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

Next Up: vs Chiefs

Simba

Simba

Staff Member
Moderator
rmcjacket23 said:
Yeah the more concerning part to me is the "considerably longer" aspect of this. Not sure what the issue is or what it will take to fix it. Sounds like an extended absence is possible though.
Click to expand...

Yeah I’ve seen some allusions to this being unknown. Are these normal pains/issues with the recovery? Does it just need more rest? Do you need to go back in and clean it up? It sounds like all of those options are on the table and that will be the determining factor on the length. But with how ominous it sounds, I’d lean toward either of the latter options over just normal pains.
 
Simba

Simba

Staff Member
Moderator
I would like to say… it’s kind of ridiculous that we didn’t really plan for this possibility. I think nearly every single one of us knew that trading Brown required both a RT option and a swing T and they shit the bed on getting the swing T. This risk was always there and they didn’t plan for it.
 
redrum52

redrum52

Hall of Famer
Simba said:
I would like to say… it’s kind of ridiculous that we didn’t really plan for this possibility. I think nearly every single one of us knew that trading Brown required both a RT option and a swing T and they shit the bed on getting the swing T. This risk was always there and they didn’t plan for it.
Click to expand...

They did.... for next year when James is healthy. I also don't think they thought AV would be treated like a late-night turnstile.

The trade didn't go through until reports of us speaking with other tackles.
 
Simba

Simba

Staff Member
Moderator
redrum52 said:
They did.... for next year when James is healthy. I also don't think they thought AV would be treated like a late-night turnstile.

The trade didn't go through until reports of us speaking with other tackles.
Click to expand...

I don’t consider that a plan really. Yeah you added AV but who was the backup T if one of those guys got hurt? We’re using a C as our backup (and now starting) RT.
 
redrum52

redrum52

Hall of Famer
Simba said:
I don’t consider that a plan really. Yeah you added AV but who was the backup T if one of those guys got hurt? We’re using a C as our backup (and now starting) RT.
Click to expand...

This is one of the things I've mentioned when defending Lamar. The OL really hasn't been that good since he got here. He's covered up some holes, OL being one of them. The team needs to invest next off season like they did wr this year.
 
Simba

Simba

Staff Member
Moderator
redrum52 said:
This is one of the things I've mentioned when defending Lamar. The OL really hasn't been that good since he got here. He's covered up some holes, OL being one of them. The team needs to invest next off season like they did wr this year.
Click to expand...

OL and DL hard… both starter level players and depth
 
Simba

Simba

Staff Member
Moderator
Also just thinking of the PS elevations for this week, obviously OL makes sense - Smith or Ealy.

But also wondering if Chris Smith makes sense. We got next to no interior pressure and that’s where Smith shined in preseason. I’d sit both Ferguson and Hayes to give it a shot.
 
rossihunter2

rossihunter2

Staff Member
Moderator
Simba said:
I would like to say… it’s kind of ridiculous that we didn’t really plan for this possibility. I think nearly every single one of us knew that trading Brown required both a RT option and a swing T and they shit the bed on getting the swing T. This risk was always there and they didn’t plan for it.
Click to expand...

just not sure what the other options were beyond reaching for a guy they didnt like - also worth pointing out that only like 5 of the 14ish OT drafted in the first 2 days of the draft started this week - 3 of those guys were taken before the ravens were on the clock - and all bar the first 2 taken were beaten like a drum at times in their first outing

the issue with addressing the position is that we only traded Brown just before the draft when there weren't a ton of options left on the market - and tbf there werent a ton to start with - and 3 of the more prominent options still havent been signed (wagner, okung and schwartz)

really the only attainable guy we could/should have been in the market for that i can think of was someone like bobby massie (who won the broncos RT job and was signed in mid-may after the draft)
 
Simba

Simba

Staff Member
Moderator
rossihunter2 said:
just not sure what the other options were beyond reaching for a guy they didnt like - also worth pointing out that only like 5 of the 14ish OT drafted in the first 2 days of the draft started this week - 3 of those guys were taken before the ravens were on the clock - and all bar the first 2 taken were beaten like a drum at times in their first outing

the issue with addressing the position is that we only traded Brown just before the draft when there weren't a ton of options left on the market - and tbf there werent a ton to start with - and 3 of the more prominent options still havent been signed (wagner, okung and schwartz)

really the only attainable guy we could/should have been in the market for that i can think of was someone like bobby massie (who won the broncos RT job and was signed in mid-may after the draft)
Click to expand...

I would argue that they needed a swing T when Brown was still here too.
 
rossihunter2

rossihunter2

Staff Member
Moderator
Simba said:
I would argue that they needed a swing T when Brown was still here too.
Click to expand...

for sure - i think you could legitimately criticise them for not taking a swing at a swing T on day 3 especially given what's ultimately happened with wade and mason

but i liked robert hainsey (who we could have taken over cleveland) on day 2

and there were a number of guys available on day 3 i liked: james hudson, dan moore jr (who notably started for the steelers in week 1), d'ante smith, brenden jaimes, tommy doyle and stone forsythe

a couple of those guys might be better off at guard but no reason we couldn't have taken a shot on 1 of them - especially doyle and forsythe who were both taken after we took Wade
 
Simba

Simba

Staff Member
Moderator
rossihunter2 said:
for sure - i think you could legitimately criticise them for not taking a swing at a swing T on day 3 especially given what's ultimately happened with wade and mason

but i liked robert hainsey (who we could have taken over cleveland) on day 2

and there were a number of guys available on day 3 i liked: james hudson, dan moore jr (who notably started for the steelers in week 1), d'ante smith, brenden jaimes, tommy doyle and stone forsythe

a couple of those guys might be better off at guard but no reason we couldn't have taken a shot on 1 of them - especially doyle and forsythe who were both taken after we took Wade
Click to expand...

I think what irks me the most is that they had contingency plans for literally every other player that was coming off of some sort of injury.

Boyle with a bad knee? We had Tomlinson in the fold. Tavon still coming back? We drafted a versatile DB in Stephens and a slot guy in Wade. WRs underforming? Let's add 2 more in the draft. Ricard had hip surgery? Let's draft a FB.

And then it comes to T... where we had 2 Gs rotating in and out at RT last season because neither could get through an entire game there. And then we trade the star level player while Stanley is still coming back from injury... and we supplement that by signing AV and hoping Andre Smith is some sort of option despite taking a year off. They just did not plan for this well. Whether it's the draft or FA, they didn't do enough to help at T.
 
rmcjacket23

rmcjacket23

Ravens Ring of Honor
Simba said:
I don’t consider that a plan really. Yeah you added AV but who was the backup T if one of those guys got hurt? We’re using a C as our backup (and now starting) RT.
Click to expand...
The plan, to me, was to sign a Veteran to be the starter, and use Tyre as the backup. Like I'm not happy with Tyre as RT, and I don't think the FO should have been either, BUT, again, we won 11 games and a playoff game last year where Fluker and Tyre were largely rotating at RT for most of the year.

I think most FO would tell you that they don't expect, nor plan for, having five quality starters on the Oline. If they can get 3-4, that's a win. And I think the FO, originally, liked our interior Olineman going into the season (they were fine against Vegas I think), and they obviously have Stanley.

Now, of course, the problem we have today is a) your veteran RT looked abysmal in his first start, b) your likely swing tackle, who was also your starting LG, is now on IR and c) your All-World LT is likely heading to IR also.

Basically 2 of your 3 top tackles are probably out for an extended period by week 2. There aren't really backup plans for that, given roster construction and how difficult it is league-wide to find competent Olines.
 
rmcjacket23

rmcjacket23

Ravens Ring of Honor
Simba said:
I think what irks me the most is that they had contingency plans for literally every other player that was coming off of some sort of injury.

Boyle with a bad knee? We had Tomlinson in the fold. Tavon still coming back? We drafted a versatile DB in Stephens and a slot guy in Wade. WRs underforming? Let's add 2 more in the draft. Ricard had hip surgery? Let's draft a FB.

And then it comes to T... where we had 2 Gs rotating in and out at RT last season because neither could get through an entire game there. And then we trade the star level player while Stanley is still coming back from injury... and we supplement that by signing AV and hoping Andre Smith is some sort of option despite taking a year off. They just did not plan for this well. Whether it's the draft or FA, they didn't do enough to help at T.
Click to expand...
Probably not. But there's also finite resources. Hindsight being 20/20, I'm still not taking just any Tackle on the board over Oweh or Bateman yet. I suppose we can argue the disappointment of Ben Cleveland today, but all you're really doing is advocating for a day 2 or day 3 Tackle again, which is what we just did last year with Tyre Phillips.

If I put my FO hat on, I'm not sure they ever really "wanted" Phillips as the starting LG. I think they had ever hope he could be the swing tackle. Cleveland just wasn't anywhere near good enough in the preseason to take that spot.

Knowing what I know now, I'd rather have another Tackle on the roster than anybody we took in the 4th or 5th round. Wallace looks like purely ST depth, Wade got traded, Hayes is a likely gameday inactive for the foreseeable future, and Mason got cut. But I can't say with any certainty who we could have grabbed in those rounds that would be a difference maker on our Oline at the moment either.
 
rossihunter2

rossihunter2

Staff Member
Moderator
Simba said:
And then it comes to T... where we had 2 Gs rotating in and out at RT last season because neither could get through an entire game there. And then we trade the star level player while Stanley is still coming back from injury... and we supplement that by signing AV and hoping Andre Smith is some sort of option despite taking a year off. They just did not plan for this well. Whether it's the draft or FA, they didn't do enough to help at T.
Click to expand...

yeah i wonder if they have to reassess the way they value tackles at this point - the quality of tackle play and OL play in general is lower relative to other positions than it's probably ever been which means that even average play at that position is more valuable than it has been in the past (especially with a mobile QB)

in much the same way that they seemed to undervalue WR for too long and have now adjusted how they value the position, i wonder if we're about to see that change for tackle play here too
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top