McCaffrey RB

[*psychdoctor*]

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.

[coachmcneil71]

(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.

Probably going to end up being the best back in this draft and have the best career as well.

[Speedy Thomas]

Basically the same back as Bernard. Unless there is reason to believe that Gio won't come back from injury -- no thanks.

[*SHRacerX*]

(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.

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.  

[*psychdoctor*]

(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.  

Maybe if the Cincinnati Bengals trade AJM for the 33rd pick he would be good pick.

[*SHRacerX*]

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

He's a sexy pick (and in a way, he is replacing Sexy, so that works  )  However, the Bengals need beef on the line and I would hope for a player like Robinson or Forrest Lamp to push Ced or end up being the RG of the future.  Not saying that is what will happen, but that is what I would like to see happen.  That, and then get a RB like Perrine or Conner and have the entire squad improved from better line play.  

[Au165]

(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.  

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.

[*ochocincos*]

(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.

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.

[Au165]

(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.

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.

[*ochocincos*]

(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.

I don't think the Bengals have the same philosophy.
If this were to be the recipe for success with a poor blocking OL, why didn't the Bengals utilize Ryan Hewitt more?
http://www.cincyjungle.com/2016/10/19/13326324/why-ryan-hewitt-is-on-the-bengals-bench-so-often-2016

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.

So maybe you are right in that it's easier, but the Bengals appear not to think so, as they could (and maybe should) have tried to use Hewitt more with the OL struggling, but instead they went with a traditional TE more and threw the ball more often when the OL struggled. This is why I think the Bengals will prioritize a pass catching RB and look for another TE in the draft. Hewitt's days in Cincy could be numbered unless they can fix their OL.

[SunsetBengal]

(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.

Sure, or he could just turn out to be the next Toby Gearhart.

[*SHRacerX*]

(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.

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.  

[Goalpost]

He tested really well. Not the strongest back, only 10 reps, but displayed really good movement skills. 4.48 speed as well. I'd consider him in the second round

[Au165]

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

Why Gerhardt? Their running styles sizes, etc are nothing alike.

[Au165]

(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.  

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.

[SunsetBengal]

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

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.

[*SHRacerX*]

(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.

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.  

[Au165]

(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.

I keep hearing excellent OL play. Someone is going to have to help me find where that is a "thing". As I said they get drafted because they are pro style, but zone blocking spread lines can be very good as well (see Oregon a couple years ago). The additional hype for being white is always interesting because that to me is a detriment. Gerhardt was drafted and stuck behind AP. In his limited time in Minnesota he averaged 4.9 a carry when he got to start 5 games. I don't hold anyone's career falling apart in Jacksonville against them. TJ Yeldon came out of Alabama with a great offensive line and tons of production and is already looking to be replaced in Jacksonville.

A lot of times where you end up is as important as how good you actually are.

[Au165]

(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.  

I apologize, based on the way you had talked about him it seemed counter intuitive to that thought. As I said, I agree I don't think any back is worth a top 10 pick, but I believe one will go. Hopefully not to us.

Ironically, I am a big fan of getting a power back as it seems you are.

[Striped4war]

We had the exact same back in Burkhead.It would be a wasted pick in my eyes seeing is without a line to block no RB is gonna make a difference enough to warrant such a high pick.Not even Fournette who I would really really love to have on stripes.If we trade back I hope it's for Cam Robinson.Gio is gonna be Gio when he gets back healthy.Hill is in a contract year and even though I don't want him here after the playoff fumble ( I will never forgive him ) he will at least make the effort to be better instead of showboating and acting like a look at me clown.