Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 12 of 34

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Westminster - Raventown, MD!
    Posts
    13,064
    Blog Entries
    1

    Round 4 - Reaches?



    Ok, this was a weird draft for me...I didn't do a ton of research before hand and I wasn't around for...ANY of the draft really (just got the family back from Disney last week).

    Let me start by saying I liked our draft as a Solid, Not Spectacular one. Upshaw was the only "exciting" pick. Everything else was just good value to plug holes. Most sites seem to say KO should be able to start at OG and Pierce was a good RB choice. Streeter was a good sleeper pick, our 7th round DT was kind've a throwaway as most 7th rounders are, and the Cal Poly CB should be a good returner...

    But Thompson and Gradkowski, our Round 4 picks, are being labeled among the big reaches by DraftCountdown.com. I knew Gradkowski was a bit of a reach...heck, GRADKOWSKI HIMSELF was taken back by the early pick, he wasn't even paying attention to the draft yet (http://www.delawareonline.com/articl...ext%7CHome%7Cs). Didn't think Thompson was a big reach, but he was taken before Iloka, who was widely considered the 2nd best FS in the draft.

    So, what do people think of these two? I've seen good scouting reports on both which say that Gradkowski just needs seasoning at C but could be a starter in time, while Thompson is listed as a good rangy ST who could become a serviceable starter in time. But I've also seen that Gradkowski was graded as a 6th or 7th rounder, while Thompson was graded around 6th round.

    Do you think we reached for these two need picks?
    .
    .
    “When I think of a Baltimore Raven - we go in there, we take your lunch box, we take your sandwich, we take your juice box, we take your applesauce, and we take your spork and we break it. And we leave you with an empty lunch. That’s the Baltimore Raven way.” - Steve Smith Sr.


    Call me a Special Teams coach again. I dare you! I double dare you, MFer!




  2. #2

    Re: Round 4 - Reaches?

    Quote Originally Posted by RavenScallywag View Post
    Ok, this was a weird draft for me...I didn't do a ton of research before hand and I wasn't around for...ANY of the draft really (just got the family back from Disney last week).

    Let me start by saying I liked our draft as a Solid, Not Spectacular one. Upshaw was the only "exciting" pick. Everything else was just good value to plug holes. Most sites seem to say KO should be able to start at OG and Pierce was a good RB choice. Streeter was a good sleeper pick, our 7th round DT was kind've a throwaway as most 7th rounders are, and the Cal Poly CB should be a good returner...

    But Thompson and Gradkowski, our Round 4 picks, are being labeled among the big reaches by DraftCountdown.com. I knew Gradkowski was a bit of a reach...heck, GRADKOWSKI HIMSELF was taken back by the early pick, he wasn't even paying attention to the draft yet (http://www.delawareonline.com/articl...ext%7CHome%7Cs). Didn't think Thompson was a big reach, but he was taken before Iloka, who was widely considered the 2nd best FS in the draft.

    So, what do people think of these two? I've seen good scouting reports on both which say that Gradkowski just needs seasoning at C but could be a starter in time, while Thompson is listed as a good rangy ST who could become a serviceable starter in time. But I've also seen that Gradkowski was graded as a 6th or 7th rounder, while Thompson was graded around 6th round.

    Do you think we reached for these two need picks?
    You know what they say about opinions....

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...30/mmqb/1.html

    Trade-down of the weekend: Baltimore trading 29 overall for 35 and 98 overall. In this business, you have to know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em. Ozzie Newsome does. The Ravens had crushes on two players late in the first round -- Dont'a Hightower and Kevin Zeitler. The cost to trade up from 29 was too steep, the Ravens thought, and so they dealt back six spots with Minnesota and got the guy who even the dumbest mock- and real-drafters had in the first round, Alabama's Courtney Upshaw, at 35. At 98 comes Delaware guard Gino Gradkowski, who could transition to a long-term center (and successor to Matt Birk). When I called around over the weekend asking for players GMs and coaches liked, the brother of Bruce Gradkowski came up a few times, and he'll have the chance to solve a long-term problem for a gritty offensive team.




  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    over by the dental floss bush
    Posts
    15,342
    Blog Entries
    1
    Yeah they were praising it on SiriusNFL today. Time will tell
    World Domination 3 Points at a Time!




  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pasadena
    Posts
    9,150
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Round 4 - Reaches?

    If Gradkowski ends up starting at center, it won't be a reach.




  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,927
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Round 4 - Reaches?

    Quote Originally Posted by RavenScallywag View Post
    Ok, this was a weird draft for me...I didn't do a ton of research before hand and I wasn't around for...ANY of the draft really (just got the family back from Disney last week).

    Let me start by saying I liked our draft as a Solid, Not Spectacular one. Upshaw was the only "exciting" pick. Everything else was just good value to plug holes. Most sites seem to say KO should be able to start at OG and Pierce was a good RB choice. Streeter was a good sleeper pick, our 7th round DT was kind've a throwaway as most 7th rounders are, and the Cal Poly CB should be a good returner...

    But Thompson and Gradkowski, our Round 4 picks, are being labeled among the big reaches by DraftCountdown.com. I knew Gradkowski was a bit of a reach...heck, GRADKOWSKI HIMSELF was taken back by the early pick, he wasn't even paying attention to the draft yet (http://www.delawareonline.com/articl...ext%7CHome%7Cs). Didn't think Thompson was a big reach, but he was taken before Iloka, who was widely considered the 2nd best FS in the draft.

    So, what do people think of these two? I've seen good scouting reports on both which say that Gradkowski just needs seasoning at C but could be a starter in time, while Thompson is listed as a good rangy ST who could become a serviceable starter in time. But I've also seen that Gradkowski was graded as a 6th or 7th rounder, while Thompson was graded around 6th round.
    Do you think we reached for these two need picks?
    Here's why I'll say NO. The Ravens chose Gradkowski @ #98 (3rd pick in 4th round) knowing Ben Jones and Philip Blake (who were both drafted soon thereafter) were still available. Chris Thompson was chosen 37 picks prior to George Iloka. So I must believe that the Ravens picked their guys with a purpose. They didn't make a mistake, they just rated GG and CT higher than the other well known names... Bc




  6. #6

    Re: Round 4 - Reaches?

    Quote Originally Posted by BcRaven View Post
    Here's why I'll say NO. The Ravens chose Gradkowski @ #98 (3rd pick in 4th round) knowing Ben Jones and Philip Blake (who were both drafted soon thereafter) were still available. Chris Thompson was chosen 37 picks prior to George Iloka. So I must believe that the Ravens picked their guys with a purpose. They didn't make a mistake, they just rated GG and CT higher than the other well known names... Bc
    Well put, i'll also say they took two guys that seem to have alot more upside then the popular picks at their respective positions...Gradkowski is said to be very athletic on top of being a smart and physical player....Thompson has nice size and measurables and has physical mentality, he certaintly seem to have FS ability but also SS toughness




  7. #7

    Re: Round 4 - Reaches?

    Reaches cause they went to smaller schools?
    Ravens have a few starters from smaller schools
    Flacco, Webb, Williams, Birk and in the past Scott and Chester Taylor.
    Tons of great players went to small schools vJax, TO, Phil
    Simms the list can go on forever. Locally Megget,Bushrod, Raymond Chester, Bruce Laird.




  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    OC. MD.
    Posts
    379

    Re: Round 4 - Reaches?

    I am more inclined to believe that in the fourth they got EXACTLY who they targeted. And they believed that if they did not choose these players then , neither would be there in the fith. I could be completely off base. But here is my logic.

    It has come out that Reed has taken a special interest in Thompson. Apparently he has been working with the kid this off season. Also there are rumors that the Ravens had Gradkowski as the highest rated center on their board. Along with a few other teams. If I am correct, didn't a run on centers start shortly after their pick? Anyway...... With the way that players were flying off their boards I think that taking these guys in the fourth was probably the smart thing to do.

    With my logic, I hardly see either pick as a reach. More like a well timed calculated move to get two specific targets.

    Now with having to take these two guys in the fourth. I think they may have missed out on higher ranked players on their boards at the returner and WR positions. Clearly they were hoping for a different receiver, however, I think they got great value with Streeter in the sixth. And personally I think that Asa may be a blessing in disguise in the fith.

    Another specific target was in the third. They traded up to make sure they got Pierce. And from what I understand that was not even close to a reach. Actually many proclaim that pick as a value pick.
    All in all I would say that they got three specific targets. Pierce, Thompson, Gradkowski
    First pick they got Upshaw that maybe wasnt higest on their board of possible targets. But I find it hard to believe he wasnt in their top 4 or 5. I would call it a score.
    I think they maybe settled a bit with KO. But not much.
    That would leave Asa, Streeter, and Tyson.. And most would consider Asa and Streeter as being very good value.

    Anyway... that is my take and i see narry a reach in this draft class.




  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    "Merry old England"
    Posts
    9,236
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Round 4 - Reaches?

    When Pittsburgh, Tennessee, and the Colts all rate him as the best center in the draft it's not a reach to get him in the 4th round. At the end of the day, I'm trusting the Ravens board over media websites who think they are "draft experts". It's like the Bruce Irvin pick, what people fail to realise, is that the Jets even rang the Seahawks after that pick to curse them out. We may watch clips on youtube, or watch them on Sturday nights during the season, but at the end of the day teams have coaches tape of these players and know way more than any of us or any draft expert know about them.




  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    23,277
    Florio said it best.

    "Reaches" is a media term, used by people who can't wrap their head around the fact their mock draft board got blowed the eff up.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  11. #11

    Re: Round 4 - Reaches?

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Florio said it best.

    "Reaches" is a media term, used by people who can't wrap their head around the fact their mock draft board got blowed the eff up.
    “Talk's cheap - let’s go play.” - #19, Johnny Unitas

    Follow me on Twitter @ravenssalarycap




  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,179
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Round 4 - Reaches?

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Florio said it best.

    "Reaches" is a media term, used by people who can't wrap their head around the fact their mock draft board got blowed the eff up.
    Quote Originally Posted by B-more Ravor View Post
    to the

    They interviewed DeCosta on the Fan this morning and he basically confirmed the notion that their board was getting blown up. He said that the players they liked were all getting picked and everyone ahead of them seemed to share the same needs as they did.

    He later coupled that idea to his answer to another question about taking players from smaller schools. He said that they had asked their scouts to dig deeper on small school guys (ie, Delaware, S. Carolina State, Cal Poly) because the league as a whole is getting better at scouting, making it harder to target "gems", and therefore forcing them to go to new extremes to find players. He used the metaphor of the main talent pool drying up this year, so they were forced to go to the shallower waters to find players.

    He also noted that the players they have had success with from small schools often were recruited by bigger schools and transferred for one reason or another to a smaller school -- notably Flacco (Pitt) and Webb (So. Miss). This is the case with a couple of the small school guys they selected this year: Gradkowski (UWV) and Thompson (Auburn).

    DeCosta admitted that they didn't know where to grade Gradkowski -- they thought somewhere in the fourth or fifth round. But they felt nervous about losing him, and when other players they liked came off the board, they went ahead and used the pick on a player they liked. So from that sense, maybe you can call it a reach.

    Look, once a player has been in the league for a couple years no one ever brings up the concept of whether he should have gone ten or fifteen picks lower in the draft. If Gradkowski becomes a fourth rounder who goes on to start for the team for a number of years, like Jarrett Johnson, no one will ever look back and say, "yeah, but they could have waited until the fifth round back in 2012 to take him."

    And if he becomes a small-school, fourth-round offensive lineman who never amounts to anything, like David Hale, then no one will ever come back and say he was a reach--"they should have drafted him in the fifth or sixth round." No, he'll just be another fourth round player they missed on.

    That's why Florio is right that the idea of "reach" is a little overused.

    That said, if the team could have traded back and nabbed him fifteen picks later, and gotten an extra sixth rounder for their troubles (or if they could have stayed at the end of the third round to get Pierce, and kept that fifth round selection) then from that perspective they "overspent" on the picks. I think that is a more applicable term than "reach."




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland