• Welcome to PurpleFlock! Sign up here so that you can chat with your fellow Ravens fans.

Signings, Cuts, Trades

drjohnnyfever said:
...what no one is saying is if this agreement with DKM would be cheaper now for a future deal than waiting for Hollywood to make up his mind. Sure, Hollywood is cheaper now in his draft contract, but locking up DKM for 5 years and not having to worry about Hollywood retiring, etc...

I still think there's money better spent, but DKM and Rashod Bateman for the next 3 years locked, that ain't a bad idear.
Click to expand...

Make up his mind about retiring?
You realise those rumours were made up bullshit right?
 
UPennChem said:
Whether we actually trade for DK or not, I just have questions. EDC has looked at the C position and said pass. EDC clearly wanted to upgrade multiple positions on Defense and was successful in some cases and unsuccessful in others.

The other day I asked after missing out on some key defensive guys, is it time to just reevaluate and see what other options are on the table? When I asked it, it was with respect to cycling back on Tretter.

Now we hear that we've made 2 calls about DK. One that fundamentally means EDC thinks the WR position can be meaningful upgraded and that it would potentially be worth a somewhat sizable investment.

Does this mean that EDC wants to change the offensive identity to something closer to Cincinnati and that requires 3 really good receivers?

Does it mean we prefer DK over Hollywood?

Does it mean depending on the board on draft night that London or Olave are potentially in play?

Something else altogether?
Click to expand...
I would take nothing off the table at this point if it helps the team

And while it’s not a need, playmakers always make a difference even at WR

I think stylistically olave wouldn’t necessarily make sense and if we really are interested in DK then the only guy in the draft who’s even vaguely comparable skill set-wise is London

If this interest in DK is actually legit then I think it’s clear we can’t take anyone off the board and if WR is BPA at 14 and EDC and Harbs think they significantly help the team then I think they take them
 
rossihunter2 said:
I would take nothing off the table at this point if it helps the team

And while it’s not a need, playmakers always make a difference even at WR

I think stylistically olave wouldn’t necessarily make sense and if we really are interested in DK then the only guy in the draft who’s even vaguely comparable skill set-wise is London

If this interest in DK is actually legit then I think it’s clear we can’t take anyone off the board and if WR is BPA at 14 and EDC and Harbs think they significantly help the team then I think they take them
Click to expand...
I hear you. I think we're definitely witnessing not only stylistic changes with EDC but changes with the times in terms of the entire NFL. I think everything is on the table and it's kinda exciting. Would be crazy to be bringing home London on Thursday night lol
 
UPennChem said:
I hear you. I think we're definitely witnessing not only stylistic changes with EDC but changes with the times in terms of the entire NFL. I think everything is on the table and it's kinda exciting. Would be crazy to be bringing home London on Thursday night lol
Click to expand...

Would be and tbh I think he’s gone before we pick but there’s a significant non-zero chance he’s number 1 on my board when we’re on the clock
 
rossihunter2 said:
Would be and tbh I think he’s gone before we pick but there’s a significant non-zero chance he’s number 1 on my board when we’re on the clock
Click to expand...
I can barely wait lol. But now I'm crazy because of the DK news. Not that I want him per se, but it seems like EDC has moved to the trades part of the offseason. So we don't even know who he's looking at or targeting
 
I don’t see how we trade for metcalf, and I don’t see how it’s a value for us. We are a run first team, we don’t use receivers well, we have 2 receivers and a TE already, and we will have 2 impending big receiver contracts if we make such a move.

This would feel like just doing whatever the fuck to appease Lamar
 
JoeyFlex5 said:
I don’t see how we trade for metcalf, and I don’t see how it’s a value for us. We are a run first team, we don’t use receivers well, we have 2 receivers and a TE already, and we will have 2 impending big receiver contracts if we make such a move.

This would feel like just doing whatever the fuck to appease Lamar
Click to expand...
I'm of the mindset that we wouldn't be trading for Metcalf as a rental, unless it's a mid-season trade where we're like in SB contention and we lose like Hollywood to an injury.

If I'm trading for him now, I'm giving him the big extension either this offseason or next. And that means I'm almost certainly not paying Hollywood. Zero percent chance they pay both, and pay Lamar (on the tag or on a big deal) and Andrews at the same time.

I can see us shifting towards more passing, mostly because it seems like our emphasis on the Oline is getting better pass protection guys vs maulers, but a) I still think we'll run the ball plenty and b) I think we may be viewing our rushing attack as something that will be quality without the need for a stellar run blocking Oline.

But yeah, I don't really buy any of the rumors of us being interested in Metcalf at this point.
 
rossihunter2 said:
Make up his mind about retiring?
You realise those rumours were made up bullshit right?
Click to expand...
I had not read that the retirement rumors were BS, but the same rationale would fit even if Hollywood has a stellar year. We'd have DKM locked up and extended because we are not getting him on a rental. Thus we wouldn't have to worry about Hollywood.

I agree that if the rumor about us being linked to DKM are true then we could take any position with our first pick. I still hope it's OL or DL, but the best may be gone by then. Who knows. This is the fun part of the year trying to figure out the direction we take.
 
Just to clarify... is the only report of us being linked to DK a "Rumors" Twitter account? Because if that's all there is, you can pretty much write it off.

There's a bunch of these "NFL rumors" twitter accounts out there, and the only time they're actually reporting anything with merit is when they actually tag somebody who has that info, like an actual reporter.

It requires no information whatsoever for literally anybody to create a twitter account and just post things that they wish were true as "rumors". Somebody pay me $100 and in an hour I'll get many people on Twitter to think we put a trade package together for Russell Wilson. It's really not that hard to do.
 
rmcjacket23 said:
Just to clarify... is the only report of us being linked to DK a "Rumors" Twitter account? Because if that's all there is, you can pretty much write it off.

There's a bunch of these "NFL rumors" twitter accounts out there, and the only time they're actually reporting anything with merit is when they actually tag somebody who has that info, like an actual reporter.

It requires no information whatsoever for literally anybody to create a twitter account and just post things that they wish were true as "rumors". Somebody pay me $100 and in an hour I'll get many people on Twitter to think we put a trade package together for Russell Wilson. It's really not that hard to do.
Click to expand...
I think everyone knows its not the real but i guess it actually turned into an what if scenario at this point
 
rmcjacket23 said:
Just to clarify... is the only report of us being linked to DK a "Rumors" Twitter account? Because if that's all there is, you can pretty much write it off.

There's a bunch of these "NFL rumors" twitter accounts out there, and the only time they're actually reporting anything with merit is when they actually tag somebody who has that info, like an actual reporter.

It requires no information whatsoever for literally anybody to create a twitter account and just post things that they wish were true as "rumors". Somebody pay me $100 and in an hour I'll get many people on Twitter to think we put a trade package together for Russell Wilson. It's really not that hard to do.
Click to expand...
There's some validity to it from my understanding. I know a guy in one of the inner circles and he told me this last week before Twitter started running with it. Again, I'll maintain that he wasn't as enthusiastic about it as some on Twitter but he was confident on the interest at at least some level.
 
SepticeyePoe said:
I'm a little surprised we weren't able to bring him back
Click to expand...
Zrebiec's mentions are alluding to some health concerns (surprise surprise) being a big reason they weren't enamored with him and weren't willing to go more than the minimum. Would assume he also got the minimum in Carolina but it seems like the Ravens weren't pushing too hard here.
 
Simba said:
There's some validity to it from my understanding. I know a guy in one of the inner circles and he told me this last week before Twitter started running with it. Again, I'll maintain that he wasn't as enthusiastic about it as some on Twitter but he was confident on the interest at at least some level.
Click to expand...
I dnt think he would succeed here.. def wouldnt have another 1300 yard season. Id assume packers would be all over him if he was being shopped
 
Hollywood is not retiring right before he can get his first big contract.

This Metcalf trade is an awful idea in my book. Giving up great draft pick(s) and killing our cap. The only way I see a move like this working is if the offensive philosophy changes.

Also, Wilson has one of the best deep balls in the game.
 
Deebo813 said:
I dnt think he would succeed here.. def wouldnt have another 1300 yard season. Id assume packers would be all over him if he was being shopped
Click to expand...

I think DK with the system as constructed here would be fine.

In that scenario, you have Hollywood in the slot where I think he would be his best and must disruptive with Bateman and DK on the sides? Andrews at TE?

I am not so sure that could be slowed down much
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top