(03-04-2021, 05:48 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: This also depends on FA though. Cannot just rule out Chase or Pitts if the O-line is shored up in FA.

Im at the point like LBS last year.. we need to replace at least 3 starters and we need depth with some cuts coming up.. FA is not going to fix all of that... and we also can shore up WR core with FA

(03-04-2021, 07:24 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: Im at the point like LBS last year.. we need to replace at least 3 starters and we need depth with some cuts coming up.. FA is not going to fix all of that... and we also can  shore up WR core with FA

Well we also shouldn't reach for need at 5 like Synric said. If Sewell is gone, you don't reach. You go BPA which would be Pitts
or Chase or you trade back and grab Darrisaw or Slater or if Pitts falls you grab him. Pitts is the best pass catching TE in the 
Draft, getting the best player at his position is what you want to do in the first round.

(03-04-2021, 07:54 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Well we also shouldn't reach for need at 5 like Synric said. If Sewell is gone, you don't reach. You go BPA which would be Pitts
or Chase or you trade back and grab Darrisaw or Slater or if Pitts falls you grab him. Pitts is the best pass catching TE in the 
Draft, getting the best player at his position is what you want to do in the first round.

And like I replied what determines reach? Many teams pick a position player of need if they are high on their board.. if slater is say 8 on Bengals board they should take him at #5 or if they have 2 tackles in top 10/12"after Sewell is gone trade back a few and still take tackle...Pitts is a waste pick at #5  for Bengals especially if they dont address the line with multiple FAs and in Draft. Also I would argue Parsons the BPA we need by position position over Pitts. Our LB group is still not were it needs to be.and we loss Bynes major hole in our LB group

(03-05-2021, 01:01 AM)Essex Johnson Wrote: And like I replied what determines reach? Many teams pick a position player of need if they are high on their board.. if slater is say 8 on Bengals board they should take him at #5 or if they have 2 tackles in top 10/12"after Sewell is gone trade back a few and still take tackle...Pitts is a waste pick at #5  for Bengals especially if they dont address the line with multiple FAs and in Draft. Also I would argue Parsons the BPA we need by position position over Pitts. Our LB group is still not were it needs to be.and we loss Bynes major hole in our LB group

Micah Parsons won’t have a very good rookie year based on previous top 10 linebacker selections. At least with selecting Pitts, he will have an elite QB throwing to him which is better value.

(03-05-2021, 01:13 AM)Gdale_Bengal Wrote: Micah Parsons won’t have a very good rookie year based on previous top 10 linebacker selections. At least with selecting Pitts, he will have an elite QB throwing to him which is better value.

We also need to actually let our young LBers play to develop. We know Uzomah is not the long term answer at TE though (he’s already 28 and coming off a bad injury), and Sample is never going to be much of a threat in the passing game. A playmaking TE is a huge need.

We could very well already have our core LBers on the team though between Pratt, Wilson, and ADG. And if Bailey turns into anything it’s a bonus.

(03-05-2021, 02:30 AM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: We also need to actually let our young LBers play to develop. We know Uzomah is not the long term answer at TE though (he’s already 28 and coming off a bad injury), and Sample is never going to be much of a threat in the passing game. A playmaking TE is a huge need.

We could very well already have our core LBers on the team though between Pratt, Wilson, and ADG. And if Bailey turns into anything it’s a bonus.

You would hope that after spending 3/7 picks last year on linebackers there’s no thoughts of picking another high round linebacker. If they did need another, spend it on an edge rusher that can do stand up but prefer his hand in the dirt most of the time.

Honestly the only reason I don’t like Slater is because of his size and the school he plays at lol. You see a 6’3 tackle from Northwestern and it dosen’t seem worthy of pick 5. But according to the scouts he has better tape and held up against Chase Young which intrigues me. I think things get interesting if Sewell and Chase are gone at 5. Leaning towards Pitts or Slater. Far as a trade out it takes two teams then you might miss your guy if you trade back to far.

(03-05-2021, 11:55 AM)lone bengal Wrote: Honestly the only reason I don’t like Slater is because of his size and the school he plays at lol. You see a 6’3 tackle from Northwestern and it dosen’t seem worthy of pick 5. But according to the scouts he has better tape and held up against Chase Young which intrigues me. I think things get interesting if Sewell and Chase are gone at 5. Leaning towards Pitts or Slater. Far as a trade out it takes two teams then you might miss your guy if you trade back to far.

He did. He beat chase young whenever he was his guy to block. He’s a technically sound player. He beat other defenders the same way. I don’t know if he’s worth 5 OA but he probably is worth a top 10 selection.

(03-05-2021, 01:01 AM)Essex Johnson Wrote: And like I replied what determines reach? Many teams pick a position player of need if they are high on their board.. if slater is say 8 on Bengals board they should take him at #5 or if they have 2 tackles in top 10/12"after Sewell is gone trade back a few and still take tackle...Pitts is a waste pick at #5  for Bengals especially if they dont address the line with multiple FAs and in Draft. Also I would argue Parsons the BPA we need by position position over Pitts. Our LB group is still not were it needs to be.and we loss Bynes major hole in our LB group

And like I said it all depends on FA, if we don't address the OL in FA, Sewell is gone I trade back and pick one of the OT's or 
Vera-Tucker. Whoever is highest on our board of O-lineman. We will get a good one this way and another pick or two.

I am not going to reach for an OT at 5 either and I think we will address the OL in FA so this is why I am leaning Pitts or Chase
if Sewell is gone. I take Sewell though even if we address the OL in FA and he is there.

According to a facebook post, Matt Miller, a draft analyst and sources close to the bengals, they are already locked in on Sewell.

I have no source other than Facebook on this. But if true at least they have the right idea all off us basically have.

(03-05-2021, 07:04 PM)Gdale_Bengal Wrote: According to a facebook post, Matt Miller, a draft analyst and sources close to the bengals, they are already locked in on Sewell.

I have no source other than Facebook on this. But if true at least they have the right idea all off us basically have.

Good news, they should be locked in on Sewell and have fall back options if for some reason he isn't there.

I take him no matter what honestly. 

I don't care if we went all out and got Daryl Williams, Thuney, Gabe Jackson I would still take Sewell if he is there.

Jonah has had some problems staying healthy and Jonah can play everywhere but Center as far as I know.

But if we did have a good FA and we brought back Spain, brought in Daryl Williams and Gabe Jackson or Warford I could
understand taking Pitts or Chase over Sewell. For some reason Essex doesn't like Pitts and I don't get it. Would really help
out Burrow and the Offense to score points.

(03-05-2021, 03:42 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: And like I said it all depends on FA, if we don't address the OL in FA, Sewell is gone I trade back and pick one of the OT's or 
Vera-Tucker. Whoever is highest on our board of O-lineman. We will get a good one this way and another pick or two.

I am not going to reach for an OT at 5 either and I think we will address the OL in FA so this is why I am leaning Pitts or Chase
if Sewell is gone. I take Sewell though even if we address the OL in FA and he is there.

It just seems that no matter how many times, or how many people say this...

Slater checked in with 33 inch, not sure 33 and what, arms according to Daniel Jeremiah. That should at least calm some who thought he had freakishly short arms haha. I don't want him or Sewell at 5 but another option in a potential trade back scenario I guess.

(03-09-2021, 03:24 PM)Au165 Wrote: Slater checked in with 33 inch, not sure 33 and what, arms according to Daniel Jeremiah. That should at least calm some who thought he had freakishly short arms haha. I don't want him or Sewell at 5 but another option in a potential trade back scenario I guess.

Definitely makes Rashawn Slater a lot easier to swallow as a top 15 pick.

(03-09-2021, 04:31 PM)Synric Wrote: Definitely makes Rashawn Slater a lot easier to swallow as a top 15 pick.

I wouldn't even mind in a trade-down scenario taking him at say 8-10 with us taking an older Tackle option like Okung/Wagner in FA and letting Slater play guard then transition to tackle over time. 

(03-09-2021, 04:33 PM)Au165 Wrote: I wouldn't even mind in a trade-down scenario taking him at say 8-10 with us taking an older Tackle option like Okung/Wagner in FA and letting Slater play guard then transition to tackle over time. 

The Bengals really do need to add some veterans to the offensive line. It would open them up to the possibility of one of those top playmakers at the top of the draft and one of the top defensive lineman that are all hovering around the top of the second. Even a trade back works for someone like Rashod Bateman adding another day 2 pick.

Rashawn Slater Pro Day percentiles (IOL/OT):

HT: 6-4 (53rd/14th)
WT: 304 (31st/18th)
Arm: 33” (40th/9th)
40: 4.88 (98th/96th)
10-yard: 1.68 (99th/91st)
Bench: 33 reps (89th/94th)
3-Cone: 7.48 (88th/87th) https://t.co/o41VJ7Dfym

— Trevor Sikkema (@TampaBayTre) March 9, 2021

(03-09-2021, 04:37 PM)pally Wrote:

Rashawn Slater Pro Day percentiles (IOL/OT):

HT: 6-4 (53rd/14th)
WT: 304 (31st/18th)
Arm: 33” (40th/9th)
40: 4.88 (98th/96th)
10-yard: 1.68 (99th/91st)
Bench: 33 reps (89th/94th)
3-Cone: 7.48 (88th/87th) https://t.co/o41VJ7Dfym

— Trevor Sikkema (@TampaBayTre) March 9, 2021

Now that's what you call a Wide Zone Offensive Lineman.

(03-03-2021, 09:05 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: You just don't get it.

It's hard to have this argument, because there are a few teams that probably have Slater as a top 5 player in this draft.

(03-09-2021, 04:55 PM)Hammerstripes Wrote: It's hard to have this argument, because there are a few teams that probably have Slater as a top 5 player in this draft.

Not a real compelling argument for whether he belongs there though.