Who should we take at #6?

[Edgar]

6 minutes ago, JoeyFlex5 said:

I think Ramsey still carries some risk but I think he's a great choice still. Buckner is an improvement over any DE on the team and a big one. Canty is Not very good anymore and could retire any day, urban I think will never become a full timer and after jernigan I don't see anyone else who can make an impact. He would immediately be a huge boost and being long term dividends and allow us to stop prioritizing having so many roster spots dedicated our DL

I agree about Buckner being an improvement over Canty,no doubt. I just don't get how high he is being mocked generally. To me,he seems a great piece to have but not enough of a difference maker to take at six,much less as high as three.

 

 

[RavensFanMania]

10 hours ago, DomMcRaven said:

10 hours ago, RaineV1 said:

A great o-line can make any offense be able to move the ball up and down the field. The o-linemen raising their level of play is the reason the Ravens almost got to the AFC championship game when Kubiak was here.

Fixed!

fixed again

[DomMcRaven]

Just now, RavensFanMania said:

fixed again

That too.....

[RavensFanMania]

Just now, DomMcRaven said:

That too.....

Damn Cheatriots

[DomMcRaven]

2 minutes ago, RavensFanMania said:

Damn Cheatriots

Damn secondary who couldn't cover nor tackle as well.

[ALI624]

Too bad almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. LOL.

[JoeyFlex5]

18 minutes ago, Edgar said:

I agree about Buckner being an improvement over Canty,no doubt. I just don't get how high he is being mocked generally. To me,he seems a great piece to have but not enough of a difference maker to take at six,much less as high as three.

 

 

High floor, and ridiculously high ceiling. I think he has almost no bust potnential so that feeling of comfort is nice with a high pick, and his ceiling is very high because of his meaaurables and his raw power and above average athleticism. Also a high iq and high motor guy which is very encouraging to see with a guy with as much potnential as he has.

[Jaybirds]

Kubiak has avenged us.  Sadly, he didn't do it in purple.  But still. 

I think that's why I'm fine taking Stanley at 6.  We've seen what a line can do for both our passing and our running game.  It's almost always a good investment. 

[RavensFanMania]

3 hours ago, JoeyFlex5 said:

i really, seriously hope that someone takes myles jack and a qb top 5. 

 

i really like deforest buckner, and i still like stanley, but if bosa and ramsey go top 5, what are we really left with and what will ozzie see there? between us and jacksonville we are going from a slam dunk playmaker, to a "he should be pretty good" type of guy. ive been thinking about it and i dont see much realistic shot to land either of them, and i think they really are our best bets to improve this team quickly, everybody else is a long term improvement and may all have lower floord and ceilings.. 

 

so if bosa and ramsey are gone, where do we go from there? alexander, hargreaves, jack, stanley, treadwell, spence, all feel like reaches to me, and they all have more bust potential than the former 2. buckner is the only one i dont feel is a reach at 6th but i think ozzie looks right past him not wanting to draft a 3-4DE this high. who do we really want at 6th if the big 2 are gone like i think they will be?

If the BPA is a DL, OLB/DE, S/CB, W Ror OL at that point , then Ozzie will pick him, as he should.  BPA has a built in consideration of positional versatility too. 

I've read that the way a lot of teams organize their board is by using a tiered system. Every prospect gets an overall grade, and then you take a group of similarly graded prospects and put them into a tier. Do this all of the way down the draft board. Then you rank the prospects within that tier, and in this ranking, you can give thought to positional value.

That's really as far as position/need go in consideration: a tiebreaker used to decide between two or more available prospects ranked within the same tier.

This system keeps you from making big reaches because of position/need. At most, you're probably only going to reach a couple of spots with any given pick. And you'll also be more inclined towards making big value picks because, if when making your pick, there is still one prospect ranked a tier or two above the rest that are available, then you are probably going to pick him. The tiers offer such a clear delineation in projected quality and value that it simplifies the decision making process.
 

A trade down scenario would be encouraged if, when your pick comes up, there are a lot of players still available within the current tier. Thus you could trade back and probably still get one. We'll see what happens on draft day, but I think that could be the case for us with most of our picks, but not the first round pick.  I think that our 2nd round pick is where the third tier of the draft ends, and then the fourth and fifth tiers have a ton of prospects that should go somewhere between the 20s and 50s.

I know I've gotten a bit off topic, but I feel Ozzie will take whoever he and the front office believe is the best player available.  If that's Buckner, Jack or Spence or Tread, etc... then he is going to take him. 

[RavensFanMania]

11 minutes ago, DomMcRaven said:

Damn secondary who couldn't cover nor tackle as well.

If and it's a big if, Jimmy Smith doesn't go down or we aren't playing with a ps player as our other starting CB, we get to the championship game and beat Indy in Indyand then most likely lose to the Ospreys.  (Yes, I can't stand the Hawks and since there is no bird as a Seahawk, I just call them what they really are, the Ospreys!)

[RavensFanMania]

6 minutes ago, Jaybirds said:

Kubiak has avenged us.  Sadly, he didn't do it in purple.  But still. 

I think that's why I'm fine taking Stanley at 6.  We've seen what a line can do for both our passing and our running game.  It's almost always a good investment. 

I don't think he is bpa at that point, but he's pretty darn close.  Based on positional value, he just may be and Ozzie will realize it if he is.  How often are we drafting in the top 10, let alone 6.  That tends to be wear the best OT are.  Yes, Stanley may not be as good as Tunsil, however, if you take Tunsil out of this draft, he's still better than any OT that has come out since Tyron Smith (2011-9th pick) or Trent Williams (2010-4th pick). 

[Jaybirds]

2 minutes ago, RavensFanMania said:

If the BPA is a DL, OLB/DE, S/CB, W Ror OL at that point , then Ozzie will pick him, as he should.  BPA has a built in consideration of positional versatility too. 

I've read that the way a lot of teams organize their board is by using a tiered system. Every prospect gets an overall grade, and then you take a group of similarly graded prospects and put them into a tier. Do this all of the way down the draft board. Then you rank the prospects within that tier, and in this ranking, you can give thought to positional value.

That's really as far as position/need go in consideration: a tiebreaker used to decide between two or more available prospects ranked within the same tier.

This system keeps you from making big reaches because of position/need. At most, you're probably only going to reach a couple of spots with any given pick. And you'll also be more inclined towards making big value picks because, if when making your pick, there is still one prospect ranked a tier or two above the rest that are available, then you are probably going to pick him. The tiers offer such a clear delineation in projected quality and value that it simplifies the decision making process.
 

A trade down scenario would be encouraged if, when your pick comes up, there are a lot of players still available within the current tier. Thus you could trade back and probably still get one. We'll see what happens on draft day, but I think that could be the case for us with most of our picks, but not the first round pick.  I think that our 2nd round pick is where the third tier of the draft ends, and then the fourth and fifth tiers have a ton of prospects that should go somewhere between the 20s and 50s.

I know I've gotten a bit off topic, but I feel Ozzie will take whoever he and the front office believe is the best player available.  If that's Buckner, Jack or Spence or Tread, etc... then he is going to take him. 

I've used this system for fantasy drafts.  It works so much better than just numbering the players 1-250.  You're right that it does cap reaching on its own.  BUT  in the world of over-analyzing the NFL draft, it will lead to talking heads calling everything a reach.  If you have 7 guys who are good value for, say, pick #15 then some pundit is going to insist you just took a #21 guy at 15.  Your board clearly says you didn't, but the criticism will still be there. 

This is exactly how I could see us taking A'Shawn Robinson at #6.  If there's only 4 or 5 guys in our top tier, Robinson could likely be in the second. 

[RavensFanMania]

1 minute ago, Jaybirds said:

I've used this system for fantasy drafts.  It works so much better than just numbering the players 1-250.  You're right that it does cap reaching on its own.  BUT  in the world of over-analyzing the NFL draft, it will lead to talking heads calling everything a reach.  If you have 7 guys who are good value for, say, pick #15 then some pundit is going to insist you just took a #21 guy at 15.  Your board clearly says you didn't, but the criticism will still be there. 

This is exactly how I could see us taking A'Shawn Robinson at #6.  If there's only 4 or 5 guys in our top tier, Robinson could likely be in the second. 

Exactly

[GrimCoconut]

Ragland reminds me of a better Hightower. If he can actually play OLB in the 3-4 I'd heavily consider him. I'm not sure I'd take him at 6 as that seems a bit rich but I can see the point in it. 

As for that nonsense about LT not being important, I have to say I agree with the premise but a hole there is like a hole anywhere on the OL. LT as a position isn't as valuable as it once was. I believe that; however, having a weakness or unreliable LT can cause serious issues. 

[Jacquouille]

2 minutes ago, GrimCoconut said:

Ragland reminds me of a better Hightower. If he can actually play OLB in the 3-4 I'd heavily consider him. I'm not sure I'd take him at 6 as that seems a bit rich but I can see the point in it. 

Ragland at 6 is definitely a reach. I wouldn't mind having him after trading back though, he is undoubtedly an impact player, especially if he can play OLB

[Jaybirds]

6 minutes ago, GrimCoconut said:

Ragland reminds me of a better Hightower. If he can actually play OLB in the 3-4 I'd heavily consider him. I'm not sure I'd take him at 6 as that seems a bit rich but I can see the point in it. 

As for that nonsense about LT not being important, I have to say I agree with the premise but a hole there is like a hole anywhere on the OL. LT as a position isn't as valuable as it once was. I believe that; however, having a weakness or unreliable LT can cause serious issues. 

I like his game as an ILB, even if he didn't move to the outside.  I like getting younger at all four of those spots, too.  That's mainly why I mentioned him.  Upshaw and Orr are both at the end of their contracts as well.  So I'm not going to riot if we do end up getting an inside linebacker in the draft.  It's also why I probably have Jaylon Smith and Noah Spence a bit too high right now. 

[DomMcRaven]

34 minutes ago, RavensFanMania said:

If and it's a big if, Jimmy Smith doesn't go down or we aren't playing with a ps player as our other starting CB, we get to the championship game and beat Indy in Indyand then most likely lose to the Ospreys.  (Yes, I can't stand the Hawks and since there is no bird as a Seahawk, I just call them what they really are, the Ospreys!)

While I don't hate the Hawks, I agree. Jimmy Smith would've made a difference. That I'm sure of. 

[January J]

What do y'all think of baby gronk? Just read the article about us being one of two teams that met with him..which I know is just sort of a formality..but the thought is kind of intriguing, esp considering how harbs was talking about taking another tight end that could sort of play a hybrid type role. How awesome would it be to have two Swiss army knifes in him and juice ? Overkill?  Obviously there are other positions higher up on the priority list, but if he's still hanging around late in the draft would it be worth it or not really necessary?

[Jaybirds]

7 minutes ago, January J said:

What do y'all think of baby gronk? Just read the article about us being one of two teams that met with him..which I know is just sort of a formality..but the thought is kind of intriguing, esp considering how harbs was talking about taking another tight end that could sort of play a hybrid type role. How awesome would it be to have two Swiss army knifes in him and juice ? Overkill?  Obviously there are other positions higher up on the priority list, but if he's still hanging around late in the draft would it be worth it or not really necessary?

I know Brandon Marshall and Alshon Jeffery got the headlines.  But Martellus Bennett and Matt Forte caught a LOT of passes under Trestman.  So yeah, I'm not surprised to hear we met with a receiver out of the backfield.  And we usually carry at least one fullback.  But I wonder what's wrong with just using Juice more? 

[January J]

15 minutes ago, Jaybirds said:

opposingrandon Mahaving and Alshon Jeff ery got bthea dlines.  But Mardetus Benne tt and Matt Forte caugh t a LOT of passes under Trestman.  So yeah, I'm not surprised to hear we met with a receiver out of the backfield.  And we usually carry at least one fullback.  But I wonder what's wrong with just using Juice more? 

I dont think theres anything wrong with that but Having another guy like him for Opposing teams to account for along with double/triple tight end sets could be a matchup nightmare. I just cant Decide if its a good idea or unrealistic. Anybody know how much juice costs us? Cant Be much..

[Jaybirds]

1 minute ago, January J said:

I dont think theres anything wrong with that but Having another guy like him for Opposing teams to account for along with double/triple tight end sets could be a matchup nightmare. I just cant Decide if its a good idea or unrealistic. Anybody know how much juice costs us? Cant Be much..

$675,000.  Cap hit is $750,000.  No guaranteed money, so we'd clear all of the 675 from the cap if we cut him.  Oh boy! 

[January J]

27 minutes ago, Jaybirds said:

 

Lol talk about savings! Yeah Wouldnt Be a bad idea to have them both..but is There room on the roster for two of the same Type player i Guess is what im Sayin.

[Edgar]

2 hours ago, Edgar said:

I agree about Buckner being an improvement over Canty,no doubt. I just don't get how high he is being mocked generally. To me,he seems a great piece to have but not enough of a difference maker to take at six,much less as high as three.

 

 

I don't see the high motor you do. Was pushed around by Conklin at Michigan state

i do agree he's a good player with a high ceiling (assuming he gets there). I just don't see a top six pick.

[Jaybirds]

17 minutes ago, January J said:

Lol talk about savings! Yeah Wouldnt Be a bad idea to have them both..but is There room on the roster for two of the same Type player i Guess is what im Sayin.

Well, it helps if we like him as a kick returner.  But right now it looks like he could be a fifth FB/RB, compete for a WR spot, or maybe a TE if Pitta is gone.    Actually, yeah.  Comparisons to Juice aside, this may be in case Pitta retires. 

 

Edited February 2, 2016 by Jaybirds

[arnie_uk]

Jaylon Smith is the best player in the draft probably.

[FGSB]

Changing my pick to Hargreaves

[BmoreBird22]

5 hours ago, arnie_uk said:

Jaylon Smith is the best player in the draft probably.

Health aside, I'd agree.

[rmw10]

5 hours ago, arnie_uk said:

Jaylon Smith is the best player in the draft probably.

He was my #1 prior to the injury.  With word that he might actually be ready for the season, he'll likely move back up to #1 for me.  I'm really curious to see what his weight is at the combine.

[BmoreBird22]

Just now, rmw10 said:

He was my #1 prior to the injury.  With word that he might actually be ready for the season, he'll likely move back up to #1 for me.  I'm really curious to see what his weight is at the combine.

He could definitely be an OLB, weigh in pending.

Edited February 2, 2016 by BmoreBird22

[rmw10]

1 minute ago, BmoreBird22 said:

He could definitely be an OLB, weigh in pending.

Yeah I've seen reports that he should weigh in the 245 range.  I know just recently I said that I prefer my OLBs to be 255 minimum, but I think Jaylon has the athletic ability to survive on the outside.  I'm not sure I'd keep him outside full time, but pending weight, I think he could absolutely rotate in there.