(03-21-2021, 12:02 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: (re: my P.S.) Why are we debating Mike Thomas? A question was asked, comparable stats were given. 1, from a span of 3 years, the other from a span of 8 games. We're not debating if Mike Thomas is good/averag/bad. We're pointing out that Burrow was able to use him better in a shorter amount of time. The highlighted red is exactly what i was saying. 

Give him the line and i bet a guy like Thomas would put up better numbers. I'm sure we both agree that's the way it would play out, regardless of what receiver we are talking about. BUT give him a better line with Boyd, Higgins, a guy like Rashod Bateman, a decent TE and a healthy Mixon and he should shred. 

P.S. maybe i read the attitude of your first couple lines wrong?

I think a point that I didn't illustrate very well is Thomas came from a team that went to the SB and they only threw the ball to him 21 times in 4 years.  He comes here to a shit team and we doubled his career targets in one year.

At the end of the day, I think we both agree he could have gotten more out of Thomas with a better OL.  But Thomas is a scrub we shouldn't be trying to get more out of, but we did last year because our WR's sucked.  Lots of people hypothesize that he wouldn't have been injured behind a better OL.  Nobody hypothesized that if he wasn't holding onto the ball trying to make a good receiver look great by throwing a fly route to a guy that runs a 4.58 40, maybe he wouldn't have gotten hurt, either.  We have slow WR's that struggle to get separation.  Joe took a lot of unnecessary shots holding onto the ball waiting for guys to uncover last year.  We need to address the G position, but we need to address the lack of talent at the skill positions, too.

(03-21-2021, 01:42 AM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: I’m going to take Sewell. Generational talents on the line are harder to find than wide receivers.

Honestly if Mike or anyone in the war room is unsure of who to take then ask Joe himself.

Name one superstar WR tom Brady has had besides Randy Moss.

Wes Welker was a 4 time All Pro and a 5x Pro Bowler.  Chris Godwin, Mike Evans, and Antonio Brown are all former All Pro's.

Although if we're being realistic, if you're not willing to steal defensive signals and jam the radio communications to the defense like the Spygate Patriots did, they're not a good example to use on how to build an offense.

(03-21-2021, 02:26 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Well, he had 3 fantastic receivers this year:  Mike Evans, Chris Godwin, and Antonio Brown.  Not to mention a Tight End group of Gronk, Cameron Brate and OJ Howard.

Evans and Godwin both finished in the top 10 in yardage in 2019.  And they still went out and brought in Antonio Brown.

He also had a prime Gronk and a pre-murder Aaron Hernandez for a few years in New England, which was a pretty revolutionary offense.

And while perhaps not a traditional superstar, people may forget that Wes Welker had the following reception totals in New England...
112, 111, 123, 122, 118

And here's his yardage totals...1,175, 1,165, 1,348, 1,569, 1,334.

If I asked you if this stat-line was superstar level what would say?  122 rec, 1,569 yards, and 9 TD's?  Cuz that''s a Wes Welker stat-line in New England post Randy Moss.

Lastly, Tom Brady is the greatest QB of all time.  Hands down.  It's not even a contest anymore.  So he's probably not the best guy to bring up when trying to determing the weapons needed to succeed in this leage.  The guy has been successful with everyone he's played with for the last 20 years.

I have to laugh when people cite Brady.  If Burrow even accomplishes 1/3 of what Brady did, he'd still be a 1st ballot HoF'er.  

Sewell. Nothing more important than protecting Burrow. Also, having a powerful offensive line enables you to help the defense by controlling the football. It can set up everything.

Sewell.

If I was ever given a GM spot this would be my draft theory until I get fired or retire.

Year one
OL 1st pick
DL 2nd pick
Let the position coaches fight over/present their case the 3rd pick on, or scouts provide me with information from the 3rd pick on.

Year two
DL 1st pick
OL 2nd pick
Let the position coaches fight over/present their case the 3rd pick on, or scouts provide me with information from the 3rd pick on.

Repeat process every two years. Possible trade downs would make the 3rd pick a 2nd rounder on most deals so the team wouldn't be talent starved.

(03-20-2021, 08:16 PM)impactplaya Wrote: I take Chase.
Signing Reiff allows a premier playmaker to fall.to them at 5.
The Bengals need  a serious end zone.threat on offense.
Boyd is the best chain mover in the game.
But hes not a TD machine.
Tee Higgins has potential to be a consistant end zone threat
But the rest of the supporting cast are not consistant end zone threats.

Not Uzomah, not Bernard, not Tate, not Sample.
Chase.could be a difference maker right out the gate.
Sewell is a great talent, but isnt better than Slater or Darrisaw.
Plus he hasnt played in 15 months
The Bengals can still.grab.a future RT in RD 2.
The Bengals need a impact player at 5.

I voted Sewell, but Chase is a VERY, VERY close 2nd.  I have no interest in Pitts at #5.  The Bengals simply don't operate out of enough two TE sets to make is worthwhile.  I would be like them drafting a man CB very high and playing all zone.  

You nailed the main reasons for taking Chase, and I will add that he will force defenses to adapt to him and that will help every position on the offense.  Plus, I like his alpha-mentality.  

That being said, the upside to Sewell is undeniable and I love the idea of having Reiff kick inside.  He would be the least of the three as OTs go.  Kick him inside to RG and have XSF and Spain (sign him) battle for the LG spot.  I also try to add another Guard in Rd 4.  

Build the line first

(03-20-2021, 07:42 PM)GodFather Wrote: First round pick 5, Bengals have both Sewell and Chase available, Mike Brown looks at you and says your decision and why? Then Bengals pull the trigger on your selection from these two.

Easy decision

Sewell as Reiff can either kick inside to play guard or can mentor Sewell in year one. Reiff may an a Whittworth in durability, but he is good, but never considered elite OT.

Also, a lot easier to find a 3rd WR (draft is loaded with WR's) than an elite OT.

Last, the rookie pool will pay the OT a lot less money for 4 years than signing a vet stud left OT

You build the trenches, a QB with time in the pocket for find open WR's. But, if Sewell is gone, I choose Pitts over Chase because lots of good WR's will be on the board in round 2 or 3, no great TE's will be.

(03-20-2021, 11:04 PM)CardCounterChris Wrote: First off, the safer, non bust pick in my opinion is Chase.  Sewell hasn't played much college football.  Lineman can be hit and miss in general.  If you wanted to be safe and say "I didn't waste my pick", I think the answer is Chase.  Even if he doesn't live up to best wide receiver in the class, which I think he is, he'll be a solid producer.

HOWEVER, good lineman are so much rarer than good wide outs!  If you have a choice between an elite lineman or receiver, you jump at the lineman.  I won't be upset with Chase, though once you get past the story and the Burrow connection, I think looking at the roster, Sewell and Pitts both make more sense in checking the boxes for dominant at their position and team need.

This ^ for the most part.

Sewell has lots of promise but is also a slight risk for a day one starter to protect the QB.

By the way...  why are people just saying let's get "3rd WR" oh ho hum that's what we need?

Getting a true dominant wideout(just look at Chase's numbers against the best opponents in NCAA + his physicality)to add to the group, or a highly talented TE that we're severely lacking to challenge the defense is really crucial.

The fact that they can't land either of those types in FA immediately without shelling out tons of cash is reality.

Chase/Pitts add more than just a guy you can get in the later rounds or from another teams late cuts.

"You can't get the guys the ball with Burrow laying on his back".  

It's chicken or egg sometimes too though.  If the QB holds onto the ball too long because your WRs/TE aren't getting open guess what happens?

If the Defense has to play back and be honest to account for receiving threats it takes some heat off the O-line too.

This can be beneficial to the run game as well.

RECAP - Posters shouldn't be trashing on the thought of taking Pitts/Chase so adamantly.  Sewell would help, but he's not a lock for our O-line savior or sole protection of Burrow.

Sewell.

#1 Priority: Protect Burrow.
#2 Priority: Get a running game.

Reiff is a nice stopgap. But is 32. We now have 2/5 lineman who are above average. Go get Sewell, who has a chance to be dominant for a decade.

Get some vet help at guard plus draft another IOL in round 2 or 3.

Toys are nice. But if your QB is running for his life all the time, they are useless. Look at Mahomes in the Super Bowl. Plus, if you can run it, you can keep your defense off the field if it is shaky. Especially with Burrow at QB.

Plus, if you see a problem, fix it. The Brown upgraded their OL and were suddenly a PO team. Not a coincidence. I'd go get at least 2 more OL. Maybe 3. Draft Sewell for sure. He has a chance to be generational. Move Jonah (or Reiff) inside. I prefer Jonah because I do not like tall guards (leverage issues). Jonah is 6'4". Reiff & Sewell 6'6". Plus, Williams has short arms. Let it play out in camp, though. 2 best Ts start, #3 to OG.

Anyway, those 3 plus Hopkins start. I'd take a G/C type in round 2 or 3 (WR in the other). I'd also take a swing at a vet guard on the cheap in FA. Let that guy compete with the pick and XSF for the other G spot.

OT: Sewell, Reiff, F. Johnson, Adeniji.
G: Williams (OT#3), VetG, Draft pick, XSF
C: Hopkins, Price

Stick Jordan on the PS to see if Pollack can fix him. Pollack will have a trove of yoyng guys (Sewell, Jonah, IOL pick, F. Johnson, Adeniji, Jordan, even Price). We'll be set at OT and be picking later after this year. You can get elite TEs, Guards, and Centers in round 2. Elite WRs in late 1st (look at Jefferson last year). OTs, not so much.

Good Lineman helps both the run and pass game.

(03-21-2021, 08:18 AM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: Sewell.

If I was ever given a GM spot this would be my draft theory until I get fired or retire.

Year one
OL 1st pick
DL 2nd pick
Let the position coaches fight over/present their case the 3rd pick on, or scouts provide me with information from the 3rd pick on.

Year two
DL 1st pick
OL 2nd pick
Let the position coaches fight over/present their case the 3rd pick on, or scouts provide me with information from the 3rd pick on.

Repeat process every two years. Possible trade downs would make the 3rd pick a 2nd rounder on most deals so the team wouldn't be talent starved.

If we're speaking philosophically, that approach doesn't work.  

The Bengals have drafted 6 OL in the first this century(Levi Jones, Andre Smith, Kevin Zeitler, Cedric Ogbuehi, Billy Price, and Jonah Williams).  The average for a playoff team this past year in that same span is 3-4.    The only playoff team that drafted 6 OL in the first through that same period was Seattle.  The Patriots are a team often cited as an example and they've only taken 3, half of what we have.

What compounds the issue for the Bengals is they are frankly bad at OL talent evaluation.  If you're drafting a player in the 1st, your hope is that they will be a multi time Pro Bowl type player.  Of those 6 picks, none have been to a Pro Bowl.  Only 2(Jones, Zeitler) were quality starters as rookies, just as many as those that were total busts(Ogbuehi, Price).  1st round picks are a precious resource and we repeatedly spend them on a position group where our best results are solid-good starters, not elite franchise cornerstone type players and we get get nothing out of 2/3 of them as rookies.  

You can make cases for Sewell as a better talent or as a bigger need.  However, taking him due to a romanticized "build through the trenches" draft philosophy that requires you to constantly dump 1st round picks into the OL isn't logical because we've literally done that for the last two decades and it has been proven not to work.

(03-21-2021, 01:15 PM)Destro Wrote: Good Lineman helps both the run and pass game.

Don't use logic around here!!!

We need to be like the Lions and Raiders. Stock up on freaky athletes at skill positions.

It's worked wonders for those franchises.... 

(03-21-2021, 01:31 AM)CardCounterChris Wrote: TE is hugely underrated.  Let's look at the TE's on previous superbowl teams:

55: KC (Kelce) vs TB (Brate/Gronk)
54: SF (Kittle) vs KC (Kelce)
53: NE (Gronk) vs LAR (Higbee)
52:NE (Gronk) vs Phi (Ertz)
51: NE (Gronk) vs Falcons (Toilolo)*
50: CAR (Olsen) vs DEN (Owens/Virgil)*

That's a lot of Kelce and Gronk.  Then you have names such as Ertz/Kettle/Olsen.  Higbee had a good season the year they went to the Super Bowl.  Only the two teams marked with * weren't very productive.  Can you make a solid team without a TE? Sure.  Its not as important as say a QB, but in today's NFL, TE is at a premium.  I think a lot of us who remember 90s football tend to undervalue the position.  TE's are weapons today, they aren't vestigial FBs.  Pitts is 100% not a commitment to losing!  To be honest, we should stop referring to them as TE and as a Y.

The Bengals problem isn't talent at the Receiver position. Its the type of players they pick up.  Cincy love's their X's.  They love big guys like Higgins, Green, and Tate.   Boyd can flirt between X and Z, but Cincy really needs a solid Y and a slot guy.  Chase would be a good fit for this. He can create separation as a Z or in the slot.  (Honestly I'm glad we didn't end up with Golladay.  We don't need another big WR).

TLDR: Chase can contribute immediately based off skill set, TE is absolutely not a wasted top 10 pick in today's NFL.

If they sign Trai Turner I would be going bananas for Chase in the 1st, The TE from Penn State in the 2nd (he looks like Gronk).... and the C from Arkansas or G from TN (Smith?) in the 3rd.

PS, great TE play also helps the line.

(03-21-2021, 03:36 PM)Murdock2420 Wrote: Don't use logic around here!!!

We need to be like the Lions and Raiders. Stock up on freaky athletes at skill positions.

It's worked wonders for those franchises.... 

Because we have had so much success drafting OL in the 1st over and over again.

How is it logic to dismiss a draft philosophy used unsuccessfully by other teams in order to strengthen your belief in a draft philosophy our team has used unsuccessfully for 20 years?

(03-20-2021, 07:42 PM)GodFather Wrote: First round pick 5, Bengals have both Sewell and Chase available, Mike Brown looks at you and says your decision and why? Then Bengals pull the trigger on your selection from these two.

Sewell...I think we would look back and regret we didnt grab this dude.  ..and the fact Reiff was signed to a 1 yr deal
Better question for all is who do you take if Sewell gone by #5?
Pitts? Chase? or trade out? 

(03-21-2021, 01:31 AM)CardCounterChris Wrote: TE is hugely underrated.  Let's look at the TE's on previous superbowl teams:

55: KC (Kelce) vs TB (Brate/Gronk)
54: SF (Kittle) vs KC (Kelce)
53: NE (Gronk) vs LAR (Higbee)
52:NE (Gronk) vs Phi (Ertz)
51: NE (Gronk) vs Falcons (Toilolo)*
50: CAR (Olsen) vs DEN (Owens/Virgil)*

That's a lot of Kelce and Gronk.  Then you have names such as Ertz/Kettle/Olsen.  Higbee had a good season the year they went to the Super Bowl.  Only the two teams marked with * weren't very productive.  Can you make a solid team without a TE? Sure.  Its not as important as say a QB, but in today's NFL, TE is at a premium.  I think a lot of us who remember 90s football tend to undervalue the position.  TE's are weapons today, they aren't vestigial FBs.  Pitts is 100% not a commitment to losing!  To be honest, we should stop referring to them as TE and as a Y.

The Bengals problem isn't talent at the Receiver position. Its the type of players they pick up.  Cincy love's their X's.  They love big guys like Higgins, Green, and Tate.   Boyd can flirt between X and Z, but Cincy really needs a solid Y and a slot guy.  Chase would be a good fit for this. He can create separation as a Z or in the slot.  (Honestly I'm glad we didn't end up with Golladay.  We don't need another big WR).

TLDR: Chase can contribute immediately based off skill set, TE is absolutely not a wasted top 10 pick in today's NFL.

Don’t forget, Atlanta had Hooper that year and the Rams Also had Everett. I typed up the same TE the last five year Super bowl teams. By the time I had it all typed I didn’t even post it. I was like no one cares. Lol. I want Pitts as well.

(03-21-2021, 04:32 PM)kalibengal Wrote: Sewell...I think we would look back and regret we didnt grab this dude.  ..and the fact Reiff was signed to a 1 yr deal
Better question for all is who do you take if Sewell gone by #5?
Pitts? Chase? or trade out? 

Hard to say trade without any concrete offers.

I would take Chase over Pitts, currently.  I would be happy with either, but WR is a bigger need and Chase is the safest prospect out of the three.  He was better than Justin Jefferson was in '19 and Jefferson was an All Pro as a rookie.  We have his college QB and we've installed concepts from his college into ours, which will ease his transition.

I would be happy with Pitts, but I think how much you get out of him will be more dependent on scheme than Chase.  TE's also typically take at least a year to get up to speed in the NFL, so I don't think he will have as big of an immediate impact as Chase.

Sewell has Ogden type potential, but I think he is the biggest bust risk of the three due to his age, inexperience, and level of competition he faced.  I think that is somewhat mitigated by the Reiff signing, as we could put Sewell out there at G for at least a year to get acclimated to the NFL.

(03-21-2021, 03:59 PM)Whatever Wrote: Because we have had so much success drafting OL in the 1st over and over again.

How is it logic to dismiss a draft philosophy used unsuccessfully by other teams in order to strengthen your belief in a draft philosophy our team has used unsuccessfully for 20 years?

Let's talk draft strategy.


I put together a spreadsheet out of curiosity and went back to the 2015 NFL draft. I used the playoff teams from last season as my guide and tracked every 1st rounder they made by position.

Including years with multiple 1st round selections there was a total of 93 picks made.

Here is how it breaks down.

19 trades - 20.4%

10 QBs - 10.8%

10 Edge Rushers - 10.8%

9 OT - 9.7%

9 LB - 9.7%

8 CB - 8.6%

7 WR - 7.5%

6 DT - 6.5%

5 S - 5.4%

3 RBs - 3.2%

3 TE - 3.2%

3 C - 3.2%

1 OG - 1.1%



So as you look at the trends of teams that win and make the playoffs explain to me how you do anything with the pick that isn't a trade, a QB, and edge or an OT. Unless you just want another losing season... if you want more losing, go get the TE and we can do this top 5 dance again next season.

(03-21-2021, 05:10 PM)Murdock2420 Wrote: Let's talk draft strategy.


I put together a spreadsheet out of curiosity and went back to the 2015 NFL draft. I used the playoff teams from last season as my guide and tracked every 1st rounder they made by position.

Including years with multiple 1st round selections there was a total of 93 picks made.

Here is how it breaks down.

19 trades - 20.4%

10 QBs - 10.8%

10 Edge Rushers - 10.8%

9 OT - 9.7%

9 LB - 9.7%

8 CB - 8.6%

7 WR - 7.5%

6 DT - 6.5%

5 S - 5.4%

3 RBs - 3.2%

3 TE - 3.2%

3 C - 3.2%

1 OG - 1.1%



So as you look at the trends of teams that win and make the playoffs explain to me how you do anything with the pick that isn't a trade, a QB, and edge or an OT. Unless you just want another losing season... if you want more losing, go get the TE and we can do this top 5 dance again next season.

You realize that 33% of the Bengals' 1st round picks since '15 have been OT's, right?  50% of them have been OL.