(01-20-2017, 10:52 PM)Whatever Wrote: "Coverage against the pass will never be a strength"


http://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Draft-Scouting-Reports/Scouting-Report-Reuben-Foster.asp



"Savvy quarterbacks can manipulate Foster with their eyes and he'll lose track of receivers around him, closing the gap between them only after the ball is being thrown."


http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/2082714/reuben-foster

I forgot all about Drafttek.  Haven't looked at them in a long time.  Not sure how to weigh their opinion though.  The guy who wrote that scouting report for Foster is a bartender taking some management classes.  Have to start somewhere though.

We can contrast the bartenders "Coverage will never be a strength" statement with Nationalfootballposts.com breakdown done by former nfl scouts and the people they have trained..

Quote:Foster is very comfortable dropping into coverage with the ability to quickly change directions and mirror tight ends or receivers crossing the middle of the field. He can open his hips and cover down the seam, or quickly click his heels and come downhill to tackle anything caught in front of him.

I will tend to err on the side of qualified and trained NFL scouts, than a new guy taking some classes to become a sports writer.


CBS, though,  I missed that line.  I read under his Strengths "Foster keeps his eyes locked onto the quarterback when in coverage, breaking quickly as the pass is released, often initiating contact with the intended receiver just as the ball arrives.".  I missed that they qualified it as a weakness "Savvy" QBs could exploit.  I think you can say that about most players though, I would imagine.


At this point we are splitting hairs.  Nate claimed Foster was bad in coverage and stared down QBs far too often. Nothing we have seen by non random guys on the internet says he is bad in coverage and in fact say the opposite.  As to him staring down QBs, 1 pro site says it's a strength that "can" be taken advantage of by certain QBs and one random guy says it "sometimes" happens.  Not exactly "Far too often"

(01-20-2017, 11:54 PM)Burma Wrote: I forgot all about Drafttek.  Haven't looked at them in a long time.  Not sure how to weigh their opinion though.  The guy who wrote that scouting report for Foster is a bartender taking some management classes.  Have to start somewhere though.

We can contrast the bartenders "Coverage will never be a strength" statement with Nationalfootballposts.com breakdown done by former nfl scouts and the people they have trained..

I will tend to err on the side of qualified and trained NFL scouts, than a new guy taking some classes to become a sports writer.


CBS, though,  I missed that line.  I read under his Strengths "Foster keeps his eyes locked onto the quarterback when in coverage, breaking quickly as the pass is released, often initiating contact with the intended receiver just as the ball arrives.".  I missed that they qualified it as a weakness "Savvy" QBs could exploit.  I think you can say that about most players though, I would imagine.


At this point we are splitting hairs.  Nate claimed Foster was bad in coverage and stared down QBs far too often. Nothing we have seen by non random guys on the internet says he is bad in coverage and in fact say the opposite.  As to him staring down QBs, 1 pro site says it's a strength that "can" be taken advantage of by certain QBs and one random guy says it "sometimes" happens.  Not exactly "Far too often"

Beware of NFP.  Their "experts" pay them for textbook/DVD courses featuring a former NFL scout, and as they complete courses they get discounts on future courses, access to other users, and their scouting reports featured on the NFP website.  So, basically, they get people paying for their courses, then publish those people's work without paying them for it.

http://nfpscout.com/nfp-introduction-to-scouting/

Even fishier is the writer of the article you're referring to.  Danny Shimon's bio states he's a Bears writer for http://www.windy-citysport.com, but that's a dead link.  There's a http://www.windycitysport.com, but Shimon isn't listed as one of their contributors.  I wouldn't doubt if Shimon is just one of guys getting paid by the site writing articles under another name to try and make it appear legit.

I can't speak to the accuracy of the take on Foster, but that site seems very shady.

(01-21-2017, 12:51 AM)Whatever Wrote: Beware of NFP.  Their "experts" pay them for textbook/DVD courses featuring a former NFL scout, and as they complete courses they get discounts on future courses, access to other users, and their scouting reports featured on the NFP website.  So, basically, they get people paying for their courses, then publish those people's work without paying them for it.

http://nfpscout.com/nfp-introduction-to-scouting/

Even fishier is the writer of the article you're referring to.  Danny Shimon's bio states he's a Bears writer for http://www.windy-citysport.com, but that's a dead link.  There's a http://www.windycitysport.com, but Shimon isn't listed as one of their contributors.  I wouldn't doubt if Shimon is just one of guys getting paid by the site writing articles under another name to try and make it appear legit.

I can't speak to the accuracy of the take on Foster, but that site seems very shady.

Ugh, I swear    I had really liked NFPs past coverage and thought Greg Gabriel was running the show.  They are basically freelancing stuff out now if you pay to take their courses? What a disappointment.  Thanks for the heads up.

Think I am just going to suck it up and buy the "Ourlads" subscription.

(01-20-2017, 12:09 PM)Buckeyes420 Wrote: Im tired of devoting time and money for a product that is subpar ,if this were any other buisness in the world it would be out of buisness.Ive literally been in fistfights over defending this team (2005 playoff loss)i just cant bring myself to defend them anymore.when someone talks smack it isnt really smack its fact

I know losing in the first round is frustrating, and last year's loss was as ugly a game as you will ever see, but I would hardly call a team that had been to 5 straight postseasons subpar.

As far as fighting over smack, it is better to not let it get to you.  I know that is easier said than done, but if someone is pestering you to the point of where you want to fight, just ask them what position they play.  When they say "I don't play for the steelers", simply point out that you don't play for the Bengals, either, and that you are both spectators.  So how does being a spectator for a team with championships make him better in any way, shape, or form unless he is (laughably) taking credit for someone else's accomplishments as though they are his own.  This is what a loser does because he hasn't accomplished anything in his own life.  

(01-20-2017, 07:41 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: I like him, but don't love him for this team...He played much more at LDE and rotated inside at the 3 spot and the Bengals need a speed outside guy at RDE.  I don't want to play musical chairs with him and Dunlap.  

He is a very high-character guy, and plays with great instincts, but I see more of a speed option available in Round 2 at RDE.  

Solomon seems very versatile and he just plays violent. I like Defensive players like this, he is physical, has great burst
off the snap and like you said has great instincts. I think he would instantly improve our pass rush and our team as a
whole. Cannot ask much more from your 1st round pick.

I do like Taco Charlton, Walker or McKinley a lot as well if they make it to us in the 2nd.

(01-20-2017, 07:43 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: It is not necessarily what I WANT to happen, but one of the most likely scenarios I could see is that Cook is gone, as are the top 2 or 3 pass rushers, and the Bengals slide to around 17 and compile an additional second rounder.

If they do this, they could address the vacancy at G, RB, RDE, and possibly more if AJM is dealt, all with top 50 talent.  

I don't know if i would like us to trade back THAT far but i would be for trading back if Cook and the top pass rusher are gone.

Might be able to pick up Solomon at 12 or 13 and get an extra pick, that would be awesome.

(01-20-2017, 11:21 AM)psychdoctor Wrote: Give me Mike Williams (WR), Foster (LB), or Cook (RB) at 9th pick.  I know the Bengals need rushing DE but I do not like reaching in draft based on need.  The 9th pick should be a superior athlete that will have impact.  Either of those aforementioned players would meet that criteria.  

I know many will not like this, but do not be surprised if they select Cam Robinson and move him to RT.  I do not know where Og fits on this team.  He cannot play RT, LT, and he is not a kicker.  Fisher will probably be used in Jumbo sets or as TE in packages. That is; unless both Og and Fisher miraculously develop over the next year this off season.  If the team does not re-signs Whit  then I cannot see the team passing on Robinson.  It would be a disaster.  I personally see the team letting big Z walk and experiment with TJ Johnson at guard.  

Also, the 2017 draft for the Bengals will come down to who they re-sign.  If the Bengals re-sign Lafell, then I think they leave Williams off their board for round 1.  I no longer have any faith in Hill.  I do not know if the team re-signs Burkhead.  IF they don't I could see them signing Cook given Gio's injury history and Peerman is basically a ST ace.

Solomon Thomas i believe is a superior athlete and would have an immediate impact IMHO.

If the team lets Zeitler walk and experiments with TJ at RG we are in trouble man, that is seriously frightening.

(01-20-2017, 09:38 PM)Burma Wrote: That's a pretty bold statement, Nate.  Do you have any supporting evidence?  I have found nothing online that indicates that Foster gets lost.  Quite the opposite, in fact.  Everything I have read, wacthed, and heard, no hyperbole here either, shows his play diagnosis skills are unmatched both in coverage and run.  I have seen things that indicate his coverage technique needs polished, but not a single source anywhere has said he gets lost.  

Edit**

Wait, I found something that says he looks at the QBs eyes too long at times.  It's from some internet random named "J49ers19" posting on SBNation.  Not exactly Mike Mayock, but ok.

http://www.ninersnation.com/2017/1/6/14195982/lb-reuben-foster-alabama-scouting-report

Christ, after watching those gifs I want him at 9 now.  Damn, that kid is exciting.

Yeah, Foster is an exciting player, i get why people like the guy and i would be fine with the pick.

I was just hoping for a LB that was great in coverage. But this could be correctable with Foster so hey, i am for it.

Pass rusher still needs to be addressed though, big time.

(01-20-2017, 10:52 PM)Whatever Wrote: "Coverage against the pass will never be a strength"


http://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Draft-Scouting-Reports/Scouting-Report-Reuben-Foster.asp



"Savvy quarterbacks can manipulate Foster with their eyes and he'll lose track of receivers around him, closing the gap between them only after the ball is being thrown."


http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/2082714/reuben-foster

This is what i saw, thanks Whatever.

His only weakness pretty much, will have to work on this at the NFL level cause all the QB's he will be facing are savvy.

(01-20-2017, 11:54 PM)Burma Wrote: I forgot all about Drafttek.  Haven't looked at them in a long time.  Not sure how to weigh their opinion though.  The guy who wrote that scouting report for Foster is a bartender taking some management classes.  Have to start somewhere though.

We can contrast the bartenders "Coverage will never be a strength" statement with Nationalfootballposts.com breakdown done by former nfl scouts and the people they have trained..

I will tend to err on the side of qualified and trained NFL scouts, than a new guy taking some classes to become a sports writer.


CBS, though,  I missed that line.  I read under his Strengths "Foster keeps his eyes locked onto the quarterback when in coverage, breaking quickly as the pass is released, often initiating contact with the intended receiver just as the ball arrives.".  I missed that they qualified it as a weakness "Savvy" QBs could exploit.  I think you can say that about most players though, I would imagine.


At this point we are splitting hairs.  Nate claimed Foster was bad in coverage and stared down QBs far too often. Nothing we have seen by non random guys on the internet says he is bad in coverage and in fact say the opposite.  As to him staring down QBs, 1 pro site says it's a strength that "can" be taken advantage of by certain QBs and one random guy says it "sometimes" happens.  Not exactly "Far too often"

I guess saying Foster is BAD in coverage is an overstatement by me for sure.

But losing his receivers is pretty much the definition of getting lost. Locking eyes with the QB is good at times but
can also be a weakness if done too often, especially in the NFL. Foster will have to work on this.

(01-21-2017, 04:01 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Yeah, Foster is an exciting player, i get why people like the guy and i would be fine with the pick.


I was just hoping for a LB that was great in coverage. But this could be correctable with Foster so hey, i am for it.

---

I guess saying Foster is BAD in coverage is an overstatement by me for sure.

But losing his receivers is pretty much the definition of getting lost. Locking eyes with the QB is good at times but
can also be a weakness if done too often, especially in the NFL. Foster will have to work on this.

Gotcha.  That whole exchange came off way more aggro than I was actually feeling.  Sorry, man.

I like Foster at 9 for his relentlessness, instincts and play making ability.    However, Cunningham offers nearly as much as Foster but is better in coverage, from what I have read and seen.  

(01-21-2017, 03:54 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Solomon seems very versatile and he just plays violent. I like Defensive players like this, he is physical, has great burst
off the snap and like you said has great instincts. I think he would instantly improve our pass rush and our team as a
whole. Cannot ask much more from your 1st round pick.

I do like Taco Charlton, Walker or McKinley a lot as well if they make it to us in the 2nd.


I don't know if i would like us to trade back THAT far but i would be for trading back if Cook and the top pass rusher are gone.

Might be able to pick up Solomon at 12 or 13 and get an extra pick, that would be awesome.


Solomon Thomas i believe is a superior athlete and would have an immediate impact IMHO.



Yeah, Foster is an exciting player, i get why people like the guy and i would be fine with the pick.

I was just hoping for a LB that was great in coverage. But this could be correctable with Foster so hey, i am for it.

Pass rusher still needs to be addressed though, big time.

I like what you are saying about Thomas, and I guess I am a little guy shy to try and move him to the right side after it failed so miserably for Ced (I know, different side of the line) but some people just struggle turning the opposite way...I am sure that will be looked at while at the combine.  I hear what you are saying, though, I like his violence...especially with his hands.   If he or Taco is available at the beginning of Round 2, it would be an interesting discussion.  

Maybe I just want a jersey that says "TACO", which is stupid being that is his first name...but still.  Maybe I just want to see a lineup of Carlo-Geno-Peko-Taco...or maybe I'm just being silly.

I don't want Foster whatsoever.  People raved about Maualuga's toughness.  His tackles were referred to as "train wrecks".  His facemask needs replaced every three games because it is mangled.  But he can't cover in space and is therefor...in today's pass-heavy NFL....a liability.  No thanks.  

I would much rather have a LB like McMillan that can run with a WR but is physical as hell.  

(01-21-2017, 07:17 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: I know losing in the first round is frustrating, and last year's loss was as ugly a game as you will ever see, but I would hardly call a team that had been to 5 straight postseasons subpar.

As far as fighting over smack, it is better to not let it get to you.  I know that is easier said than done, but if someone is pestering you to the point of where you want to fight, just ask them what position they play.  When they say "I don't play for the steelers", simply point out that you don't play for the Bengals, either, and that you are both spectators.  So how does being a spectator for a team with championships make him better in any way, shape, or form unless he is (laughably) taking credit for someone else's accomplishments as though they are his own.  This is what a loser does because he hasn't accomplished anything in his own life.  

I really wish it were that easy ,You play to win you dont play to make the playoffs.Everyone acts like Making the playoffs is a big deal..in my eyes we are still in the 90s because we havent done anything diffrent since then other than make the playoffs.If our goal as fans was to win a super bowl instead of making the playoffs we might go farther,and if someone asks me what position i play for the bengals i tell them i play the position of spending 1k+ on tickets every season ,paying taxes on the stadium they use ,so yes it goes beyond taking credit for someone elses accomplishments when your this invested in the team.I work and i have a family and a normal life but i still take it personal when we lose or win.i guess im a loser for living and dying by my team

(01-22-2017, 01:35 PM)Buckeyes420 Wrote: I really wish it were that easy ,You play to win you dont play to make the playoffs.Everyone acts like Making the playoffs is a big deal..in my eyes we are still in the 90s because we havent done anything diffrent since then other than make the playoffs.If our goal as fans was to win a super bowl instead of making the playoffs we might go farther,and if someone asks me what position i play for the bengals i tell them i play the position of spending 1k+ on tickets every season ,paying taxes on the stadium they use ,so yes it goes beyond taking credit for someone elses accomplishments when your this invested in the team.I work and i have a family and a normal life but i still take it personal when we lose or win.i guess im a loser for living and dying by my team

First of all, that does not make you a loser.  It has NOTHING to do with us.  Sorry, but it doesn't.  Do you think that the Patriot Fans that watched a loser forever are suddenly better fans because their team wins now?  Hell, no.  

And it is FAR easier said than done, I know, but at this point of my life, starting at 50 on the horizon, I just try to avoid steeler fan ignorance and enjoy the positives in my life.  Yes, my football team has never won a championship.  My father, at 84 years young, goes to every home game with my.  I have four seats, and my son, daughter, son-in-law, and wife rotate around the other two.  I want more than just about anything to see a Super Bowl Championship for our Bengals while my dad is still here to see it.  But I won't let it ruin my life if they don't.  There are far too many good things in my life to dwell on the negativity that often surrounds NFL football.  

I do remember my dad waking me up as a child to watch Johnny Bench bat in the playoffs and celebrating a couple World Series Championships.  Those were special memories that I would love to have again with my son and to share it with three generations would be amazing.  FWIW, I love the Reds and Buckeyes, but they aren't even in the same stratosphere as my love for the Bengals.  I can't explain it, but they are my top sports team and second place is miles behind.  

If I had to bet money on who we would pick it would be Thomas, just seems like a perfect Bengal pick. And for some reason I have a feeling McMillan wont make it past Pitt.

I'd be more than fine with Thomas, but our team has some pretty glaring needs. I don't find reason to disagree with any of my fellow board members' thoughts on who we should take at 9.

DE – MJ is not an elite pass rusher like Carlos. The right side of our Dline is pretty mediocre. Clarke hasn't looked too bad, but we need help here. It would be great to get an elite pass rusher at 9.

LB - Burfict is a great LB, make no mistake, but he's as liable as anyone to get suspended or injured and miss time. After Burfict, our LBs are pretty mediocre, too. A stud like Cunningham or Foster would make sense.

WR - Williams or Davis would make life so much easier for our offense by giving opposing defenses someone to have to seriously account for besides AJ.

RB - Gio's going to be coming back from injury. Hill has had some injury issues. It might be a stretch to think we're going to take Cook, but look what Elliot did for the Cowboys. I think we have to consider him.

S - Shawn Williams is NOT a free safety. Hooker looks like an amazing talent. He's young, but I think he'd make a big difference.

OT - Cam Robinson might be the pick, and I know we could use the help on the Oline, but this would be the worst pick we could make here. I want to see us address the OLine in FA. Hell, bring Andre Smith back. He protected Andy better than these clowns did this year. Besides, Marvin seldom, if ever, starts rookies.

WILD CARD – if we don't resign DreK and/or if Pacman gets released, look for us to take Tabor or Humphries. And hope Jackson comes back healthy and ready to ball. Otherwise, our CBs will suck ass.

(01-23-2017, 03:34 AM)Shady Wrote: OT - Cam Robinson might be the pick, and I know we could use the help on the Oline, but this would be the worst pick we could make here. I want to see us address the OLine in FA. Hell, bring Andre Smith back. He protected Andy better than these clowns did this year. Besides, Marvin seldom, if ever, starts rookies.

I dont get it. Consensus opinion is our OL was bad and the main reason we sucked. And everybody agrees we need help on the OL. But for some reason most people say taking the best OL in the draft is a bad idea. 

This may sound crazy. But a good way to improve the OL is to draft the best one in the class. Which is a possibility at #9. 

Paying the oldest T in the league big money is a good idea. Paying a guard big money is a good idea. But drafting the best OL available is for some reason a bad idea...

(01-23-2017, 06:58 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I dont get it. Consensus opinion is our OL was bad and the main reason we sucked. And everybody agrees we need help on the OL. But for some reason most people say taking the best OL in the draft is a bad idea. 

This may sound crazy. But a good way to improve the OL is to draft the best one in the class. Which is a possibility at #9. 

Paying the oldest T in the league big money is a good idea. Paying a guard big money is a good idea. But drafting the best OL available is for some reason a bad idea...

While he's the best olineman in the draft he's a reach at 9 he's more of a 18-19-20 value. 

(01-23-2017, 06:58 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I dont get it. Consensus opinion is our OL was bad and the main reason we sucked. And everybody agrees we need help on the OL. But for some reason most people say taking the best OL in the draft is a bad idea. 

This may sound crazy. But a good way to improve the OL is to draft the best one in the class. Which is a possibility at #9. 

Paying the oldest T in the league big money is a good idea. Paying a guard big money is a good idea. But drafting the best OL available is for some reason a bad idea...

Because Robinson is the best T in a poor T class and not worth the #9 pick.  He would be an early 2nd in a decent class. 

Also, people are not willing to write off a 1st and 2nd round T who have had trouble adapting to the NFLto draft another T at 9 who could very well encounter similar struggles.

(01-23-2017, 07:06 AM)Jpoore Wrote: While he's the best olineman in the draft he's a reach at 9 he's more of a 18-19-20 value. 

Do you know why Tom Brady was drafted #199?  Because the experts thought he was a reach at #9, too. 

(01-23-2017, 07:06 AM)Jpoore Wrote: While he's the best olineman in the draft he's a reach at 9 he's more of a 18-19-20 value. 

Exactly. We can get valuable players in other rounds. A top 10 pick demands we take a top 10 player, which Robinson is not. We won't grade him out as a 9.  No way. 

I don't think we will draft him, but you guys might be undervaluing Robinson. I'm kind of reading around on Cam's match up vs Garrett this year. Most think Cam won it. I'm also reading around about Cam's match up this year against Arden Key. Almost all say Cam won that.

(01-19-2017, 07:39 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Solomon Thomas would instantly upgrade our pass rush and i like him better than Barnett right now
cause of his strength. Don't know why anyone would dislike us improving our pass rush. This would be
an instant improvement on our team.

The thing i don't like about this mock is seeing the Browns get Garrett and then Dalvin Cook. NOOO!

I want us to improve our pass rush dont get me wrong.i just dont wanna reach for a DE at 9 and thomas would be a huge reach there imo.i want the bpa regarless of position and the 3rd DE doesnt follow that mantra......i want a home run hitter at 9......mike williams,corey davis,fournette,cook, on offense or foster,hooker,adams, on d,one of these guys will be available when were on the clock

(01-23-2017, 03:45 PM)Goalpost Wrote: I don't think we will draft him, but you guys might be undervaluing Robinson.  I'm kind of reading around on Cam's match up vs Garrett this year.  Most think Cam won it.  I'm also reading around about Cam's match up this year against Arden Key.  Almost all say Cam won that.

Maybe so. I watched him against Barnett and he did a great job. He made me value Barnett less.

I'm trying to imagine how a dline with Carlos, Geno, Billings, and Thomas would perform for us.