(12-27-2019, 02:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You honestly believe that the Bengals did not scout Akili before the draft?

And you also do not believe that Akili was rated very high in the draft by most of the "experts"?

That’s twenty years ago but you’re right: Akili Smith was highly regarded coming out of Oregon. That’s a VERY good point, Fred.

However, was Akili good enough to throw away nine picks on him? Absolutely not!

Just an FYI - other than the Semis, none of these other bowl games are "big games." They are simply extra practice for a lot of these guys. IF you want to study the big games, go back and look at the ones that mattered during the season.

Johnny Manziel's numbers in his final bowl game.  .  .  30-38, 382 yds, 4 tds, 0 int, 73 yards and another td rushing.

The  numbers from his bowl game the year before against Oklahoma.  .  .  287 yards and 2 tds passing, 229 yards and 2 tds rushing.

(12-27-2019, 02:18 AM)kevin Wrote: The idea some have that the Bengals have no scouts so they can't scout, and then some add that Bowl Games mean nothing.  That is not acceptable.  Every other NFL team has scouts and they do scout the Bowl Games.  If the Bengals don't scout these players, then it makes no difference where they pick on the draft.  

Lets not just look at pick #1.  How about pick #33.  Pick #65.  Pick #97.    The Bengals pick #1 in all the rounds.  They should get the best player in all the rounds, but that will take scouting.  The Bengals get 4 of the first 100 players.  They need to get it RIGHT on all 4.

I'm tired of hearing this team has no scouts or can't scout.  Since Paul Brown this team has always been about The Draft, and for that you need scouts.  This team under Mike Brown went as cheap as to listen to a Cincinnati drugstore guy, and just what in the hell did he know from inside his drugstore.  They might as well have been asking a guy at White Castle or Skyline.  I'm tired of hearing the lousy excuse that this team can't be expected to scout. Every other team does.  

I also add that Burrow and others are not done.  That these Bowl games are not just another game.  Joe Montana winning the Cotton Bowl with a 2 minute drill drive showed he was better than Jack Thompson.  Every other NFL team scouts these Bowl Games and if Bengals are too CHEAP too then they deserve 15 losses every year.  You don't go into draft in April and pick names out of a hat.  You don't go on just the Combine either.  The Combine is track and field, not football.  The Combine would be great if you are building a track team.

Bengals are only team since 1991 with no play-off wins and also the team since 1991 with most 0-4 starts.  If they are also the only team that refuses to scout, then I say the no scouts and the losing are connected.  This team WILL NOT WIN until it gets out of local drugstores and actually Scouts as every other NFL team does.  

Having the #1 pick is a big waste of time if Mike Brown is too cheap or too stupid to scout Bowl Games and Players.

It is also stupid to compare the Bowl Games to the Bengals Jets game.  You want to see if players step up in the Big Games as Joe Montana did, as Dan Marino did.  The Bengals never ever never ever win Big Games, never ever.   These Bowl Games are a chance to see who CAN win Big Games.   Jim Plunkett beating Ohio State in the Rose Bowl, I was not surprised years later as he won Super Bowls.  The Combine is a track and field contest, but the Bowl Games are FOOTBALL.  You know who looked good in his Bowl Game was Jeff Blake who the Bengals had as 3rd string and only played him due to injuries, and they discovered this Bowl Game star was the best QB on the team.  Another Bowl Game star was Jerome Bettis, who beat the heck out of Bengals for Steelers. ....Bengals could learn a LOT from scouting Bowl Games, and I don't mean the Senior Bowl.  Anthony Munoz had a GREAT Bowl Game as he blocked USC to Rose Bowl win over Ohio State.

You couldn't be further off on the bowl games.  There's only 2 that really matter and those are the semis.  The others are just glorified scrimmages where most of the upcoming projected 1st and 2nd rounders will sit ouy.

Bowl games used to mean something, now they don't

(12-27-2019, 02:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Anyone who thinks the Bengals don't watch the bowl games is clueless.

Anyone who thinks one bowl game is more important than an entire season is also clueless.

Anyone who thinks a scout in the stands can watch all 22 players at once and scout a game as well as a guy in a filmroom who can back up and watch ebvery play mutliple times is clueless.

What's really absurd is trying to prognosticate a player's NFL effectiveness based on a situation that they will literally never run into in the NFL.

When will an NFL player ever play a must win game with over a month to prepare for it?  

For the CFP teams, every single game is must win.  Do you want to put more weight on what they do in a must win game with a week to prepare or a must win game with a month+ to prepare?

(12-26-2019, 04:12 PM)kevin Wrote: The first pick in 2 is like a 1.  It is like two first round picks.  The first pick in 3 is like a 2.  The first pick in 4 is like a 3.   If this team doesn't get 4 quality players to help ASAP in September,  then they didn't Scout.  They went with these mock lists and never got down and dirty putting in the Scouting.    If they do NOT Scout, having the #1 picks is a complete and total waste. They will get more clunkers if they don't scout and just go with media draft lists.  Every other team in the NFL Scouts and maybe why they all have play-off wins and we don't.

I'm not against taking Burrow, but scout the guy in these big games now.  Scout the guy and others.  We kind of get two 1st rounds drafting first in 2.   Don't buy them sight unseen.  Go into draft knowing.  Knowledge is everything. Don't guess at the draft picks, SCOUT.

? Burrow has already been scouted in big games.
vs Bama, Auburn, Georgia, Texas, Florida and did well.

There is really not much to question about Burrow, just he doesn't necessarily have protypical NFL "cannon" arm, but that's just scout BS, dude can toss it anywhere and is quite accurate with good ball placement. The guys that say he doesn't have an arm are probably only basing their crap on his 2018 play where he threw a lot of jump balls and accuracy was an issue. This year, his long ball catch % is in the mid 70's.  

(12-27-2019, 04:40 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: This year, his long ball catch % is in the mid 70's.  

Because his receivers are so much more wide open.  That is because of better coacvhing and receivers more than an improvement in Burrows skills.

If he really was the most accurate QB ever he would have been rated higher than 10th in the SEC in passing last year.

(12-27-2019, 04:50 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Because his receivers are so much more wide open.  That is because of better coacvhing and receivers more than an improvement in Burrows skills.

If he really was the most accurate QB ever he would have been rated higher than 10th in the SEC in passing last year.

Players can't improve in their second year of playing? I've always thought that's when you should see a player take a step forward in their development.

Also Burrow is the second best QB throwing into tight windows this year behind Trevor Lawrence and first when throwing contested balls allowing only his WRs a chance at the ball.

(12-26-2019, 10:36 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Maybe let's not just make stuff up, out of thin air?  According to what I was reading, it looks like about 2/3 of Heisman winners go on to do quite well in their Bowl Game performances. (at least from the past 17 years that this article covers)

https://www.boydsbets.com/heisman-winners-performance-bowl-games/

Sure, they have done well, but since the CFP's have started, no QB Heisman winner has won the CFP, which started in 2014

2014 Marcus Mariota
2015 Derrick Henry helped Bama win it.
2016 Lamar Jackson
2017 Baker Mayfield
2018 Kyler Murray
2019 Joe Burrow (tbd)

(12-27-2019, 05:00 PM)Synric Wrote: Players can't improve in their second year of playing? I've always thought that's when you should see a player take a step forward in their development.

2019 was Burrows SIXTH season of college football.

(12-27-2019, 05:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 2019 was Burrows SIXTH season of college football.

How many years did he play? Two.

And in his second year of playing he is hands down the best Quarterback in college football. 

(12-27-2019, 02:37 PM)jason Wrote: Vince Young and Akili Smith played well in bowl games too.

Geeez..It seems so long ago since Vince Young Did he play for the 1932 Lions? 

(12-27-2019, 05:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 2019 was Burrows SIXTH season of college football.

Fred, that is impossible, seeing as he graduated HS in 2015..

Check it out, Google is your friend.

I really like Burrow but I am worried about his one good year. We just saw Haskins come out after a good year and I know it’s pre mature but he’s not looking very good. That team is a mess on offense also so it’s not really fair and yes it’s way to early. I honestly think we trade back and take Tua ( I would hate this). If we trade back I would much rather fix the Oline finally then address the LB position. The first 3 picks should be OL & LB if we trade back. We can pick up a journey man QB and get our guy next year. Or keep Dalton, not a fan of this option.

I honestly think we will trade back for Tua. An often injured short QB that gets more balls batted at the line than Dalton sounds about right. For the past few years with a compilation of our line and the Div we play in, ive always thought we would be better off with a mobile QB. Seems Balt already figured that out.

I need to scout more myself. This QB class must be pretty weak. I never hear anything about the other QB’s like Herbert, Eason, Love and so on. Are these guys that bad? The little I did get to watch Herbert I think he may shock some come combine. I’m going to check out the rest of the QB’s this weekend.

(12-27-2019, 06:10 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Fred, that is impossible, seeing as he graduated HS in 2015..

Check it out, Google is your friend.

Most of him did. That hairdo of his is still in highschool.

(12-27-2019, 06:12 PM)TKUHL Wrote: I really like Burrow but I am worried about his one good year.

I need to scout more myself. This QB class must be pretty weak. I never hear anything about the other QB’s like Herbert, Eason, Love and so on. Are these guys that bad? 

This is Burrow's 2nd year as a starter.  He did very well in his "developmental" year, last year.  As for the other guys?  Check around some of the other threads, we've talked about them plenty, save for Eason, he just announced yesterday.  I'm not going to try to sway you with my opinions of the other QBs in this draft, you can read some of the scouting material on those guys, and form your own opinion.

(12-27-2019, 06:36 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: This is Burrow's 2nd year as a starter.  He did very well in his "developmental" year, last year.  As for the other guys?  Check around some of the other threads, we've talked about them plenty, save for Eason, he just announced yesterday.  I'm not going to try to sway you with my opinions of the other QBs in this draft, you can read some of the scouting material on those guys, and form your own opinion.

Not really he was better at the end of the year but he was meh for most of it.

(12-27-2019, 07:04 PM)J24 Wrote: Not really he was better at the end of the year but he was meh for most of it.

Dude, I get it, you don't like Joe Burrow..  You don't need to keep making false statements about the guy, in order to show your feelings about him.

Earlier, you stated that the majority of Heisman winners do poorly in their bowl games.  I went to the trouble of looking that up, just to see if it was true.  I found an article that clearly refuted your statement by showing that weather their team won the game or not, the majority of them play well in said bowl games.  You refused to reply, or even acknowledge historical data that proved your statement wrong.

Now, you want to just make another statement that belittles his developmental efforts in the previous year?  Yeah, I get it.  You don't like Joe Burrow.  However, as I said previously, there's no need to make stuff up, just to suit your opinion.  If you like another player better, how about learning about that player, and making your case for why said player is a better choice than Joe Burrow?  

(12-27-2019, 07:49 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Dude, I get it, you don't like Joe Burrow..  You don't need to keep making false statements about the guy, in order to show your feelings about him.

Earlier, you stated that the majority of Heisman winners do poorly in their bowl games.  I went to the trouble of looking that up, just to see if it was true.  I found an article that clearly refuted your statement by showing that weather their team won the game or not, the majority of them play well in said bowl games.  You refused to reply, or even acknowledge historical data that proved your statement wrong.

Now, you want to just make another statement that belittles his developmental efforts in the previous year?  Yeah, I get it.  You don't like Joe Burrow.  However, as I said previously, there's no need to make stuff up, just to suit your opinion.  If you like another player better, how about learning about that player, and making your case for why said player is a better choice than Joe Burrow?  

1.) 8 out of the last 17 Heisman winners lost there Bowl game. Once again I was right and you were wrong. And by the way I did reply so who is the liar now.
2.) His stats were meh from last season look them up for yourself if you don't believe me.

You guys are hilarious. The Inbreds have 1/3 of a normal scouting staff and no doubt the scouts they do have are average at best. Question - when is the last time one of our scouts went to another team in a larger role? This group is understaffed and under skilled. Our problem wont be picking Burrows, it will be getting more talent around him and a good OC. Draft and develop with a cheap scouting staff and useless coaches - great plan.