Was reading some of the articles/mailbag material on the main site and I came across this absolutely absurd analysis. I'm know he's always been a joke relative to the salary cap but this is beyond dumb. The Bengals would really prefer two third round picks over two first rounders? Really??

Will they replace center Russell Bodine (61) with backup T.J. Johnson (60) or draft one? And if they do, how high?

Do you think with our need of an athletic linebacker and an interior lineman that we could bundle up some of our 11 picks to get 2 first rounders and solve two problems on the first day? I know it would be an aggressive and very un-Bengals like move, but it seems to be the smartest. Derek Sheehan, Piqua, OH

DEREK: It’s not the smartest move this year. You’ll get pretty much the same player at 15 that you’ll get at 21 that you’ll get at 40. I think you’d rather have two third-rounders in this draft, like the Bengals, rather than two first-rounders. Ask Buffalo. From what I’m hearing the strength of this draft is rounds two through five, so if anything the smart move is trading back in the first round. How about maybe solving three problems in the first two days? I think they can stay right where they are and come out of the first five rounds with a starting center, a linebacker that won’t start but is active on game day, and a safety of some sort. The sense is it’s not a strong backer group at the top but there are some solid ones later on.

I don't think he means that he would rather have 2 third rounders than 2 first rounders independently. He's saying for the price you would need to pay to trade for another first, it wouldn't be worth it because their is a deep pool of quality players in the draft.

It would cost considerably less to trade for another third round pick than it would for another first, so the perceived value would show that the value of an added third round pick would trump that of an added first round pick.

At least that's how I understood it.

(04-15-2018, 07:23 PM)clevelandsdad Wrote: I don't think he means that he would rather have 2 third rounders than 2 first rounders independently. He's saying for the price you would need to pay to trade for another first, it wouldn't be worth it because their is a deep pool of quality players in the draft.

It would cost considerably less to trade for another third round pick than it would for another first, so the perceived value would show that the value of an added third round pick would trump that of an added first round pick.

At least that's how I understood it.

That is how I read it as well. It makes sense.

(04-15-2018, 07:23 PM)clevelandsdad Wrote: I don't think he means that he would rather have 2 third rounders than 2 first rounders independently. He's saying for the price you would need to pay to trade for another first, it wouldn't be worth it because their is a deep pool of quality players in the draft.

It would cost considerably less to trade for another third round pick than it would for another first, so the perceived value would show that the value of an added third round pick would trump that of an added first round pick.

At least that's how I understood it.

Yep that how I read it.

Witch hunters gonna witch hunt.

(04-15-2018, 07:28 PM)Chezaugie Wrote: That is how I read it as well. It makes sense.

Same here.

I heard someone the other day say the guys at 20 are similar to the guys at 52 this year. I think that’s pretty much what your seeing here no reason to move up in the early rounds but maybe package some mid round picks to get back into the 3rd.

Yes. He is an idiot. But not for this. What he said makes sense if you think about it.

As others have said, he is saying it is his opinion that it is better to hold two 3rd round picks, which the Bengals currently possess. Not that the Bengals feel two 3rd rounders are better than two 1st rounders.

(04-15-2018, 06:45 PM)CornerBlitz Wrote: Was reading some of the articles/mailbag material on the main site and I came across this absolutely absurd analysis. I'm know he's always been a joke relative to the salary cap but this is beyond dumb. The Bengals would really prefer two third round picks over two first rounders? Really??

Will they replace center Russell Bodine (61) with backup T.J. Johnson (60) or draft one? And if they do, how high?

Do you think with our need of an athletic linebacker and an interior lineman that we could bundle up some of our 11 picks to get 2 first rounders and solve two problems on the first day? I know it would be an aggressive and very un-Bengals like move, but it seems to be the smartest. Derek Sheehan, Piqua, OH

DEREK: It’s not the smartest move this year. You’ll get pretty much the same player at 15 that you’ll get at 21 that you’ll get at 40. I think you’d rather have two third-rounders in this draft, like the Bengals, rather than two first-rounders. Ask Buffalo. From what I’m hearing the strength of this draft is rounds two through five, so if anything the smart move is trading back in the first round. How about maybe solving three problems in the first two days? I think they can stay right where they are and come out of the first five rounds with a starting center, a linebacker that won’t start but is active on game day, and a safety of some sort. The sense is it’s not a strong backer group at the top but there are some solid ones later on.

I would agree with Hobson's premise here. Why? ....

I study the draft like crazy as it's my favorite sporting event of the year. In my opinion, generally speaking, in this draft the Bengals will be getting a similarly graded/talented player at their pick #77 overall (3rd round #13) as they would have been getting at 12. To give up what they would have to give up to move up from 21 they would be idiots, unless it was to get into the top 6 or 7. And,even then, I'm still not sure that would be worth it.

They would be better served, IMO, trading out of the first to get more 3rd or 2nds or even a 3rd and a 4th depending on where those picks are in the rounds. The differences between guy number 21 and 100 (for example), is next to zero. They're going to be the same guy.

Some examples...

- D'Ron Payne is the highest rated DT at 6.51. Derrick Nnadi is the 7th rated DT at 5.74. That's .77 of a rating difference. However, in this draft, Payne will go in the 1st while Nnadi I would bet the 4th or 5th. End of the 3rd would be a dream for him.

- The highest rated S is Derwin James at 6.44. 7 spots back is Armani Watts at 5.73. A .71 difference. Watts should be a 4th or 5th rounder.

- Highest rated C is Daniels at a 6.03. Only a .51 difference between him and the 6th rated C, Quessenberry at 5.52.

- Highest rated OT is McGlinchey @ 5.95. But at 5.71 (.24 of a point) is the 7th highest rated OT, Brian O'Neill. Why trade UP for that little a difference?

^ The #1 C in last year's draft, BTW, was Elflein and he went #70 overall to the Vikings in round 3.

I'm just saying, the round isn't that big of a deal. It's the talent level that matters.

"You’ll get pretty much the same player at 15 that you’ll get at 21 that you’ll get at 40. I think you’d rather have two third-rounders in this draft, like the Bengals, rather than two first-rounders."

Essentially he's saying there is no difference between the player you draft at 15 than you would at 40. This is pure nonsense regardless of how you interpret the quote about having multiple third round picks instead of two first.

If this is the case we should trade our first round pick for a second round pick because hey, at least the contract will be cheaper and we will get the same type player.

i can understand a few spots but 30 spots, especially first to second round, cmon

(04-16-2018, 12:50 AM)CornerBlitz Wrote: "You’ll get pretty much the same player at 15 that you’ll get at 21 that you’ll get at 40. I think you’d rather have two third-rounders in this draft, like the Bengals, rather than two first-rounders."

Essentially he's saying there is no difference between the player you draft at 15 than you would at 40.  This is pure nonsense regardless of how you interpret the quote about having multiple third round picks instead of two first.

If this is the case we should trade our first round pick for a second round pick because hey, at least the contract will be cheaper and we will get the same type player.

i can understand a few spots but 30 spots, especially first to second round, cmon

It's not nonsense. In regards to this specific draft, he's pretty much correct. I explained it in the post above yours.

With this draft class I would 100% trade pick #21 for 2 2nds or a 2nd and a 3rd depending on where the picks were. As I explained, the Bengals will be essentially getting the same quality of player - only they would be getting 2 of them in the trade instead if 1 if they stayed there. This draft has a bunch (as in, like, 100ish) of B- to B+ talent, but only, like, 4 or 5 A's.

Not just this year. Lots of first round picks flop every year.

(04-15-2018, 09:00 PM)PDub80 Wrote: I would agree with Hobson's premise here. Why? ....

I study the draft like crazy as it's my favorite sporting event of the year. In my opinion, generally speaking, in this draft the Bengals will be getting a similarly graded/talented player at their pick #77 overall (3rd round #13) as they would have been getting at 12. To give up what they would have to give up to move up from 21 they would be idiots, unless it was to get into the top 6 or 7. And,even then, I'm still not sure that would be worth it.

They would be better served, IMO, trading out of the first to get more 3rd or 2nds or even a 3rd and a 4th depending on where those picks are in the rounds. The differences between guy number 21 and 100 (for example), is next to zero. They're going to be the same guy.

Some examples...

- D'Ron Payne is the highest rated DT at 6.51. Derrick Nnadi is the 7th rated DT at 5.74. That's .77 of a rating difference. However, in this draft, Payne will go in the 1st while Nnadi I would bet the 4th or 5th. End of the 3rd would be a dream for him.

- The highest rated S is Derwin James at 6.44. 7 spots back is Armani Watts at 5.73. A .71 difference. Watts should be a 4th or 5th rounder.

- Highest rated C is Daniels at a 6.03. Only a .51 difference between him and the 6th rated C, Quessenberry at 5.52.

- Highest rated OT is McGlinchey @ 5.95. But at 5.71 (.24 of a point) is the 7th highest rated OT, Brian O'Neill. Why trade UP for that little a difference?

^ The #1 C in last year's draft, BTW, was Elflein and he went #70 overall to the Vikings in round 3.

I'm just saying, the round isn't that big of a deal. It's the talent level that matters.

Thanks for taking the time to break that down PDub80.  I like the draft but don't follow that closely so the extra effort is greatly appreciated.

Shows the type of value you can get in the later rounds and why there is no need to reach early.  There are only a handful of blue chippers and the Bengals are much better served to get multiple quality picks that fill the areas of need.  They generally do very well in the mid rounds so I'm exited to see what the draft brings for 2018.

(04-16-2018, 09:09 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Not just THIS year.  Lots of first round picks flop every year.

This just in.... Water's wet.

What's the purpose of your post here, Fred?

That doesn't mean you don't take first round picks. Many, if not most, draft picks "flop", regardless of round. Guys get taken in the first round just because they have to have a complete first round. Like, somebody HAS to get picked 30th. And, that guy is technically a "1st rounder" even though he may have a 2nd round grade.

Hell, if the draft really was just luck - as some here have said a few times over the different draft threads - the Browns would be good by now because they have had so many picks over the years they would have had much better odds at getting good players. There is a skill in maximizing value and scouting the right guys for what a team wants to do scheme and personnel wise and then timing those picks to land the players targeted.

I'm sorry, I'm just not understanding where you're going with your above post.

The 1st round #15 to 2nd round #40 is a very big sttttrrretchhh. But that what Hobspin does.

The rest of what he's saying makes some sense. But he's still an idiot !

(04-16-2018, 09:17 AM)Daddy-O Wrote: Thanks for taking the time to break that down PDub80.  I like the draft but don't follow that closely so the extra effort is greatly appreciated.

Shows the type of value you can get in the later rounds and why there is no need to reach early.  There are only a handful of blue chippers and the Bengals are much better served to get multiple quality picks that fill the areas of need.  They generally do very well in the mid rounds so I'm exited to see what the draft brings for 2018.

Hey, no prob! Something funny is that going by grade, Jordan Willis would be the 3rd/4th highest rated DE in this draft at 5.85. The Bengals got him in the 3rd last year. This year he would be a fringe 1st or 2nd rounder based on the talent coming out. There are so many guys with high 5 grades like Willis at almost every position. But very bery few in the high 6's.

BTW, John Ross would be the #2 graded WR at 6.12 and that is WITH vomjng off of shoulder surgery. Ridley is #1 this season with a grade of 6.40. I would wager Ross would come off the board before him due to the speed. It's a weird draft this year.

(04-16-2018, 09:42 AM)bengalfan74 Wrote: The 1st round #15 to 2nd round #40 is a very big sttttrrretchhh. But that what Hobspin does.

The rest of what he's saying makes some sense. But he's still an idiot !

Yes he is. Although, since he's an idiot, it helps our team strategize for the draft if any other teams read his articles LOL...

As usual there's always a contingency of fans who believe that ONLY players from the first round are worth drafting, everyone else is absolutely useless..
Of course if that were true there would only be one round with each team selecting 7-11 players in that round.. Well, that would solve the problem of having to pick players in subsequent rounds, but then there's that pesky undrafted players issue.. 

This just in...a lot of 1st and 2nd round picks are going to be bust while some 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th round picks will have productive NFL careers.

(04-15-2018, 06:45 PM)CornerBlitz Wrote: Was reading some of the articles/mailbag material on the main site and I came across this absolutely absurd analysis. I'm know he's always been a joke relative to the salary cap but this is beyond dumb. The Bengals would really prefer two third round picks over two first rounders? Really??

Will they replace center Russell Bodine (61) with backup T.J. Johnson (60) or draft one? And if they do, how high?

Do you think with our need of an athletic linebacker and an interior lineman that we could bundle up some of our 11 picks to get 2 first rounders and solve two problems on the first day? I know it would be an aggressive and very un-Bengals like move, but it seems to be the smartest. Derek Sheehan, Piqua, OH

DEREK: It’s not the smartest move this year. You’ll get pretty much the same player at 15 that you’ll get at 21 that you’ll get at 40. I think you’d rather have two third-rounders in this draft, like the Bengals, rather than two first-rounders. Ask Buffalo. From what I’m hearing the strength of this draft is rounds two through five, so if anything the smart move is trading back in the first round. How about maybe solving three problems in the first two days? I think they can stay right where they are and come out of the first five rounds with a starting center, a linebacker that won’t start but is active on game day, and a safety of some sort. The sense is it’s not a strong backer group at the top but there are some solid ones later on.

Wow. You do know that he's channeling Mike Brown's knowledge don't you?