[News] Eisenberg: Grading The Draft A Complicated Exercise

[EdTheMythicalOne]

5 minutes ago, Ravenous_Ravens said:

Exactly, the medical/injury issues are not controllable. Any drafted player can face injury at any point and see their playing days gone. Jack certainly seems like he might need surgery at some point but it it NOT guaranteed.

This draft grade will ultimately be graded in the future based on whether Myles Jack out performs Bronson Kaufusi over their careers.

Kamalei Correa was the guy we took in the 2nd round instead of Jack, Kaufusi was our third round pick.

[EdTheMythicalOne]

2 hours ago, 1stJimbo said:

I've read the general scouting reports on each of the players picked in the recent draft and have come to the conclusion that what the Ravens desperately needed and what they eventually got are two different things. The Ravens needed playmakers (or difference makers, if you prefer) from day one on the field. Aside from Stanley, what they got were a bunch of guys who are projects in need of further development who are currently not up to playing in the NFL. Did I want to see more "flashy" picks? Absolutely not. Did I expect to see more game ready picks in light of the Ravens poor 2015 season. Yes, I did and I think that Ozzie and Co. made picks, especially in the 4th round, that tells us that the Ravens are in a rebuilding phase and that dreams of a Super Bowl are several years away.

I see production and guys that for the most part do not have any red flags in terms of off the field issues. Every draft pick is a project and the further you go down in the draft rounds the more things these guys have to work on.

I see that the Ravens are replacing their depth, but their starters pretty much remain unchanged. I also think the core of players on this team are good enough to compete for playoff opportunities and thus, have a chance to get another Superbowl.

[Ravenous_Ravens]

  18 hours 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

You said we ignore a position of need, but we drafted a LT, 3 pass rushers, a CB, another DT, a WR, a potentially starting RB, another OL, and an athlete that could turn out to be a Julian Edelman type receiver. Really, the only position of need that we didn't address was ILB, and we could have that position filled with guys already on the roster.
Obviously Ozzie and company know a lot more about scouting and drafting than anyone on these message boards, so I trust them a lot more than I would you. Also, look at the players you listed. If we had those guys listed higher on our board than the players we chose, I'm sure we would have picked them. In round 2, we picked a pass rusher over Spence. Apparently we didn't want Spence, or Alexander, or Jack. In round 3, we picked a DE, which you also list a DE so that doesn't make sense. We had a great 4th round, and just because we may have drafted a guy you didn't know, doesn't mean he isn't better than the ones you listed. We drafted a WR in the 4th round, why would we in the 5th round when we are already stacked at WR?

Instead of hoping those guys tear up as you say, why don't you hope our guys do instead? Since we drafted for every position you considered a need except ILB....

Yes ignored positions of need.

CB - Lost Tray Walker and when the team had him on the roster CB was still a position of need. How does developmental player to fill Tray's roster spot fixed the need?

OT - Drafted two tackles, one to replace Monroe and second developmental player for depth. This cost using two picks, to bolster positions of need.

Pass Rushers - They drafted an additional 2 DL out of the 3 pass rushers. They are already deep along the line and moving them to OLB brings concerns when having to cover. Yes they are pass rushers but plays change on the field and you need to be able to adapt on the fly with your personnel.

RB - They team is deep at RB. It's like drafting him specifically for the practice squad.

WR - Not necssarily a position of need from a bodies perspective but certainly a position of need considering the injuries and lack of talent witnessed last season. I mean the guys that played got better, but none outside of Aiken stepped up enough to be close enough to lock to make the roster. Another developmental type WR is not going to fix this issue 9/10 times. They passed on a complete playmaking WR in Sterling Sheppard in the second only to see the Giants tweet out they just stole a play maker. I agree not because they tweeted, go watch film. They team has not drafted well for WR ever, with best results being solid #2 receivers bordering #1 talent. I'm excluding Perriman until there is a body of NFL work.

Needs should be priorities not just after thoughts when its convenient.

I'm hoping for the best, but I'm not buying the draft success message. There are more questions at this point than obvious solutions.

[EdTheMythicalOne]

2 minutes ago, Ravenous_Ravens said:

Yes ignored positions of need.

CB - Lost Tray Walker and when the team had him on the roster CB was still a position of need. How does developmental player to fill Tray's roster spot fixed the need?

OT - Drafted two tackles, one to replace Monroe and second developmental player for depth. This cost using two picks, to bolster positions of need.

Pass Rushers - They drafted an additional 2 DL out of the 3 pass rushers. They are already deep along the line and moving them to OLB brings concerns when having to cover. Yes they are pass rushers but plays change on the field and you need to be able to adapt on the fly with your personnel.

RB - They team is deep at RB. It's like drafting him specifically for the practice squad.

WR - Not necssarily a position of need from a bodies perspective but certainly a position of need considering the injuries and lack of talent witnessed last season. I mean the guys that played got better, but none outside of Aiken stepped up enough to be close enough to lock to make the roster. Another developmental type WR is not going to fix this issue 9/10 times. They passed on a complete playmaking WR in Sterling Sheppard in the second only to see the Giants tweet out they just stole a play maker. I agree not because they tweeted, go watch film. They team has not drafted well for WR ever, with best results being solid #2 receivers bordering #1 talent. I'm excluding Perriman until there is a body of NFL work.

Needs should be priorities not just after thoughts when its convenient.

I'm hoping for the best, but I'm not buying the draft success message. There are more questions at this point than obvious solutions.

1) Tray Walker wasn't exactly a starter and you don't know what you would have gotten out of him. The Ravens have A LOT of depth at CB but the reason why most people wouldn't know is because those guys were hurt last season. In addition they drafted Young and Canaday. I think you should check out the forums and look at some posts under "My Current Guess at the 53 man Roster" thread.

2) Monroe had injury issues the last two seasons and is under contract for 2 years, Wagner is a FA at the end of this season. Why is drafting their potential replacements a bad thing? They also picked up a real developmental project as an UDFA in Stephane Nembot.

3) We have some solid guys along the defensive line, but they lack a pass rush.

4) We aren't as deep at RB as you think. There are names but not a lot of talent. Forsett and Allen were the ones who produced the most. West didn't show a lot, Taliafero is always hurt, Magee was a practice squad guy, and what are you really expecting out of Trent Richardson? I think Dixon makes the team.

5) They drafted two WR's and Chris Moore is supposed to be a deep threat playmaker, watch some film on him. Like most speed burners there is always the question of whether or not they can run a pattern tree. That was even a question of Torrey Smith.

I think we got some solid depth in the draft and some of them should turn out to be starters going forward. Not every single one of them will be a hit. That is true for every team and every draft. I think Stanley is a day one starter and should be a very good franchise LT. Correa will be a rotational pass rusher now and I am sure the hope is he can take over for Suggs or Dumervil going forward. Kaufusi is a gamble because he needs to add strength to make an impact. Dixon was regarded by some as the second best running back in the draft. Young should be able to be a slot corner. Lewis might make it as a RT.

[rmcjacket23]

18 minutes ago, Ravenous_Ravens said:

Yes ignored positions of need.

CB - Lost Tray Walker and when the team had him on the roster CB was still a position of need. How does developmental player to fill Tray's roster spot fixed the need?

OT - Drafted two tackles, one to replace Monroe and second developmental player for depth. This cost using two picks, to bolster positions of need.

Pass Rushers - They drafted an additional 2 DL out of the 3 pass rushers. They are already deep along the line and moving them to OLB brings concerns when having to cover. Yes they are pass rushers but plays change on the field and you need to be able to adapt on the fly with your personnel.

RB - They team is deep at RB. It's like drafting him specifically for the practice squad.

WR - Not necssarily a position of need from a bodies perspective but certainly a position of need considering the injuries and lack of talent witnessed last season. I mean the guys that played got better, but none outside of Aiken stepped up enough to be close enough to lock to make the roster. Another developmental type WR is not going to fix this issue 9/10 times. They passed on a complete playmaking WR in Sterling Sheppard in the second only to see the Giants tweet out they just stole a play maker. I agree not because they tweeted, go watch film. They team has not drafted well for WR ever, with best results being solid #2 receivers bordering #1 talent. I'm excluding Perriman until there is a body of NFL work.

Needs should be priorities not just after thoughts when its convenient.

I'm hoping for the best, but I'm not buying the draft success message. There are more questions at this point than obvious solutions.

1. Tray Walker was a developmental corner, so all we did was swap one from another. Not like we replaced a starter or even projected starter with a developmental player. Honestly, I thought there was a shot he would struggle to make the team to begin with, so I don't view this as a big deal, but obviously all moot now.

I've said all along that I think the FO and coaching staff like our corners a lot more than fans do, so I didn't view this as nearly as big of a "need" as fans did. 

2. No issues with what they did on the Oline. 

3. Pretty thin class to draft from in terms of rushers (a lot of depth, but not a lot of substance), but pass rush also doesn't exclusively come from OLBs either. That's arguably part of the problem... not enough penetration from the interior of the Dline itself. 

Like corner, I thought the FO wasn't as concerned with this as fans were. I think they want depth, not a stud, and they got that. Banking on Suggs to be solid is a gamble, but I think they like Zadarius Smith and now Correa will rotate in. I think they like Zadarius in more of the McPhee role (interior rusher in sub packages) instead of having to play like 70% snaps on the outside when Suggs was out. 

4. I think our WR group is already about as deep as we've ever seen it, and the only reason it doesn't appear that way is because there's no noticeable "stud" or true #1 on the roster. But we know we don't require that to win anyway, and we weren't going to get that in this draft regardless. Kind of hard to see where somebody like Sheppard would fit into this team in the short term anyway, so I have no issues there. 

You could make a case that WR is a position of need over the next 2-3 years but not necessarily this year, and I'd have liked for us to address this sooner rather than later, but its hard to do so not knowing what Perriman brings.

Ultimately, "needs" are relative. What the fans think are "needs" don't always translate into what the FO thinks are needs, nor do they always address them the way we want. Sometimes they do it unexpectedly, sometimes not at all. Given that we were a 5-11 team, our list of perceived "needs" is longer than usual, and therefore impossible to fill in a single offseason. If they covered 1 or 2 of their "needs" both short or long term in this draft, I'd call that a very good draft.

There are still obvious questions, just not as much questions as there were on Thursday morning. But that's to be expected, because you can't upgrade in all the positions we need in 12 months.

Edited May 2, 2016 by rmcjacket23

[TXRavensFan]

  On 5/2/2016 at 8:19 AM, Dr. Poe said:

I think the problem a lot of fans have is that the ravens didn't pick up any potential perceived game changers. We may have picked some solid players, but none of them except for the first pick seem like they are going to make much difference.

Then fans see that some of the "name brand" players like spence, buckner, and jack get picked up by other teams. Fans then question why didn't we take the chance on someone who could be potentially great vs. being conservative and hoping that the person we pick can play in the NFL.

I think that our team is further away from winning than we think. I think we need more play makers on both sides of the ball.

I think the problem is trading back when your picking so early. That is not BPA because obviously your trading back, meaning higher valued players get picked first. Anytime you need to count on many players being drafted, you sacrifice talent for bodies to some degree. The less holes you have the less picks you need generally and the more you can hyper focus on talent.

Ravens have been pitching the non-rebuilding mode, but this draft suggests otherwise. It's maybe not a tear down rebuild, but it's a ongoing gutting and replacing from the old regime to this new regime.

Not necessarily. Let's say the the Ravens graded Correa, Spence and Ogbah similarly/at the same level (for the sake of argument). If you're convinced that at least one of them will be there 5-10 spots after your draft position, the smart move is to trade back, get more picks, and still get one of the players you liked. In essence, you're still getting BPA and more picks to boot.