Drafting without Marvin Lewis

[Atomic Orange]

(01-17-2019, 02:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I tend to agree.  Bengals were solid in the draft, but not amazing.  I don't think we can claim that Lewis was some sort of draft savant.  Especially when it is not clear how much influence he really had.

I think we can surmise he wasn't a fan of the Boyd and Ross picks. Still would like to know why Boyd was a healthy scratch for most of 17 - and then benching Ross after the fumble.

Both players were in Marvins dog house. But WHY exactly?

Theory:

Because he had Brandon La fell. It would appear Merv didn't have a problem throwing rookies to the wolves when the back up or veteran option wasn't there.(Dalton, Green, Price , bunch of names etc) - but when it was it's almost as if he liked to toy with those players. You can add Mixon to that list as well. Guy is killing it, time to take him out for the game now. Let's start Hill instead!

Dude was an idiot.

[3wt]

(01-17-2019, 11:35 AM)bengalfan74 Wrote: Bingo !

It's a story that's repeated itself time and time again under Marvin. Eifert rarely saw the field in long stretch's in his early days despite producing well when he got out there.

Agreed.  And granted we had Corry, but it took forever for Rudi onto the field.   I think he was on the practice squad for a while too, though don't quote me on that.

Marvin had his favorites - sometimes for good reasons.  Nickerson is a smart player who knows where he's supposed to be.

Trouble is, he can't do a whole lot with his knowledge. 

[I_C_DeadPeople]

In fairness to Tobin, if our scouting staff is still 50 or 70% the size of the better teams, then this will always reduce the success rates of the drfats simply by having less number of qualified people looking and analyzing. Yes, you can have a smaller staff if they are all top tier guys but somehow I doubt we have the cream of the crop. Assuming our scouting staff overall is average to above average in talent, better teams can have the same talent level but more staff - they will find more players of value.

In the past, i have cited the example of our NHL team - we have a small City market but a large and top tier scouting staff (Winnipeg Jets), and we are an elite team because of it.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(01-17-2019, 01:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No he was not.

NFL.com had him rated a 2nd-3rd round pick

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2013/profiles/margus-hunt?id=2539310

Draftscout.com had him as a 1st-2nd round pick

http://www.draftscout.com/ratings/dsprofile.php?pyid=103696&draftyear=2013&genpos=DE

Walterfootball.com had him as a 1st-2nd round pick

http://walterfootball.com/scoutingreport2013mhunt.php

Not to beat a dead horse here fred, but when I used those same sources to say Clint Boling was regarded as a 2nd or 3rd round pick, you ragged on them.....

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(01-17-2019, 03:37 PM)3wt Wrote: Well he was out voted on taking Justin Smith (a great player) instead of the player he wanted:  Drew Brees

 Ouch!  I had no idea about that one.

[sandwedge]

(01-17-2019, 04:36 PM)Wyche Wrote:  Ouch!  I had no idea about that one.

Yeah, but it makes you wonder if we would have gotten the same production from Brees...

[fredtoast]

(01-17-2019, 04:34 PM)Wyche Wrote: Not to beat a dead horse here fred, but when I used those same sources to say Clint Boling was regarded as a 2nd or 3rd round pick, you ragged on them.....

Not to beat a dead horse, but I am still saying the same thing.  NFL teams had Boling ranked as a fourth round pick and Hunt as a second rounder.

[fredtoast]

(01-17-2019, 04:36 PM)Wyche Wrote:  Ouch!  I had no idea about that one.

I take all claims like that with a grain of salt.  I have heard that in 2011 Brown wanted Mallet until Kaepernick had some success then it was claimed that is who he wanted.

[*bengalfan74*]

(01-17-2019, 02:30 PM)McC Wrote: The possibility does exist that we could see in the near future just how poorly we've been coached lately.

I think there's very little doubt on that.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(01-17-2019, 04:45 PM)sandwedge Wrote: Yeah, but it makes you wonder if we would have gotten the same production from Brees...

Fair point....

(01-17-2019, 04:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not to beat a dead horse, but I am still saying the same thing.  NFL teams had Boling ranked as a fourth round pick and Hunt as a second rounder.

I think the teams had it wrong....but that's just me.  I read a report that had Clint rated as the #6 G out of 158 that year.  It seems they were right.  He's been solid, and a Swiss Army knife of sorts to boot.  Agree to disagree. :andy:

(01-17-2019, 04:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I take all claims like that with a grain of salt.  I have heard that in 2011 Brown wanted Mallet until Kaepernick had some success then it was claimed that is who he wanted.

True about that.....but if Mikey did want Brees....he should have put his foot down on that one! It has a little merit if I'm remembering right, didn't we take Akili the next year?

[Nati#1]

Our drafts have pretty much sucked the past couple years.

[fredtoast]

(01-17-2019, 06:17 PM)Nati#1 Wrote: Our drafts have pretty much sucked the past couple years.

Bates led all rookie DBs in tackles and was 2nd in ints.

Hubbard led all rookie D-linemen in sacks and was 3rd in tackles.

Last year Lawson led all rookies in sacks and QB hits.

Joe Mixon is 8th in the league in rushing yards over the last two seasons.

[BengalChris]

(01-17-2019, 01:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Most rookies need a year to develop.  Only about 2 thirds of first round picks are even starters.

If you draft based only on what  guy can do his rookie season you will miss out on a lot of great players.

Contributing in rookie season versus being a starter are two different things.

I'd want drafted rookies contributing in year one regardless. Otherwise you are leaving someone off your 53 man roster who can help you win this year.

Practice squad is the place for projects, not the 53 man roster. Why draft someone who needs to be on the practice squad where he can be picked up by someone else. Just leave the projects to somebody else to fuss with. Then, if they do develop you can always offer them a contract when their rookie deal with another team is up and they've proven themselves. Much more efficient use of roster spots and you don't have to do without while the slow learns learn.

I like my approach better than Marvs, or Mikey's which ever of them had that love for projects.

NFL.com was wrong about Hunt, so were the Bengals. The Bengals were also wrong about Ogbuehi and Fisher. The draft should be for players who are going to contribute in year one, otherwise make them a rookie free agent offering or let someone else burn their picks and time.

I know, I know, I'm a cold hearted bastard who doesn't care about lowly downtroddened players who didn't learn their careers in college like they were suppose to. Boohoo, so sad. I'm so mean to let some other fool take the risk I don't want.
 

[fredtoast]

(01-17-2019, 06:34 PM)BengalChris Wrote: I'd want drafted rookies contributing in year one regardless. Otherwise you are leaving someone off your 53 man roster who can help you win this year.

Practice squad is the place for projects, not the 53 man roster. Why draft someone who needs to be on the practice squad where he can be picked up by someone else.

You can't put them on the practice squad because some other team will carry them on their 53 man roster while he develops.  

EVERY player comes out of college as an unfinished product.  The ones who might seem most ready to contribute as rookies may not be the best players.  Instead they might just be the ones who had the best coaches and played against the toughest levels of college competition.  After just one or two seasons with equal coaching, training, and competition the best players will surpass the "ready" players and have better careers.  A good example of this is the Chiefs Cris Jones.  Jones never had more than 3 sacks in a season in college, but he was taken with the 5th pick of 2nd round because of his size and potential.  His rookie season there were 24 other rookies who had as many sacks as Jones's 2.  But Jones more than tripled that number his second season (6.5) then more than doubled that this year when he finished 3rd in the league with 15.5.  Meanwhile there are a ton of guys out there who contributed more as rookies than Jones, but are still just average players.

(01-17-2019, 06:34 PM)BengalChris Wrote: NFL.com was wrong about Hunt, so were the Bengals.

NFL.com was NOT wrong about Hunt.  They labeled him as an "eventual starter".  He started for the Colts this year and only 12 other NFL D-linemen had more Tackles For Loss than Hunt's 13.  He was no big star, but he played 75% of the snaps for the league's 8th ranked rush defense registering 30 tackles and 5 sacks.

[BengalChris]

(01-17-2019, 07:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You can't put them on the practice squad because some other team will carry them on their 53 man roster while he develops.  

EVERY player comes out of college as an unfinished product.  The ones who might seem most ready to contribute as rookies may not be the best players.  Instead they might just be the ones who had the best coaches and played against the toughest levels of college competition.  After just one or two seasons with equal coaching, training, and competition the best players will surpass the "ready" players and have better careers.  A good example of this is the Chiefs Cris Jones.  Jones never had more than 3 sacks in a season in college, but he was taken with the 5th pick of 2nd round because of his size and potential.  His rookie season there were 24 other rookies who had as many sacks as Jones's 2.  But Jones more than tripled that number his second season (6.5) then more than doubled that this year when he finished 3rd in the league with 15.5.  Meanwhile there are a ton of guys out there who contributed more as rookies than Jones, but are still just average players.


NFL.com was NOT wrong about Hunt.  They labeled him as an "eventual starter".  He started for the Colts this year and only 12 other NFL D-linemen had more Tackles For Loss than Hunt's 13.  He was no big star, but he played 75% of the snaps for the league's 8th ranked rush defense registering 30 tackles and 5 sacks.

We disagree.

In the draft I don't want a guy who will be an eventual starter, 6 freakin' years later. I'll take a guy who's going to contribute now and help me win this year. That gives me the best chance to win this year and if I do that same thing every year, I'll have a better chance of winning every year.

Indy received the benefit of the Bengals developing Hunt. I'd rather receive the benefit of someone else developing while I made use of a guy who can help out this year.

I like my way better. 

[corpjet]

Im not worried about losing Marvin, he had plenty of misses in the draft.....Cedric O, Jake Fisher, Keith Rivers, Kenny Irons, Chris Perry, Kewan Ratliff

and those are just 1st and 2nd round busts

we will be fine

[*bengalfan74*]

(01-17-2019, 07:49 PM)BengalChris Wrote: We disagree.

In the draft I don't want a guy who will be an eventual starter, 6 freakin' years later. I'll take a guy who's going to contribute now and help me win this year. That gives me the best chance to win this year and if I do that same thing every year, I'll have a better chance of winning every year.

Indy received the benefit of the Bengals developing Hunt. I'd rather receive the benefit of someone else developing while I made use of a guy who can help out this year.

I like my way better. 

I like your way as well  :andy:

Especially for a team that relies as heavily on the draft as the Bengals do you don't draft projects in the 2nd round !

You really need to hit on the top 3 rounds way more often than you miss and that's been a big part of our problem lately. We missed quite a bit in the last several years.

[fredtoast]

(01-17-2019, 07:49 PM)BengalChris Wrote:  I'll take a guy who's going to contribute now and help me win this year. That gives me the best chance to win this year and if I do that same thing every year, I'll have a better chance of winning every year.

Actually every year you settle for a lesser player just because he is more "ready" that farther you fall behind.  The better players pass the ready players within a couple of years.  

(01-17-2019, 07:49 PM)BengalChris Wrote: In the draft I don't want a guy who will be an eventual starter, 6 freakin' years later.

Indy received the benefit of the Bengals developing Hunt. I'd rather receive the benefit of someone else developing while I made use of a guy who can help out this year.

Players don't take six years to develop.  Hunt would probably have been starting within his first 2 or 3 years if he had the same coaches in the same situation he is in now.  He was not a track guy who never played football.  He was a three year starter and a First Team All Conference player.  he needed some more polish but not six years worth.

[BengalChris]

(01-17-2019, 08:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually every year you settle for a lesser player just because he is more "ready" that farther you fall behind.  The better players pass the ready players within a couple of years.  


Players don't take six years to develop.  Hunt would probably have been starting within his first 2 or 3 years if he had the same coaches in the same situation he is in now.  He was not a track guy who never played football.  He was a three year starter and a First Team All Conference player.  he needed some more polish but not six years worth.

Why is he lesser? If he can contribute *this* year and will do more for me *this* year how can he be lesser?


Take Hunt's case. He was drafted by the Bengals in 2013 with the 52nd pick, one pick after New England picked Jamie Collins, but before Larry Warford, Eddie Lacy, Travis Kelse, Tyrann Mathieu, Keenan Allen and Brandon Williams (to name some pro bowlers) were picked.

Eddie Lacy, for example, could have given the Bengals a few years of good running.

Tyrann Mathieu, as much of a head case that he is/was, could have filled a spot in the secondary and been a starter.

Keenan Allen would have been that missing WR we've been wishing was on the roster the last few years. An average year by Allen would have been better than all of Hunt's years combined.

Now I did just cherry pick the pro bowlers, but there were other good players to be taken. Instead we took a project and it's easy to see that we lost by doing so.

[J24]

I am not worried about the draft but more concerned with what we will do in free agency and via trade. That's been our biggest problem since 2016. That's not to say we should go all in on free agency but we shouldn't be still in our thinking anyways.