BarleyNY Posted February 5, 2017 Posted February 5, 2017 (edited) I am confused as to why the vast majority of posters pencil Reggie Ragland into exclusively being a run thumper 3-4 type linebacker? I have to admit I did not watch him play at Alabama much, but at his workout for NFL teams I dug up that he ran a 4.62 and have read about his great instincts. Why would it be out of the question for him to be able to be a great sideline to sideline guy as well as coverage linebacker, imo 4.62 is very good speed for a backer playing any spot.Not sure where you see 4.62. Everything I see is that he ran a 4.72 forty. That's actually not that great as 4.8 is considered the minimum performance for LBs. In fact, he's near or below the minimum standards in many categories. Take a look at this breakdown as it has his metrics and notes minimums: http://firstmomentsjewelry.com/article/2016-nfl-draft-reggie-ragland-prospect-profile The other big concern of mine is that he played on an exceptionally talented Alabama defense. He was very well protected there and he wasn't exactly asked to do that much in coverage. I'm not saying he can't surprise me and become and all around LB, but I just don't think that's likely. He just looks like a 2 down thumper to me, but I'll be happy if I'm underestimating him. Here's the NFL.com profile that jibes with the first link: http://www.nfl.com/draft/2016/profiles/reggie-ragland?id=2555169 Comparing him to Luke Kuechly is crazy. Just look how he tested: http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/luke-kuechly?id=2533056 Edited February 5, 2017 by BarleyNY
Dragonborn10 Posted February 5, 2017 Posted February 5, 2017 Hope they get this done. Then they can franchise Gilmore and see if TT will rework his contract.
3rdand12 Posted February 5, 2017 Posted February 5, 2017 Ragland does NOT have the speed, But he does have the anticipation and moves to the play well. Having both Browns and Alexander and the "rookie" might have some advantages to be flexible. worse case Dareus can drop into coverage
billrooter Posted February 5, 2017 Posted February 5, 2017 (edited) I seen the 4.62 time at CBS.com under workout time, not combine time, I guess maybe he reran it at Alabama's pro day. I agree the Kuechly comparison is a stretch as he was pretty much thought of as a sure thing. I obviously hope he works out as well. Edited February 5, 2017 by billrooter
Alaska Darin Posted February 5, 2017 Posted February 5, 2017 Ragland reminds me of Spielman. His 40 time isn't going to matter much because he's a football player.
billrooter Posted February 6, 2017 Posted February 6, 2017 Ragland reminds me of Spielman. His 40 time isn't going to matter much because he's a football player. That is a great endorsement, one of my favorite players of all time, even back to college and I don't care for the buckeyes!! Man oh man I hope your right, anyone have that wheaties box?
dezertbill Posted February 6, 2017 Posted February 6, 2017 Smart move if they can get it done in the $5-$6M AAV range. Great fit for McDermott's D, and still young. It would really alleviate some of my worries about the LB position heading into 2017... Some... Agreed. But I think $4 mil per season can get it done.
DisplacedBillsFan Posted February 6, 2017 Posted February 6, 2017 We aren't going to have one, probably. Just like we won't have a Brady, or the best player at most positions. Hopefully his scheming will adjust for that difference? Trade for Kiko! The guy's a legend.
Formerly Allan in MD Posted February 6, 2017 Posted February 6, 2017 Hope they get this done. Then they can franchise Gilmore and see if TT will rework his contract. Why break the bank for that overrated CB? He can't/won't tackle and loves his holding penalties.
thebandit27 Posted February 6, 2017 Posted February 6, 2017 Agreed. But I think $4 mil per season can get it done. If he signs for $4M per, I'll stand on my head while nude and eat a taco. Why break the bank for that overrated CB? He can't/won't tackle and loves his holding penalties. Compare his tackle and penalty stats to Richard Sherman...I dare you.
bobobonators Posted February 6, 2017 Posted February 6, 2017 Id be ecstatic. Hes a great young player. We need to keep those.
thebandit27 Posted February 6, 2017 Posted February 6, 2017 Irrelevant signing. No QB, no hope. So should we just keep letting good players walk out the door because we don't have a franchise QB? That seems like a very, very poor strategy.
Doc Posted February 6, 2017 Posted February 6, 2017 Irrelevant signing. No QB, no hope. Wrong. Better defense and they make the playoffs.
3rdand12 Posted February 6, 2017 Posted February 6, 2017 Wrong. Better defense and they make the playoffs. agreed
ndirish1978 Posted February 6, 2017 Posted February 6, 2017 Irrelevant signing. No QB, no hope. Irrelevant post. No football knowledge, no clue.
3rdand12 Posted February 6, 2017 Posted February 6, 2017 Irrelevant post. No football knowledge, no clue. kinda harsh aren't we irish ?
BuffaloHokie13 Posted February 6, 2017 Posted February 6, 2017 kinda harsh aren't we irish ? Sometimes you just need to rip the bandaid off
ndirish1978 Posted February 6, 2017 Posted February 6, 2017 (edited) kinda harsh aren't we irish ? I don't get points for mimicking his post?! Honestly though, if you're going to flippantly dismiss the entire proposition of re-signing one of the fastest LBs in the league in a defense that needs a WLB with some speed you deserve the scorn. If I accept the ridiculousness of that post we can all just close down the board because nothing is relevant without Tom Brady on our team. Edited February 6, 2017 by ndirish1978
Recommended Posts