1. Quenton Nelson OG 6'5 329 Notre Dame

Best guard prospect in a long time according to a lot of sources.  One of the "safest prospects in the draft."  Plays with a mean streak to go with polish and raw power.  I don't see any reason not to take him in 1. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=148F8rR2GSg

2. Tremaine Edmunds LB 6'5" 236 VA Tech
Big, athletic monster of a linebacker.  Has good instincts for run fits.  Could be the peanut butter to Burfict's jelly in the middle of the defense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9bexKDrwow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPkaeRI1Fpk

3. Jamarco Jones OT 6'5 310 Ohio State
Solid tackle.  May not possess elite skills in any area, but doesn't have any glaring holes to his game either.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEmQh661SuQ&t=291s

4. Dominick Sanders FS 6' 189 Georgia
Instinctive free safety.  Has a knack for coverage/ball skills.  The knock on Sanders has been tackling issues.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jl5HDFSOzzM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhbP_0-KYs0

5. J'Mon Moore WR 6'3" 205 Missouri
Lanky, long framed, soft hands, has some quickness.  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqFQrPioPO0

6. Bentley Spain OT 6'6" 300 UNC
Solid pass protector, big frame.  Could use more beef on his frame.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIS4IVPyC0o


7. Nyles Morgan LB 6'1 245 Notre Dame
Lunch pail A-gap defender.  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgCaV6p0vvM

Not even gonna get into the whole Nelson ain't the best guard.... But I'd take Malik jefferson in the 2nd over Edmunds.

I wouldn't hate if they took Jefferson. Edmunds just seems better for what the Bengals need. He's more of a stack and shed kind of lb, though he can chase in space too. That 6'5 frame at Mike could probably disrupt passing lanes over the middle as well.  

Really like the first two rounds of this one. I think Edmunds could be the athletic LB we've needed for a while now instead of the slow plodders.

The rest is preferential. Like the positions, not necessarily the players, but the process is solid.

Could we revert to a 3-4?

I like this. Although... we drastically will need a center, and would take Price over Nelson. I like Edmunds pick also.

(12-25-2017, 12:03 PM)Bilbo Saggins Wrote: I wouldn't hate if they took Jefferson. Edmunds just seems better for what the Bengals need. He's more of a stack and shed kind of lb, though he can chase in space too. That 6'5 frame at Mike could probably disrupt passing lanes over the middle as well.  

I would take be mad(providing they signed Andrew norwell in fa) if they took raquan Smith in the first and Edmunds/Jefferson back to back. Get that lb Corp good for once. But he's good too, just think upside in Jefferson is much higher, where with Edmunds u know what ur getting.

(12-25-2017, 02:58 PM)Interceptor Wrote: Could we revert to a 3-4?

I don't really see a reason for them to try to do that.  Edmunds wasn't used as an edge rusher super often(as college teams will often do with good LBs).  Further, I really think that Lawson and Willis would do just fine as base 4-3 ends if they had to.  Dwight Freeney was 6'1" 250 lbs coming out of college, and Mathis was 6'2" 235.  Freeney and Mathis wound up being pretty good as base ends.  Having Dunlap in front of Lawson/Willis and MJ on running downs is a luxury at this point.  The DTs don't really seem like 3-technique types aside from maybe Atkins.

(12-26-2017, 09:48 PM)Bilbo Saggins Wrote: I don't really see a reason for them to try to do that.  Edmunds wasn't used as an edge rusher super often(as college teams will often do with good LBs).  Further, I really think that Lawson and Willis would do just fine as base 4-3 ends if they had to.  Dwight Freeney was 6'1" 250 lbs coming out of college, and Mathis was 6'2" 235.  Freeney and Mathis wound up being pretty good as base ends.  Having Dunlap in front of Lawson/Willis and MJ on running downs is a luxury at this point.  The DTs don't really seem like 3-technique types aside from maybe Atkins.

It would put both Burfict and Edmunds as ILBs.

(12-26-2017, 09:59 PM)Interceptor Wrote: It would put both Burfict and Edmunds as ILBs.

Burfict is an elite WLB in the 4-3/nickel.  Don't think that I'd want to mess with that.

Well done. Focus' on where we are weakest, and there's no QB in this, which means you have a clue.

(12-26-2017, 02:23 AM)Jpoore Wrote: I would take be mad(providing they signed Andrew norwell in fa) if they took raquan Smith in the first and Edmunds/Jefferson back to back. Get that lb Corp good for once. But he's good too, just think upside in Jefferson is much higher, where with Edmunds u know what ur getting.

That would be pretty stupid to take 2 linebackers in a row.

The Bengals are in nickel over 70% of the time.  You already have Burfict and the team likes Vigil.

I can see grabbing one at some point, but there is no point in drafting a guy that is a backup that will only see the field if someone gets injured in the first two rounds.

(12-27-2017, 06:58 PM)Hammerstripes Wrote: That would be pretty stupid to take 2 linebackers in a row.

The Bengals are in nickel over 70% of the time.  You already have Burfict and the team likes Vigil.

I can see grabbing one at some point, but there is no point in drafting a guy that is a backup that will only see the field if someone gets injured in the first two rounds.

Well that's the point. We're in nickel so much bc we don't have lbs that can cover. And these 2 would start immediately.

(12-28-2017, 01:40 AM)Jpoore Wrote: Well that's the point. We're in nickel so much bc we don't have lbs that can cover. And these 2 would start immediately.

No, we are in nickel because the other teams are running more 3 WR sets.

Theres no way you put a LB on the 3rd WR.  

1 might start with Burfict.  The other never sees the field.

(12-28-2017, 06:38 PM)Hammerstripes Wrote: No, we are in nickel because the other teams are running more 3 WR sets.

Theres no way you put a LB on the 3rd WR.  

1 might start with Burfict.  The other never sees the field.

One at mlb the other at Sam. And no u play ur base 4-3-4 with a lb covering te (Smith) and 3 cbs covering wr with a high safety.

(12-30-2017, 08:29 AM)Jpoore Wrote: One at mlb the other at Sam. And no u play ur base 4-3-4 with a lb covering te (Smith) and 3 cbs covering wr with a high safety.

And you get burned all day.

EVERY team goes to a nickel when a team goes to 3 WR.  They always take a LB out of the game.

(01-05-2018, 05:05 PM)Hammerstripes Wrote: And you get burned all day.

EVERY team goes to a nickel when a team goes to 3 WR.  They always take a LB out of the game.

Not teams that have good coverage lbs and cbs. 

(01-05-2018, 09:27 PM)Jpoore Wrote: Not teams that have good coverage lbs and cbs. 

In general, which position group is better in coverage: safeties or linebackers? Safeties. And that's why most teams use a nickel package vs. three WR sets instead of what you suggested.

(01-06-2018, 01:30 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: In general, which position group is better in coverage: safeties or linebackers?  Safeties. And that's why most teams use a nickel package vs. three WR sets instead of what you suggested.

If take Luke kuechley over any safety in the nfl right now.

(01-06-2018, 02:24 AM)Jpoore Wrote: If take Luke kuechley over any safety in the nfl right now.

Kinda explains why you're a scout working three regular jobs.