(02-16-2016, 06:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It takes two teams to trade.  It is not always possible to trade up to get a guy.  The Bengals might have tried.  We just don't know.

I actually like Lockets potential a lot.  But obviously most other NFL teams did not have him ranked that highly.  He went at 69, and no other team traded up to get him.

(02-16-2016, 06:36 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: Because NFL teams have proven they are largely idiots when it comes to stupid things like short WRs. 
Or undersized DTs....

In 2010 we took Geno in the 4th round. The NFL learned it's lesson. Aaron Donald went 13th overall a few years later.

(02-16-2016, 07:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote:   

One DT four years later is an outlier and proves nothing.

And you have no basis to call the entire NFL "idiots".  They are MUCH smarter about all of this than you are.

(02-16-2016, 07:06 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: All change happens over night right?

Give me a break. Later fred. 

(02-16-2016, 07:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Here is your break.

There were over twice as many small (under 290) DTs taken in the first 3 rounds (5) in the four years from '07 to '10 (when Geno was drafted) than there have been in the FIVE drafts since (2).




BTW I will not swear by these numbers, but they are close.

(02-17-2016, 04:18 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: How many offensive linemen come in and are impact players or even above average their first two years in the league? Especially later round picks.

I havent given up on Bodine. I think it is possible year 3 we see a big step from Bodine.

I have a feeling we are going to be looking at this free agency period as a draft pick gold mine. If we cant retain a lot of our pieces and lose them to big contracts we wont negate the supplemental picks we are set to get by signing guys that would offset them.

We could keep a lot of our guys. But lose like Andre and Marvin and end up with a extra 3rd and 4th in 2017. We value those extra picks too much. Especially if they are mid rounders.

(02-17-2016, 04:18 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I have a feeling we are going to be looking at this free agency period as a draft pick gold mine. If we cant retain a lot of our pieces and lose them to big contracts we wont negate the supplemental picks we are set to get by signing guys that would offset them.

(02-17-2016, 04:38 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: depends we have a ton a free agents this year. so if we dont resign most of them we will have to fish outside our pond which will take away from comp picks for any normal free agent not previously released from the team.

(02-18-2016, 11:58 AM)ochocincos Wrote: The Bengals have an odd philosophy in terms of player expectations.

They say they don't like to rely on impactful contributions from their rookies. Based on that, you'd think they'd put more value into finding upgrades in FA while the rookies mature for at least a couple seasons...but they really don't.
The Bengals don't pursue what many deem as high-quality starters in FA because of 1) cost and 2) "not knowing the system".

This ultimately means that the team puts a TON of responsibility, expectations, and pressure on the existing Bengals players to step their games up year-to-year.

While in an ideal world, a player should improve every single year, but the reality is that players top out at some point. They simply can only achieve so much.

The Bengals also seem so concerned that they might decline that they pay above and beyond for players they know (e.g. Rey Maualuga) rather than taking a risk on a player that could potentially take them to the next level.

I believe all of the above is really what has caused this team to hit a plateau and why they haven't been able to go higher (yet).

(02-18-2016, 12:29 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This issue has been beaten to death.  A lot of people act like there is less risk with free agents than draft picks, but in fact a lot of free agents fail to provide the upgrade that is expected.

I agree with the Bengals plan in general, but they seem to be just a little extreme about it.  It has been years since they signed anything more than B-level free agent.   

(02-17-2016, 05:10 PM)Bengal Dude Wrote: Oh no!!!

Delve into free agency and lose comp picks?!?!

THE HORROR!!!!

(02-18-2016, 12:48 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: Signing Demarco Murray wasn't a bad decision by the Eagles.
Using Demarco Murray like they used LeSean McCoy was a bad decision.. 

(02-18-2016, 03:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: DeMarco Murray is a perfect example of a bad free agent signing and it was not because of the way Philly used him.  He has a long history of injury and had one big year behind the best O-line in the league.  He was not effective even when he ran between the tackles for the eagles.  

No matter where he goes or how he is used Murray will never have another season close to what he did with Dallas in '14.

(02-18-2016, 03:38 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: He had no major injuries last year. 

(02-18-2016, 03:38 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: He had no major injuries last year. 
The Eagles offense was a mess from top to bottom, again, not Demarco's fault.

(02-18-2016, 12:48 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: There is less risk. 
But the team doing the signing has to be smart too.

You know what you are getting 9/10 times you sign a FA.

You have proven NFL tape.

Now the big issues usually come when you sign a guy who was a 4-3 DE and try to make him a 3-4 OLB or DE. 


Teams have to be smart and recognize how and why that player is succeeding and try to replicate that. 
Signing Demarco Murray wasn't a bad decision by the Eagles.
Using Demarco Murray like they used LeSean McCoy was a bad decision.

Sure you get the occasional pay check hunter who packs it in. But most times you end up with FA "busts" because coaches and FO didn't do enough due diligence on how exactly that player would fit the team or system.