Search results

I think the Ravens might make more of an effort to retain him than we expect, given the organisation's emphasis of the position. But money talks so it ultimately might not be possible. Edit: you covered this as I posted.

Given the emphasis the Ravens put on the corner position, I wouldn't rule out retaining all 4. However, I haven't got my head around the cap situation yet and that will of course be the dominant factor in the decision. Round 4 feels like the sweet spot for the Ravens to draft a corner, balancing...

Three plus Westry seems realistic and is still a situation where I don't think we need to draft a starter. A corner (or two) in round four seems about right. Ideally I'm thinking (roughly): 1: DL/OT 2: OT/DL 3: DL, S 4: CB, OL, MLB, DL But like rmcjacket says, you can't pigeonhole yourself and...

The tape dogs on this board could confirm/refute this, but I suspect that also has to do with a simplified offense to help Huntley settle in. If that's the case, it could be something worth doing for Lamar. Maybe we've been getting too cute.

I'd be ok with an OT in the first round. In fact it makes a lot of sense to me. Having both Stanely and James come back fine is no guarantee, and even if they do, the new pick can slide in in year 2 when James leaves. If one (or god forbid both) can't go then the cupboard isn't totally bare...

I miss going to games. Kind of wonder if I've seen my last one in person. Hard to justify the cost of a trans-atlantic flight with two kids.

Did you guys see that Andrews has broken the franchise record for single season receiving yards by a TE? Edged out Todd Heap (855) and himself from 2019 (852). What a pick that guy was.

The Packers would absolutely take him to fuck with Rodgers. They hate that guy.

But literally no-one says we shouldn't try to improve the line - that's a strawman. People DO say that at least part of the improvement will come from players already on the roster getting healthy, and younger players getting better. But literally everyone here thinks we should at very least...

If I'm Lamar Jackson and the team says "we're gonna hang on and see if you're worth the money", I'm saying "I was the unanimous MVP in 2019, I carried this team for half the season, my body of work is constant upwards progress, endless broken records and a skillset unmatched by any other player...

The irony of this is that the team is perfectly showcasing one of Harbs' greatest strengths this year. They absolutely will not quit and will fight every week despite massive roster depletions. That kind of spirit and unity is a testament to the head coach's leadership and the culture he's built.

The Packers are really good on both sides of the ball right now. It's hard to see the path to victory in this one given the state of the roster. I guess Huntley has to ball out and the passing game has to click. And then maybe Davante Adams oversleeps and misses the flight.

There were a couple of nice designs where Huntley hit Andrews up the seam completely wide open for about 10 yards a piece. I guess Cleveland were playing softer coverage at that point but it was good to see.

The game situation is completely irrelevant to the basic fact that said QB has to make a 2pt conversion at some point. I don't buy this idea that NFL players are wilting flowers whose spirits can be crushed by not making the conversion - and Huntley showed us this isn't the case by leading...

No, we were talking hypotheticals at this point, not the game. There's a weird analytics quirk that says if you're down 14 and score, you should go for 2 because it makes you more likely to win.

I agree with you but careful with that link; it doesn't argue what we were saying. If you look at the "down 9" box, it shows that the two decisions are equal - but the key is that they're equal in producing a win in normal time, not avoiding a loss, which is more what was being argued about. I...

Yeah, it says what I suspected a few paragraphs in. It's about *winning* - and as it says, going for one twice maximises the chance of OT.

I was just reading about this and I kind of hated it... But then I realised that it's a statistic about *winning* rather than not losing. So it seems to maximise your chances to win, even if you're also more likely to lose than if you go for one. And of course you definitely can't go to OT if...

The guy's just got it between the ears. That kind of next-level understanding doesn't decline with age.

We didn't? I guess you're taking issue with the phrasing "right back". The point is, we didn't fade away because our emotional momentum was irrevocably damaged - we put ourselves in position to win despite missing a 2 point conversion. There is no "despite missing a two point conversion" in the...