BmoreBird22

1 minute ago, Inqui said:

I said when he went to visit the Seahawks that I think he's done as far as meaningful contributions go. Even without the age and injuries (which have been well and truly piling up for years now) he only logged 2.7ypa last season. Whoever signs him (if anyone at all) won't be getting the AP we've gotten used to, so I don't see him moving the needle an awful lot.

*1.9 YPA

16 minutes ago, JoeyFlex5 said:

oj is likely gone by 16 and njoku is very raw and Evan engram looks better in every facet 

Harris has been often mocked to us in the first and second, I wouldn't take him at 16 though 

I would take Njoku over Engram in a heartbeat and I think Harris is a darkhorse pick along with Charlton.

On 3/22/2017 at 11:30 AM, ludy51 said:

Beauty and The Beast was surprisingly good.

I thought that was such an awesome movie, but I also think Emma Watson is bae and she nailed Belle.

14 hours ago, JoeyFlex5 said:

I've been hearing a lot of Derek rivers hype. Haven't even watched him yet 

This is Matt Miller's scouting in 140 characters or less...

Derek Rivers: Athlete. ++ Burst. Avg length/use. Great production. Can win with 1st step. Has hips to bend. Can go speed-to-power. Rd3

Just to join in, I think Harris in a way tries to play too cautious with a two gap scheme mentality. Apparently coaches wanted him to just knife in and explode through gaps and he just wouldn't. I have no idea why not, but how will he take to coaching?

As far as Lawson goes, damn, you really wish he didn't have the injuries. Really relentless and a great hand fighter. I think he'll be deadly in the run game day one. A bit tight in the hips to maneuver to a mobile quarterback, but if he has a lane, bye bye to your quarterback. He'll eat them alive.

Not the biggest fan of Barnett. Not extremely explosive or possessing the best burst. He times the snap count very well, but I think he'll be just another guy as a pass rusher. Maybe give like 6-9 sacks a season, but never be elite.

So, on the heels of the Florida pro day, Wilson looked to cement his first round status as Teez Tabor now appears headed for a day three pick.

On 3/29/2017 at 11:33 AM, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

I get the point... but arbitrarily saying a "1st round grade" is 7.0 or higher, and that in any year theres at most 10-15 players that would grade in that range is meaningless, and almost stupid.

Why would that be your criteria for someone having a 1st round grade if theres never been a draft that has 32 players with said grade. Grading someone as a 1st rounder is literally a dumb label if less than half of the players in the 1st round are capable of earning that grade in 90% of drafts. Not directed at you, just the semantics of the system/idea.

 

If a team is constructing their board, and theyre identifying players with "1st round grades" it should mean the players they'd be comfortable taking in the 1st round. If its only relative to their pick (using us as an example) then sure, maybe that only consists of 10-15 players since we're picking 16th. Someone we'd feel comfortable picking at 25 wouldnt have our "1st round grade" in that situation.

 

I guess what im saying is that a system that says a player must have a 7.0 or higher, of which there will only ever be 10-15 in a draft, is no more or less arbitrary than one that says there are 38 players with 1st round grades, meaning 38 players that could/should go in the 1st.

If a grade scale is tied to the rounds of the draft, it should be a moving scale based on the available pool of players in any given draft... not something thats drawn across all players in all drafts.

You have to think of what the grade means, though. If it means that a player will step in day one, be a starter, be an impact maker, and be a Pro Bowl caliber player, do we have 32 of those a year? We probably have about 10 to 15, truthfully. 

If your definition is that they just come in and start day one, then we get a bit bigger. If we want them to just have a high impact (a little subjective), the lines broaden a little bit more. It depends on entirely what your definition is.

On 3/29/2017 at 4:30 AM, rossihunter2 said:

I don't see that Barnett has a lack of lateral agility - especially with the way he sets up his outside moves often with essentially a double move type deal or a fake to the inside - I really don't see the athletic limitations as limitations because he's still pretty athletic - he just uses his tools to aid his athleticism

I don't view him as a poor athlete by any stretch. He's got enough to get it done. I just don't think he has the physical and athletic traits needed to be an elite edge player.

On 3/28/2017 at 11:30 PM, raven94 said:

Ok, I see your point. I'm on board with your perspective. However that doesn't change anything for me. My idea of a guy worth a first round pick is someone who has shown steady development over their college career, someone with traits, skills, or physical abilities that project well to the next level, someone with scheme versatility, someone with good intangibles, someone who can start day 1 and be an upgrade over the current player on the roster, and someone who needs very little time to develop. There are a lot of guys in this draft who check out just about every single box for me. So I've handed out a lot of first round grades. Am I an easy grader? Possibly. In the end it doesn't matter because I'm not submitting names for the Ravens to draft on draft night. This is why we have the tier system though

And I'm not calling anyone out for having a ton of first round grades if they do. Again, this is your system, not the one of a scout or the NFL and so you do you. 

However, I just wanted to point out there's a large disconnect between fanbases and the scouts of the NFL. Do I see a lot of players who could potentially start day one? Oh yeah, for sure. Do I think they'll all be instant impact makers? No, not at all. And that's the difference for me.

Just now, ravensnation5220 said:

What's the point of even drafting a receiver early. I honestly don't like it unless you are sure they are going to be all pros. I don't see that zero bust factor with any of the top 3. Plus you can find receivers anywhere nowadays. Only pass catcher I'd spend the 16th pick on is oj Howard. 

The Ravens haven't figured this out in their entire existence...

http://www.powerhousegm.com/blog/nfl-draft-prospect-grading-systems

Here's just an example article with two grading tables with round designations beside it. A grade of 7.5 is required in this table to be a first round talent. There's zero chance you would find 38 players in this draft with the ability to become a day one feature player on his team and create physical mismatches for the opposing team. It just isn't going to happen.

3 minutes ago, raven94 said:

Normally yes, 36 first round grades is too much. Normally there's about 10-20 guys who deserve to go in the first. Normally if you've made the playoffs you're basically taking a second round type of prospect. However, this is not a normal draft. This is a really rare draft class. You don't get classes like this very often. You say Matt Miller said that some scouts said that there's about 15 guys that have first round grades? I find that hard to believe because there have been plenty of other bleacher report guys that have said that you can get first round caliber guys in the third, not to mention there are lots of other reports saying the scouts said that this is a class where you can starters as late as round 5. I'm ok with Njoku, I believe he's the 2nd or 3rd best TE in this class. He'll be great for someone, but make no mistake this is a DEEP and talented class. I've got about 38 first round grades/prospects 

Again, 38 is way too much and just isn't realistic, but hey, you all do you.

Finding a starter late in the draft does not equal first round talent. I think there must be some huge misconception about what a first round talent means.

Matt Miller is the lead draft analyst and actually communicates with scouts, unlike any of the other writers. He's the most invested and the most actively involved. The others are giving an opinion.

I heavily maintain that there aren't going to be 32 first round talents in any given year, but then again, I don't have an arbitrary grading system, either. I just like a prospect or I don't and I'm not going to sit here and make up my own system and give out my own flawed grades.

Just now, SepticeyePoe said:

Thanks, that helps clear it up for me.

I don't think there's ever a draft year where you'll have 32 players or more receive a first round grade. If there were such a class, you can bet that you'd be walking out with several day one starters.

47 minutes ago, ravensnation5220 said:

You see Wilson as being refined? I don't see that. He seems extremely raw to me. 

He's so extremely patient with his press. He waits patiently and never overcommits or lands a bad punch that'll put him in the hole. If he doesn't feel comfortable with his punch, he'll lay off and not force it and get thrown off balance. 

He's also really good about not opening his hips too early and committing to the deep route too early and getting burned underneath. He uses his punch to create a wide release by the receiver that drives them to the sidelines and waits for them to show their route before he will open his hips.

I think if he had 4.40 speed, he'd be a surefire top 10 pick.

Just now, SepticeyePoe said:

What is the difference between 36 players going in the first and 36 first round grades? I don't know a lot about scouting and this part confuses me.

Every draft has to have 32 players go in the first, right? I think that's where the 36 players could go in the first comes into play. It's not like we end the first round after all the players you had a high grade on are gone.

As for what does it mean to have a first round grade, I'm not entirely sure what a scout set the bar at grade wise, but they might say a first round player has a grade of 7.0 or higher on our board. That's a really high grade that not many players will reach, so maybe they only get 10 players with that grade. Then you naturally fill in the next 22 to get your top 32.

37 minutes ago, rossihunter2 said:

I'm not sure he would be - I have him in the high 30s/low 40s on my big board - that's not particularly high compared to some of the other guys who conceivably could / likely will drop to 47 - I have 36 first round grades this year - given that at least 4 qbs and 4 rbs will likely be gone by the time we pick in the 2nd and add onto that all the reaches / value disagreements with other teams' boards - we are likely going to get on of those top first round grade guys and I'm of sure njoku will be BPA at that pick given the talent available - but I'm not sure he even makes it to that pick anyway so our points are both probably moot

Having 36 first round grades is entirely too high. Having 36 players that can go in the first is different, but 36 first round grades is way too high. I think Matt Miller said he spoke to several scouts that had maybe 15 players with first round grades in this draft. Just wanted to throw that out.

Anyway, Njoku is absolutely a first round player. I don't think anyone has risen faster, but he's going to be a nightmare up the seam and as a receiver. He's a freakish leaper and is extremely fast. He'll be a real terror in the red zone and over the top of linebackers and safeties. He's really just learning how to really play his game, too. Wait until he gets NFL coaching and has a chance to really learn the nuances. 

If Njoku catches onto coaching, he's going to be a game breaker. I wouldn't take him in the first for the Ravens, but he's going to be a very good pass catcher for a team looking for that game breaking element. 

47 minutes ago, rossihunter2 said:

I disagree entirely - even while ill, Barnett did ok a the combine, has consistently shown good burst (if not quite Garrett/McKinley type burst)

taco charlton is not a good prospect to make this argument with if I'm honest: he was underwhelmingly athletic at both the combine and his pro-day which, given that his explosiveness is his main selling point, is concerning

youre right though - this is an incredibly talented edge rusher group - and Barnett might be the most talented of all of them - he has incredibly bend, great hand skills, instincts and decent burst (I don't see lack of explosion when I watch him on tape - he blows right past some tackles around the corner) - and I don't know where this idea that sub-12 sacks is unacceptable - only 5 players managed that total this season - two of whom are nowhere near as athletic as Barnett...

athleticism is helpful but there's a reason why successful NFL wide receivers aren't all triple jumpers who can catch a ball

I don't value the combine nearly at all. The combine should never be the determining factor in deciding a players athletic ability. The combine should serve to confirm what you see or make you go back and watch again, but never to be the deciding factor.

Anyway, I don't view Barnett as a guy who will be the "next Suggs" or an elite edge rusher. I think he's going to get his dues with his super refined hand usage and motor that never quits, but when you can't change direction well and don't have great burst or quickness, you're just not going to do a ton of damage in the league as a pass rusher. 

With Charlton, he's an athletic freak for someone his size. He's inconsistent as all hell and will require some serious coaching to really reach that ceiling, but he's got All-Pro potential written all over him. Will he ever reach that? I don't know. However, is he going to be a good starter anyway? I think so. 

If I'm picking between the two, I'd take the upside if I know I'm getting a strong starter either way.

On 3/27/2017 at 7:09 PM, purpletide said:

The only TE we have the slightest chance of taking would be Howard as a BPA, and that's also unlikely with all the TEs we have already. Njoku won't be BPA in the second and we'd be wasting such a high pick on such a crowded position with lots of potential.

If he's there in the second, he's BPA by a mile unless someone really unexpected flat out free falls...

On 3/22/2017 at 7:48 PM, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

If he's there at 16 our pick is in. Suggs falling to us v2.0. 

I wouldn't be surprised to see Barnett fall past 20 at all, honestly. This is a very talented edge rusher group and while Barnett is very refined, he just lacks that burst and quickness to put him over the top and doesn't have excellent lateral agility. Someone like Taco Charlton may be raw, but he presents far more upside as a pass rusher and I'd very much expect Charlton to be in play for the Ravens at 16.

I think of Shaq Lawson some when I think of Barnett in the sense that both will be extremely refined against the run, but really lack the elite athleticism to make them forces as pass rushers. Yeah, you'll get your production, but you're probably never getting the 12+ sacks a year type guy.

13 minutes ago, Italian Raven said:

I mean he reminds me of him technically. And even from a size standpoint they aren't much different afterall: 1" of difference, arm lenght is almost the same and White even has slightly bigger hands.

I don't have a lot of numbers so I can't tell how many times he's been targeted, nor if those times were 70% screen passes and playing off man (where you must a super hero or something to get a PD). There are too many factors that play their part in the stats. I wouldn't bother too much about it as long as the eyes make me comfortable with what I see on tape. 

Also, we're talking about day 2/early 3 kind of prospects so you shouldn't have too much expectation in year 1, although they might even be starting material. 

I wouldn't compare any corner to Wilson as a press man. He's way too refined to be compared to and White just isn't halfway there.

31 minutes ago, LosT_in_TranSlatioN said:

Go back and actually watch the tape. There were several instances where he would take poor angles on tackles, blow a pass coverage, among other things. That was the most undeserving all pro nod ever. He wasn't bad.. But CJ was clearly the better guy despite what the numbers say. 

Many, many of his tackles were well beyond the LoS because Mosley ate blockers and allowed him to clean up.

17 minutes ago, gtalk12 said:

I am curious as to who will pick up Revis...Seahawks maybe?

Favorites are NE

2 minutes ago, purpletide said:

The extra point is the most boring play in sports, maybe a mandatory 2 point conversion should be considered.

It may be boring for Ravens fans, but extra points across the league were, I believe, under an 80% conversion rate. They aren't as routine for most teams anymore.

Borland may not have been extremely fast, but he was definitely bursty and quick in short areas. He was just considered too small with short arms. If he were a little bigger and had longer arms, he'd have been a potential first round pick. 

There's no comparison between him and Boulware.

4 hours ago, 52520Andrew said:

Maybe but he was no athlete by any stretch of the imagination. And his arms were ridiculously short, like shortest I have ever seen on a prospect

If Boulware were as athletic as Borland, he'd be draftable, but he's not. He sees the game as well as anyone, but he just can't get his body there.