ctk232

Regardless of whether it's Lamb or Jeudy, I think you see a few names slide even into the late 2nd round just due to the depth, one, and two, because no matter the actual talent level of the current crop of QBs they are always drafted higher than they should be and particularly in the 1st. Guys like Eason, Hurts, etc. Speculation is widespread, but way too early mocks/analysis averages 5-6 QBs taken in the 1st - seems high but so too is the value put on QBs no matter the draft class. To keep this related, I think you see Jeudy slide more than Lamb does, but I think we'll be surprised to see what names last until the 2nd round as far as WR. The better trade up for value might be into the early 2nd using our late round picks to package and get the guy that slides, too. But agreed overall that if we go higher than 15 I'm going to be exceptionally concerned for what we'd inevitably give up for a WR. Given the QB consideration, and barring what ATL does, my hopes would be Epenesa falling to us at 22 or entertaining a trade back even at that point. February draft talk ftw.

Depends on quite a bit, including how our first couple rounds go, but I like Dillon as a late round option if Moss doesn't last until the 3/4/5 round picks. Had to look at more of his game footage since his highlight reel above didn't have a tremendous amount of between tackle running, since that would primarily be the role he'd be asked to fill in this offense as far as we've seen with Gore. Boundary running isn't a bad thing, since he performed well against ACC in both regards, but he will find most of his calls at the next level b/t the Tackles. Some criticism he's garnered so far is similar to the current/pre-draft criticisms of Henry - that he "takes a second to get the momentum going," and is susceptible to going down if hit early and defenses rally. It's what made Henry disappear for a chunk of his season two years ago, and until the Titans started putting together better PA schemes with Tannehill and a healthier OL, it was also an issue for them this past year. Where Dillon would immediately succeed is against secondary tackling and offset LBs, but he needs momentum moving before he can power through any tackler. It'll be interesting to see how this translates to the next level, especially in a tandem role. My own counter of this criticism is that Henry's center of mass is also higher than Dillon's, it would appear, which bodes better for power running and shedding tackles from front 7 defenders - Dillon's mass concentrates in mid/lower body which is ideal for any power runner and an absolute b**** to tackle. Add that with him being utilized in a tandem role with Singletary, and you remove the one dimensional running scheme that Henry plays in as RB1 that defenses can acclimatize to over the course of a game. He's been widely projected in the 5th/6th which is where I'd love to get him at value if possible - I've seen him as high as 4th with obvious caveat being his stock could rise b/t now and the draft. Though I don't anticipate going higher than three at most with the power RBs currently in his class with Taylor/Moss/Perine and other class favorites in Akers/Dobbins.

That's a good point re: Epenesa - wouldn't hate that either, though I'm skeptical of a trade up, depending entirely on what we'd give up. I still think you see a run on WR in the second - which gives me hesitation with a trade-up as you'd have to trust the WR depth lasting into the late 3rd and 4th rounds for our pick (assuming we give up our second for a trade up scenario). I'd rather see us sit pretty at 22, but if he's that sold on Epenesa he's proven to be unafraid of moving up for that guy. It could also be there's a pass rusher or OL that falls in the first and second that would be worth moving on, but if we see a trade up I think it might actually come in the second or third to move up for a guy - especially with our package of late round picks this year.

He'll likely be graded out in the second when all is said and done with the combine, but he impressed enough this past week to stand out for sure. Honestly, if you want Jeudy without being able to take him, Van is likely your closest skillset over the rest of the WR field. Given the depth, I'd love for us not to over-extend our hand in the 1st and go more BPA there, and have a pick of the WR lot in the 2nd. Van Jeff, KJ Hill, and Claypool were thought to have upped their stock with their senior bowl week shows. Mims is another name to watch after this week, but still not entirely sold on him as high as the 2nd. Any of those three (Van Jeff, Hill, Claypool) would be nice to have the second day of the draft. With this depth, it'll be really interesting to see who ends up sliding not just in the 1st, but even the 2nd and 3rd rounds as well. Agreed - if there's two receivers I'm not sold on it's Higgins and Pittman. Especially for Higgins in the first. To mix it up - I also wouldn't mind seeing Uche, Bartch, Josh Jones, or Cushenberry's names pop up at some point. Depending on how FA and the first round goes, any of those guys would help us.

And in OT - why we didn't run the ball to him in OT is absolutely maddening to me...all the time in the world, no need to put it all on Josh when you need to drive ~40 yds and kick a FG.

Went down a film rabbit hole primarily with his games against Georgia, Bama, Florida, and Texas. Granted, I'll always lead with the fact that I'm certainly no scout or expert beyond having played the game and my own investment, but the part I have to agree with Erik about is the cerebral nature of how Edwards approaches the position. Noting the skepticism around his physicality at the LOS and blocking ability, I didn't see anything glaring in that film sample to be a huge ding on his draft stock, but certainly has room to grow there. However, the way he plays the WR position from a mental standpoint stands out and could even stand alone as it's own physical trait in the way it translates to his game. He understands coverages better than most college QBs, and applies that to how he runs his routes down to footwork, hand placement, acceleration, and body placement in context to the DB/coverage. Erik does a great commentary on how Edwards finds the DB blindspots and holes in bracketed coverage - including against top SEC teams. Match that with his ability to recognize blitzes and positions himself for quick throw contingencies, which is something we sorely needed this year with Allen. To comment briefly on his actual physicality, he high points with the best of them as far as I can tell, and with a rather inaccurate QB. Great hands compensates for his lesser separation at times, but knows how to work the DB in coverage to create indirect separation with eye/body movement, hand placement/push offs, and the way he disguises his routes. All that to say, I would love to see him in the 3/4 rounds, but honestly wouldn't hate a late round 2nd on him depending on how the first goes. It's a deep WR draft with some great names, plenty above him still, so can't see why he wouldn't be worth a 3rd or 4th. I don't expect him to become the next OBJ, JJSS, or the like - but his understanding of the position could impact this offense greatly, and certainly give Allen that extra help.

Word - I'd love to be a fly on the wall with the in-game communication b/t Daboll and Allen for one, but also to hear what McD might be saying and when. Especially in relation to those "break the glass" moments like you mention. There were ample opportunities, in my mind, during OT where we could've taken a timeout, assessed the situation, and interjected more of the run game with Singletary. Either within Allen himself or from McD or Daboll, there was no reason to let Allen attempt to carry everyone, and just settle him down. From those last few 4Q drives and into OT, he was playing like he had something to prove to everyone, and like he had to win the game on the next play. The pressure will always be there for Allen and the coaches, but it felt like all we needed was a timeout to gather ourselves and approach this like a new game. But man I'd love to hear the headset conversations for those last few drives.

Wholly agree, but in relation to the OT gameplan exclusively, that was the piece of it all that I just couldn't understand. After getting a stop on the Texan's opening drive in OT - I'll never get why we didn't bring back the run with Singletary to be the primary offensive attack, or at least complement the pass with it more so. The durability concerns should have been out of the question at that point, and the kid was having an all-pro game - especially with his YAC. There were no prior injury scares in the game, and in the playoffs there's no excuse to not have your RB1, performing the way he was on Saturday, not be featured in your OT offense. Given that there had to be a winner, the clock wasn't even a consideration so there was no need to have a pass heavy attack (almost exclusively), the entirety of OT. This clearly wasn't the reason we lost the game, but the personnel and game plan decisions entering a "sudden" death overtime were beyond questionable. We only needed a FG to win and ~40 yards of offense to get it - there's no reason to abandon the run the way we did with that goal in mind. I wouldn't attribute this to McD, and I believe the conservative/defensive-minded coach criticism and trope to be tired and baseless - but whether it be McD, Daboll, or some combination of the two, I'm beyond curious who decided to approach that situation in OT the way we did. Edit to bring it back to the main discourse of this thread - as much as I'm left distraught regarding the above OT gameplan, I'd still rather see Daboll return and Allen continue to develop within the system he's learned thus far. What I'd like to see, however, is improvement to in-game response to adapting the scheme/gameplan and Josh improving within the system; something to indicate that both Allen and the offensive scheme are working in unison and not in conflict like we saw at times this season. Given what's come out since the game, I'm hopeful that this happens.

A little false start there, but man I'm glad to see him practicing with Watt coming up.

Yea, I’d watch that 30 for 30.

Classic Madden TE post route right there - just air it up over and we’re not breaking for commercial.

No doubt on Bates - I'm more curious than anything, but wouldn't expect it to be a game changing decision. I'd just like to see Ford get inside and showcase what he has there as well, and if Bates could simply sustain the present average play we have with Ford at RT. 12 set would certainly help with the rush and hopefully with blitz concepts, but also keep the offense on the field controlling the pace. There was self-criticism from Daboll about not doing more to get in a rhythm, which is what we typically do with the 12/21 personnel sets. There was also a line in the Athletic article going around from Erik Turner that got me thinking. Essentially, that we dialed up more max protect schemes than anything against the Ravens which did help, but overall didn't help Allen's reticence to get the ball out more quickly and scheme receivers open in time to make the throws, regardless of the max protect. Given this, I'd be equally curious whether keeping us in the spread with 54-55 protections would a) force the defense to honor the quick pass receiving threats, given a few completions, and b) force Allen to progress in his reads post-snap, but also give him more options to throw if given a small window of time. It was a bit of everything on Sunday, but if we could have completed a few flat/quick routes against their cover zero/man schemes and even zone blitzes, I think we see the Ravens back off the pressure a bit in the second half. That article points to the go-concept read with Smoke in the flat, and again with Beasley having room to run on the cross field throw and drop by Knox. Given the Still's proclivity and roster talent for similar schemes, I'd be curious to see which Allen would execute more efficiently. All that to say, could very well be neither, too but that's why we play the games.

Pretty sure he'll play, but if not I expect to see Long at RG and Ford at RT based on previous subs when Feliciano was out. What I'd be more interested to see though, would be Ford RG and Bates RT to start - can always put Long in at RG and swing Ford back out if Bates can't hold his own either. But it's really a question of who would you rather have blocking TJ Watt and Dupree occasionally...and I don't know that I'm entirely confident in either.

Except for maybe the OL... Kroft I could take or leave but honestly feel he could still contribute if he could stay healthy. Knox's drops aren't great, but the kid has shown enough upside in the passing game and consistent blocking in his first year. There's no reason to make any definitive statements on him at the moment. I'd rather not spend money on Hooper and first focus on re-signing our own through the next couple years before making any splashes. One could argue OL/DE would be better in FA this year, but honestly would rather we re-sign known talent in our otherwise very young roster. Draft, develop, retain, repeat.

Doesn't necessarily mean we have to let Spain go next year either - Long could be the odd man out at back-up Guard positions if we push Ford inside. in general to Ford, his footwork/agility was always a concern for the Tackle position in the NFL, but the kid is a stud in run blocking and while on his rookie contract there's no reason to dismiss him this early whatsoever. Hopefully Nsekhe is back sooner than later for this season's playoff push, and we can see about other RT options moving forward or if Ford improves with a good offseason. That said, Joe B. is consistently down on him where others have seen promise and good play. No question he's had bad reps against two of the best DE's in the league, as to be expected for any rookie, but he's been able to hold his own when needed as well. We also seem to have played both Denver and Dallas well enough with Ford at RT, so I'm not entirely concerned until Nsekhe's back either.

I’m not advocating for bringing him back so much as saying how do either McKenzie or Foster simulate his size and ability? If any of them, Foster at least compares in size and speed but lacks the change of direction ability. Since we’re at it though, exactly in what ways does a 5’8” 178 lb McKenzie simulate a 6’2” 212 lb Jackson? Why is McD looking then if our roster has that many “Jacksons?” Really couldn’t care less if it’s Tyree or anyone at all frankly, but McKenzie? Mmkay. Roberts I could certainly see helping out here.

More so just in comparison to Foster - to me, Jackson would seem to be the more physical runner, and have better change of direction ability. As such, Foster wouldn't be an accurate simulation at all in that case, but who knows.

He's on an XFL roster, lol - I wasn't thinking bring him back longterm, but if they're looking to find a guy to simulate him for a week, why not?

Interesting - still have a hard time seeing the physicality comparison though. Jackson would appear the far more physical runner, Foster doesn’t really have that.

How do McKenzie and Foster simulate his size? Doubt it's close but wouldn't Tyree Jackson be a better option than those two? Hard to find anyone to match the size and change of direction agility/acceleration.

Good points for sure - only issue though is the Raven's team that lost in that first round didn't have Ingram yet, and Jackson was still a rookie in the system. Andrews was a rookie as well, but still showed glimpses of what was to come this year. I could see the Chargers gameplan working, but I have to wonder given that this year's Ravens is still a different team/overall scheme.

Word. Given Roman's scheme predicated on the two-back RPO/triple option, and Jackson's preference for finding Andrews in both zone beater spots and in man coverage, you'd think we'd certainly need to stack the box, but remain patient, like you mentioned, at the same time. We still have to play some sort of assignment defense if we plan to stop any component of the RPO/triple option threat - turkey brain has me mis-remembering, but I think it was either Dungy or Rodney on SNF that picked on Weddle's comments about not knowing who has the ball before it's too late. If I'm remembering correctly, Dungy said that shouldn't even be an issue if you're matching the scheme correctly, and each defender is responsible for a player assignment (i.e. Ingram-Milano, Jackson-Edmunds, RB2-DE or Nickel, and TE1-Hyde/Poyer). It's a mismatch nightmare the way Roman runs it with their roster, but so many times yesterday we saw a free blitzer crashing to the option fake, and not picking up the assignment leaving Jackson room to run. Essentially, it's much easier to follow your man/assignment than it is the ball in the RPO scheme. If we don't immediately crash the line, and everyone picks up their assignments - theoretically the RPO weapon should be contained with effective tackling (another issue Jackson presents). On passing plays and downs - that's where I'd think the patience comes in, and again borrowing Dungy's analysis, it makes sense to force Jackson to beat you in the pocket by not pressuring him. Andrews and Ingram in the flats create spot concepts to beat zone defenses with mismatched personnel that are schemed by opposing teams to defend the RPO threat; it's a very complementary scheme that way. I'm curious to see how McD and Frasier adapt the zone scheme we play and utilize our personnel, especially with the DL rotation we like to use, it's hard to see how that rotation will consistently match up with the Ravens personnel groupings per se. There's also something we can do with the offense to help defend the RPO/Jackson - and that's to eat up as much clock as possible. If the defense can force a few key stops, keeping their offense off the field as much as possible simply limits the damage they can do. It's a rather obvious statement, but certainly one that can have an equal impact, and keep our defense fresh/rested throughout. As for something we can do - be loud af for the entire time the Ravens have the ball? As per usual?

Well alright then, lol. Easy there champ - let's clear up a few things here before we further digress from a thread topic related to Oliver: 1. Going into this season, most of us were expecting 7-9/8-8 at best, I came in at 6-10 with a hopeful 7-9, and I'm thrilled to have been proven wrong this year. That's just simply true, most of us were not expecting what we've seen unfold thus far this season. Also, why are you talking about 2017? I'd love to know when I specifically was ever in a "panic" about a tank, or even used the words "Jauron Ball" which is the laziest coaching analysis I've heard. I'll happily stand corrected whenever you want to let me know, but no need to get defensive...Jauron. If you meant that this team looked like a 10 win team coming into camp this year, then good for you? I don't know why predictions matter more than reality, but again, here we are. For whatever it may be worth, I've been critical of various moves made, but have also remained consistently hopeful for what McD and Beane have done since the switch was made. 2. My point with playing this draft pick game is you could literally cherry pick any draft pick that we "missed" on, a la the exhaustive Mahomes conversations that seem to come up annually. It's a tired and pointless exercise that literally carries no clout whatsoever - having to write this for the nth time is absurd, but there's no guarantee Metcalf has the same success on any other team this year. He may have, he may not have - we literally will never know, and it's an impossible claim to make. I'm so happy for you that you predicted Metcalf's success this year - I'm equally thrilled that he's proving people wrong with his success in Seattle, but what does that have to do with Ford? It's clear to everyone he's struggled in his rookie year but why is that any reason to play the "we should've taken x guy over y guy" game? He's demonstrated growth the past two weeks and the team has shown we can still compete with critical pieces missing from our starting roster. Bottom line is this, we're 9-3 with Ford and not Metcalf. There's no guarantee we're 9-3 with Metcalf instead of Ford, and there's also no guarantee Metcalf breaks out on the Bills the way he has with the Seahawks. There's also no guarantee it continues whatsoever, enter: Goff. There were definitely people here predicting success, and I'm glad you (possibly) were one of them - there's no denying the the overall feeling of this board and external sources thought differently. Frankly, it really doesn't matter in the least. If we're pleasantly talking draft strategies, I've always been partial to building the trenches before drafting any skill positions for the exact reasons you mention. It takes a couple years to develop new OL talent, and in a year where we literally changed our entire OL save for Dawkins, taking Ford with our 2nd was in response to having no discernible OL for our franchise QB in his rookie season. With an OL foundation moving forward, and both Smoke and Beasley making an impact, in addition to an unprecedented WR draft coming up this year, there's very little room to criticize taking Ford given those variables and perspective and a tremendous amount of room to look forward to adding a few impact skill players this next offseason. Doing so would, theoretically, be the final step in the process and us seeing this team taking the next step in becoming a perennial playoff team.

Not trying to claim conspiracy, fixing, or the like - but you have to admit something is wrong with the “they just warned us” line. I get if they missed it in real time (giving them all the benefit of the doubt there) and realized later they should’ve called it, but to me this falls right in line with what was said to Newton. Again, not conspiratorial, but it raises some flags that they didn’t throw theirs on that play...