Chase is a area of need and a guy you pick to build a relationship with your QB whose rookie year you ruined

If Sewell is there at 5 you have a hard decision on your hands

The offense becomes hard to defend with Chase. But we need time to throw, and i don’t foresee Sewell getting pushed back every play


Idk who you pick And i don’t really feel there’s a wrong choice between the 2

Interesting that Zac Taylor is at the Florida pro day today. Curious what contingent went to LSY.

(03-31-2021, 10:41 AM)Au165 Wrote: Interesting that Zac Taylor is at the Florida pro day today. Curious what contingent went to LSY.

That is interesting.

Pitts and Toney at FLA.

Chase and Marshall at LSU.

He could feel that wuth Joe's input on the LSU guys, the need to see them in person is less than the FLA guys.

(03-31-2021, 11:20 AM)Isaac Curtis: The Real #85 Wrote: That is interesting.

Pitts and Toney at FLA.

Chase and Marshall at LSU.

He could feel that wuth Joe's input on the LSU guys, the need to see them in person is less than the FLA guys.

I responded in another thread, while Burrow's input is great, Chase took a year off and I think you should want to see a guy who won't have played football for 18 months from last snap to next meaningful one. 

Trey Wingo says a Bengal coach/staff member pushesback on idea Burrow is pushing for Chase:

https://www.profootballnetwork.com/bengals-qb-joe-burrow-isnt-pushing-for-former-lsu-teammate-jamarr-chase/

(03-31-2021, 12:22 AM)Isaac Curtis: The Real #85 Wrote: The point wasn't that a dominant WR cannot get a team to a SB. The point was that a dominant OT/OL can get teams to the SB no matter who the receivers & backs are, as long as the QB is good. And our QB is better than good.

But the reverse is not true. A great QB, with great WRs does not mean crap if your line stinks. Just rewatch the SB.

Now, if you think Sewell is a just a run of the mill OT prospect, not that much better than the #5-#6 OT prospect we could land at 38, then we should take Chase.

But if you think Sewell is a generational OT talent, he has to be the pick. OT is a more foundational spot than WR.

Your statement is a better reflection of my thinking than my statement. Thank you

(03-31-2021, 02:48 AM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: Our QB is literally vouching for the kid, but yeah sure, he could be a “diva” *rolls eyes*

Some of you are really working hard to not like the possibility of adding a fantastic prospect.

I never said anything bad about Chase. He is a fantastic prospect. I personally would take two o linemen with the first two picks if I was GM and the second round selection graded out.

(04-01-2021, 04:16 PM)bengals67 Wrote: I never said anything bad about Chase. He is a fantastic prospect. I personally would take two o linemen with the first two picks if I was GM and the second round selection graded out.

I agree with you

this board is very much divided within 2 groups.

The logical thinkers (the people who want o-linemen first 2 rounds. You)

and the emotional thinkers (the people who want a shiny new receiver because our quarterback wants to play with his college buddy)

(03-27-2021, 04:41 PM)Whatever Wrote: From '90-'00, 8 of our 13 1st round picks were spent on defense.  Not sure how that equates to cookies.  

Sorry for the late reply, but I just saw this.

Of the offensive players we took during that span, we took (in round 1):

2 QBs
1 RB
1 WR
1 O-lineman

4 shiny toys to 1 lineman. In a period where we desperately needed linemen.

---------

Of the 6 offensive players we took in the 2nd round:

2 RBs
2 WRs
2 TEs

---------

We really didn't look at any linemen until round 3 and later. So - like I said - eating cookies and ignoring the broccoli.

(04-01-2021, 06:16 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Sorry for the late reply, but I just saw this.

Of the offensive players we took during that span, we took (in round 1):

2 QBs
1 RB
1 WR
1 O-lineman

4 shiny toys to 1 lineman. In a period where we desperately needed linemen.

---------

Of the 6 offensive players we took in the 2nd round:

2 RBs
2 WRs
2 TEs

---------

We really didn't look at any linemen until round 3 and later. So - like I said - eating cookies and ignoring the broccoli.

I knew it was bad, but never looked at how bad.  That is just negligent.  Christ, I hated being a fan then.

McShay's latest mock is pretty....odd.

Mac Jones at #3. Fields at #11. Sewell at #13.

Kind of a joke.

Had us taking Chase at #5.

One thing that concerns me on Chase is he is a short projected X WE at under 6'1, proto type X WRs are 6'3 and above.

(04-01-2021, 06:16 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Sorry for the late reply, but I just saw this.

Of the offensive players we took during that span, we took (in round 1):

2 QBs
1 RB
1 WR
1 O-lineman

4 shiny toys to 1 lineman. In a period where we desperately needed linemen.

---------

Of the 6 offensive players we took in the 2nd round:

2 RBs
2 WRs
2 TEs

---------

We really didn't look at any linemen until round 3 and later. So - like I said - eating cookies and ignoring the broccoli.

How is it eating cookies and ignoring the broccoli when the majority of our 1st round picks were defense?  They drafted 4 DL/Edge players in the first in that span.  Is the broccoli OL only and everything else is cookies?  You're literally breaking down a fraction of our 1st round picks in that span to try to make your argument.  Even then, most people see QB's as a necessity to winning football and don't refer to them as shiny toys or cookies or whatever.  

(04-01-2021, 07:35 PM)Isaac Curtis: The Real #85 Wrote: McShay's latest mock is pretty....odd.

Mac Jones at #3. Fields at #11. Sewell at #13.

Kind of a joke.

Had us taking Chase at #5.

If we pass on Sewell, I can see him falling. With the run on receivers and Parson and a CB in there somewhere, he'll likely fall. Not past Dallas tho.

Chase is pretty much a Bengal.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2939036-a-joe-burrow-jamarr-chase-reunion-could-be-nfls-next-great-offense

Joe Burrow and Ja'marr Chase reunitied...



Near 50% of JN whose estatic with the move...



The other near 50% who were all aboard Penei the Sewell train...



Me, and the others in the minority who wanted Kyle Pitts, watching the other two sides debate the pick...

(04-01-2021, 11:42 PM)Whatever Wrote: How is it eating cookies and ignoring the broccoli when the majority of our 1st round picks were defense?  They drafted 4 DL/Edge players in the first in that span.  Is the broccoli OL only and everything else is cookies?  You're literally breaking down a fraction of our 1st round picks in that span to try to make your argument.  Even then, most people see QB's as a necessity to winning football and don't refer to them as shiny toys or cookies or whatever.  

Sewell and Chase are both offensive players. We're talking about our offense here.

There are 11 positions on offense. 5 linemen, and 6 other positions that are generally viewed as more exciting to fans. For the 5 linemen positions, we spent 1 draft pick. For the 6 positions that fans find more exciting, we spent 10 picks.

We had a solid QB in Jeff Blake and still took Akili Smith, passing on a plethora of picks to do so. Was that not valuing the shiny toy over doing the right thing?

(04-02-2021, 12:14 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Sewell and Chase are both offensive players. We're talking about our offense here.

There are 11 positions on offense. 5 linemen, and 6 other positions that are generally viewed as more exciting to fans.  For the 5 linemen positions, we spent 1 draft pick. For the 6 positions that fans find more exciting, we spent 10 picks.

We had a solid QB in Jeff Blake and still took Akili Smith, passing on a plethora of picks to do so. Was that not valuing the shiny toy over doing the right thing?

But they were still primarily drafting defense in the 1st, which certainly isn't glamorous.  They also spent 4 2nd's on defense in that time frame, meaning they took more defense than offense in the first and second rounds through the '90's.

Blake was benched and only started 2 games in '98, so saying he was a solid QB at that point is a big stretch.  In retrospect, we should have taken the trade, but they got locked in...on one guy...who played for Oregon.  You know, since you reminded me of Fisher in the other thread, do you think there's a reason why whenever the Bengals spend a high pick on a guy from Oregon they turn out to be a complete bust?  

This whole Chase-Sewell debate has gotten kind of crazy. I honestly don't think there's a right or wrong answer here.

If the Bengals take Sewell, it's a great move. He has a ton of potential and should be able to bolster the o-line immediately. It helps provide protection for Burrow and the Bengals can look to take a WR or 2 after round 1 that can hopefully provide the offense some ability to stretch the field.

If the Bengals take Chase, I also think it's a great move. He gives Burrow a legit downfield threat and dangerous playmaker that will help open things up for Boyd and Higgins even more. There will be some pretty good linemen available after the 1st round that will be productive starters.

I think the Bengals are in a great situation, if they stay put and don't trade down. If teams start calling for the 5th pick, then things could get even more interesting.  

Dun dun dun.

Quote:This is especially true with Chase. He has, for example, noted that he’s talked with the Bengals multiple times. And a recent report hinted that Burrow himself has nudged the Bengals toward drafting his former teammate.

But now Trey Wingo of Pro Football Network says he’s received a text from a Bengals coach shooting down the idea Burrow asked the Bengals to draft Chase.

So which is it? Good luck figuring it out — welcome to smokescreen season.

https://bengalswire.usatoday.com/2021/04/02/bengals-jamarr-chase-smokescreens-nfl-draft/