• Welcome to PurpleFlock! Sign up here so that you can chat with your fellow Ravens fans.

2022 NFL Draft Gameday Thread

What position will the Ravens select with their first pick in the draft?

  • Total voters
    37
  • Poll closed .
RavensMania said:
I agree. Although I think he could be back in November, he certainly won't be 100% and he's just a rookie. I think anytime is a plus, but we probably will resign Justin Houston. I also believe we bring in a veteran for the room, because all of our guys on on rookie deals. Would be good to have a veteran in the room, even if he is a depth piece. We have to be prepared for injury in the WR room.
Click to expand...
I’m not banking on ojabo doing anything this year and I’m still more than ecstatic with the pick
 
Simba said:
Very interesting

Curious who else was on the board when we chose Likely. A slower WR and the only one between then and our 6th that fits that description was Kyle Philips. Only LBer picked early in the 5th was Micah McFadden, but then a host in the early 6th before our last pick.

Also the Spiller and White note was interesting. Seems like they weren’t pressed on those guys though if they wanted Kolar and Stout that bad. They got the big 3 plus the punter they wanted and then had to divert for the last 2. Not bad at all honestly.
Click to expand...

really interesting how EDC leaned on the rest of the room when the plan for the last 2 picks didnt come to pass the way they'd hoped
leaning on Harbs and Roman for Likely and leaning on David Blackburn for Damarion Williams

but yeah that note on Spiller and White is interesting - i figured those would be 2 guys we'd be targeting at some point - interesting how high they were on Kolar
 
Simba said:
Reading that article and hearing them speak afterwards, I’m not sure they’re really viewing Likely as a TE. Sounds a lot like that guy is going to be playing more WR than anything. Not sure I see him in that light but it’s an interesting experiment.
Click to expand...

tells you how unenthused they were by the rest of the WR class
 
JoeyFlex5 said:
I’m not high on our day 3 for the same reason, double dipping at TE felt stupid, take a stab at literally any other position.
Click to expand...
I mean I can't really sit here and say there were day 3 prospects they passed on at Edge that I'd rather have, because I didn't do any scouting of those groups. I'm certainly not going to advocate drafting a position because you need the position, because that's a fantastic way to get a bad player at a position of need, and you're no better off.

The main reason I didn't like TE as much is because, stereotypically, they're going to be middle of the field guys. I'm fine with using 2 and 3 TE looks routinely, especially against a league where teams are shifting towards smaller linebackers to help in coverage, but I also hated how in the past we focused almost exclusively on attacking the middle of the field. I feel like our passing game has always been limited around the boundaries, and that needs to change.

Basically same critique as everybody else... no issues with day 1 or day 2, just would have liked to seen us address "needs" on day 3 more than we did perhaps.

Still some good players out there that we can bring in, of course.
 
rossihunter2 said:
tells you how unenthused they were by the rest of the WR class
Click to expand...
Also tells me (which I mentioned earlier this offseason) is that our talent evaluators may not view the draft the same way as others do.
Were told all offseason about how deep the WR and Edge classes were in this draft, and we come away with basically one, which is a guy who just tore his Achilles.

Might have been some lack of luck in terms of players we wanted being gone by the time we got there, but it was also hard to argue we didn't have the ability to move around the board and not wait for players, given the picks we had.
 
rossihunter2 said:
really interesting how EDC leaned on the rest of the room when the plan for the last 2 picks didnt come to pass the way they'd hoped
leaning on Harbs and Roman for Likely and leaning on David Blackburn for Damarion Williams

but yeah that note on Spiller and White is interesting - i figured those would be 2 guys we'd be targeting at some point - interesting how high they were on Kolar
Click to expand...
Yeah the Likely note was the most interesting. Basically said hey we just took a TE but this guy is one of the highest on the board... can you find a way to use him? I'm not fully convinced yet but if you wonder if they try to get him to drop a little weight.

And then not surprised at all on the last pick in Williams. Seems like that was a case of having limited players available that they liked by the end of the round, and then throwing it to a scout that really believes in a guy.
 
rossihunter2 said:
tells you how unenthused they were by the rest of the WR class
Click to expand...
And hard to blame them. I didn't like much by that point either. As I was going down my list as we were on that pick, Khalil Shakir was literally the only guy I would have even considered and I still wasn't enthused by him
 
rmcjacket23 said:
I mean I can't really sit here and say there were day 3 prospects they passed on at Edge that I'd rather have, because I didn't do any scouting of those groups. I'm certainly not going to advocate drafting a position because you need the position, because that's a fantastic way to get a bad player at a position of need, and you're no better off.

The main reason I didn't like TE as much is because, stereotypically, they're going to be middle of the field guys. I'm fine with using 2 and 3 TE looks routinely, especially against a league where teams are shifting towards smaller linebackers to help in coverage, but I also hated how in the past we focused almost exclusively on attacking the middle of the field. I feel like our passing game has always been limited around the boundaries, and that needs to change.

Basically same critique as everybody else... no issues with day 1 or day 2, just would have liked to seen us address "needs" on day 3 more than we did perhaps.

Still some good players out there that we can bring in, of course.
Click to expand...
I don’t advocating only taking a guy for need either, just feels like you should target higher value positions. TE just has such a limited value when you already have a dominant TE1, it’s not like other groups where you’re always gonna want another high end player.
 
JoeyFlex5 said:
I don’t advocating only taking a guy for need either, just feels like you should target higher value positions. TE just has such a limited value when you already have a dominant TE1, it’s not like other groups where you’re always gonna want another high end player.
Click to expand...
I'm fine with one. Andrews gets injured and a gigantic part of your offense goes away, and Boyle isn't great for that role.
No issue with adding another move TE. Two is probably a stretch though I agree with that.
 
Davesta said:
Steelers sniped Calvin Austin from us



profootballtalk.nbcsports.com

Steelers drafted Calvin Austin one pick before the Ravens would have

The Steelers scored a win over the Ravens on the third day of the 2022 NFL draft. Pittsburgh selected wide receiver Calvin Austin in the fourth round with the 138th overall pick, and the Ravens, wi…
profootballtalk.nbcsports.com
Click to expand...

So two things I'd say on this:
1. If you loved the guy, move up and get him. Don't just sit back and wait. It wouldn't cost much at all to get that player.
2. I'm not terribly disturbed by it, because frankly, the Steelers drafting another WR in round 4 makes no sense at all.
For a team that I think needs help on the Oline and at LB/back end of their defense, they did nothing there. They took two WRs in the first four rounds and a DT, on a team that already has Claypool and Johnson and "apparently" wants to become a run-heavy team again.
Was thoroughly unimpressed with the Steelers draft. Partially because I think Pickett is just going to be very pedestrian in this league, but mostly because they're taking luxury picks thinking that they're stacked everywhere else, which I don't see.
And while it may be a throwaway pick, I don't know why you use a 7th rounder on a QB, when you have Pickett and Trubisky as guaranteed roster spots, and even Mason Rudolph, who would be a servicable backup on a lot of teams.
Just makes no sense to me.
 
rmcjacket23 said:
I'm fine with one. Andrews gets injured and a gigantic part of your offense goes away, and Boyle isn't great for that role.
No issue with adding another move TE. Two is probably a stretch though I agree with that.
Click to expand...
I’ll clarify, I’m perfectly fine adding a TE, the double dip felt irresponsible though and I’m intrigued by likelys athletic profile but he wasn’t the kinda TE I felt was a steal there, which is the only justification I’d have for a double dip. Feels like there had to have been a prospect just below Likely that would’ve been much more valuable of a position.
 
rmcjacket23 said:
I mean I can't really sit here and say there were day 3 prospects they passed on at Edge that I'd rather have, because I didn't do any scouting of those groups. I'm certainly not going to advocate drafting a position because you need the position, because that's a fantastic way to get a bad player at a position of need, and you're no better off.

The main reason I didn't like TE as much is because, stereotypically, they're going to be middle of the field guys. I'm fine with using 2 and 3 TE looks routinely, especially against a league where teams are shifting towards smaller linebackers to help in coverage, but I also hated how in the past we focused almost exclusively on attacking the middle of the field. I feel like our passing game has always been limited around the boundaries, and that needs to change.

Basically same critique as everybody else... no issues with day 1 or day 2, just would have liked to seen us address "needs" on day 3 more than we did perhaps.

Still some good players out there that we can bring in, of course.
Click to expand...

from peter king's article, i get the sense there weren't any EDGEs left they liked - wasnt a discussion about EDGE at any of the picks
 
rossihunter2 said:
from peter king's article, i get the sense there weren't any EDGEs left they liked - wasnt a discussion about EDGE at any of the picks
Click to expand...
Yep it was specifically mentioned that the options were Likely, a slower WR, or 2 ILBs. Seems like that's where the discussions started and ended. Stayed true to their board.
 
JoeyFlex5 said:
I’ll clarify, I’m perfectly fine adding a TE, the double dip felt irresponsible though and I’m intrigued by likelys athletic profile but he wasn’t the kinda TE I felt was a steal there, which is the only justification I’d have for a double dip. Feels like there had to have been a prospect just below Likely that would’ve been much more valuable of a position.
Click to expand...

from that article it doesnt seem like it - a couple of LBs, a slow WR and Likely...
 
The more I think about it, the more I feel like Jameson Williams was our top target. We agreed on the Hollywood trade but demand it got kept hushed hushed so teams wouldn’t know we wanted a WR in the 1st round.

Kyle Hamilton was the fallback plan.

EDC did mention there was a couple of spots where they thought WR but they got sniped.. my guess is Jameson and, now confirmed, Calvin Austin
 
rossihunter2 said:
from peter king's article, i get the sense there weren't any EDGEs left they liked - wasnt a discussion about EDGE at any of the picks
Click to expand...
Right, which is just further evidence that what the media or how others scout these draft classes might not sync up with ours. Linderbaum was a guy that a lot of people assumed we wouldn't take because of scheme fit issues and body type.

Same here with Edge. Pretty shocking based on what we heard all offseason about this class that the Ravens basically had nobody on day 3 they liked (or liked enough to make a move to get).
 
rmcjacket23 said:
Right, which is just further evidence that what the media or how others scout these draft classes might not sync up with ours. Linderbaum was a guy that a lot of people assumed we wouldn't take because of scheme fit issues and body type.

Same here with Edge. Pretty shocking based on what we heard all offseason about this class that the Ravens basically had nobody on day 3 they liked (or liked enough to make a move to get).
Click to expand...
I mean, we know they play the game too. I believe EDC said they had 85 guys left on the board heading into day 3 but based on how things progressed, it seems like those earlier day 3 grades were much slimmer than say, the 6th or 7th round grades. When you have 180 draftable players and there are 262 picks, there are going to be some gaps and it seems like theirs was in that range.
 
Davesta said:
The more I think about it, the more I feel like Jameson Williams was our top target. We agreed on the Hollywood trade but demand it got kept hushed hushed so teams wouldn’t know we wanted a WR in the 1st round.

Kyle Hamilton was the fallback plan.

EDC did mention there was a couple of spots where they thought WR but they got sniped.. my guess is Jameson and, now confirmed, Calvin Austin
Click to expand...
Ehh, I'm not sure I buy it.
If Jameson Williams was the target, there's zero reason to think you can sit there at 14 and get him. Everybody and their mother could see the run on WR's coming from a mile away, especially when you get past the Carolina's of the world and they didn't take a QB.
Not to mention that the Eagles and Saints trading up to get WR's was expected for weeks now, given that they had the ammo and the need to do it. The Saints did it, and I actually think the Eagles got sniped when they traded up, because I think they wanted Williams and the Lions (pretty surprising move by them) just came up in front of them.

If Eric wanted Williams, he can't sit there and expect to get him. Also pretty obvious that Hamilton was extremely high on our board (Eric thought he'd go top 5) and that we were shocked to see him there at 14, so obviously we took him. Pretty sure Hamilton was higher on our board than Williams.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top