The "I get it, but it's not my favorite" pick

[Jamie_B]

So I'm curious what is your 1st round pick that if the Bengals take him you will get why they took him and see what the plan is but it's not a pick that excites you.

 

For me it's OJ Howard

[SocalBengalEd]

TE Howard.

[omgdrdoom]

Pass rushers.

 

None of the probable first rounders outside of Garrett excite me very much. I get it and think a guy like Barnett would be a fine addition to the team, I'm just going to be kinda "meh" to it.

[Jason]

Barnett.

[happyrid]

Agree with the previous answers. Barnett or Howard would be pretty unexciting, but I guess I'd get it. I'd even add Jon Allen to that list for me personally

 

Foster or one of the WRs would be exciting. 

[|High School Harry|]

Taco Charlton

[Kochman]

Howard or any of the 3 WR's.

[MichaelWeston]

Fournette or Howard. 

[JC]

Howard or Reddick. Makes sense on paper, but probably signals a really good player will be leaving via FA in a year or two.

[T-Dub]

26 minutes ago, MichaelWeston said:

Fournette or Howard. 

 

Same, or any of the WR's honestly. 

[TimKrumrieFan]

Allen and Adams.

 

I'll get mad about Fournette, Hooker or Barnett (unless we trade back)

[HavePityPlease]

Any of the RBs.  I get it because Hill has been a disappointment the past two seasons and Gio is a big question mark; I don't like it because I think taking RBs that high is a waste, they've almost become a dime-a-dozen.

 

I have to ask, why would people be upset about Barnett?  The only consistent negative I've seen from the analyses is that he isn't "fast" or "explosive" out of his stance.  Ok, but he has great agility, the best "hands" (i.e. getting linemen off his body) of anyone in the draft.. and he was MASSIVELY productive, in the SEC no less.  From my experience you ignore defensive football players with "bad" measurables but off-the-charts production at your own peril.

[happyrid]

4 minutes ago, HavePityPlease said:

Any of the RBs.  I get it because Hill has been a disappointment the past two seasons and Gio is a big question mark; I don't like it because I think taking RBs that high is a waste, they've almost become a dime-a-dozen.

 

I have to ask, why would people be upset about Barnett?  The only consistent negative I've seen from the analyses is that he isn't "fast" or "explosive" out of his stance.  Ok, but he has great agility, the best "hands" (i.e. getting linemen off his body) of anyone in the draft.. and he was MASSIVELY productive, in the SEC no less.  From my experience you ignore defensive football players with "bad" measurables but off-the-charts production at your own peril.

 

We haven't had the best luck with the productive but not great measurable guys. Darqueze Dennard was undersized and ran in the 4.5s but was the best college DB in the country. Injuries have held him back obviously, but even when healthy the lack of measurables show up on the field and he's probably limited to just a slot CB. Paul Dawson is another who tested poorly but people claimed had the best tape in the class at LB. 

 

I'd say lack of measurables is just as big a risk factor as a guy who isn't quite as productive.

 

 

[HavePityPlease]

23 minutes ago, happyrid said:

 

We haven't had the best luck with the productive but not great measurable guys. Darqueze Dennard was undersized and ran in the 4.5s but was the best college DB in the country. Injuries have held him back obviously, but even when healthy the lack of measurables show up on the field and he's probably limited to just a slot CB. Paul Dawson is another who tested poorly but people claimed had the best tape in the class at LB. 

 

I'd say lack of measurables is just as big a risk factor as a guy who isn't quite as productive.

 

 

 

I hear you on this but I'm going to argue with it a bit.  Dennard was indeed very productive in college but I think he really started on a bad break with the injuries.  I was at the Bills game in 2015 when he really got his first taste and I have to tell you, he looked really good.  I don't think he's a lost cause but your point is well made, CBs who don't exactly measure up have a very hard time trying to compete at the NFL level because the CB should be the best athlete on the field, period.  I will thus make the point that I didn't in my original post, front seven guys with "bad" measurables should not be ignored.

 

That leads us of course to Dawson.  Amazing production his last year of college, but I think he both played against lesser competition and - this is important - with pretty much free rein to "freelance".  Couple that with his known lack of focus and off-field drive, and I think you're seeing a player who is failing on his work ethic and commitment more than his physical tools.  Let's not forget that he was a third rounder for a reason.  Now where does that leave Barnett?  From what I've read he's *extremely* driven, smart and just simply wrecks offensive line sets no matter where he lines up.  Couple that with not just good, but *historic* production, and I at least think he's easily worth the #9 unless there are negatives we can't see.

[LostInDaJungle]

1 hour ago, HavePityPlease said:

I have to ask, why would people be upset about Barnett?

 

He was productive with poor measurables and great technique. That implies that he's reached his ceiling. The belief is that you can take athletic guys and teach them good technique, and in a few year's time, you have a better player than the guy who was polished but unathletic in college.

 

Not saying that's right or wrong, just saying that's the theory.

 

Personally, I put more stock in where a player was slotted before the underwear Olympics. If he looks like a top 10 pick on Sundays, I give two shits about how he looked on a Thursday in Indy. So, for that reason, My only real objections are to guys like Ross that are going to go higher than their game tape justifies because they ran well in spandex. 

 

Other than that.... It's a tough draft without any clear cut choices. I want front 7 defenders, but will happily take Howard so that the offense isn't lost when Eifert goes down in pre-season tightening his jock strap. RB or WR just means we've wasted a lot of draft picks in the last few years.

[|BlackJesus|]

Cam Robinson.

[SocalBengalEd]

Barnette is a beast . Love his game. I don't understand the meh towards him

[bigboi]

I wanted the Bengals to draft Ruben foster and still do but, I would not be surprised if they do not draft him or trade down and drafted a wr.

[omgdrdoom]

I see a few different people have questioned why anyone has written Barnett (my opinion is on any pass rusher, but Barnett is most likely IMO so I named him specifically), so I'll explain.

 

I know a lot of people aren't really into sports analytics or even in the in depth statistics, I know a lot of people want to purely go by what they see on the field, but the reality is the numbers don't lie. I'll fully admit that stats and numbers and patterns don't tell the entire story, but they sure as shit are more objective than most of us are.

 

A lot of people watch Bengals games 1 of 2 ways, they give the Bengals players more credit than they deserve or less compared to players of other teams. I'll give an example that goes with my previous opinions in this thread. I constantly see how "horrible" Michael Johnson is by some people, but he's not. The people saying that flat out have unrealistic expectations of what they want from an RDE in our current scheme. Sure, he isn't an All-Pro world beating pass rusher, but the numbers don't lie and his pass rush productivity is OK at worst. People saying he's "trash" at rushing the passer think that watching the highlight reels from other teams when all you see if their pass rushers getting to the QB means that those teams have guys that get pressures on every damn snap, but in reality that doesn't happen.

 

I know it can be difficult and I had a huge problem doing it myself years ago, but once you can watch a Bengals v Ravens game and then say the Lions v Packers and evaluate all players on all 4 teams the exact same way, discussions like this can be much more smooth and objective. I can 100% agree with people wanting to upgrade from MJ93, but he isn't the worst pass rusher on the planet as some make it seem. He isn't "horrible", he's just not great either, he falls somewhere in between. He's an average pass rusher and can be a very good run stopper when he's on his game, which leads me to believe he isn't the first guy that needs upgraded on this team which is why I'm not going to be jumping for joy if we take Barnett (or Taco or anyone else not named Myles Garrett).

[F.Cleveland]

17 minutes ago, omgdrdoom said:

I see a few different people have questioned why anyone has written Barnett (my opinion is on any pass rusher, but Barnett is most likely IMO so I named him specifically), so I'll explain.

 

I know a lot of people aren't really into sports analytics or even in the in depth statistics, I know a lot of people want to purely go by what they see on the field, but the reality is the numbers don't lie. I'll fully admit that stats and numbers and patterns don't tell the entire story, but they sure as shit are more objective than most of us are.

 

A lot of people watch Bengals games 1 of 2 ways, they give the Bengals players more credit than they deserve or less compared to players of other teams. I'll give an example that goes with my previous opinions in this thread. I constantly see how "horrible" Michael Johnson is by some people, but he's not. The people saying that flat out have unrealistic expectations of what they want from an RDE in our current scheme. Sure, he isn't an All-Pro world beating pass rusher, but the numbers don't lie and his pass rush productivity is OK at worst. People saying he's "trash" at rushing the passer think that watching the highlight reels from other teams when all you see if their pass rushers getting to the QB means that those teams have guys that get pressures on every damn snap, but in reality that doesn't happen.

 

I know it can be difficult and I had a huge problem doing it myself years ago, but once you can watch a Bengals v Ravens game and then say the Lions v Packers and evaluate all players on all 4 teams the exact same way, discussions like this can be much more smooth and objective. I can 100% agree with people wanting to upgrade from MJ93, but he isn't the worst pass rusher on the planet as some make it seem. He isn't "horrible", he's just not great either, he falls somewhere in between. He's an average pass rusher and can be a very good run stopper when he's on his game, which leads me to believe he isn't the first guy that needs upgraded on this team which is why I'm not going to be jumping for joy if we take Barnett (or Taco or anyone else not named Myles Garrett).

I agree with most of this.   MJ93 is not horrible.  The Bengals D scheme is to get pressure without selling out to pass rush all the time.  But, the thing about the front 7 is that there is a good number of different rotational roles that can be filled.  You can have more than one starting quality player from each position and not have them be wasted.  

[omgdrdoom]

3 minutes ago, F.Cleveland said:

I agree with most of this.   MJ93 is not horrible.  The Bengals D scheme is to get pressure without selling out to pass rush all the time.  But, the thing about the front 7 is that there is a good number of different rotational roles that can be filled.  You can have more than one starting quality player from each position and not have them be wasted.  

 

Yep I have no issue taking a 4-3 RDE in the draft, I'm just not going to be very excited since it's not as huge of a need as some are making it out to be. Our pass rushing productivity from the team and our d-line is in much better shape than other position groups.

 

MJ93 isn't great (but he's not terrible), we do use a d-line rotation, and the guys on the line aren't getting any younger, so Barnett being taken at #9 is perfectly acceptable and I understand why the Bengals would take him (or Taco or whoever they feel is the best 4-3 RDE on board). I could list about 50 players being talked about that I wouldn't be very excited for, so I just mentioned the pass rush in this thread since a lot of people seem to think we're lacking in the area more than we actually are if you compare us fairly to other teams around the league.

[PatternMaster]

Foster...I think he's one of the most overrated players in the draft. His injury history and recent off the field incidents combined with the fact that I think we have LB's on the roster that can do what he does already. 

 

I would rather the Bengals take the best OT in the draft then take a LB at #9.  

[Hooky]

13 hours ago, T-Dub said:

 

Same, or any of the WR's honestly. 

As I have said numerous times, I will be annoyed with an offensive player at 9. 

 

But if they pass on the DL beef at 9, does that mean that they have big hopes for Hardison and Billings?

[T-Dub]

8 minutes ago, Hooky said:

As I have said numerous times, I will be annoyed with an offensive player at 9. 

 

But if they pass on the DL beef at 9, does that mean that they have big hopes for Hardison and Billings?

 

 

Nah, it means the casual fan wants to see 30pts a game but can't name the starting OL

[happyrid]

13 hours ago, HavePityPlease said:

 

I hear you on this but I'm going to argue with it a bit.  Dennard was indeed very productive in college but I think he really started on a bad break with the injuries.  I was at the Bills game in 2015 when he really got his first taste and I have to tell you, he looked really good.  I don't think he's a lost cause but your point is well made, CBs who don't exactly measure up have a very hard time trying to compete at the NFL level because the CB should be the best athlete on the field, period.  I will thus make the point that I didn't in my original post, front seven guys with "bad" measurables should not be ignored.

nThat leads us of course to Dawson.  Amazing production his last year of college, but I think he both played against lesser competition and - this is important - with pretty much free rein to "freelance".  Couple that with his known lack of focus and off-field drive, and I think you're seeing a player who is failing on his work ethic and commitment more than his physical tools.  Let's not forget that he was a third rounder for a reason.  Now where does that leave Barnett?  From what I've read he's *extremely* driven, smart and just simply wrecks offensive line sets no matter where he lines up.  Couple that with not just good, but *historic* production, and I at least think he's easily worth the #9 unless there are negatives we can't see.

 

I don't want to come off as super anti-Barnett. As the topic suggests, I get the argument in favor of him even if he's not my favorite pick.

 

But I agree with what Lapham said about him yesterday. He's 6'2 and runs a 4.9. Is there anything so special about him that you feel good taking him in the top 10?

 

And like Lapham said, so many of these college OTs are just awful that you can't just say DE production is automatically going to translate to the next level. People will say, well it was SEC. But the SEC East is garbage. Unless I'm completely blanking on somebody, there's not any SEC East OTs who are projected to go in the top 3 rounds or who are likely to be NFL starters.  

 

And we've seen guys in recent years with similar SEC production who didn't translate to the NFL. Barnett had 32 sacks in 39 starts over the past 3 years. Jarvis Jones had 28 sacks in 26 game in his 2 seasons. Draft analysts were falling all over themselves to praise the Stealers for taking him at #14 and not worrying about the workout numbers because of the stats and the tape.