Photo

Ravens sign Wolfe


  • Please log in to reply
83 replies to this topic

#21 ravens82

ravens82
  • Members
  • 442 posts
  • LocationEllicott City, MD

Posted 28 March 2020 - 11:31 PM

For those with a subscription to The Athletic; https://theathletic....-a-1-year-deal/

 

Some interesting details about Wolfe's career from the Broncos writer.  He had injury issues earlier in his career, including a spinal issue he got surgically fixed in 2018.  Last year was shaping up as one of his best, but got derailed by a freak elbow injury that appears to have fully healed -- his Twitter account has some evidence: https://twitter.com/...18935305633792.

 

Sure sounds like his career has been rejuvenated, and the Ravens will benefit.



#22 BSLJordanKough

BSLJordanKough

    Ravens Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,337 posts

Posted 29 March 2020 - 08:48 AM

If you really want Williams to exclusively play NT, this is a much much better signing. Additionally, the 1/3 nature plus incentives also makes this a vastly better deal.

 

Brockers was versatile, but Wolfe makes this a significantly better pass rushing front. Much happier with this deal. 



#23 Mike B

Mike B

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,816 posts
  • LocationTowson Md.

Posted 29 March 2020 - 08:58 AM

If you really want Williams to exclusively play NT, this is a much much better signing. Additionally, the 1/3 nature plus incentives also makes this a vastly better deal.

 

Brockers was versatile, but Wolfe makes this a significantly better pass rushing front. Much happier with this deal. 

Now onto an inside line backer or Clay Matthews to help on the edge


@mikeghg

#24 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 90,667 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 29 March 2020 - 09:01 AM

They will probably keep McPhee.
@BSLRobShields

#25 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 90,667 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 29 March 2020 - 09:02 AM

If you really want Williams to exclusively play NT, this is a much much better signing. Additionally, the 1/3 nature plus incentives also makes this a vastly better deal.
 
Brockers was versatile, but Wolfe makes this a significantly better pass rushing front. Much happier with this deal. 


Well, Wolfe doesn’t have impressive sack numbers throughout most of his career.
@BSLRobShields

#26 BSLJordanKough

BSLJordanKough

    Ravens Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,337 posts

Posted 29 March 2020 - 09:08 AM

Well, Wolfe doesn’t have impressive sack numbers throughout most of his career.

 

Brockers and Wofle came into the league int eh same year. 

 

According to PFF Brockers has 174 pressures and 27 sacks in 128 games. Wolfe has 262 pressures and 43 sacks in 103. So...1.35 pressures per game for Brockers and 2.54 pressures a game for Wolfe. 

 

By a per game measure, that's about twice as effective. 

 

It is interesting though, for all of Brockers "durability" versus Wolfe, Brockers has played just a total of 9 more snaps than Wolfe. So on a per snap basis, which I thought were goign to boost Wolfe's numbers they don't. I'm also very surprised at the snap count usage for Wolfe. He should play less here, so that's good for his health, too. 



#27 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 90,667 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 29 March 2020 - 09:13 AM

Wolfe has 33 sacks

https://www.pro-foot.../W/WolfDe00.htm
@BSLRobShields

#28 BSLJordanKough

BSLJordanKough

    Ravens Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,337 posts

Posted 29 March 2020 - 09:18 AM

Wolfe has 33 sacks

https://www.pro-foot.../W/WolfDe00.htm

 

That's so weird, I"m looking at PFF for pressures. And just assumed their numbers would match PFR's. They've got him at 43...weird. Maybe they credit sacks in a different way. (Though I've never heard of that). 

 

Regardless, pressures matter more to me than sacks. Particularly from a DT/DE. 

 

Ok, PFF credits Brockers with 4 more sacks than PFF does, too. Must be a penalty thing maybe? 



#29 BSLJordanKough

BSLJordanKough

    Ravens Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,337 posts

Posted 29 March 2020 - 09:22 AM

Now onto an inside line backer or Clay Matthews to help on the edge

 

Still holding out hope for a trade for whoever isn't getting snaps from the NYJ to get traded here. 



#30 BSLGabeFerguson

BSLGabeFerguson

    Ravens Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,992 posts
  • LocationCity of Angels

Posted 29 March 2020 - 10:23 AM

That's so weird, I"m looking at PFF for pressures. And just assumed their numbers would match PFR's. They've got him at 43...weird. Maybe they credit sacks in a different way. (Though I've never heard of that).

Regardless, pressures matter more to me than sacks. Particularly from a DT/DE.

Ok, PFF credits Brockers with 4 more sacks than PFF does, too. Must be a penalty thing maybe?

PFF credits all sack "events" as full sacks. I think for their analysis purposes it makes more sense.

Regardless, Wolfe is certainly a better pass-rusher than Brockers and he is also a good run defender too. He may not have the versatility to align anywhere like Brockers could, but all things considered Wolfe has had a more productive career.

There are certainly some durabilty concerns, but that's why he got $3M guaranteed compared to $20M.
@gabefergy

#31 BSLJordanKough

BSLJordanKough

    Ravens Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,337 posts

Posted 29 March 2020 - 10:25 AM

PFF credits all sack "events" as full sacks. I think for their analysis purposes it makes more sense.

 

Regardless, Brockers was more versatile and perhaps a bit more bendy on the edge if you wanted him to be, he's also vastly more durable over his career. But Wolfe is the better pass rusher, that really shouldn't be questioned, IMO. 



#32 cprenegade

cprenegade

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,158 posts

Posted 29 March 2020 - 10:49 AM

My only question with Wolfe vs. Brockers would be for Decosta.  Both were possibilities and Decosta picked Brockers over Wolfe initially.  Wolfe is a second choice only because the Brockers deal broke down.  Obviously Decosta preferred Brockers.  Why?



#33 BSLJordanKough

BSLJordanKough

    Ravens Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,337 posts

Posted 29 March 2020 - 11:03 AM

My only question with Wolfe vs. Brockers would be for Decosta.  Both were possibilities and Decosta picked Brockers over Wolfe initially.  Wolfe is a second choice only because the Brockers deal broke down.  Obviously Decosta preferred Brockers.  Why?

 

Durability and flexiblity would be my guess. Given they thoght he was durable, I think the physical issues might have given them more pause because they wanted a guy who could play more snaps in a more versatile role. 


Wolfe also has plenty of health related risk himself. Dollar for dollar the deal for Wolfe is better but there is a ton more risk/reward in the Wolfe deal. Perhaps they were looking to reduce that and be more at a baseline of expectation instead...



#34 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 90,667 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 29 March 2020 - 11:20 AM

Brockers has also, By far, been the higher graded out of the 2 by PFF, especially in the run game.

Brockers is also more athletic.

It’s fine. Wolfe is good but durability is a concern.

Still rather have Brockers but I’m good with Wolfe too.
@BSLRobShields

#35 Hooded Viper

Hooded Viper

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,853 posts

Posted 29 March 2020 - 11:24 AM

They will probably keep McPhee.

 

Given the choice, I would go with Matthews over McPhee.  He is still productive and has been, more so than PM over their careers.  Matthews has also been much healthier versus McPhee.  



#36 Don Olsen

Don Olsen
  • Members
  • 373 posts
  • LocationSeverna Park, MD

Posted 29 March 2020 - 11:32 AM

For those with a subscription to The Athletic; https://theathletic....-a-1-year-deal/

 

Some interesting details about Wolfe's career from the Broncos writer.  He had injury issues earlier in his career, including a spinal issue he got surgically fixed in 2018.  Last year was shaping up as one of his best, but got derailed by a freak elbow injury that appears to have fully healed -- his Twitter account has some evidence: https://twitter.com/...18935305633792.

 

Sure sounds like his career has been rejuvenated, and the Ravens will benefit.

 

The spinal issue was in his C2 vertebra, and it was a pinched nerve, where the shaved off a bit of that vertebra to allow the nerve to contract and expand without contact.

 

I don't know many players going through their career without major problems when that player has a high motor.

 

I doubt we see Wolfe play many first and second down snaps, line up in the  3 or 4 technique in passing situations.  I wouldn't be surprised to see Mack play early downs because that is his strength.  We might see a heavier rotation, but having Ward helps because he is a balanced blend of run and pass if the team tries to go no huddle.  This was the benefit of Brockers because he would log a lot of snaps, could handle longer drives without the need to rotate. 


@Olsen_Don

#37 Don Olsen

Don Olsen
  • Members
  • 373 posts
  • LocationSeverna Park, MD

Posted 29 March 2020 - 11:36 AM

Given the choice, I would go with Matthews over McPhee.  He is still productive and has been, more so that PM over their careers.  Matthews has also been much healthier of his career versus McPhee.  

 

Coming down to cap space, McPhee makes more sense because they can offer him more and the benefit of a greatly reduced cap number.  Matthews may qualify for street free agent veterans minimum, if he takes it, that can have his money earned count lower against the cap. 


  • Hooded Viper likes this
@Olsen_Don

#38 ravens82

ravens82
  • Members
  • 442 posts
  • LocationEllicott City, MD

Posted 29 March 2020 - 01:09 PM

With the difference in cap hit between Brockers and Wolfe, couldn't the Ravens sign both McPhee and Matthews to veteran-minimum type deals?



#39 BSLGabeFerguson

BSLGabeFerguson

    Ravens Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,992 posts
  • LocationCity of Angels

Posted 29 March 2020 - 01:42 PM

Brockers has also, By far, been the higher graded out of the 2 by PFF, especially in the run game.

Brockers is also more athletic.

It’s fine. Wolfe is good but durability is a concern.

Still rather have Brockers but I’m good with Wolfe too.

This actually not even remotely true. They have both graded out pretty equally. We can do some direct comps because they entered the league the same season:

 

 

          Brockers  Wolfe

2012:    61.9       64.7

2013:    64.1       54.8

2014:    69.7       66.6

2015:    68.3       86.4

2016:    79.6       70.2

2017:    75.9       67.5

2018:    64.4       75.3

2019:    74.6       68.5

AVG:     69.8       69.3

 

Brockers is also not more athletic, combine testing for both:

 

Wolfe:

 

Measurable/ Measurement/ %tile

 

Height 6' 5" 89 Weight 295 lbs 23 Arm Length 33¼" 49 Hand Size 10¾" 92 40 Yard Dash 5.01s 71 Vertical Jump 33" 87 Broad Jump 108" 66 3-Cone Drill 7.26s 92 20 Yard Shuttle 4.44s 84 Bench Press 33 reps 85

 

Brockers: 

 

Measurable/ Measurement/ %tile

 

Height 6' 6" 96 Weight 322 lbs 87 Arm Length 35" 95 Hand Size 9⅛" 5 40 Yard Dash 5.36s 8 Vertical Jump 26" 13 Broad Jump 105" 49 3-Cone Drill 7.46s 73 20 Yard Shuttle 4.81s 15 Bench Press 19 reps 5

 

Brockers is bigger and has longer arms, not nearly as explosive or agile compared to Wolfe.


  • BSLJordanKough likes this
@gabefergy

#40 BSLGabeFerguson

BSLGabeFerguson

    Ravens Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,992 posts
  • LocationCity of Angels

Posted 29 March 2020 - 01:46 PM

With the difference in cap hit between Brockers and Wolfe, couldn't the Ravens sign both McPhee and Matthews to veteran-minimum type deals?

They could sign both still, doubt that would because there aren't really roster spots for both but we could potentially see a camp battle.

 

The difference in 2020 cap is not big - Brockers' deal was backloaded so his cap was only $5M.


@gabefergy




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Partners