SpearSrai Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 With how good we are at drafting, having a franchise QB should put us right up there with the Chargers, Pats, Steelers, and Colts as teams in the AFC that annually compete for division titles. Honestly, I've always thought of us as right up there with those teams anyways... if instead of 'terrible' QB play we had just gotten slightly-below-average QB play, I think we would have made some strong championship runs over the last 8 years. Throw in the fact that our previous head coach clearly had no idea how to run an offense... and refused to bring in a real coordinator... Now that we have a franchise QB who could actually end up being great instead of average, and a coaching staff that actually knows what they're doing, and I say that we're one of the favorites to go to the Super Bowl every year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colincac Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 There's no way we will keep CMac if it means letting one of our LB's go. We could cut CMac and be able to resign Scott for less then Mac was making, so it would be a no brainer in my opinion (even with our lack of CB's). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpearSrai Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 And for what it's worth, I think people are undervaluing what Scott means to the defense. He's been mentored by Ray for his entire career, which is a luxury that we may not have for much longer... Who knows how good Reed, Scott, Ngata, and the rest of our defenders would be without Ray to teach them? I'd like to keep as many of these guys together for as long as we can, because we don't know how long Ray is going to be around for. And just from a football standpoint, Scott is one of the best linebackers that would be available on the market... he's a very good blitzer, a hard-hitter, he knows our defense, and he can lead the D when Ray is out (or when he retires). I guess the truth is that we really need to resign all 3 guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmacarolle21 Posted January 7, 2009 Author Share Posted January 7, 2009 Cutting Chris Mcalister is idiotic. But, anyway we have plenty of cap room from what I see it depends what kind of contracts Lewis, Suggs, and Scott want. I have a feeling they want to stick together and keep winning. Using FOX Sports as my souce hope that's safe? http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/team/baltimore-ravens/salary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colincac Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 How is cutting Chris McAlister idiotic? The guy used to be an All-Pro, but now he's washed up, injured and overpayed. It would be idiotic to keep him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpearSrai Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 I wouldn't say that McAlister is washed up, but he has definitely struggled with injuries for a number of years now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmacarolle21 Posted January 8, 2009 Author Share Posted January 8, 2009 When Chris Mcalisters healthy he's a top 3 corner. He's probably the best tackler in our secondary he had 3 interceptions in the short amount of time he palyed this season. He got burnt once bad that I saw on the Harrison play; granted he was injured. But, I think we owe it to him to give him another year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dc. Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 And for what it's worth, I think people are undervaluing what Scott means to the defense. He's been mentored by Ray for his entire career, which is a luxury that we may not have for much longer... Who knows how good Reed, Scott, Ngata, and the rest of our defenders would be without Ray to teach them? I'd like to keep as many of these guys together for as long as we can, because we don't know how long Ray is going to be around for. And just from a football standpoint, Scott is one of the best linebackers that would be available on the market... he's a very good blitzer, a hard-hitter, he knows our defense, and he can lead the D when Ray is out (or when he retires). I guess the truth is that we really need to resign all 3 guys. Gotta disagree with much of this. Scott is a role player in this defense who looks like a standout next to everyone else's effort. He's bad in pass coverage, he misses tackles, he can't shed blocks... and then we can get to attitude That's not to say he isn't a good linebacker... because he certainly is. He knows how to hit and stop the run. But I think he is hugely overvalued. And I will again point to Edgerrin Hartwell. If we are able to keep Scott, great. But at the expense of Ray, Terrell, Jason Brown?? I don't know. I simply think we have plenty of talent linebackers and it will not be too hard to find a guy to step into Bart's position. Bart is helped by the terrific play of everyone around him... and even then he makes as many mistakes as he goes great plays. Let him go and we'll have a next man up to fill the void. I can think of 9 starters on this defense I worry about more than Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpearSrai Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Edgerton Hartwell wasn't as good as Bart Scott. He wasn't as hard of a hitter as Scott either. I know we've made it look easy over the years with guys like Sharper, Hartwell, Adalius Thomas, and now Scott... but Ray has a lot to do with this. Once he's gone, it's going to be a lot harder to bring these average players up to superstar level. That's my point, not that Bart Scott is the second-coming of Lawrence Taylor. Who knows how long it will be until Ray either retires or puts on another uniform (heaven forbid.) Don't assume that it's our "system" that makes these players so good...I contend that it's our defensive leaders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colincac Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 It is the leaders on our defense, and thats why it's important that we spend the money to resign them, and let one of our younger guys (McClain or Barnes) step up and fill Scott's role. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dc. Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Even if it's our defensive leaders... Scott isn't one of them. And if Ray leaves any time... Scott won't be able to hold his unit together. I'd rather look for another leader than just hang on to Scott just because. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpearSrai Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 We already have a linebacker replacement... he just happens to be on IR at the moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravinmaniac52 Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 I also like that McClain guy. He makes plays, his number is alway seen. You know how one of these guys do something in a big playoff game. Block a field goal, return a blocked kick, you know, something. Look for #53. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cravnravn Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Even if it's our defensive leaders... Scott isn't one of them. And if Ray leaves any time... Scott won't be able to hold his unit together. Not true dc, What year was it that Ray was injured and Scott filled in and we didnt lose a beat on D..Thats why hes here..Bart Scott os a spoke in the Ravens wheel of success. We lose him, then Ray retires you will see a drop in the overall D, a substancial drop. Scott, Suggs and Ray is probably the best trio in the NFL since the mid 80's Giants. If we win it all, Ray retires, If we dont, the ball is in Bisquits court, Ray will base his decision on what Steve does. We start releasing players, C-Mac, Scott, Buddy Lee is done unfortunately..You start messing with the spokes and the wheel falls apart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yagersports Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 I don't think it's probably wise to tie up that much money at the LB position. I'm a big advocate of keeping two of the LBs, but I think if we attempt to keep all three we'll be investing too much at one position. Suggs is great in pass coverage, run defense, and pass rush, Ray is Ray, from my point of view those are the two guys to keep. Besides.....I think some roster turnover is usually good for any team. Part of keeping a team fresh and competitive is to have open positions to compete for. Having said all of that I do want to stress that I am a Bart Scott fan. The guy does have talent, and he seems to be very loyal to the Ravens. Is this something that we want to throw away??? I'm not sure, it's certainly relevant to the decision making process. He's certainly better Hartwell ever was, however this organization has proven that it can take average LB talent and make them great talent. Ultimately I would think that so long as the monetary benefits gained through releasing Scott (or rather which LB the FO choses) outweigh the production lost, AND those monetary benefits can be used to upgrade another position, not just used as savings, then I say release one of the LBs. For Example: I'm simplifying, but if the replacement linebacker is anticipated to perform at a level of at least 15% below the current linebacker AND the money saved by using this option allows us to sign a CB that is anticipated to perform between 20-25% better than Rolle, then releasing a LB would be a good move. (I'm anticipating that CMac will not be here next year based on character conflicts with Harbaugh, we'll see) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmacarolle21 Posted January 9, 2009 Author Share Posted January 9, 2009 If we win the Super Bowl I see them trying to keep the team they have now for another 2 years. If you have to let one of Suggs, Mcalister, Scott, or Lewis go. You let Bart Scott go. Look to secure Rex Ryan offer him good money to stay aboard for another 2 or 3 years. I think when ray gets older unless he plays on being a defensive coordinator our team's defensive excellence cools down. Although Ray wouldn't have the same impact as a d-cord or even as a linebackers coach I think it would still help dramatically if he stayed with the Ravens after he retired. That being said I say we look to improve on 4 positions in the draft respectivley. CB, LB, WR, OT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colincac Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 I hadn't thought about the fact that Ray might retire if we win a super bowl, but you guys are correct that there is a good chance that will happen. Same goes with Rolle, Pryce and Mason I think.... I agree with the keep 2 LB strategy, and would want it to be Ray and Suggs, but if Suggs wants way too much money, I think Ray and Scott would be good to keep also. Keep in mind, McClain has been used mainly as a pass rusher, so he might be more of a Suggs replacement then a Scott replacement at heart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmacarolle21 Posted January 10, 2009 Author Share Posted January 10, 2009 I don't know about Rolle he recently said he see other CB's in the league performing well that are older then him. I definetly agree with Pryce and probably Mason though. We lose Mason I'll be very upset...Think that would change our priority in the draft.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dc. Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Not true dc, What year was it that Ray was injured and Scott filled in and we didnt lose a beat on D..Thats why hes here..Bart Scott os a spoke in the Ravens wheel of success. We lose him, then Ray retires you will see a drop in the overall D, a substancial drop. Scott, Suggs and Ray is probably the best trio in the NFL since the mid 80's Giants. If we win it all, Ray retires, If we dont, the ball is in Bisquits court, Ray will base his decision on what Steve does. We start releasing players, C-Mac, Scott, Buddy Lee is done unfortunately..You start messing with the spokes and the wheel falls apart. You see that Scott filled in... I see that we had Adalius Thomas outside, Terrell outside... Johnson helping (at the time we thought he was just standing in, now we know better)... we had a healthier Kelly Gregg... I see it differently. Scott has actually gotten worse in his last two years with this team in my mind... he's uncotrollable, he's not very disciplined... his biggest strengths are hitting QBs and stopping the run... but we have seen lots of guys come in and do that on this team. By the way... all the SB talk is way out of line. Let this team play first. If they play well, if they win or if they don't, I think we will see lots of guys back because of how strong this team looks for the next few years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravinmaniac52 Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 I don't think that Scott has actually gotten worse, I think they ask him to do more then what he was doing before. Scott big thing was going after the QB, they aren't asking him to do that, they ask him to cover more. If they ask him to go get he QB and had some sack people would be thinking other wise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmacarolle21 Posted January 11, 2009 Author Share Posted January 11, 2009 Scott and Lewis were solid tonight I think Ray only missed one tackle and straight up laid that one guys out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForceEight Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 Scott was atrocious tonight, actually. He can NOT tackle on the outside, even when in position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmacarolle21 Posted January 11, 2009 Author Share Posted January 11, 2009 I thought Scott did good tonight I felt that he was held a lot and that he made some crucial plays. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thundercleetz Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 Forget the deep threat... MARK CLAYTON BABY!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmacarolle21 Posted January 11, 2009 Author Share Posted January 11, 2009 Mark Clayton is a good #2 receiver I don't feel too good about having him be our #1 receiver should Mason not return next year. Clayton's got speed sure but, his hands aren't as sure as I'd like them to be. Do we want to go through the draft or do we want to sign a seasoned veteran; or just go and try to sign Mason again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.