+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (https://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Cincinnati Bengals / NFL (https://thebengalsboard.com/forum-3.html)
+--- Forum: Draft Central (https://thebengalsboard.com/forum-9.html)
+--- Thread: Draft rumors. (/thread-10894.html)
Draft rumors. - Jpoore - 04-22-2017
Just wanted to start a thread with the latest buzz/rumors leading up to the draft. Which is now 6 days away.
RE: Draft rumors. - Jpoore - 04-22-2017
In case pic dosent show up, according to matt miller, ross, cook, mixon round 2, foster falls to myles jack range, 2 qbs going top 10 trubisky, mahomes.
RE: Draft rumors. - yang - 04-22-2017
So with 2 QB's going early, that would mean that it would be between Howard, Allen and would depend on who else falls. Walter Football has Solomon Thomas falling to us. I could see a safety, Adams or most likely Hooker falling to us. It sounds like Fournette has solidified himself but who knows any more. I kills me wondering what in the hell the Bengals board looks like!
RE: Draft rumors. - fozzie11 - 04-22-2017
if Ross falls and we get him in the second i will be elated
RE: Draft rumors. - 09ItsOurTime - 04-22-2017
(04-22-2017, 11:55 AM)fozzie11 Wrote: if Ross falls and we get him in the second i will be elated
To me it's too risky to take Ross in the first for most teams. His injury history is extremely bad. It's too risky to bet he will suddenly have a healthy NFL career in the first. 2nd round seems like good value and worth the risk.
However I see some team with a big WR need take him at the late half of the 1st.
RE: Draft rumors. - Essex Johnson - 04-22-2017
(04-22-2017, 12:39 PM)09ItsOurTime Wrote: To me it's too risky to take Ross in the first for most teams. His injury history is extremely bad. It's too risky to bet he will suddenly have a healthy NFL career in the first. 2nd round seems like good value and worth the risk.
However I see some team with a big WR need take him at the late half of the 1st.
totally agree, with our injury history of late with picks and WRs.. I think we pass on Ross.. I am still thinking we go Defense with #9 but thinking we will be trading back and still get Barnett in top 15 pick
RE: Draft rumors. - SHRacerX - 04-22-2017
(04-22-2017, 11:55 AM)fozzie11 Wrote: if Ross falls and we get him in the second i will be elated
So would I but it will never happen
RE: Draft rumors. - Au165 - 04-22-2017
(04-22-2017, 04:35 PM)SHRacerX Wrote: So would I but it will never happen
I am hearing it more and more. The problem when people assume a guy can't fall is here are only 32 1sts and positional needs can push guys out. If a run on QBs happen a team that would have taken Ross may now have the chance at a guy who fell because of the run. Every year crazy things happen that push guys into the second that most never would guess. I mean heck Billings was a 4th last year and leading up EVERYOnE called him a first rounder.
RE: Draft rumors. - psychdoctor - 04-22-2017
I say they go with Howard in the first and Mixon in a second.
RE: Draft rumors. - Au165 - 04-22-2017
Teams picking between 33-45 will need to make sure they are comfortable with R. Foster, cause he will be there.
— Michael Lombardi (@mlombardiNFL) April 21, 2017
RE: Draft rumors. - PikesPeakUC - 04-22-2017
(04-22-2017, 06:03 PM)Au165 Wrote:Teams picking between 33-45 will need to make sure they are comfortable with R. Foster, cause he will be there.
— Michael Lombardi (@mlombardiNFL) April 21, 2017
If Foster is still there at our second round pick, it would be hard to pass on him, but I also see the other side of the coin where it's more trouble than it's worth.
All of that said, watch the Patriots take him and Foster end up as a 13 time pro bowler.
RE: Draft rumors. - Au165 - 04-22-2017
(04-22-2017, 06:18 PM)PikesPeakUC Wrote: If Foster is still there at our second round pick, it would be hard to pass on him, but I also see the other side of the coin where it's more trouble than it's worth.
All of that said, watch the Patriots take him and Foster end up as a 13 time pro bowler.
Their first pick is not until pick 64
RE: Draft rumors. - SunsetBengal - 04-22-2017
(04-22-2017, 06:20 PM)Au165 Wrote: Their first pick is not until pick 64
That is really saying something. It's almost as if they thumb their noses as the rest of the league, as if to say "we're so good at identifying talent that fits what we want to do, that we no longer need to be bothered by choosing someone that might cost us money later".
RE: Draft rumors. - Au165 - 04-22-2017
(04-22-2017, 06:24 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: That is really saying something. It's almost as if they thumb their noses as the rest of the league, as if to say "we're so good at identifying talent that fits what we want to do, that we no longer need to be bothered by choosing someone that might cost us money later".
Kind of. Teams value picks over veterans far too much. They went out and traded for cooks who they know is good. In reality the saints may actually draft a WR at 32 who they hope is good. It's actually pretty crazy logic. People are saying Richardson from the Jets could be had for a 4th yet teams overvalue picks and have to think about that trade.
Draft rumors. - BenZoo2 - 04-22-2017
Well NFL.com is also saying he may not slide much at all. ''Tis the silly season
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
RE: Draft rumors. - SunsetBengal - 04-22-2017
(04-22-2017, 06:42 PM)Au165 Wrote: Kind of. Teams value picks over veterans far too much. They went out and traded for cooks who they know is good. In reality the saints may actually draft a WR at 32 who they hope is good. It's actually pretty crazy logic. People are saying Richardson from the Jets could be had for a 4th yet teams overvalue picks and have to think about that trade.
They also previously perfected the art of trading back, and amassing picks for later rounds. Obviously it seems that they are confident in their ability to identify the player who's skill set and personality fits into what they want to do. No matter if that player is in the 2nd round, the 6th round, a UDFA, or even a player on another team's roster. They know what they want, and they attain it as cheaply as possible.
RE: Draft rumors. - PikesPeakUC - 04-22-2017
(04-22-2017, 06:58 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: They also previously perfected the art of trading back, and amassing picks for later rounds. Obviously it seems that they are confident in their ability to identify the player who's skill set and personality fits into what they want to do. No matter if that player is in the 2nd round, the 6th round, a UDFA, or even a player on another team's roster. They know what they want, and they attain it as cheaply as possible.
Always admired them for this. They realize that draft picks are essentially like lottery tickets. The more you have, the better the chances are that you find a good player. They're also not afraid to cut bait if they realize that they one of those players isn't performing.
RE: Draft rumors. - Au165 - 04-22-2017
(04-22-2017, 07:10 PM)PikesPeakUC Wrote: Always admired them for this. They realize that draft picks are essentially like lottery tickets. The more you have, the better the chances are that you find a good player. They're also not afraid to cut bait if they realize that they one of those players isn't performing.
I am not sure I am buying they have been all that great with the trade back theory when you look at their draft history. They get a pass because they win but let's see how it works in the future post Brady.
RE: Draft rumors. - PikesPeakUC - 04-22-2017
(04-22-2017, 08:30 PM)Au165 Wrote: I am not sure I am buying they have been all that great with the trade back theory when you look at their draft history. They get a pass because they win but let's see how it works in the future post Brady.
http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2017/4/15/15164566/nfl-draft-trades-patriots-won-bill-belichick
It's actually been pretty darn good.
RE: Draft rumors. - Au165 - 04-22-2017
(04-22-2017, 08:38 PM)PikesPeakUC Wrote: http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2017/4/15/15164566/nfl-draft-trades-patriots-won-bill-belichick
It's actually been pretty darn good.
That is actually a flawed approach to "winner/loser" they use who was taken at the picks they vacated rather than who was on the board still they could have had.