01-02-2019, 04:49 PM
(01-02-2019, 04:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The obvious point that was missed is all those teams "had" to trade up because they needed a QB.; so share your list with those who want to wait until we "need" a QB I used KC as an example similar to our current situation. But if we want to play the trade up for a bust game I'm willing to play. You guys just let me know what position is bust-proof.
Used to be trading up for a QB came with the increased burden of his Rookie salary; that's no longer the issue.
The Chiefs made a bold move, and it paid off. However, with the roster they had, they could afford to take a chance like that. Whereas with the Bengals current situation, they have tremendous need for fundamental players like blockers and tacklers. Sure, it would be great to secure the next franchise QB, while we still have a perfectly good one under contract. But the reality is that the Bengals gave up the most points in the NFL this season, and the OL had trouble sustaining blocks so much that our QBs frequently had to make a habit of dumping the ball in 2 seconds or less.
Volson is meh, but I like him, and he has far exceeded my expectations
-Frank Booth 1/9/23