Jump to content

2019 Draft Talk


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, oldschooler said:

 

Does anyone really think the Patriots have had the best O-line, WRs and

RBs in the NFL throughout their dynasty?

 

They don't need the best WR and RB because they have consistently had one of the best OL's.  We've tried to build our offense backwards.  Scoreboard says..

 

To be fahr they've also had a (last) generational talent at QB & have been in a weak division that almost guarantees them a top seed in the playoffs.  It's why having 10-6 as a goal isn't good enough.  Even at 12-4 we were playing a division rival in the Wild Card round.  Straying off topic here but if we're going #teamslikethePatriots again it's not as simple as our OL vs theirs.

 

eta: Here's PFF calling our OL shitty, just for the sake of argument :35:

 

https://www.cincyjungle.com/2018/2/11/16995704/bengals-offensive-line-one-of-worst-at-creating-space-for-runners

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, T-Dub said:

 

They don't need the best WR and RB because they have consistently had one of the best OL's.  We've tried to build our offense backwards.  Scoreboard says..

 

To be fahr they've also had a(last)generational talent at QB & have been in a weak division that almost guarantees them a top seed in the playoffs.  It's why having 10-6 as a goal isn't good enough.  Even at 12-4 we were playing a division rival in the Wild Card round.  Straying off topic here but if we're going #teamslikethePatriots again it's not as simple as our OL vs theirs.

 

 

They have one of the best O-lines because of scouting and coaching.

They don't spend high 1st round picks on their O-line, mainly because they

never have high 1st round picks. 

 

Like I said, I agree the Bengals need upgrades on the O-line. I do not think 

it should be their only option with their first pick though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, oldschooler said:

 

 

They have one of the best O-lines because of scouting and coaching.

They don't spend high 1st round picks on their O-line, mainly because they

never have high 1st round picks. 

 

Like I said, I agree the Bengals need upgrades on the O-line. I do not think 

it should be their only option with their first pick though.

 

No, I don't either.  Just not a LB.  And yes, our scouting & coaching at either position..  well..  

giphy.webp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we draft Lock at #11 I will kick my dog. And I love my dog

 

 

 

 

 

Kiper settled on Drew Lock in the first round, whereas McShay went with Devin Bush:

11. Cincinnati Bengals
Kiper: Drew Lock, QB, Missouri

The Bengals aren’t tied long term to Andy Dalton, who is signed through 2020 but has no more guaranteed money on his contract. Taking Lock here would give new coach Zac Taylor a young quarterback to mold for the future.

McShay: Devin Bush, ILB, Michigan

Quarterback is definitely an option, but the Bengals badly want to restock the linebacker corps. Vontaze Burfict is gone, and Bush’s range and leadership would fill the void.

In the second round, Kiper followed up the quarterback pick by grabbing linebacker Mack Wilson out of Alabama at No. 42. McShay went with Washington offensive tackle Kaleb McGary.

Either draft is hard to complain about and speaks to the options the Bengals have on draft day. Linebacker is clearly a major problem. But otherwise? Taking best player available — even if it means quarterback — could be a viable approach.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, oldschooler said:

 

Bengals have to over value draft picks because they aren't very good at using the other 3 talent acquisition channels. Those are free agency, trades, and the waiver wire. Paul Brown made lots of trades in the pre salary cap era. SoP isn't much of a trader, probably because he hates dead money more than he hates losing. The waiver wire might get you an occasional Reuben Foster or Kareem Hunt but I don't believe we made claims for Foster. Free agency we all know about. So by default it's the draft where we have no competitive advantage over other teams. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did Boy wonder "get his guy" with Jared Goff? 

 

Interesting how these squawking head Internet tablet-tappers are so certain that he just has to take a QB--when the likelihood that neither he or his erstwhile once-in-a-lifetime-player (who will just come under some different name a year from now) will not be here in 2-3 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, High School Harry said:

Denver takes Drew Lock at 10 with Haskins and Murray still on the board?

Wow... 

And the Bengals pass on them for the other Devin, Bush, that is.  

Let's get realistic, here....they'd never do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bengaled said:

Let's get realistic, here....they'd never do that.

So which one do you think they would take, Murray or Haskins?   I tend to think Murray would be more successful right now behind a suspect o line but if we had 2015's line Haskins would be the better QB. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, High School Harry said:

Denver takes Drew Lock at 10 with Haskins and Murray still on the board?

Wow... 

And the Bengals pass on them for the other Devin, Bush, that is.  The other one went at 5 to Tampex Bay.

Ha ha, if that happens you keep your phones available for trades and improve your picks but not likely. Love to have that opportunity though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That approach (sort of) worked with The Quitter. However, there you had the consensus #1 overall pick, sitting behind Jon Kitna, on a talent-bankrupted/really starting over franchise. And, since that team actually had a decent season, the siren calls to get him off the bench were muted.

 

Not anywhere close now. You would have a #11 hand-me-down/gosh-he-played-great-against-Indiana mini-project, sitting behind the franchise's #2 all-time leading passer, with a team that still has a fair amount of talent. Along with an amped up media, how long would it be--3 losses in perhaps--before Boy Wonder folds to pressure and tosses the mini-project in? 

 

It would happen. But, perhaps it should, who knows? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Le Tigre said:

That approach (sort of) worked with The Quitter. However, there you had the consensus #1 overall pick, sitting behind Jon Kitna, on a talent-bankrupted/really starting over franchise. And, since that team actually had a decent season, the siren calls to get him off the bench were muted.

 

Not anywhere close now. You would have a #11 hand-me-down/gosh-he-played-great-against-Indiana mini-project, sitting behind the franchise's #2 all-time leading passer, with a team that still has a fair amount of talent. Along with an amped up media, how long would it be--3 losses in perhaps--before Boy Wonder folds to pressure and tosses the mini-project in? 

 

It would happen. But, perhaps it should, who knows? 

Add in the simple economics. You have the guy on a cheap rookie contract for 4 years and a more expensive Tender year if he is good.  

 

Wasting a year holding a clipboard doesn’t really get them ready to start year 2, there is no substitution for actual games.  If we draft a QB at 11, the goal has to be having them start near the end of the season which really depends on Andy and the team.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...