• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Community Reputation

96 The F'n Man!

About HavePityPlease

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
  1. Definitely the second one. Regardless of Tim Williams' off-field concerns, I don't think he fits our team on it - he looks good on tape, surprisingly strong against blocks, but he looks like a no-brainer 3-4 OLB, not a hand-on-the-ground guy at DE and not a 4-3 LB either.
  2. I think we all hope it's Ogbuehi, but I figure it'll be Boyd, Vigil or a young CB.
  3. Up to now Ced has been the 2.0 version of Stacy Andrews (wow the athleticism, wow there is no way this guy won't be HOF WOW /Alexander). Bodine has been 2.0 Ghuiacic (sp?) - (wow this guy is so underrated, so smart, SMRT! /Alexander /Marvin). I fully expect things to flesh out the same way they did with those guys - they'll either be out of the league or sign elsewhere based on "potential" after they prove to be horrible here. Fisher I don't think is strong enough, and he'll likely give way to Winston more often than not this season. The one guy I think might prove a surprise is Andre as long as he can stay healthy. He was a decent RT but his build and style are better suited to G and he might actually be good there. I wouldn't be shocked if Andre slides to RT if Fisher struggles, and they move Johnson or Westerman in there at G instead.
  4. Maybe this is outside the bounds of your question but... trade down. No QBs taken? Trade it. If we absolutely have to take someone? Zach Cunningham.
  5. draftcountdown.com (finally) updated their mock and now they have us taking this Garrett Bolles guy at 9. Um, why? What's so great about this guy? In the video that draftcoundown have on him on his profile page he looks AWFUL. He's getting tossed around, jolted back, I mean my god it's bad. I've also watched some video of Cam Robinson and Ramczyk, and Ramczyk to me easily looks like the best of the bunch (and Robinson looks better than this Bolles). Can someone enlighten me as to what's so great about him?
  6. I was of course being facetious, I think we can do better than a WR at 9, but I'm surprised so many people just assume he's a workout warrior. As you say, the guy is a very accomplished and effective receiver regardless of whether he's also the fastest player ever.
  7. Take him off the board, we don't need this shit. Meanwhile, John Ross broke the 40-yard dash record. New fave at #9 anyone?
  8. Ok. *shrug* I disagree, I think they'd keep Hill, let Burkhead walk, keep Peerman, and sic Hobson on us with stories of the remarkable healing powers of the Bengals medical staff, who will have Gio ready for camp (then preseason, then week 1, then after PUP, then maybe late season playoff push, then meh). This would mean we have Fournette, Hill and Peerman, with the potential of Gio coming back at some point and forcing one of them out. In all seriousness though, I really do believe that's how it would go down. Marvin likes guys to be pushed (Fournette pushes Hill, not so much anyone else, at least based on 'type'), Mike and Katey are great at letting good backup/complimentary players go (Burkhead), and frankly they wouldn't know if Fournette can perform or not until he actually plays (making it wise to keep Hill until they know one way or the other).
  9. Interesting, and could be true. But there are two things I always consider when someone comes out with a "Bengals want this guy" rumour: 1) The Bengals telegraph their wants like nobody else, and the media has been right on many times with predicting who the Bengals "want". Hence, quite possible. 2) Teams (and agents) use and abuse the Bengals to play psychological games with the rest of the league all the time, probably because they're too lazy/idealistic to refute anything. So this could be, say, the Panthers spreading a rumour because they want to trade down. Or, it could be Fournette's agent trying ensure his player makes the top 10. Considering this Kinkybaba guy used such an absolute term like "oh they said 'we want him'", it sounds like BS to me. Ergo, I'm going with door number 2 on this one. We shall see.
  10. And this illustrates a problem that many lay people have with statistics. Not playing out their contract does not equal bust. Frankly I find it bizarre that you would equate it as such? Also your "5 to 10 times" value is taken out of the air, yes? I will reiterate, the only draft picks who any team even dares *count on* to start are top-level first rounders. These players are *guaranteed* a certain (large) amount of money and thus the team considers it a bottom-line investment that they expect to get a return on. Any numbers on how many of those veteran contracts are fully guaranteed? Remember, the NFL can cut bait with ANY player at ANY time, and once the bonus + guaranteed portion is gone the owner gets off *scott free*, no matter how many "dollars" remain on the contract. Hence the cutting of vets before the end of their contract, it costs the owner nothing (and in many cases they've gotten themselves into cap trouble and they have no choice but to cut veterans, often several of them). That's not even mentioning the common practice of back-loading which pre-determines that the vet *will* get cut before the end of the contract. NFL teams sign vet free agents to start now or act as primary backups. Often the teams that pay those players a great deal are trying to "win now". Whether they succeed or fail, at some point the rising cost of the roster requires the cutting of high-cost players, which are usually vets who were overpaid (on paper) and thus the "life expectancy" of their contract is on average less than the length of said contract. If your argument is that a proven veteran free agent has as much chance of busting as a college player, well that's just laughable. If you argument is that vet free agents cost dramatically more than drafted players *who are expected to start* - also laughable.
  11. I would argue the opposite, for the same reasons you identify. If, say, the Bengals realize they need a much better LB to start next year, would they rather a) choose a proven free agent who has experience in the league that they *know* (barring injury) will be able to at least fill the role? Or do they b) rely on a draft pick that they *know*... was good in college ball. To me the choice is obvious, because ANY draft pick can end up busting and relying on them to start is a big risk. The second part of this is, if you fill roles with FA's you can now pick BPA, which again aligns with your statement that teams might reach for players in the draft if they're using the draft to fill starter roles. We also know that at least Marvin's philosophy is that players chosen below somewhere in the mid first round are likely not going to be counted on to "contribute right away", but anyone above that *has to* contribute right away (and I would argue it's not so much because those players are "guaranteed awesome", but rather they are paid like starters day one). That's a pretty tiny percentage of drafted players who will be counted on to start.
  12. Anyone else notice when the Pats went up 14-3 and Clowney blew his stack and reportedly *threw his helmet*? And the announcers said "he's trying be a leader down there"? And Nantz later even said it more explicitly "I don't think he was *frustrated* I think he was trying to lead". FUCK YOU NANTZ. Can you imagine if Burfict (or any Bengal for that matter) did anything remotely close to that? "Thug", "lost his cool as usual", "it was only a matter of time", "Marvin Lewis better get a handle on things down there" blah blah... and the reality is Clowney was acting like a petulant child and should have been sat down by someone, but nope, let's heap praise on whiny first overall picks and prima donna scumbags all day long while their coaches look the other way. This league is so terrible. Another winning story line is how they are saying Le'Veon Bell somehow invented sitting back and waiting for a hole to open up. WTF? It's not like oh, I don't know, Emmitt Smith made a HOF career out of doing just that? Jeezus H these morons will say anything to get people to watch. At the same time, doesn't that (obviously) imply that the O-line has more to do with his success than any kind of special running ability (fyi I do think Bell is a good back, but c'mon). What do I see in Le'Veon Bell highlights? A good back behind a mediocre O-line that is allowed to HOLD LIKE A SON OF A BITCH UNTIL THE PLAY IS EITHER A TD OR A FIRST DOWN. I really have to learn to watch games with the sound off...
  13. Well, tbh they could have charged him with spitting on the nurse simply because he was speaking and it caused a little bit of spittle to land on her, like can happen to anyone anytime. With that said we all know Adam can't control his temper, and most likely his mouth got him in trouble this time. I could see the assault on the first person being total BS, but he probably argued with the cops and he doesn't have the luxury of doing that. After that the slightest provocation = charges. I do hope Adam gets things straight with his life and I appreciate what he did on the football field but I have to agree that it's time to cut ties, even if he is completely innocent. The Cincinnati Bengals are not the team to be on if you want the benefit of the doubt, go play for the Pats or Stealers if you want cops to ignore your crimes and/or your past.
  14. When Burkhead hit the ground it was at 13 seconds IIRC, and they called a timeout when the clock said 5. They may have put a second back on, I didn't notice.