The Bengals took another corner back in the draft yesterday. Many analysts say he was the best player on the board when it was the Bengals turn to pick. Many people would also agree that corner back wasn't really a huge need for the Bengals as how their team is currently constructed.

My question for you guys is, are you OK with picking for sustainability or would you rather be picking with more of a win now type of philosophy?

The Bengals themselves have said that they don't see WJ3 playing much this year, so are you OK with that? Would you have rather seen the Bengals make a pick that would have had an immediate impact on the roster? Would you have rather seen them take a linebacker or wide receiver that could step in and contribute this year rather than take a kid that's not going to play for at least another year?

I personally am fine with the pick, but sometimes I would like the Bengals to do something to press the issue and really get a sense or urgency to try and win now. Maybe trade up and get the best receiver in the draft. Just do something to try and really put this team over the edge.

I know its not their style, and their style has been working out for them lately so its kind of hard to question, but man, sometimes you just have to think what would happen if this team really went after a player that would make an immediate impact on the roster. We have so many pieces already, why not try and get that final piece of the puzzle instead of getting a duplicate piece of the puzzle?

Well look at it like this. We basically get a redshirt rookie RT this year who should improve our run game this year (Andre was bad last year). Next year we will get a redshirt CB and so on. I think when you are in this position it isn't a bad place to be.

(04-29-2016, 05:04 PM)Au165 Wrote: Well look at it like this. We basically get a redshirt rookie RT this year who should improve are run game this year (Andre was bad last year). Next year we will get a Red shirt CB and so on. I think when you are in this position it isn't a bad place to be.

Its not a bad place to be in at all. I just wonder how things would work out if we really went after a huge need on our team. Is improving a position significantly this year more important than having a continuation plan? 

What if that one player we trade up for puts us over the top and takes us to the Super Bowl? 

(04-29-2016, 05:06 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: Its not a bad place to be in at all. I just wonder how things would work out if we really went after a huge need on our team. Is improving a position significantly this year more important than having a continuation plan? 

What if that one player we trade up for puts us over the top and takes us to the Super Bowl? 

In any given year, plenty of first rounders actually do nothing. So "going for it" can result in crash and burn as much as providing an immediate impact. I mean how many guys in recent years have put teams "over the top" as rookies?

(04-29-2016, 04:54 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: The Bengals took another corner back in the draft yesterday. Many analysts say he was the best player on the board when it was the Bengals turn to pick. Many people would also agree that corner back wasn't really a huge need for the Bengals as how their team is currently constructed.

My question for you guys is, are you OK with picking for sustainability or would you rather be picking with more of a win now type of philosophy?

The Bengals themselves have said that they don't see WJ3 playing much this year, so are you OK with that? Would you have rather seen the Bengals make a pick that would have had an immediate impact on the roster? Would you have rather seen them take a linebacker or wide receiver that could step in and contribute this year rather than take a kid that's not going to play for at least another year?

I personally am fine with the pick, but sometimes I would like the Bengals to do something to press the issue and really get a sense or urgency to try and win now. Maybe trade up and get the best receiver in the draft. Just do something to try and really put this team over the edge.

I know its not their style, and their style has been working out for them lately so its kind of hard to question, but man, sometimes you just have to think what would happen if this team really went after a player that would make an immediate impact on the roster. We have so many pieces already, why not try and get that final piece of the puzzle instead of getting a duplicate piece of the puzzle?

I am fine with the Bengals drafting philosophy. I totally agree with taking BPA when your turn comes up. Never draft and reach for need. Only draft for need when the BPA matches your need. Good teams are built this way. We got arguably the best cover CB in the draft. With Jones at 33, Dre in a contract year, Hall gone, and unanswered questions about Dennard's durability, I think the BPA actually meshed quite well with the Bengals needs this time. Another way to think of the pick is this, if you narrow it down to just WR or the CB we took....the next WR available would have been the 5th best WR on the board. The Next CB available was the 2nd best CB on the board. Why draft the 5th best WR to be our #2 when you can draft the 2nd best CB to be a starter?

I want to win right away as much as anyone, but I really did not see any player leaft at #24 who would have stepped in and started for us.

I see a lot of people saying that we should have traded up, but there has to be a team in front of you who is willing to drop back to #24.  So we do not even know if trading up was a possibility.

Even though I went into the draft wanting another position, once the draft played out the way it did I am satisfied with the pick.

This year there are 30 CBs making $6 mill+ per year.  That will go up every year.  I'll bet that if DK stays healthy, and the Bengals have another good team defense he would get that much in '17 when he is set to become a free agent.

And to avoid another five pages of repeating the same old arguments I will only say that he would get paid that much.  Not that he would be worth that much. 

Yeah, Weezy, it's a fine line to walk. Because this strategy may never result in being the "best" version of ourselves or a title. On the other hand, overdoing it the other way turns you into a team that has a strict "x" year window before you get priced out of your players and go into cap hell...and that might even not end with a title either.

It's the same debate we all have with free agency. One side can point to the "dream team" Eagles, Redskins of the mid 00s, or current Dolphins and say, "do you wanna end up like THAT?" The other side can point to the 2015 champions and say, "Where are the Broncos last year without Peyton, Aqib Talib, Demarcus Ware, TJ Ward and Emmanuel Sanders?"

Honestly there is no "right" answer. Personally I would sacrifice being irrelevant for the next 10 years if you could guarantee me a title next season. But with no guarantees, I'd have to opt for the way we do things currently. More bites at the apple this way. More chances for us to have the ball "bounce our way", so to speak.

(04-29-2016, 05:06 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: Its not a bad place to be in at all. I just wonder how things would work out if we really went after a huge need on our team. Is improving a position significantly this year more important than having a continuation plan? 

What if that one player we trade up for puts us over the top and takes us to the Super Bowl? 

if we just needed 1 player then go for it. problem is trading up in the first is expensive and with us having only 7 picks i see the bengals wanting to use all of them even though we know all 7 wont make the final roster.

They proved that they're all about preparing for the future when they passed up tyler lockett to get fisher. A freakin backup h-back. I know he will eventually replace whit down the road but c'mon. Lockett would've replaced crappy tate and marvin jones. I will NEVER get over that blunder. Proves they are satisfied with just being a "good" team instead of great or champions.

(04-29-2016, 05:27 PM)jjvolt Wrote: They proved that they're all about preparing for the future when they passed up tyler lockett to get fisher. A freakin backup h-back. I know he will eventually replace whit down the road but c'mon. Lockett would've replaced crappy tate and marvin jones. I will NEVER get over that blunder. Proves they are satisfied with just being a "good" team instead of great or champions.

This is revisionist history at it's finest.

(04-29-2016, 05:23 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: if we just needed 1 player then go for it.  problem is trading up in the first is expensive and with us having only 7 picks i see the bengals wanting to use all of them even though we know all 7 wont make the final roster.

this.

No one wants to admit how big of a crap shoot the NFL draft is.  Every year there are multiple flops just in the first round.  Even the best teams in the league have first round flops.  There is a lot of just plain luck involved.

Keep as many picks as possible.  That increases your chances of getting a good player more than moving up a few spots.

(04-29-2016, 04:54 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: Sustainability vs. Win Now

It's not an either or question. You can be sustainable and win now!

You only need to look at New England, Green Bay, 49ers of the 80s and 90s, even the dreaded Steelers for proof that you can build a team and keep it winning over time.

If I was given the choice between what I see to be a long-term sustainability pick (The CB, Jackson III) or a more win-now pick (Ogbah, the DE), I would support what the Bengals did. Every draft and team situation regarding pending free agency-eligible players will be different. Right now, they got an excellent talent at CB that not only gives them depth behind Dre Kirk should he exit via FA, but depth at a key position.

The DE might have made a solid impact coming in for MJ at RDE on passing downs, but the Bengals already have at least solid rotational players for the right side (Hunt, Clarke) and the contract status for Hunt could (hopefully) yield something out of a second round selection.

For me, the drop off at CB is too great. Not as much at RDE. Heck, the kid we drafted in the fourth round last year barely saw any action and I am excited to see what he can do rotating in on third downs.

So, for this year, I applaud sustainability. Last year, I wanted win-now with the receiver (Lockett) in Rd 2.

(04-29-2016, 05:15 PM)Beaker Wrote: I totally agree with taking BPA when your turn comes up. Never draft and reach for need. Only draft for need when the BPA matches your need. Good teams are built this way.

Eh, I don't know a lot of successful teams with 10 tackles, 16 punters, 4 quarterbacks and a slew of runningbacks. Or however you want to structure it. Saying 'only BPA' sounds great, but it's just not realistic.

One, it's all subjective. BPA depends on who is making the determination. In this case, our staff. And our staff loves the heck out of OL and CBs. So if we go 'only BPA' then we're drafting seven rounds of giant tackles and fast corners.

Two, it's not a good way to fill a need. Because eventually, you're going to have a need. If your BPA falls to the same five or six positions in your first three rounds for three or four years, you're restocking those other ten or so positions with fourth round or later guys. Generally hit or miss players. That leaves you pretty thin. Like our LB spot. After Rey, we dropped down to later round guys. Moch, Muckelroy, Porter, Flowers, Dawson. It's showing every time we bring in another team's near-retirement LB to get us through another season.

You've got to balance it out. If you're thin at corner and there's a corner you've got graded near your spot, you take it, regardless if there's a bad ass punter or a seven foot tackle you don't need. It's not reaching, it's building. And it's building around a lot of guess work.

I'm a fan of the way we've approached things, but we've got three first round CBs on the roster and the last one is looking to replace at least one of the first two. So we're not hitting that BPA mark there. And we've spent some later round picks on defense, but we're an injury away from Pat Sims being a starter on the line or Tate being our third receiving option.

(04-29-2016, 05:27 PM)jjvolt Wrote: They proved that they're all about preparing for the future when they passed up tyler lockett to get fisher. A freakin backup h-back. I know he will eventually replace whit down the road but c'mon. Lockett would've replaced crappy tate and marvin jones. I will NEVER get over that blunder. Proves they are satisfied with just being a "good" team instead of great or champions.

Because Lockett brought the seahawks a championship, right?

(04-29-2016, 04:54 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: The Bengals took another corner back in the draft yesterday. Many analysts say he was the best player on the board when it was the Bengals turn to pick. Many people would also agree that corner back wasn't really a huge need for the Bengals as how their team is currently constructed.

My question for you guys is, are you OK with picking for sustainability or would you rather be picking with more of a win now type of philosophy?

The Bengals themselves have said that they don't see WJ3 playing much this year, so are you OK with that? Would you have rather seen the Bengals make a pick that would have had an immediate impact on the roster? Would you have rather seen them take a linebacker or wide receiver that could step in and contribute this year rather than take a kid that's not going to play for at least another year?

I personally am fine with the pick, but sometimes I would like the Bengals to do something to press the issue and really get a sense or urgency to try and win now. Maybe trade up and get the best receiver in the draft. Just do something to try and really put this team over the edge.

I know its not their style, and their style has been working out for them lately so its kind of hard to question, but man, sometimes you just have to think what would happen if this team really went after a player that would make an immediate impact on the roster. We have so many pieces already, why not try and get that final piece of the puzzle instead of getting a duplicate piece of the puzzle?

First off, good thread Weezy. You didn't come off like a pessimist or anything, well done.

The thing is even if we traded up and got Doctson who in most people's eyes was the best WR in this draft he might not
even start ahead of Lafell and i actually bet he wouldn't. With selecting Will Jackson III we hedge our bet with Kirkpatrick
who played pretty damn terrible last year and is in an option year. Very solid pick.

I will also say that trading up could end up damaging us instead of helping us being that we need another pass rusher, a
DT and a Center. Giving up a couple picks for a WR or even Ryan Kelly could be a bad gamble.

Now would i have wanted Andrew Billings instead of WJ3? I would, but that is my personal thought, might not be the right
one. I think Billings could come in and take Peko's spot and be a starter this year, but i could be wrong.

Bottomline on what i believe is that no matter what we did or what player we got they might not of made an immediate
impact and we still don't know if WJ3 will. I already think he is better than Kirkpatrick even if he has not played at the NFL
level yet. We will see how it pans out but i like William Jackson III a lot.

I would have traded up ahead of Indy and gotten Ryan Kelly. Fixes our chronic interior line issues. Really none of the WRs this year are that exciting so I wasn't too upset with not taking one.

We are lucky that we don't have any gaping holes, but we are paper thin at WR.

I never said we had to use a first rounder on a WR, but I sure hope they draft more than one. Nothing against Alford, but he just has not shown anything yet. I hope he develops into a player because he has crazy speed, but I still want us to draft at least 2 WRs.

We lost our 2 practice squad RBs, so i predict we will take a RB in the late rounds.

Id rather see sustained success. We could go for it. Give up picks. Move up and whiff. There are no guarantees in the draft. Give me a 10-11+ win team every year making the playoffs.

Losing sucks. As much as i hate the playoff loses at least we have a good regular season to watch. And a damn good chance to do damage in the playoffs.

We lost our #2 and #3 WR. We lost two starting DBs too.

We are pushing the you can never have enough cover guys to the limit. But in a passing league at a spot we tend to have injuries taking a guy considered a top 1 or 2 CB is just a really solid value pick.

Sustainability is a win now philosophy as well as win future philosophy. In all honesty our problems are not with the roster it's much bigger than that.