The 2014 Ravens Draft Thread

[wickedsolo]

You might have an argument for slants, but screens are not high velocity timing passes. You have to breakdown screen vs slant percentage.

I disagree. a WR bubble screen requires the QB turn and fire the ball out on time with a lot of velocity. If the pass is ill-timed or late then the play doesn't work because it allows more time for defenders to react.

In addition, it is human nature to want to look and see where you're going to run to, so concentration lapses are common on screen passes.

[JAB1985]

http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73...pid=16&yr=2011

for those interested, this is how these guys shaped out coming from HS.

WR
#4 Jarvis Landry 5 star
#5 sammy watkins 5 star
#12 Kelvin Benjamin 4 star
#40 Odell Beckham 4 star
#60 Brandon Cooks 3 star
#194 Mike Evans 3 star

safety
#3 Marquise Lee 4 star

I find it interesting to see where these guys were compared to where they are.

[BigPlayReceiver]

You might have an argument for slants, but screens are not high velocity timing passes. You have to breakdown screen vs slant percentage.

Screens are tricky b/c poor executed ones not only affect catch rate, they also affect YAC.

On slants though...if you are able to see the ball the entire flight, and the DB is 4 yards downfield and still in his backpedal, that should be a catch 19 out of 20 times. Poor passes, whether on slants or deep balls, are often subjectively not counted according to a few guys I've read/contacted.

[Rxdoxx]

There is a lot more room for error on deeper passes.

Plus the proximity of the receiver to the ball
Things like uncatchable ball are more apt to be said/seen 30+ yards down the field than on a quick out in the flat
So more throws will be considered to be in a player's catachable zone on short passes (less overthrows?)

[BigPlayReceiver]

I disagree. a WR bubble screen requires the QB turn and fire the ball out on time with a lot of velocity. If the pass is ill-timed or late then the play doesn't work because it allows more time for defenders to react.

In addition, it is human nature to want to look and see where you're going to run to, so concentration lapses are common on screen passes.

I can completely understand this, and it's where heavy subjectivity comes in.
Different players deal with different degrees of difficulty across the route tree. That's a lot of "d's", but one could apply the same notion to slants and crossing routes (i.e., failure to look to ball in before turning up field or the classic "hearing footsteps").

At any rate, it's always an interesting conversation to have, but I sure would like to find that baseline some day.

[Mizerooskie]

http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73...pid=16&yr=2011

for those interested, this is how these guys shaped out coming from HS.

WR
#4 Jarvis Landry 5 star
#5 sammy watkins 5 star
#12 Kelvin Benjamin 4 star
#40 Odell Beckham 4 star
#60 Brandon Cooks 3 star
#194 Mike Evans 3 star

safety
#3 Marquise Lee 4 star

I find it interesting to see where these guys were compared to where they are.

And Rivals, which I typically prefer:

WR
#3 Sammy Watkins 5 star
#4 Jarvis Landry 5 star
#6 Odell Beckham 4 star
#8 Kelvin Benjamin 4 star
#26 Brandin Cooks 4 star

ATH
#3 Marqise Lee 4 star
UR Mike Evans 3 star

For reference, Rivals typically has 25-30 5 star prospects, 4 stars fill out up to the 250-300 range, and the remaining FBS-caliber recruits are 3 star.

[bt12483]

I disagree. a WR bubble screen requires the QB turn and fire the ball out on time with a lot of velocity. If the pass is ill-timed or late then the play doesn't work because it allows more time for defenders to react.

In addition, it is human nature to want to look and see where you're going to run to, so concentration lapses are common on screen passes.

eh. I don't agree. I saw Peyton throw plenty lame screens to demaryius this year without much mustard or effort.

To me screens are all more about the blocking than the pass.

[bmorecareful]

I don't see any unpleasant surprises from the WR numbers other than maybe Jarvis Landry coming in 2 inches below his listed height (6'1 vs. 5'11) but I'm actually more than OK with that. I prefer 5'11 204 to 6'1 190--good weight is arguably more important than height in terms of getting off the jam, making contested catches, and producing in the red zone.

On that note, pay particular attention to receivers in the 5'10-6'1 range with thick, muscular builds. Sammy Watkins is definitely the prototype in that respect--just under 6'1 and 211lbs is in Boldinian territory in terms of good bulk (not that they're similar players at all.)

Kelvin Benjamin obviously wins the "most imposing" award with Evans a close second. I'm giving a silver star to Allen Robinson at 6'2 1/2 and 220lbs... I expected him to measure in at or under 6'2 and right around 205lbs. Very pleased to see that he bulked up a bit.

[Mizerooskie]

Any good sites keeping up well with measurements? Walter football seems behind.

[BcRaven]

Bc's sister-in-law measurements :

Site A = 5' 210 lbs.
Site B = 4' 11" 205 lbs.
Site C = 5' 1" 220 lbs.

Arm length = long enough to reach into Bc's pocket.

Foot speed = 4.5 "40" at the mall.

Strength = can carry a dozen BIG MACs, plus extra large fries, with one arm while gulping down 48 oz. Coke (no ice)... Bc

[bmorecareful]

Any good sites keeping up well with measurements? Walter football seems behind.

I'm trying to piece it together from a number of folks on Twitter.

On another note, Taylor Lewan evidently had a bizarre interview with the media and didn't really answer questions about his off-field stuff all that well. Bad body language and was smirking and chuckling the whole time.

[BigPlayReceiver]

I don't see any unpleasant surprises from the WR numbers other than maybe Jarvis Landry coming in 2 inches below his listed height (6'1 vs. 5'11) but I'm actually more than OK with that. I prefer 5'11 204 to 6'1 190--good weight is arguably more important than height in terms of getting off the jam, making contested catches, and producing in the red zone.

On that note, pay particular attention to receivers in the 5'10-6'1 range with thick, muscular builds. Sammy Watkins is definitely the prototype in that respect--just under 6'1 and 211lbs is in Boldinian territory in terms of good bulk (not that they're similar players at all.)

Kelvin Benjamin obviously wins the "most imposing" award with Evans a close second. I'm giving a silver star to Allen Robinson at 6'2 1/2 and 220lbs... I expected him to measure in at or under 6'2 and right around 205lbs. Very pleased to see that he bulked up a bit.

That is attractive, no doubt.
Will be very attractive if his speed and agility hold up.