Jump to content

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, I_C_Deadpeople said:

Now that the team has, finally, embraced free agency as a way to build a team, the draft becomes importnat but NOT critical year to year. Where in the past we had to land like 50% 'good' players each year that is no longer a neccessity. To me, this provides the draft in a different context - very few, if any, immediate starters. Draft and develop and increase depth and competition. If there are large gaps (like OL was), fill in with free agency. When do have a nice run of great players who need to be re-signed, then you revert back to the depth created as you can't sign all the best ones all the time. 

 

Solid position to be in. 

100% agree with this, it is awesome to see the Bengals using the same means to acquiring good players as the rest of the league. That and having Joe Burrow puts us in the conversation every year. Great feeling as a fan, one that I'm not sure I've ever had lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, sparky151 said:

 

But that's the problem. Ranking Carter as a 3rd rounder (or better!) and Volson as a 4th rounder seem like misevaluations. What's the argument for Carter as a DT over Curtis Brooks or Haskell Garrett who would be available 3 rounds later? 

The rationale is that the draft and the scouting process is subjective and different teams need different traits from players. Wait 3 years then we can see what this draft brought or did not. The Pats picked Cole Strange in round 1 and 'most' said he wasa  third round pick. Lets see who was right - pats or the consensus of draft folk who are NOT employed by NFL teams. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The funny thing is that while the Bengals have a famously small scouting staff, there are NFL teams with dozens of scouts and evaluators. Yet the consensus big board has a better record of projecting future NFL success than the average NFL team. Wisdom of crowds and all that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, I_C_Deadpeople said:

Where in the past we had to land like 50% 'good' players each year that is no longer a necessity.

 

Agreed. The sign of a bad team the year prior is having more than one rookie starting.

 

The good teams usually have 0 rookie starters. The Jets next season will likely start at least 6. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sparky151 said:

the consensus big board has a better record of projecting future NFL success than the average NFL team. 

 

Many teams have too many scouts and overthink things as they believe they are more clever than the others.

 

The Patriots fit into this category as they hit the once in a lifetime lotto with Brady in Rd 6 and now think they can always find a diamond in the rough. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, sparky151 said:

 

But that's the problem. Ranking Carter as a 3rd rounder (or better!) and Volson as a 4th rounder seem like misevaluations. What's the argument for Carter as a DT over Curtis Brooks or Haskell Garrett who would be available 3 rounds later? 

 

 

That's their ranking not yours. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carter's productivity in terms of sacks and TFL largely came inside at 3T. That Florida for some reason used him more at edge is on them. Bengals are clearly using him at IDL. They've literally said as much. So either they've found a cool angle with him or they missed. They've been pretty damn good at DL identification in the middle rounds. We shall see how that works out this time. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sparky151 said:

 

Duh. But back to the question, what is the argument for them over an actual DT or someone who played Power 5 football? 

Because they did all the work, and that is what they came up with. Come on man we are not the 4-12 Bengals we are the AFC Champion almost Super Bowl winning Bengals. Why all the second guessing because you think or whoever you listen to thinks they should have done something different? 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sparky151 said:

 

Duh. But back to the question, what is the argument for them over an actual DT or someone who played Power 5 football? 

Bengals wanted a 3tech..

Maybe the ones on their board were gone..

Maybe they though he might be a 

good player with some coaching up and getting stronger.

 

He has potential..

Lets see how he does in camp before raggin on him so much.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, sparky151 said:

 

Duh. But back to the question, what is the argument for them over an actual DT or someone who played Power 5 football? 

 

Because they believed the rest of the DTs on the board were not a fit. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CalifBengalfan said:

Because they did all the work, and that is what they came up with. Come on man we are not the 4-12 Bengals we are the AFC Champion almost Super Bowl winning Bengals. Why all the second guessing because you think or whoever you listen to thinks they should have done something different? 

 

 

Duke Tobin was names executive of the year, maybe it's time to give him the benefit of doubt???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, sparky151 said:

 

Duh. But back to the question, what is the argument for them over an actual DT or someone who played Power 5 football? 

 

 

Watch the 2nd part of the video I just posted. Potts is their head of college scouting, he talks about the DT class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, BlackJesus said:

 

Agreed. The sign of a bad team the year prior is having more than one rookie starting.

 

The good teams usually have 0 rookie starters. The Jets next season will likely start at least 6. 

Did KC not start two rookies on the OL last year?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, I_C_Deadpeople said:

Did KC not start two rookies on the OL last year?

 

... And then they gave up an 18 point lead at home to lose their chance at the Super Bowl.

 

Beaten by a team only starting 1 rookie that day (Chase).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BlackJesus said:

 

... And then they gave up an 18 point lead at home to lose their chance at the Super Bowl.

 

Beaten by a team only starting 1 rookie that day (Chase).

Yes but you said 'good' teams dont start rookies. KC was and is more than a good team. Probbaly more accurate to say good teams dont plan to start any rookies but some deserve the starting spot. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, CalifBengalfan said:

Because they did all the work, and that is what they came up with. Come on man we are not the 4-12 Bengals we are the AFC Champion almost Super Bowl winning Bengals. Why all the second guessing because you think or whoever you listen to thinks they should have done something different? 

 

Because the Bengals are making it harder than it has to be. Instead of projecting players from 1 position in college to another in the NFL, they could just take players who are good at the position they want them fill in the NFL. If they want a guy to back up Hill for 4-500 snaps a year and who can generate a little pass rush, that's not a high bar to clear. They can find actual DTs who can do that on day 3. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, sparky151 said:

 

Because the Bengals are making it harder than it has to be. Instead of projecting players from 1 position in college to another in the NFL, they could just take players who are good at the position they want them fill in the NFL. If they want a guy to back up Hill for 4-500 snaps a year and who can generate a little pass rush, that's not a high bar to clear. They can find actual DTs who can do that on day 3. 

Harder than it has to be because you think so, or the info you see says so? Unless I missed something and you have some sort of connection to the sports world or are some kind of talent evaluator, the only thing you know is what you get from the internet, just like most of us.

 For you to take your collected judgments from the internet and then keep pushing the negative on the team because they did not take who you think they should have taken because some websites say someone would have been a better pick for the Bengals is ridiculous.

 I can appreciate all views and opinions on the forum, but when you are being negative about the team, about something you or anyone else can`t prove at least until the players actually play and show how they work out with the team, it is just a waste of time. 

  • Upvote 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...