+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (https://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Cincinnati Bengals / NFL (https://thebengalsboard.com/forum-3.html)
+--- Forum: JUNGLE NOISE (https://thebengalsboard.com/forum-2.html)
+--- Thread: ESPN's "The Perfect NFL Roster" has just 1 Bengal...not who you'd think (/thread-12045.html)
ESPN's "The Perfect NFL Roster" has just 1 Bengal...not who you'd think - ochocincos - 08-16-2017
Bill Barnwell at ESPN released an article on what he felt was the "perfect" NFL roster while staying within the 2017 salary cap.
Each NFL team had to have one representative and no more than three.
For the Bengals, they had one representative....PAT SIMS!
http://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/20296921/bill-barnwell-builds-perfect-nfl-roster-salary-cap-2017
I'm honestly shocked. I would have picked Billings over Sims if I was picking a Bengals big-body DT that was cheap.
RE: ESPN's "The Perfect NFL Roster" has just 1 Bengal...not who you'd think - bfine32 - 08-16-2017
Phat Sims Bytches!!
RE: ESPN's "The Perfect NFL Roster" has just 1 Bengal...not who you'd think - XenoMorph - 08-16-2017
(08-16-2017, 02:57 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Bill Barnwell at ESPN released an article on what he felt was the "perfect" NFL roster while staying within the 2017 salary cap.
Each NFL team had to have one representative and no more than three.
For the Bengals, they had one representative....PAT SIMS!
http://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/20296921/bill-barnwell-builds-perfect-nfl-roster-salary-cap-2017
I'm honestly shocked. I would have picked Billings over Sims if I was picking a Bengals big-body DT that was cheap.
Well Billings has done nothing on the field yet.. hes an unknown
RE: ESPN's "The Perfect NFL Roster" has just 1 Bengal...not who you'd think - ochocincos - 08-16-2017
(08-16-2017, 03:16 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: Well Billings has done nothing on the field yet.. hes an unknown
Look at some of the other players selected though. They are completely unknown. Being "known" shouldn't make a difference. And at this point, Billings likely has more upside than Sims.
RE: ESPN's "The Perfect NFL Roster" has just 1 Bengal...not who you'd think - TheLeonardLeap - 08-16-2017
Once I read the rules they gave themselves, it's not terribly surprising.
The Bengals have drafted shit for quite a few years now, so all their really good players are on second contracts. So while AJ Green is better than Beckham Jr, AJ has a cap hit of over $10m more this year. Atkins is better than Donald, but has a cap hit nearly $7.5m more. Etc
RE: ESPN's "The Perfect NFL Roster" has just 1 Bengal...not who you'd think - THE PISTONS - 08-16-2017
Yeah I was surprised by Sims too. I understood some of the other ones...but Sims?
I tend to think that we overrate Billings by his weight room numbers. NFL offensive lineman are used to going up against strong guys.
RE: ESPN's "The Perfect NFL Roster" has just 1 Bengal...not who you'd think - Housh - 08-16-2017
(08-16-2017, 02:57 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Bill Barnwell at ESPN released an article on what he felt was the "perfect" NFL roster while staying within the 2017 salary cap.
Each NFL team had to have one representative and no more than three.
For the Bengals, they had one representative....PAT SIMS!
http://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/20296921/bill-barnwell-builds-perfect-nfl-roster-salary-cap-2017
I'm honestly shocked. I would have picked Billings over Sims if I was picking a Bengals big-body DT that was cheap.
I don't know why
RE: ESPN's "The Perfect NFL Roster" has just 1 Bengal...not who you'd think - ochocincos - 08-16-2017
(08-16-2017, 04:56 PM)Housh Wrote: I don't know why
More upside.
RE: ESPN's "The Perfect NFL Roster" has just 1 Bengal...not who you'd think - Sled21 - 08-17-2017
(08-16-2017, 04:57 PM)ochocincos Wrote: More upside.
I hope so, but yet to be seen.....
RE: ESPN's "The Perfect NFL Roster" has just 1 Bengal...not who you'd think - SHRacerX - 08-17-2017
When I read this, I just came back to one thing....why the hell didn't we draft Weston Richburg to play Center? Lot's of us wanted him.
RE: ESPN's "The Perfect NFL Roster" has just 1 Bengal...not who you'd think - THE PISTONS - 08-17-2017
The team they built had the following constraints? (So they couldn't just do rookies on cheap contracts.)
Past versions of this column featured a multitude of stars on rookie contracts, but this year's team will have a few new rules to up the difficulty and build a more realistic team.
1. Team restraints. We'll need to find at least one player -- but no more than three players -- from each of the 32 NFL teams.
2. A limit on rookie deals. Last year's playoff teams had an average of five players from the 2014 draft, six from the 2015 draft and nine from the 2016 draft. So will our team. We'll also have four undrafted free agents who have yet to hit unrestricted free agency.
3. Rookies! Our team will have seven rookies, with one player taken from each round of this year's draft. The remaining 22 players will have to be veterans who are not on their first contract.
4. Special teams. As tempting as it is to fill a team with big-play threats and situational contributors, real teams fill out the back of their roster with players who contribute on special teams. Our team will do the same.
And lastly, a word about scheme: We're going to build an offense that fits within Josh McDaniels' system in New England, meaning we want versatile receivers and running backs who can create mismatches in the passing game. Our defense will be similar to Jim Schwartz's units, most recently in Philadelphia, that generate pressure with the front four and drop seven into coverage. We're less concerned with our cornerbacks being tall and more with them being fast and having the ability to play all over the field. We're also going to win a lot of football games.
RE: ESPN's "The Perfect NFL Roster" has just 1 Bengal...not who you'd think - ochocincos - 08-17-2017
(08-17-2017, 12:18 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: The team they built had the following constraints? (So they couldn't just do rookies on cheap contracts.)
Past versions of this column featured a multitude of stars on rookie contracts, but this year's team will have a few new rules to up the difficulty and build a more realistic team.
1. Team restraints. We'll need to find at least one player -- but no more than three players -- from each of the 32 NFL teams.
2. A limit on rookie deals. Last year's playoff teams had an average of five players from the 2014 draft, six from the 2015 draft and nine from the 2016 draft. So will our team. We'll also have four undrafted free agents who have yet to hit unrestricted free agency.
3. Rookies! Our team will have seven rookies, with one player taken from each round of this year's draft. The remaining 22 players will have to be veterans who are not on their first contract.
4. Special teams. As tempting as it is to fill a team with big-play threats and situational contributors, real teams fill out the back of their roster with players who contribute on special teams. Our team will do the same.
And lastly, a word about scheme: We're going to build an offense that fits within Josh McDaniels' system in New England, meaning we want versatile receivers and running backs who can create mismatches in the passing game. Our defense will be similar to Jim Schwartz's units, most recently in Philadelphia, that generate pressure with the front four and drop seven into coverage. We're less concerned with our cornerbacks being tall and more with them being fast and having the ability to play all over the field. We're also going to win a lot of football games.
Ahh, I read "Rookies!" through "Our team will have seven rookies" when skimming through the list on constraints. The very nitpicky constraints leave very few Bengals eligible to be selected that are cheap to fill in for depth. Good catch.
In that case, Pat Sims makes sense I guess. Although I still don't like the selection of him for all the players on the team, there really isn't much else to pick from.
RE: ESPN's "The Perfect NFL Roster" has just 1 Bengal...not who you'd think - Nate (formerly eliminate08) - 08-17-2017
(08-16-2017, 03:16 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: Well Billings has done nothing on the field yet.. hes an unknown
Looked good in his first preseason game except one play...
(08-16-2017, 03:28 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Yeah I was surprised by Sims too. I understood some of the other ones...but Sims?
I tend to think that we overrate Billings by his weight room numbers. NFL offensive lineman are used to going up against strong guys.
True, but probably not as strong or quick as Billings is, dude is special i am telling yah.
(08-16-2017, 04:56 PM)Housh Wrote: I don't know why
(08-17-2017, 08:37 AM)Sled21 Wrote: I hope so, but yet to be seen.....
I watched the replay of game on D&H sports channel on youtube which was the only way to watch Billings.
He handled the double teams nearly every snap i watched except for the Fitzy TD when he got washed out of the play.
He played MUCH better than Sims. We will see, but this guy is young and as Ocho said has upside.
Sims should be on the outside looking in after his pathetic showing in PS game one...
RE: ESPN's "The Perfect NFL Roster" has just 1 Bengal...not who you'd think - ochocincos - 08-17-2017
(08-17-2017, 12:30 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Ahh, I read "Rookies!" through "Our team will have seven rookies" when skimming through the list on constraints. The very nitpicky constraints leave very few Bengals eligible to be selected that are cheap to fill in for depth. Good catch.
In that case, Pat Sims makes sense I guess. Although I still don't like the selection of him for all the players on the team, there really isn't much else to pick from.
Although I will make a point that a "perfect" roster to fit under the cap shouldn't have so many constraints. A perfect roster should/would include as many great players on rookie contracts in order to put as many star players on it too that are on big contracts. At least IMO.
RE: ESPN's "The Perfect NFL Roster" has just 1 Bengal...not who you'd think - THE PISTONS - 08-17-2017
(08-17-2017, 12:38 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Although I will make a point that a "perfect" roster to fit under the cap shouldn't have so many constraints. A perfect roster should/would include as many great players on rookie contracts in order to put as many star players on it too that are on big contracts. At least IMO.
Yep. It's like making trades on Madden. You want 1st and 2nd year players to keep your cap clean.
RE: ESPN's "The Perfect NFL Roster" has just 1 Bengal...not who you'd think - Bengal Dude - 08-17-2017
(08-17-2017, 08:51 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: When I read this, I just came back to one thing....why the hell didn't we draft Weston Richburg to play Center? Lot's of us wanted him.
Probably didn't have a strong enough handshake for PA.
RE: ESPN's "The Perfect NFL Roster" has just 1 Bengal...not who you'd think - ochocincos - 08-17-2017
(08-17-2017, 08:51 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: When I read this, I just came back to one thing....why the hell didn't we draft Weston Richburg to play Center? Lot's of us wanted him.
Or Cody Whitehair in 2016. Both 2014 and 2016 ended up with 1st round CBs, neither of which is a starter, and a 2nd round WR in 2016 with Boyd.
Richburg would have had to have been the 1st round selection in 2014 if the Bengals didn't trade up into the early 2nd.
Whitehair went right after Tyler Boyd, so he could have actually been had with the 2nd rounder.
Boyd is WR3/4.
It's pretty obvious this team vastly underrates the C position in the draft compared to practically every other position besides K/P.
EDIT - And now I'm just realizing if Dennard had panned out (sooner), the Bengals could have gone Michael Thomas in Rd 1 and Whitehair in Rd 2. Oh the agony!
RE: ESPN's "The Perfect NFL Roster" has just 1 Bengal...not who you'd think - Nate (formerly eliminate08) - 08-17-2017
(08-17-2017, 04:03 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Or Cody Whitehair in 2016. Both 2014 and 2016 ended up with 1st round CBs, neither of which is a starter, and a 2nd round WR in 2016 with Boyd.
Richburg would have had to have been the 1st round selection in 2014 if the Bengals didn't trade up into the early 2nd.
Whitehair went right after Tyler Boyd, so he could have actually been had with the 2nd rounder.
Boyd is WR3/4.
It's pretty obvious this team vastly underrates the C position in the draft compared to practically every other position besides K/P.
EDIT - And now I'm just realizing if Dennard had panned out (sooner), the Bengals could have gone Michael Thomas in Rd 1 and Whitehair in Rd 2. Oh the agony!
Wow, missed some good ones there...
Biggest problem with this team is them underestimating the Center position IMHO.
We would have one of the best O-lines in football for years if this was not the case.