Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise

A QB is going to go in the top 10. Even if Chicago, SF, Cleveland and the Jets pass on them, someone will move up into the top 10 to try and get in front of the Browns.

(03-08-2017, 05:22 PM)Hammerstripes Wrote: [ -> ]A QB is going to go in the top 10.  Even if Chicago, SF, Cleveland and the Jets pass on them, someone will move up into the top 10 to try and get in front of the Browns.

Glad Tyrod Taylor is off the market. 

I think the Patriots may be serious about keeping Jimmy G.

The Bears look likely to overpay Glennon. 

And Denver is the early favorite for Romo. 

That leaves a lot of teams in front of us still needing QBs. 

Cleveland, SF, and the Jets. Unless teams want to put their franchise in Kaepernick or Cutler's hands I think there is a good chance AJMC has a strong trade value and a couple QBs go top 10. 

(03-08-2017, 06:12 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: [ -> ]Glad Tyrod Taylor is off the market. 

I think the Patriots may be serious about keeping Jimmy G.

The Bears look likely to overpay Glennon. 

And Denver is the early favorite for Romo. 

That leaves a lot of teams in front of us still needing QBs. 

Cleveland, SF, and the Jets. Unless teams want to put their franchise in Kaepernick or Cutler's hands I think there is a good chance AJMC has a strong trade value and a couple QBs go top 10. 

Don't overlook Washington.  There are rumblings that they are going to trade Cousins to SF.  That makes them needy.

Just guessing based on draft values but I think that would be Indy's 1st and 2nd pick (giving us two seconds) or Washington's 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th (giving us an extra 3rd, 4th, and 5th).

The question becomes: How many players do we need? We already have 11 picks, though I suppose around the 5th compensatory there is a drop off (that said, filling needs like K or backup QB/RB/DE/LB/CB/ST can still be done after that. So with 1 2 3 4 4 5 that gives us six potentially higher impact picks already. I suppose I might entertain Indy's offer but you do wonder what they're going to do with all these players.

On the other hand, picks in future years might be worth acquiring. Especially if the payoff was slightly larger for giving them something now in return.

(03-08-2017, 06:12 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: [ -> ]Glad Tyrod Taylor is off the market. 

I think the Patriots may be serious about keeping Jimmy G.

The Bears look likely to overpay Glennon. 

And Denver is the early favorite for Romo. 

That leaves a lot of teams in front of us still needing QBs. 

Cleveland, SF, and the Jets. Unless teams want to put their franchise in Kaepernick or Cutler's hands I think there is a good chance AJMC has a strong trade value and a couple QBs go top 10. 

Sf to sign hoyer to multiyear contract per reports.

(03-08-2017, 08:30 PM)BoomerFan Wrote: [ -> ]Just guessing based on draft values but I think that would be Indy's 1st and 2nd pick (giving us two seconds) or Washington's 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th (giving us an extra 3rd, 4th, and 5th).

The question becomes: How many players do we need? We already have 11 picks, though I suppose around the 5th compensatory there is a drop off (that said, filling needs like K or backup QB/RB/DE/LB/CB/ST can still be done after that.  So with 1 2 3 4 4 5 that gives us six potentially higher impact picks already. I suppose I might entertain Indy's offer but you do wonder what they're going to do with all these players.

On the other hand, picks in future years might be worth acquiring. Especially if the payoff was slightly larger for giving them something now in return.

I would prefer Indy's 1st and 2nd, but the extra Washington picks would allow them to trade up or trade for future picks. Although, not in keeping with the Bengals conservative draft history. More of a Belichick scenario. 

(03-08-2017, 08:30 PM)BoomerFan Wrote: [ -> ]Just guessing based on draft values but I think that would be Indy's 1st and 2nd pick (giving us two seconds) or Washington's 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th (giving us an extra 3rd, 4th, and 5th).

The question becomes: How many players do we need? We already have 11 picks, though I suppose around the 5th compensatory there is a drop off (that said, filling needs like K or backup QB/RB/DE/LB/CB/ST can still be done after that.  So with 1 2 3 4 4 5 that gives us six potentially higher impact picks already. I suppose I might entertain Indy's offer but you do wonder what they're going to do with all these players.

On the other hand, picks in future years might be worth acquiring. Especially if the payoff was slightly larger for giving them something now in return.

Per the trade value chart, the 9th pick is worth 1350, so the Redskins' 1st(950) and 2nd(410) is pretty much even.

The Colts trade is messier. The best I can come up with is our 1st and 3rd(1575) for their 1st, 2nd, and 4th(1580).

(03-07-2017, 06:06 PM)NKYRob Wrote: [ -> ]Who knows if this turns into anything come draft day, but thought it was worth passing along.  Indy drafts 15th while the Redskins draft 17th.


https://twitter.com/Morgan_Epstein/status/839218247530598402

The answer is no, we are drafting John Ross, not you 

(03-08-2017, 07:01 PM)Hammerstripes Wrote: [ -> ]Don't overlook Washington.  There are rumblings that they are going to trade Cousins to SF.  That makes them needy.

I'm really surprised at the apparent lack of interest in McCarron.  Did everything Garappolo did and with significantly worse coaching and didn't get injured in the NFL and did a TON more in college.

I am starting to think the Bengals are betting long on him, and hoping someone goes nuts after an early injury, a la Vikings for Bradford last year, and if it doesn't happen they just let him stay the backup another season.  Sucks for AJM, but not the worst strategy in the world.  

I actually bet Adam Schein on Mad Dog Radio (Satellite) dinner that the Bengals would at least get a 2nd rounder for AJM...we'll see.

(03-08-2017, 09:55 PM)Whatever Wrote: [ -> ]Per the trade value chart, the 9th pick is worth 1350, so the Redskins' 1st(950) and 2nd(410) is pretty much even.

The Colts trade is messier. The best I can come up with is our 1st and 3rd(1575) for their 1st, 2nd, and 4th(1580).

Seeing how the Bengals have what the Colts or Redskins desire, the 9th pick, and appear to be completely comfortable remaining in the 9th selection.  Shouldn't the onus be on the requestor of the trade to sweeten the deal a bit?

(03-12-2017, 11:19 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: [ -> ]Seeing how the Bengals have what the Colts or Redskins desire, the 9th pick, and appear to be completely comfortable remaining in the 9th selection.  Shouldn't the onus be on the requestor of the trade to sweeten the deal a bit?

Yeah, again, that's the trade value chart.  Mike Brown doesn't trade unless it involves rectal bleeding on the other party's behalf, however.  If both teams are after the pick, a bidding war could improve the trade dramatically for the Bengals.