Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

New - With the 17th pick the Baltimore Ravens select...
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL Draft
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Who should they take?
Bradley Roby - CB - Ohio State
1%
 1%  [ 1 ]
Brandin Cooks - WR - Oregon State
1%
 1%  [ 1 ]
Calvin Pryor - S - Louisville
6%
 6%  [ 6 ]
CJ Mosely - LB - Alabama
6%
 6%  [ 6 ]
Dee Ford - DE/OLB - Auburn
1%
 1%  [ 1 ]
Eric Ebron - TE - North Carolina
13%
 13%  [ 13 ]
Jason Verrett - CB - TCU
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Kelvin Benjamin - Florida State - WR
3%
 3%  [ 3 ]
Kony Ealy - DE - Missouri
2%
 2%  [ 2 ]
Kyle Fuller - CB - Virginia Tech
3%
 3%  [ 3 ]
Louis Nix - DT - Notre Dame
2%
 2%  [ 2 ]
Marqise Lee - WR - USC
4%
 4%  [ 4 ]
Odell Beckham Jr. - WR - LSU
12%
 12%  [ 12 ]
RaShede Hageman - DT - Minnesota
6%
 6%  [ 6 ]
Ryan Shazier - LB - Ohio State
1%
 1%  [ 1 ]
Timmy Jernigan - DT - Florida State
4%
 4%  [ 4 ]
Xavier Su'a-Filo - OG - UCLA
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Zack Martin - OT - Notre Dame
31%
 31%  [ 31 ]
Other (Please State)
2%
 2%  [ 2 ]
Total Votes : 98

Author Message
wackywabbit


Joined: 20 Dec 2009
Posts: 7055
PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 1:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As Flaccomania said, having a bunch of OK receivers is exactly what being deep means.

Torrey is really good, but not great. Steve Smith is a good complement at this stage. Jacoby is a one trick pony, but he and Flacco do that trick so well that he demands some snaps. Marlon Brown played really well given he was a rookie and with his natural development and red zone prowess, he should also get on the field regularly.

Add in two pass catching TE's and there are plenty of targets, now. We just need a headliner.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
keysersoze3421


Moderator
Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Posts: 27822
PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 1:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LitesOut13 wrote:
Flaccomania wrote:
LitesOut13 wrote:
Flaccomania wrote:

We absolutely are deep at WR. We just need that bonafide #1 for the long-term. We have Torrey Smith, Steve Smith, Jacoby Jones, Marlon Brown as the main 4 with Aaron Mellette likely being the 5th. It's a deep position for us.


Only Torrey Smith is a viable long term solution. Steve Smith should likely be a #3 WR now and neither Brown or Jones(especially Jones) are worthy of being a #2 WR.

They the Ravens had a true #2 WR, then yes they would be deep. But they have a #1 WR and a bunch of ok guys


I'm not arguing any of that. I said we were deep, not that we had top talent.

Torrey is a better #2 WR than #1 -- he's been too inconsistent to be a true #1. We need either a bonafide #1 type WR (personally, Evans is my favorite for that role) or we can handle waiting until round 2 or later if we don't trade back. We have just as pressing long-term needs elsewhere on the team that would see better value at #17.


I think he could be a #1 WR. But they arent deep. Only the Smith's can be considered good WRs and Steve Smith is just about out of the league. Jones isnt a good WR and Marlon Brown is ok. Not sure how you consider a bunch of average WRs to be deep


I agree. Deep doesn't mean you just have a lot of guys at the position. If that's the case, then the Jets are deep with Eric Decker, Stephen Hill, Jeremy Kerley, Jacoby Ford, and David Nelson.
_________________


animaltested wrote:
On a scale from Kitten to Hitler, being close minded about music, and only listening to one or two genres is about a Boss Tweed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
keysersoze3421


Moderator
Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Posts: 27822
PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 1:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

wackywabbit wrote:
As Flaccomania said, having a bunch of OK receivers is exactly what being deep means.

Torrey is really good, but not great. Steve Smith is a good complement at this stage. Jacoby is a one trick pony, but he and Flacco do that trick so well that he demands some snaps. Marlon Brown played really well given he was a rookie and with his natural development and red zone prowess, he should also get on the field regularly.

Add in two pass catching TE's and there are plenty of targets, now. We just need a headliner.


Really? Then isn't every team deep at WR?
_________________


animaltested wrote:
On a scale from Kitten to Hitler, being close minded about music, and only listening to one or two genres is about a Boss Tweed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wackywabbit


Joined: 20 Dec 2009
Posts: 7055
PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 2:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

keysersoze3421 wrote:
wackywabbit wrote:
As Flaccomania said, having a bunch of OK receivers is exactly what being deep means.

Torrey is really good, but not great. Steve Smith is a good complement at this stage. Jacoby is a one trick pony, but he and Flacco do that trick so well that he demands some snaps. Marlon Brown played really well given he was a rookie and with his natural development and red zone prowess, he should also get on the field regularly.

Add in two pass catching TE's and there are plenty of targets, now. We just need a headliner.


Really? Then isn't every team deep at WR?


No Confused

There is a big difference between a decent WR and a bad one. Considering Pitta will be a slot receiver most snaps in Kubiak's 2 TE offense, our #5 guy will be Jacoby Jones or Marlon Brown. I don't imagine most teams have someone better that low.

Not sure how you classified Stephen Hill as an OK receiver.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
keysersoze3421


Moderator
Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Posts: 27822
PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 2:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

wackywabbit wrote:
keysersoze3421 wrote:
wackywabbit wrote:
As Flaccomania said, having a bunch of OK receivers is exactly what being deep means.

Torrey is really good, but not great. Steve Smith is a good complement at this stage. Jacoby is a one trick pony, but he and Flacco do that trick so well that he demands some snaps. Marlon Brown played really well given he was a rookie and with his natural development and red zone prowess, he should also get on the field regularly.

Add in two pass catching TE's and there are plenty of targets, now. We just need a headliner.


Really? Then isn't every team deep at WR?


No Confused

There is a big difference between a decent WR and a bad one. Considering Pitta will be a slot receiver most snaps in Kubiak's 2 TE offense, our #5 guy will be Jacoby Jones or Marlon Brown. I don't imagine most teams have someone better that low.


Your standard was "having a bunch of OK receivers is exactly what being deep means." So you're saying that if the team just has OK receivers, the team is deep. That means a hypothetical team with a wide receiver corps of Brandon LaFell, Jeremy Kerley, Brian Hartline, Lance Moore, and Nate Washington would be considered deep because they have a bunch of OK receivers. You think that's what deep means? Just having OK players at that position?
_________________


animaltested wrote:
On a scale from Kitten to Hitler, being close minded about music, and only listening to one or two genres is about a Boss Tweed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LitesOut13


Joined: 26 Nov 2013
Posts: 1679
Location: Arizona
PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 2:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

wackywabbit wrote:
keysersoze3421 wrote:
wackywabbit wrote:
As Flaccomania said, having a bunch of OK receivers is exactly what being deep means.

Torrey is really good, but not great. Steve Smith is a good complement at this stage. Jacoby is a one trick pony, but he and Flacco do that trick so well that he demands some snaps. Marlon Brown played really well given he was a rookie and with his natural development and red zone prowess, he should also get on the field regularly.

Add in two pass catching TE's and there are plenty of targets, now. We just need a headliner.


Really? Then isn't every team deep at WR?


No Confused

There is a big difference between a decent WR and a bad one. Considering Pitta will be a slot receiver most snaps in Kubiak's 2 TE offense, our #5 guy will be Jacoby Jones or Marlon Brown. I don't imagine most teams have someone better that low.

Not sure how you classified Stephen Hill as an OK receiver.


Jacoby Jones was healthy in 2012, he had 406 yards and 1 TD. Last year, in only his 2nd year FYI, Stephen Hill had 342 yards and 1 TD. Seems like similar production to me

The Packers last year were deep at WR. Thats what deep means. 3 guys that can start on pretty much any team. The Broncos were deep at WR.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wackywabbit


Joined: 20 Dec 2009
Posts: 7055
PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 2:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I consider depth at a position as having multiple guys on the bench that you feel comfortable with taking significant snaps on the field.

How is having 3 great WRs depth? Those teams start and play most snaps with that many on the field. That's not depth. That's like saying you have depth on the O-line because the starting 5 are all great.

Also the Stephen Hill-Jacoby Jones comparison is ridiculous. I'm awfully critical of Jacoby compared to the rest of our forum, but he has a valuable skill with his 9 routes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Flaccomania


Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 22857
Location: Parkville, MD
PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 2:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LitesOut13 wrote:

I think he could be a #1 WR. But they arent deep. Only the Smith's can be considered good WRs and Steve Smith is just about out of the league. Jones isnt a good WR and Marlon Brown is ok. Not sure how you consider a bunch of average WRs to be deep


First, Jacoby has actually been a decent WR for us. More than capable #3. Marlon Brown played the #3 role last year and was solid for us as well, especially given the circumstances around the offense as a whole.

But, that said, being deep just means exactly that -- we have a bunch of average WRs behind our main guys. So, unless we are grabbing a guy who is going to automatically be above or near equal to Torrey Smith, it doesn't make much sense to bring him in. And in this scenario, no WR has the value to do that off the bat and likely will spend his first 1-2 years at no better than #3 on the depth chart. Whereas we could add a player who can step in, at better value, and at a less deep position, and we'll see better returns especially in the short-term, and possibly in the long-term as well.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Flaccomania


Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 22857
Location: Parkville, MD
PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 2:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

wackywabbit wrote:
I consider depth at a position as having multiple guys on the bench that you feel comfortable with taking significant snaps on the field.


Bingo.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
keysersoze3421


Moderator
Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Posts: 27822
PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 3:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Typically I feel teams' positions are deep if they have two or three strong starters at the spot in addition to several serviceable backups. The Ravens do not have strong starters at the WR spot. Torrey Smith is a strong player, but as you note, he is closer to a WR2.

What I would consider to be deep positions - SF at running back, NE at cornerback, Denver's 2013 WR unit, Seattle's front 7, etc.

Quite a few teams have low-end receivers capable of Jacoby Jones's or Marlon Brown's production.
_________________


animaltested wrote:
On a scale from Kitten to Hitler, being close minded about music, and only listening to one or two genres is about a Boss Tweed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Flaccomania


Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 22857
Location: Parkville, MD
PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 3:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

keysersoze3421 wrote:
Typically I feel teams' positions are deep if they have two or three strong starters at the spot in addition to several serviceable backups. The Ravens do not have strong starters at the WR spot. Torrey Smith is a strong player, but as you note, he is closer to a WR2.

What I would consider to be deep positions - SF at running back, NE at cornerback, Denver's 2013 WR unit, Seattle's front 7, etc.

Quite a few teams have low-end receivers capable of Jacoby Jones's or Marlon Brown's production.


Then it's just a semantics argument.

The Ravens have a very solid guy in Torrey, a solid guy in Steve Smith (though declining), serviceable guys in Jacoby and Marlon, and a young intriguing guy in Mellette. That is not to say the Ravens are not looking for a WR -- I absolutely expect them to take one and very well could be a first rounder. But, that said, it's not a position where they are going to sacrifice value just to pluck a guy because "hey, we sucked at passing in 2013". That's my point. We're more than fine going into 2014 with what we have if the value doesn't come about. Would we like to improve? Absolutely. But, the depth is perfectly fine at WR for us right now compared to other positions on the team (FS, OL, DL, ILB, OLB). In this scenario, the WR value just isn't there compared to areas we could also stand to improve on and as a result, selecting one of the available WRs would be doing so just for "need".
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LitesOut13


Joined: 26 Nov 2013
Posts: 1679
Location: Arizona
PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 3:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Flaccomania wrote:
wackywabbit wrote:
I consider depth at a position as having multiple guys on the bench that you feel comfortable with taking significant snaps on the field.


Bingo.


I think a 1st round WR would be able to bump those guys down the depth charts to where they see little to no time on the field. Where as the Packers from last year, wouldnt. They would still have had Nelson, Cobb, and Jones with the rookie filling the 4th slot. Even this year, if the Packers drafted Cooks in the first round, he would have to compete for the 3rd slot. Cooks would likely jump right into the 3rd slot for the Ravens and give Steve Smith a run for the 2nd slot.

They see a ton of time because they have nothing else. But outside of Torrey Smith, they are very average(at best). I dont consider having a bunch of average WRs meaning you have depth at all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JaguarCrazy2832


Joined: 28 Jun 2008
Posts: 83785
PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 3:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Flaccomania wrote:
DontTazeMeBro wrote:
JaguarCrazy2832 wrote:
As far as i know the OL wasnt fixed this offseason and it was a major problem last year running the ball. I went Martin


Shipley and Gradkowski aren't NFL caliber players. Even if Osemele and Zuttah are nothing special, we will still be better by leaps and bounds.


I agree -- and I think adding Martin probably to play LG or RT (and be able to swing to LT in a pinch if Monroe goes down) is huge.


Thats what I'm saying. Not to get into a huge argument about your passing attack, but thats just not what this team's strength is. Running the ball is. Rice is still a good RB and Pierce will be once Rice is gone. Yea getting a legit #1 WR would be great but this draft is so deep at WR and is a far less significant position to play to your strengths. The versatile interior OL you can get in round 2 is a much bigger dropoff than the WRs in the same spot
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Flaccomania


Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 22857
Location: Parkville, MD
PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 4:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LitesOut13 wrote:

I think a 1st round WR would be able to bump those guys down the depth charts to where they see little to no time on the field.


It very much depends on WHICH 1st round WR -- that's my point. None on the board, IMO, would come in and do so quickly. All would likely be #4 at best for at least a year.

Quote:
Cooks would likely jump right into the 3rd slot for the Ravens and give Steve Smith a run for the 2nd slot.


Disagree. The team likes Jacoby as the #3. Steve Smith would play the slot in 3 WR sets, which is where Cooks would also battle.

Quote:
They see a ton of time because they have nothing else.


Not arguing that at all -- we could most definitely use an upgrade, but again that's my point -- I don't see a bonafide #1 WR left on the board right now. I see #2 guys who could potentially develop into a #1, but they don't provide better value than other players still on the board.

Quote:
I dont consider having a bunch of average WRs meaning you have depth at all.


That's where the semantics difference comes in.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LitesOut13


Joined: 26 Nov 2013
Posts: 1679
Location: Arizona
PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 4:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Flaccomania wrote:
LitesOut13 wrote:

I think a 1st round WR would be able to bump those guys down the depth charts to where they see little to no time on the field.


It very much depends on WHICH 1st round WR -- that's my point. None on the board, IMO, would come in and do so quickly. All would likely be #4 at best for at least a year.

Quote:
Cooks would likely jump right into the 3rd slot for the Ravens and give Steve Smith a run for the 2nd slot.


Disagree. The team likes Jacoby as the #3. Steve Smith would play the slot in 3 WR sets, which is where Cooks would also battle.

Quote:
They see a ton of time because they have nothing else.


Not arguing that at all -- we could most definitely use an upgrade, but again that's my point -- I don't see a bonafide #1 WR left on the board right now. I see #2 guys who could potentially develop into a #1, but they don't provide better value than other players still on the board.

Quote:
I dont consider having a bunch of average WRs meaning you have depth at all.


That's where the semantics difference comes in.


Well I absolutely think OBJ, Cooks, and Lee could come in and be a fringe starter or their 3rd WR. I dont care what the team likes or thinks, Jacoby Jones could easily be beat out by a number of different rookies because he just isnt a good WR.

And having two different definitions of being deep is where the disconnect is. I cant understand how you think they are deep. What were the Packers and Broncos considered last season at WR if the Ravens are deep???
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL Draft All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 4 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group