Colts Hosting Another Workout With Reggie Ragland

[dgambill]

IMO...which is worth nothing I admit...I think this is a fall back guy. I would imagine we would like to take a couple of different players at either OLB or OL but if our guys are gone we are doing due diligence on a guy that is expected to be there at our pick and could be our future MLB for the next 8 years. He would immediately replace DQ and be that thumper in the middle that we've really never had for a number of years through all the tampa defenses. Can he cover??? Depends on who we are asking him to cover...NFL atheletic TEs probably not...but can he get from sideline to sideline and lay the wood...yes I think so. To me this would be a safe pick for us...but one we may fall back on if a couple guys don't land with us. I'd like us to target a pass rusher if a good one falls far enough to us...a MLB I'm not sure is what I would say would be a big difference maker on the defensive side. He would definitely be a nice piece but middle first rd I'd rather not take him...we may not draft this high again (hopefully) for a long time. End of the first no doubt I'd snatch him up. Again...safe pick...but maybe doing our homework if our guy isn't there.

[BOTT]

4 hours ago, Archer said:

I'm not buying it.  When's the last time we actually drafted someone highly that we overtly had interest in prior to the draft?  The only time with this regime I can remember is Andrew Luck, and there's less reason to play games when you plan to use the #1 pick in the draft on a franchise QB...

Some German dude

 

*i see this has already been pointed out a few times.

[stitches]

Ragland is one of the few picks in the first round I really would dislike...

[pgt_rob]

So we are really looking at potentially signing another DQ Jackson with our #18? Man I hope someone better falls to us.

[NorthernBlue]

I mean he's not my first option in the first round (Billings is) but if the brass REALLY likes him, than I think you gotta take him. If we still had Freeman though than for sure. Since Freeman is good in coverage and Ragland is an excellent run stopper. But that's not the case. Hopefully we rotate our linebackers in and out a lot.

[Track Guy]

I hope someone takes him before we're on the board. I prefer an ILB to be better in coverage than Ragland is. 

[MTC]

Sure, Ragland wasn't the best coverage linebacker in college, but who says he can't improve/fix his game in the pros?

[MasterCrief]

3 hours ago, Archer said:

 

Fine.  Still not buying it, though! ;)  (Probably because I don't want him.)

I seem to remember Grigson saying a lot of really positive things about Landon Collins last year, before passing on him to take Dorsett. Every team passes on a lot of players that they really like in the draft, and hopefully Ragland will be one of those guys for us.

[Qcolts]

8 hours ago, SP_21 said:

Darron Lee would be a great fit for Freemans position. Seems as though there's no interest on here or by the Colts. Yet the Colts seem to love Ragland who has much less potential IMO because of his lack of athleticism. 

From the game tape I have watched Lee does not shed blocks well and he does not attack the football aggressively. He's fast, but does not have great counter moves as a pass rusher. I would rather take Ragland honestly.

[weslo1812]

I honestly think he'll be gone by,the tike we pick. My hope right now is either Billings or a CB.

[SP_21]

1 hour ago, Qcolts said:

From the game tape I have watched Lee does not shed blocks well and he does not attack the football aggressively. He's fast, but does not have great counter moves as a pass rusher. I would rather take Ragland honestly.

I haven't watched much film on him TBH but I saw him slip a few blocks for huge plays. Really I expect that it will take a few seasons for him to develop into an all around ILB but he should be an upgrade in coverage immediately with his speed and athleticism. I don't dislike Ragland but I wouldn't want him in the 1st. 

[Gabriel Alexander Morillo]

5 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Well...   he was worked out at OLB at the Senior Bowl to see if he could cover and the word was,  he did pretty well.

 

On top of that,  he'd be your middle linebacker,  not your other ILB which does most of the covering.   He'd likely be out on a number of passing down (if he can't cover)  but he'd be the hammer to plug up the middle on the other downs.

 

Don't get me wrong....   Ragland is not the guy I want the Colts to draft.   Not my preferred pick.     But those who scout for a living think he's pretty darn good,  so if the Colts do take him  then they must really like him.

 

If I had to guess,  we're not taking him.    

 

There's no point really arguing this. He really can't cover tight ends in college let alone the NFL. If you're going to spend a 1st on a ILB in a 3-4 who is so inept at coverage that he needs to try and become a pass rusher on third down then I really don't agree with your drafting logic. Just not good enough imo to take him for our team. As much as I really want a boss Linebacker like Mosely, Ragland isn't that guy. 

[NewColtsFan]

3 minutes ago, Gabriel Alexander Morillo said:

There's no point really arguing this. He really can't cover tight ends in college let alone the NFL. If you're going to spend a 1st on a ILB in a 3-4 who is so inept at coverage that he needs to try and become a pass rusher on third down then I really don't agree with your drafting logic. Just not good enough imo to take him for our team. As much as I really want a boss Linebacker like Mosely, Ragland isn't that guy. 

 

You're right.     There is no point in arguing this -- especially since you completely mischaracterized what I said.

 

So,  we can end this discussion right now.     Thanks for nothing........

 

[Superman]

5 hours ago, MTC said:

Sure, Ragland wasn't the best coverage linebacker in college, but who says he can't improve/fix his game in the pros?

 

Players get better all the time. No one expects any draft prospect to be a finished product right away.

 

But you have to look at traits. Sometimes those are measurable, but mostly it's game film. Ragland doesn't have the traits of a linebacker who can cover, so I think it's a mistake to expect him to grow into a good coverage linebacker in the NFL.

 

Jaylon Smith isn't that great in coverage, IMO. But he has the traits, undeniably. Projecting him as a three down linebacker who can cover is reasonable.

[Gabriel Alexander Morillo]

3 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

You're right.     There is no point in arguing this -- especially since you completely mischaracterized what I said.

 

So,  we can end this discussion right now.     Thanks for nothing........

 

I know what you said. I just put that out there for others to read. I only quoted you to further my thoughts and cursory analysis. 

[NewColtsFan]

14 minutes ago, Gabriel Alexander Morillo said:

I know what you said. I just put that out there for others to read. I only quoted you to further my thoughts and cursory analysis. 

 

I knew there would be trouble when you started your post with....    "There's no need to argue over this..."

 

And I thought.....   "Who's arguing?"

 

You don't have the first clue what I said....   a complete mischaracterization.     You don't like Ragland and tried to destroy what I said.....     except it's not me saying that,   it's NFL scouts.     So, if you don't like the perspective,  take it up with them.

 

As for me,   if you continue this approach with me I doubt we'll have much of anything to say to one another....

 

I'm tired of people not understanding simple straight forward english and trying to twist arguments...

 

I'm tired of people looking for fights....

 

You fit both categories.....      it gets old real fast.     It got old tonight.

 

 

[Gabriel Alexander Morillo]

1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I knew there would be trouble when you started your post with....    "There's no need to argue over this..."

 

And I thought.....   "Who's arguing?"

 

You don't have the first clue what I said....   a complete mischaracterization.     You don't like Ragland and tried to destroy what I said.....     except it's not me saying that,   it's NFL scouts.     So, if you don't like the perspective,  take it up with them.

 

As for me,   if you continue this approach with me I doubt we'll have much of anything to say to one another....

 

I'm tired of people not understanding simple straight forward english and trying to twist arguments...

 

I'm tired of people looking for fights....

 

You fit both categories.....      it gets old real fast.     It got old tonight.

 

 

Lol... "there's no point in really arguing this" was a statement to people in general who might see him as a great fit for our team. Not you. You and I were not arguing anything, like you said. I get everything you said, trust me. 

[DaColts85]

14 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

As I just posted elsewhere in this thread,  Raglund is not my choice for who the Colts take.    I'd prefer either pass rush or O-line or Corner.    And I really like Apple too.

 

But the Ragland hate that is all over this website I think is too much.    The scouts who do this for a living really, really like Ragland.    So, I'm not scared of him.

 

If I had to predict,  we're not taking Ragland -- in part because I don't think he'll be there when we pick.   I think some other team takes him before 18.      Just my hunch....

 

I agree with you about the hate and I would love Eli Apple.

[krunk]

Bottom Line

Thumping inside linebacker with throwback size and tone­setting mentality. Ragland is a confident and capable early starter in league who has the temperament to become one of the premier run­-stopping inside linebackers in the pro game. Ragland has some coverage and speed limitations, but his instincts and overall awareness should be able to mask those issues.

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2016/profiles/reggie-ragland?id=2555169

 

I believe this write up for the most part, but it's not something that would make me say "Oh don't pick that Ragland guy!".  I think most linebackers can be beat in coverage one way or the other.  Jerrell Freeman who's supposed to be a good cover linebacker I've seen him beaten plenty of times.  I think there's an either or with just about every linebacker.  If you get the ones who can cover they are probably not as great against the run.  If you get the ones who can stop the run well they may not be as great against the pass.  People were saying Denzelle Perryman was only good against the run in the previous draft. Now people are saying he's about to be a star linebacker in this leauge.  I think Ragland has enough instinct and film study intelligence to offset some of his weakness.  People rag on Dqwell Jackson but I've seen Jackson make any number of plays in the passing game and you never hear anybody talk about it when he does.  It's always the same company line!

[RealityIsLuck]

He's not even that bad in coverage. He's just slow and sluggish, he actually was ok at Alabama in coverage, if he's given some help he shouldn't be a liability, I may not like Ragland that much but drafting him in the first wouldn't be the end of the world.

[ColtRider]

1 hour ago, krunk said:

Bottom Line

Thumping inside linebacker with throwback size and tone­setting mentality. Ragland is a confident and capable early starter in league who has the temperament to become one of the premier run­-stopping inside linebackers in the pro game. Ragland has some coverage and speed limitations, but his instincts and overall awareness should be able to mask those issues.

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2016/profiles/reggie-ragland?id=2555169

 

I believe this write up for the most part, but it's not something that would make me say "Oh don't pick that Ragland guy!".  I think most linebackers can be beat in coverage one way or the other.  Jerrell Freeman who's supposed to be a good cover linebacker I've seen him beaten plenty of times.  I think there's an either or with just about every linebacker.  If you get the ones who can cover they are probably not as great against the run.  If you get the ones who can stop the run well they may not be as great against the pass.  People were saying Denzelle Perryman was only good against the run in the previous draft. Now people are saying he's about to be a star linebacker in this leauge.  I think Ragland has enough instinct and film study intelligence to offset some of his weakness.  People rag on Dqwell Jackson but I've seen Jackson make any number of plays in the passing game and you never hear anybody talk about it when he does.  It's always the same company line!

 

Agreed. Reggie Ragland is a very formidable LB. IMO, he displays the tools to become a game-wrecker. A force. A play to play 3 down beast. If upon taking this guy in the 1st round, the Colts would eliminate one of the key pieces in the puzzle for a very good to great defense in the near future. I like this LB from Alabama. A great pick for any NFL team.

[OffensivelyPC]

20 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

That is the worst part of his game, and he can be adequate.  Here he is defending Hunter Henry.  An Athletic tight end got the jump on him, yet he was still able to defend the play.

 

If that was a better throw, that's Ragland giving up 6.  Instead, the QB underthrew it giving Ragland the opportunity to close in.  So this isn't really a play that puts Ragland in a good light, because he had to be beat in coverage to close in in the first place.

[weslo1812]

56 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

If that was a better throw, that's Ragland giving up 6.  Instead, the QB underthrew it giving Ragland the opportunity to close in.  So this isn't really a play that puts Ragland in a good light, because he had to be beat in coverage to close in in the first place.

The TE also got the jump on him....so take that away and Ragland still caught up. So you can try and nitpick at stuff but bottom line is he made the play.

[OffensivelyPC]

9 minutes ago, weslo1812 said:

The TE also got the jump on him....so take that away and Ragland still caught up. So you can try and nitpick at stuff but bottom line is he made the play.

The TE got the jump on him because Ragland was too slow diagnosing.  And I'm not nitpicking just for the sake of nitpicking.  His coverage abilities would be a huge issue for us because we expect man coverage from our LBs.  The video is being sold as an exhibition in good man coverage.  Problem is, it was poor man coverage from the snap.  

 

If Ragland had made a move and got a forearm into Hunter and stayed his hip (or at least within a step) and then made the play, I'd say yeah, I'd say it was a good play.  But he didn't drop into coverage pass until Hunter was behind him - classic Laron Landry by the way - and then when the film cuts to Ragland from the back pylon view he's at least 5 yards away from him and only shows that "fantastic closing speed" when Hunter has to slow down and wait for the ball.  If that football was thrown 5 yards further down field like it will in the NFL, that Ragland snippet would not be in this thread.

[weslo1812]

8 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

The TE got the jump on him because Ragland was too slow diagnosing.  And I'm not nitpicking just for the sake of nitpicking.  His coverage abilities would be a huge issue for us because we expect man coverage from our LBs.  The video is being sold as an exhibition in good man coverage.  Problem is, it was poor man coverage from the snap.  

 

If Ragland had made a move and got a forearm into Hunter and stayed his hip (or at least within a step) and then made the play, I'd say yeah, I'd say it was a good play.  But he didn't drop into coverage pass until Hunter was behind him - classic Laron Landry by the way - and then when the film cuts to Ragland from the back pylon view he's at least 5 yards away from him and only shows that "fantastic closing speed" when Hunter has to slow down and wait for the ball.  If that football was thrown 5 yards further down field like it will in the NFL, that Ragland snippet would not be in this thread.

Think about if Ragland diagnoses that quicker though like he should have. He'd have been right there with the TE. The only reason the TE had the seperation in the first place was do to the slow pick up on Raglands part. Only reason he would have gotten beat there is cause of his slow diagnosis which is something easily fixable. It didnt have anything to do with his physical abilities.

[OffensivelyPC]

7 minutes ago, weslo1812 said:

Think about if Ragland diagnoses that quicker though like he should have. He'd have been right there with the TE. The only reason the TE had the seperation in the first place was do to the slow pick up on Raglands part. Only reason he would have gotten beat there is cause of his slow diagnosis which is something easily fixable. It didnt have anything to do with his physical abilities.

That's still a huge issue.  You can't just assume that he will be good at read/diagnose.  That's the Trent Richardson problem.  This isn't the only play where Ragland does that.  It's a pretty consistent criticism.  What good are physical abilities if you can't be in position to use them?  He can get better, sure, but he has to prove it first because his tape says otherwise.  And he may never prove it.  If you were to ask me if I'd rather have an LB who was an average athlete with elite instincts or one who was an elite athlete with average instincts, I'd rather have the elite instincts.

 

 

[weslo1812]

Just now, OffensivelyPC said:

That's still a huge issue.  You can't just assume that he will be good at read/diagnose.  That's the Trent Richardson problem.  What good are physical abilities if you can't be in position to use them?  

 

 

Ummmm it's a simple mistake on one play....EVERY player makes them!!!  And in case you aren't aware Raglands strength is actually that he is very good majority of the time at reading and diagnosing plays quickly. He was slow and or mis read one play....big whoop. If that's such a big deal...then we have big worries about every player in this draft in that case. Because every one of them makes mistakes and gets beat at times. So that must mean we need to be really worried about every player who makes a wrong read or is slow to react on a play etc.

[OffensivelyPC]

7 minutes ago, weslo1812 said:

Ummmm it's a simple mistake on one play....EVERY player makes them!!!  And in case you aren't aware Raglands strength is actually that he is very good majority of the time at reading and diagnosing plays quickly. He was slow and or mis read one play....big whoop. If that's such a big deal...then we have big worries about every player in this draft in that case. Because every one of them makes mistakes and gets beat at times. So that must mean we need to be really worried about every player who makes a wrong read or is slow to react on a play etc.

You left out the part where I said it is a pretty consistent criticism. I didn't base my opinion on this, my opinion is from watching his film, but I agree with these portions three scouting reports.  

 

CBS Sports

Quote

Hyper-focused run defender and will leave his eyes in the backfield too long at times, causing him to be late in coverage.

 

ESPN

Quote

Late diagnosing play action at times.

 

NFL.com

Quote

Can handle himself in zone coverage but man cover skills are limited.

All three of them basically address the same thing - had the NFL.com gone into more detail, they'd have talked about both the CBS/ESPN issue (and maybe including a shout out to his very average ability to redirect).

 

So no, it was not "just one play."  It is a very problematic theme for any team expecting its LBs to cover man to man.

 

 

[ColtsBlueFL]

1 minute ago, weslo1812 said:

Ummmm it's a simple mistake on one play....EVERY player makes them!!!  And in case you aren't aware Raglands strength is actually that he is very good majority of the time at reading and diagnosing plays quickly. He was slow and or mis read one play....big whoop. If that's such a big deal...then we have big worries about every player in this draft in that case. Because every one of them makes mistakes and gets beat at times. So that must mean we need to be really worried about every player who makes a wrong read or is slow to react on a play etc.

 

He is slow and mis-reads 'some' pass plays because of his skills at the run game, but he tends to keep his eyes in the backfield too long and trying to read all of the keys.  Hunter Henry is one of the most athletic Tight Ends in the college game right now.  He gets the jump on and puts up 6 on most ILB's on college teams on that play.  I'm not worried about Ragland.  As his skills and recognition improve at NFL speed, he will be adequate at minimum in the pass game, and elite level in the run game.

[ColtRider]

5 minutes ago, weslo1812 said:

Ummmm it's a simple mistake on one play....EVERY player makes them!!!  And in case you aren't aware Raglands strength is actually that he is very good majority of the time at reading and diagnosing plays quickly. He was slow and or mis read one play....big whoop. If that's such a big deal...then we have big worries about every player in this draft in that case. Because every one of them makes mistakes and gets beat at times. So that must mean we need to be really worried about every player who makes a wrong read or is slow to react on a play etc.

 

Exactly. Pass coverage is not the primary goal of an outstanding ILB. Nor, has it ever been. The best you're going to get out of most LBs & that includes all the former great ones this league has seen over the years is "decent" at best. Ragland has the ability to become the defensive field general as it were. That's what a formidable defense is looking for in the NFL. Sure, coverage is important. But the role of the Corners & Safeties exstrapolate the LB coverage pass play. Always has. Always will.

 

The guy brings too much to the table as far as run-stop, tackling, shedding blockers, pass rush, getting to the ball quickly, forced TOs, and the overall ability to evaluate plays & command the defense. 

[OffensivelyPC]

5 minutes ago, ColtRider said:

 

Exactly. Pass coverage is not the primary goal of an outstanding ILB. Nor, has it ever been. The best you're going to get out of most LBs & that includes all the former great ones this league has seen over the years is "decent" at best. Ragland has the ability to become the defensive field general as it were. That's what a formidable defense is looking for in the NFL. Sure, coverage is important. But the role of the Corners & Safeties exstrapolate the LB coverage pass play. Always has. Always will.

 

The guy brings too much to the table as far as run-stop, tackling, shedding blockers, pass rush, getting to the ball quickly, forced TOs, and the overall ability to evaluate plays & command the defense. 

There's a difference between being decent and being a liability.  If you're consistently 3 steps late into coverage, you are a liability.  

 

I don't deny his ability in the run game.  But to me, the better approach for this team is to improve the DL so we can become a 2 gap 3-4 defense (if anything from NT to OLB), then you can afford to have a slow bad coverage ILB to the weakside.  Really, I think we're only missing a 2 gap NT, which I think Billings could provide.  You could pick up a tweener LB who's good in coverage and we'd be get more bang for our buck going that route as opposed to picking Ragland who is not good in coverage carry the run game burden at the expense of pass coverage.

[ColtsBlueFL]

27 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

You left out the part where I said it is a pretty consistent criticism. I didn't base my opinion on this, my opinion is from watching his film, but I agree with these portions three scouting reports.  

 

CBS Sports

 

ESPN

 

NFL.com

All three of them basically address the same thing - had the NFL.com gone into more detail, they'd have talked about both the CBS/ESPN issue (and maybe including a shout out to his very average ability to redirect).

 

So no, it was not "just one play."  It is a very problematic theme for any team expecting its LBs to cover man to man.

 

 

 

Do you have a link to Manchino expecting ILB's to cover man to man?  I only have these quotes from him-

 

“I know that we have a lot of players that can fit a lot of different spots and we are going to use those guys and use their skills as best we can, as often as we can and keep that as consistent as possible."

 

“A guy that rushes the passer really well, he’s going to do that as often as he can. A guy that’s a cover-man corner, he’s going to do that as often as he can."

 

“Philosophically, we have to do everything we can to make sure our players are in the position to make sure they can play their best and make plays when they have the opportunity to.”

 

Manchino knows what he will get if the Colts take him, and what he want's him to do.  I ask, isn't the SAM and the Strong Safety better positioned and suited to cover a tight end, and the ILB's a RB?

[OffensivelyPC]

18 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Do you have a link to Manchino expecting ILB's to cover man to man?  I only have these quotes from him-

 

“I know that we have a lot of players that can fit a lot of different spots and we are going to use those guys and use their skills as best we can, as often as we can and keep that as consistent as possible."

 

“A guy that rushes the passer really well, he’s going to do that as often as he can. A guy that’s a cover-man corner, he’s going to do that as often as he can."

 

“Philosophically, we have to do everything we can to make sure our players are in the position to make sure they can play their best and make plays when they have the opportunity to.”

 

Manchino knows what he will get if the Colts take him, and what he want's him to do.  I ask, isn't the SAM and the Strong Safety better positioned and suited to cover a tight end, and the ILB's a RB?

As far as I know, our defensive scheme is not changing as far as how we cover.  Since we've switched to the 3-4, our SAM has been an edge setting OLB - Erik Walden and our pass rush LB - Mathis - have been the outside guys.  They have been in coverage some, but if I had to throw a percentage on it, less than 20% of all passes between the two of them  Our inside guys - call them what you will - Freeman and Jackson.  Both have been used extensively in man coverage and in most cases at least one of them on any given pass play. I invite someone to give me numbers, because I'm curious myself.

 

So unless we put Ragland on the outside, which would be a disservice to both him and the Colts, he is going to be seeing plenty of action covering TEs and in the rare case, particularly in the red zone, a slot receiver (which by the way, Ragland gets abused by them, but I wont' hold that against him, it's asking a lot for any LB to run step for step with a slot receiver).  Ragland will be a 2 down linebacker no matter where he goes, but he's most valuable to predominantly zone defenses where Ragland's primary goal is to blitz or play primarily what's in front of him.  That's why I think many are against him coming here.  If we're going to take an ILB at 18, he should be a 3 down back in respect of the scheme we run, and he is not in my opinion.

[ColtRider]

11 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

There's a difference between being decent and being a liability.  If you're consistently 3 steps late into coverage, you are a liability.  

 

I don't deny his ability in the run game.  But to me, the better approach for this team is to improve the DL so we can become a 2 gap 3-4 defense (if anything from NT to OLB), then you can afford to have a slow bad coverage ILB to the weakside.  Really, I think we're only missing a 2 gap NT, which I think Billings could provide.  You could pick up a tweener LB who's good in coverage and we'd be get more bang for our buck going that route as opposed to picking Ragland who is not good in coverage carry the run game burden at the expense of pass coverage.

 

Well OPC, that's where we disagree; being decent in coverage & a liability. I really do agree with most of the NFL scouts & their evaluation of Ragland. His pass coverage is not a liability, more of a decent one. The film I've been privy to & games I've witnessed from Alabama over the last couple years indicate that. Everything else suggests a tough, smart, get to the ball player. A disruption if you will. 

 

And, disruption is exactly what you want out of a LB. He, according to most scouts, coaches, and analysts state he's much more. A field general on defense. A good decision maker. A formidable force that knows how to evaluate offenses & implements that to the rest of his teammates. 

 

And yes, of course, if the Colts choose to pass on him if still there at # 18 & go another route as Billings, I wouldn't be agitated. I just lend credence to the fact that nucleus positions as a great ILB or OLB are critical to this team's success in the future.

[OffensivelyPC]

17 minutes ago, ColtRider said:

 

Well OPC, that's where we disagree; being decent in coverage & a liability. I really do agree with most of the NFL scouts & their evaluation of Ragland. His pass coverage is not a liability, more of a decent one. The film I've been privy to & games I've witnessed from Alabama over the last couple years indicate that. Everything else suggests a tough, smart, get to the ball player. A disruption if you will. 

 

And, disruption is exactly what you want out of a LB. He, according to most scouts, coaches, and analysts state he's much more. A field general on defense. A good decision maker. A formidable force that knows how to evaluate offenses & implements that to the rest of his teammates. 

 

And yes, of course, if the Colts choose to pass on him if still there at # 18 & go another route as Billings, I wouldn't be agitated. I just lend credence to the fact that nucleus positions as a great ILB or OLB are critical to this team's success in the future.

Fair enough.  And to the bolded, of course you want a great ILB in addition to a great NT, OLB and everything else.  That's not always going to be the case, daresay unrealistic to expect to have great players at every position.  So when it comes to importance of position you want to devote more of your resources to finding the best player possible - 1st round picks in this case - to help your defense as much as possible.  In our defense, a 3-4 alignment, a gap eating NT is much more valuable than almost any other position on the defense save for rush backer. 

[ColtsBlueFL]

43 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

As far as I know, our defensive scheme is not changing as far as how we cover.  Since we've switched to the 3-4, our SAM has been an edge setting OLB - Erik Walden and our pass rush LB - Mathis - have been the outside guys.  They have been in coverage some, but if I had to throw a percentage on it, less than 20% of all passes between the two of them  Our inside guys - call them what you will, Freeman and Jackson.  Both have been used extensively in man coverage and in most cases at least one of them on any given pass play. I invite someone to give me numbers, because I'm curious myself.

 

So unless we put Ragland on the outside, which would be a disservice to both him and the Colts, he is going to be seeing plenty of action covering TEs and in the rare case, particularly in the red zone, a slot receiver (which by the way, Ragland gets abused by them, but I wont' hold that against him, it's asking a lot for any LB to run step for step with a slot receiver).  Ragland will be a 2 down linebacker no matter where he goes, but he's most valuable to predominantly zone defenses where Ragland's primary goal is to blitz or play primarily what's in front of him.  That's why I think many are against him coming here.  If we're going to take an ILB at 18, he should be a 3 down back in respect of the scheme we run, and he is not in my opinion.

 

I have my sources and retort with=

https://realfootballnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/RFN_2016-NFL-Draft_OLB_RaglandReggie_01.18.16.pdf

Scouting report from ReallFootballNetwork (Pat Kirwan and scouts)-

 

{snip} An elite run stuffer.

 

Summary of pass ability-
Was not called on often in Man coverage and is replaced in Dime packages. Showed    the ability    to drop with TEs in square-out or slant routes but was not directly challenged. Could run vertically with TE. Showed all the correct reads but pass coverage does not seem natural. Took proper angles of pursuit    but did not always sprint to plays on the opposite boundary.

 

Strong    Points-
Key & Diagnose
Inside run Strength

Weak Points=
Lacks elite pass coverage skills (says Elite, not any...or as others say Mario Harvey useless...)

 

Scouting report from Chris Landry (Scout and scouting consultant)
https://landryfootball.com/about-chris/

 

“Well, I think Reggie Ragland is a better version of C.J. Mosley,” Landry said. “When he shows off [at the combine], I think he’ll weigh-in close to 260 and he can run. He’s got great range. I do think he’s a three-down linebacker."

 

“I think he can do a lot in blitz looks as well. He’s going to be an outstanding player. he’s going to be first round-graded guy. I think he’ll be in the mid-first round area. I know what you want to know, and I can’t really say if he will or will not be available, as I think it’s going to be close, but I think he would be a great pick if he was there for the Packers.”

 

So we can agree to disagree, as many scouts appear to do.

 

[OffensivelyPC]

49 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

I have my sources and retort with=

https://realfootballnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/RFN_2016-NFL-Draft_OLB_RaglandReggie_01.18.16.pdf

Scouting report from ReallFootballNetwork (Pat Kirwan and scouts)-

 

{snip} An elite run stuffer.

 

Summary of pass ability-
Was not called on often in Man coverage and is replaced in Dime packages. Showed    the ability    to drop with TEs in square-out or slant routes but was not directly challenged. Could run vertically with TE. Showed all the correct reads but pass coverage does not seem natural. Took proper angles of pursuit    but did not always sprint to plays on the opposite boundary.

 

Strong    Points-
Key & Diagnose
Inside run Strength

Weak Points=
Lacks elite pass coverage skills (says Elite, not any...or as others say Mario Harvey useless...)

 

Scouting report from Chris Landry (Scout and scouting consultant)
https://landryfootball.com/about-chris/

 

“Well, I think Reggie Ragland is a better version of C.J. Mosley,” Landry said. “When he shows off [at the combine], I think he’ll weigh-in close to 260 and he can run. He’s got great range. I do think he’s a three-down linebacker."

 

“I think he can do a lot in blitz looks as well. He’s going to be an outstanding player. he’s going to be first round-graded guy. I think he’ll be in the mid-first round area. I know what you want to know, and I can’t really say if he will or will not be available, as I think it’s going to be close, but I think he would be a great pick if he was there for the Packers.”

 

So we can agree to disagree, as many scouts appear to do.

 

We might as well just leave it as it is.  No one pick is going to satisfy everybody, I know. 

[Superman]

2 hours ago, ColtRider said:

 

I really do agree with most of the NFL scouts & their evaluation of Ragland. His pass coverage is not a liability, 

 

Let's be clear of the distinction between NFL scouts and people like Mike Mayock. I have no problem with any of the network or Internet analysts, nor do I claim to be better than them, so if it's their word aagainst mine, feel free to side with them. However, they are NOT NFL scouts.

 

We won't hear much from actual NFL scouts about any draft prospects. What we do hear will be anonymous. But when you dig for team personnel comments about Ragland, not media people, you'll see mixed comments about his coverage ability and potential. Lots of stuff about him being a "throwback linebacker," which is thinly veiled code for 'he can't cover.' Same for comments like "it's okay because he can rush on third down," again, code for 'he can't cover.'

 

And the film shows that he can't cover. The clip being debated in this thread shows him getting beat in coverage. As a fan, it's great that he was able to break up the pass, and that's a testament to his motor and competitiveness, but through a scouting lens, you have to acknowledge that a) he got beat in coverage, and b) he was only able to defend the play because the pass was overthrown. It's just one play, but as someone who has watched a ton of his games, I feel comfortable saying that's the norm for him in coverage.

 

Yes, Hunter Henry is athletic, but so are pretty much all the starting TEs in the NFL. Can't pretend there aren't tough matchups every week at TE.

 

And yes, you can scheme to cover up for a player's weaknesses or limitations. Good coaching should do that, especially if you have a guy who is really good in other areas. But coverage is a big deal. Teams throw more and more, they scheme to isolate mismatches, and they LOVE getting TEs lined up against stiff inside linebackers. It's harder than ever to hide a coverage liability in the NFL, no matter what the down and distance is.

[ColtRider]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Let's be clear of the distinction between NFL scouts and people like Mike Mayock. I have no problem with any of the network or Internet analysts, nor do I claim to be better than them, so if it's their word aagainst mine, feel free to side with them. However, they are NOT NFL scouts.

 

We won't hear much from actual NFL scouts about any draft prospects. What we do hear will be anonymous. But when you dig for team personnel comments about Ragland, not media people, you'll see mixed comments about his coverage ability and potential. Lots of stuff about him being a "throwback linebacker," which is thinly veiled code for 'he can't cover.' Same for comments like "it's okay because he can rush on third down," again, code for 'he can't cover.'

 

And the film shows that he can't cover. The clip being debated in this thread shows him getting beat in coverage. As a fan, it's great that he was able to break up the pass, and that's a testament to his motor and competitiveness, but through a scouting lens, you have to acknowledge that a) he got beat in coverage, and b) he was only able to defend the play because the pass was overthrown. It's just one play, but as someone who has watched a ton of his games, I feel comfortable saying that's the norm for him in coverage.

 

Yes, Hunter Henry is athletic, but so are pretty much all the starting TEs in the NFL. Can't pretend there aren't tough matchups every week at TE.

 

And yes, you can scheme to cover up for a player's weaknesses or limitations. Good coaching should do that, especially if you have a guy who is really good in other areas. But coverage is a big deal. Teams throw more and more, they scheme to isolate mismatches, and they LOVE getting TEs lined up against stiff inside linebackers. It's harder than ever to hide a coverage liability in the NFL, no matter what the down and distance is.

 

I can agree with this, MOS. The distinction that I was trying to make was not too much intent on the media, rather some of the NFL scouts and organizations such as the Packers & Colts who seem to be genuinely interested in Ragland along with quotes made by them (Packers) through ColtsBlueFL postings of the articles in this thread. 

 

And, the fact that I'm high on this kid because of all the other attributes he brings to the table besides his several assessments of being weak in pass coverage. I've watched film on Ragland as well as real-time games and have been very impressed 

with everything else a very good ILB brings to the table. Basically, my opinion mixed with the reviews of this kid from NFL scouting. 

 

So yeah, I agree with your assessment about Ragland's coverage ability, but with a much higher favored opinion. Mine just happens to be on a higher plain than most regarding his ability to cover. I never lay claim to have the entire package as the professional evaluations made by GMs, scouts, coaches, and NFL organizations. Far from it. It's just how I see it. Like you've insinuated, nothing's 

concrete as far as the draft goes. And, I understand your evaluation as to his "norm" for non-coverage. I just like this kid's overall approach & playing ability at ILB. I think he'd be a great attribute to most NFL teams.

[gregr507]

I don't follow college football that closely, so I'm far from an expert, but from what I've seen Ragland looks like a D'qwell Jackson clone. Great instincts against the run and stuffs attempts up the middle, but lacks the speed to track down outside runs and is a big liability in coverage. I don't really see how anyone could say otherwise when watching the film... And for the record, that play against Henry that everyone is talking about, was actually called PI against Ragland.