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

Lamar Jackson

Davesta said:
What I meant was if all we get from 5 years of Lamar and Harbs is 1 playoff win.. why should we trust Harbs to guide our new QB / era when he failed with Lamar.

Total rebuild, clear house.. Or keep Lamar and get a new HC.
Click to expand...
Well, to answer the first question... because you don't really know if John is the problem or if Lamar is the problem.
 
JoeyFlex5 said:
Rmc is definitely Jay, he strikes me as the type to hate Forrest Gump
Click to expand...
True.. I could just see rmc as Danny and Sizzle as Channing Tatum ya know?
 
The idea that we need to clear everything out is kind of nuts.

Here is what we do have, a great Qb, RB's that when healthy are some of the best of the best, a very good O-Line when healthy, a nice TE room with the ability to be great depending on Likely's rise, and 2 nice weapons at receiver when healthy.

Really what's lacking is a sense of direction on offense. What are we looking to be? What fits us the best? Are we really utilizing Lamar to the best of his abilities? Do we take advantage of the positives he brings to the table as a passer?

It seems like a commitment to finding better receivers and offensive identity is what we need the most. (outside of health)
 
gtalk12 said:
The idea that we need to clear everything out is kind of nuts.

Here is what we do have, a great Qb, RB's that when healthy are some of the best of the best, a very good O-Line when healthy, a nice TE room with the ability to be great depending on Likely's rise, and 2 nice weapons at receiver when healthy.

Really what's lacking is a sense of direction on offense. What are we looking to be? What fits us the best? Are we really utilizing Lamar to the best of his abilities? Do we take advantage of the positives he brings to the table as a passer?

It seems like a commitment to finding better receivers and offensive identity is what we need the most. (outside of health)
Click to expand...
Yes. The focus of the offseason is going to be adding playmakers on offense and likely transitioning to a new OC to run a different offense (that also may not be dramatically different).

The whole "tear it down" thing doesn't make any sense. For starters, nobody will define what it is. "Tearing it down" means Harbaugh, Eric, and Lamar are gone. There's really no purpose at all in keeping any of them in that situation. Once you do that, you should then trade pretty much any expensive veteran, because what's the point? So Stanley, Marlon, Williams, etc. all gotta go. Probably Andrews too.

So then people will wake up and realize that even when you get "the QB", you have nothing else, so you won't win. Basically, you're the Chicago Bears. You're going to gut the roster, spend 50-75% of the QBs rookie contract trying to build a roster that can even mildly compete, and then pray like hell that in the small window you have to capitalize on it, you win.

That's what "tearing it down" looks like. Because once tearing it down starts with HC and GM changes, the incoming hires are married to precisely nobody on the roster. Especially true of the QB.
 
rmcjacket23 said:
Yes. The focus of the offseason is going to be adding playmakers on offense and likely transitioning to a new OC to run a different offense (that also may not be dramatically different).

The whole "tear it down" thing doesn't make any sense. For starters, nobody will define what it is. "Tearing it down" means Harbaugh, Eric, and Lamar are gone. There's really no purpose at all in keeping any of them in that situation. Once you do that, you should then trade pretty much any expensive veteran, because what's the point? So Stanley, Marlon, Williams, etc. all gotta go. Probably Andrews too.

So then people will wake up and realize that even when you get "the QB", you have nothing else, so you won't win. Basically, you're the Chicago Bears. You're going to gut the roster, spend 50-75% of the QBs rookie contract trying to build a roster that can even mildly compete, and then pray like hell that in the small window you have to capitalize on it, you win.

That's what "tearing it down" looks like. Because once tearing it down starts with HC and GM changes, the incoming hires are married to precisely nobody on the roster. Especially true of the QB.
Click to expand...

Exactly. A new OC does not have to dramatically change plays. I am really looking for "minor" adjustments in the approach.

I'd look at anyone under the Kyle S coaching tree or Andy Reid.
 
rmcjacket23 said:
Yes. The focus of the offseason is going to be adding playmakers on offense and likely transitioning to a new OC to run a different offense (that also may not be dramatically different).

The whole "tear it down" thing doesn't make any sense. For starters, nobody will define what it is. "Tearing it down" means Harbaugh, Eric, and Lamar are gone. There's really no purpose at all in keeping any of them in that situation. Once you do that, you should then trade pretty much any expensive veteran, because what's the point? So Stanley, Marlon, Williams, etc. all gotta go. Probably Andrews too.

So then people will wake up and realize that even when you get "the QB", you have nothing else, so you won't win. Basically, you're the Chicago Bears. You're going to gut the roster, spend 50-75% of the QBs rookie contract trying to build a roster that can even mildly compete, and then pray like hell that in the small window you have to capitalize on it, you win.

That's what "tearing it down" looks like. Because once tearing it down starts with HC and GM changes, the incoming hires are married to precisely nobody on the roster. Especially true of the QB.
Click to expand...
My brain is full of facts already.
 
rmcjacket23 said:
Yes. The focus of the offseason is going to be adding playmakers on offense and likely transitioning to a new OC to run a different offense (that also may not be dramatically different).

The whole "tear it down" thing doesn't make any sense. For starters, nobody will define what it is. "Tearing it down" means Harbaugh, Eric, and Lamar are gone. There's really no purpose at all in keeping any of them in that situation. Once you do that, you should then trade pretty much any expensive veteran, because what's the point? So Stanley, Marlon, Williams, etc. all gotta go. Probably Andrews too.

So then people will wake up and realize that even when you get "the QB", you have nothing else, so you won't win. Basically, you're the Chicago Bears. You're going to gut the roster, spend 50-75% of the QBs rookie contract trying to build a roster that can even mildly compete, and then pray like hell that in the small window you have to capitalize on it, you win.

That's what "tearing it down" looks like. Because once tearing it down starts with HC and GM changes, the incoming hires are married to precisely nobody on the roster. Especially true of the QB.
Click to expand...
The problem with this idea is a confidence that Harbaugh will get rid of Roman, and two that Harbaugh will actually get a good OC. What's his record been at that position again? Not exactly great.

Also tearing down doesn't mean getting rid of everything. EDC can absolutely still be around with a new coaching stuff under him and with most of our starters still around. Just with coaches capable of building a worthwhile offense.
 
RaineV1 said:
The problem with this idea is a confidence that Harbaugh will get rid of Roman, and two that Harbaugh will actually get a good OC. What's his record been at that position again? Not exactly great.

Also tearing down doesn't mean getting rid of everything. EDC can absolutely still be around with a new coaching stuff under him and with most of our starters still around. Just with coaches capable of building a worthwhile offense.
Click to expand...
Harbaugh doesn't report to EDC. Most HC's don't report to the GM. They work in tandem with, not under. So if Steve fired John, and he replaces him with a HC that wants power over personnel decisions, there would be no point for EDC to be there.

You could certainly hire a HC and a team of coaches that would be willing to work with EDC, but none of them would be experienced HC's or somebody that wants significant input over personnel decisions. Those guys aren't easy to find and generally aren't as desirable as HC's.

Regardless, anybody that would be hired was not involved in the drafting or signing of literally anybody on the roster, which means their evaluations of said players could significantly change.
 
rmcjacket23 said:
Harbaugh doesn't report to EDC. Most HC's don't report to the GM. They work in tandem with, not under. So if Steve fired John, and he replaces him with a HC that wants power over personnel decisions, there would be no point for EDC to be there.

You could certainly hire a HC and a team of coaches that would be willing to work with EDC, but none of them would be experienced HC's or somebody that wants significant input over personnel decisions. Those guys aren't easy to find and generally aren't as desirable as HC's.

Regardless, anybody that would be hired was not involved in the drafting or signing of literally anybody on the roster, which means their evaluations of said players could significantly change.
Click to expand...
Not many coaches can come in asking for power over personnel decisions. It would realistically only be Sean Payton who could ask for that. I hate the idea - it almost never works.

Payton wouldn't be my first choice as head coach anyway. Big names get thrown about because most of the other candidates are just names to us at this stage. If they haven't called plays or been a Head Coach before, we don't know much about them.

I'd be happy finding the next Ravens HC the same way we found Harbaugh - through an interview process - and I'd want whoever we hire to work with a GM who has control of personnel, whether that's DeCosta or whoever
 
QtR Nevermore said:
Not many coaches can come in asking for power over personnel decisions. It would realistically only be Sean Payton who could ask for that. I hate the idea - it almost never works.

Payton wouldn't be my first choice as head coach anyway. Big names get thrown about because most of the other candidates are just names to us at this stage. If they haven't called plays or been a Head Coach before, we don't know much about them.

I'd be happy finding the next Ravens HC the same way we found Harbaugh - through an interview process - and I'd want whoever we hire to work with a GM who has control of personnel, whether that's DeCosta or whoever
Click to expand...
Add to this that no head coach has one a super bowl on two different teams. Doesn't mean it can't happen, but it's never happened to this point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top