Jump to content
ExtremeRavens: The Sanctuary

Harvin Declares


ForceEight
 Share

Recommended Posts

One prominent Florida player is going, another is staying with the BCS champion Gators.

 

Junior wide receiver Percy Harvin announced Thursday that he will enter the NFL draft, while All-American linebacker Brandon Spikes said he will return for his senior season.

 

College football underclassmen have a Thursday deadline to file paperwork to be included in April's NFL draft.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3835065

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope he does, because I want him the least.

 

I'm not particularly worried about WRs. There are other positions I'd be at least as happy filling.

 

Like what? The only needs that I can come up with are corner, big-play receiver, backup TE, replacement linebacker, and maybe defensive end and runningback (but not as first round considerations.)

 

Of all these possibilities, a big-play receiver would probably have the most impact on the team, as it would help Flacco's overall development to develop a timing with a big-threat receiver early in his career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not concerned with pairing Flacco with an immediately talented receiver. I don't think he needs that, and I don't think this will be the sort of offense where that happens.

 

Honestly, I'd rather see one of the linebackers taken, because there's exponentially more value there than with someone like DHB or Harvin, especially considering that it'd save us from resigning at least one of the free agent LBs.

 

There's no player I want more than Laurinaitis. I only mention him because he's possibly been leapfrogged perceptually, and I'm confident that he'll be a fantastic NFL player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His stock has dropped because other excellent players have entered into the mix.

 

You know as well as I do that WR is a hit or miss position, and DHB/Harvin are two very iffy players. Whether or not you consider the offense he played around, DHB didn't put up the numbers a first rounder usually does, and (as Cleet mentioned a few days ago) Harvin reminds me too much of Peter Warrick, only faster and less shifty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His stock has dropped because other excellent players have entered into the mix.

 

You know as well as I do that WR is a hit or miss position, and DHB/Harvin are two very iffy players. Whether or not you consider the offense he played around, DHB didn't put up the numbers a first rounder usually does, and (as Cleet mentioned a few days ago) Harvin reminds me too much of Peter Warrick, only faster and less shifty.

 

Getting a guy like Warrick at the end of the 1st round is a lot different than getting him #4 overall. It's not like Warrick was thrown into the best situation in the world in Cinci... they have a way of breaking a player down. Maybe he would've been better with a different team.

 

You'll note that the season Palmer was drafted (but sat out), 2003, he had a pretty good season with Kitna at QB... 79 catches, 819 yards, 7 TD... plus another 157 yards on 18 carries. I'm confident that a guy like this could be even more effective with a QB like Flacco throwing to him.

 

Now if you want to talk about Harvin's injuries, that's another issue altogether. Harvin and Warrick have both struggled with injuries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One more thing about Warrick: If he had low 4.3 speed like Harvin (Harvin supposedly ran a 4.31 at Florida this summer), Warrick would have been an absolute gamebreaker in the mold of a Steve Smith. However, Warrick ran in the late 4.5s. His moves in college were not going to work in the NFL, Harvin's might. I love Harvin's toughness when running the ball. I think he could certainly be a Steve Smith. DHB's style of play actually reminds me of a DeSean Jackson this year (except is a lot taller). Both guys have that lean frame built for speed, and speed only. Both guys are kind of one-dimensional deep threats at this point (with enormous potential to become more well-rounded), but when you can get behind DBs like that, it does not matter. The thing that worries me with DHB is that he is might not be more than a Ashie Lelie-type receiver.

 

Nevertheless, Ozzie has had a method of taking the BPA available. The only time he has strayed from that in the first round is when he has traded our pick because he (or Billick :P ) has targeted someone (Travis Taylor, Boller, and Flacco). As much as I would like a WR, if there is someone clearly better on the board at another position, I would take him. However, at this point, I just think DHB or Harvin would be the best value at pick #32. :D I am not a big fan of Laurinaitis and do not think he will be any better of a player in the NFL than DHB or Harvin, like Spear said. It is still extremely early though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to Boller, Flacco, and apparently Travis Taylor, you could also say that we targeted Byron Leftwich before Terrell Suggs fell into our lap. We also pretty much targeted Ngata, though he was probably the BPA anyways. Same with Grubbs, Clayton, and probably even Reed. I've never really bought into our "BPA" philosophy...not that it's not a good one, just that it's not what we do. The only example I can even think of where we took the BPA and it wasn't an immediate need was 2001, with Heap, but that was after we had just won the Super Bowl. Our philosophy that year was to also let our Super Bowl QB get away and sign a mistake-prone Elvis impersonator. So maybe 2001 wasn't the best year to use as an example of 'front office intelligence'.

 

You know what team actually takes the BPA? The Detroit Lions. They don't care if they have 3 or 4 players at that position already... they draft away. Heck of a strategy there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your explanation couldn't be more wrong. Just by your definition, every position is a "need." The only understandable way to define drafting by need is when a team intentionally drafts to fill the one or two most glaring holes early in the order.

 

Heap wasn't a "need," but we knew that Sharpe was leaving/that we couldn't resign him after the season. You could call Reed a need in 2002, but we needed to restock a lot of defensive positions (a lot of folks then had Dwight Freeney becoming a Raven). You can't call wanting Leftwich drafting for need, because we grabbed the best player at the spot we were in then, too. Boller is borderline drafting for need, because Billick was so enamored with him as an overall player. You can say that we targeted Clayton, Ngata, and Grubbs in successive years, too, but that doesn't mean we drafted any of them based purely on need.

 

I don't think there's much merit in you denouncing the BPA philosophy, because the teams that tend to use it the most--and use it most effectively--tend to walk away with the best looking picks and best looking roster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your explanation couldn't be more wrong. Just by your definition, every position is a "need." The only understandable way to define drafting by need is when a team intentionally drafts to fill the one or two most glaring holes early in the order.

 

Heap wasn't a "need," but we knew that Sharpe was leaving/that we couldn't resign him after the season. You could call Reed a need in 2002, but we needed to restock a lot of defensive positions (a lot of folks then had Dwight Freeney becoming a Raven). You can't call wanting Leftwich drafting for need, because we grabbed the best player at the spot we were in then, too. Boller is borderline drafting for need, because Billick was so enamored with him as an overall player. You can say that we targeted Clayton, Ngata, and Grubbs in successive years, too, but that doesn't mean we drafted any of them based purely on need.

 

I don't think there's much merit in you denouncing the BPA philosophy, because the teams that tend to use it the most--and use it most effectively--tend to walk away with the best looking picks and best looking roster.

 

This response is lengthy, but doesn't say much. You missed the mark completely and didn't make a single valid point. My original post still stands, uncontested.

 

We were trying to trade up to grab Leftwich, and we traded up to grab Boller and down (then up) to grab Flacco. This goes completely away from the "BPA" philosophy. As for Ngata, Clayton, and Grubbs: just because they were the best players available and filled a need doesn't prove that we draft using BPA-only. It just shows that we've been fortunate to do both at the same time. You haven't listed a single example where we shied away from an obvious need to select the BPA. Until we actually do this in a draft, I will not buy into it.

 

Given the choice of filling a need or picking the BPA that is not a need, I contend that we will fill the need (or trade out of the spot.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This response is lengthy, but doesn't say much. You missed the mark completely and didn't make a single valid point. My original post still stands, uncontested.

 

We were trying to trade up to grab Leftwich, and we traded up to grab Boller and down (then up) to grab Flacco. This goes completely away from the "BPA" philosophy. As for Ngata, Clayton, and Grubbs: just because they were the best players available and filled a need doesn't prove that we draft using BPA-only. It just shows that we've been fortunate to do both at the same time. You haven't listed a single example where we shied away from an obvious need to select the BPA. Until we actually do this in a draft, I will not buy into it.

 

Given the choice of filling a need or picking the BPA that is not a need, I contend that we will fill the need (or trade out of the spot.)

 

Drafting for need would have been taking Flacco at our original 1st round pick. We traded down and then up to get into a position where the need became BPA.

 

Grubbs was BPA. We needed an OT or a CB way more than another guard.

 

Ngata was BPA available at the spot we were in and the spot we traded up to. Ozzie goes after players we need in the spots he thinks they are worth.

 

Leftwich went the spot after we were trying to trade up to leading me to believe Ozzie felt he was BPA at that spot. We didn't take Boller at 10 because he wasn't BPA, Suggs was. We then traded back up to a spot where we felt Boller was BPA. Hell the year after with Dwan Edwards we would have taken another safety early if the Colts hadn't snatched Bob Sanders the pick before. Dwan was BPA on the list available.

 

Clayton wasn't a need as we had just signed Mason. Again BPA.

 

Do you want to go back further? How about 96? JO was BPA in Ozzie's books hence he got picked ahead of Phillips. He played guard his first season because we had 2 OTs already, so JO wasn't a need.

 

The trend is Ozzie targets needs at positions in the draft he feels where the player he wants is BPA. If he can't move around he drafts BPA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drafting for need would have been taking Flacco at our original 1st round pick. We traded down and then up to get into a position where the need became BPA.

 

Grubbs was BPA. We needed an OT or a CB way more than another guard.

 

Ngata was BPA available at the spot we were in and the spot we traded up to. Ozzie goes after players we need in the spots he thinks they are worth.

 

Leftwich went the spot after we were trying to trade up to leading me to believe Ozzie felt he was BPA at that spot. We didn't take Boller at 10 because he wasn't BPA, Suggs was. We then traded back up to a spot where we felt Boller was BPA. Hell the year after with Dwan Edwards we would have taken another safety early if the Colts hadn't snatched Bob Sanders the pick before. Dwan was BPA on the list available.

 

Clayton wasn't a need as we had just signed Mason. Again BPA.

 

Do you want to go back further? How about 96? JO was BPA in Ozzie's books hence he got picked ahead of Phillips. He played guard his first season because we had 2 OTs already, so JO wasn't a need.

 

The trend is Ozzie targets needs at positions in the draft he feels where the player he wants is BPA. If he can't move around he drafts BPA.

 

Grubbs was the BPA, but G was the #1 need at the time. We could've stocked up at OT with Staley, but G was our #1 need.

 

Ngata was both BPA and #1 need, if for no other reason than because Ray Lewis threatened to demand a trade if we didn't take a DT.

 

WR wasn't our #1 need in 2005? Huh? It absolutely was. Clayton was probably both BPA and #1 need.

 

DE/Rush LB may or may not have been a top need in 2003 (I say it was), but you can't pass on a top 3 pick like Suggs when he falls to #10. Was probably a big need anyway, because I remember wanting us to trade up for him.

 

As for Boller, Leftwich, and Flacco... I guess it's all subjective. Maybe we had Flacco as the BPA at #18, and maybe we didn't. I say we drafted him b/c he was a QB, and we were always going to find a way to draft him no matter what.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...