Will FO move up in round one?

[Edgar]

Showed the want to give up a three in exchange for Ramsey last year.

Will Ozzie make a move if say, Barnett is around past 10 or so?

Who, if anyone would you want to see us work a trade to procure in round one?

 

[jboy19]

I think the Jalen Ramsey situation might be an isolated one. I think that since corner was a desperate need it might have driven them more. At this point, the only "desperate needs" in my mind would be pass rusher, OL or receiver. So if Barnett is sliding I think that they would consider it, but I don't think the receivers and linemen in this class are really guys to jump up for. 

[Edgar]

21 minutes ago, jboy19 said:

I think the Jalen Ramsey situation might be an isolated one. I think that since corner was a desperate need it might have driven them more. At this point, the only "desperate needs" in my mind would be pass rusher, OL or receiver. So if Barnett is sliding I think that they would consider it, but I don't think the receivers and linemen in this class are really guys to jump up for. 

I'm not sure about last year being peculiar. Ozzie has attempted to move up before last year.

I do agree with your assessment about this class. Perhaps if the free safety were close Ozzie would jump but we are likely to get an impact player just by staying put.

[rossihunter2]

2 hours ago, jboy19 said:

I think the Jalen Ramsey situation might be an isolated one. I think that since corner was a desperate need it might have driven them more. At this point, the only "desperate needs" in my mind would be pass rusher, OL or receiver. So if Barnett is sliding I think that they would consider it, but I don't think the receivers and linemen in this class are really guys to jump up for. 

I think there are maybe 4 players we'd think about trading up for if they started to fall: Adams, hooker, foster, Barnett - each with varying degrees of chance of actually even being in range - I don't think there's anyone else they'd bother trading for

[JoeyFlex5]

Highly unlikely. Too much talent to be had at 16 and in the second.

[berad]

31 minutes ago, JoeyFlex5 said:

Highly unlikely. Too much talent to be had at 16 and in the second.

This and I'd say it's much more probable they move down. They only have 7 picks this year, that's very low for them.

[Underdogsontop!]

I'm thinking we wouldn't move up because there's a bit of talent in this draft and someone with good value will slide to us. Also we only got 7 picks this year and with the holes we got,  we'd need it if not more. I'm hoping and wishing 1 or 2 guys fall to us at 16 though. It could happen if there's a run for qb's or cb's

[RaineV1]

1 hour ago, berad said:

This and I'd say it's much more probable they move down. They only have 7 picks this year, that's very low for them.

Agreed. I would much rather move down than up.

[Bruce_Almty]

No need to trade up this year, and Foster and Barnett are likely to fall to us anywho.

[JoeyFlex5]

2 hours ago, Bruce_Almty said:

No need to trade up this year, and Foster and Barnett are likely to fall to us anywho.

What?

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

8 hours ago, jboy19 said:

I think the Jalen Ramsey situation might be an isolated one. I think that since corner was a desperate need it might have driven them more. At this point, the only "desperate needs" in my mind would be pass rusher, OL or receiver. So if Barnett is sliding I think that they would consider it, but I don't think the receivers and linemen in this class are really guys to jump up for. 

We almost gave up our entire draft for Mack a few years back. So maybe not as isolated as we think. 

If a guy they think is near the #1 talent in the draft and he's falling they'll be on the phone to see what it'd take. 

The price ultimately will determine if its realistic or not. 

 

Barnett I think would be a real option for this type scenario. I could see Mike Williams being another. 

Honestly I wouldn't be surprised - though Def more of an outside chance - if Adams/Hooker or Fournette were that kind of prospect for them. 

Not needs but we usually know when a guy is a generational talent. And I could see them viewing any one of them that way. 

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

2 hours ago, Bruce_Almty said:

No need to trade up this year, and Foster and Barnett are likely to fall to us anywho.

You honestly think so?

Cant see Barnett getting past NO at latest and Foster past Cinci. 

Id wager pretty darn good money neither falls to 16.

Edited March 22 by BOLDnPurPnBlacK

[omar586]

Highly doubtful we trade up, we r more likely to to trade down than up , we need more picks n da mid rounds n a defense deep class

[rossihunter2]

52 minutes ago, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

We almost gave up our entire draft for Mack a few years back. So maybe not as isolated as we think. 

If a guy they think is near the #1 talent in the draft and he's falling they'll be on the phone to see what it'd take. 

The price ultimately will determine if its realistic or not. 

 

Barnett I think would be a real option for this type scenario. I could see Mike Williams being another. 

Honestly I wouldn't be surprised - though Def more of an outside chance - if Adams/Hooker or Fournette were that kind of prospect for them. 

Not needs but we usually know when a guy is a generational talent. And I could see them viewing any one of them that way. 

given the record of guys they have tried to trade up for it seems like they all would have been good picks - maybe a cynical part of me thinks we only find out about these because the players performed well and maybe there were others who we luckily missed out on... either way it shows a sense of taste but mack, ramsey, and matt ryan were all brilliant players to want to sell the house for

[Edgar]

Depends what gets it done but if you could get a sliding Hooker for a third round pick, I reckon Ozzie pulls the trigger on that.

Absolutely worth doing if that were the case.

[Cillmatic]

27 minutes ago, Edgar said:

Depends what gets it done but if you could get a sliding Hooker for a third round pick, I reckon Ozzie pulls the trigger on that.

Absolutely worth doing if that were the case.

What's the fascination with Hooker about?

[rossihunter2]

Just now, Cillmatic said:

What's the fascination with Hooker about?

because he tore it up on the back end looking like an earl thomas clone with incredible range, great instincts, great speed, great ball skills, good tackling, and good enough in run support that he doesnt just have to be used as an out and out free safety albeit that is where he'd look best - the comparisons to ed reed are maybe a little too lofty but he really looks like earl thomas on film

[RaineV1]

1 minute ago, Cillmatic said:

What's the fascination with Hooker about?

He's an extremely rangy center fielder that the Ravens defense has missed for awhile. We're kinda set at safety now and he's a bit of a luxury pick, but still, he could be one of the top 5 safeties in the league after a bit more experience.

[rossihunter2]

4 minutes ago, RaineV1 said:

He's an extremely rangy center fielder that the Ravens defense has missed for awhile. We're kinda set at safety now and he's a bit of a luxury pick, but still, he could be one of the top 5 safeties in the league after a bit more experience.

he's someone you just have to take if he's there because he's that good - i have him number 3 on the board behind adams and garrett

[omar586]

i think passrushers/OL our #1 priority in the draft now, with carr's signing CBs are not a pressing need , but we still need CB depth thru the draft. all i can hope for is for a couple QBs to get drafted ahead 16.

[RavensDieHard21]

It depends. First, we gotta evaluate whether QBs are coming off the board or not. If we get to pick 12 and no QBs have gone yet, the targeted talent pool is likely to be tapped. 

Secondly, we have to assess if there are any trade back options on the table. 

If the browns pick at 12 and there still isn't a QB off the table, we will need to assess who is left and whether they are worth calling Arizona or Philadelphia to move up to take a designated player. If Davis, Williams, Barnett or Foster are there, I'd be game to trade up a few by giving up no more than a fourth or our third round comp--which would still be very steep to me. 

In this draft though, i would love to have teams like the Giants and Buccaneers looking to trade up for Cook, McCaffrey, Ross, or Howard so that we could get extra third and fourth round picks while still having the chance to land prospects like Robinson, Harris, Tim Williams, Reddick, Conley, etc. 

[Edgar]

13 hours ago, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

We almost gave up our entire draft for Mack a few years back. So maybe not as isolated as we think. 

If a guy they think is near the #1 talent in the draft and he's falling they'll be on the phone to see what it'd take. 

The price ultimately will determine if its realistic or not. 

 

Barnett I think would be a real option for this type scenario. I could see Mike Williams being another. 

Honestly I wouldn't be surprised - though Def more of an outside chance - if Adams/Hooker or FournetteFournette were that kind of prospect for them. 

Not needs but we usually know when a guy is a generational talent. And I could see them viewing any one of them that way. 

Fournette is an interesting one. I could see Ozzie valuing him enough to move.

 

[Edgar]

9 hours ago, RavensDieHard21 said:

It depends. First, we gotta evaluate whether QBs are coming off the board or not. If we get to pick 12 and no QBs have gone yet, the targeted talent pool is likely to be tapped. 

Secondly, we have to assess if there are any trade back options on the table. 

If the browns pick at 12 and there still isn't a QB off the table, we will need to assess who is left and whether they are worth calling Arizona or Philadelphia to move up to take a designated player. If Davis, Williams, Barnett or Foster are there, I'd be game to trade up a few by giving up no more than a fourth or our third round comp--which would still be very steep to me. 

In this draft though, i would love to have teams like the Giants and Buccaneers looking to trade up for Cook, McCaffrey, Ross, or Howard so that we could get extra third and fourth round picks while still having the chance to land prospects like Robinson, Harris, Tim Williams, Reddick, Conley, etc. 

I'm beginning to get a little obsessed with the idea of Reddick at 16.

If he's there I'm not going to move back and risk not landing him.

[Tru11]

if we do i hope its to the first pick lol.

might as well do it with a bang

[usmccharles]

One thing I don't get about the draft is when the word value is brought up.  Im going to try to explain this the best I can, lets use Charles Harris as an example.  

I see a lot of people saying taking him at 16 is too early, but if we traded back to the 20s no big deal.  Now I know we would be getting an extra pick out of that, but how do you put a value of the production difference from slot 16 to say 25. 

It would be like saying Suggs would have been a reach at 4 but at 10 it was a great pick.  Well, considering the career he had, I think most people would of been comfortable picking him at 4.  I don't know if im conveying my thoughts very well....work is crazy busy. 

[rossihunter2]

3 minutes ago, usmccharles said:

One thing I don't get about the draft is when the word value is brought up.  Im going to try to explain this the best I can, lets use Charles Harris as an example.  

I see a lot of people saying taking him at 16 is too early, but if we traded back to the 20s no big deal.  Now I know we would be getting an extra pick out of that, but how do you put a value of the production difference from slot 16 to say 25. 

It would be like saying Suggs would have been a reach at 4 but at 10 it was a great pick.  Well, considering the career he had, I think most people would of been comfortable picking him at 4.  I don't know if im conveying my thoughts very well....work is crazy busy. 

because you dont know the production when you make the pick - so the value spot is where the rewards outweighs the risk (this does not mean that it is correct in each instance as that is a hard thing to quantify and for most people on these boards, and maybe in draft rooms as well, it's more of a gut instinct than anything quantifiable)

the way it works is not by having a list of players on a draft board but by having tiers of talent - i think there are maybe 13 players i have rated in that top tier and harris isn't in it despite maybe being close to 16th on the board which is where the value aspect comes in - logically you could suggest if he's in the top 16 on the board he should be picked up but if the cutoff for 1 tier is 14 and the next tear goes down to maybe 26 then the value of picking harris at 16 probably wouldnt be there but if you were to trade down and get him (or someone of comparable value within the tier) at 22 or later then suddenly that is good value (and you get an extra pick to make a good value pick for someone of comparable value to the person you would have picked at 16)

i hope that makes sense - that's why i mean when i talk about a players value in terms of their draft position

the things that factor in are obviously how you rate a player, their comparative ability compared to the players above them and below them on the board, the number of comparable players in their tier, the number of comparable players in the tier above, how many players are likely to be available from that tier at each pick (how far you could potentially trade back)

that's just how i think about it - it's not about the specific pick it's about where that pick fits into the tiers of players and how many from each tier are available

[Wildabeast88]

18 hours ago, Cillmatic said:

What's the fascination with Hooker about?

Ed Reed ring a bell. Playmaker gets picks and returns them to the house. Good in coverage as well as freelancing a good tackler. What's not to like

[Jonah DeVito]

On 3/22/2017 at 9:35 PM, Cillmatic said:

What's the fascination with Hooker about?

Who doesn't like a good hooker. 

[terps85]

On 3/23/2017 at 2:47 PM, usmccharles said:

One thing I don't get about the draft is when the word value is brought up.  Im going to try to explain this the best I can, lets use Charles Harris as an example.  

I see a lot of people saying taking him at 16 is too early, but if we traded back to the 20s no big deal.  Now I know we would be getting an extra pick out of that, but how do you put a value of the production difference from slot 16 to say 25. 

It would be like saying Suggs would have been a reach at 4 but at 10 it was a great pick.  Well, considering the career he had, I think most people would of been comfortable picking him at 4.  I don't know if im conveying my thoughts very well....work is crazy busy. 

Extreme example is Tom Brady.  Obviously, knowing what we know now, he would be the #1 pick in any draft class.  But, taking him in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and to a less extent 5th rounds that year would have been bad value because you can get him later.

Another example: the market rate for an employee is $50,000 and you can hire him for that.  It would be foolish to pay him $75,000, no matter how good you think he might be.

[usmccharles]

18 minutes ago, terps85 said:

Extreme example is Tom Brady.  Obviously, knowing what we know now, he would be the #1 pick in any draft class.  But, taking him in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and to a less extent 5th rounds that year would have been bad value because you can get him later.

Another example: the market rate for an employee is $50,000 and you can hire him for that.  It would be foolish to pay him $75,000, no matter how good you think he might be.

Yea I gather all this.  Im having a hard time putting my thought into words