John Ross

[*ochocincos*]

(02-25-2018, 03:58 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: To bolded:  Rightfully so, don't you think?  With all of the needs that the Bengals had, they chose to select a small, frail built guy with a history of injuries?  A player like John Ross should have been a luxury addition to an already well stocked team.

Let's face it, the Bengals haven't been picking very well in recent years.  Dre K, slow to develop.  Dennard, injuries have slowed development.  WJ3, lost a season to injury.  Oguehi and Fisher, freakin' train wreck.  Tyler Boyd, very slow to develop.  Tyler Eifert, fantastic player that can't stay on the field.  Now, add John Ross to the lengthy list of early selections that did nothing in their 1st season.  

Is it any wonder that fans might be quick to write off John Ross?  Our scouting department appears to be doing a terrible job, the past 5 years, and our management doesn't believe in utilizing free agency much.

What is a "player like John Ross"? Do you mean a player with injury history? Or a good WR?
Because I think we can all agree the Bengals needed a good WR to go along with AJ and Eifert. Based on Ross's tape and speed, he had Pro Bowl potential. The selection made sense. Especially given Williams and Davis were already off the board by #9.

In hindsight though, based on their rookie seasons, the better first three rounds would have been Barnett, Smith-Schuster (although I would have disliked him if he acted the same way he acts now as a Steeler), and Hunt rather than Ross, Mixon, and Willis.

And I don't fully agree that all those players you list were slow to develop. I think Alexander fell in love with Ogbuehi's measurables and ignored other traits, which was a bad move. Fisher maybe the same, but I feel like we have to give him another chance now that he's cleared to return from his heart issue. Boyd looked good as a rookie and I think his reduced role had more to do with his approach/attitude in Year 2 rather than his ability. Kirkpatrick had Jones, Hall, and Newman ahead of him, which didn't allow for much of a chance to see the field.

You and I both know the Bengals never rely on the draft to get immediate starters as rookies anyway, and I think that's what this really boils down to. They look to get those young guys reps over time and hopefully become a quality contributor at minimum by Year 3. Unfortunately, it results in losing cheap years on rookie contracts, but I still liked the picks they made.

The fans see gaps and want them filled with rookies that can hit the ground running from Day 1 and be solid at minimum. Instead, we see the Bengals trot out mediocre vets and play them over young players and we see poor results. It leaves us wondering two things...either 1) the Bengals are being stubborn not letting the young guys play, or 2) the young guys aren't as good as we thought they were.

Personally, I think it's a mix of both because Mike, Marvin, and the rest of the org has a level of trust that must be met before a player sees the field. Until a player builds that trust, we'll see them sit the bench.