Jump to content

Possibilities at 9


Recommended Posts

I think alot of people think Lattimore is over rated and just another guy in a deep CB class. No way I would take one at 9 when literally we have seven players who I could foresee being in the nickel group and I wouldn't be surprised if we had success with them. Lattimore is a bad idea. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MichaelWeston said:

I think alot of people think Lattimore is over rated and just another guy in a deep CB class. No way I would take one at 9 when literally we have seven players who I could foresee being in the nickel group and I wouldn't be surprised if we had success with them. Lattimore is a bad idea. 

As much as I want immediate impact with #9, Lattimore could start next year.

Dre-WJIII-Lattimore could be the future and then you have a few years to decide who is worth the big money. It would also let us release Adam Jones if the team feels he slowed down too much in 2016 and Lattimore could see the field more this year in that case.

Darqueze Dennard kind of sucks, which is unfortunate because I liked taking him in the draft. Josh Shaw isn't as amazing as a lot of Bengals fans seem to think, though he's a solid player and great if you consider his position on the depth chart. I'd rather have Shaw than most teams 4th/5th CB, but the people who think he's going to ball out as a #1/2 in the future are high.

IMO, Lattimore wouldn't be spoken of so highly and talked about as a top 10 pick almost unanimously if he were just another guy.

I don't think it's the best idea in the world to go CB at #9, but I'd rather have him than reach for a tier 2 pass rusher. Lap is rarely wrong and he's come out and said if the guy we want on the edge is there we take him and if not then it's going to be a WR, so that's likely what the Bengals will do, but I feel like their plans could change if the draft doesn't go as analysts think and they decide to go BPA at a position nobody expects. That'd be my argument for Lattimore without getting into the nuances of his play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, omgdrdoom said:

As much as I want immediate impact with #9, Lattimore could start next year.

Dre-WJIII-Lattimore could be the future and then you have a few years to decide who is worth the big money. It would also let us release Adam Jones if the team feels he slowed down too much in 2016 and Lattimore could see the field more this year in that case.

Darqueze Dennard kind of sucks, which is unfortunate because I liked taking him in the draft. Josh Shaw isn't as amazing as a lot of Bengals fans seem to think, though he's a solid player and great if you consider his position on the depth chart. I'd rather have Shaw than most teams 4th/5th CB, but the people who think he's going to ball out as a #1/2 in the future are high.

IMO, Lattimore wouldn't be spoken of so highly and talked about as a top 10 pick almost unanimously if he were just another guy.

I don't think it's the best idea in the world to go CB at #9, but I'd rather have him than reach for a tier 2 pass rusher. Lap is rarely wrong and he's come out and said if the guy we want on the edge is there we take him and if not then it's going to be a WR, so that's likely what the Bengals will do, but I feel like their plans could change if the draft doesn't go as analysts think and they decide to go BPA at a position nobody expects. That'd be my argument for Lattimore without getting into the nuances of his play.

Thats overkill at a position of strength. We shouldn't be drafting our 3rd CB when we don't have a pass rusher or OL or 2nd WR to speak of. Even taking a TE makes more sense thatn a CB. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, MichaelWeston said:

Thats overkill at a position of strength. We shouldn't be drafting our 3rd CB when we don't have a pass rusher or OL or 2nd WR to speak of. Even taking a TE makes more sense thatn a CB. 

I don't think there are any players on the OL worth taking at #9. LaFell didn't get paid to not have plenty of targets go his way. Dipping into the 2nd tier of pass rushers seems silly when you can most likely grab a similar player in the next round. We have 2 TEs on their rookie contracts that the team seems to like along with a top tier starter, you can't make offseason moves assuming your starters are going to be injured, that's just not how running an NFL team works.

Just playing devil's advocate here to show that the same arguments can be made that we shouldn't go to any of those positions either. I don't love CB with #9 at all this year, but it makes just as much sense as some other positions and if you truly want to take BPA, Lattimore is a better CB than a lot of the pass rushers available will be at their positions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, PatternMaster said:

Well considering they tried to sign him long term and he balked at the offer, so clearly they are interested in him as a long term solution for the MLB position. 

I'd say they were interested in locking him up for the price he was given on a long term deal. I think it's obvious that he's trying to play his way to a bigger contract next offseason whether it's here or not, and we obviously aren't going to extend Burfict AND give Minter a big contract too.

He either plays mediocre or worse and we let him leave because of poor performance or else he plays well and gets a bigger contract elsewhere since we aren't going to pay both him and Burfict. He's pretty much a 1 year rental regardless of how he plays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.jsonline.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/2017/03/04/2016-nfl-draft-outlook/98698342/

Write up by Bob Mcginn about the draft. He's kind of a draft guru. Usually has one of the best mocks every year. This article is written from the Packer's perspective but he gives a good rundown of most first round players. This is where I saw the knock about Fosters off the field issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, akiliMVP said:

http://www.jsonline.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/2017/03/04/2016-nfl-draft-outlook/98698342/

Write up by Bob Mcginn about the draft. He's kind of a draft guru. Usually has one of the best mocks every year. This article is written from the Packer's perspective but he gives a good rundown of most first round players. This is where I saw the knock about Fosters off the field issues.

Eh, I personally don't give a shit that he threw a fit and left that day, but this is what's really becoming a concern to me:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2699273-reuben-fosters-football-iq-reportedly-concern-for-nfl-teams-after-interviews

Do we know of any excellent linebackers in the league that came out of college having trouble with their general "football IQ" when it comes to the X's and O's kind of stuff? This is an honest question because I really don't know, but that makes me re-think my long time stance of just taking Foster over almost anyone else at 9 if he's there. Unless I'm not remembering correctly, I don't recall hearing about this issue with any top tier players at his position that are currently in the league.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, omgdrdoom said:

I don't think there are any players on the OL worth taking at #9. LaFell didn't get paid to not have plenty of targets go his way. Dipping into the 2nd tier of pass rushers seems silly when you can most likely grab a similar player in the next round. We have 2 TEs on their rookie contracts that the team seems to like along with a top tier starter, you can't make offseason moves assuming your starters are going to be injured, that's just not how running an NFL team works.

Just playing devil's advocate here to show that the same arguments can be made that we shouldn't go to any of those positions either. I don't love CB with #9 at all this year, but it makes just as much sense as some other positions and if you truly want to take BPA, Lattimore is a better CB than a lot of the pass rushers available will be at their positions.

Its not really devils advocate when we don't have a 4th WR and our TE hasn't played a full season yet. I get what you are saying but these are apples and oranges comparisons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, omgdrdoom said:

Eh, I personally don't give a shit that he threw a fit and left that day, but this is what's really becoming a concern to me:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2699273-reuben-fosters-football-iq-reportedly-concern-for-nfl-teams-after-interviews

Do we know of any excellent linebackers in the league that came out of college having trouble with their general "football IQ" when it comes to the X's and O's kind of stuff? This is an honest question because I really don't know, but that makes me re-think my long time stance of just taking Foster over almost anyone else at 9 if he's there. Unless I'm not remembering correctly, I don't recall hearing about this issue with any top tier players at his position that are currently in the league.

 

Yeah I am definitely not interested in him. Also heard Williams raised eyebrows at DE. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, MichaelWeston said:

Its not really devils advocate when we don't have a 4th WR and our TE hasn't played a full season yet. I get what you are saying but these are apples and oranges comparisons. 

You still don't plan on your TE being injured to make decisions in the offseason. You could just say we should draft a QB in case Andy fucks his thumb up again (apples and oranges, I know). I get that Eifert has been injured a lot but it isn't some recurring problem to the same area that's kept him out, he's had multiple different freak accidents over the course of his career. If Tyler Eifert had the same injury over and over each year then I'd be right with you. For the record, I don't hate the Howard pick at 9, I just think TE - CB is less "apples and oranges" than you seem to think.

We don't have a 4th WR? Huh? Which NFL team drafts a WR in the top 10 because they don't have a 4th WR/6th receiving option? Gio and Eifert get more targets than our 3rd/4th WRs do, so do you really want to push Tyler Boyd even further away from getting snaps and targets? I don't. Boyd is the real deal. 1. Green 2. LaFell/Eifert  3. Eifert/LaFell 4. Boyd/Gio 5. Gio/Boyd is going to be how our targets are dispersed next year. Our group of receivers is deeper than Kirkpatrick - Jones (who could be cut) - WJIII (never taken a snap) - Dennard (not good) - Shaw.

If we were a team that focused on 4-5 WRs, I'd agree with you that it's apples to oranges. We aren't though, we utilize the TEs and RBs like a lot of other teams do nowadays.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, omgdrdoom said:

You still don't plan on your TE being injured to make decisions in the offseason. You could just say we should draft a QB in case Andy fucks his thumb up again (apples and oranges, I know). I get that Eifert has been injured a lot but it isn't some recurring problem to the same area that's kept him out, he's had multiple different freak accidents over the course of his career. If Tyler Eifert had the same injury over and over each year then I'd be right with you. For the record, I don't hate the Howard pick at 9, I just think TE - CB is less "apples and oranges" than you seem to think.

We don't have a 4th WR? Huh? Which NFL team drafts a WR in the top 10 because they don't have a 4th WR/6th receiving option? Gio and Eifert get more targets than our 3rd/4th WRs do, so do you really want to push Tyler Boyd even further away from getting snaps and targets? I don't. Boyd is the real deal. 1. Green 2. LaFell/Eifert  3. Eifert/LaFell 4. Boyd/Gio 5. Gio/Boyd is going to be how our targets are dispersed next year. Our group of receivers is deeper than Kirkpatrick - Jones (who could be cut) - WJIII (never taken a snap) - Dennard (not good) - Shaw.

If we were a team that focused on 4-5 WRs, I'd agree with you that it's apples to oranges. We aren't though, we utilize the TEs and RBs like a lot of other teams do nowadays.

 

You do when he has consistently missed as many games as Eifert has. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jason said:

You do when he has consistently missed as many games as Eifert has. 

But you don't. That's not how any NFL team is run. Eifert doesn't have some persistent back injury keeping him out of games each year when it gets aggravated. He's had a couple of freak accidents that have kept him from playing a full season each year.

I have no problem with Howard at 9, and as a fan I'd love the insurance if and when Eifert goes down. I'm just saying from an NFL management perspective, there's a 0% chance any team goes into a season making decisions on assumptions that a player that suffered freak accidents gets hurt again. Doesn't happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Bengals take OJ Howard it's because they're either planning for Eifert to want more money than they're willing to pay, planning to let Eifert walk, aren't happy with Kroft/Uzomah and want an upgrade for the backups, or they aren't happy with Kroft/Uzomah and want to run more 2 TE sets.

If the Bengals take OJ Howard it's not because Eifert gets hurt sometimes.

I will say that "shit, that Eifert dude does find a way to get injured each year" could cross their minds when they're having a talk about drafting someone like Howard, but that's the extent of it. You don't use top 10 picks or pay high priced free agents to be on standby just because you feel like someone without a recurring injury could possibly get hurt during the season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your lack of logic combined with your condescending attitude make you almost unbearable. 

 

1) Eifert keeps having freak accidents because he plays a position where everyone gets hurt all the time. Greg Olsen is about the only TE to make it through pretty well. When you combine that with the fact that he has a contract ending after 2017 season then it means we have to atleast consider what we can do to move on. 

2) CB has 6 players with starting experience or 1st round pick status and most signed long term. Dre-Jackson and Shaw are all signed long term. When you add in PacMan and Dennard that gives you 5 quality corners. Then we can add in Bernikwee or however you spell it and his tons of starts and a former 3rd round pick in Russell. The reality is that position is way more advanced then TE where all we have are questions behind Eifert who has an unknown back injury. 

3) When it comes to a 4th WR the point about that is that we don't have depth at the position. This is important for 2 reasons 1) We have a spot open for a draft pick to come in and play for a year. 2) Brandon LaFell is 30 years old and on a 2 year contract. Whoever we draft has a roster spot and a vet above him for a year or 2 to allow him to ease in. It's the ideal scenario. AT CB you are at best trying to draft your future 3rd corner. That's stupid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say based on the talent on the roster there is really on 3 positions that are in play at #9: DL, RB, and possibly DB. If Fournette makes it to #9 I think the Bengals would take him, if Thomas or Allen make it then they are the pick. As far as DE is concerned there is some debate but I really like Derek Barnett's production over Charlton's potential and size, at the end of the day football is a production based business and Barnett has a excellent track record providing results. He may not be the biggest or fastest guy, but he knows how to play and get the job done. 

As for LB, it's clearly noted that I like Reddick as the best fit for the Bengals if they go LB at #9, the Kevin Minter signing and the fact that Maualuga is still on the roster makes me think they don't want to draft Foster to be the MLB of the future. 

We could go WR or TE but those guys would barely see the field to justify a top 10 pick, besides I think Uzomah and Kroft are capable back-ups and no team drafts a 4th WR at #9 and that's what any rookie WR would be, at best. We have Cody Core and Alex Erickson, to fill that role, the economics dictate they won't take a WR in the first round.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think pretty much anyone we draft #9 is going to be a backup at first.

An end would probably see the most snaps at first but still sit behind Johnson and Clarke. I'm not a big fan of any end who will be available at 9 really.

A DT could see some snaps opposite Geno but there are none worth the 9th pick.

We are set with starters at LB with Vigil, Burfict and Minter. Rey M and Vinny Rey backups. A rookie would be buried on the depth chart.

Corner we are locked in with WJ3, Kirk, Jones (for now), Dennard, Shaw and Bene. At best a rookie would be 4th on the depth chart.

A safety could possibly start but I'm not sure they'd bench the 2 guys they just paid.

At receiver Green, Lafell and Boyd are locked in as the top 3.

Obviously Eifert starts at tight end.

I could see a rookie back starting over Hill but I doubt we take one #9.

Only OT worth the 9th pick is Ramzcyk and I highly doubt we take him unless they've given up on Ced. No indication of that has been made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MichaelWeston said:

Your lack of logic combined with your condescending attitude make you almost unbearable. 

 

1) Eifert keeps having freak accidents because he plays a position where everyone gets hurt all the time. Greg Olsen is about the only TE to make it through pretty well. When you combine that with the fact that he has a contract ending after 2017 season then it means we have to atleast consider what we can do to move on. 

2) CB has 6 players with starting experience or 1st round pick status and most signed long term. Dre-Jackson and Shaw are all signed long term. When you add in PacMan and Dennard that gives you 5 quality corners. Then we can add in Bernikwee or however you spell it and his tons of starts and a former 3rd round pick in Russell. The reality is that position is way more advanced then TE where all we have are questions behind Eifert who has an unknown back injury. 

3) When it comes to a 4th WR the point about that is that we don't have depth at the position. This is important for 2 reasons 1) We have a spot open for a draft pick to come in and play for a year. 2) Brandon LaFell is 30 years old and on a 2 year contract. Whoever we draft has a roster spot and a vet above him for a year or 2 to allow him to ease in. It's the ideal scenario. AT CB you are at best trying to draft your future 3rd corner. That's stupid. 

Every single point I make is logical, so don't go there. You may not agree or disagree, but every point is at least valid logically. You should really understand what "logic" means before trying to throw that kind of shit around. I'm making my points based on objectivity at each position and not my personal opinions for the most part.

I've already said I'm fine with taking Howard, I just don't think it's so crazy to say that we have some young depth at TE already. If the team likes Kroft and Uzomah, then they probably won't be drafting Howard. That's a logical reality. I don't know how much in love the team is with either of them though, personally I'd rather have Howard than both of those guys combined, I'm just trying to be objective here and take my own personal feelings on these guys out of it.

I've already pointed out the issues with our CBs, you're just choosing to ignore them because it doesn't fit your personal opinions and your narrative here. Our own beat writers have come out and said Adam Jones could be on the chopping block due to his play slipping and his high salary. Darqueze Dennard isn't very good whether we like that or not. Josh Shaw is nothing more than a depth option. WJIII hasn't played a single snap in the NFL yet. "Has a ton of starts" isn't really a quality I look for, I want performance, not how many games a guy has played in. How big of a contract did those guys sign for again? Not real sought after free agents, but I guess "has a lot of starts" would be better than the #1 CB in this year's draft.

I'd be OK with Williams (the WR), but you just aren't understanding my points and what I'm saying. If we take him, it buries Tyler Boyd as far as targets go. That kind of sucks. They aren't going to bench LaFell this year after paying him, and a guy like Williams is ready to go day 1 so he's not sitting the bench either. Are we going to start running more 4WR sets? I guess we could do that, but it doesn't change the fact that we're just as set at WR as CB even though you're claiming otherwise.

It's not "stupid" to draft a 3rd corner when we're in a passing league. What's wrong with having 3 potentially great CBs on the team? I think it's stupid to claim that it's stupid to have 3 great CBs at the same time.

You're getting pretty upset and calling me names now even though I'm just pointing out the situation of each position group in a different perspective than you're seeing things. Take a breath and have a football discussion without getting all pissy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think alot of people think Lattimore is over rated and just another guy in a deep CB class. No way I would take one at 9 when literally we have seven players who I could foresee being in the nickel group and I wouldn't be surprised if we had success with them. Lattimore is a bad idea. 

Who are these 7 players? And u wouldnt take darell revis at 9? Or champ bailey? Etc. His potential is top 5 cb of all time. I would do that in a heartbeat, but he probably wont be there hell be a top 5 pick.

Sent from my 2PYB2 using Go-Bengals.com mobile app

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, PatternMaster said:

We could go WR or TE but those guys would barely see the field to justify a top 10 pick, besides I think Uzomah and Kroft are capable back-ups and no team drafts a 4th WR at #9 and that's what any rookie WR would be, at best. We have Cody Core and Alex Erickson, to fill that role, the economics dictate they won't take a WR in the first round.  

 

17 minutes ago, akiliMVP said:

At receiver Green, Lafell and Boyd are locked in as the top 3.

Obviously Eifert starts at tight end.

 

This is what I've been saying but now I'm getting bashed and blasted for it because people (person) can't seem to understand my points.

I'm not saying "OMG WE NEED A CB NO MATTER WHAT WE HAVE TO TAKE CB CB CB CB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

But Lattimore makes just as much sense as Howard or Williams from a position standpoint.

CB - 1 great starter that's locked up, 1 vet being paid a lot that can get cut, 1 second year player that hasn't taken an NFL snap, 1 bad decision that can be let go after this year, 1 good depth player, and then some filler - 3 CBs on the field very often

WR - 1 great starter that's locked up, 1 vet being paid for 2 years, 1 good second year player, 1 KR/PR/depth WR, some filler - 3 WRs on the field very often

TE - 1 great starter that can be extended, 2 young players that the team seems to currently like - 1 TE on the field very often

 

Do those really look so different where it would be so "stupid" to take Lattimore over Williams or Howard? I don't see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the team wants to let Eifert go after this year, go go gadget OJ Howard.

If we plan to retain Eifert, I don't see much of a difference between WR, TE, and CB depth and you should just take BPA @9 and that 100% includes Lattimore if he's there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jpoore said:


Who are these 7 players? And u wouldnt take darell revis at 9? Or champ bailey? Etc. His potential is top 5 cb of all time. I would do that in a heartbeat, but he probably wont be there hell be a top 5 pick.

Sent from my 2PYB2 using Go-Bengals.com mobile app
 

Top 5 CB all time wtf?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, akiliMVP said:

Top 5 CB all time wtf?

Dude also think Brandon LaFell is the worst #2 in the league and would take "any other #2 over him", thinks we can trade 2018 comp picks before we even have them, called Foster "Rey Maualuga 2.0" and would take 3 other LBs over him, and had the gem of if a guy punched out his daughter after she slapped him he'd tell her "it's your own damn fault".

I think projecting Lattimore as a top 5 CB all time is in the realm of possibilities when considering the source :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...