Puntit

24 minutes ago, designermaryland said:

as a little exploration, i have outlined below 2-4 players within 5-10 picks after our round by round selection we could have taken at "position of need", which we ignore year after year, while instead drafting a 6th defensive tackle to back up Jernigan and B Williams for 8 plays per game. Maybe Bronson Kaufusi will be a nice situational player, but it just does not make sense to take him when you need a starting player at CB, where the draft seemed extremely solid and deep. I hope some of these names below light it up as rookies this year to expose how flawed the ozzie drafting philosophy is, and highlight how much it holds the team back from success.

R2: Myles Jack LB, Noah Spence DE, Sterling Shepard WR, Mackensie Alexander CB.
R3: Russel KeiVarae CB, Shilique Calhoun DE, Kendall Fuller CB
R4: Eric Murray CB, Antonio Morrison LB, Dean Lowry DE
R5: Kentrell Brothers LB, Trevor Davis WR

We wouldn't touch Jack because of the knee and wouldn't touch Spence (or Tunsil ) because of the character issues and extensive off-field history. I am okay with that. We can't afford rookies that will sit or get suspended. Josh Gordon was a similar high upside, long off field history guy and I think that's not panning out so well for the Browns.

I am not convinced the two WR you are listing are actually even better than the two WR we took, but frankly no WR is likely going to leapfrog SS, BP, MW, KA, Camp, D Brown, Butler, Mathews etc, anyhow, so high upside multi-year projects are not so unreasonable with that position. We didn't need a play now WR. 

We took three DE that were high on our board after Bosa was gone, so I don't think the later two you listed even ever made the radar or should be sources of disappointment. So that just leaves LB (other than Jack) and CB. CB we addressed, but maybe missed out on a few of the better guys because we were mainly focused on DE early. With Suggs and Doom at the later end of their careers we needed to find pass rushers, so I am cool with that. Time will tell. ILB we ignored-- either they are convinced Brown or Orr is ready or that they'll scoop one up as a cap casualty. For one position that's very doable-- it's how we got Smith.

We went into this draft thinking pass rush, and came out with three good ones plus a well regarded UDFA at the position. And a left tackle. That's already a decent draft. But then players like Dixon that give us more playmaking dimensions is icing. Nobody knows if these guys will pan out but it's hard to say the Ravens didn't get guys who might be big role players. And it's very possible they dodged a few time bombs in the process.

37 minutes ago, Minionhunter said:

The damage control from Dr. Andersen before day 2 was that Jack did not need surgery (meaning he doesn't need it now = true). The first mention about Jack that set everyone off was that his knee was a timebomb, he could need surgery in a year or four years, but time is ticking. Jack himself said he may need surgery sometime (meaning sometime in the future, he might need surgery) which agrees with the anonymous GM quote about murky future for Jack. I hope he needs nothing and does well, I never wish injury on a player, but obviously the Ravens medical staff gave a prediction that gave the evaluators enough pause to push him down our board past where he was picked.

Yeah I think people are trying to make the Andrews statement mean more than it does. He doesn't need microfracture surgery right now. That's all Andrews said. We all know that. All 32 teams already knew that. But we also know his cartilage is screwed up, which means there's a very good chance he will need microfracture surgery some day in the future, and that his NFL career will be shortened because of this injury. Jack himself stated that this is what he'd been advised and nothing Andrews said disputed this -- he just tried to downplay the imminence. This wasn't like a ligament or meniscus tear. Cartilage doesn't grow back (at least in 2016 - people are working on it) and can't be effectively repaired. Microfracture surgery simply isn't a long term fix -- it's basically putting a duct tape on the hole of a flat bike tire tube -- a poor mans temporary fix. So he may get 6 months of hard play out of that knee or six years. Nobody really knows. And it's unclear how long he will be the same precision athlete once the knee starts taking hits at the NFL level. It's totally a gamble with high upside but significant downside. And that's why he's still risky at the top of the second round. I think I would pass on him at that point too. the Jaguars already nailed their playmaker so they could afford a throw away pick with high upside. But I can't fault ozzie on this one, even if Jack pans out.

44 minutes ago, designermaryland said:

To me, I think this entire draft was botched again by the FO. Staley is fine, since you know Monroe will be out after 2 series even if they keep him. But they continue to draft in the early rounds in positions where the rookies will sit or be limited snaps, while the positions of weakness are drafted in later rounds. Makes no sense to me to be drafting a DE, DL an OL which will be rotational players or backups when you need a quality starting ILB or CB. They also continue to draft WR's when we have 10 of them on the roster. They selected the 20 & 23rd best ranked CB on the board and allowed 14 CB's to be drafted before they selected one. For me, that is valuing that position WAY too low.

I probably would have held off on the WRs and RB in favor of additional defensive pieces, but I get it -- these guys are playmakers.  I also don't hate the idea of another guy who can open the top off defenses in case Perriman doesn't pan out. I think a few teams reached for CB early even when they weren't the best players available and in total are being graded as having poor draft days even though they filled an immediate need. We stuck to our draft board and came away with some big pieces of the puzzle. Yes we ended up with a CB lower in the draft than a lot of us hoped and an ILB never made it to the top of our board. But in total I think we are going to look back at this draft as a big reloading of defense. 

5 minutes ago, dead serious said:

SMH... Guess we are rolling with Orr, McClellan, and Brown as our ILB's next to Mosley .. Just took another CB

Expect them to line up a bunch of UDFAs to compete at that position. Or they could trade back into the 7th if there's someone they still like available, like they did for Camp. there will also be guys cut after the draft so we may snag one of those. Having just one hole after the draft isn't such a big deal.

1 hour ago, ravensnj said:

Scooby Wright for me. Someone text the Oz.

Clearly the Ravens have him poorly graded on their board that they wouldn't take a flier on him with the last pick. Probably didn't check out medically.

All you guys calling for WR, I think you are actually voting for players we would need to stow on the PS/IR. Right now we have a dozen WRs on the roster, headed by SSS, Wallace, Perriman and Aiken. Nobody left is going to get on the field if these guys are healthy. We also have a bunch of good TE (headed by Watson, Gilmore, M Williams, and Pitta), and a pass catching FB (Juice). I just don't see anyone else making it onto the field.

we need CB and ILB depth/upgrades. Everyone else we draft is PS material.

And he still has 8 picks to work with. If he can come away with a corner and ILB who will make the team he has reloaded pretty nicely.

i don't know why WR is listed as a "need" on the PFT and others lists though. If someone good falls to us, sure, but right now it looks pretty crowded with SSSr, Perriman, Wallace, Aiken, Camp, Matthews, M Brown, Hunter, D Brown, Jacobs, Clay and (if he's not a TE) Waller. Anyone we draft is going to need to be stowed on the PS because it would be tough to make the field behind the first 4.

Jack is deemed too much of a health risk, and Spence and Tunsil were deemed untouchable for character reasons. We got three guys who play hard and have no real character issues and they also happen to be at positions of need. There's still a lot of talent on the board. If we can find a sleeper or two in our next 8 picks, ideally a corner, it was a decent draft. 

What we didn't do, and I think is most upsetting some people is come away with flashy playmakers. Bosa, Ramsey both would have fit that bill, but it wasn't to be. We instead came away with guys with good motors who will bring their lunch pail to work and grind it out. I think there are some playmakers still out there in the fourth, and it will be interesting to see how we use all those picks. I hope we use the tradable sixth to try and move the fifth up a few spots if there's anyone worthy. I also hope Ozzie keeps stockpiling defensive players because frankly it will be tough for a late round TE, RB or WR to make the team behind the guys we already have and recently signed at all those positions  already.  

Just now, billiejean said:

yea you can say that but you have no idea if that is going to be true

Knee cartilage doesn't grow back. They can do microfracturing and it sometimes helps (basically a short term bandaid) but it's totally a guess if you get six months out of him or six years. I don't fault any of the teams who opted to use their picks elsewhere, and frankly picking up an extra fifth might be worth a lot more.

3 minutes ago, Ravenous_Ravens said:

Not premature to rank the most likely impact picks in the draft though.

There good picks, but only the first rounder was a good value pick. I see one impact player and two developmental guys to unleash their potential in a few years.

With five picks in the fourth a fifth and two sixths we are still likely to find a sleeper impact player or two. Heck we often find one after the draft.

I'd say is premature to grade a draft when we still have 8 picks to use.

At least we didn't trade up to the second round for a kicker like TB.

I was excited when we drafted Mount Cody, Elam, Arthur Brown, Mark Clayton so I feel like many of the guys that sound like home runs on paper aren't worth the hype. I also thought it insane to draft a Harvard FB so early but Juice panned out. The hidden gems are where the scouts earn their keeps, so I think it's too early to say whether we struck out so far.

3 minutes ago, whobilly said:

Spence is the guy I wanted. Hope this works out for us. At this point I'm thinking we will find a diamond in the rough with the endless amount of 4th round picks.......unless we trade those for more 4th and 5th round picks for 2017.

They obviously avoided him for the same character reasons they passed on Tunsil. 

2 minutes ago, markbusinsky said:

Who remembers when the Ravens passed on a guy named Tom Brady?

Every team passed on him 5-6 times...

Chill guys. DeCosta said weeks ago the success is going to be determined by how they draft in the fourth round in this defensively deep draft. Well, they now have five picks in that round, more than enough to fill the remaining needs. They stayed away from someone with a "time bomb" knee and a few guys with character issues, and got guys high on their boards. Some of the best players in the NFL are found in the middle rounds every year and they only need to strike gold on a couple.

41 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

I laid this out already, but lets look at the Trade Value Chart...

You guys want us to trade back into the 2nd round and get Spence AFTER using our 2nd round pick already. OK... so how far do we need to come? My money, to guarantee it, would be somewhere around #40. That puts Spence around a top 10 pick in the 2nd round (fair assumption I think).

Well, guess what... we don't have the picks.

If you combined every trade-able pick we have in this draft, they wouldn't come that close to reaching the value of adding a pick at #40? You'd have to give up a future year pick... likely at least a 4th rounder, but most likely a 3rd. And that's after giving up every single non comp pick we have.

Even if we traded up to #50, which is a mid-to-late 2nd round pick for Spence, the cost would be our 3rd rounder, our top two 4th rounders, and probably one more late pick.

So again, basically all of our non-comp picks. 

How do we really justify that happening?

I agree with you we would never do it, and shouldn't, but can you honestly tell me this would be a riskier move than the teams that gave away the farm moving up for QBs this year? Coming away with just Stanley, Jack and Spense and a bunch of UDFAs really doesn't strike me as that bad of a haul. It's just putting a lot of eggs in very few baskets. 

48 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Not very smart on his part, considering he'd be costing himself substantial money and he himself doesn't know how long he will be in the league.

Really no upside to doing that to be honest.

The only upside I can see is that he avoids some of the ire from fans players like Clowney or Perriman had to face by not owning up. Either Jack does well and becomes the steal of the draft, or everyone says, ah well, we always knew it was a gamble.

I see no scenario where Ramsey falls to us. Either Dallas takes him, as expected, or SD or Jacksonvilke take him, less expected. Or someone trades up ahead of us to get him. Tunsil is unlikely to fall but is somewhat more conceivable as two of the teams ahead of us seem very focused on defense. If Jack falls to us it will be because other teams are concerned about the knee, and if so I think we avoid him too. So that realistically leaves Bosa or Buckner at 6, or if we can swing it, a trade down 1-3 spots and still nab Hargreaves or Zeke. Not too shabby.

If the Ravens want impact players, both these guys as well as Spense fit that bill, but none are squeaky clean. the question is going to be who will follow the letter of the law going forward.

If the Chargers were confident they'd still get the player they wanted at 6 they really probably should do the trade even for a fourth. What's the point of taking Tunsil at 3 if you can get Tunsil plus another pick at 6? And there is Stanley as their hedge so the risk of someone jumping up for Tunsil isn't quite as bad. Is Stanley plus a fourth worth a Tunsil? Probably.

If Cleveland wants Lynch they probably need to leapfrog SF. Which means some of their trade booty will need to go to Baltimore. And the price goes up phenomenally if Tunsil or Ramsey is available at 6.

After QBs go 1 &2, Realistically Tunsil and Ramsey and Jack go 3,4,5. Unless Jacks knee is viewed as too much of a red flag by Dallas and Jags, in which case I think we won't touch him either. So most likely scenario we can pick between Bosa and Buckner with the next best choice being a RB. After that Hargreaves or Stanley will be available at the 8-9 spots. If we don't view Bosa as Suggs 2.0, I have to wonder if we don't see if Cleveland wants to leapfrog SF or convince SF they need to move up a spot to keep Cleveland or NYJ from snagging Lynch before all the good QBs are gone. In which case we will get Hargreaves and an extra pick (4th?) which we would package with our high number 2 to climb up into the back end of the first and snag Spence. At least that's what I hope transpires.

Doubt he will get past SD, but taking him if he's available is no brainer. He'd be the BPA and at a position of need. And him falling pretty much means Ramsey, Bosa and Jack are gone. Unless some team wants to give away the farm and leapfrog SF and Cleveland for Lynch, I don't think Ozzie will be thinking hard on this one.

What continuity? In case you hadnt noticed we are out of contention. So we are basically just using the last two games trying out people for next year. If we hit gold, that's one less hole to fill. If not, it certainly keeps us in the running for a top five draft pick.

The most dangerous thing you can do is tell yourself you are just a few plays from a very different record. Because if you take that attitude you won't every make necessary changes, you will stay the course, hoping the dice roll differently next year. When Steve Smith complained early on that some of his teammates just seemed happy to be on the team and didn't have that winning instinct, I knew we were in trouble. The Panthers, for example, are a good team this year only partly because they have a depth of talent but mostly because they play with an attitude, like they have a mission, not a bunch of guys just happy to be gainfully employed. The Patriots are playing with an "in your face -- we can do this even without cheating" disrespected attitude. The Bengals are playing to show the world they aren't a "one and done" team. And so on. meanwhile the Ravens are playing like a bunch of guys more than happy to lose by five and then line up for the media to say "the defense needs to play better, the offense needs to make some plays, we take responsibility". One would have hoped people would try to emulate Steve Smith and what it takes to make it in this league, show a bit of emotion about losing, but his attitude doesn't seem contagious. It almost seems like the "play like a Raven" attitude retired when Ray Lewis retired. Time to get that back, through the draft or more leader free agency signings.