(04-23-2019, 02:33 PM)pdub2005 Wrote: I will have more confidence in Tua if he stays healthy this year. Can't deny that he has the talent though.

Agreed. I would be skeptical of Tua and Lawrence both if they only had one year starting experience when entering the NFL draft. I think it's good that Tua is playing another year. Lawrence has to wait two more seasons.

I'm a stats/metrics guy. A single season is too small of a sample set for me. For some people, it's enough.

While my head says to stick with experience and draft a stud position player, my heart says to take Haskins if he is available. My wife truly hate Dalton and quit watching because she can't stand to watch him laugh after throwing interceptions and incompletions. She likes QB's like Manning and Brady that continually fight and you can see them on the sidelines studying during the game, working hard. Most of the time Dalton looks like he is planning a meetup at the bar for later. So, in the interest of marital unity please take Haskins.

(04-23-2019, 02:40 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Roethlisberger was also the third QB taken behind Rivers and Eli. He also played in the MAC, not a Power 5 conference.
Roethlisberger had 3 years of college experience too, not just one like Haskins.

Roethlisberger dropping to 11 wouldn't be the same reasons that Haskins would.

But at the same time Roethlisberger dropped to 11 because the Browns decided QB wasn't a big enough need to take him, so they went with a TE.  The Bears didn't take Rodgers because they needed a RB more than a QB, so they took Cedric Benson.  Hell, the Steelers could have taken Dan Marino, but QB wasn't their biggest weakness, so they let him fall down the draft board.

I'm not sold on Haskins being great, but there is a possibility that people look back 10 years from now and point out how the Bengals let him slide on by because QB wasn't their biggest need.  There are just so many ways to botch the draft that it is too easy to pick apart so many selections and non-selections.

(04-23-2019, 02:54 PM)Nately120 Wrote: But at the same time Roethlisberger dropped to 11 because the Browns decided QB wasn't a big enough need to take him, so they went with a TE.  The Bears didn't take Rodgers because they needed a RB more than a QB, so they took Cedric Benson.  Hell, the Steelers could have taken Dan Marino, but QB wasn't their biggest weakness, so they let him fall down the draft board.

I'm not sold on Haskins being great, but there is a possibility that people look back 10 years from now and point out how the Bengals let him slide on by because QB wasn't their biggest need.  There are just so many ways to botch the draft that it is too easy to pick apart so many selections and non-selections.

Well yea. We all have differing opinions when it comes to evaluating players. Sometimes we are right, sometimes wrong. Ultimately, it's up to the Bengals FO and coaches to determine that, not the fans. We may disagree, but hopefully they make the right choices. If we didn't have our own opinions though, there wouldn't be a need to post on this board lol.

(04-23-2019, 02:53 PM)yang Wrote:   Most of the time Dalton looks like he is planning a meetup at the bar for later.  

This just is not true.

Why do people make up stuff like this?

This "dilemma" has already been debated Ad nauseam on this very forum.

(04-23-2019, 02:54 PM)Nately120 Wrote:  There are just so many ways to botch the draft that it is too easy to pick apart so many selections and non-selections.

It is only easy to pick then apart with 20/20 hindsight.

If we really kept track of every pick each fan wanted we would see a lot of them botching picks all the time.  But fans have the luxury of eliminating all of their bad picks and just talking about the time they would have taken someone better.

Even the very best teams have high picks that flop.  And every year there are players taken in the late rounds that become much better players than some of the guys taken in the early rounds.  There is a lot of flat out luck involved.

(04-23-2019, 02:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The problem is finding a QB who can mimic his production.

Of the 24 QBs taken in the first round since we got Andy in 2011 only 7 have a higher passer rating than him.

There is a good reason QBs are paid so much.  If it was as simple as just drafting a guy and building around a cheap rookie contract that would be what all the good teams do, but they don't.  Instead they pay the good QBs to stay.

This is not true at all. A lot of good teams did just what I said - they drafted a quarterback on a cheap rookie deal and built a quality team around them. Kansas City, LA, the Eagles (more so just a cheap QB),  etc. The key is to build a quality team AROUND THEM. This is via trade, free agency, coaching, etc. 

So are you willing to pay Andy Dalton what Cousins got? Because thats what hes going to be looking for when he hits FA in a couple years. You can't play both sides of the fence. You either think Andy Dalton is as good as you think he is and you want to break the bank to pay him or you want to move on and try to get similar production at a better value.

(04-23-2019, 03:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is only easy to pick then apart with 20/20 hindsight.

Ehh, I agree with you on this mostly, but there is some foresight involved, too.  I can't be the only person who was immediately laughing at the Browns for taking Johnny Manziel rather than waiting 5 years to see how the pick worked out.

The biggest issue is that no matter what you do (other than taking Luck/Manning at #1 overall, etc) there are almost certainly going to be better players you missed on.  When people ask me for real life advice on decisions I tell them the most important thing to remember is that no matter what you do and which path you choose you will be able to convince yourself it was the wrong one.

But anywho, we've already figured out that the Bengals burning their #11 pick on a QB before we see Dalton in ZT's system is a bad move.  That hain't hindsight, and I'm not going to expect people to wait 5 years to complain if we ignore LB or OT so we can take Drew Lock, or something.

(04-23-2019, 10:52 AM)ochocincos Wrote: I'm fine with getting a QB who is markedly better than Dalton.
With that said, I'm not highly confident anyone from this draft class will be that.
I have higher confidence in Tua Tagovailoa next year or Trevor Lawrence the year after. Yes, it might mean having to trade away draft capital to get them, but it's better than taking a riskier QB in a poor draft class this year.

As Fred said, the Bengals have Dalton for two more years, so there's no rush to find a replacement this year. If you find one that you think will be a Top 10 QB in the NFL, go for it. But don't just take a QB at 11 this year because of perceived value and fear of not drafting in the Top 5 or 10 in 2020 or 2021. Trades can always happen. The Bengals traded up to take Ki-Jana Carter 1st overall back in 1995, so they aren't completely against trading up in the 1st round if they really want someone.

I dont get any warm n fuzzy feelins either from the qbs we would be able to get in this draft. 

Let's see? The Bengals let Whitworth and Zeitler go and drafted replacements that were bust. Not Dalton's fault. I would like to have seen Brady play behind that line the last 2 or 3 seasons. Dalton is good enough( not great) to win in this league, he has proven it. His no.1 tight end is rarely on the field and his no.1 receiver has missed a lot of games with turf toe. I don't know what the future holds here in Cincinnati for Andy Dalton, his replacement could be drafted in only two days. There was a time that Ken Anderson thought his days were numbered here with the arrival of Jack Thompson, yet Kenny went on to be the 1981 AFC MVP and lead Us to Superbowl XVI.

(04-23-2019, 11:18 AM)PV Bengal Wrote: I've got to say I agree with Fred on this one.

We will never know if Klingler or A. Smith would have been decent QBs (long term) because they played behind some horrible OLs and those teams had some pretty horrible defenses to boot. Hell, Tom Brady would look like an average QB playing behind the Bengals OL.

The Bengals have a serious OL problem and serious DL and LB problems.  If we address those areas over the next several drafts, I think we will see that Dalton was not the problem in the first place.

I think Smith was destined to fail....poor ethic and film study.  Klingler was a pick I didn't like, but you may very well be correct about him.  That poor guy got his brains bashed in.

I agree about LB and OL, but DL should be better this year if they remain healthy.

Like you, I agree with ol Fred here.....

(04-23-2019, 03:10 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: This is not true at all. A lot of good teams did just what I said - they drafted a quarterback on a cheap rookie deal and built a quality team around them. Kansas City, LA, the Eagles (more so just a cheap QB), 

KC already had a great team.  Rams and Eagles did not have good QBs when they drafted Goff and Wentz

(04-23-2019, 03:10 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote:  So are you willing to pay Andy Dalton what Cousins got? Because thats what hes going to be looking for when he hits FA in a couple years. 

I am willing to pay Dalton what his production warrants.

And I predict that is what NFL teams will continue to do.  If they already have a good QB they will pay him to stay instead of rolling the dice on a draft pick.  Since so many draft picks flop that is the smart thing to do.

(04-23-2019, 03:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This just is not true.

Why do people make up stuff like this?

I don't get it either Fred, hell, I saw Dalton with an earpiece in and a tablet with him sitting and talking with Jeff Driskell and Lazor after every single series while he was injured.....let alone when he's actually playing. SMH.

You hear it all in some of these threads. Dalton plays not to get hurt? Seem to recall him having two season ending injuries by going all out. He hasn't been effective since 2015? I recall him playing damn good football until he got hurt last year.

The only Dalton Dilemma this year is navigating through all of the threads started by people looking for ways to talk others into giving up on Dalton.

Every snap that Andy Dalton has had as a QB was under the "leadership" of Marvin Lewis. This handicap alone buys him another year.

How about we just stop with dumb threads like these?

The two biggest offensive problems have been the line and the coaching including bad schemes. The last offensive coach we had that even tried to do things that aligned with the strengths of the players (and even then it was erratic) was Hue. The coaching even afflicted our line which even when it had Whit and Big Z had poor technique and very poor interior blocking - as evidenced both by our constant issues with jailbreaks up the middle and also the spotty running game. Lazor late in 2017 got them to try power blocking which worked - then they inexplicably went back to the lateral zones none of our linemen were really any good at.

Fix our line and let them play to their strengths and a LOT of stuff automatically improves. If we can actually run and that includes short yardage then all of a sudden play action opens up. Or what about simplifying the route tree so that we don't constantly have receivers out of position on the timing routes we've been in love with? Even just playing uptempo more often.

We need to see the new schemes before we can know our true player needs.

(04-23-2019, 09:56 AM)Catmandude123 Wrote: The Bengals are in a catch-22 situation with Andy Dalton. While he has been a decent QB in his tenure with the Bengals he hasn't really been effective since 2015. I would agree that letting o-line members walk and completely missing on their replacements have crippled the offense, can we expect different outcomes with the basically the same o-line. Do we keep Andy and resign him to a more lucrative contract? Do we keep him for two more years and draft his replacement now? Do we trade him now when he has the highest trade value and do a complete rebuild now? Weather you are an Andy Dalton fan or not all these options may lead you to the Super Bowl or lead you to the toilet bowl. I love the human being Andy but I don't believe he is the long term answer to get results we desire.

I would argue that is incorrect.. last year Andy as solid 5-6 with still a subpar line and before Mixon got going.. If he does not get hurt he would have closed in on 2015 marks... I would rate him good in his tenure not decent for sure

(04-23-2019, 05:17 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: I would argue that is incorrect.. last year Andy as solid 5-6 with still a subpar line and before Mixon got going.. If he does not get hurt he would have closed in on 2015 marks... I would rate him good in his tenure not decent for sure

Yep. Also add in that he was 5-6 with what was at the time a historically bad defense. 

(04-23-2019, 05:17 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: I would argue that is incorrect.. last year Andy as solid 5-6 with still a subpar line and before Mixon got going.. If he does not get hurt he would have closed in on 2015 marks... I would rate him good in his tenure not decent for sure

I would argue that Rodgers, Brady, Breeze , Ben are good and thus Dalton is just decent.