Case building for taking Deshaun Watson over John Ross in Draft - 1st round REDO

[*bfine32*]

(09-27-2017, 07:05 PM)Joelist Wrote: This whole thread instantly became a joke with the bogus claim that the Texans line is as bad as ours. Sorry but it isn't even close ours is far and away the worst in the NFL. We only lost to Watson because of one play where the defense took horrible angle and missed multiple easy tackles and the stupid one where Eifert went out of bounds for no reason then came back in - our secondary also dropped two easy pick sixes from him. New England this season has been epically bad on defense and they still picked Watson off twice.

No doubt. The Texan's line only gave up 10 sacks in week 1.

[Hammerstripes]

(09-25-2017, 04:24 PM)depthchart Wrote: Exactly...

Picking Watson creates more trade options with the QBs we already had on the Roster.

Trade McCarron during 2017 Draft then Andy Dalton in 2018 for an example or Dalton in 2017.

Trade options get created versus just taking John Ross in a QB driven league.

The only problem with your scenario is that Mike Brown wouldn't trade any of these guys.

He would simply covet the comp picks that he gets when they leave 

[sandwedge]

Can you guys make up your mind, who you would take in RD 1 next year?? The same people calling for Darnold, who is an INT machine, are calling for us to draft a LT.....

[depthchart]

(09-28-2017, 04:03 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Sooooooooooooooooooo, you want us to follow the Mike Brown formula from the 90s? 

I'll admit that having Mike Brown oversee any idea that may get used could still end in things going up in Flames like in the 1990's.

As a general rule, however, if I was running an NFL team, I would try to stay 2 or 3 QBs deep on my roster similar to what the Patriots have done recently. They used a 2nd round pick on Garoppolo in 2014 and a 3rd round pick for Jacoby Brissett in 2016. They have had the opportunity to trade Garopollo for a large haul recently if they want to but have chosen to keep him, while making a trade of Brissett a 3rd rounder for a 1st round player in Phillip Dorsett when they really needed another receiver. Being QB rich Gave them trade options in a QB driven league.

We could have added Deshaun Watson and kept Dalton for say 1 to 3 years while trading McCarron for a 2nd round pick. If Dalton catches Fire and returns to 2015 form that would be fine with me. Watson would still hold a lot of trade value in the mean time. If Dalton falters, then go to Watson. This could still be done in the 2018 Draft with one of the QBs coming out then.

My point is that it is a QB driven league, so why not keep that position group at least 2 to 3 players Deep on the roster by using a 1st through 3rd round pick once every few years on a QB, especially if some don't see Dalton as a QB that can carry a team to a Super Bowl. It may take a stacked team around Dalton to win. We have been Lucky to have Dalton, in my opinion, but to me it doesn't hurt to bring in higher round QB prospects every so often to compete with each other. May find a Diamond that way and Dalton could still have a chance to get us there.

We could have done this instead of getting John Ross and have Watson under control for 5 years. John Ross could still pan out though and I hope he does.

There are Trade offs with any selection made. You give up whatever players were available at the time to take who you take, closing the door on possible benefits or cons taking those players may have offered. Then live with the consequences.

Maybe taking Watson goes up in Flames but it is interesting to me to discuss. We are ALL IN on John Ross now so hopefully it pays off.

[Gdale_Bengal]

Yeah. All this talk about taking a QB super high is great. Let's see how that young QB works with that amazing Paul Alexander coached offensive line we field.

[Joelist]

This is super simple. Unless the OL gets a MAJOR upgrade taking a QB is pointless.

[depthchart]

(09-28-2017, 05:38 PM)Joelist Wrote: This is super simple. Unless the OL gets a MAJOR upgrade taking a QB is pointless.

I am just changing out ONE pick for conversation.

Instead of having John Ross on the roster we would have Deshaun Watson.

To your point though, the O-line has to be Upgraded.
The first O-lineman to go last Draft was with pick #20. Tackle Garett Bolles to the Broncos.

A case could be made that trading down for picks and taking an O-lineman may have been a better move than Drafting John Ross who is a receiver. The Bengals probably could have gotten a lot for that 9th overall pick in a trade down. I would have preferred that to the John Ross pick although Ross still has the potential to have an impact.

Based on what you said, the O-line should have been the priority and not a QB or wide receiver.

Is it safe to say then that you would have preferred a Trade Down for picks and Draft some offensive lineman versus taking receiver John Ross ?

We could have gotten Buffalo's deal with the Chiefs for 1st round pick #27 and 3rd round pick #91 plus a 1st rounder in 2018.

I'm starting to like that Trade Down deal the more I think of it, maybe even better than taking Ross or Watson at pick #9.

Has me rethinking some..   




 

[*PhilHos*]

(09-28-2017, 06:02 PM)depthchart Wrote: Is it safe to say then that you would have preferred a Trade Down for picks and Draft some offensive lineman versus taking receiver John Ross ?

Yes. Especially if the trade include an OLman or 2.

[depthchart]

(09-25-2017, 04:47 PM)depthchart Wrote: By drafting Watson you lock him up for 5 years.

Another option is to keep Dalton for another 1 to 3 years, trade McCarron and have Watson in place watching & learning.

If Dalton falters, go to Watson at some point during that time period.

Get a pipeline started of QBs until we Nail down an Elite QB.

I agree Depthchart.

Watson idea not looking that bad right now.

Deshaun Watson just became the first Rookie since Fran Tarkenton in 1961 to pass for 4 touchdowns and rush for 1 in a game.

25 of 34 for 283 yards 4 td plus 24 rush yards 1 td and 1 interception.

Play the Chiefs next week so numbers should fall but I 'd swap John Ross out for Deshaun Watson in a 1st round Draft redo right now in a Heart Beat. 

[THE PISTONS]

These threads are excruciating where people give weekly updates on how a player performed. Same with Jake Elliott.

Do you think that the Bengals coaching staff would have developed Watson here? Do you think they would have waived Dalton and started Watson?

It's basically the butterfly affect. Had Watson been drafted here, you can't point to his success with the Texans as sure success here.

[depthchart]

(10-02-2017, 10:48 AM)THE PISTONS Wrote: These threads are excruciating where people give weekly updates on how a player performed. Same with Jake Elliott.

Do you think that the Bengals coaching staff would have developed Watson here? Do you think they would have waived Dalton and started Watson?

It's basically the butterfly affect. Had Watson been drafted here, you can't point to his success with the Texans as sure success here.

It is a fair topic of conversation similar to Pre Draft what ifs of taking this player or that player. What may or may not happen if you do.

Never said to Waive Dalton. Said we could keep Dalton for 1 to 3 years, trade Dalton, trade McCarron or whatever. Lock up Watson for 5 years.

What is more excruciating is hearing constant O-line sucks threads. Your 0 and 7 in Playoff games hashtag in every thread.

Taking Deshaun Watson at #9 overall is an out of the Box idea that appears so far to be a better idea than taking John Ross.

I also opened the thread up to other 1st round Draft redo ideas any others may have had like O-line trade downs etc.

If someone finds these type of Post Draft redo conversations interesting they can join in and offer them. Sparks the mind in a different way than your everyday 0 and 7 in the Playoffs and the O-line sucks constant mantras.

Don't like the thread, then you don't need to join in. Pick another thread.

The thread will live or die on it's own like all others. Don't need you to be the Thread Police.

Watson being mentioned with Fran Tarkenton and could have been a Bengal is a fair topic.





 

[McC]

The whole premise of this thread is pretty goofy and probably doesn't even belong in JN. We were never gonna take a QB in the first round.

I will say, though, that people should have listened to Dabo.

I'm just happy Cleveland was too stupid to take him. He would have made them instantly relevant.

[THE PISTONS]

(10-02-2017, 11:08 AM)McC Wrote: The whole premise of this thread is pretty goofy and probably doesn't even belong in JN.  We were never gonna take a QB in the first round.

I will say, though, that people should have listened to Dabo.

I'm just happy Cleveland was too stupid to take him.  He would have made them instantly relevant.

Agreed. The Bengals were NEVER considering taking a QB at 9. They have McCarron as a backup too who some think is a starter.


Foster, Howard, Allen...those are guys the Bengals would have considered and in my mind are fair game in 'What If' scenarios.

He may as well go look at some guy taken in the 4th Round that is playing well and be like 'What if the Bengals selected him at 9.'

[depthchart]

(10-02-2017, 11:08 AM)McC Wrote: The whole premise of this thread is pretty goofy and probably doesn't even belong in JN.  We were never gonna take a QB in the first round.

I will say, though, that people should have listened to Dabo.

I'm just happy Cleveland was too stupid to take him.  He would have made them instantly relevant.

I get that the current Bengals regime would never have done this but the idea itself has legs.

It is a QB driven league, yet teams virtually stay out of the early pick QB market when they already have a middle of the pack QB in place.

Why not create competition at the QB position and at least be open to taking a QB high even when you have a middle of the pack QB already on the roster.

Especially in a QB driven league.

It could push your middle of the pack QB to get better or his competition beats him out.

But you are right. No way the Bengals would have done it.

Another reason why I like it.

[THE PISTONS]

(10-02-2017, 11:19 AM)depthchart Wrote: I get that the current Bengals regime would never have done this but the idea itself has legs.

It is a QB driven league, yet teams virtually stay out of the early pick QB market when they already have a middle of the pack QB in place.

Why not create competition at the QB position and at least be open to taking a QB high even when you have a middle of the pack QB already on the roster.

Especially in a QB driven league.

It could push your middle of the pack QB to get better or his competition beats him out.

But you are right. No way the Bengals would have done it.

Another reason why I like it.

Why not just open a QB competition up between McCarron and Dalton then?

[Au165]

Relax, he has shredded the 29th and 32nd rated defenses so far (total yards allowed). When he played us he looked like the average rookie he is. Now Dalton the last two weeks under Lazor has looked really good beating the 7th and 16th rated defenses (total yards allowed).

[depthchart]

(10-02-2017, 11:34 AM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Why not just open a QB competition up between McCarron and Dalton then?

I would assume there already has been a competition of sorts.

Lots of practice time for coaches to see both play.

It may be that the coaching staff just thinks Dalton is better than McCarron but as you imply, maybe they have not given McCarron enough of  a chance.

Difference to me is, and I can be wrong, that Deshaun Watson is an early 1st round talent versus McCarron who was a 5th round talent.
I get the Tom Brady was a 6th rounder argument and therefore, McCarron could pan out. Had they taken Watson, he would have had the early 1st round physical traits that Dalton and McCarron didn't have when they were drafted. Makes the QB room more talented for competition in a QB driven league.

My overall point with this Thread may be that teams should Always be in the QB market. At least seriously looking at the high round QBs as options every year. May not take one every year but looking. Seems like the Bengals and many teams miss chances at early round talent by not being open to pulling the trigger on that talent say once every 3 Drafts even if we already have a starter.

The Patriots have recent 2nd and 3rd round QBs that they have taken giving them trade options. The Redskins took Robert Griffin III in round 1 and then took Kirk Cousins in round 4 of the same Draft and many thought that was ODD at the time. It paid off for them to some degree with Cousins.

Just be in the QB Market and open to it. Don't stay out of it in early rounds for multiple years just because you have a starter.

Then let your Stacked QB room compete & maybe McCarron comes out on top or Andy or Watson.

[sandwedge]

(10-02-2017, 12:10 PM)depthchart Wrote: I would assume there already has been a competition of sorts.

Lots of practice time for coaches to see both play.

It may be that the coaching staff just thinks Dalton is better than McCarron but as you imply, maybe they have not given McCarron enough of  a chance.

Difference to me is, and I can be wrong, that Deshaun Watson is an early 1st round talent versus McCarron who was a 5th round talent.
I get the Tom Brady was a 6th rounder argument and therefore, McCarron could pan out. Had they taken Watson, he would have had the early 1st round physical traits that Dalton and McCarron didn't have when they were drafted. Makes the QB room more talented for competition in a QB driven league.

My overall point with this Thread may be that teams should Always be in the QB market. At least seriously looking at the high round QBs as options every year. May not take one every year but looking. Seems like the Bengals and many teams miss chances at early round talent by not being open to pulling the trigger on that talent say once every 3 Drafts even if we already have a starter.

The Patriots have recent 2nd and 3rd round QBs that they have taken giving them trade options. The Redskins took Robert Griffin III in round 1 and then took Kirk Cousins in round 4 of the same Draft and many thought that was ODD at the time. It paid off for them to some degree with Cousins.

Just be in the QB Market and open to it. Don't stay out of it in early rounds for multiple years just because you have a starter.

Then let your Stacked QB room compete & maybe McCarron comes out on top or Andy or Watson.

Why should they give McCarron more chances? We have a winning QB already in place.  Makes no sense what so ever....

[THE PISTONS]

(10-02-2017, 12:10 PM)depthchart Wrote: I would assume there already has been a competition of sorts.

Lots of practice time for coaches to see both play.

It may be that the coaching staff just thinks Dalton is better than McCarron but as you imply, maybe they have not given McCarron enough of  a chance.

Difference to me is, and I can be wrong, that Deshaun Watson is an early 1st round talent versus McCarron who was a 5th round talent.
I get the Tom Brady was a 6th rounder argument and therefore, McCarron could pan out. Had they taken Watson, he would have had the early 1st round physical traits that Dalton and McCarron didn't have when they were drafted. Makes the QB room more talented for competition in a QB driven league.

My overall point with this Thread may be that teams should Always be in the QB market. At least seriously looking at the high round QBs as options every year. May not take one every year but looking. Seems like the Bengals and many teams miss chances at early round talent by not being open to pulling the trigger on that talent say once every 3 Drafts even if we already have a starter.

The Patriots have recent 2nd and 3rd round QBs that they have taken giving them trade options. The Redskins took Robert Griffin III in round 1 and then took Kirk Cousins in round 4 of the same Draft and many thought that was ODD at the time. It paid off for them to some degree with Cousins.

Just be in the QB Market and open to it. Don't stay out of it in early rounds for multiple years just because you have a starter.

Then let your Stacked QB room compete & maybe McCarron comes out on top or Andy or Watson.

It's just so tough here to use a 1st Round pick on a position of non-immediate need as we don't sign free agents.

Although...the Bengals did that with the Ross pick. Howard, Allen, and Foster would have all addressed arguably bigger needs.

The thing I like about a 1st Round QB is they cost a lot less for 5 years and could invest that money elsewhere...IF the team were to sign free agents. The thing I don't like is the miss rate on 1st Round QB's is soo high.

[depthchart]

(10-02-2017, 12:30 PM)sandwedge Wrote: Why should they give McCarron more chances? We have a winning QB already in place.  Makes no sense what so ever....

I'm more for Deshaun Watson than McCarron & prefer Andy to McCarron but it may make sense to keep a talented QB room for a few reasons.

Starters can go down or even have career threatening injures like Teddy Bridgewater had.

Staying active in the QB market offers more chances to land that RARE ELITE level QB.

QB's hold their trade value pretty well offering trade options like the one the Patriots just used trading 3rd rounder Jacoby Brissett for 1st round WR Phillip Dorsett.

Also the Luxury of having Competition in a stacked QB room in a QB driven league.

Can shed Cap Spending money when a youngster beats out an older higher paid player that you can then Trade. Especially with quickly RISING QB contracts.