Random Ravens Thoughts: New Forum Edition

[Boodgyman5220]

Even if we draft an inside linebacker early, I think we will continue to see the rotation at that position. Right now we have, Forte, Alaka, and Board if I’m not mistaken. I haven’t seen a lot of them Alaka, and Board seem like the thumper types. Forte is relatively solid all around, I think we need somebody who excels in coverage, that being said I think we will see Clark and Elliot fill in that roll a lot!

[AngusMcFife]

3 hours ago, diamondbull424 said:

Even with that however I don’t think it’s a problem. Malik Harrison for instance might not be as good at covering as your elite coverage LBs but he’s got nice foot quickness and isn’t terrible at it either. You don’t want him in man coverage on an elite receiving RB but he would likely be comparable to 2018 Mosley, but I think he’s a superior thumper to what Mosley has ever been. Where’s Harrison still has some ability to develop in coverage due to his age.

After more and more tape I’ve gotten very comfortable with Harrison as being a very safe pick as well as with having some upside potential. He reminds me an awful lot of Daryl Smith.

Whats more Kenny Young was a surprise 4th round pick that seemed to exceed expectations as a rookie. Peanut was a convert and thus his trigger was never really the best.

Many of the listed ILBs have played the position a solid amount of time. Harrison has elite athleticism just not elite speed, but he’s got a great trigger (hence why he had 16.5 TFL on the season).

Brooks I’ve seen a bit more funky tape in some other games, but when he’s kept clean he seems to be very impressive. His coverage mishaps look very correctable whereas Patrick Queen for instance has elite run stuffers to protect him and elite DBs to keep him from being exposed when he takes missteps. Would Brooks look as good as Queen if he didn’t have to fight through as much garbage? Maybe, maybe not. Would he give up a few less plays if he had Grant Delpit and Jacoby Stevens available to make offenses think twice? Sounds reasonable.

This isn’t to discredit Queen but just saying that some of the flaws he has would be less magnified if he were around elite talent and thus in the NFL the difference between a Patrick Queen and a Jordyn Brooks might not be as prominent as the round variance would have us believe if they both see similar coaching and talent to keep them clean.

Though I will say after Brooks/Gay/Harrison... I agree, I’m not as enamored with the guys we might find in terms of their ability to have an immediate impact in 2020.

Fair enough. But I don't think LSU's defense was that great. If we are going to downgrade anyone because they played on a stacked defense, it would be Malik Harrison on OSU. 

Anyhow, I'm all for adding good ILB talent on the 2nd the 3rd day of the draft. But if we don't get the one player who I think has the tools, intuition, and versatility to plug and play right away (which I think is Queen), we should definitely look into adding a vet, possibly via trade.

Especially since it looks like there's not going to be much OTAs this year. It's going to be harder to integrate our defensive rookies into the scheme.   

[DreamKid]

4 hours ago, Boodgyman5220 said:

and Board seem like the thumper types.

Board is a safety convert we've stuck at WILL. Far from the thumper type. Alaka definitely is though.

[sp6488]

22 hours ago, AngusMcFife said:

I think it's a fair concern. We have starting caliber players at every position group except ILB. 

Meanwhile our "base" defense should have 2 ILB's and we have 0 starters. It's a gaping hole in our roster.  

I disagree about it being a gaping hole. We don't play base a ton. 

Would it be nice to have great players everywhere? yes. Would I be upset if we drafted Murray or Queen? no, I would trust EDC. That said, I think it's a spot where we can definitely take an 80-20 approach regarding resource allocation. And I firmly disagree with the take I was referencing that we NEED one of those two to be our first round pick.

[AngusMcFife]

2 hours ago, sp6488 said:

I disagree about it being a gaping hole. We don't play base a ton. 

Would it be nice to have great players everywhere? yes. Would I be upset if we drafted Murray or Queen? no, I would trust EDC. That said, I think it's a spot where we can definitely take an 80-20 approach regarding resource allocation. And I firmly disagree with the take I was referencing that we NEED one of those two to be our first round pick.

We don't play base a ton, but we need at least 1 starting caliber ILB. Now we have 0. 

Yes I think any time a team sets itself up where they "need" to take a position in round 1, they have made a big error. 

But I think it is equally foolish to think we can draft an ILB in the 3rd round and expect him to provide adequate play in year 1. 

[SalvadorsDeli]

7 minutes ago, AngusMcFife said:

We don't play base a ton, but we need at least 1 starting caliber ILB. Now we have 0. 

Yes I think any time a team sets itself up where they "need" to take a position in round 1, they have made a big error. 

But I think it is equally foolish to think we can draft an ILB in the 3rd round and expect him to provide adequate play in year 1. 

Fort is starting caliber. Not a Pro Bowler or anything along those lines, but he's not a liability out there, either. 

[sp6488]

10 minutes ago, AngusMcFife said:

We don't play base a ton, but we need at least 1 starting caliber ILB. Now we have 0. 

Yes I think any time a team sets itself up where they "need" to take a position in round 1, they have made a big error. 

But I think it is equally foolish to think we can draft an ILB in the 3rd round and expect him to provide adequate play in year 1. 

I think the way Wink has positioned things, particularly now with Clark being the guy with the Green dot, blunts this a ton. The ability to have ILB be a role player/platoon position helps immensely. I think it's very likely we could find someone who can adequately play some part of the complete ILB role in year-1 in rounds 2 - 4.

[AngusMcFife]

1 hour ago, BaltimoreTerp said:

Fort is starting caliber. Not a Pro Bowler or anything along those lines, but he's not a liability out there, either. 

I see him as a backup. Before being traded to the Ravens, he had 3 starts in 6.5 seasons. Good special teams player though.  

[AngusMcFife]

58 minutes ago, sp6488 said:

I think the way Wink has positioned things, particularly now with Clark being the guy with the Green dot, blunts this a ton. The ability to have ILB be a role player/platoon position helps immensely. I think it's very likely we could find someone who can adequately play some part of the complete ILB role in year-1 in rounds 2 - 4.

Needing to sub LBs in and out for running and passing defenses can get exposed if teams run no huddle. Or if QB can call audibles. 

[sp6488]

11 minutes ago, AngusMcFife said:

I see him as a backup. Before being traded to the Ravens, he had 3 starts in 6.5 seasons. Good special teams player though.  

He was certainly a late-bloomer, and it's your prerogative to label him however you want (at least as far as how you see him), but it's worth noting that Philly gave him a $10M/3-year deal heading into 2019, so they definitely viewed him as a contributor (if not a "starter") at the very least before they let him go and we scooped him up.

I'm just not sure I see a huge loss from last season to this one. Young wasn't working out and we dealt him (marked improved after his departure), Bynes was a guy we signed off the street (interested to see his contract $$ with the Bengals) and then there's Peanut. To hold serve with last year, I don't see why we would need to replace any of those guys with a first-round draftee. In an ideal world, I would love to see a cap casualty type guy along with a round 2-4 addition. Like I said previously, though, if EDC drafts Murray/Queen, then I trust him. My thought, though, is that a stud ILB may actually limit the flexibility of this defense as that is the position at which they tended to pivot between packages.

[sp6488]

8 minutes ago, AngusMcFife said:

Needing to sub LBs in and out for running and passing defenses can get exposed if teams run no huddle. Or if QB can call audibles. 

Yes, that's a risk, but defensive packages are also based largely on opponent personnel, which the opponent loses the ability to change if they go no-huddle, and that's not something audibling necessarily changes.

For example, if the opponent comes out in spread personnel in the first quarter and we're in nickel with a more coverage inclined LB, I'm not suggesting that guy should be someone who necessarily trips over his **** when the opponent decides to run the ball. He may not be as well-positioned as a thumper or a true every down LB in that scenario, but the reason he was in in the first place was opponent personnel and they've ceded a lot of advantage running based on that package.

Edited March 30, 2020 by sp6488

[Danand]

What I want in the draft is the next Justin Smith.

[DreamKid]

 

[Danand]

I really really really don't like Brown hanging out with AB.

Just as much as it would be great if AB's work ethic and craftmanship rubbed off on Brown, just as destroying would it be to have AB's voice about "me me me, focus on yourself, they don't care about you, chase them money boy" in Browns ear. 

[AngusMcFife]

8 hours ago, Danand said:

I really really really don't like Brown hanging out with AB.

Just as much as it would be great if AB's work ethic and craftmanship rubbed off on Brown, just as destroying would it be to have AB's voice about "me me me, focus on yourself, they don't care about you, chase them money boy" in Browns ear. 

One thing that might help in this regard is that, by all accounts, Lamar and Hollywood are buddies. Whereas Big Ben became kind of an *******, aloof, and not really respected as a leader by some of his teammates in his later years. So while AB went insane, he didn't really have relationships in place to keep him in check. 

I have a hard time seeing Hollywood acting up with his friend and league MVP leading the Ravens.