(05-01-2017, 01:52 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: 1. We needed speed and playmakers outside of AJ Green and Eifert (often hurt). So I don't see why you think Ross and Nixon didn't feel needs.

2. Ross isn't a one trick pony and I'm not sure why you keep suggesting he is. His scouting report emphasizes that he ran all types of routes and dominated teams even when not using his deep speed. He also has good hands.

3. This was not a good OL draft to say the least, and a rookie from a weak class wouldn't have helped much this year at all. If you're going to be mad about the line, be mad that we ignored it in free agency, when several solid players were available at reasonable prices, but we had to protect precious compensatory picks.

4. RB is definitely a need with Hill (awful), Gio (injured/ineffective) and Rex (gone).
_____________________

Long story short, I'd say this team only has 1 big weakness (o-line) and this was a bad draft to address that. They should've addressed it via FA, but seemed all too content to roll with some questionable (at best) players manning 4 spots. They did fill every other need (speed, playmakers and DE being the biggest), and I love the players we got to fill those needs.

Pacman and Nixon isn't a fair comparison IMO. One made a huge mistake and seemingly learned from it. The other is a repeat offender for a decade + who shows zero remorse for anything he's ever done. I once was just as forgiving towards Pacman as I am now with Mixon, but Pacman burned up all his chances. Fwiw, I don't think Burfict belongs in this discussion as he's a model citizen off field. Who else do we have that earns us the reputation?

(05-01-2017, 01:37 AM)The Caped Crusader Wrote: I checked out as soon as you said Ross was only speed.

(04-30-2017, 11:30 PM)Benton Wrote: I could care less about the bottom of the roster when we've got plenty of room at the top of it. You're basically calling him the fuzzy dice in a rusted out El Camino.

(04-30-2017, 09:56 PM)Benton Wrote: I thought it would be easier and less of a derailment for other existing Draft Grade threads to go with my own post draft thread. I made no bones before the draft of how I felt about a few people, and I haven't hidden the fact after the draft that I'm disappointed with the direction we went.
Sooo... I'll go pick by pick on why this wasn't a draft I cared much for. The grades are mostly low, but I'll explain why with each.

Pick 1 — John Ross. My Grade: D
This one is a mix of reasons, moreso than most of the rest.
First up is just overall team need. We needed DL and there were several good ones on the board. We could've gone with a standout LB, even though I don't think it's a huge need. We could've gone safety and improved that spot. We could've gone TE given the question mark there.
But instead we went wide receiver. Despite having several recent picks there, a re-signed FA and one of the leagues best. As far as picking to fill a need, this was an F.
Then there's Ross himself. He's not a bad receiver, but he is reliant on his speed at this point (cutting him some slack, he is a rookie) and doesn't have a lot outside of that. That's not a bad thing as speed is touchdowns. It is a bad thing with a guy who has a history of injuries that could hinder the speed.
In other words, he's a boom or bust pick. Just like Ogbuehi a couple years ago. I hated that pick, too, not because he was injured, but because the injury meant he was going to be years away from contirbuting. It takes time to condition and learn. Ogbeuhi was nowhere near ready, or worthy of the pick.
Ross is similar in that regard.
If he stays healthy (long-term), he's got a short window to get healthy (there was already draft  talk of PUP), learn the spot, and contribute... and learn how to be more than just a fast guy. Because that window will be short. Oh, and lots of guys have injury concerns. But this is the Bengals... our injury history with guys isn't glowing.
And yeah, when that window is open, he could be a game changer as far as opening up the long ball. Looking back over the Marvin years, it will be a surprise if he's used that way.

Pick 2 — Joe Mixon: C
A mix here, too.
There is not a better back who fit the Bengals scheme than Joe Mixon. The biggest problem was, again, he wasn't a huge need. And, like Ross, probably a reach for when he was picked. The team could've dropped back and picked him up later... just like Ross.
With the needs we had and who was available, he wasn't a good pick.
As far as Who is Joe Mixon and the divisiveness that comes with it, I'll say this: people who complain about the crap the Bengals get for being a team of thugs, but cheer the Mixon pick... you can't have your cake and eat it, too. If we're going to keep Pacman, Mixon, Vontez and others who stumble along the way, we're going to keep that reputation.
Personally, I don't have a big issue with it. Just realize, Joe Mixon is no different than Ray Rice. And only one team took the high ground there.

Pick 3 — Jordan Willis: (not a shocker to many) A
Finally, a pick at a place where we're woefully short on talent. Willis is a good player who should have gone earlier in the draft. He should see some considerable playing time in a season or two, and could get worked into the mix some next season. Probably the only player I really felt improved the team at a position that needed improving.

Pick 4 — Carl Lawson: C
Position of need, so it goes up a bit. But another with a history of injury.
I took some flack a few years ago when I criticized taking Luigs. At the time I said I doubted he would ever play in the NFL for much the same reason I doubt Lawson will: his hips.
Unlike Ross, I'm not overly worried about his knee. But Lawson plays with stiff hips.
Which is too bad. If it's a lingering injury issue, that doesn't bode well for becoming a pro. If not, then it's (hopefully) something that be coached out of him.

Pick 5 — Josh Malone: D
Not a bad player, but it's like our approach to corners. We're just trhowing darts and hoarding players. Malone will probably make the team given the position of his pick, but unless there's an injury, it's doubtful he makes it too far up the depth chart.
We aren't going five wide. We won't see Malone if everyone stays healthy. Why not take a pick at a spot of need?
Just a head scratcher.

Pick 6 — Ryan Glasgow: B
Another position of need. Most likely a rotational guy, but not bad depth. Most likely will give Billings a breather, but I'm not sold on Billings, either.

Pick 7— Jake Elliot: C
We needed a kicker, we took a kicker. Seemed high as he doesn't seem like a standout... even for a kicker... but at least we did something to fill a need.

Pick 8 — JJ Deilman: F
Another big need, another guy with injury concerns. Not entirely surprised with picking a guy who is projected to be a C/G. I just thought they'd pick a better one.
I will be surprised if he's here in 3 years.

Pick 9, 10, 11 — D
Camp bodies. Not much to get excited about. Given the laundry list of linemen, TE, WR and CB, doubtful any of these guys are here next year.



Soooo, there ya go. I felt good about last year's draft. I hated the year before and I liked this one even left. We didn't address needs, we took some gambles (health-wise) for the future and we added another target for league/media scorn. All in all, not what I was expecting in a draft where we had high picks and a lot of talent at areas of need.

(04-30-2017, 10:25 PM)Beaker Wrote: I gave the draft much higher grades than you because I believe that selecting the BPA is a much better draft philosophy than chasing needs. The Bengals chased needs in the draft all through the 90s. It was only when we changed our draft philosophy that the Bengals became a perennial contender.

(04-30-2017, 11:30 PM)Benton Wrote: I'll leave the rest alone as you aren't really making any points for discussion, you're just trying to goad someone into a reaction. Hopefully no one responds.

(05-01-2017, 08:48 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Okay then, what D-lineman could we have taken in the 5th round that would have been a starter instead of depth?
 

(05-01-2017, 11:36 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Hey Mr. Mod.  How about you either respond or not respond and just leave out the personal attacks like this.


BTW seems like a lot of other people are making the exact same points I did.  Guess you are hoping no one responds to any of those either, right?

Quote:2.  The fact that you think Ross is nothing but a speed only guy proves you don't know much about the draft prospects.

2.  Claiming RB is not a big need is a joke.

3.  Praising the Ravens as morally superior to the Bengals?

 for a guy who seems super paranoid about any player who has ever had any injury shouldn't you appretiate depth at a position?

(05-01-2017, 10:21 AM)bengals67 Wrote: I have been fuming about management for not firing Marvin, failing to franchise Whit, and keeping Bodine as the starting center. I still disagree on these decisions.

With this background, I think this was a great draft that addresses most of problems during a draft year with weak o lineman available.

Ross will completely unbalance opposing Ds and open things up for AJ and Eifert and other WRs and Gio. Picking Ross does more to protect Dalton than picking a below round/pick level o lineman.

If Pats or Steelers had picked Mixon, ESPN would have said it was brilliant. He may be the best player in the draft. He made a really stupid mistake as an 18 year old. He appears genuinely remorseful . Give the kid a chance.

Mixon runs like Bell. When everyone sings the praises of Big Ben, they ignore how his passing opportunities are enhanced by having a back like Bell to keep the D unbalanced.

Third and fourth round picks were off the charts excellent.

Simmons picked the kicker he wanted. Simmons is one of our best coaches.

The Houston safety could be a huge steal.

The Oklahoma linebacker is great on coverage. All reports say he was one of the best cover LBs in the draft. How many years have we gotten killed by tight ends and backs catching passes?

 The Utah center would have gone in fourth round if he had not been injured. I think he is a better player than many on this board are thinking.

I see a much stronger and nastier defense and a lot of weapons on offense making us far less reliant on AJ.

The ball is n Alexander's court o coach up our two tackles, both of whom were first round level choices.

I am with Bonnie Bengal and much more excited about the coming season

(05-01-2017, 10:33 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Chasing needs tends = over reaching and bad picks. This draft is a great example. Why would we draft an OL with pick #9 of the draft when best OL available was not until the 20's so it would have been a huge over reach and bad pick.

Yes, the OL is still a concern for me and many, but we still have FA to add a vet to backup Ced and Fisher if the team feels there is a weakness. I would argue a vet would be better short term in 2017 versus adding a rookie not ready to start or contribute immediately. I did not see the experts giving much love for any OT being a plug and play in 2017.

(05-01-2017, 10:39 AM)Au165 Wrote: People keep saying O line is a need, but here is my issue with that. Unless you were at practice and know how good Redmond or Westerman or Johnson are then how do you know it's a need? No tackle in this draft was coming in this year and giving us more than Ced or Fisher, worst case we kick Winston or Andre out. If we take an interior O lineman in the 3rd or 4th, what makes you think they are better than Westerman? Just grabbing them for the sake doesn't make them competition, they are competition if the coaches think they could be better.

You can't demand we draft mid round guys for competition every year, but when they finally get a chance to start demand we draft more guys of the same ilk. Maybe we were okay letting Zeitler walk because we knew we had serviceable guys behind him. It just seems weird people are so convinced that there is no way we could have serviceable guys behind our starters on the line.

(05-01-2017, 11:04 AM)BenZoo2 Wrote: Well the bengals couldn't address every (perceived?) need in this draft.  They bypassed taking players from a weak area to draft other players they think are capable NFL players.  When aj went down the offense lacked dynamic playmakers.  We upgraded in that area.  D line was just as big an area that needed improving.    

Next year we can address o line if and where we need to.  We can address lb, secondary also.  Barring injury replacements we should be in good shape next year to fill in our needs.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(05-01-2017, 12:10 PM)Benton Wrote: Sweet sassafras. I don't get the offensive line comments.

I've been a vocal minority for months saying we shouldn't pick OL. I'm glad we didn't pick OL. As I've been saying, no one we pick on OL this year would've stepped in and helped anyway. Aside from that, our OL should be better just by the fact that they've had more time to play together.

There's maybe one guy in the draft that could've competed for an OL spot in a couple years. I was OK with not going OL, but I wouldn't have been upset with one or two of those guys either if we had addressed the thing I've been complaining about for years....

(05-01-2017, 12:10 PM)Benton Wrote: Sweet sassafras. I don't get the offensive line comments.

There's maybe one guy in the draft that could've competed for an OL spot in a couple years. I was OK with not going OL, but I wouldn't have been upset with one or two of those guys either if we had addressed the thing I've been complaining about for years....

The defensive line.


And, again, I'm not sure why everyone is focusing on OL here...

(05-01-2017, 12:10 PM)Benton Wrote: Sweet sassafras. I don't get the offensive line comments.

I've been a vocal minority for months saying we shouldn't pick OL. I'm glad we didn't pick OL. As I've been saying, no one we pick on OL this year would've stepped in and helped anyway. Aside from that, our OL should be better just by the fact that they've had more time to play together.

There's maybe one guy in the draft that could've competed for an OL spot in a couple years. I was OK with not going OL, but I wouldn't have been upset with one or two of those guys either if we had addressed the thing I've been complaining about for years....

The defensive line.


I would disagree with the bold.

This was a strong defensive class. We bypassed that and went offense early, taking a guy that's got plenty of good competition and a guy that is going to depend on how well the OL improves. I like Mixon as a back, but if we don't get some consistency on the line, he's not doing much better than Hill.

And, again, I'm not sure why everyone is focusing on OL here...

(05-01-2017, 12:26 PM)BenZoo2 Wrote: It was a strong def class.  You could say that hooker or lattimore were among the bpa at 9.  Cb wasn't a pressing need this year.  They have money locked in to the safety position.  The bengals obviously decided to go with speed and athleticism at the skill positions.  Hell, burkhead had the best non Cleveland rushing game of the year.  

I mentioned o line cuz it seemed you were disappointed we didn't address it earlier.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(05-01-2017, 12:20 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Maybe because in my defense I have never followed you or have no idea your posts for years, just like I am sure you have not followed me so no idea what I posted 3 years ago

As far as your post and this thread, I think you knew you are in the minority, but created a controversial thread anyway. Then, in some cases personally attacked members when they called you out or hated your analysis.

In my opinion, we have great moderators here, but IMHO, you are not one of them. It has nothing to do with your draft analysis, in my opinion a moderator should work hard to reduce/eliminate conflict, not engage in conflict.