WRs anywhere in the league that would even be available for trade.

Short of making a gigantic trade up in the draft to get the guy you want, its entirely possible that the "early draft selection" comes on day two, and its a player that is comparable to a Miles Boykin or a Devin Duvernay, which ironically, are the players people think we need "upgrades" on.

The actual act of adding quality receivers isn't surprising. We lost both Snead and Dez. Before signing Watkins, we basically only had four receivers on the roster, which included Boykin, Duvernay and Proche (who got essentially no playing time as a WR). So on sheer body count alone, we needed more receivers. And you're not going to intentionally just add marginal receivers.

Besides, the "smoke and mirrors" argument is always overrated by fans. They think GM's intentionally lie all the time to make other teams think differently. That may work with a high draft pick, but I seriously doubt there are teams that are going to get to like #24 and be like "o man, we better trade up ahead of Baltimore to grab Marshall, because they're going to take him", just based on something Eric said. Teams don't care that much in that area. Half the teams in the league may not even have a first round grade on the guy. These guys are closer to 2nd round picks than they are top of the draft guys.

We have a plethora of places we can get better players. When the time comes, we'll pick the player on the top of our board at that spot. And if there's nobody with a #1 grade, we'll trade down. There are much bigger needs than WR, especially on a team that throws the ball less than anybody in the league basically.

You don’t think a reduced salary cap is relevant to the amount teams are offering players ? That’s odd. It was clearly a down year for many positions when it comes to pay day.

Like i said smoke and mirrors. We have decent players at the spot , just no difference makers. Fans and front office alike know it. We’ll be drafting a WR high or making a trade for a quality guy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ndub]

OK, but I'm not sure its relevant whether there's a reduced cap or not. The Ravens would have actually preferred multi-year deals, because they can push the cap hit out further. They really couldn't afford to pay a WR $9M on a one year deal. So it actually amplifies my point.

If you're adamant about adding quality WRs, then you pretty much have to do it in FA, because the draft isn't reliable. There's no reasonable action you can take to guarantee you'll get the WRs you want, that they'll be there for you, etc. I've largely taken trade possibilities off the board, because I don't see quality WRs anywhere in the league that would even be available for trade.

Short of making a gigantic trade up in the draft to get the guy you want, its entirely possible that the "early draft selection" comes on day two, and its a player that is comparable to a Miles Boykin or a Devin Duvernay, which ironically, are the players people think we need "upgrades" on.

The actual act of adding quality receivers isn't surprising. We lost both Snead and Dez. Before signing Watkins, we basically only had four receivers on the roster, which included Boykin, Duvernay and Proche (who got essentially no playing time as a WR). So on sheer body count alone, we needed more receivers. And you're not going to intentionally just add marginal receivers.

Besides, the "smoke and mirrors" argument is always overrated by fans. They think GM's intentionally lie all the time to make other teams think differently. That may work with a high draft pick, but I seriously doubt there are teams that are going to get to like #24 and be like "o man, we better trade up ahead of Baltimore to grab Marshall, because they're going to take him", just based on something Eric said. Teams don't care that much in that area. Half the teams in the league may not even have a first round grade on the guy. These guys are closer to 2nd round picks than they are top of the draft guys.

We have a plethora of places we can get better players. When the time comes, we'll pick the player on the top of our board at that spot. And if there's nobody with a #1 grade, we'll trade down. There are much bigger needs than WR, especially on a team that throws the ball less than anybody in the league basically.

We do need another solid WR. When Watkins gets injured and misses his standard 4-5 games, who will we have that’s worth anything? Hollywood and... and... Andrews is a TE. Go ahead and stack 8 in the box, we won’t be able to beat it

 

[RavensMania]

Not as big of a gap as you'd think. He need miss one game though.

These stats shouldn't be wholly in a vacuum though. Injuries play a factor. Julio Jones was 4th on the Falcons in targets, and had considerably less than Hurst and Gage. That's not happening with a healthy player. Same thing in Houston. Cooks had almost 45 more targets than Fuller. Fuller missed like 5-6 games. In some cases, its better to just look at target averages on a per game basis.

Andrews had 12 less targets than Hollywood... Andrews missed two games with COVID. On a per game, they're practically identical.

That's kind of my whole point about us adding an early WR... what are you expecting from him? I understand its not all about statistics, but that's also one of the more significant measuring sticks, and me personally, I think fans want us to add a stud WR because they want a WR who's going to put up good stats.

Let's make some assumptions:
1. Hollywood and Andrews targets remain the same. Lets call them 7 per week (up just slightly)
2. We don't increase passing usage for our RBs, who collectively average 3 targets per week.
3. Duvernay sees basically no change in his volume. He gets 2 targets per week.

Right there, that's 19 pass attempts per game earmarked for players already on the roster, and who would see nothing more than normal volume. Most of us are advocating for more RB usage, and more Duvernay usage (or at least, I am).

400 pass attempts/season = 25 attempts per week, on average. That means, on average, you have 6 targets available. Those 6 targets would be available for any draft pick or picks you acquire + Watkins, who I guarantee we didn't sign to throw the ball to twice a game.

Even 5 targets for a week for any rookie is going to translate into something like 50-55 catches in a rookie season. You're talking 600-700 yards and maybe a couple TDs, most likely. And that's likely on the high-end with a high-end receiver brought in (first rounder).

Is that a bad stat line? No, but I think fans will complain about it nonetheless. I think fans think a first round WR is going to come in here and post thousand yard seasons right away. I don't see it happening.

There's only two ways a rookie is going to make a "splash" in my eyes:
1. You take targets away from Hollywood and/or Andrews, which I don't know if that's good or bad for the offense at this point.
2. You throw the ball a heck of a lot more than 400 times a year.

It is true that in this offense we can't expect a WR to put up Jefferson numbers, but if we increase passing targets maybe 5 times a game it could make a significant difference. He still wouldn't have the same amount of targets as Hollywood and Andrews and yes it could reduce targets to those two, but we wouldn't be forcing it to them either and the offense could open up.

Before Lamar went out due to Covid or up until the bye week. I can't remember when the offense changed, were we passing the ball more per game?

 

[Simba]

Cmon guys lets not convince ourselves that our offense is anything like kc.. yes both brown and hill and short and fast... andrews and kelce are both big targets.. mahommes and lamar are both electric in their own way. Thats literally it. None of our players can replicate what theyre doing at all. Even if we threw the ball as much as them it still wouldnt look as good. We are good at what we do so just leave it at that

I still think you’re missing the point. We’re not trying to be the Chiefs in the sense that we’re going to be throwing 5000 yards and a year with guys getting tons of targets. But in terms of skill sets within the passing game, we are clearly trying to replicate that makeup. Don’t mistake failure to do so for not trying. We know we don’t have players as good as what the Chiefs have, but that doesn’t mean we still can’t try to find a similar rotation of guys and make that work for the offense we’re trying to run.

 

[ndub]

I still think you’re missing the point. We’re not trying to be the Chiefs in the sense that we’re going to be throwing 5000 yards and a year with guys getting tons of targets. But in terms of skill sets within the passing game, we are clearly trying to replicate that makeup. Don’t mistake failure to do so for not trying. We know we don’t have players as good as what the Chiefs have, but that doesn’t mean we still can’t try to find a similar rotation of guys and make that work for the offense we’re trying to run.

Now see, I’m finally understanding what you guys are talking about lol. In that sense I agree. Don’t forget that Harbaugh is a part of the Andy Reid coaching tree, and I’m sure decosta wants those types of players