The Bengals and Steelers "Draft and Develop" with less emphasis on Free Agents, however, the "General" difference seems to be that the Steelers focus on drafting to upgrade the most IMMEDIATE weak links the team currently has. The Bengals are Drafting "generally" to put a player BEHIND a current starter to learn and in preparation for the current starter to leave the team in say a year or two. Then our draft pick takes over the job.
(Again, this is a "General" difference and not done in every case. Below is the last 5 years, 1st and 2nd round picks of each team)


              Bengals                                               

     Tyler Eifert  (TE)  - played behind and with Jermaine Gresham for a year and then replaced Gresham.                                 
     William Jackson III (Corner) - sat due to injury and then behind Pac Man until hopefully taking over the job for 2018.                       
     Joe Mixon  (RB)   -  played behind Hill who remained on the team but did take over the job rather quickly.                               
     Gio Bernard  (RB) - did well as a rookie as a complimentary back with Ben Jarvis Green Ellis.                       
     Jeremy Hill  (RB) - totally replaced Ben Jarvis who was not on the team Hill's rookie year.                                    
     Darqueze Dennard (Corner) - saw limited playing time behind a bunch of other high draft pick corners.                      
     Tyler Boyd  (WR) -  3rd receiver behind AJ and Brandon Lafell his rookie season.                              
     Jake Fisher  (Tackle) -  developed for roughly 2 seasons to replace Andre Smith at right tackle.                         
     Cedric Ogbuehi  (Tackle) - developed for roughly 2 seasons to replace Andrew Whitworth.                    
     John Ross  (WR) - AJ, Lafell and Boyd on the roster with Ross to be developed from special plays to defined role.                                 

             Steelers
      Le'Veon Bell  (RB) - took over starting job from Isaac Redman quickly for 244 carry and 45 catch, 13 start rookie year.
      Ryan Shazier  (LB) - began rookie season as Starter
      Stephon Tuitt   (D-end) - appeared in all 16 regular season games, starting 4 of them
      Ju Ju Smith Schuster  (WR) - 58 catch 917 yards 7 td rookie season plus kick return duties- starter
      TJ Watt  (OLB) - starting right outside linebacker at the beginning of rookie year
      Artie Burns  (Corner) - played all 16 games with 9 starts as a rookie
      Bud Dupree   (LB) - played in all 16 games with 5 starts as a rookie
      Sean Davis   (Safety) - opened rookie season as starting nickel back and later became the starting strong safety
      Senquez Golson   (Corner) - injured his first three seasons before each regular season's games even began then waived.
      Jarvis Jones   (LB) - played in 14 games with 8 starts as a rookie

*Also Maurkice Pouncey was an instant starter & David Decastro derailed by injury his rookie year was an instant starter the next year.

The Bengals flaw seems to be that we draft players to sit behind others to learn and later replace at a higher rate.

The Steelers seem to focus on current areas of team need or weakness and then draft players that can step in at a much faster rate to play in rookie seasons.

The Steelers are willing to come up to the end of a departing player's time and even go into a draft knowing they are weak at a position before addressing it in that draft. Almost waiting until the last minute to replace a starter via draft or using drafts to UPGRADE their weakest links with more immediate impact rookies that start.

The Bengals are not focusing as often on upgrading the current starting team. They instead are creating a PIPELINE of future replacements likely guided by finances both present and future.

This seems to be the "general difference" in the two teams drafting approaches. (not in all cases but generally)

The Bengals need to not be so FEARFUL of the impending current starter's departure but should instead focus more often on weak link starter UPGRADES like the Steelers seem to be doing. We are drafting and developing while the Steelers are drafting and starting at a much higher rate. This has them less FEARFUL of impending current starter's departures from the team. They go right up to that deadline in many cases while we have guys sitting for 1 or 2 years waiting to start.

The Steelers are getting more instant upgrades to the overall current starting team with their draft picks and are REACTING in real time to departures or weak starting links.

The Bengals are over-planning for current starter departures to keep a handle on finances at the expense of improving the overall quality of the current starting group of players.

The Steelers more often play chicken by waiting until immediate needs present themselves and then Draft to UPGRADE that current year's starting team. The financial negatives the Bengals fear by using this Steeler approach are not hampering the Steelers financially.

The Steeler more instant starter upgrade drafting is working better than our Bengal long term starter replacement over-thinking.

Again, this is a "general difference". Each team does some of what the other team does more of when drafting.

The Bengals need to find a balance that moves the needle closer to what the Steelers do with early round draft picks.

(02-28-2018, 01:50 PM)depthchart Wrote:      Tyler Eifert  (TE)  - played behind and with Jermaine Gresham for a year and then replaced Gresham.                

             Steelers
     
      Stephon Tuitt   (D-end) - appeared in all 16 regular season games, starting 4 of them
   
      Bud Dupree   (LB) - played in all 16 games with 5 starts as a rookie
    
      Jarvis Jones   (LB) - played in 14 games with 8 starts as a rookie

I smell some spin.

Eifert played more snaps his rookie season (673) than Tuitt (397), Dupree (563), or Jones (630) yet you label Eifert as a backup and highlight the handful of starts by Tuitt, Dupree, and Jones.

Also Tyler Boyd played more snaps his rookie season (739) than Schuster did last year as a rookie (704)

I don't see anything wrong with the Bengals draft "strategy".  Instead I think we have been hurt by "execution".  We just missed on more picks than the Steelers.

they retain interior OL players as well.

See DeCastro and Zeitler for example.

(02-28-2018, 03:02 PM)Go Cards Wrote: they retain interior OL players as well.

See DeCastro and Zeitler for example.

Maybe the Bengals just did not think Zeitler was worth more than $10 million more than DeCastro.

(02-28-2018, 02:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I smell some spin.

Eifert played more snaps his rookie season (673) than Tuitt (397), Dupree (563), or Jones (630) yet you label Eifert as a backup and highlight the handful of starts by Tuitt, Dupree, and Jones.

Also Tyler Boyd played more snaps his rookie season (739) than Schuster did last year as a rookie (704)

I don't see anything wrong with the Bengals draft "strategy".  Instead I think we have been hurt by "execution".  We just missed on more picks than the Steelers.

There is no spin here, Fred.

I simply made some comments about each player, including a comment that Jeremy Hill TOTALLY REPLACED Ben Jarvis Green Ellis who was not on the team during Hill's rookie year.

I used phrases like "general difference" and "not in all cases but generally".

The point with Eifert is that Gresham remained on the team his rookie season.

Cedric and Fisher were drafted with long term replacement of current starters in mind. Dennard and Jackson III drafted to eventually replace current starters.

The point is that the Steelers have more of a tendency towards quicker starter replacement with their draft picks, while the Bengals tend more towards drafting a pipeline of future starters.

It is not that what the Bengals do is totally flawed and that what the Steelers do is totally perfect.

As I said in the post, each team does some of what the other team does more of.

Successes can be shown on either side of the equation.

The overarching point is that the Steelers are tending to focus from draft to draft on the quality of the current crop of starters they will have on the field that given year. Targeting weak areas of the team with early picks that they often fast track into starting roles.

The Bengals are tending to focus on the replacement pipeline with anticipation of certain players leaving the team within 1 or 2 years of drafting the rookie replacement.

I think that a Shift in the BALANCE of what the Bengals are doing towards more of what the Steelers are doing is in order to create a more real time impact on the quality of the current starting Bengal team.

Doesn't mean we totally abandon the longer term starter replacement pipeline but instead tweak what we have been doing in the Steeler way direction as good opportunities present themselves. Especially when we have glaring weak starting links.

We may get say another 1st round corner to pipeline Dennard/Pac Man's departures with our 1st round 2018 pick and say a 2nd round pipeline DT just in case we can't sign Geno Atkins.

The longer term pipeline guys can and do pan out like Jackson III has, however, I think that the Bengals are over-using the approach.

Not saying to never do it again but without Free Agency being used enough, we may need to go the immediate starter upgrade route more often.

Worse case, we would still have the 2019 draft to say get the Dennard/Pac Man replacement or Geno leaving replacement if it came to that.

That is what the Steelers are generally doing. Waiting longer to react to coming starting player departures and/or reacting more in real time to upgrade current starting player weak links.

(02-28-2018, 03:02 PM)Go Cards Wrote: they retain interior OL players as well.

See DeCastro and Zeitler for example.

I would add that the Steelers (1) draft BPA in a position of need, regardless of position and (2) retain their best players, regardless of position.

We all recognize that the Bengals value certain positions in the draft and free agency -- CB, OT, DE, WR, QB, RB -- and devalue others -- OG, S, C, LB, DT.  Thus, we picked Ogbuehi over, e.g., Landon Collins in 2015 even though safety was arguably a more immediate need, and kept Dre over Zeitler.  In contrast, the Steelers pick players early in positions that we devalue, e.g., DeCastro, Pouncey, Shazier, Dupree, Timmons, even Polamolu (going back in time here ...) if they think they'll be great players, and keep them when they prove themselves, regardless of position.  They have no hard and fast rules regarding position value like we do -- they simply draft, play, and keep the guys they believe will be their best players.  

That's why in this draft I don't see us taking Nelson, Smith, or James even if one falls to us.  Not seeing Vea or Price either (even though I really like Price ...) 

Need to really change our ways fellas.

This stuff makes me shake my head. I don't think we are a worse drafting team then the Stealers but to not value certain
positions is just idiotic. We have been much worse at coaching up our players is the thing that keeps sticking out to me.

But also there are times when the younger player looks clearly better than the starter, like WJ3 last year who was better
than both Adam and Kirkpatrick. When this is clear you start that player. The Stealers do and so do the Patriots everytime
no matter where they are drafted.

(02-28-2018, 03:13 PM)depthchart Wrote: There is no spin here, Fred.

I simply made some comments about each player, including a comment that Jeremy Hill TOTALLY REPLACED Ben Jarvis Green Ellis who was not on the team during Hill's rookie year.

I used phrases like "general difference" and "not in all cases but generally".

The point with Eifert is that Gresham remained on the team his rookie season.

Cedric and Fisher were drafted with long term replacement of current starters in mind. Dennard and Jackson III drafted to eventually replace current starters.

The point is that the Steelers have more of a tendency towards quicker starter replacement with their draft picks, while the Bengals tend more towards drafting a pipeline of future starters.

It is not that what the Bengals do is totally flawed and that what the Steelers do is totally perfect.

As I said in the post, each team does some of what the other team does more of.

Successes can be shown on either side of the equation.

The overarching point is that the Steelers are tending to focus from draft to draft on the quality of the current crop of starters they will have on the field that given year. Targeting weak areas of the team with early picks that they often fast track into starting roles.

The Bengals are tending to focus on the replacement pipeline with anticipation of certain players leaving the team within 1 or 2 years of drafting the rookie replacement.

I think that a Shift in the BALANCE of what the Bengals are doing towards more of what the Steelers are doing is in order to create a more real time impact on the quality of the current starting Bengal team.

Doesn't mean we totally abandon the longer term starter replacement pipeline but instead tweak what we have been doing in the Steeler way direction as good opportunities present themselves. Especially when we have glaring weak starting links.

We may get say another 1st round corner to pipeline Dennard/Pac Man's departures with our 1st round 2018 pick and say a 2nd round pipeline DT just in case we can't sign Geno Atkins.

The longer term pipeline guys can and do pan out like Jackson III has, however, I think that the Bengals are over-using the approach.

Not saying to never do it again but without Free Agency being used enough, we may need to go the immediate starter upgrade route more often.

Worse case, we would still have the 2019 draft to say get the Dennard/Pac Man replacement or Geno leaving replacement if it came to that.

That is what the Steelers are generally doing. Waiting longer to react to coming starting player departures and/or reacting more in real time to upgrade current starting player weak links.

So what you are saying is, we tend to draft for future and they draft for now? There are exceptions to every rule, but I think you are on to something.

(02-28-2018, 03:50 PM)shanebo Wrote: I would add that the Steelers (1) draft BPA in a position of need, regardless of position and (2) retain their best players, regardless of position.

We all recognize that the Bengals value certain positions in the draft and free agency -- CB, OT, DE, WR, QB, RB -- and devalue others -- OG, S, C, LB, DT.  Thus, we picked Ogbuehi over, e.g., Landon Collins in 2015 even though safety was arguably a more immediate need, and kept Dre over Zeitler.  In contrast, the Steelers pick players early in positions that we devalue, e.g., DeCastro, Pouncey, Shazier, Dupree, Timmons, even Polamolu (going back in time here ...) if they think they'll be great players, and keep them when they prove themselves, regardless of position.  They have no hard and fast rules regarding position value like we do -- they simply draft, play, and keep the guys they believe will be their best players.  

That's why in this draft I don't see us taking Nelson, Smith, or James even if one falls to us.  Not seeing Vea or Price either (even though I really like Price ...) 

This is what I am hoping happens this year. I get the whole BPA, but I'd prefer to look at areas that need attention and go with BPA to that area or several areas. Decipher what area is more important or it could come down to, could I get the same player skillwise in the next round so I had better take player X now...

Drafting BPA is not drafting for the immediate or the future. Its drafting for grade.

(02-28-2018, 03:50 PM)shanebo Wrote: I would add that the Steelers (1) draft BPA in a position of need, regardless of position and (2) retain their best players, regardless of position.

We all recognize that the Bengals value certain positions in the draft and free agency -- CB, OT, DE, WR, QB, RB -- and devalue others -- OG, S, C, LB, DT.  Thus, we picked Ogbuehi over, e.g., Landon Collins in 2015 even though safety was arguably a more immediate need, and kept Dre over Zeitler.  In contrast, the Steelers pick players early in positions that we devalue, e.g., DeCastro, Pouncey, Shazier, Dupree, Timmons, even Polamolu (going back in time here ...) if they think they'll be great players, and keep them when they prove themselves, regardless of position.  They have no hard and fast rules regarding position value like we do -- they simply draft, play, and keep the guys they believe will be their best players.  

That's why in this draft I don't see us taking Nelson, Smith, or James even if one falls to us.  Not seeing Vea or Price either (even though I really like Price ...) 

Well put.

A "general" analogy of what I have been saying would be like having two Race Car teams that each has limited resources.

Team One puts most of their limited resources into making every weak part on the current Car as good as possible for that specific race season. Replacing poor performing parts now before the current race season begins.

Team two puts most of their limited resources into having spare replacement parts in place for parts that will go bad after the current race season but those spare parts will be ready for the next racing season.

One car is better prepared to race now and the other car is assumed to be ready for the next racing season but still must race now.

Next season comes and Team One does another REAL TIME evaluation of their car and again makes every weak part on the current Car as good as possible.

Next season comes and Team Two is totally reliant on the replacement parts they bought the year before, trusts in those parts and again buys different future replacement parts in preparation for what they think they may need to replace a year from now.

The two cars race again.

Again, this is a "general analogy" to make a distinction between what the Steelers tend to do more often than the Bengals tend to do.

A Steeler tendency to use early draft picks more often to upgrade the current starting team on the field for that current season.

Bengals tend to build a player pipeline to help a future Bengal team weather the loss of players that are starting on this current season's team but are expected to be gone in the future.

I would like to see the Bengals use a better Balance of the two strategies.

More of a real time upgrading of the current starting team on the field focus that can still occasionally swing back to the pipeline mentality based on who is available early in drafts.

(02-28-2018, 03:13 PM)depthchart Wrote: The point is that the Steelers have more of a tendency towards quicker starter replacement with their draft picks, while the Bengals tend more towards drafting a pipeline of future starters.

Still not seeing tbhat much difference.

If this is the point you are trying to make then list exactly how many Steelers draft picks start opening day.  Then coma[pre it to the Bengals.

Green, Dalton, Boling, Zeitler, and Bodine all started immediately.

Eifert was not listed as a starter, but as I already pointed out he played more snaps than a lot of the guys you claimed were drafted to be "immediate starters" for the Steelers.

Boyd played more snaps as a rookie than Schuster-Smith.

Bernards rookie numbers (613 snaps, 1209 yards) are almost identical to Bell (677 snaps, 1259 yards) and of course Jeremy Hill had more yards than either of them his rookie season.

So I don't really see the Steelers getting that many more "immediate starters" than the Bengals.  What I do see is 4 Bengal first round picks that were slowed by injury their rookie seasons (Kirkpatrick, Dennard, Jackson, and Ross) and people extrapolating from those 4 picks to try and define our entire draft strategy.

(02-28-2018, 05:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Still not seeing tbhat much difference.

If this is the point you are trying to make then list exactly how many Steelers draft picks start opening day.  Then coma[pre it to the Bengals.

Green, Dalton, Boling, Zeitler, and Bodine all started immediately.

Eifert was not listed as a starter, but as I already pointed out he played more snaps than a lot of the guys you claimed were drafted to be "immediate starters" for the Steelers.

Boyd played more snaps as a rookie than Schuster-Smith.

Bernards rookie numbers (613 snaps, 1209 yards) are almost identical to Bell (677 snaps, 1259 yards) and of course Jeremy Hill had more yards than either of them his rookie season.

So I don't really see the Steelers getting that many more "immediate starters" than the Bengals.  What I do see is 4 Bengal first round picks that were slowed by injury their rookie seasons (Kirkpatrick, Dennard, Jackson, and Ross) and people extrapolating from those 4 picks to try and define our entire draft strategy.

The Steelers are getting a higher ratio of more immediate starters in early rounds. See the last 5 year comparison of 1st and 2nd round picks in the original post. Then others from other years prior to more than offset the few you mentioned from prior years.

The Bengals are drafting a higher ratio of pipeline players that learn behind current starters.

The year Kirkpatrick was drafted we had Leon Hall, Terrance Newman, Adam Jones and Nate Clements on the roster. Similar situations for Dennard and Jackson III with starters in front of them. No need to "extrapolate" here, Fred.

Cedric and Fisher drafted nearly two years ahead of Whitworth and Andre departures.

Palmer had to quit the team to open the door for Dalton.

Never said the Bengals don't ever get so called immediate starters, just that they actually PLAN more often than the Steelers do for drafted players to learn for a longer period of time behind a current starter.

Don't try to change the goal posts here either Fred. Go back to the original post. Never said anything about opening day starters. Just that they get them up to speed to start sooner by design because they are usually better than who they are competing with to start.

Bengals tend to retain our experienced starters for the rookie players rookie season and that rookie can't beat them out quickly and the Bengals do it by DESIGN.

Think in terms of Ratios and tendencies. The General Concept.

Not tit for tat minutiae that still weighs out in my favor.

(02-28-2018, 05:48 PM)depthchart Wrote: Not tit for tat minutiae that still weighs out in my favor.

To me it does not matter if you call Smith-Schuster a "starter" and Boyd a "back up".  Those labels are meaningless when Boyd played more snaps than Smith-Shuster.

doesn't matter that you call Bell a "starter" and bernard a "role player" when they both played almost the exact same number of snaps and produced almost exactly the same number of yrads their rookie seasons.

Same with Dupree, Tuitt, and Jones.  Doesn't matter if they start a couple of games at the end of the year.  This year Lawson played almost 100 more snaps than Tuitt did his rookie season (477 to 397) yet you try to give the Steelers credit for making Tuitt an "immediate starter". 

Instead of just picking labels that fit your argument you have to look at how much these players were actually on the field.

(02-28-2018, 07:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: To me it does not matter if you call Smith-Schuster a "starter" and Boyd a "back up".  Those labels are meaningless when Boyd played more snaps than Smith-Shuster.

doesn't matter that you call Bell a "starter" and bernard a "role player" when they both played almost the exact same number of snaps and produced almost exactly the same number of yrads their rookie seasons.

Same with Dupree, Tuitt, and Jones.  Doesn't matter if they start a couple of games at the end of the year.  This year Lawson played almost 100 more snaps than Tuitt did his rookie season (477 to 397) yet you try to give the Steelers credit for making Tuitt an "immediate starter". 

Instead of just picking labels that fit your argument you have to look at how much these players were actually on the field.

I can admit that in my haste to get to the over-arching point, I may have "fit the argument" with a few of the players that I mentioned.

Never said, however, that Tuitt was an immediate starter. Did say that he appeared in all 16 regular season games, starting 4 of them.

I can accept your Boyd/Schuster argument as being my haste to "fit the argument" with these two players being more balanced than inferred.

The "immediate starter" line is your line, not mine. Your attempt at a spin.

My focus was the Bengals tending to have starters in place with longer term horizons for the rookies to eventually take over the jobs than the Steelers do in "general". Not in every case but more often by DESIGN.  ...cough Maurkice Pouncey

You IGNORE Cedric and Fisher sitting for two years behind Whit and Andre. You also IGNORE Dennard, Jackson III and Dre (which you added to the conversation) drafted to learn behind veteran corners. Contrast that with Artie Burns being fast tracked.

Again, the ratios support my argument while I can concede some of the minutiae I may have hastily "fit the argument" with.

Whit, Andre, veteran corners, Hill, Gresham etc remaining on the team during early draft pick rookie seasons as evidence of a player pipeline approach being used more often by the Bengals.

Cedric playing guard and Fisher catching passes while Whit and Andre start.

There is a general difference in Philosophy being displayed by each team when it comes to early round draft picks, planning for current starter departures and fast tracking a higher ratio of early draft picks into starting roles with less of a safety net under them in terms of a better retained current starter ahead of them that player's rookie season.

A higher ratio of one or the other being displayed by each team with each team still having their own examples of the other team's higher ratio philosophy.

It doesn't all go in the Steeler's favor as you suggest that I imply. The William Jackson III pipeline pick is looking Great.

In your haste to argue and nit pick you miss the potential benefits of having the Bengals at least Tweak their approach as opportunities for faster track starter upgrades present themselves. This is my point. 

I am getting plenty of Rep points as we argue from people that can Grasp the concept that you refuse to acknowledge.

It is this Concept that is worth exploring to me and I do it without any need or desire to Bash the Bengals.

To me, the Bengals current higher ratio pipeline replacement approach is almost working but may be getting over-used, needing a Tweak in the Steelers higher ratio starter fast tracking direction.

Your over-sensitivity to what you deem Bengal bashing is tiring and forces potential higher level thinking down into the gutter with tit for tat.

Marvin's Motto = We Cant Play Rookies

This continues to haunt us..........see below for those that road the bench for years under Marvin......

Darqueze Dennard
Dre Kirkpatrick
Jerome Simpson
Mo Sanu
Rex Burkhead
Christian Westerman

(02-28-2018, 08:10 PM)depthchart Wrote: You IGNORE Cedric and Fisher sitting for two years behind Whit and Andre. You also IGNORE Dennard, Jackson III and Dre (which you added to the conversation) drafted to learn behind veteran corners. Contrast that with Artie Burns being fast tracked.

I never ignored any of that.  I specifically mentioned that Dre, Dennard, and Jackson were all INJURED their rookie seasons.

And Ogbuehi did not sit for 2 years.  He started 12 games his second season.

(02-28-2018, 08:22 PM)corpjet Wrote: Marvin's Motto = We Cant Play Rookies

This continues to haunt us..........see below for those that road the bench for years under Marvin......

Darqueze Dennard
Dre Kirkpatrick
Jerome Simpson
Mo Sanu
Rex Burkhead
Christian Westerman

Actually this is just a message board myth.  Marvin plays rookies just as much as the average NFL coach.

According to profootballreference over the last ten years there have been 227 different rookies who started at least 14 games. Since there are 32 teams that is an average of 7.1 per team. Over the last ten years the Bengals have 7 different rookies who have started at least 14 games.


When we expand it beyond just rookie seasons it does not change very much. Looking at the first three seasons of every player's career over the last 10 years there were 785 who had at least one season with at least 14 starts in his first three years. That is an average of 24.5 per team, and the Bengals have had 24.

(02-28-2018, 08:22 PM)corpjet Wrote: This continues to haunt us..........see below for those that road the bench for years under Marvin......

Darqueze Dennard
Dre Kirkpatrick
Jerome Simpson
Mo Sanu
Rex Burkhead
Christian Westerman

Dennard and Kirkpatrick were injured as rookies.

Jerome Simpson, Rex Burkhead, and Mo Sanu were not good enough to play as rookies.

The book is still out on Christian Westerman.

(02-28-2018, 08:10 PM)depthchart Wrote: I am getting plenty of Rep points as we argue from people that can Grasp the concept that you refuse to acknowledge.

Yep.  You are getting rep points from people who believe the myth that Marvin never plays rookies.  Just like the people who claimed Peko was garbage for years got lots of rep points and the people who have been claiming for years that Kirkpatrick is garbage.

Rep points have nothing to do with "grasping any concept"  they are based on people gpoing along with myths that are popular on these boards.

Artie Burns was "fast tracked" because in 2015 the Steelers had the 30th ranked pass defense in the league, and even then he did not start until the second half of his rookie season.  Until this last year the Bengals were never that desperate for a starer to fix a problem that bad.  But in 2011 they started Dalton and Green from day one because they had to.

If you look at the facts surrounding these players you will see that the teams decision on when to play rookies is not defined by some overreaching strategy.  Instead it is defined by the needs that vary from year to year.  In fact that is exactly why you did not go back to the time when the Bengals started rookies like Boling, Green, Zeitler, and Dalton.  Those facts did not fit the myth you were pitching.

year 27. it's been working out great guys. roll with it............