What grade do you give this year's rookie class?

(01-06-2016, 05:30 PM)McC Wrote: What grade do you give this year's rookie class?

A.

The team drafted a bunch of guys that will be starters:

Fisher
Ogboie
Dawson
Shaw

And a bunch of guys that should be very good rotational players.

On production alone, I give them a C-.  Fisher has done a pretty good job when called upon, and he seems versatile.  I like what I've seen from Josh Shaw.  I don't have a whole lot to say about the rest of them.  Time will tell.

I guess a B.

Ogbuehi-He's looked decent in the limited snaps he's played.

Fisher-The old "#74 is eligible" drinking game is back, but this #74 is actually good. He does a good job blocking. Catching is a different story.

Kroft-A good player. I didn't expect much from him since he only had 1 year as a blocker in college. I didn't expect much from him in the receiving game and I was right. He has 11 catches on the year.

Dawson-I've been surprised at how little he's been used. Hopefully he can start practicing at a high level so he can get on the field.

Shaw-He's been an awesome player for us. He's done an amazing job as a gunner this season. I think he's going to be a good defensive player for us.

Hardison-He was labeled as a project pick, so I didn't expect much. We'll see what he does next season.

Uzomah-He's played in 5 games and has 1 catch. He's blown my expectations out of the water.

D. Smith-I thought he'd have a little more playing time, but he's been a decent ST player.

Alford-Our 7th round pick has been the biggest disappointment, in my opinion, and that's just weird. Not often anyone can EVER say that. I thought he'd be our KR/PR. Looks like he'll probably be on the PS next season.

C-???

Based on what?

None of these rookies were expected to play starter roles and only a few of the draft picks even cracked the regular rotation. I'm very impressed with the first 5 picks...

When your entire draft class can sit and learn and ease into things I give the whole deal an A.


The cupboard is full and is just going to get more crowded.

IN DUKE WE TRUST

(01-06-2016, 06:39 PM)ItsOdellThurman Wrote: C-???

Based on what?

None of these rookies were expected to play starter roles and only a few of the draft picks even cracked the regular rotation.  I'm very impressed with the first 5 picks...

Because I don't watch the sidelines... 

(01-06-2016, 05:46 PM)Bengal Dude Wrote: I guess a B.

Ogbuehi-He's looked decent in the limited snaps he's played.

Fisher-The old "#74 is eligible" drinking game is back, but this #74 is actually good. He does a good job blocking. Catching is a different story.

Kroft-A good player. I didn't expect much from him since he only had 1 year as a blocker in college. I didn't expect much from him in the receiving game and I was right. He has 11 catches on the year.

Dawson-I've been surprised at how little he's been used. Hopefully he can start practicing at a high level so he can get on the field.

Shaw-He's been an awesome player for us. He's done an amazing job as a gunner this season. I think he's going to be a good defensive player for us.

Hardison-He was labeled as a project pick, so I didn't expect much. We'll see what he does next season.

Uzomah-He's played in 5 games and has 1 catch. He's blown my expectations out of the water.

D. Smith-I thought he'd have a little more playing time, but he's been a decent ST player.

Alford-Our 7th round pick has been the biggest disappointment, in my opinion, and that's just weird. Not often anyone can EVER say that. I thought he'd be our KR/PR. Looks like he'll probably be on the PS next season.

I'm pretty much on board with this.  However, I think Kroft, while his production is unimpressive, has shown some good signs of being very valuable. He catches it, and seems pretty agile after the catch.  They haven't figured out how to work him in enough yet, but I think next season, we'll have a nice tight end tandem.  And I actually have some hope for Usomah.

Grade = A

The pipeline is full, many of these guys are getting meaningful snaps, and the Bengals should be in good shape despite impending loss of some FAs. The Bengals machine keeps rolling along!

Objectively speaking...

Backup tackle who spent most of the season on the NFI List.
Backup tackle who is now a FB.
Backup TE who didn't get a catch until Week 12, BUT did pick it up at least a little when he became the starter briefly.
Backup LB who's not done much.
Backup CB who needs work (what 4th rounder doesn't?), but shows promise, also started a game.
Backup DT who can't even get activated.
A TE, S, and WR who I forgot existed and had little/no impact. (Not surprising for late round picks, though.)

If you're not on the field making plays, you can't get a good grade. Nobody gets a good grade for sitting on the sidelines. I also don't give automatic As because someone is wearing a Bengals uniform.

So... Grade: C (C- normally, but bumped it up due to hope that one of the two T will turn into a decent starter next year.)

(01-06-2016, 07:57 PM)Beaker Wrote: Grade = A

The pipeline is full, many of these guys are getting meaningful snaps, and the Bengals should be in good shape despite impending loss of some FAs. The Bengals machine keeps rolling along!

Exactly .... Not sure how anyone can give these guys a lesser grade at this point. They draft for depth.

(01-06-2016, 08:04 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Exactly ....  Not sure how anyone can give these guys a lesser grade at this point.    They draft for depth.

Because why would we grade for depth?

Why would Cedric Ogbuehi, the 21st overall pick who only played in 5 games and started 0 get the same grade as say... Marcus Peters? The 18th overall pick who started 16 games and is a rookie Pro Bowl CB?

If people get As for not playing, then this is a meaningless exercise because then every single draft class this year would get an A regardless of performance.

(01-06-2016, 08:04 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Exactly ....  Not sure how anyone can give these guys a lesser grade at this point.    They draft for depth.

That's all fine and good.  I just don't see how anyone can give guys who hardly sniff the field any grade higher than a C.  I based my grade on production, not potential.  It's great to be in a position to not have to play these guys.  If we were doing this a few years from now, I'd hope that I'd be giving them a higher grade...  Again, I really like what I've seen from Shaw.  Fisher seems to be for real.  Kroft is doesn't suck, and Cedric was supposed to be a top 10 pick before the injury.  I've gotta see them on the field though.

So far Kroft has looked good when we've seen him. Fisher is proving useful both as OL and as a FB. Ogbuehi looked good in limited action and honestly I'd almost rather have Shaw out there than Kirkpatrick.

Call it a solid B+

(01-06-2016, 08:09 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Because why would we grade for depth?

Why would Cedric Ogbuehi, the 21st overall pick who only played in 5 games and started 0 get the same grade as say... Marcus Peters? The 18th overall pick who started 16 games and is a rookie Pro Bowl CB?

If people get As for not playing, then this is a meaningless exercise because then every single draft class this year would get an A regardless of performance.

Simple - you don't grade a draft class after one season.  

How do you know Fisher isn't a 7 time Pro-Bowler biding his time behind Whitworth?

You just don't know.  The only way to objectively grade is to look at the potential of these guys.  You can't penalize them because they are sitting behind Pro-Bowlers (Fisher, Ogbuehi, Kroft) or because they are stuck behind guys that are playing at a Pro-Bowl level (Shaw, Dawson)

(01-06-2016, 08:13 PM)Hammerstripes Wrote: Simple - you don't grade a draft class after one season.  

How do you know Fisher isn't a 7 time Pro-Bowler biding his time behind Whitworth?

You just don't know.  The only way to objectively grade is to look at the potential of these guys.  You can't penalize them because they are sitting behind Pro-Bowlers (Fisher, Ogbuehi, Kroft) or because they are stuck behind guys that are playing at a Pro-Bowl level (Shaw, Dawson)

Then why the hell did someone make this thread? I sure didn't make it, I am just going along with it.

There is nothing objective about fans of a team judging their players "potential". That's how you got 49ers fans talking about how Kaepernick was going to be the next Joe Montana, and Jets fans talking about Mark "The Sanchize" Sanchez... with "potential". Fisher COULD be a 7-time Pro Bowler, or he could be a scrub and a bust. The only way to stay objective is to grade by stats and performance, of which the Bengals draft class is lacking.

Case and point? People already tried this argument for years with Kirkpatrick. "Oh, he'll be great, he's just stuck behind good CBs in the depth chart." All of that "potential" people spoke about turned out to be a big 'ol turd, which is why you can't grade a draft off potential, but results.

(01-06-2016, 08:13 PM)Hammerstripes Wrote: Simple - you don't grade a draft class after one season.  

How do you know Fisher isn't a 7 time Pro-Bowler biding his time behind Whitworth?

You just don't know.  The only way to objectively grade is to look at the potential of these guys.  You can't penalize them because they are sitting behind Pro-Bowlers (Fisher, Ogbuehi, Kroft) or because they are stuck behind guys that are playing at a Pro-Bowl level (Shaw, Dawson)

We don't...  Just like we don't know that he isn't a total bust.  The C range seems pretty reasonable.

(01-06-2016, 08:09 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Because why would we grade for depth?

Why would Cedric Ogbuehi, the 21st overall pick who only played in 5 games and started 0 get the same grade as say... Marcus Peters? The 18th overall pick who started 16 games and is a rookie Pro Bowl CB?

If people get As for not playing, then this is a meaningless exercise because then every single draft class this year would get an A regardless of performance.

And had Marcus peters been drafted by us he would be our 4th corner and no one would know about him until he had to play.

if Ogbhuei played on another team he would have probably started some games.

There is only so many reps. You can't have all these guys playing loads of reps and still have a high level of play all over.

Have some of you ran out of things to complain about that you now complain that rookies don't play enough snaps lol

When your team is good rookies don't play.

(01-06-2016, 09:04 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Have some of you ran out of things to complain about that you now complain that rookies don't play enough snaps lol

When your team is good rookies don't play.

No one is complaining rookies aren't complaining.
They're complaining at the stupid logic that not-playing = good grade.

Fact is, outside of Shaw and Kroft, no rookie has played anywhere near enough snaps to get a true judgement of their progress.