(05-03-2018, 08:48 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: Did he grow up a Bengals fan? Being from Youngstown I would have thought Browns more than Bengals.

(05-03-2018, 08:50 PM)Synric Wrote: Worse...He was a Squeelers fan.

(05-03-2018, 12:38 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: Im sorry, but you just have know way of knowing that. 

A LOT of evaluators had Ragnow better than Price. Some had Price better than Ragnow. 

To say that its "lunacy" that some people think Ragnow is better than Price is not really lunacy. 

(05-04-2018, 01:27 PM)bengalhoel Wrote: Ugh, just saw this. Well hopefully he doesnt sabotage us like James Harrison did!! lol

(05-04-2018, 09:13 AM)Sled21 Wrote: That's exactly how it works. As soon as the team picking submits their pick to the league, the next team in line is notified who they took so they can decide, as they go on the clock at that point. They have to be notified so they don't waste their time picking a player who is about to be announced.

(05-03-2018, 10:31 AM)ochocincos Wrote: This article on Cincy Jungle seems to indicate the Bengals should have traded up past DET to get Ragnow if he really was their guy, but teams knew they likely wouldn't.
https://www.cincyjungle.com/2018/5/3/17311958/nfl-execs-insiders-critical-bengals-drafting-billy-price-round-1

If Ragnow was really the target for the Bengals at 21 (which most believe), should the Bengals have considered giving up a pick (or picks) to move ahead of DET? It likely would have only cost a 4th rounder to trade up to 19/20.

I personally vote yes, especially when the 4th rounder resulted in "just" another RB.

EDIT - I think I accidentally misled people that the topic is on Ragnow vs (Price + Walton) when really it should be focused on Bengals draft philosophy of should they trade up a couple spots to get their guy vs waiting, which they seemed to do this draft and also two years ago when all the WRs went off the board ahead of them. Sometimes using specific players rather than a general statement causes people to focus on the individual players mentioned. My apologies if it was written poorly to convey the wrong message.

(05-03-2018, 10:31 AM)ochocincos Wrote: This article on Cincy Jungle seems to indicate the Bengals should have traded up past DET to get Ragnow if he really was their guy, but teams knew they likely wouldn't.
https://www.cincyjungle.com/2018/5/3/17311958/nfl-execs-insiders-critical-bengals-drafting-billy-price-round-1

If Ragnow was really the target for the Bengals at 21 (which most believe), should the Bengals have considered giving up a pick (or picks) to move ahead of DET? It likely would have only cost a 4th rounder to trade up to 19/20.

I personally vote yes, especially when the 4th rounder resulted in "just" another RB.

EDIT - I think I accidentally misled people that the topic is on Ragnow vs (Price + Walton) when really it should be focused on Bengals draft philosophy of should they trade up a couple spots to get their guy vs waiting, which they seemed to do this draft and also two years ago when all the WRs went off the board ahead of them. Sometimes using specific players rather than a general statement causes people to focus on the individual players mentioned. My apologies if it was written poorly to convey the wrong message.

(05-06-2018, 02:50 PM)Neon Icon Wrote: Supposedly the Bengals had Ragnow ranked ever so slightly ahead of price.

If you rank one dude a 90 and the other an 89.5 is it that big of a difference to trade up?

Supposedly the Lions are going to use Ragnow at G.

(05-06-2018, 04:28 PM)Lawless_1 Wrote: I got a feeling that if all the centers were still on the board Price would have still been the pick.

For whatever reason this team does not shy away from drafting injured players.

(05-06-2018, 04:28 PM)Lawless_1 Wrote: I got a feeling that if all the centers were still on the board Price would have still been the pick.

For whatever reason this team does not shy away from drafting injured players.

(05-06-2018, 05:56 PM)Neon Icon Wrote: Atleast this is a pec injury that is short-term and will heal. It's not an ACL injury.

I see people criticizing the Price drafting because of injury, but I don't see a lot talking about how Glenn only played in half of Buffalo's games over the past 2 years. I don't get that.

I think the Glenn move is about 10 times riskier than drafting Price from an injury standpoint.

(05-06-2018, 08:34 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: I vote yes, but not for the Center.  I would have traded our third to move up to 17 with SD and gotten Derwin James.  

I can't wait to see what that guy does in SD.  With their track record, maybe we can get him in 5 years as a FA.  

(05-07-2018, 10:17 AM)Sled21 Wrote: A torn pec will heal.... no doubt about it. As to Glenn, he missed time due to bone spurs in his ankle. He had the surgery to remove the spurs. No spurs=no injury. He didn't tear anything, sprain anything, or break anything. Spurs, which are no longer there. None issue.....

(05-07-2018, 12:00 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Interesting idea. So that would have likely meant no to Jessie Bates III, and it would have likely meant no to either Hubbard or Jefferson because of the lost 3rd round pick.
What Center (if any) would you have taken at 46 or later?

You just might of caught ole SHRacer there Ocho.

(05-07-2018, 12:30 PM)yang Wrote: The Bengals are idiots for not trading up two spots.  I believe they were caught flat-footed and acted irrationally.  Giving up a 4th to get Ragnow over Price was a no-brainer.

PFF Had Ragnow the 2nd best offensive lineman in the draft behind (only) Quinton Nelson.

Arkansas C Frank Ragnow starts the 2017 season as the only PFF Day 1 projected center. Based on his performance in 2016 and that projection,  he currently sits as the top center of the 2018 class.

•In 2016, Ragnow graded very well earning the top overall grade among all FBS centers at 89.4, which was the third highest grade among centers in the PFF College Era (2014-present).

•Ragnow excels most in the run game as his run-block grade 88.9 ranked No. 1 among all FBS centers in 2016. Ragnow’s 92.9 percent run-block success ranked No. 2 among returning draft-eligible centers.

•When it comes to his run-blocking, Ragnow was consistently good. Not only did he have the lowest percentage of negatively-graded blocks in the run game of the draft class but he also had the second-highest percentage of positively graded blocks.

•Ragnow wasn’t elite in pass-protection but still performed at an above average level for his position. His 2016 pass blocking efficiency of 98.0 ranked No. 21 among returning draft-eligible centers. He allowed just 12 total pressures on 487 pass block snaps.

Billy Price was rated 5th at his position and 69th overall.

Price ranked 27th among draft-eligible centers in pass-blocking efficiency in 2017 (97.6).
•He ranked sixth among draft-eligible centers in run-blocking success percentage in 2017 (92.0).

(05-07-2018, 12:47 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Thank you once again Sled, this needs to be said about Glenn, he is anything but risky....

All draft picks are, even Price. Have very high hopes for Price of course but Cordy Glenn has dominated in the NFL.


You just might of caught ole SHRacer there Ocho.


They are not idiots for not trading up here at all and i just of might been the biggest Ragnow guy of all on this board.

Great stats and you are right about Ragnow but Price has a higher upside than Ragnow cause of his nasty run blocking.

Also, i might add that PFF is not the end all dude. They have really went down in the last few years.

Don't trust'em.

(05-07-2018, 01:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Who the hell is this Ragnow guy?  He must have been the "flavor of the year" over in the draft forum.

I can't believe we got a center as good as Price and there is still a 4 page thread going on about another center.  If we were talking about two guys from the top 5 picks I could understand, but neither one of these guys was especially bad or super elite.  I don't see how there could have been so much difference between them that we would give up picks to take one over the other.  Ragnow was not a "steal" at 20 and Price was not a "reach" at 21.