Friday, July 17, 2009

Point/Counterpoint: What should the Ravens do if Derrick Mason retires?

Chris and Jim are die-hard Ravens fans. They disagree about what steps the Ravens should take, in response to Derrick Mason’s announcement that he will retire.
_____________________________

Jim:


I was thinking over the Summer that we need to get more balls this season to Mark Clayton and Demetrius Williams and Marcus Smith. This wasn't what I had in mind! But I guess it's one way to do that.

Mason wasn't really part of the future anyway. In the long run, his retirement doesn't really change anything, in terms of building the next Ravens championship contender. The important thing is not to over-react, mortgage the future for some stopgap player. I mean sure, if the Ravens were on the fence about a trade for an impact player like Anquan Boldin or Brandon Marshall, and this pushes them over, fine. Otherwise, stay the course and keep building the team.

I guess this frees up a roster spot, for Isaiah Williams or even Eron Riley. ;-)

_____________________________

A third party on a discussion board asks:

Is there a way this could be a slight positive for Flacco’s development? Last year he locked on to Mason exclusively, often forcing the ball to Mason when there was a better read. Maybe with no Mason, Flacco is forced to spread the ball around and run the offense.
_____________________________

Chris:


Anyone who sees anything positive coming from this is delusional.

_____________________________

Jim:


Hi Chris!
;-)

YES.


Honestly this is no different from if Mason had retired shortly after his surgery, earlier this offseason.

• The "best players available" in the draft would still have been the same; unless Ozzie is lying every time he says he doesn't draft for need in the early rounds.

• Joe still got to throw to Clayton and Smith et al in OTA's and minicamp: Mason was out with the post-surgical shoulder rehab.

• The prime target free agents and trade bait are still out there: Boldin, Marshall, Plexiglass et al.

The Ravens now have Mason's $3M to spend; and a slight logjam has freed up, so they now have playing time to give to some of their young receivers and continue growing a very young offense.


This may hurt a bit for this season. But I think it helps us for 2010-11-12, Joe's 3rd-thru-5th seasons, by forcing him to spread the ball around more from day one of this training camp. Look at it long-term. Maybe Joe’s stats will take a hit, this year; but not his long-term development.


The announcement on the jocklife site has this quote:
“I have left them in great hands,” explained Mason. "Mark Clayton is a younger version of me and Williams can be a true player, he can be in the elite class. Smith, Harper, Washington, they all are a young group that can only be better with Joe in the backfield.”
I believe this could be substantially true.

_____________________________

Chris:


Come on, Jim! I know we should keep our heads up and everything, but let's be realistic here. This isn't a good thing. "Hurts now" is for sure correct, and I don't think we can argue this is good for Flacco in year 3-5 because who knows what would have happened next year anyway. If Mason retired at the end of this season, years 3-5 are in the same situation. The only argument is if you think someone's gonna have a big break-out year this year that they wouldn't have had if Mason were still on the team, and that's a tough argument to make.

Clayton is a sub-average #2 receiver, or a very good #3 receiver. He's now left to be playing the #1 role, as a guy who's never had 1,000 yards or 70 receptions in a season. You think he's gonna be running wide open on anyone's #1 CB like he was at times last year? He's not a #1 receiver and if he's left in that role with no help on the other side it legitimately could be a disaster.

The rest of the receivers on our roster had a combined 14 rec last season and a combined 57 over their careers. That is 7% of the number of receptions Mason's had in his career. Mason's caught for over 10,000 yards and 52 TDs his career, and the last two years he's had over 1,000 yards and 5 TDs per season for us.

It's nice to be optimistic in this whole situation. But I think I already posted the odds elsewhere, of how likely it is that we've got a good starting WR on our team other than Mason or Clayton. It's around 25% that we have someone that can at least regularly put up 800 yards a season for a few years. And 800 per season won't replace Mason's production.

As optimistic as anyone wants to be, let's also be realistic. Realistically, it is FAR more likely this situation ends very badly if we do not acquire another receiver to take his place. And not like Hank Baskett or Deion Branch. I mean someone like Boldin or Marshall or someone who can adequately play the #1 role. Because without that, we're losing a TON of production. And guys aren't magically going to suddenly become Derrick Mason quality receivers just because there's no one else to throw to and Flacco is a good QB (assuming that's even true, of course). Odds are that such a thing would be a dramatic set-back in how productive our offense will be this coming season.

It's not at all far fetched to imply that this group of WRs without Mason would be one of the worst in the NFL. No one's implying the team itself can't compete, and I don't think that WR is the most important position on the field by any stretch. But it's certainly possible for the position to derail the team's title hopes if it goes really really bad, or put them over the top if things suddenly go great.

But let's examine that "worst WR corps" claim a moment though. Who has worse than us?

Raiders - Their top WR last year had 366 yards. They just reached on a guy big-time in the draft, and DHB will determine whether or not this corps is better or worse than ours. Right now, I'd take ours over theirs, but not by much.

Titans - Their WRs aren't good, but at least they don't have total scrubbery past the #1 spot. Clayton is better than their best, but from #2 on down the Titans are better than ours.

Bears - Theirs is pretty bad, though we'll see if Hester winds up working out okay as a WR or not. Cutler may also be able to do more with that group than anyone else has. I probably wouldn't trade ours for the Bears, but it's close.

Giants - Hinges almost completely on the young guys. If they're good, theirs is better. If they're not good, probably not. Their young guys have more game experience than ours do, though.

That's it. Those are the only four that I might have some hesitation about. Everyone else, if you offered a straight up trade of ours (assuming no Mason, duh) for theirs, I wouldn't even think twice about it.
_____________________________

Jim:

Funny, two of those teams you listed were the top seeds in the two conferences.

Tom Brady won Super Bowls with very ordinary talent at wide receiver; and Joe Montana did too, before Jerry Rice came along. The Ravens are pretty much the only team to win a Super Bowl without good QB play.

Patch did a study on the distribution of Pro Bowlers on Super Bowl teams. He found that the LEAST common players were fullbacks and special teams aces; the next least-common were wide receivers. Super Bowl teams usually had Pro Bowl O-linemen and D-backs etc; wide receiver was approximately the 3rd-least important position.

I mean, it helps to have good players everywhere. But I'd a lot rather have a strong O-line and QB with a weak WR corps, than the other way around.

Mind you, if Ozzie pulls the trigger on a blockbuster for Brandon Marshall or Anquan Boldin, I'll stand up and cheer. But short of a true impact player, let's sit tight and develop the guys Ozzie has already acquired.

_____________________________

Chris:

Yeah right. The Giants had Plaxico and Toomer last year. If they still had them both, they wouldn't be close to this list. The Titans had a defense like ours and a fantastic running game, and were out in the divisional round of the playoffs.

Of the teams I listed, the Titans are the only ones that you can compare to us. And the bottom line is, we're gonna have to have the same or better defense and a better running game if we want to get back to where we were last year, if that's the corps of receivers we're taking into the year. The Titans had that, and didn't make it as far as we did. The other three teams; one had the WRs last year, the other two didn't make the playoffs.

The problem with not doing anything is that we're not in a rebuilding year. If this were the '08 season coming off the horrendous '07 season, then yeah, you could make the argument to say "Let's see what the young guys have." But it's not. There's expectations this year, rightfully so. And right now, we've just gotten SIGNIFICANTLY worse than last year at our weakest position.

All you need is one guy that can mount even a little bit of a receiving threat on the other side of Clayton. That brings our receiving corps from "God awful" to "bad but livable." Clayton can be mediocre at #2 and DWill or Marcus Smith or someone else could at least produce more than the 12 catches that spot saw last year at #3.

But Clayton at #1 and (insert career nobody here) at the #2 spot is a downright disastrous situation.

You don't just "replace" 1,000 yards of production by plugging in other bodies. If everyone else produces the same except we replace only 750 of Mason's yards, that's a pretty major blow for us. That 750 yards of replacement is a VERY reasonable assumption, given how little production all of our other receivers have shown over the course of their careers.

Patch’s study you mentioned was meant to be a look at whether you need a stud at the position or not. I'm not arguing you need a stud there.
But the Patriots are about the only team who have won the Superbowl without an adequate WR. Branch could make that arguable, too; given he won a Superbowl MVP, though he's been trash in Seattle.

It's one thing to just not have a Pro Bowler on the team. Plenty of SB teams have done that. But it's a COMPLETELY different thing to have absolutely no one of value at the position. There are very few SB teams that have giant, gaping holes in any one major position on the field.
_____________________________

Jim:

What's an "adequate" WR? Mark Clayton is not even "adequate"? He had 940 yds receiving with 14 ypc a couple yrs ago, before the wheels fell off in 2007 and then he was stuck with a rookie QB in 2008. Demetrius Williams, assuming he's healthy, is inadequate? Can't even be an average WR?

These guys have no value?

If there is one position I would want my team to be weakest at, it might be wide receiver. Maybe FB or TE; but WR is up there.

I mean, I'd rather have Larry Fitzgerald and Andre Johnson, with the rest of our team intact and everybody fitting in under the cap. Absolutely. But it is very tough to be strong everywhere, in the salary cap era.

At some point you have to develop your young talent. Last year we started to develop a LT and QB, along with some other O-linemen and a FB. Why not this year too?
_____________________________

Chris:

C'mon Jim. Clayton had 940 yards three seasons ago. It was a nice ramp up and showed signs of him breaking out to be a legit NFL threat, but since then he's regressed.

He hasn't cracked 700 yards since then, playing against #2 CBs with a 1,000 yard receiver on the other side of him. He's shown some flashes on a few plays, but has not consistently shown the ability to get open and make a QB's life easier. If he's struggled to break 700 yards receiving against #2 CBs, what's he going to do against the #1 guys?

I'm not saying he won't see an increase in his stats. More than likely he will as the primary target. The problem is, it's not good enough to simply have an increase in productivity with Mason not around. Without Mason, there's NO ONE else at WR to throw the ball to. He needs to create situations on his side of the ball to become a threat, and open things up on the other side for other guys.

How good of a chance do you think there is that happens this coming season, assuming our top two are Clayton and someone else currently on our roster? Last year Mason and Clayton had a combined 1,732 yards. What do you think the odds are of our top two WRs combining for that amount again this season?

If I were a betting man (and I think you know I am), I'd set the odds at no less than 4 to 1 against, probably even higher than that.
Quote:
Demetrius Williams, assuming he's healthy, is inadequate? Can't even be an average WR? These guys have no value?
I never said he or anyone else on this roster can't be. But the odds against them are not good.

In three years, DWill has had 55 total receptions. He's shown no signs on the actual field of play that he can be a consistent threat. On top of that, he's had consistent injury issues, so there's at least some concern that he won't be on the field all season.

Kelly Washington, in his six seasons, has a total of 73 NFL receptions. Never had more than 31, never broken the 400 yard mark, and this was with Carson Palmer and Tom Brady throwing him the ball.

The rest of the receivers on our roster have a combined 2 NFL receptions. I feel safe saying "These guys have no value" because if we tried to get an NFL team to trade a 7th round pick for any of them right now, they'd laugh at us. Is it possible one of them becomes a decent receiver? Sure, of course it is. But it's not possible to argue that it's likely to happen. And I think it's got to be VERY concerning to take something like that into the year.
Quote:
I mean, I'd rather have Larry Fitzgerald and Andre Johnson, with the rest of our team intact and everybody fitting in under the cap. Absolutely. But it is very tough to be strong everywhere, in the salary cap era.
At some point you have to develop your young talent. Last year we started to develop a LT and QB, along with some other O-linemen and a FB. Why not this year too?
FYI, I'm not saying we need super-studs at the position. I've never said that.

But go back to what I said. Very, VERY rarely has a team ever contended in the Superbowl with a major position on the field containing an incredibly glaring weakness.

FB doesn't count. They largely aren't on the field much and often are not listed as starters anymore.

TE is just one spot of the 22 on the field. A handful don't mention TE as a starting position.

WR though is two to three of the starting 22 mentioned, every single game. Not one team in this league lists less than two receivers as "starters" on their roster...not one. Argue as much as you want about how important the position actually is, but one thing that can't be argued is it's one of the most major positions on the field in terms of the number of players dedicated to it both listed as starters as well as on the roster. I don't know of a team in the NFL that dedicates less than 10% of their roster to being receivers.

Now, go back through the Superbowl teams and look through the major positions and tell me which team had a glaring weakness at one particular roster spot. And I'm not saying "Some mediocrity at the position." We don't have mediocrity at the WR position right now. We have utter, complete garbage right now. Clayton is about the #50 WR in the NFL, and none of the rest of our guys crack the top 100...that's horrendous.

Positions I'd call "major" positions:
QB
RB
WR
OT
IOL (interior OL)
DT
DE
OLB
ILB
CB
S

Now, look through the list of prior SB teams and tell me where any of those had a position where the best guy to fill it was ranked around #50, and the second best guy was ranked around or well lower than #100. I would argue that it's probable not one in the past ten years has had such a situation.

Regardless of how important or not important anyone thinks the WR position is, you can't simply ignore it completely, and expect to be successful.
_____________________________

Jim:


So your argument is that the future is now. We are a top contender, one player away from the Super Bowl. If that's the case we should move heaven & earth to land that player and push the squad over the top.

I disagree. I think it's easy to look at last year, see that we got within ~4 mins of the SB, and conclude that we're RIGHT THERE. No changes necessary, just stand pat and give Joe another year in the system, and we should be favored. But it's a mistake. Thankfully, it seems that it's a mistake the organization is *NOT* making.

There are two issues with the Ravens making moves as if there are "expectations" this year: the conference opponents, and the team.

In terms of the conference: we got a little lucky last year in the playoffs, both in the games we played (we lose the Tennessee game, if either Chris Johnson doesn't get injured or if they stop fumbling) and in the games we didn't play (Indy was in the other bracket). Figure a resurgent Pats squad with Brady coming back; possibly a resurgent Chargers squad with Merriman coming back and Rivers even more experienced; the Titans possibly not unravelling as Kerry Collins puts off crashing to earth another year; and oh yeah there's a fairly tough opponent in our own division. It's not at all a slam dunk that we will be top 5 in the conference this season. There's a lot of football to be played, and there are a lot of good teams that can legitimately expect to be better.

In terms of the team: the roster we competed with last year had some weaknesses. You know these weaknesses, Chris, as well as anyone: rookie QB, very young O-line overall, aging statue RT, no depth at TE, 1st-year running a new offense, unproductive passing game possibly due to the rookie and new offense, very thin secondary, old at some spots in the D front 7. It's a testament to the heart of the players, and the inventiveness of the coaching staff, that the team went as far as they did. They definitely maximized their potential.

We're just a year removed from 5-11, a very legit 5-11. We're still building an offense completely from scratch, from nothing. The correct response from an organization coming off that year is not to relax and say "we're right there". It's to say, "we're on the right track!" and continue the plan. And that's what they've done: sweeping rebuild in the secondary, inject some youth into the front 7 (mostly by allowing Bart Scott's playing time to open up; also draft pick of Kruger), adding a veteran Pro Bowl center, drafting an exciting talent at RT, signing a veteran pass-catching TE.

They should continue in that same vein. Adding an old stopgap guy like Marvin Harrison or Amani Toomer would be a step backward: the team needs to move forward, building a team that can compete at the highest level for years. One possible step forward would be adding an impact guy like Anquan Boldin or Brandon Marshall. I would jump up and down screaming with joy if that were to happen. Oh my god. But another possible step forward would be, giving significant playing time to the young wide receivers that we've already acquired. We know Clayton is a legit NFL receiver, kind of along the lines of Mason in terms of size and speed. We think Demetrius Williams can make plays, with a slightly different kind of talent. I'm sure that SOMEone among Kelly Washington / Marcus Smith / Isaiah Williams / Eron Riley / Ernie Wheelright / whomever from the cast of thousands – someone can be a half-decent #3 receiver. We need to find out who.

It's not about this year. It CAN'T be about this year, because our QB is just in his second season. Granted you take what's in front of you, and this year is what's in front of us. But we're still at the beginning of Joe's career, and Jared Gaither's career, and Ray Rice's, and Ben Grubbs's, and Haloti Ngata's, and Michael Oher's, and Tavares Gooden's, and Jameel McClain's, Paul Kruger's, etc etc. No matter how old Ray Lewis is.
_____________________________

Chris:
Quote:
So your argument is that the future is now. We are a top contender, one player away from the Super Bowl. If that's the case we should move heaven & earth to land that player and push the squad over the top.

No, I didn't say that...
Quote:
I disagree. I think it's easy to look at last year, see that we got within ~4 mins of the SB, and conclude that we're RIGHT THERE. No changes necessary, just stand pat and give Joe another year in the system, and we should be favored. But it's a mistake. Thankfully, it seems that it's a mistake the organization is *NOT* making.
You obviously can't do that cause you're moving backward if you're not moving ahead. But besides that point, the organization DID move backward already this year prior to Mason. Bart Scott, Jim Leonard and Rex Ryan - all of whom played major roles in our success last year - are gone. It's nice to argue that guys can and probably will step up, and yeah we got better at CB (I didn't mention CMac leaving as that could be as much addition by subtraction as anything else). But in general, on paper one week ago with Mason, this roster was weaker than it was last year.

Now, with Mason gone, it's a significant step backward.
Quote:
Adding an old stopgap guy like Marvin Harrison or Amani Toomer would be a step backward
I don't know how it's even possible to argue this. Bringing in a guy who is very clearly better than anyone we have at the #2 spot doesn't set us back! How can you say it sets us back? Because it doesn't give a guy who to this point has shown nothing more than at best a glimmer of hope a chance to step up on a championship contending team?

And it's not like we've got a ton of big prospects waiting at the position. It's one thing if we have some highly drafted guy who hasn't been able to crack the starting rotation cause he's young and raw and there's lots of talent in front of him. All our guys are 3rd+ round guys that are young and raw and haven't shown anything to indicate they can consistently play the position at an average or better NFL level. Again, not saying there's no chance they can. However, the odds they can simply are nowhere near as good as the odds Marvin Harrison can for another season.
Quote:
It's not about this year. It CAN'T be about this year, because our QB is just in his second season. Granted you take what's in front of you, and this year is what's in front of us. But we're still at the beginning of Joe's career, and Jared Gaither's career, and Ray Rice's, and Ben Grubbs's, and Haloti Ngata's, and Michael Oher's, and Tavares Gooden's, and Jameel McClain's, Paul Kruger's, etc etc. No matter how old Ray Lewis is.
Going forward, it's not like we'd relying on those guys like Harrison or Toomer to do the job. There's zero difference in '10 between our having those guys on our '09 roster and not having them on our roster. This isn't March, where we sign one of these guys and skip drafting a top receiver...this is July where the option is sign one, or have no one else, and next year we'll do whatever is needed to address the position like we have crap at the position.

It IS about this year. Right now, it is. We're not making roster moves for '10 and beyond right now. Anything this team does - baring a blockbuster deal, which is NOT what I'm saying I want - is for '09. That's how it is every year for every team at this time. In Mar/Apr, it was about '10 and beyond as much as it was about '09. Right now, it's all about '09.
_____________________________

Jim:
Quote:
I don't know how it's even possible to argue this [that Marvin Harrison or Amani Toomer would be a step back]. Bringing in a guy who is very clearly better than anyone we have at the #2 spot doesn't set us back! How can you say it sets us back? Because it doesn't give a guy who to this point has shown nothing more than at best a glimmer of hope a chance to step up on a championship contending team?
Because Marvin Harris is 37 years old!!!! Amani Toomer is 35. Duh.

A championship contending team? I think the only chance for us to be a championship contending team, this year or any year, is by making moves with an eye toward the long-term. Stopgaps don't help. We need not to get ahead of ourselves: there is still plenty of rebuilding to do.
Quote:
And it's not like we've got a ton of big prospects waiting at the position. It's one thing if we have some highly drafted guy who hasn't been able to crack the starting rotation cause he's young and raw and there's lots of talent in front of him. All our guys are 3rd+ round guys that are young and raw and haven't shown anything
Terrell Owens – 3rd round
Steve Smith (Carolina) – 3rd round
Brandon Marshall – 4th round
Wes Welker – undrafted
TJ Houshmazilli – 7th round
Hines Ward – 3rd round
Derrick Mason – 4th round
Donald Driver – 7th round
Steve Breaston - 5th round
Bernard Berrian - 3rd round
Lance Moore - undrafted
Kevin Walter (Houston) - 7th round

We don't know what we have. You don't want to find out
Quote:
There's zero difference in '10 between our having those guys on our '09 roster and not having them on our roster.
BS. It's the difference between Demetrius Williams and Marcus Smith getting starter & #3 receiver reps this year, or them not getting those reps. Huge impact on the 2010 season.
Quote:
It IS about this year. Right now, it is. We're not making roster moves for '10 and beyond right now. Anything this team does - baring a blockbuster deal, which is NOT what I'm saying I want - is for '09. That's how it is every year for every team at this time. In Mar/Apr, it was about '10 and beyond as much as it was about '09. Right now, it's all about '09.
Ok. I believe that *EVERY* move should be made with one eye on 2 seasons from now. But I do see your point here.
_____________________________

Chris:

Quote:
Marvin Harris is 37 years old!!!! Amani Toomer is 35. Duh.
Both were more productive last year than anyone we have behind Clayton, and likely would be more productive in the #2 slot this year than anyone behind Clayton. Also, both would be more of a respected threat to open things up for Clayton than anyone we currently have.

Harrison and Toomer have lost a step or two with their age. But I'd rather have a tremendously productive WR that's lost a step or two than a guy that has never shown they've had such a step.
Quote:
A championship contending team? I think the only chance for us to be a championship contending team, this year or any year, is by making moves with an eye toward the long-term. Stopgaps don't help. We need not to get ahead of ourselves: there is still plenty of rebuilding to do.
I agree that's the best way in most cases, but not in all cases. For instance, right now there's nothing we can do in FA with an eye toward '10 or beyond. We could trade for Boldin or Marshall or whatever, but that also hurts us in future years as we'll give away draft picks – trades are usually "a wash." More on this in a bit.


About your list. This is the 300 receivers drafted in the third round or afterward since TO entered the league in 1996. Doesn't even include all the UFAs – probably another 50 - 100. You've named twelve.

More particularly, of the 300 on that list, only 10 have had over 325 career receptions. Twelve have been starters on their teams for five years or more. Eight have had more than one Pro Bowl appearance and only 16 have ever made it to Hawaii.

Now, those numbers are of course somewhat short because guys like Brandon Marshall haven't had the time to get over 250 receptions yet. But it's not like we're talking about doubling that number. Well less than 10% of those 300 drafted in round 3+ since '96 can be considered adequate or better NFL starting WRs. Even if you allow it to be 10% - which it's not - the odds one of the five on our team become starting material is ~40%. I actually broke this down in more detail in another post (I think in the Boldin thread but don't remember). I calculated the odds of one of our five becoming a receiver that could catch for 800+ yards per season for more than four seasons at around 23%.

I never said I don't want to find out what they've got. But do I want to rely on them to become one of those receivers, without other viable options? Hell no.
Quote:
It's the difference between Demetrius Williams and Marcus Smith getting starter & #3 receiver reps this year, or them not getting those reps. Huge impact on the 2010 season.
No it's not. One more receiver in the stable bumps them down one slot on the depth chart. If one of them is going to break out, they'll have a chance to prove it, and they'll do so. And even still, do you really think Harbaugh and Cam wouldn't give them a shot to compete for the #2 slot against a Matt Jones or Marvin Harrison? If any of them are better, it will stand out, and they'll get their reps.

Guys don't really suddenly get awesome without showing some flash of it before-hand. It happens on rare occasion. But more often than not, there's leading indicators of it. So far I haven't heard of any. Maybe there's a diamond in the rough somewhere. But if you asked me to bet at even odds that we've got a guy behind Clayton that's a legit NFL starting caliber receiver, I wouldn't touch that action.
_____________________________

Jim:
Quote:
You've named twelve.
What I've done is name 43% of the players with 900 or more yards receiving last season. (I rounded Kevin Walter up a yard.)
Quote:
Guys don't really suddenly get awesome without showing some flash of it before-hand. It happens on rare occasion. But more often than not, there's leading indicators of it. So far I haven't heard of any.
You've seen no flashes or indicators whatsoever that Demetrius Williams can play? I dunno about "awesome", that's a Larry Fitzgerald / Andre Johnson level. But no flashes at all? Really?

_____________________________

Chris:


A NOTE ON MY EARLIER POST: I've found a potential issue with my number of 300 receivers since '96. Apparently profootballreference.com's draft query only allows for 300 players to be listed. There may have been more than 300 receivers drafted since '96 in rounds 3+, which simply makes the numbers far more damning.


Quote:
What I've named is 43% of the players with 900 or more yards receiving last season. (I rounded Kevin Walter up a yard.)
Totally irrelevant statistic. That tells us nothing about how likely any of our guys are to actually become decent players. Simply because 43% of the solid players last year were 3+ round players doesn't mean any of our guys are likely to break out as well.

Since '96, 112 WRs have been drafted in rounds 1 or 2. Vs. 300 or more drafted in rounds 3+. Almost if not more than 3x the number of first or second round receivers, and they only make up 43% of the top players at the position. That ratio sounds about right to me, maybe a little on the high side even. But regardless of that, you would expect a good portion of solid players to come from rounds 3+ since many more are taken in those five rounds plus UFA than are taken in the first two rounds.

None of that says anything about how likely one of our guys is to break out. For a reasonable measure of that, you have to look at the number of receivers were taken in rounds 3+ that turned into very good players vs. the number that didn't. That number falls somewhere between 5% and 8%, depending on your definition of a decent player.

At 8%, it's around 35% that at least one of the five guys under Clayton turn into one of those guys. Not good odds, and while I hope it happens, I certainly don't want to count on it going into the season...

Quote:
You've seen no flashes or indicators whatsoever that Demetrius Williams can play? I dunno about "awesome", that's a Larry Fitzgerald / Andre Johnson level. But no flashes at all? Really?
Not that he can do it consistently, no. How could I have? He's had two 70+ yard receptions in three years, and other than those two catches in three seasons he's had 53 catches for 719 yards and 1 TD. That's not even equal to Mark Clayton's best season, and it's taken him three to get there.

Sure, there have been flashes. But what NFL guy hasn't shown SOME sort of flash of something when he's on the field? I saw flashes out of Randy Hymes and Clarence Moore, too. Where are those guys, now?

Showing a flash every so often is one thing. But that's not good enough to say there's a decent chance that person can become a legitimate NFL starter. They've got to break a big play more than twice every three years. They've got to consistently show decent production more than once every four to five games. It's been three years and DWill hasn't. My hopes for him are not exactly high.

_____________________________


Patrick:


I think Zip overlooks the elephant in the room as a matter of convenience. If Mason's departure has the potential to improve the Ravens to the extent that he shouldn't be replaced, then it logically follows that Baltimore should extend no effort to return him to the fold. I also disagree with the strategy of 'look how many lower draft picks became productive receivers!' and then producing a list of players, none of whom are Ravens.

_____________________________

Jim:


Ooo, good point.

One of my unexamined assumptions was that there is no one available in free agency who can replace Mason. A lot of guys who aren't as good as he is (Marvin was better over his career, but he's too old now); no one who is currently as good. The closest guy I can think of to Mason is Wes Welker, who is younger and probably quicker. Yeah, if we could get Wes Welker, that would be AWESOME.

Any free agent we could get is not as good as Mason is. Otherwise, they would be on somebody's roster, right? So in my mind it's not so much a matter of "shouldn't" be replaced as "can't" be replaced. There's a logical next-man-up succession in place on the team; taking some washed-up guy and installing him as #1 would gum up that process. That's not "replacing" Mason in any meaningful way. But, plugging in Welker or Steve Smith (the good one), or some other great player (like the ones mentioned in the exchange): that would be fine. More than fine.

Also, obviously when we talk about Mason's departure "improving the Ravens", it's from a make-lemons-into-lemonade standpoint. Flacco and the offensive coaches and the receivers would be tasked with turning it into something positive; my argument was that the potential is there for that. In modern NFL offenses, there's usually someone open, even if it's the #3 guy. Maybe Joe would more often find that guy if he wasn't fixating on Mason every down.

But yeah: the roster is better with Mason on it, than without him. Sure. Of course.


_____________________________

Chris:


I definitely agree the team's better with Mason than without of course. I think the difference, Jim, is that I don't see how this can be a good thing overall. The only way this can be a good thing is if there is a receiver on our roster right now that winds up having a break-out season and develops into an NFL caliber receiver, when he wouldn't have had the shot and therefore never breaks out (at least in Baltimore) if we bring someone ... anyone ... else in.

The problem is that the odds of that are miniscule. On top of the 35%ish odds that one of the guys on our roster has to be NFL caliber, you'd have to stack onto that the odds one breaks out because they get a better shot this year than they would have if we brought on another receiver. Lots of factors go into that...
1) Do we even bring in anyone else? If not, it's all moot.
2) How good is the person we bring in? If we bring in a guy like Boldin, that increases the chances someone does NOT break out. But that's unlikely. If we bring in a Marvin Harrison or Matt Jones, that doesn't increase those chances all that much.
3) Assuming we don't bring in a stud, what are the odds that moving down one slot on the depth chart means the receiver won't break out? I think the only POSSIBLE player to have any shot at being hurt by this is the slot receiver if we add no one. The #2 receiver (presumably DWill) moves to the slot, and plenty of slot receivers have break-out years if they're legit weapons (at least a handful from your list broke out playing the slot). The #4 receiver and down rarely gets a shot anyway, so dropping back one won't hurt them. The slot right now moving to #4 could get hurt. Presumably that's Marcus Smith.

So what are the odds any of our guys are legit, PLUS they won't break out with another receiver in the fold but would have without one? IMO, significantly less than 35%. I would guess well less than 10%.

Bottom line, I don't think we have to get a stud to take Mason's place. But I think it's going to have a HUGELY negative impact on our season if we don't have someone else to put in there and give us at least one other body that can be counted on to produce something...anything. I'm not saying I want Harrison or Toomer - the two names thrown out most often here. But someone like them, be it signing Matt Jones, trading for Deion Branch or one of another team's #3 or #4 receiver who has great depth at the position, would at least mean we could function at the position.

Cause right now, the odds we can function at WR are very low. And that's very dangerous for a team with lofty expectations.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

And, scene.

Obviously, reasonable fans can disagree on complex situations like this – and so can Chris and Jim!

0 comments:

Post a Comment

About This Blog

Twitter: oblong_spheroid

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP