(04-16-2017, 01:59 PM)psychdoctor Wrote: I know this may not be very popular.

But if the defensive end Allen, OJ Howard, LF, and Thomas are all gone at number nine what do you think about trading down a few spots and taking McCaffrey?

McCaffrey seems like one of those running backs that can do just about anything. In addition he doesn't really need a good offensive line to cut it loose.

(04-16-2017, 01:59 PM)psychdoctor Wrote: I know this may not be very popular.

But if the defensive end Allen, OJ Howard, LF, and Thomas are all gone at number nine what do you think about trading down a few spots and taking McCaffrey?

McCaffrey seems like one of those running backs that can do just about anything. In addition he doesn't really need a good offensive line to cut it loose.

(04-17-2017, 09:09 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: I don't know where you are getting the "doesn't really need a good offensive line to cut it loose" point.  He has consistently had one of the best offensive lines, and struggled when they had some turnover.

I like the kid as an athlete a great deal.  I think he is, without a doubt, the best receiving RB in the draft and that is a critical measure.  I just don't see him as the battering ram we need on short yardage and goal line situations. 

If he slipped to the 2nd round?  I would use him like how they started to use Sexy, and put him in a stable of 3 RBs.  However, I don't see that happening and I still see a great deal of talent in the draft that can help the Bengals before him.  

(04-17-2017, 09:32 AM)psychdoctor Wrote: Maybe if the Cincinnati Bengals trade AJM for the 33rd pick he would be good pick.

(04-17-2017, 09:09 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: I don't know where you are getting the "doesn't really need a good offensive line to cut it loose" point.  He has consistently had one of the best offensive lines, and struggled when they had some turnover.

I like the kid as an athlete a great deal.  I think he is, without a doubt, the best receiving RB in the draft and that is a critical measure.  I just don't see him as the battering ram we need on short yardage and goal line situations. 

If he slipped to the 2nd round?  I would use him like how they started to use Sexy, and put him in a stable of 3 RBs.  However, I don't see that happening and I still see a great deal of talent in the draft that can help the Bengals before him.  

(04-16-2017, 05:44 PM)Speedy Thomas Wrote: Basically the same back as Bernard.  Unless there is reason to believe that Gio won't come back from injury -- no thanks.

(04-17-2017, 10:00 AM)ochocincos Wrote: Not really the right philosophy to have, IMO. If the Bengals had another RB besides Bernard, they wouldn't have to change up their running style when Gio is hurt or not in the game.
With the current state of the Bengals OL, they need a RB with wiggle, not a straight-line hammer. That hammer will continually get hit behind LOS.

(04-17-2017, 10:05 AM)Au165 Wrote: When you commit to running out of a "power" formation with a FB you can be successful running even with an unproven O line. We did it Andy's rookie year with Cedric Benson and a make shift O line. When you have a bad, or inexperienced, O line run blocking is a far better idea than pass blocking. Having guys fire out into people is a natural thing and easier for most people to do, but when you have to setup and wait for the attacker it is easier to get beat. If we are going to be successful this year, with this line, we need to line up and run straight ahead not work out of shotgun and throw a bunch.

Quote:The offensive line is what matters, and when it struggles, everyone behind them does as well. So when you have a decent fullback/h-back behind a below average offensive line, he makes no impact.

(04-17-2017, 09:53 AM)Au165 Wrote: He had one of the best lines? False.  He struggled when they had turnover? False. People confuse draftable lineman with good lines. They run a pro style offense, so teams draft their lineman because they are more pro ready, similar to Wisconsin, but it doesn't mean they are good hence them not really doing much in the NFL besides DeCastro.

His yards per attempt were up this year and he scored more rushing TDs. The only decline for him this year was in usage not in production (253 carries to 337). I am going to say it since most people won't, if he was black he'd be a sure fire top 15 pick and no one would question it. The guy averaged 6.3 yards a carry this year in a power 5 conference! The same stigma black QBs had up until a couple years ago, white running backs still have. The only reason I am opposed to him for us is I don't think we will use him to his full potential, but the kid should be in the discussion with all the top backs, all he did was produce.

(04-17-2017, 09:53 AM)Au165 Wrote: He had one of the best lines? False.  He struggled when they had turnover? False. People confuse draftable lineman with good lines. They run a pro style offense, so teams draft their lineman because they are more pro ready, similar to Wisconsin, but it doesn't mean they are good hence them not really doing much in the NFL besides DeCastro.

His yards per attempt were up this year and he scored more rushing TDs. The only decline for him this year was in usage not in production (253 carries to 337). I am going to say it since most people won't, if he was black he'd be a sure fire top 15 pick and no one would question it. The guy averaged 6.3 yards a carry this year in a power 5 conference! The same stigma black QBs had up until a couple years ago, white running backs still have. The only reason I am opposed to him for us is I don't think we will use him to his full potential, but the kid should be in the discussion with all the top backs, all he did was produce.

(04-17-2017, 10:33 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Sure, or he could just turn out to be the next Toby Gearhart.

(04-17-2017, 11:09 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: He averaged less than 4.5 ypc when he faced even remotely decent defenses.  Much of the Pac 12 is defense-optional.  Washington shut him down and they weren't what anyone would call a powerhouse defense.  Stanford's line is an excellent line and their scheme has a lot of formations where TEs stay in to block as well.  

This has nothing to do with race.  Someone else said it about him being similar to Gio. He's taller, but that just means he will have a larger target area.  I don't know if he could withstand the rigors of being an inside rusher.  I did say he was an amazing receiver, but I guess you can do that if you are white.  

And he is in the discussion of the top backs.  I am just one that wouldn't take any back that high.  

(04-17-2017, 12:15 PM)Au165 Wrote: Why Gerhardt? Their running styles sizes, etc are nothing alike.

(04-17-2017, 12:17 PM)Au165 Wrote: Your line comment is still simple subjective observation and not really backed by anything. They send their TE's out in routes proportionally to most teams that run Pro schemes. I could make the same argument for LSU, FSU, Alabama's offensive lines. McCAfferey will excel in a zone blocking scheme predicated on a one cut back. Any offshoot of the Kubiak running system he will be a star in.

I agree no back should be taken at 9. I disagree, and so do many NFL scouts, that he isn't in the discussion as one of the top backs.

(04-17-2017, 12:27 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Yeah, I realize they are of different styles.  Just noticing the similarity of both being White RBs from Stanford, both being beneficiaries of excellent OL play in a pro style offense, both perhaps getting additional hype for being White guys at a position dominated by Black athletes.

(04-17-2017, 12:30 PM)SHRacerX Wrote: If you read the last line, I said he is in the discussion of the top NFL backs.  Again, I called him the best receiving back in the draft.