So, people who love Vigil hate Billings, right?

[CJD]

I've been reading a lot about Nick Vigil. He was hyped a lot when we first drafted him and he's now being mentioned in Bengals articles and being complimented by Vontaze Burfict here:
http://www.bengals.com/news/article-1/OTAs-a-GO/fbc61349-df13-4c2f-8d47-c9fca3b8d42c

And before I start, yes, the title is a little...intentionally eye catching?

I dunno. the point of the title is to compare the pre-draft ratings and the fanbase's perceptions of a player based on where they are drafted.

We have, on one hand, a guy who, according to the draft pundits, was a first round pick, guaranteed to be gone by the 2nd round. He is big, strong, fast, stout at defensive tackle. Almost the perfect nose tackle, but is a few inches too short and is a little too young and raw. Atkins proved that height doesn't have to hold a DT back and being young is rarely a bad thing, so it stands to reason that Billings could be equally successful in his role.

On the other hand, we have a player who was considered a fringe prospect by most draft pundits. While he has good instincts (something that can't be measured at a combine or pro day), he is considered to be too small, not athletic enough and generally, a mediocre LB prospect in Nick Vigil.

When Billings was drafted, the entire fan base celebrated (I truly believe every single person who calls themselves a Bengals fan loved that pick). We got a 1st or 2nd round pick in the 4th! Steal of the draft. Call it in guys, cuz we won this one! The pundits are completely right and this guy is going to be a star. The 31 teams that passed on him don't know what they're doing. Haha!

When Vigil was drafted, initially, there was a bit of confusion (mainly because Billings was still on the board at this point and people didn't get it.). Some negativity here and there, but many people were optimistic. When a report came out that Green Bay was planning on taking him with their pick coming up in the third round, people still questioned the pick here and there.

As the days went on, there were some outlets that called Vigil our best pick and others that called him a bad reach. Generally speaking, and with the assistance of players and coaches like Burfict comparing him to Luke K, the overall opinion of him in the fanbase became one unified voice. We got ANOTHER steal. The pundits don't know what they were talking about. Green Bay was going to draft him and they know what they're doing! This guy is going to be an amazing linebacker for us and all the draft pundits don't know what they're talking about!


My question is...which is it? Do you trust the draft pundits or don't you? If you do, you'd logically love the Billings pick and hate the Vigil pick. If you don't, you'd likely question why Billings dropped and you'd probably form your own opinion on Vigil, which may be a positive one (as it seems to be in the fanbase currently.)

Or, as we are all biased, is it just...we're gonna love every pick because the Bengals made them? We'll cherry pick the good and ignore the bad with just about everything the team does because we all, at our core, are hopeless optimists who want to believe we got the steal that no one else saw.

In my experience, the pundits are generally correct more often than the Bengals. Meaning, our late round picks that the pundits had rated high (such as Marvin Jones, George Iloka, AJ McCarron, Mohamed Sanu, Clint Boling, Vontaze Burfict etc) that slipped for no reason, generally, turn out better than the head scratching 'perceived reaches' that the Bengals quickly celebrate as steals (Margus Hunt, Will Clarke, Dontay Moch, Jerome Simpson, Kenny Irons etc).

If this trend continues, that means Billings will end up being a great player and Vigil will fizzle. That's not to say this formula is guaranteed. There have been 'perceived reaches' that worked out. I can't think of any, but I'm sure there are some. Likewise, there are highly rated players who dropped that haven't worked out as well (Devon Still, Orsen Charles, Brandon Ghee) but those are much more rare than the successes.

I like Vigil and I hope he plays well. We have taken productive college players that, theoretically, didn't project to the NFL well before and they have worked out. Geno Atkins fits that description pretty well, as does Andy Dalton and AJ McCarron.

But I'm getting a little confused with the amount of double speak going on in the fan base. If you trust the pundits on Billings (he'll be good), don't trust them on Vigil (he'll also be good) and love both picks, that just seems like homer-ism to me.

[BigPapaKain]

I don't trust the pundits or the players. I trust our coaching staff.

[Au165]

(05-24-2016, 09:46 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: But I'm getting a little confused with the amount of double speak going on in the fan base. If you trust the pundits on Billings (he'll be good), don't trust them on Vigil (he'll also be good) and love both picks, that just seems like homer-ism to me.

You can like them both without it being homerisim. I personally like Billings even if he is only a 2 down DT because the game is going to more sub packages anyways so guys across the board are playing less and less. If all he does is stonewall runners every time he is in then he was well worth the 4th we spent and much more. If over time he can pass the rusher at least at an average competency then that's a bonus.

As for Vigil, I think being in an NFL weight program will help him add the needed weigh. The staff likes him a lot because he basically knows our scheme already. I think one of our issues with LB's over the years has been their inability to learn our scheme. With this kid already ahead of the curve there I think it will help him contribute early. Normally they act like these LB's are going to take a year or two, but they have said from day 1 he could see some playing time quickly. It doesn't hurt that Burffict loves the kid.

I don't worry about the pundits all that much because they are in a profession with 0 accountability for talking out of their ass. They say whatever they want, but no one checks them for the fact that they are wrong more often than right.

[*ochocincos*]

[OrlandoBengal]

I have to scratch my head when I see people comparing him to Kuechly. Those are very big comparisons, especially for a guy who is smaller, not supposed to be overly strong, and was projected between rounds 3-5. I hope I'm wrong, but figure this is one of the annual instances of the boards picking a player and saying he is the next great one at his position (half the board had Margus Hunt pegged as the next J.J. Watt).

[leonardfan40]

I didn't read your whole post its kinda long lol.

I will say I was surprised and upset for about 30 seconds when we picked vigil, as billings was my favorite player in the whole draft. Vigil grew on me quickly tho and he's my 2nd favorite player from this draft after billings. I like them both and its from my watching and reading up on them, has nothing to do with what 'experts' say, but I always follow the draft very closely. If you don't and you listen to the talking heads it's probably just blind hope/homerism combined with trusting our very skilled war room

[BengalsRocker]

Nick Vigil is the reason the saying "haters gonna hate" even exists.

[GreenCornBengal]

trust the Bengals, love both picks... in 3-4 years when one of them is cut, I will hate that guy

[Shake n Blake]

I don't know much about Vigil, but I do know he is a lunch pail type with a good motor. He will work hard.

I see him as a poor man's Luke Kuechly. Or Wes Welker.

[BengalChris]

Who hates Billings?

The fact that he fell in the draft turned out to be a bonus for us.

The media had him a pretty surefire 1st round pick, but clearly teams knew what they were going to do.

[TGISunday]

(05-24-2016, 10:09 AM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: I have to scratch my head when I see people comparing him to Kuechly. Those are very big comparisons, especially for a guy who is smaller, not supposed to be overly strong, and was projected between rounds 3-5. I hope I'm wrong, but figure this is one of the annual instances of the boards picking a player and saying he is the next great one at his position (half the board had Margus Hunt pegged as the next J.J. Watt).

It's just lazy. White dude equals other great football white dude. See also: every next Wes Welker.


Edit: Omg shake, you're killing me lol.

[Au165]

(05-24-2016, 04:16 PM)TGISunday Wrote: It's just lazy.  White dude equals other great football white dude.  See also: every next Wes Welker.


Edit: Omg shake, you're killing me lol.

I agree, except that Burffict makes the comparison too. Burffict and Kuechly have some sort of relationship, so i don't think it's as simple as he is white so he is Luke.

[XenoMorph]

(05-24-2016, 04:19 PM)Au165 Wrote: I agree, except that Burffict makes the comparison too. Burffict and Kuechly have some sort of relationship, so i don't think it's as simple as he is white so he is Luke.

Luke and Vigil   are both tackling machines

[CJD]

(05-24-2016, 03:48 PM)BengalChris Wrote: Who hates Billings?

The fact that he fell in the draft turned out to be a bonus for us.

The media had him a pretty surefire 1st round pick, but clearly teams knew what they were going to do.

My point is, the people who laugh at the Pundits for not recognizing Vigil's greatness, as they only rated him a 4th to 5th round prospect, are often the same people who praise the Billings pick because the all knowing Pundits had him as a first round pick.


Logically, there should be two camps of Bengals fans. Those that trust the pundits and agree that Billings was a great pick and Vigil was a bad pick and those that don't trust the pundits and think that Vigil is great in spite of his bad reviews by pundits, but are also worried about the reasons why Billings fell (I.E. Clearly the pundits overrated him.)

But loving the pundit eval of Billings and hating the pundit eval of Vigil just looks like classic "cherry picking" of when the pundits are spot on (Billings) and when they have no idea what they're talking about (Vigil).

[Au165]

(05-24-2016, 04:26 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: Luke and Vigil   are both tackling machines

Both are highly instinctive too. Vigil is actually much faster, which may make up for some of the perceived lacks of strength( I'm not sure its real as many cite needing to add weight, but they were same weight at combine). I think it is interesting that he had a listed weakness as his instincts make him seem faster than he might be. I'll take instincts all day over anything else. Burffict is slow as dirt, but he is always one step ahead.

[XenoMorph]

(05-24-2016, 04:27 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: My point is, the people who laugh at the Pundits for not recognizing Vigil's greatness, as they only rated him a 4th to 5th round prospect, are often the same people who praise the Billings pick because the all knowing Pundits had him as a first round pick.


Logically, there should be two camps of Bengals fans. Those that trust the pundits and agree that Billings was a great pick and Vigil was a bad pick and those that don't trust the pundits and think that Vigil is great in spite of his bad reviews by pundits, but are also worried about the reasons why Billings fell (I.E. Clearly the pundits overrated him.)

But loving the pundit eval of Billings and hating the pundit eval of Vigil just looks like classic "cherry picking" of when the pundits are spot on (Billings) and when they have no idea what they're talking about (Vigil).

we wont know for about 3-4 years if the pundits are right all we know now is other teams either didn't have a need at DT or went another direction.

Billings did have some negatives such as being a 2 down player and not much of a pass rusher.     

Which is fine for us as we need a run stuffing block holding DT and we have pass rushers.  But those flags combined with his extremely young age (possible maturity issues) is most likely the reason he fell.  Happens to some players every year

Vigil I cant say I knew he even existed till we drafted him.. But gotta trust our coaches and draft strategy.

I actually like our 7th rounder a lot I know hes a long shot but that dude seems a perfect gunner for special teams.  and could possible grow into the hybrid LB/S role    as he supposedly isn't great at coverage on the backend.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(05-24-2016, 10:09 AM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: I have to scratch my head when I see people comparing him to Kuechly.  Those are very big comparisons, especially for a guy who is smaller, not supposed to be overly strong, and was projected between rounds 3-5.  I hope I'm wrong, but figure this is one of the annual instances of the boards picking a player and saying he is the next great one at his position (half the board had Margus Hunt pegged as the next J.J. Watt).

I see Chris Borland more than Luke with Virgil.
Still anxious to see how well he plays at the next level.

[BengalChris]

(05-24-2016, 04:27 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: My point is, the people who laugh at the Pundits for not recognizing Vigil's greatness, as they only rated him a 4th to 5th round prospect, are often the same people who praise the Billings pick because the all knowing Pundits had him as a first round pick.


Logically, there should be two camps of Bengals fans. Those that trust the pundits and agree that Billings was a great pick and Vigil was a bad pick and those that don't trust the pundits and think that Vigil is great in spite of his bad reviews by pundits, but are also worried about the reasons why Billings fell (I.E. Clearly the pundits overrated him.)

But loving the pundit eval of Billings and hating the pundit eval of Vigil just looks like classic "cherry picking" of when the pundits are spot on (Billings) and when they have no idea what they're talking about (Vigil).

I'm not in either camp. Vigil might work out. Billings might work out. Or not.

Just because our coaches and scouts liked Vigil more than the fans doesn't mean squat. They liked Hunt and Clarke and others who turned out to be overdrafted non-performers.

I wouldn't take any of it personally. There were fans who thought Hunt was going to be the second coming of JJWatt simply because they heard a few good things. Now we're sitting here 3 years later going "how in hell did the coaches whiff on so badly with a 2nd round selection?"

People behave the same way with the politicians they vote for. Even though we haven't had a President better than scum sucking bad in three decades, people will defend their vote with all sorts of non-sense and idiotic meaningless data.

[*Go Cards*]

Trust Tobin and the coaches on selecting the right players.

Believe neither are locks at greatness but both could achieve it as well.

Great gambles on players with high ceilings that are at positions of need for Bengals too.

Like both picks.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(05-24-2016, 09:46 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I've been reading a lot about Nick Vigil. He was hyped a lot when we first drafted him and he's now being mentioned in Bengals articles and being complimented by Vontaze Burfict here:
http://www.bengals.com/news/article-1/OTAs-a-GO/fbc61349-df13-4c2f-8d47-c9fca3b8d42c

And before I start, yes, the title is a little...intentionally eye catching?

I dunno. the point of the title is to compare the pre-draft ratings and the fanbase's perceptions of a player based on where they are drafted.

We have, on one hand, a guy who, according to the draft pundits, was a first round pick, guaranteed to be gone by the 2nd round. He is big, strong, fast, stout at defensive tackle. Almost the perfect nose tackle, but is a few inches too short and is a little too young and raw. Atkins proved that height doesn't have to hold a DT back and being young is rarely a bad thing, so it stands to reason that Billings could be equally successful in his role.

On the other hand, we have a player who was considered a fringe prospect by most draft pundits. While he has good instincts (something that can't be measured at a combine or pro day), he is considered to be too small, not athletic enough and generally, a mediocre LB prospect in Nick Vigil.

When Billings was drafted, the entire fan base celebrated (I truly believe every single person who calls themselves a Bengals fan loved that pick). We got a 1st or 2nd round pick in the 4th! Steal of the draft. Call it in guys, cuz we won this one! The pundits are completely right and this guy is going to be a star. The 31 teams that passed on him don't know what they're doing. Haha!

When Vigil was drafted, initially, there was a bit of confusion (mainly because Billings was still on the board at this point and people didn't get it.). Some negativity here and there, but many people were optimistic. When a report came out that Green Bay was planning on taking him with their pick coming up in the third round, people still questioned the pick here and there.

As the days went on, there were some outlets that called Vigil our best pick and others that called him a bad reach. Generally speaking, and with the assistance of players and coaches like Burfict comparing him to Luke K, the overall opinion of him in the fanbase became one unified voice. We got ANOTHER steal. The pundits don't know what they were talking about. Green Bay was going to draft him and they know what they're doing! This guy is going to be an amazing linebacker for us and all the draft pundits don't know what they're talking about!


My question is...which is it? Do you trust the draft pundits or don't you? If you do, you'd logically love the Billings pick and hate the Vigil pick. If you don't, you'd likely question why Billings dropped and you'd probably form your own opinion on Vigil, which may be a positive one (as it seems to be in the fanbase currently.)

Or, as we are all biased, is it just...we're gonna love every pick because the Bengals made them? We'll cherry pick the good and ignore the bad with just about everything the team does because we all, at our core, are hopeless optimists who want to believe we got the steal that no one else saw.

In my experience, the pundits are generally correct more often than the Bengals. Meaning, our late round picks that the pundits had rated high (such as Marvin Jones, George Iloka, AJ McCarron, Mohamed Sanu, Clint Boling, Vontaze Burfict etc) that slipped for no reason, generally, turn out better than the head scratching 'perceived reaches' that the Bengals quickly celebrate as steals (Margus Hunt, Will Clarke, Dontay Moch, Jerome Simpson, Kenny Irons etc).

If this trend continues, that means Billings will end up being a great player and Vigil will fizzle. That's not to say this formula is guaranteed. There have been 'perceived reaches' that worked out. I can't think of any, but I'm sure there are some. Likewise, there are highly rated players who dropped that haven't worked out as well (Devon Still, Orsen Charles, Brandon Ghee) but those are much more rare than the successes.

I like Vigil and I hope he plays well. We have taken productive college players that, theoretically, didn't project to the NFL well before and they have worked out. Geno Atkins fits that description pretty well, as does Andy Dalton and AJ McCarron.

But I'm getting a little confused with the amount of double speak going on in the fan base. If you trust the pundits on Billings (he'll be good), don't trust them on Vigil (he'll also be good) and love both picks, that just seems like homer-ism to me.

This is a very good thread CJD, but i am a homer on this one.

Billings was the player i wanted in the first, but we got WJ3 who i was very happy with, Boyd came in the 2nd who i thought
was the 2nd best Slot receiver in this draft behind Sterling Shephard but Boyd has better hands. Then came Nick Vigil who i
thought was a head scratcher at the time for sure.

With more looking up Vigil i saw a very smart LB'er who can cover very well and has lots of rare talents. I like the pick.

In the end we got Andrew Billings and that is all i really care about. But it makes the Vigil pick much better no question.

Honestly, i would probably be hating the Vigil pick right now if we didn't get Billings and Westerman though, honestly.