The Random Thought Thread

[Deebo813]

It's not about where YOU rank him. Its about where he would rank in the league. If Hollywood Brown had the same passing volume thrown his way that most of the "top receivers" in the league, he would be universally in the discussion with those players. Maybe not by you, but you'd also be in the very smallest of minorities. As much as fans would like to pretend like they're supremely educated about what makes a good receiver and what doesn't, the very first thing you're going to with every player is the stat line. If that stat line says they're good, that's the baseline of the discussion. If it doesn't, that's also the baseline.

The initial premise of this discussion was about how disappointed you were that we took Hurst over Ridley. I pointed out why that's the wrong way to look at things, because its really Campbell + Dobbins over Ridley, which I think it would be hard to argue we get the bad side of that deal.

And the reason I wouldn't take Ridley over those two players is because I think Ridley's stat line, and therefore largely how fans evaluate receivers, wouldn't be nearly as productive in Baltimore. Among the many reasons why, is simply, he wouldn't get the ball thrown to him nearly as much.

I literally dnt care about stats.. i see, you want to be correct so ill let you have it.. however, youre wrong though. Dnt ever mention boykin in any scenario that involves top wrs cause even that guy is bad

 

[Deebo813]

Let me just bring this up. While I don't really disagree with you, I think you've made a really rigid argument which is why you're at an incongruency with deebo.

He says he can't believe we passed on Ridley for Hurst. You say its really Campbell and Dobbins. You're argument is based on the value accrued. You also rightfully bring up that Ridley wouldn't be the stat compiler he is in Baltimore. Also means his value would be somewhat smaller here.

The thing though is, I don't think deebo is making a value of the pick argument. I think he's saying we have historically taken only a select few high round WRs, and of those we have an average hit rate. Obviously the conclusion there is we hardly ever have any really high end quality receivers. Whether or not Ridley has the same stay value in Atlanta or Baltimore is not the point. If Baltimore is ever to balance its offense and improve the passing game, it likely has to be through better drafting. That Obviously includes outside round 1. So the sentiment i believe is, Ridley was a aupee high floor and high ceiling prospect and was in our laps at a huge position id need and we went elsewhere.

Just 2 different arguments here. And deebo, if that's not what you were thinking call it out, but that's at least what I was thinking. I would have taken Ridley at the time, but given we didn't, I think we've done more than a fine job maximizing value there.

It was until he mentioned that boykin thing and targets in which i dnt agree with cause boykin sucks

 

[UPennChem]

It was until he mentioned that boykin thing and targets in which i dnt agree with cause boykin sucks

I think this is his last shot. He'll get another offseason with 2 new mentors coming in this year. It's year 3 for him. We'll know if he's got anything in him early next year. Right now though, its not looking good at all.

 

[rmcjacket23]

Let me just bring this up. While I don't really disagree with you, I think you've made a really rigid argument which is why you're at an incongruency with deebo.

He says he can't believe we passed on Ridley for Hurst. You say its really Campbell and Dobbins. You're argument is based on the value accrued. You also rightfully bring up that Ridley wouldn't be the stat compiler he is in Baltimore. Also means his value would be somewhat smaller here.

The thing though is, I don't think deebo is making a value of the pick argument. I think he's saying we have historically taken only a select few high round WRs, and of those we have an average hit rate. Obviously the conclusion there is we hardly ever have any really high end quality receivers. Whether or not Ridley has the same stay value in Atlanta or Baltimore is not the point. If Baltimore is ever to balance its offense and improve the passing game, it likely has to be through better drafting. That Obviously includes outside round 1. So the sentiment i believe is, Ridley was a aupee high floor and high ceiling prospect and was in our laps at a huge position id need and we went elsewhere.

Just 2 different arguments here. And deebo, if that's not what you were thinking call it out, but that's at least what I was thinking. I would have taken Ridley at the time, but given we didn't, I think we've done more than a fine job maximizing value there.

I mean... I think the value IS sort of the point though. If the value isn't the point, why would he pick that as an example?
He picked it as an example, clearly, because Ridley has been exceptional for three years, and Hurst is a very average TE in this league who's also no longer here. So basically, he would rather have Ridley over Hurst, which player-for-player, I agree with. I also think that's irrelevant, because that's not really the choice either.

Even ignoring the trade value we got, and just assuming we just took Ridley instead of Hurst, I don't think WR would be a position of strength on this team. I think Ridley would be putting up comparable numbers to Hollywood in a predominantly run-heavy offense, and people would NOT be saying that the Ravens are good at receiver. Because the Falcons version of Ridley, in my opinion, wouldn't be the Ravens version of Ridley.

I'd also point out that, I think pretty obviously, in the 2018 draft, TE was a much, much, much bigger need than WR was. With the value of hindsight, I would point out that we signed Crabtree and John Brown prior to the draft, which I recall several members on here being largely fans of. We did that, specifically, so that we wouldn't have to reach on a WR, and in particular, in a WR class that wasn't deemed that strong at the time.

Our TE room at the time of the draft included Maxx Williams, a perennial underachiever, and Boyle, a blocking TE who had been suspended multiple times for PED usage. Explains why we also double dipped at the position in that draft.

 

[rmcjacket23]

I literally dnt care about stats.. i see, you want to be correct so ill let you have it.. however, youre wrong though. Dnt ever mention boykin in any scenario that involves top wrs cause even that guy is bad

Everybody cares about stats. Failing to admit it or not doesn't change it. There are better receivers in this league that we passed on for worse players than Ridley. You chose him because he's a good player who also puts up good stats.

 

[UPennChem]

I mean... I think the value IS sort of the point though. If the value isn't the point, why would he pick that as an example?
He picked it as an example, clearly, because Ridley has been exceptional for three years, and Hurst is a very average TE in this league who's also no longer here. So basically, he would rather have Ridley over Hurst, which player-for-player, I agree with. I also think that's irrelevant, because that's not really the choice either.

Even ignoring the trade value we got, and just assuming we just took Ridley instead of Hurst, I don't think WR would be a position of strength on this team. I think Ridley would be putting up comparable numbers to Hollywood in a predominantly run-heavy offense, and people would NOT be saying that the Ravens are good at receiver. Because the Falcons version of Ridley, in my opinion, wouldn't be the Ravens version of Ridley.

I'd also point out that, I think pretty obviously, in the 2018 draft, TE was a much, much, much bigger need than WR was. With the value of hindsight, I would point out that we signed Crabtree and John Brown prior to the draft, which I recall several members on here being largely fans of. We did that, specifically, so that we wouldn't have to reach on a WR, and in particular, in a WR class that wasn't deemed that strong at the time.

Our TE room at the time of the draft included Maxx Williams, a perennial underachiever, and Boyle, a blocking TE who had been suspended multiple times for PED usage. Explains why we also double dipped at the position in that draft.

I guess all I was getting at is one perspective was looking at that past (Potential of Ridley) the other was looking at the present (Calais and JK). No matter how good the present value is, if someone wanted Ridley and we didn't take him and Ridley turned out to be good, of course they're gonna wish we took him. Especially when we are perennially bad at WR.

Now the argument you made in this post about TE vs WR in that draft is a lot stronger and apples to apples. Hurst and Andrews were probably the right move. Andrews is great and we moved Hurst for value.

 

[Deebo813]

Everybody cares about stats. Failing to admit it or not doesn't change it. There are better receivers in this league that we passed on for worse players than Ridley. You chose him because he's a good player who also puts up good stats.

I really dnt care about stats bro.. if the comparison or the player is great enough then yes ok stats csn be looked at.. i think you underestimate people lol.. idc about the yards dk put up this season, i and most people i know still believe aj brown is the better wr.. devante adams has flown under the radar for a while in nfl, yet many people on these boards already knew he was a top wr.. i choose ridley cause of his rte running and ability to get open.. no matter what team you put him on, his route running will always be great.

 

[Deebo813]

I mean... I think the value IS sort of the point though. If the value isn't the point, why would he pick that as an example?
He picked it as an example, clearly, because Ridley has been exceptional for three years, and Hurst is a very average TE in this league who's also no longer here. So basically, he would rather have Ridley over Hurst, which player-for-player, I agree with. I also think that's irrelevant, because that's not really the choice either.

Even ignoring the trade value we got, and just assuming we just took Ridley instead of Hurst, I don't think WR would be a position of strength on this team. I think Ridley would be putting up comparable numbers to Hollywood in a predominantly run-heavy offense, and people would NOT be saying that the Ravens are good at receiver. Because the Falcons version of Ridley, in my opinion, wouldn't be the Ravens version of Ridley.

I'd also point out that, I think pretty obviously, in the 2018 draft, TE was a much, much, much bigger need than WR was. With the value of hindsight, I would point out that we signed Crabtree and John Brown prior to the draft, which I recall several members on here being largely fans of. We did that, specifically, so that we wouldn't have to reach on a WR, and in particular, in a WR class that wasn't deemed that strong at the time.

Our TE room at the time of the draft included Maxx Williams, a perennial underachiever, and Boyle, a blocking TE who had been suspended multiple times for PED usage. Explains why we also double dipped at the position in that draft.

Ridley wouldnt put up the same numbers over here ofcourse but he would def be the same ridley. Like his rte running is still spectacular from college.. right now, i think it would be easier for lamar to target ridley than brown in our system. Youre right though, even if we had drafted him, wr would still be a need.. now if we had ridley and brown, which i know not possible... we would be pretty strong at wr 1 and 2

 

[Nurps]

Ive been to a couple Bucs games (including the one where Flacco just tore them to shreds, and probably 3-4 Miami games. Tons of Ravens fans at both but Miami is insane. Like half the stadium is there to see Baltimore.

 

[Deebo813]

Ive been to a couple Bucs games (including the one where Flacco just tore them to shreds, and probably 3-4 Miami games. Tons of Ravens fans at both but Miami is insane. Like half the stadium is there to see Baltimore.

Im gonna try to hit ravens game this season in miami

 

[rossihunter2]

Anyone ever go on NFL.com and look at that draft tracker? In years past would have all the prospects by position, show the combine numbers, give pro comparisons, and assign a grade. This year though, it just doesn't seem to exist.

site's been revamped - i preferred the old site because this one doesn't let you tab open or track anything

but here's the new version (my guess is it works better on mobile than the old one maybe)

https://www.nfl.com/prospects/

 

[rossihunter2]

It's funny how that gas mask video for Tunsil caused a giant ripple effect and the Dolphins getting a bunch of picks out of it and now the 49ers getting their next Franchise QB all out of this deal. Considering how if not for the gas mask, Tunsil would have been a Raven at 6, perhaps Stanley was the one who fell to Miami then shipped off to Houston for a bunch of picks?Or would we have traded Tunsil for that same haul Houston gave Miami?

for what it's worth it sounds like the gas mask had nothing to do with the ravens picking stanley instead

 

[rossihunter2]

That's kind of the point... most players won't get 143 targets. Even if they're really good receivers they may never get to that level. Requires an offense willing to throw the ball that much, and that much to one player, in order for it to happen.

My point was if any receiver on this team got 143 targets, they would have very impressive stats and everybody around the league would think they're a good receiver.

You people realize that if Hollywood was the exact same player he is today, on 143 targets, he'd have over 1,100 yards a year with double digit TDs? Would put him right up there in the top 10-12 guys in the league in both yardage and TDs.

Would we be talking about a dire need for pass catchers with an 1,100 yard receiver and a 700-800 yard TE on the roster?

A lot of this is about volume folks.

agreed about the first part completely - the last bit definitely not lol - we would 100% still be looking for pass catchers because 2 isn't enough (in the exact same way it isn't right now either)

 

[rossihunter2]

It's not about where YOU rank him. Its about where he would rank in the league. If Hollywood Brown had the same passing volume thrown his way that most of the "top receivers" in the league, he would be universally in the discussion with those players. Maybe not by you, but you'd also be in the very smallest of minorities. As much as fans would like to pretend like they're supremely educated about what makes a good receiver and what doesn't, the very first thing you're going to with every player is the stat line. If that stat line says they're good, that's the baseline of the discussion. If it doesn't, that's also the baseline.

The initial premise of this discussion was about how disappointed you were that we took Hurst over Ridley. I pointed out why that's the wrong way to look at things, because its really Campbell + Dobbins over Ridley, which I think it would be hard to argue we get the bad side of that deal.

And the reason I wouldn't take Ridley over those two players is because I think Ridley's stat line, and therefore largely how fans evaluate receivers, wouldn't be nearly as productive in Baltimore. Among the many reasons why, is simply, he wouldn't get the ball thrown to him nearly as much.

that last bit is where i disagree because i also dont evaluate our own guys over stats - if ridley's the player we think he is, then he'd be a major difference maker here even without those same stats as in atlanta...

 

[rossihunter2]

I think this is his last shot. He'll get another offseason with 2 new mentors coming in this year. It's year 3 for him. We'll know if he's got anything in him early next year. Right now though, its not looking good at all.

boykin's firmly on the bubble now that sammy's here - boykin mostly was playing the "x" by default because we had no one else to take that spot except for dez bryant later in the year (who also did very little)

now that sammy's here, and is also a good blocker, it massively minimises the need for boykin - if we end up drafting a WR who can play outside, boykin's roster spot looks to be in peril because while he contributes on special teams, we've got better gunners and special teamers than him, and while he's a great downfield blocker, that's not enough to win you a roster spot

he's going to have to have a really good camp when the pads come on (he always does well in shells and shorts and OTAs)

 

[rossihunter2]

He picked it as an example, clearly, because Ridley has been exceptional for three years, and Hurst is a very average TE in this league who's also no longer here. So basically, he would rather have Ridley over Hurst, which player-for-player, I agree with. I also think that's irrelevant, because that's not really the choice either.

but it's not irrelevant - we're talking about how we felt at the time and how that's not changed with the benefit of hindsight

at the time, we had no idea hurst wouldn't work out - we both still wanted ridley... and now with hindsight, that's not changed

because the value argument is sort of irrelevant to the discussion because you're not picking a guy in the 1st round with the idea of trading him away after 2 seasons...

we got great value for a pick that didnt work out... that doesn't retroactively mean that's what we should have done in the first place still...

 

[rossihunter2]

Everybody cares about stats. Failing to admit it or not doesn't change it. There are better receivers in this league that we passed on for worse players than Ridley. You chose him because he's a good player who also puts up good stats.

no we chose him because he's who we thought we should take at the time...

if it was purely about stats and the opportunity to pick then we'd all be talking about michael thomas etc. all the time - but we're not - it's very specifically calvin ridley who made all the sense in the world at the time...

he was a bama kid in ozzie's last draft, at the one position ozzie had never really hit on, with a really high floor because of his baseline athleticism and route-running, and we traded down twice and he was still there falling into our lap - and we didn't take him...

that's why he/we chose ridley - because it made sense at the time too - and you can still read it in the draft thread on the night of lol

 

[rmcjacket23]

agreed about the first part completely - the last bit definitely not lol - we would 100% still be looking for pass catchers because 2 isn't enough (in the exact same way it isn't right now either)

If we added Ridley to this group of pass catchers today, pass catchers would not be anywhere close to our #1 priority. We'd be talking about adding somebody in the middle rounds or a cheap veteran addition.

We would have three viable pass catchers, including Andrews, in an offense that doesn't throw that often. You're not going to get much better than that with the structure of this team.

 

[JoeyFlex5]

solid view today

 

[UPennChem]

site's been revamped - i preferred the old site because this one doesn't let you tab open or track anything

but here's the new version (my guess is it works better on mobile than the old one maybe)

https://www.nfl.com/prospects/

Thank you my friend!!