(04-09-2019, 12:56 PM)NKURyan Wrote: Exactly - even when they find contributors in the first round (Jackson, Dennard, and I'm not throwing in the towel on Price) they seldom find that guy that steps in right away and makes a difference. I think some of that is attributed to Marvin, as he loved keeping his young CBs on the bench. Hopefully this year we find a day one contributor!

Yes, everything could change under a new HC...

I have to say I have gone back and forth about taking a LB at #11 other than White. After doing a lot more research, I have no issue taking Bush in round 1.

If we do pass on LB in round 1, there are a few in round 2 or 3 that could also be good

(04-14-2019, 08:49 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I have to say I have gone back and forth about taking a LB at #11 other than White. After doing a lot more research, I have no issue taking Bush in round 1.

If we do pass on LB in round 1, there are a few in round 2 or 3 that could also be good

I keep going back and forth...rare talent at DT and a LB in later rounds or take the LB first and try to get a DT in Rd 3 or so...

I would think both questions will be answered if Taylor falls to #11.

(04-07-2019, 07:37 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: We paid Hart as a team desperate for tackles. We have two question marks followed up by nothing for depth at tackle.

I could understand a LB. But pick two from Preston Vigil Evans and Jefferson and they play the majority of our snaps. If Hart and Glenn miss any time. Who is it playing T?

O-line,Andre Dillard,by far the best or The Taylor guy,I would dance in the streets for either or if they go D,I want Ed Oliver,either of these are going to be day one starters.Must get difference makers in your first two picks and they have to be STARTERS.Facts of life folks,we can get a top linebacker later as none of the linebackers listed are worthy of a 11 pick. The Devins are both over rated but I would not complain if we grabbed White,he rides horses and I have two I ride every week and I am 72 years young and a former decorated Vietnam vet and been married to the same girl for 49 years.I could not run her off now. Ha Ha !!!!! :andy: Will not be lone now and the real draft will be here.Its been a long long wait.

(04-14-2019, 12:56 PM)fortyyearfan Wrote: O-line,Andre Dillard,by far the best or The Taylor guy,I would dance in the streets for either or if they go D,I want Ed Oliver,either of these are going to be day one starters.Must get difference makers in your first two picks and they have to be STARTERS.Facts of life folks,we can get a top linebacker later as none of the linebackers listed are worthy of a 11 pick. The Devins are both over rated but I would not complain if we grabbed White,he rides horses and I have two I ride every week and I am 72 years young and a former decorated Vietnam vet and been married to the same girl for 49 years.I could not run her off now. Ha Ha !!!!! :andy: Will not be lone now and the real draft will be here.Its been a long long wait.

First of all, thank you for your service to our country. 

Second, I completely agree about the offensive linemen, and no matter how you slice it...there will either be a top tier OT, DT, or QB that can help this team.  I am sentimentally hoping Dalton is the one to lead us to a Super Bowl win, but if Haskins is there, I bet they take him.  

I am hoping he's gone to the Giants and the Bengals get an OT or DT that can help RIGHT NOW.  As you said, there are some solid LBs available later in the draft.  

I’ll say this yet again. When Andy, Aj, Mixon, Boyd, etc we’re healthy out offense was still good. Even with our bad o line it didn’t derail our ability to win. When our defense was healthy we were still one of the worst units in football and that was directly related to the horrible play of our linebackers. We can hide flaws on the O line because as an offense you dictate the action, but on defense one glaring hole can be exploited as you are at the mercy of the opposing offense.

The later in the draft argument is how we got to this place. We have guys we took later in the draft and they were part of one of the worst Lb coverage units in history. It’s the two Devins or Wilson otherwise we are falling for the same thing we have done for the last decade. I think you could get Wilson later in the 1st but it’s no guarantee. Baltimore loves Bama players and they need a replacement for Mosley.

(04-14-2019, 06:04 PM)Au165 Wrote: I’ll say this yet again. When Andy, Aj, Mixon, Boyd, etc we’re healthy out offense was still  good. Even with our bad o line it didn’t derail our ability to win. When our defense was healthy we were still one of the worst units in football and that was directly related to the horrible play of our linebackers. We can hide flaws on the O line because as an offense you dictate the action, but on defense one glaring hole can be exploited as you are at the mercy of the opposing offense.

The later in the draft argument is how we got to this place. We have guys we took later in the draft and they were part of one of the worst Lb coverage units in history. It’s the two Devins or Wilson otherwise we are falling for the same thing we have done for the last decade. I think you could get Wilson later in the 1st but it’s no guarantee. Baltimore loves Bama players and they need a replacement for Mosley.

I'd piggy back on this and say it wasn't just a one year issue, either. It seems like our linebackers have been getting taken advantage of in coverage for as long as I can remember, either through the tight end or a running back catching passes out of the backfield. As you pointed out, the Bengals have rarely put a premium on drafting linebackers high up and it shows. There are obviously no guarantees but I'd feel really good if they came away with one of those three guys you mentioned (though I'm not sure they'd take Wilson at 11).

(04-14-2019, 09:33 PM)NKURyan Wrote: I'd piggy back on this and say it wasn't just a one year issue, either. It seems like our linebackers have been getting taken advantage of in coverage for as long as I can remember, either through the tight end or a running back catching passes out of the backfield. As you pointed out, the Bengals have rarely put a premium on drafting linebackers high up and it shows. There are obviously no guarantees but I'd feel really good if they came away with one of those three guys you mentioned (though I'm not sure they'd take Wilson at 11).

Agreed on Wilson, I think he is an option in terms of a trade back.

(04-14-2019, 06:04 PM)Au165 Wrote: I’ll say this yet again. When Andy, Aj, Mixon, Boyd, etc we’re healthy out offense was still  good. Even with our bad o line it didn’t derail our ability to win. When our defense was healthy we were still one of the worst units in football and that was directly related to the horrible play of our linebackers. We can hide flaws on the O line because as an offense you dictate the action, but on defense one glaring hole can be exploited as you are at the mercy of the opposing offense.

The later in the draft argument is how we got to this place. We have guys we took later in the draft and they were part of one of the worst Lb coverage units in history. It’s the two Devins or Wilson otherwise we are falling for the same thing we have done for the last decade. I think you could get Wilson later in the 1st but it’s no guarantee. Baltimore loves Bama players and they need a replacement for Mosley.

I guess it all boils down to the perceived dropoff from White/Bush to the next tier of LBs.  I think it is significant, but not as significant as the dropoff from a guy like Taylor, who could man the RT spot for a decade and the next tier of offensive linemen.  I think Tytus Howard could be that player and could be there in Rd 2 allowing the Bengals to get the LB in Rd 1.

If a guy like Ed Oliver slides to us at #11, do you take him over the LBs White and Bush?   It is a tough call, but I haven't seen many guys with Oliver's ability EVER.  There are always stud LBs coming out of the draft and it isn't like White and Bush are without their flaws. 

It will be a tough call, but I am excited for what waits for the Bengals in Rd 1

(04-15-2019, 07:16 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: I guess it all boils down to the perceived dropoff from White/Bush to the next tier of LBs.  I think it is significant, but not as significant as the dropoff from a guy like Taylor, who could man the RT spot for a decade and the next tier of offensive linemen.  I think Tytus Howard could be that player and could be there in Rd 2 allowing the Bengals to get the LB in Rd 1.

Completely backwards in mine and many other opinion. The drop off from White/Bush is decent to Wilson then a cliff to the next tier. Depending who you ask Willams, Taylor, Dillard are all interchangeable and some people think Risner could be in that group as well. Then the next tier of Little , Ford, McGary, and some have Cajuste aren't that far off. The Tackle depth far surpasses the LB depth, Heck I'd say even the next tier after that of Howard,  Sharpling, Edoga all make you feel pretty solid coming away with one as the RT of the future. 

I get the feeling it's Devin White, Devin Bush, or Cody Ford. The team has met with Ford multiple times and they have said they want big maulers on their OL for their scheme.

(04-15-2019, 08:11 AM)Au165 Wrote: Completely backwards in mine and many other opinion. The drop off from White/Bush is decent to Wilson then a cliff to the next tier. Depending who you ask Willams, Taylor, Dillard are all interchangeable and some people think Risner could be in that group as well. Then the next tier of Little , Ford, McGary, and some have Cajuste aren't that far off. The Tackle depth far surpasses the LB depth, Heck I'd say even the next tier after that of Howard,  Sharpling, Edoga all make you feel pretty solid coming away with one as the RT of the future. 

I think out of the three you listed, Taylor fits the best if the team wants a big, mauling RT. Dillard fits if the team really wants to prioritize pass blocking over run blocking, but I'm not sure they do. Williams gives you the safest and arguably best all-around OL.

(04-15-2019, 10:02 AM)ochocincos Wrote: I think out of the three you listed, Taylor fits the best if the team wants a big, mauling RT. Dillard fits if the team really wants to prioritize pass blocking over run blocking, but I'm not sure they do. Williams gives you the safest and arguably best all-around OL.

A team taking Dillard is running a spread attack with wider set splits and using more of a zone blocking scheme. The reality is Dillard is more of a throwback LT who is a really good pass protector who you hope can get in some one's way enough in a zone blocking scheme to not be a detriment to the run. I'd probably use a lot of pulling TE's to give him help early on in the run game. 

Overall my point is there is a lot of quality at tackle this year. Maybe not the big name guys we usually judge a tackle class with but a lot of really solid guys.

(04-15-2019, 10:36 AM)Au165 Wrote: A team taking Dillard is running a spread attack with wider set splits and using more of a zone blocking scheme. The reality is Dillard is more of a throwback LT who is a really good pass protector who you hope can get in some one's way enough in a zone blocking scheme to not be a detriment to the run. I'd probably use a lot of pulling TE's to give him help early on in the run game. 

Overall my point is there is a lot of quality at tackle this year. Maybe not the big name guys we usually judge a tackle class with but a lot of really solid guys.

You should probably change "is running a spread attack" to "should run a spread attack" lol. We've seen many instances where a team doesn't actually cater a player to his strengths because they think they can morph him into someone he's not.

But I agree with you, that's how Dillard would be best used to mask his deficiency in run blocking (at least until he can improve in that area).

(04-15-2019, 10:46 AM)ochocincos Wrote: You should probably change "is running a spread attack" to "should run a spread attack" lol. We've seen many instances where a team doesn't actually cater a player to his strengths because they think they can morph him into someone he's not.

But I agree with you, that's how Dillard would be best used to mask his deficiency in run blocking (at least until he can improve in that area).

I'm not even sure it actually is a deficiency to be honest, he just wasn't asked to do it much is really the problem. I really like him because that potential upside there when asked to do it more could make him the best tackle in this class. 

GB makes a lot of sense for him to me because frankly they aren't all that interested in running anyways. 

(04-15-2019, 08:11 AM)Au165 Wrote: Completely backwards in mine and many other opinion. The drop off from White/Bush is decent to Wilson then a cliff to the next tier. Depending who you ask Willams, Taylor, Dillard are all interchangeable and some people think Risner could be in that group as well. Then the next tier of Little , Ford, McGary, and some have Cajuste aren't that far off. The Tackle depth far surpasses the LB depth, Heck I'd say even the next tier after that of Howard,  Sharpling, Edoga all make you feel pretty solid coming away with one as the RT of the future. 

I disagree.  There are lots of quality LBs out there that could be available in Rd 3, whereas the OTs you mentioned (the first four) will almost certainly be gone in Rd 1.  The others are largely being earmarked as "best to move inside" and have substantial holes in their games.  They also struggle with mobility and that is a part of why they are being pointed in the direction of Guard and not capable of handling the speed of outside pass rushers.  There are only a few of them that can do that...and they will almost certainly go in the first round.  

The LBs like Pratt, Terrill Hanks, Gary Johnson, and David Long, Jr. are fast, capable in coverage, LBs that can help this team.  I would also argue that all the LBs would benefit from better play at the NT position.  

(04-14-2019, 06:04 PM)Au165 Wrote: I’ll say this yet again. When Andy, Aj, Mixon, Boyd, etc we’re healthy out offense was still good. Even with our bad o line it didn’t derail our ability to win. When our defense was healthy we were still one of the worst units in football and that was directly related to the horrible play of our linebackers. We can hide flaws on the O line because as an offense you dictate the action, but on defense one glaring hole can be exploited as you are at the mercy of the opposing offense.

The later in the draft argument is how we got to this place. We have guys we took later in the draft and they were part of one of the worst Lb coverage units in history. It’s the two Devins or Wilson otherwise we are falling for the same thing we have done for the last decade. I think you could get Wilson later in the 1st but it’s no guarantee. Baltimore loves Bama players and they need a replacement for Mosley.

You are a smart dude so i always listen to your opinion but don't you think a coaching change like we have done will help our Linebackers Au? Not saying we should not take a LB early but i do like other LB's than just the Devins and Wilson and just because you pick a player early doesn't mean they are a sure thing as we have definately seen.

(04-15-2019, 11:11 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: I disagree.  There are lots of quality LBs out there that could be available in Rd 3, whereas the OTs you mentioned (the first four) will almost certainly be gone in Rd 1.  The others are largely being earmarked as "best to move inside" and have substantial holes in their games.  They also struggle with mobility and that is a part of why they are being pointed in the direction of Guard and not capable of handling the speed of outside pass rushers.  There are only a few of them that can do that...and they will almost certainly go in the first round.  

The LBs like Pratt, Terrill Hanks, Gary Johnson, and David Long, Jr. are fast, capable in coverage, LBs that can help this team.  I would also argue that all the LBs would benefit from better play at the NT position.  

Me, and nearly every other draft prognosticator, disagree with this assessment of level of talent in comparing LB to tackle but that is beauty of the draft I guess. 

(04-15-2019, 11:24 AM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: You are a smart dude so i always listen to your opinion but don't you think a coaching change like we have done will help our Linebackers Au? Not saying we should not take a LB early but i do like other LB's than just the Devins and Wilson and just because you pick a player early doesn't mean they are a sure thing as we have definately seen.

No, not really. If the staff believed that we wouldn't be doing this substantial of work on the top backers. There was a reason a lot of the guys on our roster went in later rounds and we simply saw the manifestation of those reasons on the field. We have a large group of back up quality linebackers, however our disinterest in investing in a higher potential LB is killing us now. I keep looking back to the fact we didn't even look for a bargain basement WLB in FA as an indication this team feels they need to make an early investment in linebacker.

Like anything, sure high picks could bust. History has shown us though that 4-3 linebackers have a much higher chance of succeeding the earlier they are drafted. Being drafted high doesn't make you good, however this shows that guys who display traits to make them worthy of high draft picks translate well to production maybe more so than many other positions..

I strongly feel our biggest single weakness bar none is the LBer group ! And this goes back further than last season. We've been getting sliced and diced and cooked and fried over the middle by TE's and RB's for quite some time. It's our glaring weakness and other teams know it !

Sure our Oline has issues, there's no doubt. But we can't continue the bleeding we've been doing with our inability to cover the middle. And tackle and shed blocks and be in position and so on for that matter.

We don't need more 4th and 5th and 6th round LBers, we've got a half dozen backup's now. We need impact players at that position group.