Reuben Foster out of combine for shoulder surgery

[Jpoore]

(02-15-2017, 07:57 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: McMillan is currently projected as an early 2nd. I would prefer the route of grabbing a good DE at 9 (Allen, Thomas, Taco) and McMillan in the 2nd.

See I don't wanna reach though. Perfectly happy with trading down to 16,17 getting another second rounder. If the top defensive ends are gone getting lb and defensive end in second.

[Hammerstripes]

(02-15-2017, 10:01 AM)Au165 Wrote: Actually it's the LOLB that normally comes off the field when teams are in passing situation. The ROLB and MLB for most teams stay on the field because they are your most athletic linebackers. It's the MLB of value we are missing, not the LOLB. In Seattle however they run their base personnel in 3 wide sets, normally only changing for four wide sets, they do similar things in Atlanata. We could get away with it too with the right MLB because we don't run man coverage all that often. Your not going to man up a LB on a slot WR, but in zone you can do it with success.

Not in Cincy.  Maualuga is listed as the starting MLB on the depth chart, and he's rarely on the field.

I'm telling you, I would be shocked if the Bengals take a MLB in the first few rounds (or any LB).  They like Vigil too much.  

[Yojimbo]

(02-15-2017, 10:23 PM)Jpoore Wrote: See I don't wanna reach though. Perfectly happy with trading down to 16,17 getting another second rounder. If the top defensive ends are gone getting lb and defensive end in second.

I no longer believe in the word "reach" when it comes to the draft. Nobody...nobody has any idea what these prospects futures will be. The team does their research and ranks their players and they can take them anywhere they want and it's not a reach. It's educated guessing. Some DE taken in the 5th round this year might turn out a HOFer.

[Au165]

(02-15-2017, 10:57 PM)Hammerstripes Wrote: Not in Cincy.  Maualuga is listed as the starting MLB on the depth chart, and he's rarely on the field.

I'm telling you, I would be shocked if the Bengals take a MLB in the first few rounds (or any LB).  They like Vigil too much.  

That's an indictment of his talent not some overarching philosophy. Early in his career he did stay on the field and it was horrible.

[treee]

(02-16-2017, 09:39 AM)Au165 Wrote: That's an indictment of his talent not some overarching philosophy. Early in his career he did stay on the field and it was horrible.

There was a couple year span there where he was one of the better run stopping LBs in the league but he has always left a lot to be desired in coverage. Now that he has aged quite a bit he's not the thumper he used to be and he's still not great in coverage. We definitely gotta upgrade at MLB if he can't stay healthy.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

All early mocks have him going to us.....like the OP, I'm a little concerned with that.

[Sled21]

(02-16-2017, 10:40 AM)Wyche Wrote: All early mocks have him going to us.....like the OP, I'm a little concerned with that.

Who, Foster? I kind of like the idea of giving Burfict Foster and Vigil (if he ever gets up to speed with the game). That LB line will be fast and hard hitting. The shoulder surgery really does not concern me, it's a lot less severe nowadays than in the past.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(02-16-2017, 05:29 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Who, Foster? I kind of like the idea of giving Burfict Foster  and Vigil  (if he ever gets up to speed with the game). That LB line will be fast and hard hitting. The shoulder surgery really does not concern me, it's a lot less severe nowadays than in the past.

Yeah, I love the idea, but concerned over the shoulder.  Do we draft another guy to potentially ride the pine with an injury for a year?  If he comes in unscathed, I'm all for it.  That would be great to have a LB like him.

[TKUHL]

And the slide begins for him to land on a team thats not us in the AFCN. Can Marvin just for once draft a quality LB..Burfict does not count. I want a LB that can get to the QB and cover. I know we have had bad luck in the past, Rivers, Thurman etc. was my favorite LB picked by Marvin and I think he would have been one of the best in the league but we know how that went. I would love to see this D get better down the middle ILB, S also a DE that I think should be a priority. We get picked apart too much up the middle, always have.

[TKUHL]

(02-15-2017, 10:23 PM)Jpoore Wrote: See I don't wanna reach though. Perfectly happy with trading down to 16,17 getting another second rounder. If the top defensive ends are gone getting lb and defensive end in second.

I think thats our best case. Hope we find a team willing to trade up to our spot. There will still be quality players on the board. If Barnett is still there take him then maybe Reddick in the 2nd if he's there.

[*ochocincos*]

(02-16-2017, 10:40 AM)Wyche Wrote: All early mocks have him going to us.....like the OP, I'm a little concerned with that.

I've actually seen two mocks now (Kiper and Chad Reuter on nfl.com) that have the Bengals actually going with Taco Charlton. He's got ideal DE measurements for what the Bengals prefer, he had a much improved senior season (finally clicked?), and was coached for a former NFL head coach in Harbaugh. This selection is making more and more sense, plus he could not be such a reach if he has a good combine.

[Au165]

(02-17-2017, 02:12 PM)ochocincos Wrote: I've actually seen two mocks now (Kiper and Chad Reuter on nfl.com) that have the Bengals actually going with Taco Charlton. He's got ideal DE measurements for what the Bengals prefer, he had a much improved senior season (finally clicked?), and was coached for a former NFL head coach in Harbaugh. This selection is making more and more sense, plus he could not be such a reach if he has a good combine.

I have been big on Charlton for few months now and have made it known, but I thought he could be had in the 2nd. It appears many people are becoming higher on him as we go on. I am okay with taking him in the 1st, even in the top 10, as I have compared him throughout the process to Dunlap. If you could draft Carlos Dunlap with our top 10 pick, would you? I think most teams would.

The whole reach thing is a bit over done. If you like a guy you get them at the latest possible point where you think you can get him without risking losing him. Based on the press Charlton has gotten, it doesn't seem like we could get him much later than 9, so if he is your guy go get him. Obviously, the debate over is someone else better at 9 with a suitable replacement in the 2nd, but that is different than the reach argument.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(02-17-2017, 02:12 PM)ochocincos Wrote: I've actually seen two mocks now (Kiper and Chad Reuter on nfl.com) that have the Bengals actually going with Taco Charlton. He's got ideal DE measurements for what the Bengals prefer, he had a much improved senior season (finally clicked?), and was coached for a former NFL head coach in Harbaugh. This selection is making more and more sense, plus he could not be such a reach if he has a good combine.

I hadn't seen those.  I'd be good with that pick as well.  Thanks for the info. :andy:

[3wt]

(02-16-2017, 10:40 AM)Wyche Wrote: All early mocks have him going to us.....like the OP, I'm a little concerned with that.

I doubt the Bengals draft him if he's there.  LB is not a priority for them, Edge rusher is.  With the injury they wouldn't take him if they had considered it.

I'd be very happy with him at 9 though.   The guy is a really good LB.  He diagnoses well, penetrates instantly, sheds and hits like a tank.  He's one of those guys that is an impact player.   That's what I want at nine. 

What I don't want is a questionable edge rusher who never impacts.  We've drafted a lot of DEs in the first that did not impact.  There are enough players in the top 10 who will impact.  I don't care if it's a RB, WR, DE, S or LB.  Just get a bona fide impact player and don't diddle with a player with "upside"

[Whatever]

(02-17-2017, 04:51 PM)3wt Wrote: I doubt the Bengals draft him if he's there.  LB is not a priority for them, Edge rusher is.  With the injury they wouldn't take him if they had considered it.

I'd be very happy with him at 9 though.   The guy is a really good LB.  He diagnoses well, penetrates instantly, sheds and hits like a tank.  He's one of those guys that is an impact player.   That's what I want at nine. 

What I don't want is a questionable edge rusher who never impacts.  We've drafted a lot of DEs in the first that did not impact.  There are enough players in the top 10 who will impact.  I don't care if it's a RB, WR, DE, S or LB.  Just get a bona fide impact player and don't diddle with a player with "upside"

I can't think of a lot of DE's they've drafted in the first, period.  Pollack was DE in college they took to play LB.  He would be it in the Marvin era, unless you want to go back to Justin Smith and Alfred Williams.

As far as impact, as I posted in another thread, look at Foster's college stats.  7 sacks, 0 Interceptions, 0 Forced Fumbles, and 0 Fumble Recoveries.  I would expect a lot more big plays out of a LB that we would consider at 9.

[Sled21]

(02-16-2017, 06:21 PM)Wyche Wrote: Yeah, I love the idea, but concerned over the shoulder.  Do we draft another guy to potentially ride the pine with an injury for a year?  If he comes in unscathed, I'm all for it.  That would be great to have a LB like him.

I tell you, the more I watch video of Foster, the less concerned I am about his shoulder and the more concerned I am with him leading with his head. We don't need Burfict and Foster riding the pine in protocol. At this point I'm starting to wonder if Vince Biegel would not be a safer pick....

[blt4584]

(02-17-2017, 08:04 PM)Whatever Wrote: I can't think of a lot of DE's they've drafted in the first, period.  Pollack was DE in college they took to play LB.  He would be it in the Marvin era, unless you want to go back to Justin Smith and Alfred Williams.

As far as impact, as I posted in another thread, look at Foster's college stats.  7 sacks, 0 Interceptions, 0 Forced Fumbles, and 0 Fumble Recoveries.  I would expect a lot more big plays out of a LB that we would consider at 9.

I wouldn't be too concerned with sack numbers for an ILB. If anything, 7 isn't too shabby.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(02-20-2017, 03:38 PM)Sled21 Wrote: I tell you, the more I watch video of Foster, the less concerned I am about his shoulder and the more concerned I am with him leading with his head. We don't need Burfict and Foster riding the pine in protocol. At this point I'm starting to wonder if Vince Biegel would not be a safer pick....

Hmmmmm, I hadn't really paid attention to that.  You're right, we don't need more of that.