(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.

(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

(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.

(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

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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

(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.

(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.

(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.

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

(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. 

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

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

(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.