Jump to content

Chase, Pitts, or Sewell ??? (closing arguments in last days)


Chase, Pitts, or Sewell ??? (final arguments)  

47 members have voted

  1. 1. Assuming all 3 are available, who SHOULD the Bengals draft?

    • WR Ja'Marr Chase
      16
    • TE Kyle Pitts
      7
    • OT Penei Sewell
      24
  2. 2. Assuming all 3 are available, who do you PREDICT the Bengals will draft?

    • Chase
      35
    • Pitts
      1
    • Sewell
      11
  3. 3. Assuming Pitts is gone, who should the Bengals draft?

    • Chase
      21
    • Sewell
      26
  4. 4. Assuming Chase is gone, who should the Bengals draft?

    • Pitts
      9
    • Sewell
      38
  5. 5. Assuming Sewell is gone, who should the Bengals draft?

    • Chase
      26
    • Pitts
      21
  6. 6. Is there a case to be made for not taking any of these 3 and taking someone else?

    • Yes - (name them)
      7
    • No
      40
  7. 7. Would you support the Bengals trading back from #5?

    • Yes
      33
    • No
      14
  8. 8. Positionally right now, which is the weakest of the 3 on the team ?

    • WR Position
      7
    • TE Position
      12
    • OT Position
      28
  9. 9. Positionally right now, which is the strongest of the 3 on the team ?

    • WR Position
      36
    • TE Position
      5
    • OT Position
      6
  10. 10. Regardless of the team they go to, which of these 3 players do you predict is most likely to be an All-Pro first?

    • Chase
      11
    • Pitts
      29
    • Sewell
      7
  11. 11. Should it matter if Burrow wants Chase, and should the team let that override their decision?

    • Yes, give Joe what he wants
      5
    • No, a QB is not a GM
      17
    • Perhaps, or at least consider his view in a tie
      25


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, BlackJesus said:

 

I think Leatherwood could be the best tackle of the entire class. He has the classic build / frame, arm length, and attributes that you want in a tackle, whereas Sewell to me is more of a guard (albeit a dominant pro bowl one).

 

 

 

 

There are 2 ways to protect a QB

1. Have a good OL that can hold up against a blitz. 
2. Have such dominant WRs / TEs that teams cannot blitz you to begin with, or else they will get burned. 

 

Taking Chase or Pitts actually helps the OL in many ways. One could even argue as much or more than taking Sewell does. 

 

 

Spread the D thin by going empty set with 3 or 4 WRs and 1 or 2 TEs or Mixon in the flat and you have less options able to rush the QB. 

 

Whitworth's whole point is there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jamie_B said:

Spread the D thin by going empty set with 3 or 4 WRs and 1 or 2 TEs or Mixon in the flat

 

Burrow is made for the 4 WR / 1 RB set, as his best strength is his quick mind. I would have him in shotgun much more as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BlackJesus said:

 

Burrow is made for the 4 WR / 1 RB set, as his best strength is his quick mind. I would have him in shotgun much more as well. 

 

 

I mean anyone who watched any of his championship year at LSU could see how much spread O they were running.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BlackJesus said:

 

Burrow is made for the 4 WR / 1 RB set, as his best strength is his quick mind. I would have him in shotgun much more as well. 


And because of that they are going to continue to throw the ball 40+ times a game. 
I feel like people really need to come to grips with that fact. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, spicoli said:


And because of that they are going to continue to throw the ball 40+ times a game. 
I feel like people really need to come to grips with that fact. 

 

 

If Andy Dalton is your QB it makes sense to create an O that features Joe Mixon and let Andy be a game manager. 

 

When you have Joe Burrow you give the kid every chance to win games for you.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jamie_B said:

 

 

If Andy Dalton is your QB it makes sense to create an O that features Joe Mixon and let Andy be a game manager. 

 

When you have Joe Burrow you give the kid every chance to win games for you.

 

100%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like Atlanta is for sure taking Pitts so this whole thing is 100% going to come down to Chase or Sewell. Very fitting. I'm honestly not even sure if they know which one to pick. Makes for a good Thurs nite..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rumor is that the Lions seriously considered dealing ahead of the Bengals to take Chase.  If we get to #5 and three of Chase, Sewell, Pitts and Slater are still there, I turn to Detroit and say OK, you've got a #2 (41), two #3's (72, 101) a #4 (112) and next year's #1.  I try for #41 and any three of the other four, but if not, they give me 41, 72 and 101 (or) 114 and next year's #1 and we swap #5 for #7 - Ja'Marr is theirs.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, snarkster said:

Rumor is that the Lions seriously considered dealing ahead of the Bengals to take Chase.  If we get to #5 and three of Chase, Sewell, Pitts and Slater are still there, I turn to Detroit and say OK, you've got a #2 (41), two #3's (72, 101) a #4 (112) and next year's #1.  I try for #41 and any three of the other four, but if not, they give me 41, 72 and 101 (or) 114 and next year's #1 and we swap #5 for #7 - Ja'Marr is theirs.

 

Yes please. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Jamie_B said:

 

 

If Andy Dalton is your QB it makes sense to create an O that features Joe Mixon and let Andy be a game manager. 

 

When you have Joe Burrow you give the kid every chance to win games for you.

Absolutely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, snarkster said:

Rumor is that the Lions seriously considered dealing ahead of the Bengals to take Chase.  If we get to #5 and three of Chase, Sewell, Pitts and Slater are still there, I turn to Detroit and say OK, you've got a #2 (41), two #3's (72, 101) a #4 (112) and next year's #1.  I try for #41 and any three of the other four, but if not, they give me 41, 72 and 101 (or) 114 and next year's #1 and we swap #5 for #7 - Ja'Marr is theirs.

They didn't consider it.  They tried.  And Atlanta wanted too much.  They certainly wouldn't give up that much. Especially when they are assured Waddle or Smith will be there.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, snarkster said:

Rumor is that the Lions seriously considered dealing ahead of the Bengals to take Chase.  If we get to #5 and three of Chase, Sewell, Pitts and Slater are still there, I turn to Detroit and say OK, you've got a #2 (41), two #3's (72, 101) a #4 (112) and next year's #1.  I try for #41 and any three of the other four, but if not, they give me 41, 72 and 101 (or) 114 and next year's #1 and we swap #5 for #7 - Ja'Marr is theirs.

If the Lions offered us their first and second this year the Bengals should jump all over that. You'de would have back to back 2nd round picks or package one of them plus our third to move back into the first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, snarkster said:

Yeah, I love how some on the Sewell Train are against Slater because they're against "drafting a guard" at 5, yet are finding it fine to draft Sewell and put him at RG.

 

 

The only reason I would suggest doing that is due to Zach Taylor's statements earlier this year, that his starting tackles are set. I actually don't believe that statement holds much water, TBH. I think he made that statement given the resources AT THAT TIME and after the draft that could all change and should change. That would be the only reason I would suggest they play Sewell at guard based upon those statements. 

 

Now, what I would do is start him at right tackle from day one and move Reiff inside to right guard. So when you're attempting to speak for me in particular please make sure you state my feelings on that matter correctly, OK?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, spicoli said:


And because of that they are going to continue to throw the ball 40+ times a game. 
I feel like people really need to come to grips with that fact. 

 

 

If they continue to throw that much, while not taking a more serious approach to fixing this OL, Joe Burrow will have a short career. Easy prediction here.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, snarkster said:

Yeah, I love how some on the Sewell Train are against Slater because they're against "drafting a guard" at 5, yet are finding it fine to draft Sewell and put him at RG.

 

It's fine to put him there for a year, and who is against Slater other than he would be a reach at 5?  Nice generalizing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, snarkster said:

Rumor is that the Lions seriously considered dealing ahead of the Bengals to take Chase.  If we get to #5 and three of Chase, Sewell, Pitts and Slater are still there, I turn to Detroit and say OK, you've got a #2 (41), two #3's (72, 101) a #4 (112) and next year's #1.  I try for #41 and any three of the other four, but if not, they give me 41, 72 and 101 (or) 114 and next year's #1 and we swap #5 for #7 - Ja'Marr is theirs.

 

 

I'd go along with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, BlackJesus said:

 

I think Leatherwood could be the best tackle of the entire class. He has the classic build / frame, arm length, and attributes that you want in a tackle, whereas Sewell to me is more of a guard (albeit a dominant pro bowl one).

 

 

 

 

There are 2 ways to protect a QB

1. Have a good OL that can hold up against a blitz. 
2. Have such dominant WRs / TEs that teams cannot blitz you to begin with, or else they will get burned. 

 

Taking Chase or Pitts actually helps the OL in many ways. One could even argue as much or more than taking Sewell does. 

You make a good case for taking Sewell in round 1 and Leatherwood in round 2. They can both play guard for a year with one moving to tackle when Reiff leaves or Williams gets hurt.

 

If we play lots of 5 WR or 4+RB, teams will blitz like crazy. Blowing Burrow up with a late hit is just the same as a 15 yard completion. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It simply does not matter what kind of offense or defense you run - you need a good OL and DL to make it work. This does not mean we HAVE to have Sewell , it just means we need to significantly upgrade the OL. 

 

Question of the day - let's assume someone jumps us and takes Chase at #4. Do you think we take Pitts or Sewell?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, I_C_Deadpeople said:

It simply does not matter what kind of offense or defense you run - you need a good OL and DL to make it work. This does not mean we HAVE to have Sewell , it just means we need to significantly upgrade the OL. 

 

Question of the day - let's assume someone jumps us and takes Chase at #4. Do you think we take Pitts or Sewell?

 

Man that's a tough question too. Especially because TEs give your QB the best check down options when nobody else is getting open or when your Oline isnt protecting you. I really hate that there are all sorts of good reasons to take Pitts because a TE that high I'm still not comfortable with but there are some really good arguments for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jamie_B said:

 

Man that's a tough question too. Especially because TEs give your QB the best check down options when nobody else is getting open or when your Oline isnt protecting you. I really hate that there are all sorts of good reasons to take Pitts because a TE that high I'm still not comfortable with but there are some really good arguments for it.

I'm in the Sewell camp but this is  a good argument for Pitts if he is the generational talent that some say he is. 

 

FWIW-hubby dearest says that we should take Pitts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, I_C_Deadpeople said:

It simply does not matter what kind of offense or defense you run - you need a good OL and DL to make it work. This does not mean we HAVE to have Sewell , it just means we need to significantly upgrade the OL. 

 

Question of the day - let's assume someone jumps us and takes Chase at #4. Do you think we take Pitts or Sewell?

I agree, there was a lot of interior line penetration last year that had nothing to do with the tackle position.  Burrow couldn’t step up in the pocket like most QBs do. 
 

If Pitts is there you have to take him.  I can’t see anyone jumping us (pricey) for Chase with Waddle and Smith available a little later. I can see someone jumping us for a QB though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SF2 said:

I agree, there was a lot of interior line penetration last year that had nothing to do with the tackle position.  Burrow couldn’t step up in the pocket like most QBs do. 
 

If Pitts is there you have to take him.  I can’t see anyone jumping us (pricey) for Chase with Waddle and Smith available a little later. I can see someone jumping us for a QB though. 

My guess is the Bengals rank is Chase-Pitts-Sewell.

 

Secondary question, if we take Pitts I assume no WR until at least round 3?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...