DefJamz FINAL 2016 Colts Mock

[ztboiler]

15 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I just listened. Later on, Grigson talked about the linebackers. He mentioned guys who can defend the run but can't cover, who have to come off the field on third down, and he said that's not your ideal guy. To me, that's Ragland. Maybe they think he can cover if necessary.

 

I'm not a fan of Ragland, as everyone knows. 

I had some assumptions about the player Ragland is based on limited Bama watching, body type and athletic measurables.  Like you, I see zero reason to draft a 2 down run stopper in the first few rounds.  However, I finally watched a few Draft Breakdown games on Ragland and I see him as a very different player than I thought he was.  

 

I saw a 3 down player at the next level.  I saw a guy that looked very active and instinctive dropping into coverage, and who was unusually disruptive playing in space.  He even shows more sideline to sideline pursuit range than I expected.  He also does what you would expect an elite run stopper to do, of course.  He is physical enough to take on blocks, yet nimble enough to anticipate and avoid them.  His hand usage to stay on his feet and stay in the play is amazing.

 

I don't do player evaluations....but I'd love to have him as an immediate DQ upgrade.  We'd still be looking for an athletic WILL, unless Moore or Irving are the answer, of course, but I see nothing wrong with using pick 18 to shore up the MIKE role for the next 10 years.

[Superman]

10 hours ago, ztboiler said:

I saw a 3 down player at the next level.  I saw a guy that looked very active and instinctive dropping into coverage

 

I can't get with this part of your post. I don't disagree with anything else you said. He does have range, he is quick and fast, he does handle blocks well. A lot of people think that '2 down player' means slow. Ragland isn't slow. He's not blazing fast, but he isn't slow. I am somewhat concerned about his weight; I believe he dropped weight to run at the Combine, and he still ran a 4.72, which isn't impressive. On film though, coming downfield, I have little concern about his speed, but he's definitely at his best in a phone booth.

 

But I don't see a 3 down player. Alabama either took him off the field on third down or moved him and used him as a rusher. If Saban didn't use him in coverage in the SEC, why would he be used in coverage in the NFL? (And before anyone says 'well he can rush on third downs in the NFL!!' ... no he can't. He's not even a good rusher in college, only a decent blitzer; 4 sacks in the last two seasons.)

 

He really has limited reps in coverage. He's good enough in zone coverage if the ball stays in front of him, and he has good instincts to come crashing down and into the receiver. Open field assault is his specialty. But once he has to turn and run, it's over. Even if he has to open up to come across the field, he's likely to get beat.

 

In man coverage, he doesn't have the quickness or looseness in his lower body to have good change of direction, which means he can't mirror receivers, especially quick ones. He looks big -- I keep wanting to say he's 6'4 -- but he's not that big, and he's not very long, so sticking with fast, big TEs isn't going to happen.

 

I've watched everything there is of him. I kind of had my mind made up after two or three games, so maybe I'm biased. I expected to see a game wrecker, and I wasn't overly impressed in that area. And then his limitations in coverage are just glaringly obvious, IMO. I do think he could be a replacement for D'Qwell Jackson, but not an improvement, so that doesn't really excite me. To me, there isn't a great difference between Ragland and Tyler Matakevich, who will probably be a 3rd or 4th rounder (basically the next Chris Borland, and not just because he's white). So why use #18 on that guy?

 

This, of course, comes down to a fundamental difference of opinion, which is basically about what Ragland is and what he will become. None of us knows, and I hope I'm just blinded to his potential and all my problems with him are exaggerated, especially if the Colts draft him. But I just don't see anything more than a 2 down thumper in the NFL, which is just what he was at Alabama.

[SaturdayAllDay]

So @Defjamz26,  are we going to see another mock due to the shakeup with the second overall pick? I know you said definitely no more mocks but this trade might mean someone different could fall to us.  

 

[Defjamz26]

5 hours ago, SaturdayAllDay said:

So @Defjamz26,  are we going to see another mock due to the shakeup with the second overall pick? I know you said definitely no more mocks but this trade might mean someone different could fall to us.  

 

I didn't say it out loud but the only thing that was going to make me do another mock was a trade. I may do another one on draft day.

[ztboiler]

7 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I can't get with this part of your post. I don't disagree with anything else you said. He does have range, he is quick and fast, he does handle blocks well. A lot of people think that '2 down player' means slow. Ragland isn't slow. He's not blazing fast, but he isn't slow. I am somewhat concerned about his weight; I believe he dropped weight to run at the Combine, and he still ran a 4.72, which isn't impressive. On film though, coming downfield, I have little concern about his speed, but he's definitely at his best in a phone booth.

 

But I don't see a 3 down player. Alabama either took him off the field on third down or moved him and used him as a rusher. If Saban didn't use him in coverage in the SEC, why would he be used in coverage in the NFL? (And before anyone says 'well he can rush on third downs in the NFL!!' ... no he can't. He's not even a good rusher in college, only a decent blitzer; 4 sacks in the last two seasons.)

 

He really has limited reps in coverage. He's good enough in zone coverage if the ball stays in front of him, and he has good instincts to come crashing down and into the receiver. Open field assault is his specialty. But once he has to turn and run, it's over. Even if he has to open up to come across the field, he's likely to get beat.

 

In man coverage, he doesn't have the quickness or looseness in his lower body to have good change of direction, which means he can't mirror receivers, especially quick ones. He looks big -- I keep wanting to say he's 6'4 -- but he's not that big, and he's not very long, so sticking with fast, big TEs isn't going to happen.

 

I've watched everything there is of him. I kind of had my mind made up after two or three games, so maybe I'm biased. I expected to see a game wrecker, and I wasn't overly impressed in that area. And then his limitations in coverage are just glaringly obvious, IMO. I do think he could be a replacement for D'Qwell Jackson, but not an improvement, so that doesn't really excite me. To me, there isn't a great difference between Ragland and Tyler Matakevich, who will probably be a 3rd or 4th rounder (basically the next Chris Borland, and not just because he's white). So why use #18 on that guy?

 

This, of course, comes down to a fundamental difference of opinion, which is basically about what Ragland is and what he will become. None of us knows, and I hope I'm just blinded to his potential and all my problems with him are exaggerated, especially if the Colts draft him. But I just don't see anything more than a 2 down thumper in the NFL, which is just what he was at Alabama.

Back to my disclaimer...I don't do player evaluations.  

 

I can see where he may have limited skills to turn and run with backs and TE's in man coverage, but I don't know that we'll ask our MIKE to do that very much.  I'd sure hope that we don't single him up without safety help on a back split wide like the Bronchos did with Trevathan (which almost exposed Trevathan), but I don't think he has to do that in order to stay on the field on 3rd down.  I think we'd like our WILL to be able to do that, but I don't think our MIKE has to.  It's easy to say that Ragland is no better than DQ simply because he can't turn and run in man coverage, but it overlooks everything else that he does so much better than DQ can do to be disruptive in space - and probably the phone booth as well.  

 

I haven't watched all of the ILB prospects, but Ragland is a lot more active and productive than the Rd. 2-4 prospects that I've watched.  He isn't my first choice at 18, and I think he will either be off the board by then or that there will be another player who is BPA at that point - but I'll have no disappointment if he is selected.

 

There is enough talent at premium positions likely to go outside the top 10 - Robinson and Rankins at DT, Floyd and Lawson at EDGE, Apple and Jackson III at CB, Conklin at OT.  Hard not to see one of those guys being there at 18 - but if they go with production, and choose Ragland, its probably a great building block move for the D long term.  I'd rather have Ragland than Floyd, for the record, but everyone else on that list trumps Ragland for me.

[Defjamz26]

14 minutes ago, ztboiler said:

Back to my disclaimer...I don't do player evaluations.  

 

I can see where he may have limited skills to turn and run with backs and TE's in man coverage, but I don't know that we'll ask our MIKE to do that very much.  I'd sure hope that we don't single him up without safety help on a back split wide like the Bronchos did with Trevathan (which almost exposed Trevathan), but I don't think he has to do that in order to stay on the field on 3rd down.  I think we'd like our WILL to be able to do that, but I don't think our MIKE has to.  It's easy to say that Ragland is no better than DQ simply because he can't turn and run in man coverage, but it overlooks everything else that he does so much better than DQ can do to be disruptive in space - and probably the phone booth as well.  

 

I haven't watched all of the ILB prospects, but Ragland is a lot more active and productive than the Rd. 2-4 prospects that I've watched.  He isn't my first choice at 18, and I think he will either be off the board by then or that there will be another player who is BPA at that point - but I'll have no disappointment if he is selected.

 

There is enough talent at premium positions likely to go outside the top 10 - Robinson and Rankins at DT, Floyd and Lawson at EDGE, Apple and Jackson III at CB, Conklin at OT.  Hard not to see one of those guys being there at 18 - but if they go with production, and choose Ragland, its probably a great building block move for the D long term.  I'd rather have Ragland than Floyd, for the record, but everyone else on that list trumps Ragland for me.

 

Thats always been my thing. I always though in a 3-4, you typically have 1 guy who (WILL) who is the coverage LB. That's how it was with Freeman. D'Qwell was the Mike. Freeman just wasn't that good in coverage. But I think Sio Moore would be better in coverage. If not you move Geathers into the dime LB spot and line him up on whoever is in the spot.

 

But that's also why you draft a guy like Leonard Floyd, Kyler Fackrell, Shilique Calhoun, etc... to be able to drop in coverage on third and long as OLBs. You could also run Cover-zero and just match your safeties up man-to-man. It really depends on the situation and who you have on your roster.

 

I don't see any reason why Ragland would need to cover more than RBs coming out of the backfield. And he can do at least that.

 

But I think Superman has said in the past that he considers what we are suggesting as "scheming to make up for his weaknesses ".

[Superman]

45 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

 

But I think Superman has said in the past that he considers what we are suggesting as "scheming to make up for his weaknesses ".

 

That's where I was going. I think ILBs have to cover, Mike, Will or otherwise. It's not that hard for an OC to single out the player in the middle of the field. If you have that guy on your defense, you should scheme around his weaknesses.

 

What I disagree with is minimizing those weaknesses for a player you're evaluating because 'we can scheme around it!' If you feel like his pluses outweigh his minuses, that's fine. No prospect is perfect... Tunsil is a little smaller than you'd like; Ramsey is a little tight and awkward; Jack has injury; Bosa isn't explosive, etc. Ragland can't cover, but if you feel he's so good at everything else, then that might make up for it. I don't feel that way, but that's just me.

 

And specific to the Colts, they suck at covering the middle of the field. Adding another ILB who I feel won't be good covering the middle of the field seems like a bad idea.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, ztboiler said:

There is enough talent at premium positions likely to go outside the top 10 - Robinson and Rankins at DT, Floyd and Lawson at EDGE, Apple and Jackson III at CB, Conklin at OT.  Hard not to see one of those guys being there at 18 - but if they go with production, and choose Ragland, its probably a great building block move for the D long term.  I'd rather have Ragland than Floyd, for the record, but everyone else on that list trumps Ragland for me.

 

I agree with all of this. I think Floyd has no position in the NFL. He's like a lesser Barkevious Mingo. Apple might be a reach at #18. But I'd rather have most of those guys than Ragland. Rankins and Lawson are kind of my favorites. 

[krunk]

21 hours ago, ztboiler said:

I had some assumptions about the player Ragland is based on limited Bama watching, body type and athletic measurables.  Like you, I see zero reason to draft a 2 down run stopper in the first few rounds.  However, I finally watched a few Draft Breakdown games on Ragland and I see him as a very different player than I thought he was.  

 

I saw a 3 down player at the next level.  I saw a guy that looked very active and instinctive dropping into coverage, and who was unusually disruptive playing in space.  He even shows more sideline to sideline pursuit range than I expected.  He also does what you would expect an elite run stopper to do, of course.  He is physical enough to take on blocks, yet nimble enough to anticipate and avoid them.  His hand usage to stay on his feet and stay in the play is amazing.

 

I don't do player evaluations....but I'd love to have him as an immediate DQ upgrade.  We'd still be looking for an athletic WILL, unless Moore or Irving are the answer, of course, but I see nothing wrong with using pick 18 to shore up the MIKE role for the next 10 years.

 

That play against Arkansas where he read Hunter Henrys route late coming out of the play action and still stuck with him enough down the field to break up the pass I'm not sure if Bobby Wagner or Danny Trevathan( name some other coverage linebacker) would have done any better with the play to be honest.  I do think he has some coverage limitations but the severity is overblown for the most part. He makes enough plays in the passing game where you're not shaking in your boots if he's out there.  Is he some kind of pure coverage linebacker? No, but he's not super horrible either.   I think at the very least what you get with Ragland is Donte Hightower and I'd take that.  Also agree that you will need a Jamie Collins type of coverage linebacker as well.

[Two_pound]

Remember Grigson threw away the 6th rouind pick on Moore and he can't even get on the field. I like Grigson, but he needs to stop trading picks for marginal, fringe players. You can find great players in rounds 5-7. Polian was a master at it,Grigson not so much, though the 5th and 6th rounders from the 2014 draft were decent players they got booted from the team for off field issues. Last year Parry and Good made contributions.

[2006Coltsbestever]

Cant wait for next Thursday when we finally make our pick and to read everyone's reactions regarding our pick. I will be fine if we take a Pass Rusher/LB of any kind or a Center. If we take Ryan Kelly at 18 I will be ok with it or Leonard Floyd. Some people are down on both but it's a crapshoot. Both could end up being Great or Average? We don't know as of now in reality. Same for Ragland and Conklin both could be Great or Average. I have noticed several in here aren't big on Ragland. Why is that? He looks like he will be able to ball out on the Pro-Level just as much as anyone else we may Draft at 18.

[Carlos Danger]

Jordan Jenkins is severely underrated by most draft sites, imo. If you watch Floyd's highlights, you see Jenkins being doubled constantly and still disrupting the play, often herding the qb right into Floyd's arms... 

 

I don't like Ragland at #18, but I can get on board with the rest of the draft, for the most part.

 

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

Just now, Carlos Danger said:

Jordan Jenkins is severely underrated by most draft sites, imo. If you watch Floyd's highlights, you see Jenkins being doubled constantly and still disrupting the play, often herding the qb right into Floyd's arms... 

 

I don't like Ragland at #18, but I can get on board with the rest of the draft, for the most part.

 

 

Jenkins is Good. I agree.

[Gavin]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

That's where I was going. I think ILBs have to cover, Mike, Will or otherwise. It's not that hard for an OC to single out the player in the middle of the field. If you have that guy on your defense, you should scheme around his weaknesses.

 

What I disagree with is minimizing those weaknesses for a player you're evaluating because 'we can scheme around it!' If you feel like his pluses outweigh his minuses, that's fine. No prospect is perfect... Tunsil is a little smaller than you'd like; Ramsey is a little tight and awkward; Jack has injury; Bosa isn't explosive, etc. Ragland can't cover, but if you feel he's so good at everything else, then that might make up for it. I don't feel that way, but that's just me.

 

And specific to the Colts, they suck at covering the middle of the field. Adding another ILB who I feel won't be good covering the middle of the field seems like a bad idea.

Not trying to get involved in this particular debate here but I could not help but notice you said Bosa was not explosive and it raised my eyebrows a bit. While if we are comparing him to lets say Dwight Freeney or fill in your favorite speed rusher here then no I would say he is not explosive but if we are comparing him to fill in your favorite 3 tech Gap Penetrator here with a few exceptions....(Aaron Donald immediately comes to mind) then I'd say he ranks with some of the best in terms of just pure acceleration off the ball. Anyway I'd be plenty satisfied if we didn't draft an ILB

[2006Coltsbestever]

6 minutes ago, Gavin said:

Not trying to get involved in this particular debate here but I could not help but notice you said Bosa was not explosive and it raised my eyebrows a bit. While if we are comparing him to lets say Dwight Freeney or fill in your favorite speed rusher here then no I would say he is not explosive but if we are comparing him to fill in your favorite 3 tech Gap Penetrator here with a few exceptions....(Aaron Donald immediately comes to mind) then I'd say he ranks with some of the best in terms of just pure acceleration off the ball. Anyway I'd be plenty satisfied if we didn't draft an ILB

I don't think Bosa will be dominant as in a Top 5 pick dominant. He will probably be Good so I don't want to dis him too much but his combine speed wasn't that good. Is the combine speed everything, not really but it is important to guys like him that play that position. Not being a homer but he doesn't look anywhere near as fast as Freeney or Mathis have in their career's.

[Defjamz26]

3 hours ago, Superman said:

 

That's where I was going. I think ILBs have to cover, Mike, Will or otherwise. It's not that hard for an OC to single out the player in the middle of the field. If you have that guy on your defense, you should scheme around his weaknesses.

 

What I disagree with is minimizing those weaknesses for a player you're evaluating because 'we can scheme around it!' If you feel like his pluses outweigh his minuses, that's fine. No prospect is perfect... Tunsil is a little smaller than you'd like; Ramsey is a little tight and awkward; Jack has injury; Bosa isn't explosive, etc. Ragland can't cover, but if you feel he's so good at everything else, then that might make up for it. I don't feel that way, but that's just me.

 

And specific to the Colts, they suck at covering the middle of the field. Adding another ILB who I feel won't be good covering the middle of the field seems like a bad idea.

That's fair. I guess it comes down to preference. I can see why the staff likes Ragland. He may not be my first choice but it's an easy pick to defend should they make it. I don't think you can dismiss him just for not being great in coverage.

 

I think if you sit around and wait for a true dual threat LB you'll be waiting forever. Or at least the Colts will. Those guys are rare, and get drafted early when they are available. There's two guys like that in this draft (Jack and Smith) but they've got injury concerns. Ragland can be a 10 year starter with pro-bowl level performances.

[Gavin]

29 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I don't think Bosa will be dominant as in a Top 5 pick dominant. He will probably be Good so I don't want to dis him too much but his combine speed wasn't that good. Is the combine speed everything, not really but it is important to guys like him that play that position. Not being a homer but he doesn't look anywhere near as fast as Freeney or Mathis have in their career's.

He shouldn't look anywhere near as fast, Those projecting him as a 43 DE are projecting him into the wrong position. He is either a 34 DE, 1 Tech Nose and 3 Tech in a 43. Maybe some 5 tech in a 34. He isn't Freeney or Mathis. Freeney is 6'1" 268lbs, Bosa is 6'5" 270lbs, Mathis is 6'2" 245lbs. Both Freeney and Mathis are built completely different then Bosa

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, Gavin said:

He shouldn't look anywhere near as fast, Those projecting him as a 43 DE are projecting him into the wrong position. He is either a 34 DE, 1 Tech Nose and 3 Tech in a 43. Maybe some 5 tech in a 34. He isn't Freeney or Mathis. Freeney is 6'1" 268lbs, Bosa is 6'5" 270lbs, Mathis is 6'2" 245lbs. Both Freeney and Mathis are built completely different then Bosa

I agree but I guess my main point is neither Freeney or Mathis went in the Top 10. Some have Bosa going #2, Top 5 at worse. I am just not sure he will live up to that?

[Gavin]

4 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I agree but I guess my main point is neither Freeney or Mathis went in the Top 10. Some have Bosa going #2, Top 5 at worse. I am just not sure he will live up to that?

Ill say this and leave at that: Bosa will probably be a multiple time Pro Bowler and maybe even All Pro(He is that good) but he wont be Aaron Donald great. I would not want to see Bosa twice a year once he settles into the NFL

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

3 minutes ago, Gavin said:

Ill say this and leave at that: Bosa will probably be a multiple time Pro Bowler and maybe even All Pro(He is that good) but he wont be Aaron Donald great

 

This is the first year I have Posted here and I have taken in so many opinions on who people think will be Great or a Bust. It will be interesting to see who ends up right and wrong. I love Leonard Floyd and Ogbah but many don't for example. With the Draft you just never know. I think Bosa will be Good, as far as All-Pro - I don't know about that??

[Superman]

1 hour ago, Gavin said:

Not trying to get involved in this particular debate here but I could not help but notice you said Bosa was not explosive and it raised my eyebrows a bit. While if we are comparing him to lets say Dwight Freeney or fill in your favorite speed rusher here then no I would say he is not explosive but if we are comparing him to fill in your favorite 3 tech Gap Penetrator here with a few exceptions....(Aaron Donald immediately comes to mind) then I'd say he ranks with some of the best in terms of just pure acceleration off the ball. Anyway I'd be plenty satisfied if we didn't draft an ILB

 

Why would I compare an edge rusher to a 3 tech? 

[Superman]

4 hours ago, krunk said:

 

That play against Arkansas where he read Hunter Henrys route late coming out of the play action and still stuck with him enough down the field to break up the pass 

 

He didn't stick with him. He got beat, and if the ball wasn't underthrown that's a TD.

[Dustin]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

He didn't stick with him. He got beat, and if the ball wasn't underthrown that's a TD.

 

Lol I was just about to say

[Superman]

1 minute ago, Dustin said:

 

Lol I was just about to say

 

If I weren't on mobile I'd post a gif...

[Dustin]

6 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

 

Thats always been my thing. I always though in a 3-4, you typically have 1 guy who (WILL) who is the coverage LB. That's how it was with Freeman. D'Qwell was the Mike. Freeman just wasn't that good in coverage. But I think Sio Moore would be better in coverage. If not you move Geathers into the dime LB spot and line him up on whoever is in the spot.

 

But that's also why you draft a guy like Leonard Floyd, Kyler Fackrell, Shilique Calhoun, etc... to be able to drop in coverage on third and long as OLBs. You could also run Cover-zero and just match your safeties up man-to-man. It really depends on the situation and who you have on your roster.

 

I don't see any reason why Ragland would need to cover more than RBs coming out of the backfield. And he can do at least that.

 

But I think Superman has said in the past that he considers what we are suggesting as "scheming to make up for his weaknesses ".

 

The question then becomes why you would use a 1st round pick on that type of player. Ragland gets the annual Alabama bump, but in reality is he any better than Denzell Perryman who was a 2nd round pick last year?

[Traines]

41 minutes ago, Dustin said:

 

The question then becomes why you would use a 1st round pick on that type of player. Ragland gets the annual Alabama bump, but in reality is he any better than Denzell Perryman who was a 2nd round pick last year?

Boom! 

[krunk]

54 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

He didn't stick with him. He got beat, and if the ball wasn't underthrown that's a TD.

My point was I don't think Wagner or Trevathan would have done any better on that one.

[Traines]

54 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

He didn't stick with him. He got beat, and if the ball wasn't underthrown that's a TD.

I'm almost positive they called pass interference on Ragland as well

[Defjamz26]

41 minutes ago, Dustin said:

 

The question then becomes why you would use a 1st round pick on that type of player. Ragland gets the annual Alabama bump, but in reality is he any better than Denzell Perryman who was a 2nd round pick last year?

 

I think he's better. Perryman was also like 5'10" officially, so everyone figured he couldn't run with TEs anyways. Ragland might not hit as hard but I feel he's better in the box. Perryman wasn't great at shedding blocks either. And he ran super slow at the combine

 

If Perryman were 6'1" and ran better, he would have been a first round pick. But Ragland has more upside. His lack of coverage ability is blown out of proportion. Perryman literally had no coverage ability.

 

But again the perfect, ideal 3-4 Mike is hard to find so some times you have to accept guys for what they are. We can pass on Ragland who isn't amazing in coverage, or get Lee who can't tackle. Or we can go with fan favorite Deion Jones and try and make him fit. 

[Superman]

9 minutes ago, krunk said:

My point was I don't think Wagner or Trevathan would have done any better on that one.

 

I disagree, especially about Wagner. Everybody gets beat some time, but Wagner is one of the best cover LBs in the game.

[krunk]

9 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I disagree, especially about Wagner. Everybody gets beat some time, but Wagner is one of the best cover LBs in the game.

That ain't what I saw with Wagner in the Super Bowl. Straight up scortched by Gronk one on one for a touchdown. That wasn't even a play action pass or anything where he could have read the play wrong.  I believe he was even playing off coverage at that. Could be wrong, although I do agree he can cover.  I just don't believe Wagner or Trevathan would have been any closer on the Ragland play than Ragland was.

[Superman]

10 minutes ago, krunk said:

That ain't what I saw with Wagner in the Super Bowl. Straight up scortched by Gronk one on one for a touchdown. That wasn't even a play action pass or anything where he could have read the play wrong.  I believe he was even playing off coverage at that. Could be wrong.

 

Wagner is one of the best cover LBs in the game. 

[Defjamz26]

37 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Wagner is one of the best cover LBs in the game. 

And still got torched by Gronk (although everyone does). I think his point is that coverage LB's aren't invincible. Especially when teams figure out how to run pick plays without getting caught which several teams do

 

Teams can scheme around them. Having athletic coverage capable LBs doesn't automatically mean you own the middle of the field. It helps but it's more about X's and O's than player ability sometimes.

[Gavin]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Why would I compare an edge rusher to a 3 tech? 

You didn't but some seem to think he is an edge rusher and I just dont get why unless Im not understanding and they mean edge defender (which they should clarify if that thats the case). Anyway he can play up and down the line in my opinion but best used as a 3 Tech or 1 Tech in a 34. He could probably play some 5 Tech as well

[Superman]

5 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

And still got torched by Gronk (although everyone does). I think his point is that coverage LB's aren't invincible. Especially when teams figure out how to run pick plays without getting caught which several teams do

 

Teams can scheme around them. Having athletic coverage capable LBs doesn't automatically mean you own the middle of the field. It helps but it's more about X's and O's than player ability sometimes.

 

I'm not asking for an ILB who can cover Gronk. We already know the answer to that. I'm asking for an ILB who isn't a liability in coverage every week. Especially if we're spending a relatively high first rounder on him.

 

It's more about Jimmy's and Joe's than X's and O's. I don't remember who said it, but that's a fundamental truth. The better your players are... well, I don't really think I need to say it.

[Superman]

5 hours ago, Gavin said:

You didn't but some seem to think he is an edge rusher and I just dont get why unless Im not understanding and they mean edge defender (which they should clarify if that thats the case). Anyway he can play up and down the line in my opinion but best used as a 3 Tech or 1 Tech in a 34. He could probably play some 5 Tech as well

 

Gavin... you're awesome, lol.

 

Absolutely NO ONE is looking at Bosa as a 3 tech or 1 tech. He's an edge defender. If he were 20-25 pounds bigger, he'd be a great interior DL. As it stands, he's a 4-3 DE / 3-4 OLB. Aaron Donald was 'undersized' at 285. You want Bosa to play interior DL at 270? And he's a first rounder?

 

Preston Smith, Kony Ealy, Ziggy Ansah, Datone Jones, Chris Long, etc... Bjoern Werner was 6'3, 266 at the Combine. These are edge defenders. Bosa is comparable to them all. Not to interior DL.

[Gavin]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Gavin... you're awesome, lol.

 

Absolutely NO ONE is looking at Bosa as a 3 tech or 1 tech. He's an edge defender. If he were 20-25 pounds bigger, he'd be a great interior DL. As it stands, he's a 4-3 DE / 3-4 OLB. Aaron Donald was 'undersized' at 285. You want Bosa to play interior DL at 270? And he's a first rounder?

 

Preston Smith, Kony Ealy, Ziggy Ansah, Datone Jones, Chris Long, etc... Bjoern Werner was 6'3, 266 at the Combine. These are edge defenders. Bosa is comparable to them all. Not to interior DL.

Meh your right. The more I think about it I envision him like Micheal Bennet of the Seahawks

[rock8591]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I'm not asking for an ILB who can cover Gronk. We already know the answer to that. I'm asking for an ILB who isn't a liability in coverage every week. Especially if we're spending a relatively high first rounder on him.

 

It's more about Jimmy's and Joe's than X's and O's. I don't remember who said it, but that's a fundamental truth. The better your players are... well, I don't really think I need to say it.

 

Shoot, Jamie Collins, top 5 OLB in the game right now got torched by a 34 year old Owen Daniels in the conference championship.

 

Anyone can beat anyone any day.

[ztboiler]

On 4/22/2016 at 11:30 AM, Superman said:

 

I agree with all of this. I think Floyd has no position in the NFL. He's like a lesser Barkevious Mingo. Apple might be a reach at #18. But I'd rather have most of those guys than Ragland. Rankins and Lawson are kind of my favorites. 

With Ragland falling out of the first, you were right in your evaluation and perspective - at least in perceived value as a 2 down player by the league.  

 

If the league thought he was a 3 down Mike, he'd have been picked by the middle of the first round, and certainly by the Packers at 27 if nothing else.

 

I don't think it was the late medical report, though some may.