Mark Clayton and Torrey Smith

[leachisabeast]

Even before the weight of the equipment, the equipment itself restricts your flexibility and comfort.

Like Calvin Johnson

[AirFlacco]

I've always thought 40 yard dash numbers can be misleading for WR's. Jerry Rice ran a 4.71 and I don't think that ended up hurting him.

Exactly but all coaches swear by the time. Suggs dropped to us because of his poor 40 time. Phil Savage was at that workout at ASU and called Oz and said Suggs just dropped to us. Only Phil and Ozzie knew his greatness was in his first step across the line. That's where he beats everyone.


I'M A FOOTBALL PLAYER, NOT A TRACK STAR. T. SUGGS.

[Strange Bru]

I don't care how fast a WR is, I care that they can catch the football.

[RavensDomination]

Exactly but all coaches swear by the time. Suggs dropped to us because of his poor 40 time. Phil Savage was at that workout at ASU and called Oz and said Suggs just dropped to us. Only Phil and Ozzie knew his greatness was in his first step across the line. That's where he beats everyone.


I'M A FOOTBALL PLAYER, NOT A TRACK STAR. T. SUGGS.

Well remember we ended up with Suggs by default after the Minnesota trade debacle. If things had worked out the way the Ravens wanted we would have ended up with Leftwich and not Suggs/Boller.

I do remember Terrell saying something along the lines of "I've never had to run down a QB for 40 yards."

[Paintballguy]

Billick was talking about the 40 yard dash for o-linemen today. He said something like "When QB's start dropping back 40 yards to pass, I'll worry about 40 times for o-linemen." lol

[AirFlacco]

Well remember we ended up with Suggs by default after the Minnesota trade debacle. If things had worked out the way the Ravens wanted we would have ended up with Leftwich and not Suggs/Boller.

I do remember Terrell saying something along the lines of "I've never had to run down a QB for 40 yards."

That's if you believe Ozzie really made that 35-second call to turn the card in on Leftwich but even if he got Lefty
there wouldn't be the disastrous DWan Edwards draft the following year and we might have landed Wilfork who
went to NE with the #1 Oz gave Billicheat for Boller.

That said, both QBs were highly rated at the time with Lefty in the top 10 and Boller in the top 20. Miami and
GB offered NE their #1s for Boller but Ravens had the higher picks and don't forget, Oz lost Lefty because they kept
stalling Minn on the phone to run off the clock because they desperately wanted him.

When I asked PHil Savage at the Barn the night after the draft why didn't Ozzie trade up for Lefty the
day before the draft to secure him, Phil said Ozzie knew he was going to get either Suggs or Leftwich so he wasn't disappointed at all. Everyone in town wanted Lefty that day and many didn't like giving up the future #1 for Boller. Ozzie said he'd never do it again and he hasn't.

[bacchys]

I didn't even like the move for Flacco, to be honest. I think it's generally a waste to draft a QB in the first round, especially if you're picking late.

Both Manning and Leaf were "sure things" in their time. So were Shuler and Dilfer.

There is usually a number of quality QB's sitting on someone's bench any given year. Gino's brother, for instance, isn't a bad QB. Put him on a good team (which he hasn't experienced yet) and he'd do well, imo. Moore in Miami is another one.

I can't think of anything Flacco has done that one couldn't have hoped to get from Patrick Ramsey, for instance- and I'm a Flacco fan.

Draft for the trenches. In the modern NFL, the main thing is to dominant in one aspect of the game. Having a dominant o-line or d-line (or, even better, both) makes up for a lot when it comes to skill positions.

[PurpleApocalypse37]

I didn't even like the move for Flacco, to be honest. I think it's generally a waste to draft a QB in the first round, especially if you're picking late.

Both Manning and Leaf were "sure things" in their time. So were Shuler and Dilfer.

There is usually a number of quality QB's sitting on someone's bench any given year. Gino's brother, for instance, isn't a bad QB. Put him on a good team (which he hasn't experienced yet) and he'd do well, imo. Moore in Miami is another one.

I can't think of anything Flacco has done that one couldn't have hoped to get from Patrick Ramsey, for instance- and I'm a Flacco fan.

Draft for the trenches. In the modern NFL, the main thing is to dominant in one aspect of the game. Having a dominant o-line or d-line (or, even better, both) makes up for a lot when it comes to skill positions.

...........

.................

What?

Are you.. Serious?

You've got to be joking. Right?

[bacchys]

Nope. I'm not joking. I'm in the "pay the man" camp. Flacco's earned it. $20 million a year for a QB of Flacco's caliber is cheap.

But looking over the five years of his tenure I can't say the Ravens couldn't have achieved as much with someone else under center, especially if they picked up someone else who gained NFL experience on another team.

Shaun Hill is a good QB. He's backing up in Detroit. Matt Moore is a good QB. He's mired in a poorly run Miami franchise. Bruce Gradkowski is a gamer. With a good team and a good coaching staff, any of those three could be successful.

No, they aren't in Flacco's class, let alone Rodgers, Brady, or P. Manning. But you don't need an All-Time Great QB to win championships. You need to be able to dominate in one aspect of the game while not getting dominated somewhere else. That's why the Giants with Eli were able to beat the Patriots in two Super Bowls: they didn't get dominated anywhere and their d-line dominated.

I'm a big Flacco fan and I'm happy we've got him. I've been impressed with him since he was forced into starting his rookie year. I've defended him against the Flacco haters consistently. But I don't think it was necessary to have drafted Flacco when we did. It wasn't necessary to draft Boller when we did, either.

[HoustonRaven]

Nope. I'm not joking. I'm in the "pay the man" camp. Flacco's earned it. $20 million a year for a QB of Flacco's caliber is cheap.

But looking over the five years of his tenure I can't say the Ravens couldn't have achieved as much with someone else under center, especially if they picked up someone else who gained NFL experience on another team.

Shaun Hill is a good QB. He's backing up in Detroit. Matt Moore is a good QB. He's mired in a poorly run Miami franchise. Bruce Gradkowski is a gamer. With a good team and a good coaching staff, any of those three could be successful.

No, they aren't in Flacco's class, let alone Rodgers, Brady, or P. Manning. But you don't need an All-Time Great QB to win championships. You need to be able to dominate in one aspect of the game while not getting dominated somewhere else. That's why the Giants with Eli were able to beat the Patriots in two Super Bowls: they didn't get dominated anywhere and their d-line dominated.

I'm a big Flacco fan and I'm happy we've got him. I've been impressed with him since he was forced into starting his rookie year. I've defended him against the Flacco haters consistently. But I don't think it was necessary to have drafted Flacco when we did. It wasn't necessary to draft Boller when we did, either.

Couldn't disagree more with this post and it sounds as though you're just stirring the pot.

Look at the past SB winning QB's for the past ten years when the league kept changing the rules to generate more offense.

You NEED a high quality QB to win these days. It's been proven.

15 years ago, I'd agree with your opinion but nothing could be further from the truth in today's pass happy NFL.

[Sirdowski]

Sean Hill is not a good QB. He's a serviceable back up. The only reason he had some success in Detroit was because of Calvin Johnson. He literally just threw him jump balls until they double or triple teamed him then Hill would throw to wide open receiver underneath the coverage. As far as the other two, they just don't have a body of work to judge them from. Success isn't about winning a game or five. It's about seasons worth if work.

[Jeremiah W]

Couldn't disagree more with this post and it sounds as though you're just stirring the pot.

Look at the past SB winning QB's for the past ten years when the league kept changing the rules to generate more offense.

You NEED a high quality QB to win these days. It's been proven.

15 years ago, I'd agree with your opinion but nothing could be further from the truth in today's pass happy NFL.

Look at this way though. Were Eli, Joe, Ben and Brady top 10 QBs the first time they won the SB? They are now, but the first time, they were young and unproven, and not top 10 regualr season guys. IMO Eli is really only a top 10 guy over say Romo because of what he did in the playoffs, but in the regular season they are close with Romo getting the edge in some opinions.

So I actually agree mostly with the post you disagree with. You do not need to have the best QB to win the SB. You just need to be dominant at something and not get dominated in any area. It is the complete teams that have been winning the SB not the elite Qb led teams.

[NC Raven]

I don't care how fast a WR is, I care that they can catch the football.

A- freaking -men.

Run the right route, get open, concentrate, hang on to the ball. Track speed is just a bonus. If you don't do the other stuff with an elite level of consistency, speed is irrelevant. Particularly the 40 yard dash.

[bacchys]

Sean Hill is not a good QB. He's a serviceable back up. The only reason he had some success in Detroit was because of Calvin Johnson. He literally just threw him jump balls until they double or triple teamed him then Hill would throw to wide open receiver underneath the coverage. As far as the other two, they just don't have a body of work to judge them from. Success isn't about winning a game or five. It's about seasons worth if work.

He had some success in San Francisco, too, and that was with a Niners team that wasn't as talented as it is now. In '08, he played in 9 games for the Niners (starting 8 of them) and posted a better QB rating than he did in 11 game appearances (10 starts) in 2010 for Detroit when he was "literally just [throwing] jump balls" to Calvin Johnson.

[HoustonRaven]

Look at this way though. Were Eli, Joe, Ben and Brady top 10 QBs the first time they won the SB? They are now, but the first time, they were young and unproven, and not top 10 regualr season guys. IMO Eli is really only a top 10 guy over say Romo because of what he did in the playoffs, but in the regular season they are close with Romo getting the edge in some opinions.

So I actually agree mostly with the post you disagree with. You do not need to have the best QB to win the SB. You just need to be dominant at something and not get dominated in any area. It is the complete teams that have been winning the SB not the elite Qb led teams.

To the QB question you posed -- Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

Nobody claimed you need the "top QB" or the "best QB to win the SB". Try again without moving the goal posts.

And you've also contradicted yourself in the last sentence. How can a team be complete without a good QB? All of the teams that won the SB the past ten years had complete teams, to include a very good QB.

The last ten Super Bowls proves the point.

[Sirdowski]

He had some success in San Francisco, too, and that was with a Niners team that wasn't as talented as it is now. In '08, he played in 9 games for the Niners (starting 8 of them) and posted a better QB rating than he did in 11 game appearances (10 starts) in 2010 for Detroit when he was "literally just [throwing] jump balls" to Calvin Johnson.

That's just quibbling.

He was benched for Alex smith version 2009. Nuff said.

[Raveninwoodlawn]

Mark Clayton was one of my all time most hated first round picks.

I hated the fans build up on these boards (I remember fans calling him things like the YAC king) and I was very unhappy with the pick when we made it.

[Jeremiah W]

To the QB question you posed -- Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

Nobody claimed you need the "top QB" or the "best QB to win the SB". Try again without moving the goal posts.

And you've also contradicted yourself in the last sentence. How can a team be complete without a good QB? All of the teams that won the SB the past ten years had complete teams, to include a very good QB.

The last ten Super Bowls proves the point.

The disagreement here is slight but still. Plenty of the recent qb s to win the sb were just barely top 10 at the time and went through better qb s because they were on the better team. That sti

[PurpleApocalypse37]

Uh, you realize that the Ravens only won the Super Bowl this year because of a hall of fame quality performance by their quarterback during the playoffs.

[bacchys]

That's just quibbling.

He was benched for Alex smith version 2009. Nuff said.

Quibbling is an interesting euphemism for "complete rebuttal." I've never seen it used that way before.