So we're nearing Super Bowl weekend, and unfortunately our Ravens are sitting here at home. Naturally, the talk around here is all focused on the offseason, and what an offseason it is shaping up to be. With many players due for extensions or releases, and the highest draft position that this franchise has had in over a decade, this should be a formative summer for this team, and skillful execution could launch us right back into championship contention, while poor execution could mire us in irrelevancy for the next couple years.

One aspect of this offseason that we HAVE to nail is the draft, and there is much discussion about what to do with our prized draft pick, the 6th overall selection in the draft. Everyone has their own opinion about what we should do with the pick, and I'm no different. However, a lot of the ideas that get thrown around are simply, in my opinion, a complete waste. In my mind there are shockingly few smart moves that a team can actually make in the top half of the first round, and there are tons of ideas that are casually thrown around boards, ideas which are rarely questioned or checked for accuracy. However, I'm here to cast a little light on the intricacies of drafting in the top 10, and dispel some of these myths.

Now, I don't claim to be a draft guru. Far from it, in fact. However, what I do claim to do is to keep my ear to the ground and watch closely. My point is, feel free to liven the discussion by disagreeing with me. But I really think that I have some strong evidence on my side.

Myth #1: We need a "#1 Receiver"

Probably one of the most common schools of thought among Ravens fans is that we should use our high pick to draft a "true #1 receiver" for Flacco. This is, simply put, not a great idea. The folks at Cold Hard Football facts have been trumpeting this for a while now, and they make a pretty compelling argument that drafting a receiver in the first round is not a great idea (I'll provide the link at the bottom of the article).

Their basic argument is that receivers, even the great ones, only touch the ball a couple times a game, and that there are quite a few more important positions than receiver for building a team. They show that 5 teams selected receivers in the 1st round of the 2014 draft, and what did they get for their trouble? On average, those 5 teams went from an even 8-8 record in 2014 to a 6-10 record in 2015. This was accompanied by only a marginal (0.49) uptick in points scored per game. While it's only one year and it would be nice if they included more, I believe that their reasoning is sound.

One of my favorite pieces of evidence that they provide is a bold historical claim: that Jerry Rice did not improve the 49ers offense. Rice was drafted in 1985, and went on to enjoy arguably the most illustrious career of any player in the history of the game. However, the 49ers scored MORE total points in 1984 - without Rice - than they did in 1985, or 1986, 1987, 1989, and so on. In fact, it was not until 1994, after a decade of Jerry Rice's prodigious receiving skills, that they matched their 1984 point total, and it only happened twice during Rice's tenure in San Francisco.

Overall, they take a much harder line than I would. It's not that I would never take wide receiver high, it's just that there are other positions I'd rather have. I think this is especially true of the 2016 draft, wherein no receiver jumps out as an AJ Green level prospect - much as I like Laquon Treadwell, I don't believe he is all that.

Myth #2: We need to find an elite left tackle with this pick

This is another of the main ones: that the top 10 is a prime spot to nab a left tackle who will anchor the offensive line for years to come and pave the way to wide empty pockets for Flacco to stand around in. However, this is demonstrably false. The research here is all my own.

I looked at the last 5 draft classes to find all the teams who drafted offensive tackles in the top 10, to see where they are now. I found that 9 teams had drafted OTs with a top 10 selection, and that of these 9, 3 (KC, Washington, and Minnesota) made the playoffs this year. Now, that's not so bad, is it? Overall, 37.5% of NFL teams make the playoffs in any given season, so 33.3% isn't so bad, especially for teams drafting in the top 10.

However, the kicker comes when you look at those teams individually. Washington drafted Brandon Scherff 5th overall, and immediately moved him to guard. So yes, they made the playoffs after drafting a tackle high, but they used him as an interior lineman, so it doesn't even count. Kansas City's first overall selection, Eric Fisher, is a solid left tackle, but Alex Smith was sacked 45 times in 2015, tied for 3rd in the league. Minnesota's Matt Kalil is a Pro Bowl LT, but Teddy Bridgewater was right behind Smith in sacks, going down 44 times on the year.

You also need only look at the teams who played in the conference championships last week. The LTs for those teams were: Sebastian Vollmer, Ryan Harris, Jared Veldheer, and Michael "Blindside" "False Start" "Holding, #74" Oher. That's a solid list of LTs, but Oher is the only one of them who is a 1st round pick. Moreover, he was the 23rd overall pick, and he's not even playing for the team which drafted him in the 1st (for those short of memory, it was us). The two best LTs in the playoffs, Washington's Trent Williams and Minnesota's Matt Kalil, were both on the receiving ends of embarrassing first round exits on Wild Card weekend.

In short, drafting a left tackle in the top 10 sounds nice in theory, but when you look at it, it just doesn't pay off. The teams which do it rarely find long term success, and those which are performing well are not doing so because of their coveted LT. Again, I don't think I'd pass up a truly elite prospect at LT with the 6th overall, but there's absolutely no reason to reach for one here.

Myth #3: You need a high draft pick to find an elite player

Of all the myths, I saved the most deceiving for last. This one, I think, is particularly prevalent because it makes so much sense: at the top of the first round, the very best of the best can be selected, and, aside from a few greats who slip through the cracks (a la Tom Brady), the top 10 is where you want to be picking. And perhaps it is the simple, sensible appeal of this myth that makes it the most enduring, and thus the most... insidious (dun dun DUN). This one, however, is the most false of the three.

To research this, I looked at the last 11 draft classes, all the way back to 2005. The method is simple: I tallied the Pro Bowlers taken at each chunk of 5 picks in the draft. I'm sure there are those who would take issue with using Pro Bowls, but I firmly believe that, useless as they may be for individual player evaluation, Pro Bowls are a useful group metric. That is, while you can't say that Player A is better than Player B because he's made more Pro Bowls, it's much more legitimate to say that Group X is better than Group Y because it contains more Pro Bowlers, especially over such a large sample size (over 300 players).

Here are my findings:

Position Pro Bowlers drafted (since 2005)

1-5: 29

6-10: 18

11-15: 26

16-20: 15

21-25: 21

26-30: 15

30-32: 7

Wow! That's some crazy stuff. So, the best place to find a Pro Bowler is the top 5 (no surprise there), followed closely by the 11-15 range. In fact, more Pro Bowlers were picked between 21-25 than 6-10. Shocking, I know.

As to why this is, I can only guess. Maybe there's a sweet spot at 6-10, where the teams are still bad (i.e. bad at talent evaluation), yet the obvious elite players are gone. At 11-15, the teams are better, and might just be having off years, and so they can find the best players easier. Or perhaps (I like this idea), the teams picking 6-10 feel pressure to draft certain positions (like LT and WR) which don't pay off.

Regardless, the numbers don't lie: there would be essentially NO trade off in the quality of player we can find if we were to trade back into the 11-15 range, or even further. Also, my aim is not to say that there is something magical about the 11-15 slot or whatever, because that's not true, but rather that we can absolutely trade back and still land an elite player.

Conclusions

So there you have it, folks. If Ozzie trades back to 12th overall and drafts Mackensie Alexander (or whoever) there should be no complaining about "wasting our best position in years" or "neglecting Joe again". Because I got news: Laremy Tunsil won't make it better, nor will Ronnie Stanley or Laquon Treadwell (much as I love him as a prospect), and 12th isn't any worse to be picking than 6th. In fact, I believe I've built a pretty convincing case that the best possible thing we could do is trade back and collect a falling defender. I think the only players worth taking at 6 would be defenders who can significantly boost our pass defense through pass rush (DeForest Buckner, Noah Spence) or coverage (Jalen Ramsey, Myles Jack). Anyone else, I'd say trade down. Even if some of those players were available, I still wouldn't pass up a favorable trade down to collect more picks, because as I've shown, there's no real advantage to picking 6th overall vs 15th.

Cold Hard Football Facts article: http://www.footballnation.com/content/shiny-hood-ornaments-looking-for-love-all-the-wrong-places/33437/