Trading up from our 2nd round pick.

[RaineV1]

It seems like the ten teams picking ahead of the Ravens' 2nd round pick all have pretty similar needs as the Ravens, which is a bit of a problem. However, I think there's a few of them that would be willing to trade down for the right price depending on who's available (namely the Chiefs, Panthers, and Titans). So, the question is, would you be willing to trade up from our 2nd round pick for someone, and who would it be?

For me, it'd have to be for Jason Spriggs. He has everything it takes to become a franchise LT, and would fit our offense perfectly.

[JoeyFlex5]

If Spence falls past the jets then I think we need to trade ahead of the cardinals. They're a 34 defense and their top priority is either pass rush or secondary but I'm not buying that Keanu Neal is a first rounder. Spriggs I think goes either 30 or 31 and cardinals may wanna trade back of they really are targeting Neal which there were rumors about

[Jaybirds]

I'm going to be the naysayer:  there's no need to trade up into the first round.  Most sites have 36-40 guys with a first round grade, so we're going to get two first rounders just by staying put.  We've got enough holes to fill that the price doesn't seem worth it.  I know it's difficult to say who will fall to us in the 2nd.  But someone will.   

I think it's natural to fall in love with particular guys, and try to mold our scenarios to get those guys.  But I think the boards have turned it into more of an emergency than it really is. 

[JoeyFlex5]

20 minutes ago, Jaybirds said:

I'm going to be the naysayer:  there's no need to trade up into the first round.  Most sites have 36-40 guys with a first round grade, so we're going to get two first rounders just by staying put.  We've got enough holes to fill that the price doesn't seem worth it.  I know it's difficult to say who will fall to us in the 2nd.  But someone will.   

I think it's natural to fall in love with particular guys, and try to mold our scenarios to get those guys.  But I think the boards have turned it into more of an emergency than it really is. 

We can definitely get a good player at 36 and a guy we will be satisfied with, but we obviously have guys who we believe will make a bigger impact. For instance Spence and spriggs appear to be guys who will make bigger impacts than Decker and Calhoun for instance. 

 

I just hope like hell we don't take ogbah in the second...

[harfordravenfan]

4 minutes ago, JoeyFlex5 said:

We can definitely get a good player at 36 and a guy we will be satisfied with, but we obviously have guys who we believe will make a bigger impact. For instance Spence and spriggs appear to be guys who will make bigger impacts than Decker and Calhoun for instance. 

 

I just hope like hell we don't take ogbah in the second...

Well said, and I agree with ya.

Wouldn't we also get a 5th year option if we go back into the 1st? (Always heard about that but know very little about it)

[usmccharles]

26 minutes ago, Jaybirds said:

I'm going to be the naysayer:  there's no need to trade up into the first round.  Most sites have 36-40 guys with a first round grade, so we're going to get two first rounders just by staying put.  We've got enough holes to fill that the price doesn't seem worth it.  I know it's difficult to say who will fall to us in the 2nd.  But someone will.   

I think it's natural to fall in love with particular guys, and try to mold our scenarios to get those guys.  But I think the boards have turned it into more of an emergency than it really is. 

I agree for the most part because this is normally how we operate.  But it would be nice for once to see us be aggressive and go after a guy we want rather than taking a 6th choice or something. 

We will use Ogbah as an example, calm down @JoeyFlex5 just an example.  If are sitting at 36 and he is who we really want, but we think the Browns are going to take him, id much rather see us trade up to get THE guy we want rather than settling for someone else. 

[Jaybirds]

15 minutes ago, JoeyFlex5 said:

We can definitely get a good player at 36 and a guy we will be satisfied with, but we obviously have guys who we believe will make a bigger impact. For instance Spence and spriggs appear to be guys who will make bigger impacts than Decker and Calhoun for instance. 

 

I just hope like hell we don't take ogbah in the second...

Spriggs is exactly my point.  NFL.com and ESPN both have him ranked as a legit 2nd round talent, but short of a first round grade.   Okay, so we disagree with them, no big deal.  But it goes to show that there's a lot of riches right around #36.  Both of those sites had more than 36 first-round grades EXCLUDING Spriggs. 

Other noteworthy names below the cut:  Spence, Alexander, Karl Joseph, WJ III, Shepard, Boyd, Su'a, Decker, Dodd, Kendall Fuller, Coleman, Fackrell, Thomas.   And a few QBs who could help someone drop to us.   We might not get Spriggs specifically, but we will fill a need with similar talent. 

We're good. 

Edited April 13, 2016 by Jaybirds

[Somerset Ravens]

5 minutes ago, Jaybirds said:

Spriggs is exactly my point.  NFL.com and ESPN both have him ranked as a legit 2nd round talent, but short of a first round grade.   Okay, so we disagree with them, no big deal.  But it goes to show that there's a lot of riches right around #36.  Both of those sites had more than 36 first-round grades EXCLUDING Spriggs. 

Other noteworthy names below the cut:  Alexander, Karl Joseph, WJ III, Shepard, Boyd, Su'a, Decker, Dodd, Kendall Fuller, Coleman, Fackrell, Thomas.   And a few QBs who could help someone drop to us.   We might not get Spriggs specifically, but we will fill a need with similar talent. 

We're good. 

I strongly agree with you, there will be plenty of talent to choose from at the 36th pick. We have many needs on our roster so giving away picks makes little sense. Another point to consider is that in this age of salary cap football rookie contracts are golden. 

[JoeyFlex5]

55 minutes ago, Jaybirds said:

Spriggs is exactly my point.  NFL.com and ESPN both have him ranked as a legit 2nd round talent, but short of a first round grade.   Okay, so we disagree with them, no big deal.  But it goes to show that there's a lot of riches right around #36.  Both of those sites had more than 36 first-round grades EXCLUDING Spriggs. 

Other noteworthy names below the cut:  Spence, Alexander, Karl Joseph, WJ III, Shepard, Boyd, Su'a, Decker, Dodd, Kendall Fuller, Coleman, Fackrell, Thomas.   And a few QBs who could help someone drop to us.   We might not get Spriggs specifically, but we will fill a need with similar talent. 

We're good. 

I agree. I think at 36 we will hit a home run. I've been more Interested and excited about our 2nd round pick for a while now. Honestly I hope we get one of those guys that aren't viewed so highly by other teams but valued by us, rather than getting a guy who is falling because of certain issues, we do that so often and see players fail because of those issues, for example we took Upshaw who was once a first rounder but fell due to poor athleticism and we saw how that affected our defense taking a OLB high with no pass rushing. what if Alexander falls and we take him and the concerns turn out to be true? I think I'd rather take a Calhoun who isn't valued by everyone because of less than ideal power but is a super refined and smart pass rusher. The Seahawks and cowboys are great examples of teams who have drafted well by doing this and I think we are a team who can do this as well.

[Jaybirds]

15 minutes ago, JoeyFlex5 said:

I agree. I think at 36 we will hit a home run. I've been more Interested and excited about our 2nd round pick for a while now. Honestly I hope we get one of those guys that aren't viewed so highly by other teams but valued by us, rather than getting a guy who is falling because of certain issues, we do that so often and see players fail because of those issues, for example we took Upshaw who was once a first rounder but fell due to poor athleticism and we saw how that affected our defense taking a OLB high with no pass rushing. what if Alexander falls and we take him and the concerns turn out to be true? I think I'd rather take a Calhoun who isn't valued by everyone because of less than ideal power but is a super refined and smart pass rusher. The Seahawks and cowboys are great examples of teams who have drafted well by doing this and I think we are a team who can do this as well.

I would love that.   As much as I want VH3 or Myles Yeah Right Jack in the first, I'd be just as happy trading back with the Rams for one of their 2nd round picks.  Best of all worlds:  we could still get a playmaker in the first, a guy who falls to us in the 2nd, and the guy we think is undervalued as well.  I would like that. 

I have no idea how to determine who those undervalued guys are though.  I think you have a point about Calhoun.  But I would have said Ragland, and I know we disagree there.  Maybe Whitehair?  Not at tackle, but to replace KO or one day Yanda? 

EDIT:   I should clarify:  I'm looking for guys who dropped from the first because there just wasn't space, not high-risk guys nobody else took a chance on.  I think you made a good point about rolling the dice a little too much (Upshaw, and maybe Alexander this year).  Though there's some debate about Spence there.

 

Edited April 13, 2016 by Jaybirds

[GrimCoconut]

I'm OK with trading up but it all depends on for whom and for what. What is the price to trade up and who are we trading up to get? These are the questions that must first be answered. If we are trading up to get a guy who could be there at our 2nd round pick, then perhaps stay there. If we want that 5th year option, then stay there. If we want to trade up so we can get a guy ranked as a high first rounder, then do it. I don't think we would trade up just for the Hell of it. 

For instance, if we took Hargreaves with our first pick and want a pass rusher, then we should trade up to get a pass rusher before losing out on the guy we want to Arizona, Carolina, Dallas, Jacksonville, or any of those other teams ahead of us that would likely take that guy. Some positions it is critical we consider trading up because there is a low chance guys at those positions fall to us. 

[Jaybirds]

15 minutes ago, GrimCoconut said:

I'm OK with trading up but it all depends on for whom and for what. What is the price to trade up and who are we trading up to get? These are the questions that must first be answered. If we are trading up to get a guy who could be there at our 2nd round pick, then perhaps stay there. If we want that 5th year option, then stay there. If we want to trade up so we can get a guy ranked as a high first rounder, then do it. I don't think we would trade up just for the Hell of it. 

For instance, if we took Hargreaves with our first pick and want a pass rusher, then we should trade up to get a pass rusher before losing out on the guy we want to Arizona, Carolina, Dallas, Jacksonville, or any of those other teams ahead of us that would likely take that guy. Some positions it is critical we consider trading up because there is a low chance guys at those positions fall to us. 

Here's a quick and rough count of the guys between our #6 and #36 pick, for the positions we might consider.  Pass rusher is a little tougher because sites usually list by position and not role.  But it might help the conversation. 

Pass rusher:  I count 10 between Buckner/Bosa and higher than Oakman, including OLB and DE.  Not sure if that's accurate. 
Wide Receiver:  8 counting Treadwell, but not counting Braxton, HIggins, and Cooper
Offensive Line:  5 tackles with at least a 2nd round grade, not counting Tunsil and Stanley; 8 guards.  
Cornerback:  8 until the 2nd round. Doesn't include Hargreaves, does count Redmond and Xavien.  

That's 39 guys.  Some of them are going to be a reach, or will change positions, etc.  So I'm not saying that number is gospel truth or anything.  But when you throw in the top 4 QBs, at least one RB, a safety or two, a tight end, and interior linemen, I think we're going to be okay.  

It's possible one position completely empties out, I suppose.  But more likely is we'll have a couple of guys left over at each spot. 

I think if we really want a pass rusher, we're better off trading BACK from the first into Lawson/Dodd/Floyd rather than jumping up. 

Edited April 13, 2016 by Jaybirds

[GrimCoconut]

1 minute ago, Jaybirds said:

Here's a quick and rough count of the guys between our #6 and #36 pick, for the positions we might consider.  Pass rusher is a little tougher because sites usually list by position and not role.  But it might help the conversation. 

Pass rusher:  I count 10 between Buckner/Bosa and higher than Oakman, including OLB and DE.  Not sure if that's accurate. 
Wide Receiver:  8 counting Treadwell, but not counting Braxton, HIggins, and Cooper
Offensive Line:  5 tackles with at least 2 grade, not counting Tunsil and Stanley; 8 guards.  
Cornerback:  8 until the 2nd round. Doesn't include Hargreaves, does count Redmond and Xavien.  

That's 39 guys.  Some of them are going to be a reach, or will change positions, etc.  So I'm saying that number is gospel truth or anything.  But when you throw in the top 4 QBs, at least one RB, a safety or two, a tight, and interior linemen, I think we're going to okay.  

It's possible one position completely empties out, I suppose.  But more likely is we'll have a couple of guys left over at each spot. 

I think if we really want a pass rusher, we're better off trading BACK from the first into Lawson/Dodd/Floyd rather than jumping up. 

The problem with what you're saying here is I don't view most of those guys you mentioned here as being worthy of a 1st round pick myself. Redmond isn't a first round pick to me, neither is Braxton, Higgins, or Cooper. Oakman? What's he have to do with this? Some of these names seem like you are bringing up mid-round to late-round prospects. Maybe I missed you saying that in here somewhere, I'm not sure (no sarcasm here, btw). I do not see a lot of talent at pass rusher, but I do understand you can have pass rushers on the DL not just edge. I think we need an edge pass rusher, and I think we will absolutely take one early because we have to do it. Same kinda goes for CB. If any two positions suffer it will be OL & WR from that list you just provided because we have either recently invested high picks into those resources (WR), or we have a coach [Castillo] who has a history of developing mid-to-late-round prospects (OL). 

I do wonder about Dodd, not a fan of Floyd or Lawson, though. I like Dodd the best of the bunch, but he is quite unproven but he looked hot at the end of the year. To me, Dodd is a major question mark who could be the jackpot or could be a bust. 

FWIW, I don't necessarily like the idea of trading back into the first, but if we want to do it I don't mind. I do like the 5th year option because that helps a lot. It really just depends on how our first pick goes whether or not we should trade back into the first. 

[ALI624]

I would rather get the right guy(the one we want) than just the guy that reached us. I think that if Spence gets past 20 there is a good chance he gets to us even with some teams needing pass rushers because I believe there will be a run on CBs between the 20's and the top half of the second round. But I would rather trade up and maybe give of a pick this year or a future pick in order to get the guy we really want. Also if we take him in the first round we have him for an extra year. So say we get Jack or VH3(my preferences) then trade up and get Spence that's a very good start to the draft I believe.

[Jaybirds]

9 minutes ago, GrimCoconut said:

The problem with what you're saying here is I don't view most of those guys you mentioned here as being worthy of a 1st round pick myself. Redmond isn't a first round pick to me, neither is Braxton, Higgins, or Cooper. Oakman? What's he have to do with this? Some of these names seem like you are bringing up mid-round to late-round prospects. Maybe I missed you saying that in here somewhere, I'm not sure (no sarcasm here, btw). I do not see a lot of talent at pass rusher, but I do understand you can have pass rushers on the DL not just edge. I think we need an edge pass rusher, and I think we will absolutely take one early because we have to do it. Same kinda goes for CB. If any two positions suffer it will be OL & WR from that list you just provided because we have either recently invested high picks into those resources (WR), or we have a coach [Castillo] who has a history of developing mid-to-late-round prospects (OL). 

I do wonder about Dodd, not a fan of Floyd or Lawson, though. I like Dodd the best of the bunch, but he is quite unproven but he looked hot at the end of the year. To me, Dodd is a major question mark who could be the jackpot or could be a bust. 

FWIW, I don't necessarily like the idea of trading back into the first, but if we want to do it I don't mind. I do like the 5th year option because that helps a lot. It really just depends on how our first pick goes whether or not we should trade back into the first. 

Oakman is not counted, he's listed as my stopping point.  IE, I counted the guys between Bosa and Oakman.  Same with when I said "not counting Braxton, Higgins, and Cooper".   (though i think someone reaches on Braxton)   Not sure what to do with Xavien and Redmond.  I counted them because there's a drop off right after them, but their values are all over the place from site to site.  But yeah, the rest of the guys you list, I did NOT count. 

Some of the DL I think were 4-3 guys.  I can't say where they'll line up in the NFL, so I counted them.  If you can find a list that divides them up by 5-tech, please share!  Like I said, it's a rough number.  But.... I kinda feel like you didn't read what I said. 

And yeah, that's my point.  A lot of these guys are 2nd rounders, or comparable to guys available in the second.  So why would we trade up to get them?!?  

Honest question:  do you see any position that will be completely cleaned out of starters between our #6 and #36 pick.  I don't right now, but I could be wrong. 
 

Edited April 13, 2016 by Jaybirds

[Jaybirds]

11 minutes ago, ALI624 said:

I would rather get the right guy(the one we want) than just the guy that reached us. I think that if Spence gets past 20 there is a good chance he gets to us even with some teams needing pass rushers because I believe there will be a run on CBs between the 20's and the top half of the second round. But I would rather trade up and maybe give of a pick this year or a future pick in order to get the guy we really want. Also if we take him in the first round we have him for an extra year. So say we get Jack or VH3(my preferences) then trade up and get Spence that's a very good start to the draft I believe.

Personally, I have Spence ranked as a first rounder.  I don't buy into his so-called issues.  So he's a good example to use.  

I don't think Spence better than, for example, a combination of Correa and Calhoun.  But the cost to us would be about the same. 

Edited April 13, 2016 by Jaybirds

[GrimCoconut]

Just now, Jaybirds said:

Oakman is not counted, he's listed as my stopping point.  IE, I counted the guys between Bosa and Oakman.  Same with when I said "not counting Braxton, Higgins, and Cooper".   (though i think someone reaches on Braxton)   Not sure what to do with Xavien and Redmond.  I counted them because there's a drop off right after them, but their values are all over the place from site to site.  But yeah, the rest of the guys you list, I did NOT count. 

Some of the DL I think were 4-3 guys.  I can't say where they'll line up in the NFL, so I counted them.  If you can find a list that divides them up by 5-tech, please share!  Like I said, it's a rough number.  But.... I kinda feel like you didn't read what I said. 

And yeah, that's my point.  A lot of these guys are 2nd rounders, or comparable to guys available in the second.  So why would we trade up to get them?!?  

Honest question:  do you see any position that will be completely cleaned out of starters between our #6 and #36 pick.  I don't right now, but I could be wrong. 
 

No, I read what you said, but perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough. Sometimes it's not about who falls to you and taking that--sometimes, you have to go up and get who you want. That is why you would trade up into the first round, outside of the business reason being to have the 5th year option. Front offices do have a tendency to like specific players and fall in love with prospects just like we fans do. Look at the Vikings, who traded up to get Harrison Smith. They got him with his 5th year option and they really liked him a lot. You sometimes need to make moves like that. 

As for dividing the prospects into 5T, 3T, 0T, etc. most of them are a bit obvious, although not all are. I mean, Butler is just one guy I think could play 5T and I think he'll be there maybe in the 2nd round for us. 

I don't see any, but that's the wrong question. I think what you should be asking yourself is "Do you see any position we need and the Ravens know we must fill where we feel like there will be a drop-off in talent if we don't trade up to get a guy we covet?" That question will likely provide a better answer. 

[JoeyFlex5]

Surprised to hear you don't like Lawson grim. I feel like we have similar taste in prospects and that strikes me as a guy you would like... 

 

About dodd. I definitely worry about him maybe being a flash in the pan who benefited from an elite front 4, but I don't think so. He very well could be better player out of him and Lawson. He had a strong year all around and just dodnt get the spotlight until an injured Lawson played only average in the championship. Alabama knew Lawson was hurt so they didn't dedicate resources to him, and dodd was still a game wrecker. I think he's the highest ceiling prospect and I think He is a perfect fit to be a total freak OLB for us, I think the biggest risk is that he is inconsistent in years 1 and 2 but I think we may look back and say "how was dodd not taken top 5?". Trading back to LA and getting a 2nd and dodd I think is the best move but I doubt it happens

[GrimCoconut]

7 minutes ago, JoeyFlex5 said:

Surprised to hear you don't like Lawson grim. I feel like we have similar taste in prospects and that strikes me as a guy you would like... 

 

About dodd. I definitely worry about him maybe being a flash in the pan who benefited from an elite front 4, but I don't think so. He very well could be better player out of him and Lawson. He had a strong year all around and just dodnt get the spotlight until an injured Lawson played only average in the championship. Alabama knew Lawson was hurt so they didn't dedicate resources to him, and dodd was still a game wrecker. I think he's the highest ceiling prospect and I think He is a perfect fit to be a total freak OLB for us, I think the biggest risk is that he is inconsistent in years 1 and 2 but I think we may look back and say "how was dodd not taken top 5?". Trading back to LA and getting a 2nd and dodd I think is the best move but I doubt it happens

I love his spin move, it's really lethal, but he's not quick or explosive enough for me. I watched him quite a bit and he is not the first guy off of the ball and that worries me. I am wondering why he isn't the first off the ball. He tested well athletically, it seems, at the Combine; however, when I watch him and key-in on him, I do not see him immediately jump from his stance and engage the blocker but he is probably one of the last guys off the ball. #98 Kevin Dodd actually helped him quite a bit in the games I saw because Dodd came off the ball so fast and rushed the QB into Lawson quite a few times. What worries me is I wonder if Lawson is either just not explosive (which doesn't make sense but maybe it's true) or that Lawson is mentally slow to react (which also doesn't make a ton of sense since he seems to be a smart player), or maybe he is coached to be the last off the ball. I'm really a bit perplexed about him as a prospect.

I agree. I think Dodd could be the best OLB prospect in this class. 

Edited April 13, 2016 by GrimCoconut

[Jaybirds]

9 minutes ago, GrimCoconut said:

No, I read what you said, but perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough. Sometimes it's not about who falls to you and taking that--sometimes, you have to go up and get who you want. That is why you would trade up into the first round, outside of the business reason being to have the 5th year option. Front offices do have a tendency to like specific players and fall in love with prospects just like we fans do. Look at the Vikings, who traded up to get Harrison Smith. They got him with his 5th year option and they really liked him a lot. You sometimes need to make moves like that. 

As for dividing the prospects into 5T, 3T, 0T, etc. most of them are a bit obvious, although not all are. I mean, Butler is just one guy I think could play 5T and I think he'll be there maybe in the 2nd round for us. 

I don't see any, but that's the wrong question. I think what you should be asking yourself is "Do you see any position we need and the Ravens know we must fill where we feel like there will be a drop-off in talent if we don't trade up to get a guy we covet?" That question will likely provide a better answer. 

I understand that there's a situation where yes you trade up.  I'm saying this year, this is the exact opposite position.  

*  There's a big chunk of players all around the same talent level, and that happens to be right when we pick 2nd. 
         --- there's a really good chance the 25th pick won't be any better than the 40th.  maybe not even the 45th. 
*   That big chunk of players includes positions we need.
*  None of those positions look to be empty by the time we get there.  There's no urgency. 
*  We have multiple positions of need.  Trading up for one means we're less likely to fill another. 

This is exactly when you stand pat, unless it's to trade back in the first.  I agree with Joey, that Rams trade for Dodd and a 2nd looks perfect.  There's no value to be had to trading up in this situation.  Yes, front offices fall in love with guys.  Happened with Cleveland and Manziel, for example.   Washington and RGIII, Saints and Reggie Bush.... you see where I'm going with this. 

[GrimCoconut]

16 minutes ago, Jaybirds said:

I understand that there's a situation where yes you trade up.  I'm saying this year, this is the exact opposite position.  

*  There's a big chunk of players all around the same talent level, and that happens to be right when we pick 2nd. 
         --- there's a really good chance the 25th pick won't be any better than the 40th.  maybe not even the 45th. 
*   That big chunk of players includes positions we need.
*  None of those positions look to be empty by the time we get there.  There's no urgency. 
*  We have multiple positions of need.  Trading up for one means we're less likely to fill another. 

This is exactly when you stand pat, unless it's to trade back in the first.  I agree with Joey, that Rams trade for Dodd and a 2nd looks perfect.  There's no value to be had to trading up in this situation.  Yes, front offices fall in love with guys.  Happened with Cleveland and Manziel, for example.   Washington and RGIII, Saints and Reggie Bush.... you see where I'm going with this. 

Here's the deal and I'll be blunt: I don't like how you seem to be speaking in absolutes. I don't like dealing with them myself because things can always change and nothing is ever guaranteed. As a result, if something happens in the draft, it is very possible we may want to trade back up to get into the first round to get a guy at a position if that position gets raided. Does it? I don't know nor do I think it will; however, I also recognize that you can't outright claim it won't happen, either. Those positions may not appear empty or devoid now, but I don't think you have  a list of every team's board nor do you know what their plans are. Nobody knows a team's plan, even our own team. 

What I am saying is that if we feel like a position has been drained or is getting close to it, we should trade up to get that player if we feel there's a major drop-off in talent after that player goes. Furthermore, let's say Ronnie Stanley inexplicably falls. Do you not want to trade up to get him? Love him or hate him, that would be some insane value to just pass on if he or another top prospect fell for some strange reason. There's plenty examples of teams falling in love with a prospect and it turning out bad, but there are also examples of it working out really well, too. Let's not cherry pick our facts to fit the argument. 

Do I want to trade up? As I said, no, it is not my first preference. Do I think we may? Yes, I do think it is possible we may trade up. Do I think you should think the same? I think you should be open-minded, but you have the right to decide for yourself. It just seems like you are adamantly against it and have ruled it out as a possibility, which I feel is a bit wrong. 

Edited April 13, 2016 by GrimCoconut

[RaineV1]

28 minutes ago, JoeyFlex5 said:

Surprised to hear you don't like Lawson grim. I feel like we have similar taste in prospects and that strikes me as a guy you would like... 

 

About dodd. I definitely worry about him maybe being a flash in the pan who benefited from an elite front 4, but I don't think so. He very well could be better player out of him and Lawson. He had a strong year all around and just dodnt get the spotlight until an injured Lawson played only average in the championship. Alabama knew Lawson was hurt so they didn't dedicate resources to him, and dodd was still a game wrecker. I think he's the highest ceiling prospect and I think He is a perfect fit to be a total freak OLB for us, I think the biggest risk is that he is inconsistent in years 1 and 2 but I think we may look back and say "how was dodd not taken top 5?". Trading back to LA and getting a 2nd and dodd I think is the best move but I doubt it happens

I have my worries about Dodd as well, because of him seemingly being a one year wonder and having the benefit of playing opposite of Lawson. Also there's the fact that athletic edge rushers seem to be some of the biggest boom or bust players over the last several years. However, if the Ravens' scouts really believed he could reach his potential, I'd be fine with trading back for him. Or trading up for him if he fell to the 20s.

On the topic of trading up in general, it depends heavily on who the Ravens' think is worth it. If there's a guy that's like 15th on our board but is still there at 26, then he would definitely be worth it.

[Jaybirds]

8 minutes ago, GrimCoconut said:

Here's the deal and I'll be blunt: I don't like how you seem to be speaking in absolutes. I don't like dealing with them myself because things can always change and nothing is ever guaranteed. As a result, if something happens in the draft, it is very possible we may want to trade back up to get into the first round to get a guy at a position if that position gets raided. Does it? I don't know nor do I think it will; however, I also recognize that you can't outright claim it won't happen, either. Those positions may not appear empty or devoid now, but I don't think you have  a list of every team's board nor do you know what their plans are. Nobody knows a team's plan, even our own team. 

What I am saying is that if we feel like a position has been drained or is getting close to it, we should trade up to get that player. Furthermore, let's say Ronnie Stanley inexplicably falls. Do you not want to trade up to get him? Love him or hate him, that would be some insane value to just pass on if he or another top prospect fell for some strange reason. There's plenty examples of teams falling in love with a prospect and it turning out bad, but there are also examples of it working out really well, too. Let's not cherry pick our facts to fit the argument. 

Do I want to trade up? As I said, no, it is not my first preference. Do I think we may? Yes, I do think it is possible we may trade up. Do I think you should think the same? I think you should be open-minded, but you have the right to decide for yourself. It just seems like you are adamantly against it and have ruled it out as a possibility, which I feel is a bit wrong. 

I am adamantly against it, that has nothing to do with its likelihood, just my opinion.  As far as likelihood, I think it's unlikely.  And even if we do, I think it's VERY unlikely that helps compared to having extra picks. 

I was absolutely cherry picking examples.  So were you with that Vikings example.  Yes, it could go either way.  I'm saying this time it is much more likely that trading up goes the wrong way.  There's not much value to be had unless every other team really messes up badly (like your Stanley example). I'm not expecting that.

This year, the odds are better staying where we are.  It's a matter of risk assessment, and with the information we have right now it's not worth the risk.  You're asking me to get on board with an idea with zero data to support it.  I'm not going to do that. 

You already agreed a position wasn't likely to get drained.  If you can show me how that could happen, for any position, then I'll definitely lighten up. 

But yeah, bluntly, with what we know today it's a really horrible idea. 
 

Edited April 13, 2016 by Jaybirds

[Jaybirds]

As far as open minded, I'm betting on the field.  You guys are betting on individual players to make a trade up work.  I think people on here need to be more open minded about the abilities of guys going after the 10th pick. 

[thieverycorporation]

To get the guys you want may require manipulation of the draft order on our part. I don't like losing out on premium talent. I think an argument could be made that we've been denied that option for various reasons. The draft positions can't be used as one of them this year. I think the dream scenario would be to move back a couple/few positions grab a second plus and be able to move back into the first round if needed. By Ozzie & co remarks it would seem they are less likely to trade any picks while losing any of their own. Hinges on a lot of factors. Dallas is posturing early. Hopefully we under cut them and beat them at their own game this year.

[JoeyFlex5]

1 hour ago, GrimCoconut said:

I love his spin move, it's really lethal, but he's not quick or explosive enough for me. I watched him quite a bit and he is not the first guy off of the ball and that worries me. I am wondering why he isn't the first off the ball. He tested well athletically, it seems, at the Combine; however, when I watch him and key-in on him, I do not see him immediately jump from his stance and engage the blocker but he is probably one of the last guys off the ball. #98 Kevin Dodd actually helped him quite a bit in the games I saw because Dodd came off the ball so fast and rushed the QB into Lawson quite a few times. What worries me is I wonder if Lawson is either just not explosive (which doesn't make sense but maybe it's true) or that Lawson is mentally slow to react (which also doesn't make a ton of sense since he seems to be a smart player), or maybe he is coached to be the last off the ball. I'm really a bit perplexed about him as a prospect.

I agree. I think Dodd could be the best OLB prospect in this class. 

I don't think lawson is slow to react or lacks an explosive first step, I just think he's less anticipatory than a lot of edge rushers. All edge rushers need a slight bit of anticipation because you can't come off the snap fully reactive unless you're a freak athlete, it's possible that Lawson is just scared to jump offsides so he doesn't try to time the snap.

[GrimCoconut]

56 minutes ago, Jaybirds said:

I am adamantly against it, that has nothing to do with its likelihood, just my opinion.  As far as likelihood, I think it's unlikely.  And even if we do, I think it's VERY unlikely that helps compared to having extra picks. 

I was absolutely cherry picking examples.  So were you with that Vikings example.  Yes, it could go either way.  I'm saying this time it is much more likely that trading up goes the wrong way.  There's not much value to be had unless every other team really messes up badly (like your Stanley example). I'm not expecting that.

This year, the odds are better staying where we are.  It's a matter of risk assessment, and with the information we have right now it's not worth the risk.  You're asking me to get on board with an idea with zero data to support it.  I'm not going to do that. 

You already agreed a position wasn't likely to get drained.  If you can show me how that could happen, for any position, then I'll definitely lighten up. 

But yeah, bluntly, with what we know today it's a really horrible idea. 
 

 

46 minutes ago, Jaybirds said:

As far as open minded, I'm betting on the field.  You guys are betting on individual players to make a trade up work.  I think people on here need to be more open minded about the abilities of guys going after the 10th pick. 

Maybe I've gone about this the wrong way so I'll try a different approach. 

What exactly do you dislike about trading up for a guy this team may highly covet? For the sake of argument, if the Ravens rank Alexander as a top 10 pick and he's there at 30 do you still not want to trade up and why? I assume it's because you don't want to lose picks, but I doubt we'd need to surrender a third round pick to make that trade. If that's your argument that you don't want to lose a 3rd round pick then I agree with you. If you don't want to lose a fourth round pick and maybe a sixth or something like that, then I'll have to disagree. 

Edited April 13, 2016 by GrimCoconut

[Jaybirds]

Just now, GrimCoconut said:

 

Maybe I've gone about this the wrong way so I'll try a different approach. 

What exactly do you dislike about trading up for a guy this team may highly covet? For the sake of argument, if the Ravens rank Alexander as a top 10 pick and he's there at 30 do you still not want to trade up and why? I assume it's because you don't want to lose picks, but I doubt we'd need you surrender a third round pick to make that trade. If that's your argument that you don't want to lose a 3rd round pick then I agree with you. If you don't want to lose a fourth round pick and maybe a sixth or something like that, then I'll have to disagree. 

You're talking about a guy falling 20 spots, while others were picked at the same position, without a health concern or an off-field issue?  Jaylon and Spence probably will fall that far, yes.  But that's because of the high risk involved.  Anyone who falls less than that will cost more to get.  And if the position isn't already drained, then we have to compare him to other guys available + the cost to trade up.  If Alexander drops 20 spots, WJ III and Fuller both have to be gone already. 

I know Alexander is just one example, but I think the criteria are the same for everyone:  is he healthy?  is there an off-the-field issue?  is the position drained?  did he fall far enough that there's little cost in trading up (and yet no other team will).    And that's the part I find very nearly impossible.  If Alexander is healthy, there's a run on CBs so he's the last one left, AND he drops 20 spots then every team is going to be calling for that pick.  It's very nearly a paradox. 

 

[JoeyFlex5]

1 hour ago, RaineV1 said:

I have my worries about Dodd as well, because of him seemingly being a one year wonder and having the benefit of playing opposite of Lawson. Also there's the fact that athletic edge rushers seem to be some of the biggest boom or bust players over the last several years. However, if the Ravens' scouts really believed he could reach his potential, I'd be fine with trading back for him. Or trading up for him if he fell to the 20s.

On the topic of trading up in general, it depends heavily on who the Ravens' think is worth it. If there's a guy that's like 15th on our board but is still there at 26, then he would definitely be worth it.

The thing about dodd is you have to have reservations.. But, Lawson benefited more from dodds presence than dodd benefited from Lawson. And dodd is raw and a one year wonder, buy I see absolutely no reason to think he won't progress, no reason at all

[GrimCoconut]

9 minutes ago, Jaybirds said:

You're talking about a guy falling 20 spots, while others were picked at the same position, without a health concern or an off-field issue?  Jaylon and Spence probably will fall that far, yes.  But that's because of the high risk involved.  Anyone who falls less than that will cost more to get.  And if the position isn't already drained, then we have to compare him to other guys available + the cost to trade up.  If Alexander drops 20 spots, WJ III and Fuller both have to be gone already. 

I know Alexander is just one example, but I think the criteria are the same for everyone:  is he healthy?  is there an off-the-field issue?  is the position drained?  did he fall far enough that there's little cost in trading up (and yet no other team will).    And that's the part I find very nearly impossible.  If Alexander is healthy, there's a run on CBs so he's the last one left, AND he drops 20 spots then every team is going to be calling for that pick.  It's very nearly a paradox. 

 

It seems to me that there's really no reasoning with you to see another person's view. That's fine. I've already said quite a few times that I don't particularly prefer trading up into the first from our second, but what you're failing to see is that what you think should happen and what may happen are not the same. You're really only arguing the premise that there's no scenario where the Ravens would trade up, in which I think there are scenarios where it could happen. 

As my final reply to you, there's questions on Alexander not related to health or even skill but rather due to his lack of interceptions and the fact that he's let guys get behind him; however, we've seen before that just because one team views player X as a top 10 pick doesn't mean another team sees him the same and may see him lower, which is how a scenario could occur in which Alexander is there at a nominal coat with little or no comparable competition for him. Another team may like him but pick after us and the team with whom we're trading may not want to go back that far and take our offer over the other team's.

Anyway, that's all I have to say to you. I personally think we're more likely to trade up from our 3rd back into the 2nd than from the 2nd back into the 1st, but I wouldn't rule out the latter as you have.