Mock Drafts from the Media

[ravensnation5220]

Just now, rossihunter2 said:

It's more about whether you trust him to mentally be able to pick up the playbook  and work within complicated defensive schemes etc. So it's not about him hurting anyone it's more about whether we trust him to be able to take the "job" seriously and work as hard as he should and whether we trust his intelligence level

Ya I see where your comming from. But how hard is it to learn a defensive line playbook lol. "See ball get ball" that's all I'd want him to do. We want our defensive line to penetrate and disrupt the play behind the line. That's what Malik does best. Besides I'm sure we'll do our due diligence and if we feel he can't do it I don't think we will pick him. 

[hn68wb4]

22 minutes ago, ravensnation5220 said:

You nailed it on the head. Couldn't have said it better. 

Now, the elephant in the room. Maliks character and effort seem to be an issue but should we give him the benefit of the doubt? I mean he played hard on tape until Michigan st was pretty much done. The kid was the only player on his defense that could do anything positive and you can tell it frustrated him. Maybe he was been saving himself for the next level and trying to avoid injury. I mean he played nose tackle half the time and got double and triple teamed all the time. I'd get pretty tired of dealing with all that myself. 

I just went over and watched the Voch Lombardi video since you mentioned and they're pretty much encapsulating what I think about the two of them. McDowell is far more versatile and when he's playing to his potential he's straight up unstoppable anywhere along the line that you want him except 0-tech - which of course he can play if it's a passing downs, I wouldn't put him there against the run regardless of whether he did it at Michigan St. or not. Thomas is solid, he'll go out there and work hard, but he's got physical limitations that I think keep him from playing outside and size limitations that keep him from moving further inside. He's more of a project than some are appreciating, he's the definition of a "tweener" and either needs to put on weight and develop his frame so he can play better vs. the run, or you can cross your fingers and hope he can overcome his problems to play on the outside; personally I'd rather have McDowell and do your best to make him consistent. And I have to agree with them about McDowell also having a higher ceiling than Thomas as well. 

[ravensnation5220]

3 minutes ago, hn68wb4 said:

I just went over and watched the Voch Lombardi video since you mentioned and they're pretty much encapsulating what I think about the two of them. McDowell is far more versatile and when he's playing to his potential he's straight up unstoppable anywhere along the line that you want him except 0-tech - which of course he can play if it's a passing downs, I wouldn't put him there against the run regardless of whether he did it at Michigan St. or not. Thomas is solid, he'll go out there and work hard, but he's got physical limitations that I think keep him from playing outside and size limitations that keep him from moving further inside. He's more of a project than some are appreciating, he's the definition of a "tweener" and either needs to put on weight and develop his frame so he can play better vs. the run, or you can cross your fingers and hope he can overcome his problems to play on the outside; personally I'd rather have McDowell and do your best to make him consistent. And I have to agree with them about McDowell also having a higher ceiling than Thomas as well. 

Ya i wouldnt put McDowell at nose either, I think Michigan st did that because they had no one else who could command a double team lol. I think he would be great in our team as a 5tech or 3 tech. He fits our gap responsibility scheme very well. He just knifes through the line whenever he wants. 

[rossihunter2]

5 minutes ago, ravensnation5220 said:

Ya I see where your comming from. But how hard is it to learn a defensive line playbook lol. "See ball get ball" that's all I'd want him to do. We want our defensive line to penetrate and disrupt the play behind the line. That's what Malik does best. Besides I'm sure we'll do our due diligence and if we feel he can't do it I don't think we will pick him. 

Oh yeah he's definitely another case of if we pick him I'll love the pick because I'll feel confident the front office has squared away any potential issues - because I agree with everything you said about his talent... he's exciting and destructive (in a good way lol) and is tough to handle - he'd be an unbelievable guy to have play the 3-4 defensive end spot (or maybe even come in on 3rd downs and rush from the 3tech

[ravensnation5220]

1 minute ago, rossihunter2 said:

Oh yeah he's definitely another case of if we pick him I'll love the pick because I'll feel confident the front office has squared away any potential issues - because I agree with everything you said about his talent... he's exciting and destructive (in a good way lol) and is tough to handle - he'd be an unbelievable guy to have play the 3-4 defensive end spot (or maybe even come in on 3rd downs and rush from the 3tech

Just imagine. We would only need 4 guys on the line at all times lol. 2 OLBs, then Malik McDowell  and Brandon Williams inside and let teams decide which one they want to double. If we put 5 guys down I don't think anyone will get 50 yards in a game on us lol

[rossihunter2]

3 minutes ago, ravensnation5220 said:

Just imagine. We would only need 4 guys on the line at all times lol. 2 OLBs, then Malik McDowell  and Brandon Williams inside and let teams decide which one they want to double. If we put 5 guys down I don't think anyone will get 50 yards in a game on us lol

I dunno if it'll change anything but you've made me want to go back and watch tape on him again because it was a lot of fun from memory lol

[ravensnation5220]

Just now, rossihunter2 said:

I dunno if it'll change anything but you've made me want to go back and watch tape on him again because it was a lot of fun from memory lol

He's one of those guys that you can't watch enough tape. The more you watch the more you like him. Sometimes it's better to laugh at how good he is rather than scouting him. He beats double teams and triple teams like they're high school kids. 

Best one to watch is his tape vs Notre dame when he destroys 2 potential first round picks in next years draft. Can't remember their names but they play left tackle and left gaurd

[BMORE21]

19 hours ago, RaineV1 said:

Julio and Fitz got to the Super Bowl and only fell just short. And the Ravens won the super bowl in part because of Boldin's great play.

As for past great receivers to win the Super Bowl: Gronk (he's more of a receiving threat than a blocker), Colston (Saints in general had a top tier receiving core that year), Reggie Wayne, Greg Jennings, and Hines Ward.

Saying great WRs don't win Super Bowls is just inaccurate. Over the last twenty years the winners (and losers) tended to have some top tier play makers on offense.

" julio and fitz got to the super bowl" getting to SB and winning are two different things. " Boldin great play" yes he played great, but he is not by any means a great wr, but a he is a good one... Gronk is not a WR dude cmon lol... Colston, reggie wayne, greg jennings and hines ward are all not great wrs. Reggie wayne maybe, but not anywhere close to the ones I mentioned...... Seems like you just made up some bs to make my argument seem inaccurate...like i said the last great wr to win a SB was jerry rice

[BMORE21]

5 hours ago, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

Yea... I think it is true to say that you don't NEED a great WR to win a super bowl, but not to the extreme of saying that great WRs don't win Super Bowls. 

Brady's always had a number of weapons - Gronk as you pointed out but also Edelman and last year Hogan played a big role, Bennett and they just got Cooks. 

Denver had Demaryius and Sanders. 

Even Seattle - Baldwin really started breaking out. 

 

You think about our SB and the plays that got us there... the Pitta/Boldin vertical seam TD catches in the red zone, Jacoby in Denver, Joe's ballsy audible to throw to Boldin hot for that 1st down conversion with the game on the line, Pitta's multiple huge 1st down catches while getting drilled... Torrey stretching the field.

Our loss to NE the year before came down to a WR not making a play. Otherwise we're in back to back SB's. 

We always cite Joe's crazy run... but it also coincided with his weapons playing the best they have since he's been here. 

 

And Williams, imo, fits exactly what Joe's missing. That Boldin/Pitta 2012 presence of being open when covered, making the crucial tough catches in crunch time. 

 

Theres players id take over Williams, but certainly not passing him up just bc you can get away with not having great WRs. 

I agree mostly with what you said, but none of those wrs you mentioned are great. Gronk is great but he is a TE. Thomas and Sanders are good, but no great like the likes of julio, fitz, calvin type.. I feel like a lot of Raven fans want a julio,fitz, calvin type but do we really need that though? I would love to have wrs that play to our strengths, however id take a great pass rusher over a great wr anyday. if our stuff feels like Mike williams is the BPA, im for it

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

4 minutes ago, BMORE21 said:

" julio and fitz got to the super bowl" getting to SB and winning are two different things. " Boldin great play" yes he played great, but he is not by any means a great wr, but a he is a good one... Gronk is not a WR dude cmon lol... Colston, reggie wayne, greg jennings and hines ward are all not great wrs. Reggie wayne maybe, but not anywhere close to the ones I mentioned...... Seems like you just made up some bs to make my argument seem inaccurate...like i said the last great wr to win a SB was jerry rice

Ok and Mike Williams is not "great" (whatever your definition is, since a guy who's on the top 10 for catches isn't great)... and we don't know that he'll ever be. 

Id be ecstatic if we took him and he became as good as guys like Boldin, Ward, Colston, Wayne, etc...

So hooray we can still pick him and not be excluded from winning the SB. If he starts getting too good, we'll just make him stop so we still have a chance at winning. 

 

/sarcasm

your argument is bs. 

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

1 minute ago, BMORE21 said:

I agree mostly with what you said, but none of those wrs you mentioned are great. Gronk is great but he is a TE. Thomas and Sanders are good, but no great like the likes of julio, fitz, calvin type.. I feel like a lot of Raven fans want a julio,fitz, calvin type but do we really need that though? I would love to have wrs that play to our strengths, however id take a great pass rusher over a great wr anyday. if our stuff feels like Mike williams is the BPA, im for it

Ok cool but that's not what you said in your first post which is why you're getting responses. 

You essentially said you don't want Williams bc you can't win SB's if you have a great WR on your roster. 

Yes you can, first things. Even if that ridiculous measure were true... we have no idea if Williams will meet this totally subjective measure of great you're using. 

I'd take Barnett over Williams. Foster too if there. Either of the top 2 safeties, OJ Howard, maybe Fournette, etc....

But I'm def not missing out on Williams for fear he's a "great" WR which excludes us from winning SB's to take a potentially lesser player at another position -- which is certainly what it sounded like you meant in your original post. 

[JoeyFlex5]

4 hours ago, ravensnation5220 said:

You nailed it on the head. Couldn't have said it better. 

Now, the elephant in the room. Maliks character and effort seem to be an issue but should we give him the benefit of the doubt? I mean he played hard on tape until Michigan st was pretty much done. The kid was the only player on his defense that could do anything positive and you can tell it frustrated him. Maybe he was been saving himself for the next level and trying to avoid injury. I mean he played nose tackle half the time and got double and triple teamed all the time. I'd get pretty tired of dealing with all that myself. 

I think that could have a lot to do with it, and he also gets away from his technique at times and when he loses initially he seems to slow up on the play. I think him playing 0 so often and getting stood up by 3 blockers has him saying screw it at times, but he clearly doesn't lack a motor when he wins initially. 

If he's put in a position to win off the snap consistently then I don't think effort is a problem anymore. So if he's playing 5 or 3 and gets the gap plays and has an OLB and a DT playing at a high level, which he should absolutely have here, then I think his motor will go constantly since he'll be disrupting and making plays

[Jonah DeVito]

On 1/4/2017 at 4:45 PM, zuilyas said:

You're right in that our biggest needs are at CB and pass rusher, but Ozzie subscribes to the BPA philosophy, so if Cook were available at pick 16, I do think it's something he might entertain. He's taken backs when we've had a crowded backfield before, albeit not in the 1st round, but guys like Cook and Fournette don't come around very often. Also, idk if any of the backs on the roster now are as explosive or as athletic as Cook are. Maybe I'm wrong but just my 2 cents

I don't think Cook is BPA at 16 honestly. 

[JoeyFlex5]

4 hours ago, ravensnation5220 said:

He's one of those guys that you can't watch enough tape. The more you watch the more you like him. Sometimes it's better to laugh at how good he is rather than scouting him. He beats double teams and triple teams like they're high school kids. 

Best one to watch is his tape vs Notre dame when he destroys 2 potential first round picks in next years draft. Can't remember their names but they play left tackle and left gaurd

Nelson and mcglinchey?

[ravensnation5220]

23 minutes ago, JoeyFlex5 said:

Nelson and mcglinchey?

Ya that's it. He gave them fits all game. 

[ravensnation5220]

27 minutes ago, JoeyFlex5 said:

I think that could have a lot to do with it, and he also gets away from his technique at times and when he loses initially he seems to slow up on the play. I think him playing 0 so often and getting stood up by 3 blockers has him saying screw it at times, but he clearly doesn't lack a motor when he wins initially. 

If he's put in a position to win off the snap consistently then I don't think effort is a problem anymore. So if he's playing 5 or 3 and gets the gap plays and has an OLB and a DT playing at a high level, which he should absolutely have here, then I think his motor will go constantly since he'll be disrupting and making plays

I'm really liking the idea of us taking him. He'd help our pass rush dramatically and give us one of those generational type talents on our defense. He's a guy you have to scheme against IF he lives up to his potential 

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

I can't get on board with McDowell. I see the natural talent and ability, but at 16 he's just too boom or bust for me. 

And I'm not basing that solely on the questions of his personality. 

Guys with his athleticism and dominance that don't put up the production you expect scare me. I don't see a finisher or a guy that maximizes his ability. 

Maybe if the board falls wrong for us, and there aren't any good trade back options...

But id completely unsure of what we're going to get with him. 

[ravensnation5220]

1 hour ago, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

I can't get on board with McDowell. I see the natural talent and ability, but at 16 he's just too boom or bust for me. 

And I'm not basing that solely on the questions of his personality. 

Guys with his athleticism and dominance that don't put up the production you expect scare me. I don't see a finisher or a guy that maximizes his ability. 

Maybe if the board falls wrong for us, and there aren't any good trade back options...

But id completely unsure of what we're going to get with him. 

The reason he didn't have the production you'd expect is because of the way he was utilized. He was often used as the 0 tech (nose tackle) because nobody on Michigan st could eat up blocks. That combined with the fact with his constant double and triple teams, he was the only player opposing teams had to focus on. His film speaks for itself. Dont focus soley on production, it doesn't tell the whole story

Edited April 10 by ravensnation5220

[JoeyFlex5]

2 hours ago, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

I can't get on board with McDowell. I see the natural talent and ability, but at 16 he's just too boom or bust for me. 

And I'm not basing that solely on the questions of his personality. 

Guys with his athleticism and dominance that don't put up the production you expect scare me. I don't see a finisher or a guy that maximizes his ability. 

Maybe if the board falls wrong for us, and there aren't any good trade back options...

But id completely unsure of what we're going to get with him. 

He finishes with authority, that much is evident on tape. 

His production is gonna be limited when he's playing nose at the 0T at 6'5" 295 with a penetrators skillset  and drawing the entire interior OL. He dealt with this an absurd amount. 

Seems you are getting him mixed up with nkemdiche, understandable, they're similar players with similar personality concerns, but nkemdiche was a certified bonehead and McDowell just appears to need a better environment, and on the field McDowell is just a better natural ball player, he's got the vision and pursuit that nkemdiche lacked

Edited April 10 by JoeyFlex5

[ellicottraven]

Derek Barnett is slipping in some mock drafts? Anybody tell me what's going on?

[rossihunter2]

1 hour ago, ellicottraven said:

Derek Barnett is slipping in some mock drafts? Anybody tell me what's going on?

I think there are some media guys who just don't like him for some reason - lance zierlein has him number 19 on his board with taco charlton at number 11 for example... I don't agree with that but I imagine that's why he's slipping in the media...

[hn68wb4]

2 hours ago, ellicottraven said:

Derek Barnett is slipping in some mock drafts? Anybody tell me what's going on?

He's just one of those guys that isn't a freak athlete and doesn't pop out in these pre-draft tests, those that do tend to rise and people invent problems for guys like Barnett that don't do exceedingly well. He's one of those cases where the tape speaks way louder than these mostly useless tests. Personally he's still my #2 EDGE guy in the draft behind Garrett and don't expect that to change. I expect him to go top 10 still regardless of what the "experts" say, if he falls out of the top 10 then anyone that grabs him is getting a steal.

[usmccharles]

47 minutes ago, rossihunter2 said:

I think there are some media guys who just don't like him for some reason - lance zierlein has him number 19 on his board with taco charlton at number 11 for example... I don't agree with that but I imagine that's why he's slipping in the media...

 

5 minutes ago, hn68wb4 said:

He's just one of those guys that isn't a freak athlete and doesn't pop out in these pre-draft tests, those that do tend to rise and people invent problems for guys like Barnett that don't do exceedingly well. He's one of those cases where the tape speaks way louder than these mostly useless tests. Personally he's still my #2 EDGE guy in the draft behind Garrett and don't expect that to change. I expect him to go top 10 still regardless of what the "experts" say, if he falls out of the top 10 then anyone that grabs him is getting a steal.

I think he is who we are targeting as the replacement for Suggs.  Suggs didnt do too well at the combine but i think most would agree that he has worked out pretty well.  I see Barnett being the same case. 

[hn68wb4]

2 minutes ago, usmccharles said:

 

I think he is who we are targeting as the replacement for Suggs.  Suggs didnt do too well at the combine but i think most would agree that he has worked out pretty well.  I see Barnett being the same case. 

I hope so, but as I said, I still expect him to go top 10 so I think we'd have to move up to get him - and I wouldn't be entirely surprised if we did honestly, moving 25 spots in the third is a significant jump in value and of course we've get the other 3rd as well, we've definitely got the ammo to do it, I question whether it fits our draft strategy, but it's definitely possible.

[usmccharles]

3 minutes ago, hn68wb4 said:

I hope so, but as I said, I still expect him to go top 10 so I think we'd have to move up to get him - and I wouldn't be entirely surprised if we did honestly, moving 25 spots in the third is a significant jump in value and of course we've get the other 3rd as well, we've definitely got the ammo to do it, I question whether it fits our draft strategy, but it's definitely possible.

What do you think it would cost to do it?  And if the FO think he can be our next Suggs for 10 years, i think a trade-up is worth it, within reason.  It would be nice to see us trade up to get a guy we really want, rather than always trading back.  Lets say we have 5 guys left on the board and Barnett is at the top of our list and is there at 11....I would jump on it.  Most would say you can get better 'value' by waiting and get a player still on your board at our pick, i would just rather take the guy want overall. 

[hn68wb4]

2 minutes ago, usmccharles said:

What do you think it would cost to do it?  And if the FO think he can be our next Suggs for 10 years, i think a trade-up is worth it, within reason.  It would be nice to see us trade up to get a guy we really want, rather than always trading back.  Lets say we have 5 guys left on the board and Barnett is at the top of our list and is there at 11....I would jump on it.  Most would say you can get better 'value' by waiting and get a player still on your board at our pick, i would just rather take the guy want overall. 

Depends entirely on how the board has fallen to that point, jumping up to #11 shouldn't be too unbelievably steep, but if the other 4 guys left are also highly rated players at that point then I think the chances of us moving up are slight. But if the difference is pretty big then he's the type of player that I'd move up for in a heartbeat. The fact that it's a deep class doesn't bode well for a move up in my opinion, however.

[usmccharles]

1 minute ago, hn68wb4 said:

Depends entirely on how the board has fallen to that point, jumping up to #11 shouldn't be too unbelievably steep, but if the other 4 guys left are also highly rated players at that point then I think the chances of us moving up are slight. But if the difference is pretty big then he's the type of player that I'd move up for in a heartbeat. The fact that it's a deep class doesn't bode well for a move up in my opinion, however.

Valid point.

[ravensnation5220]

Voch Lombardi had a phone interview with Malik McDowell lol. It's on YouTube

He's also the guy who mocked him to us

[rossihunter2]

19 minutes ago, ravensnation5220 said:

Voch Lombardi had a phone interview with Malik McDowell lol. It's on YouTube

He's also the guy who mocked him to us

man im having a great time going through mcdowell film again lol - the notre dame tape is a sight to behold against some of the better lineman prospects for next year - i feel like mcdowell might be the reason mike mcglinchey decided to go back to school for another year

[ravensnation5220]

16 minutes ago, rossihunter2 said:

man im having a great time going through mcdowell film again lol - the notre dame tape is a sight to behold against some of the better lineman prospects for next year - i feel like mcdowell might be the reason mike mcglinchey decided to go back to school for another year

Ya man it's a crazy film to watch. Im honestly kinda hoping we take a chance on this kid. His film says top 5 pick

Edit: not even "kinda hoping". I want Malik McDowell at 16.

Edited April 10 by ravensnation5220