Nick Fairley over the last 2 years has 43 tackles and 1.5 sacks.
What exactly are we getting here?

(02-23-2016, 12:39 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: Tate is never in 3 WR sets.
The production from Sanu and Tate can be matched by one WR. 

A WR who can play slot and return. 

Now you have an available roster spot for someone else if you so choose, not one wasted on a guy whose only value is not fumbling a return 

You have a WR who can play slot and return, yes.

But what about quality outside WR depth if Green and/or Jones were to go down? Leave that to Wright and/or Kumerow?

Like I said, I can be fine with two DTs in this draft because I think there is room for two and it's a deep DT class. However, I think a valid argument can also be made to upgrade the WR corps too since the back end is not good.

(02-23-2016, 01:56 PM)ochocincos Wrote: You have a WR who can play slot and return, yes.

But what about quality outside WR depth if Green and/or Jones were to go down? Leave that to Wright and/or Kumerow?

Like I said, I can be fine with two DTs in this draft because I think there is room for two and it's a deep DT class. However, I think a valid argument can also be made to upgrade the WR corps too since the back end is not good.

We haven't had a guy like that anyways.
And don't say Tate. He lined up there but he was never any good. 

You cannot draft under the premise of 2 injuries MIGHT happen. 

(02-23-2016, 01:41 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: Or as "yeah but is he actually going to try and play this week or just go through the motions"

I'd rather draft Sheldon Rankins at 24 and get a player who is probably better vs the run and has higher upside pass rushing. 

I'd be fine with drafting Rankins. My hope is, with as much DL talent as is expected to be available again this year, we don't do what we did last year and pass it over in favor of another "yeah, but he could be top 10... but" project.

But I'd still like to have someone in there for a year or two until whoever we draft is realistically able to contribute a sizable chunk.

(02-23-2016, 02:19 PM)Benton Wrote: I'd be fine with drafting Rankins. My hope is, with as much DL talent as is expected to be available again this year, we don't do what we did last year and pass it over in favor of another "yeah, but he could be top 10... but" project.

But I'd still like to have someone in there for a year or two until whoever we draft is realistically able to contribute a sizable chunk.

I think that's what Hardison and DeShawn Williams are for.

But adding a blue chip DL prospect should be a prime goal for this team when you factor in age and contract status of our current DL.
You need to have someone ready to carry the torch before long. And it might take a year or two for the DL to catch up.
Now's the time to add it. 

(02-23-2016, 12:38 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What does this even mean?

We are never going to run any 3 WR sets?

(02-23-2016, 12:39 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: Tate is never in 3 WR sets.
The production from Sanu and Tate can be matched by one WR. 

A WR who can play slot and return. 

Now you have an available roster spot for someone else if you so choose, not one wasted on a guy whose only value is not fumbling a return 

My mistake on this one.  

Don't know why, but I read your first quote as saying "Sanu and Jones" instead of "Sanu and Tate".

(02-23-2016, 01:58 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: We haven't had a guy like that anyways.
And don't say Tate. He lined up there but he was never any good. 

You cannot draft under the premise of 2 injuries MIGHT happen. 

This is precisely my point though. If you draft a slot/return player, you still have crappy outside WR depth.
Even with just one of Green or Jones being out, the difference in the offense was noticeable. So you do need at least one outside WR capable of filling in, and I don't feel too confident in Wright or Kumerow to get that done (not that my opinion matters to the Bengals).

Maybe this isn't the WR class to try and upgrade the depth since it's not quite as strong as the past couple seasons, but I think the point that the Bengals have bad depth after Green (and Jones if he re-signs) is not something to write home about and definitely has room to upgrade.

(02-23-2016, 03:13 PM)ochocincos Wrote: This is precisely my point though. If you draft a slot/return player, you still have crappy outside WR depth.
Even with just one of Green or Jones being out, the difference in the offense was noticeable. So you do need at least one outside WR capable of filling in, and I don't feel too confident in Wright or Kumerow to get that done (not that my opinion matters to the Bengals).

Maybe this isn't the WR class to try and upgrade the depth since it's not quite as strong as the past couple seasons, but I think the point that the Bengals have bad depth after Green (and Jones if he re-signs) is not something to write home about and definitely has room to upgrade.

Every team has crappy WR depth. 


You have 3 starters. And then 2 guys who can run the routes of any spot. 

Too much is made of "outside" WR. 
Just get guys who can run routes for the 4/5 spots. If they have to play, you're probably ****** anyways. 

(02-23-2016, 03:30 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: Every team has crappy WR depth. 


You have 3 starters. And then 2 guys who can run the routes of any spot. 

Too much is made of "outside" WR. 
Just get guys who can run routes for the 4/5 spots. If they have to play, you're probably ***** anyways. 

Fair enough.

I still don't fully agree that just because every team has crappy WR depth after their top three WRs that they shouldn't try to upgrade the 4-6 spots using a draft pick, but it doesn't matter.

I want 1+ WRs and 1+ DTs drafted.

(02-23-2016, 03:39 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Fair enough.

I still don't fully agree that just because every team has crappy WR depth after their top three WRs that they shouldn't try to upgrade the 4-6 spots using a draft pick, but it doesn't matter.

I want 1+ WRs and 1+ DTs drafted.

I think we all tend to over estimate what other teams have as depth.
Most teams don't have shit for depth. 

Backups are backups for a reason.

If you spend a high pick on a "backup" you are drafting wrong. 

You get a guy late or in FA who can run routes and hopefully be in the right spots. Or a freak athlete who might put it all together.

If they could do both, they'd be starting somewhere. 

(02-23-2016, 02:21 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: I think that's what Hardison and DeShawn Williams are for.

But adding a blue chip DL prospect should be a prime goal for this team when you factor in age and contract status of our current DL.
You need to have someone ready to carry the torch before long. And it might take a year or two for the DL to catch up.
Now's the time to add it. 

Agreed. I've been shouting that for the last 3-4 years... but eventually they just have the police remove me from the parking lot.

(02-23-2016, 03:41 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: I think we all tend to over estimate what other teams have as depth.
Most teams don't have shit for depth. 

Backups are backups for a reason.

If you spend a high pick on a "backup" you are drafting wrong. 

You get a guy late or in FA who can run routes and hopefully be in the right spots. Or a freak athlete who might put it all together.

If they could do both, they'd be starting somewhere. 

I didn't say to spend a high pick on a "backup" at all. I said spend two picks on WRs if we re-sign MLJ but lose Sanu and Tate. To me, a backup is not a third WR. A backup is a fourth or later WR. Do you consider the WR3 a backup WR? If so, that is where we differ I guess.

My thinking...
Round 1-4: pick up a WR that would be WR3 but fill in as WR2 if Green or Jones/vet were to go down. Someone like Tyler Boyd comes to mind.
Round 5-7: pick up a second WR to fill Tate's depth spot.

Mike Mayock gave his usual pre-combine conference call. He said that this is the deepest interior DL class he's ever seen. He said you could get a 1st round talent in the 3rd-4th round.

(02-23-2016, 05:30 PM)Bengal Dude Wrote: Mike Mayock gave his usual pre-combine conference call. He said that this is the deepest interior DL class he's ever seen. He said you could get a 1st round talent in the 3rd-4th round.

I'd be surprised if it's that deep, but I would not be at all upset if we took DT's with the first two picks, or a DE and DT. We could have that position set for a few years.

(02-23-2016, 05:30 PM)Bengal Dude Wrote: Mike Mayock gave his usual pre-combine conference call. He said that this is the deepest interior DL class he's ever seen. He said you could get a 1st round talent in the 3rd-4th round.

I hate this line of thinking.

"Hey you could get a top 10 type player in the late first!"

"Yeah but we could wait and get a fringe first in the 3rd!"

(02-23-2016, 06:28 PM)Benton Wrote: I'd be surprised if it's that deep, but I would not be at all upset if we took DT's with the first two picks, or a DE and DT. We could have that position set for a few years.

I wouldn't be shocked if we took an upside DT and then a DE/DT type (to replace Gilberry) in the 2-3 range 

(02-23-2016, 10:24 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Fairly was health ;last year but played less than 40% of the snaps for the Rams.  He had 29 tkls and 0.5 sack.  In 2014 he had a total of 14 tackles and 1 sack.

He is all hype and no production.

Using the last 2 seasons is a little deceptive when you leave out that...

1. In 2015, Fairley was the 3rd DT in a rotation with incumbents Aaron Donald and Michael Brockers. While the rotation hurt his bulk stats, he did rank 1st among DTs with fewer than 500 snaps by PFF.

2. Fairley missed half of the 2014 season and fought through injury the whole season.

I'm not saying we should sign him (I'm with RRL on drafting a DT and signing Trevathan), but it always irks me when folks try to make free agents sound worse simply because they're a FA. Fairley is a good player.

(02-23-2016, 06:32 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: I wouldn't be shocked if we took an upside DT and then a DE/DT type (to replace Gilberry) in the 2-3 range 

I'd be fine with those two picks (maybe both by the 4th round realistically), but they'll retain Gilberry or sign a vet for stability.  I'm sure they like what they see in Clark and Hardison but they also liked Hunt, Thompson and Still.  I'd almost trust Clark as the 3rd DE today, but they'll have another vet body in there. 

(02-25-2016, 07:40 PM)phil413 Wrote: I'd be fine with those two picks (maybe both by the 4th round realistically), but they'll retain Gilberry or sign a vet for stability.  I'm sure they like what they see in Clark and Hardison but they also liked Hunt, Thompson and Still.  I'd almost trust Clark as the 3rd DE today, but they'll have another vet body in there. 

Clarke as the third DE would put us in some serious trouble. 

(02-25-2016, 07:41 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: Clarke as the third DE would put us in some serious trouble. 

Hence the "almost" and why we need another vet, not just drafting two more rookies to replace the top vet replacement from last year.