Wasn't a fan. With draft grades!

[Benton]

(05-01-2017, 10:33 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: 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.

(05-01-2017, 10:39 AM)Au165 Wrote: People keep saying O line is a need, but here is my issue with that. Unless you were at practice and know how good Redmond or Westerman or Johnson are then how do you know it's a need? No tackle in this draft was coming in this year and giving us more than Ced or Fisher, worst case we kick Winston or Andre out. If we take an interior O lineman in the 3rd or 4th, what makes you think they are better than Westerman? Just grabbing them for the sake doesn't make them competition, they are competition if the coaches think they could be better.

You can't demand we draft mid round guys for competition every year, but when they finally get a chance to start demand we draft more guys of the same ilk. Maybe we were okay letting Zeitler walk because we knew we had serviceable guys behind him. It just seems weird people are so convinced that there is no way we could have serviceable guys behind our starters on the line.

Sweet sassafras. I don't get the offensive line comments.

I've been a vocal minority for months saying we shouldn't pick OL. I'm glad we didn't pick OL. As I've been saying, no one we pick on OL this year would've stepped in and helped anyway. Aside from that, our OL should be better just by the fact that they've had more time to play together.

There's maybe one guy in the draft that could've competed for an OL spot in a couple years. I was OK with not going OL, but I wouldn't have been upset with one or two of those guys either if we had addressed the thing I've been complaining about for years....

The defensive line.

(05-01-2017, 11:04 AM)BenZoo2 Wrote: Well the bengals couldn't address every (perceived?) need in this draft.  They bypassed taking players from a weak area to draft other players they think are capable NFL players.  When aj went down the offense lacked dynamic playmakers.  We upgraded in that area.  D line was just as big an area that needed improving.    

Next year we can address o line if and where we need to.  We can address lb, secondary also.  Barring injury replacements we should be in good shape next year to fill in our needs.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would disagree with the bold.

This was a strong defensive class. We bypassed that and went offense early, taking a guy that's got plenty of good competition and a guy that is going to depend on how well the OL improves. I like Mixon as a back, but if we don't get some consistency on the line, he's not doing much better than Hill.

And, again, I'm not sure why everyone is focusing on OL here...