Bowman is one of the best ILBs in the league and he ran roughly the same 40 time. People are exaggerating his speed limitations .
I'm glad you mentioned Bowman.
He measured 6', 242 lb. at his Combine which goes to my earlier point regarding the NFL bias against short ILBs. He was drafted lower 3rd. round for a reason. Sure, there were some character issues, but there is no question height/length factored into the draft position. Teams want ILBs with at least some length. They want to
project their ability to get off second level blocks delivered by all of the the long-armed, big-handed O-Linemen the NFL favors besides being able to contest balls with all of the tall TEs around the league. Length is enough of a bias that nfldraftscout.com had Bowman's primary NFL position projection as OLB, presumably in 4-3.
SF in particular sees the "market inefficiency" in this conventional thinking: it is better to have a short guy who does not give up separation than a tall one contesting for balls with regularity; it is better to have a guy who is quick off the snap with reliable instincts, taking his line before an O-Linemen can get a clean shot than to have a less quick, more lengthy player who has to fight off clean blocks with regularity. Besides drafting Bowman for ILB against the length bias, note that SF currently pairs Bowman with Wilhoite, another 6 footer. While certainly no star, Wilhoite represents good value as an undrafted player plucked out of the UFL.
Bowman actually illustrates a number of important considerations, a few of which I already mentioned in the Wagner commentary. Consider the following, with some Ragland comparisons:
1) While Bowman ran that 4.62 at his Pro Day, Ragland stood on his 4.72 from the Combine, but we need to look at how Ragland might have gotten to that number. Alabama listed Ragland at 258 lbs. That number may have been exaggerated. Or perhaps he dropped 11 lbs. to get where he is on the track. He may have dropped weight to appeal to the NFL need for speed. He wouldn't have been the first. Will you get quite the same player you saw on tape?
2) Bowman did 26 lifts at the Combine, leaving no doubt. Ragland did not lift at the Combine, and did only
13 reps at his pro day, a WR number. The reports tell us he had a minor shoulder injury at the Combine causing him to skip the bench and that tweek may have lingered into the Pro Day, but it does leave a question mark, particularly with the weight drop.
3) Bowman ran a quick 6.91 3-cone; Ragland skipped it at the Combine and then ran a slow 7.5 at his Pro Day when asked to show it. A good 3-cone number projects to run-call-to-pass-play adjustment and adjustment to runner cutbacks. Why does that poor agility number not reveal itself in the Ragland highlights? Because he was allowed to play to his strengths at Alabama: apply sharp instincts, get quick into his line downhill, get to the ball without direction change and apply sound tackling technique. Alabama plays a downhill attacking defense, a fit for Ragland's strengths, and it happened to be loaded with talent. That attacking style is hardly a Capers hallmark.
So here's my problem with Ragland for the Packers, at the risk of repetition. Look at the tape, read the scouting reports, look at the workout metrics; it all paints a consistent profile. Ragland is in the old-school ILB mold: instinctual, quick off the snap, good lines, sound fundamental tackling. It's all about the play in front of him within 10 yards of the LOS. That's a good fit for an attacking 4-3 that plays a fair amount of zone.
Yet when we consider the consensus bellyaching over the Packers ILB play, in which I am in agreement, it is heavily weighted toward giving up separation and first downs in the passing game.
Now, we loved (or at least I loved) the physicality and downhill play of Bishop before he got injured. I believe the success of the 2010 defense (or any good defense) is at least somewhat dependent upon having some physical presence in the middle of the field. Bishop, and Collins who could deliver an intimidating shot when the opportunity presented itself, provided that steel. Ragland is that kind of guy while also having the benefit of being a superior football player compared to Bishop.
But what are you willing to pay for that when the bigger weakness is in coverage?
Like I said, I wouldn't cry over a Ragland pick if the best D-Line value propositions are off the board, risking that the weight drop/bench lift issue is a red herring. His 2-down tape is awfully good . That the D-Line guys are off the board is entirely possible given how weak the first round value in this draft happens to be at most every other position. If question marks in the D-Line rotation remain, a physical instinctual 2-down or 2.5-down ILB would be enough of a needed complement to take Ragland. Still, the mesh with Ryan doesn't seem optimal. I don't see either as a true line-banger in the Bishop mold...they both look better as read-and-flow guys. On the plus side, unlike the consensus, I'd be willing to bank on Ryan's development in the pass game, with some kind of mid-to-low round SS/ILB tweener for dime and some nickel matchups, and as insurance against Ryan's development stalling out, though the best case for that tweener guy would probably be seeing him pay dividends later in the season.
Again, back to the point about Bowman (or Wagner for that matter), the market inefficiency is in the 6' players. Is there 3-down potential among 6 footers out there, even among college ILBs projected at OLB as Bowman was? It is worth investigating. However, Thompson/Capers tend to share the bias against short ILBs. I can't think of one under 6' 2" taking the field in the Capers era, with one exception: D.J. Smith at 5' 11" taken in the 6th. round. At least we know they're looking at them.