The Random Thought Thread

[rmcjacket23]

Another thing I don't understand. If last year we were able to play Hamilton as a big Nickel and Marcus Williams as FS, then why haven't we been able to play Hamilton the same way with Ardarius playing FS?

I get that they all play all the positions to some extent but, I don't recall Ardarius playing near the LOS so much. So have we been playing tons of 2 deep safeties? Meaning a significantly different defense as well?

I think if you're comparing to last year, and I could be wrong, but I think we played a lot more two-high safety last year. Meaning both of your safeties were deeper (MW and Stone, primarily). Just a preference from MacDonald.

It seemed that Orr maybe was willing to do more single-high looks with MW. He then realized that wasn't working, and went to two-high looks with MW and Jackson, which somehow made the problem even worse.

All of this to say that, effectively, we got tired of giving up the huge plays over the top. And the only way to do that is to put two safeties back there and tell them they can't get beat deep no matter what. That can, theoretically, cause problems in the middle of the field (exposing your linebackers more) and in the run game. But so far we've done well to mitigate that.

 

[Adreme]

It's BPA... at a position of need. No team is ever perfect from a roster standpoint, so there will always be at least 2 or 3 possible positions that will be taken in the first round. Corner was a clear "need" in that Humphrey was coming off an injury-riddled, disappointing season, and Stephens was in a contract year. We spent the entire offseason debating about which one of those two wouldn't be back in 2025.

Hamilton is probably the only first round pick I can recall where there was no clear "need" for another Safety on the roster. And the only reason he's a Raven is because for some reason he continued to fall so far and even EDC said he couldn't believe he was available when we drafted. They didn't even due a ton of diligence on him in pre-draft process because they thought he was too good to waste their time on.

Every single team that has ever drafted for need drafts the BPA at that position. If that were the debate then the debate of need vs BPA would be over two terms that are exactly the same.

When people debate BPA vs need they are talking about whether you are picking the best player on your board, regardless of what your positional needs are, or, if you are instead drafting need over BPA, are you looking at your board and going, “well we need a S, a WR, and a LB. Of those 3 who is the best on our board?” which is a different draft strategy.

 

[gtalk12]

New Escalade V Wheels sort of make me want one but I don’t like trucks lol

 

[BoredMarine13]

I’ve been addicted to Matt and Shane’s secret podcast for like 6 months now. Fucking endless entertainment. You start listening for Shane, but you stay for Matt.

His show on Netflix, Tires, is pretty good to

 

[Deebo813]

It's BPA... at a position of need. No team is ever perfect from a roster standpoint, so there will always be at least 2 or 3 possible positions that will be taken in the first round. Corner was a clear "need" in that Humphrey was coming off an injury-riddled, disappointing season, and Stephens was in a contract year. We spent the entire offseason debating about which one of those two wouldn't be back in 2025.

Hamilton is probably the only first round pick I can recall where there was no clear "need" for another Safety on the roster. And the only reason he's a Raven is because for some reason he continued to fall so far and even EDC said he couldn't believe he was available when we drafted. They didn't even due a ton of diligence on him in pre-draft process because they thought he was too good to waste their time on.

Did we have marcus already? Or was it still clark and elliot?

 

[Deebo813]

New Escalade V Wheels sort of make me want one but I don’t like trucks lol

Them mfs are nice

 

[UPennChem]

I think if you're comparing to last year, and I could be wrong, but I think we played a lot more two-high safety last year. Meaning both of your safeties were deeper (MW and Stone, primarily). Just a preference from MacDonald.

It seemed that Orr maybe was willing to do more single-high looks with MW. He then realized that wasn't working, and went to two-high looks with MW and Jackson, which somehow made the problem even worse.

All of this to say that, effectively, we got tired of giving up the huge plays over the top. And the only way to do that is to put two safeties back there and tell them they can't get beat deep no matter what. That can, theoretically, cause problems in the middle of the field (exposing your linebackers more) and in the run game. But so far we've done well to mitigate that.

This is actually very helpful. Thank you. We've done pretty much zero 3 safety stuff since the benching/cutting.

I wonder why Orr had such a big difference in preference early on? Regardless, it took an entire half of a season and some tough decisions, but he got a whole lot closer to where he needed to be.

 

[Rusfan]

I’m gonna say it:

Orr has earned another year at DC

 

[RavensMania]

I’m gonna say it:

Orr has earned another year at DC

lets just add more assistant coaches for the staff

 

[gtalk12]

Them mfs are nice

Come pick it up.

 

[All_black_everything]

 

[redrum52]

This shouldn't be as funny to me as it is.

 

[JoeyFlex5]

View attachment 6629

This shouldn't be as funny to me as it is.

Tbf he hadnt reached all pro as a full time safety just yet, and in the previous scheme he was deadly in the role he had, not yet sure he’s better at safety. More plays on the ball for Hamilton pays dividends, we just don’t have another option.

 

[rmcjacket23]

Every single team that has ever drafted for need drafts the BPA at that position. If that were the debate then the debate of need vs BPA would be over two terms that are exactly the same.

When people debate BPA vs need they are talking about whether you are picking the best player on your board, regardless of what your positional needs are, or, if you are instead drafting need over BPA, are you looking at your board and going, “well we need a S, a WR, and a LB. Of those 3 who is the best on our board?” which is a different draft strategy.

No.
Drafting for "need" means you identify the top need on your roster, and you draft that. If Tackle is the #1 need, you take a Tackle no matter what. Your draft board is set in a way that you'll only take that position.

A true "BPA" strategy doesn't exist. No team in the league uses it. Not even the Ravens. The Ravens draft strategy is almost universally "best player available at a position of need". They don't necessarily "rank" their needs. They know they have many needs, and they will set their draft board to reflect taking players at any of those position groups.

For example... if Shedeur Sanders fell to pick # X, where the Ravens are picking, they won't draft him. He might be the best player on Kiper or McShay or anybody elses draft board at the time, and may be the top QB on the board for every team, but the Ravens don't prioritize taking a QB that high, so they won't take him.

 

[rmcjacket23]

Did we have marcus already? Or was it still clark and elliot?

We had Marcus and Clark. Clark was coming off a great year and there was discussion about whether he was going to get extended. The reason some people weren't surprised by Hamilton is because I believe Clark was only under contract for one more year, and while an upgrade wasn't critical, it certainly didn't hurt.

 

[marklar]

Happy Santa's birthday, all you wierdos, including those on my ignore list!

 

[BoredMarine13]

I was very curious what the CFP first-round TV numbers would be
ESPN
Ohio St-Tennessee: 14.3M
Notre Dame-Indiana: 13.4M
TNT
Clemson-Texas: 8.6M
Penn St-SMU: 6.4M

Putting that in perspective, the Ohio State-Tennessee game did about the same TV audience as last year's UConn-Purdue men's basketball championship game (14.8M). Also the average NFL game gets 17M viewers.

I think Ohio st vs Oregon and Georgia vs ND will be right at the 17m number next week. Just goes to show NFL is putting up crazy numbers, and football in general is blowing away any other sport.

 

[Adreme]

No.
Drafting for "need" means you identify the top need on your roster, and you draft that. If Tackle is the #1 need, you take a Tackle no matter what. Your draft board is set in a way that you'll only take that position.

A true "BPA" strategy doesn't exist. No team in the league uses it. Not even the Ravens. The Ravens draft strategy is almost universally "best player available at a position of need". They don't necessarily "rank" their needs. They know they have many needs, and they will set their draft board to reflect taking players at any of those position groups.

For example... if Shedeur Sanders fell to pick # X, where the Ravens are picking, they won't draft him. He might be the best player on Kiper or McShay or anybody elses draft board at the time, and may be the top QB on the board for every team, but the Ravens don't prioritize taking a QB that high, so they won't take him.

Your definition of need strategy also doesn’t exist in the NFL as no team does that either.

So following your own logic if drafting for need doesn’t exist and drafting BPA doesn’t exist then the debate over BPA bs need shouldn’t exist because nobody is drafting in either way.

Therefore I can assume we should never hear the terms need or BPA as it relates to the draft because those draft strategies do not exist. Granted I disagree with you and feel you are creating a straw man extreme version of each case but that is still the argument you are making.

Counter point though your premise is wrong and we both know it. We have seen teams draft the 40th best prospect at 27 because it’s the best player at the 2-4 position groups being targeted. Conversely we have seen the 15th best prospect picked at 27 when the drafting team has pro bowl starters in that group.

By the way QB is a dishonest example and you know it because it’s the one exception to the rule. If Travis Hunter falls to 25 the Eagles would sprint to the podium and take him despite having both the best WR and CB room in the NFL because he would be the BPA and they would find a way to get him on the field.

 

[JoeyFlex5]

Your definition of need strategy also doesn’t exist in the NFL as no team does that either.

So following your own logic if drafting for need doesn’t exist and drafting BPA doesn’t exist then the debate over BPA bs need shouldn’t exist because nobody is drafting in either way.

Therefore I can assume we should never hear the terms need or BPA as it relates to the draft because those draft strategies do not exist. Granted I disagree with you and feel you are creating a straw man extreme version of each case but that is still the argument you are making.

Counter point though your premise is wrong and we both know it. We have seen teams draft the 40th best prospect at 27 because it’s the best player at the 2-4 position groups being targeted. Conversely we have seen the 15th best prospect picked at 27 when the drafting team has pro bowl starters in that group.

By the way QB is a dishonest example and you know it because it’s the one exception to the rule. If Travis Hunter falls to 25 the Eagles would sprint to the podium and take him despite having both the best WR and CB room in the NFL because he would be the BPA and they would find a way to get him on the field.

I remember Andre Dillard and tytus Howard being drafted back to back in the first round, because both teams number one need was a OT and they had no business being drafted that high, both teams had other needs but they sold out for an OT

It does happen.

 

[rmcjacket23]

Your definition of need strategy also doesn’t exist in the NFL as no team does that either.

So following your own logic if drafting for need doesn’t exist and drafting BPA doesn’t exist then the debate over BPA bs need shouldn’t exist because nobody is drafting in either way.

Therefore I can assume we should never hear the terms need or BPA as it relates to the draft because those draft strategies do not exist. Granted I disagree with you and feel you are creating a straw man extreme version of each case but that is still the argument you are making.

Counter point though your premise is wrong and we both know it. We have seen teams draft the 40th best prospect at 27 because it’s the best player at the 2-4 position groups being targeted. Conversely we have seen the 15th best prospect picked at 27 when the drafting team has pro bowl starters in that group.

By the way QB is a dishonest example and you know it because it’s the one exception to the rule. If Travis Hunter falls to 25 the Eagles would sprint to the podium and take him despite having both the best WR and CB room in the NFL because he would be the BPA and they would find a way to get him on the field.

So Pittsburgh's first round draft strategy for the last decade or so has largely been predicated a player at the position which they feel is the greatest need on their roster. Hence why they've had so many first round failures.

Counter point: there's no such thing as "the 40th best prospect or the 15th best prospect". That doesn't exist. There are mock draft analysts who will produce highly subjective and highly flawed rankings of merely their own opinion of where a prospect "ranks", but they're also not NFL GMs, and therefore aren't picking players and their draft boards oftentimes look dramatically different than a single or many NFL franchise draft boards would.
So you've never seen the 40th best prospect taken at 27, because until the end of time you won't know who the 40th best prospect is. At a minimum, you'd need access to at least 32 NFL team draft boards (which you won't get) to even vaguely have a shot at identifying who that was.

In your example of the Eagles, it would be hard to argue CB isn't a need, given the contracts (and when they expire) of some of the current one's they have. Namely, Slay and Bradberry. Strengths turn into needs in less than a few months in this league. All it takes is one FA period.