Wasn't a fan. With draft grades!

[Luvnit2]

(04-30-2017, 10:25 PM)Beaker Wrote: I gave the draft much higher grades than you because I believe that selecting the BPA is a much better draft philosophy than chasing needs. The Bengals chased needs in the draft all through the 90s. It was only when we changed our draft philosophy that the Bengals became a perennial contender.

Chasing needs tends = over reaching and bad picks. This draft is a great example. Why would we draft an OL with pick #9 of the draft when best OL available was not until the 20's so it would have been a huge over reach and bad pick.

Yes, the OL is still a concern for me and many, but we still have FA to add a vet to backup Ced and Fisher if the team feels there is a weakness. I would argue a vet would be better short term in 2017 versus adding a rookie not ready to start or contribute immediately. I did not see the experts giving much love for any OT being a plug and play in 2017.