Starting to Think We Go QB Early

[J24]

(04-22-2019, 01:53 PM)grampahol Wrote: And of course short term ticket sales boosts win championships as evidenced by...nothing.. Nothing like zero evidence to point to the lack of evidence, eh?

Well we are dealing with a moron in Mike Brown so using Logic is not in the cards.

[grampahol]

(04-22-2019, 01:59 PM)Jakeypoo Wrote: Well we are dealing with a moron in Mike Brown so using Logic is not in the cards.

Now now.. Zac has already told us Mikey is amazing. Who can argue with a HC not cutting his own throat before the season even begins? I know everyone would just love a first year head coach come right out and say the team owner is the worst owner in the history of the league and not get fired immediately .. 

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

It's not a huge need, but if they snag Haskins in the 1st, I wouldn't be too upset so long as the plan is to have him sit on the bench the entire first season. Not a lot of college experience, couldn't benefit a lot from learning from Dalton for a year, and I really really don't want to expose a rookie QB to getting murdered behind this OL. Gives them another year to fix it. (I figure a QB in the first is basically signalling we are punting 2019 away and playing for 2020.)

[MEBengalsFan]

I don't think the Bengals need a QB early in the draft. In fact, if they pick up a QB it would be in the later rounds, round 5-7. I think next year they may draft Dalton replacement if he doesn't perform well this year.

I just hope that whoever makes the pick stick with the board and selects the best player available on the board. This will ensure that the Bengals get best player for the team.

[Joelist]

They won't go QB in the first, as for ZT it would basically be a suicide note. He needs to show success out of the gate and that means the pick needs to go to LB or OL.

[*Nately120*]

(04-22-2019, 02:32 PM)Joelist Wrote: They won't go QB in the first, as for ZT it would basically be a suicide note. He needs to show success out of the gate and that means the pick needs to go to LB or OL.

Id argue getting a QB gives ZT at least 2 or 3 free years where we can't judge him or his new QB.  Going into 2019 and 2020 with Dalton and Green puts him in immediate "win now" mode .

[Hoofhearted]

(04-22-2019, 02:39 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Id argue getting a QB gives ZT at least 2 or 3 free years where we can't judge him or his new QB.  Going into 2019 and 2020 with Dalton and Green puts him in immediate "win now" mode .

Yep. I can't wait to see what happens after this year. If they go 6-10-ish again, do they fully commit to a rebuild? Taking a QB at 11 this year signals that they're not quite sure if they want to rebuild or compete, and if they do go below .500, they've already got their QB and just need to fill in other pieces. 

[depthchart]

(04-22-2019, 02:49 PM)Hoofhearted Wrote: Yep. I can't wait to see what happens after this year. If they go 6-10-ish again, do they fully commit to a rebuild? Taking a QB at 11 this year signals that they're not quite sure if they want to rebuild or compete, and if they do go below .500, they've already got their QB and just need to fill in other pieces. 

At the end of the day, they are just using one draft pick on the QB.  (albeit the 1st round pick)

Not sure it has to signal a rebuild.

Could use Dalton for one more year then get a pick or picks for him in a trade in 2020 to make some draft capital back.

Likely not one player away in 2019 anyway, so using one pick on a QB of the future like Haskins that falls into their lap at pick #11 may not make or break 2019.

If the team and Dalton perform well in 2019 then Dalton's trade value will be higher & the young QB inherits a winning team in 2020 or could sit another year.

If the team and Dalton flounder in 2019 then Dalton could still have a trade value somewhat similar to what he has now but the young QB is already in place before the 2020 draft.

[fredtoast]

(04-22-2019, 03:01 PM)depthchart Wrote: If the team and Dalton perform well in 2019 then Dalton's trade value will be higher & the young QB inherits a winning team in 2020 or could sit another year.

If Dalton performs well then why in the hell would you take a chance on replacing him with a guy who could be a complete bust?  


That would just mean that we wasted a first round pick because QB was not a need.

[depthchart]

(04-22-2019, 03:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If Dalton performs well then why in the hell would you take a chance on replacing him with a guy who could be a complete bust?  


That would just mean that we wasted a first round pick because QB was not a need.

The Bengals would have Haskins for 5 years.

He could sit a 2nd year if Dalton excels -or- Dalton could be traded for ALOT had he excelled -or- Haskins would retain a good deal of trade value.

Dalton could perform well (as Alex Smith did in KC) yet Haskins could show signs that he could be better (as Patrick Mahommes did in KC)

Then there are the Salary cap implications of Dalton performing well versus having Haskins on a rookie deal.

Hardly a waste to have contingency options at the QB position....

[fredtoast]

(04-22-2019, 03:36 PM)depthchart Wrote: Hardly a waste to have contingency options at the QB position....

Using a first round pick on a back up QB is a waste.

What if we use the #11 pick to draft a RB to sit behind Mixon?  Would you be fine with that?

[fredtoast]

(04-22-2019, 03:36 PM)depthchart Wrote: Dalton could perform well (as Alex Smith did in KC) yet Haskins could show signs that he could be better (as Patrick Mahommes did in KC)

Or we could just draft a QB in the sixth round (as NE did with Brady).

I mean if something works out once every twenty years or so that is the best way to do it, right?

[depthchart]

(04-22-2019, 03:45 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Or we could just draft a QB in the sixth round (as NE did with Brady).

I mean if something works out once every twenty years or so that is the best way to do it, right?

The Rodgers/Favre draft occurred 13 years ago, Fred.  (and Dalton is no Brett Favre)

Mahommes/Alex Smith 2 drafts ago. (Smith playing near an MVP level the year before the Mahommes draft)

In your mind, it would be an absolute negative to pull the trigger on say Haskins at #11. All risk and no reward to Fred.

It can be a risk to take Haskins or a risk to let him slip by to another team say in the AFC. Knife can cut both ways. 

I see risk from all angles, including the possibility that Dalton does not excel which hasn't crossed your mind.

Any move made invokes risk - including taking say a Linebacker at pick #11 or a D-end because they could possibly bust.

Pretending that your way would have no risk yet other ways are risk pitfalls doesn't stack up.

The NFL is QB driven, so pulling the trigger on a top prospect with Dalton still at the helm is not a guaranteed death sentence for the team.

In reality, it creates options to lock up a guy like Haskins for 5 years with one pick, especially as NFL QB salaries escalate.

[grampahol]

You all are forgetting about the Bengals always great plans to draft a guy to sit in the trainers room the first few years after ripping an ACL his last year in college because that always works out for the best. It gives em time to realize their dreams of washing out of the league by his 4th or 5th season or sign with a team with no plans to actually use him for anything other than a warm body on the bench during those cold games.
Kind of makes me wonder if they only want guys with previous injury histories in college as a way to judge whether they can play hurt or not..

[fredtoast]

(04-22-2019, 04:13 PM)depthchart Wrote: Any move made invokes risk - including taking say a Linebacker at pick #11 or a D-end because they could possibly bust.

Pretending that your way would have no risk yet other ways are risk pitfalls doesn't stack up.

I never said anything about "my way" not having any risk.  All I have said is that we should not use our first round pick on a QB because QB is not a need right now.

You can spin this any wild way you want, but the fact is that is the way most NFL teams do business.  The fact that you can only point to two examples in the last 20 years proves my point.  There have been more undrafted QBs make the Pro Bowl than that.  So why not just sign an undrafted free agent to be our next QB.  Look at how well it worked out with Kurt Warner and Tony Romo.

[depthchart]

(04-22-2019, 04:38 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I never said anything about "my way" not having any risk.  All I have said is that we should not use our first round pick on a QB because QB is not a need right now.

You can spin this any wild way you want, but the fact is that is the way most NFL teams do business.  The fact that you can only point to two examples in the last 20 years proves my point.  There have been more undrafted QBs make the Pro Bowl than that.  So why not just sign an undrafted free agent to be our next QB.  Look at how well it worked out with Kurt Warner and Tony Romo.

Two examples in the last 13 years, Fred, and those were off the top of my head.

All I have said is that there can be potential advantages to drafting a QB in the first round (as well as disadvantages)

You want to eliminate a whole range of potential positive possibilities by claiming that NOT drafting a QB in round one is the only way to go.

Then you claim that History proves that drafting Haskins has no chance of a positive outcome which makes Fred look silly.

I simply showed the other side of the coin that you want hidden, while you claim that the coin can only be one sided.

[fredtoast]

(04-22-2019, 05:27 PM)depthchart Wrote: Then you claim that History proves that drafting Haskins has no chance of a positive outcome which makes Fred look silly.

This is just a lie you are using to build a strawman.  If you want to debate me please reply to what I actually say instead of making up stuff that is easy to discredit.


It is possible that a QB taken at #11 would outplay Dalton.  Just like it is possible that a RB taken at #11 could outplay Mixon.  But I think taking a QB or a RB this year would be a waste because neither is a big need for us.

[*Nately120*]

(04-22-2019, 05:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is just a lie you are using to build a strawman.  If you want to debate me please reply to what I actually say instead of making up stuff that is easy to discredit.


It is possible that a QB taken at #11 would outplay Dalton.  Just like it is possible that a RB taken at #11 could outplay Mixon.  But I think taking a QB or a RB this year would be a waste because neither is a big need for us.

QB is only a need for us when our starter demands a trade, though.  I don't see Dalton demanding a trade like Boomer or Palmer so we may not see QB be our #1 priority until Dalton nears his 40s.

Dalton is good enough to stay out of the last place spot for another 5+ years, barring a freak injury.

[HuDey]

(04-22-2019, 07:22 PM)Nately120 Wrote: QB is only a need for us when our starter demands a trade, though.  I don't see Dalton demanding a trade like Boomer or Palmer so we may not see QB be our #1 priority until Dalton nears his 40s.

Dalton is good enough to stay out of the last place spot for another 5+ years, barring a freak injury.

And just like that, Andy Dalton got a 10 year contract extension from the Cincinnati Bengals.

[HuDey]

To the OP, I wouldn’t rule out them pulling the trigger on a QB in round 1, though history tells me it is not very likely. I would be more surprised if that happened than if they extended Dalton for 3+ years.