Italian Raven

Geez.. do they do it on purpose? second year in a row that we pick one of my least favourite players.. no words.

I have to admit I didn't dig into Ts tapes as much as pass rushers', but one important question about Stanley game is his functional strength. I wouldn't bet one hand on it though.

I was about to write the same thing.. you beat me on time. Let's also add in there that we have to re-sign/extend B.Williams and Wagner.. that's going to be some big money.

Just a personal contribute to the neverending Bosa discussion. It's an extremely subjective work, as I probably tend to be excessively nitpicking at times where some people may point out that it wasn't a bad play. Therefore I added one neutral column of 'intermediate' plays that I couldn't locate in either categories. I didn't want everybody to have a headache because thousands auto-running GIFs nor I wanted to be kicked out of the forum, so I simply ended up copy-pasting the gifs' url into the paper. The result isn't as fluid and enjoyable as any of those reports you see around the internet, because you have to do the reverse thing to see the play, but my intent wasn't to write a scouting report. I wanted to provide a much larger sample size of gifs than usual in order to debunk any remaining myth on his account and miss as few traits of his game as possible. If you have suggestion on how to turn this '"archive's" layout into something better I accept any. It might turn useful for the next time. Joey Bosa.docx

The only ones available: Oregon, MSU, Michigan, Clemson. Btw yes, 50% of the times he won outside, hence 2, came vs Ore and Cle.. it's an extremely small sample size but if we consider them as synonimous of 'speed' then you're right; he was probably playing faster back then.

I've seen him beating his man (effectively) only 4 times in 8 games.. I don't see him being fast, infact he collected quite many offsides for guessing the snacount wrong and his overall speed is not really good. He does show a good motor even when engaged but I wouldn't call him "fast". I'll back it up in few hours as I finish to scrutinize the Indiana game on my Microsoft Word doc (hopefully I'll be able to upload it).

I've always liked him Shaq better. I think he's a better overall pass-rusher, even if he doesn't possess that natural leverage and punch to drive the blocker all the way back like Bosa does. My issue is always the same though; if we're looking for an edge rusher with speed and bending, then neither of the 2 is the ultimate solution.

Absolutely. It's hard to determine how serious are some character concerns and how deep through the tiers they would drop the player. Those people who can do scouting for a living are just too lucky.

Had to edit the "reach" part.. I realized we'd have too manies with the same system. Ok I see what you mean.. it's just very personal and as you also said it's mainly about the quantity of infos we have about the prospect. Offseason's just too long.. We're getting crazy with all our conjectures ;D

Assuming players in the same tier are equally as talented and you could select them in any order without having a visible drop in terms of talent, do you mean you would be willing to draft Bosa or VHIII at #1, if we had the pick? (in case they're both included in that top6, of course). I personally wouldn't because I see quite a difference between Tunsil, Ramsey and the other 5, but I'm curious ;). I also realized that using as thin tiers as possible also kind of helps me defining the epithets "reach/steal". Empirically, we don't have a formula that indicates when in the draft a player can be considered as such. I see it this way: if a prospect is not selected for the entire lenght of the 2 tiers following the one I located him, I have a steal. My tier1 and tier2 include the players we very well know in the order I previously mentioned; tier 3 goes between 8-11; t4 is 12-22; t5 23-34, t6 35-49. Tiers tend to get wider and wider as draft progresses as I don't have as many infos on the latter players, but we're still able to put them in distincted categories. For instance if Sheldon Rankins, who's in my tier3, gets selected after #36 (where tier6 starts), I'd have a steal. If we maintain the 2skipped tiers 'formula' for the reversed situation we'd have too many reaches. There I'd consider the lenght of one as enough (if Conklin, t4 is taken between 3-7, t2). Of course, this is no perfect science, just a funny system I use to give a sense to one of the most abused words circulating in the post-draft days. edit: I hope at least few of you were able to decode what I just wrote ;D

Just heard Sarah Ellison saying that she wouldn't trade back because "it's once in 16 years we've had such a high pick" and "out of the top 10 you don't get a blue chip player". I don't like when people equates "top 10 pick" to "top tier player"; there's a lot of difference imo. It all comes down on how you rank them, not on where they happen to be picked. Last year's outcome was this, from my perspective: 1) Winston. A top tier player. 2) Mariota. Top tier as well. 3) Fowler. Top tier. 4) Cooper. Tier 2. 5) Scherff. Top tier. 6) Williams. Top tier. 7) K.White. Tier 2. 8) Beasley. Tier 2. 9) Flowers. Tier 3. 10) Gurley. Tier 4. I had exactly 10 top 10 players but Peters and Sheldon were tier2 but selected only later. This year I only have 7 who sould be taken that high; that includes two top tiers (Ramsey and Tunsil) and 5 "tier 2" (Buckner, who I recently re-evaluated, Bosa, Ziggy, VHIII, Jack). However there will be 2 tier 3 (Goff, Wentz) who will be 1st and 2nd overall while neither of them should even be in the top ten talent-wise. Regardless of how I personally listed the players, my point is that I think there were more 'blue chips' last year, thus the #6 held more value then. (Williams is a far better prospect than Buck, and so Fowler than Bosa imo). Once spotted the 'can't miss' players you have to consider two scenarios: 1- them being there when we pick --but--> we're offered the counterpart 1st, 2nd, and 4th this year and a next year 1st OR 2nd. or 2- them being already selected --but--> let's say Chicago (just outside the top 10) is willing to swap the picks for a fair price and we're sure at least one tier2 player will still be there at #11. Of course if you have all of the previously mentioned top guys ranked on the same level, then you only incur in #1 case. But not considering any of this is just lame, and it's sad because I wish a Ravens' journalist would be less short-sided than that. TOP10=/blue chip.

lol Then I flag you for unnecessary use of an italian bad word. Step 15 minutes away from the keybord

Lol.. I never wanted Tread at #6. I've never been on the Spence bandwagon either but I always consider him a top 15 talent; I don't think he'll make it past the Jets (I'm currently mocking him at ATL). The only moment I'd have picked him before Jack is when we still had Daryl on the starting line-up and because the talent gap between the 2 was not considerable enough to go strictly bpa.

Yes, you can get a very vague idea about someone's main skills but you definitely need more to suggest he can keep it up on a consistent basis (because that's what you're expecting your first rounder to do: being consistent, excelling in one specific area). I wonder which are the traits you (and others) saw in the Colorado St game that make you think he's worth a day 1 pick (also because Colo St is not a 'quality opponent, in this case, which doesn't help your cause). There's not much to see imo.. he was dropped into zone coverage or spying for half of the game and asked to rush the QB on 13 of 17 clear passing plays. That's a quite small sample size to determine whether a player has to be taken that high or not. Then, if you just trust Mayock because he ranked him as the #5 OLB it's reasonable: we don't have as much material as those guys nor time, so we have to trust their words sometimes. But here I just don't see the traits of a top 5 pass-rusher or coverage guy (it was zone, and barely any receiver in the area).

I was also putting him in a late day2 consideration.. but even then, material is lacking.

LOL.. Correa?! Who graded that high? There just aren't enough tapes available; the only one, Colorado St, is even quite bad. I couldn't even seriously judge him. You must have at veeery least 3 tapes to get an indication of someone's skills. I'd go with Goff and Ragland if he goes in the top 15. I have him at #11.

@JoeyFlex5 ok thanks for clarifying. @BmoreBird22 yeah ok that makes sense. ahahaha almost perfect.. even though that doesn't count if you used google translaror

Just that he called him a good leaner. I simply don't agree on the attribute. Spence, Floyd, Schobert, Fackerll are leaners. He can't win with his bending, so why call him that way. Or maybe I'm just missing something in my english-to-italian translation idk

I understand people claiming he doesn't lean or play enough low pads (which is only partially true) but do you really believe Bosa has it? I'm certainly redundant but I don't see him as a good leaner. Really, I'm taking notes of every good and bad play of him and I still didn't see him bending and beating his man outside. I'll probably find a few plays like that but it won't be enough to make me change idea on his stiffness. He just doesn't look natural while dipping his shoulder and turning his hips to the QB imo. I'll provide you some gifs on the week end.. as I finish the couple of tapes i have left.

And do these people really think 1 inch less would make a difference between "burst and bust"? Campbell is 6'8, Canty 6'7, Bosa 6'6.. so height doesn't factor in too much imo. I do understand he plays quite tall at times, but even then, the guys has a very high floor. In the worst case he won't put up 7-8 sacks a year, but he'll still be a valuable piece for any scheme. I think there's quite few players who can become busts before he does.

Oook? Do you say so just because you've read of some people fearing it or because you saw major flaws in his game? imo a bust is a player who doesn't fullfill the expectations, given the high pick he was selected. Thus, prospects with low floor/high ceiling are the most risky and likely to be labeled as such. Buck's versatility is not given by what coaches asked him to do but by his ability to either take on blockers, drive them backwards and shred or perform an 'over the shoulder' swim and penetrate the gap. I'm pretty sure Stanley is a more risky at #6.

Matt Waldman and Brett Kollmann may not be as authoritative as Kiper or Mayock but I find them very instructive.

Honestly, my top 4 doesn't include Bosa. It's: Tunsil, Ramsey, Buckner (top tier players), and Jack. I really hope we don't.

I'm adding Josey Jewell to the conversation.. clearly the most talented Junior ILB as the 2016 season kicks off. God, there's so much defensive talent in next year's class, already.

Oh right.. that's who I forgot about: Jonathan Allen. Thanks allblack for reminding. That guy was my favourite Bama Dlineman; he's going to be a first rounder, at very least. Btw I second rmw. Kudos to the guy. He'd have had a real shot in the NFL; hope he succeeds in what he likes.