Signs that Next Year will see more talent depart

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(03-18-2017, 01:23 AM)BengalChris Wrote: Hobspin posts a second mock draft http://www.bengals.com/news/article-1/Mock-9-features-sound-prospects/e5532e73-7e64-4dbc-8313-2ad3a5204bdf and in this one Hobspin has the Bengals taking TE O.J. Howard with the #9 pick.

What's most interesting is that in the previous mock Hobspin had the Bengals taking DE Derek Barnett, considered one of the top pass rushers in the draft.

In this new mock draft Barnett is still available at 9 but Hobspin has the Bengals taking TE instead.

So, my question is, what does this say about the Bengals intentions on keeping Eifert?

Draft this year to replace the star they're going to say goodbye to next year. While I have no problem with the Bengals drafting with the idea of replacing players, but lately their replacement picks haven't been nearly as good as the guys they are slated to replace. This is the first mock I've seen where OJ Howard is a top ten pick and, in fact, one can find a number of mocks with Howard going in the bottom third of the 1st round.

This is not drafting the BPA in the early rounds, but is drafting by position more to gain leverage in negotiations than for talent. The odd part is that it really doesn't give the team much leverage because other teams are going to pay the value they perceive the player is worth and the Bengals are simply removing themselves from the talks. They could have signed Zeitler last year to $9M per year and had him for the next 5 years at that price. Instead they low balled him last year and when he said no they drafted Westerman and didn't bother to offer Zeitler a deal this year.

We'll also be drafting a RB this year, so say goodbye to Hill.

Of course, we'll extend Bodine at a below market price. Just wait and see.

The result is an organization that is circling the drain.

If Barnett is there we should definately take him over Howard but if Barnett is gone i would not dislike the pick as
long as we start to work on the OL in the second round. Eifert is just injured far too often and this would give us
some insurance and would improve the passing game adding another weapon like this. Howard can also block in
the run game.

There are lots of ways to go with the first pick, after the first pick is when we need to prioritize cause of how we
let Whitworth go. We need a pass rusher the most though at 9, but if the top 3 are gone we shouldn't reach for a
guy like Taco.

[skycruiser]

Has Hobson's Mock ever correctly picked our 1st rounder? It feels like it's our cheap way of throwing out a distraction

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(03-20-2017, 03:32 PM)skycruiser Wrote: Has Hobson's Mock ever correctly picked our 1st rounder? It feels like it's our cheap way of throwing out a distraction

I don't know but listen to Lapham leading up to the draft, he has nailed it numerous times.

[BengalChris]

(03-18-2017, 05:45 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Dave Lapham didn't "pick" anyone.  He merely predicted who the Bengals would select, and happened to be correct.  It's pretty simple, really.  Just follow the clues that the team slowly lets out, via Hobson, and start connecting dots with who is available at that position, when they are scheduled to pick.

The conversation was about who predicted Eifert in their mock, not who actually made the choice at draft time.

[BengalChris]

After looking at data on Howard I don't think he would be a bad choice, if the highly rated pass rushers are all off the board. But in Hobspin's scenario we pass on a very good pass rusher for a TE.

Given that we don't do what NE does and utilize two TE sets effectively, the only reason to select Howard would be let Eifert walk next off season. This, of course, only improves the team if Howard turns out to be better than Eifert.

We selected Ogbuehi simply so we could let Whitworth walk and he did, but we selected the wrong OT.

High round picks, particularly a 1st round picks, should be the BPA. Otherwise the team is just letting talent go to someone else. There are numerous examples of this by Mikey Brown. We took Gresham when Dez Bryant was on the board, took Akili Smith (one year wonder) in front of numerous higher qualified players, took Bernard over LeVon Bell and Eddy Lacy. We took two OTs in 2015 to let two go, but after two years neither has been an effective starter.

I'm not sure this is the best strategy.

[Atomic Orange]

I'd trade Eifert right now for more picks.

[SunsetBengal]

Signs that next year, We'll see more talent leave?  Not sure that I am following that vibe.  If anything, the Bengals are continuing to build.  Building is a constant process, sometimes you let go of pieces, in order to pick up new pieces.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(03-20-2017, 10:08 PM)BengalChris Wrote: After looking at data on Howard I don't think he would be a bad choice, if the highly rated pass rushers are all off the board. But in Hobspin's scenario we pass on a very good pass rusher for a TE.

Given that we don't do what NE does and utilize two TE sets effectively, the only reason to select Howard would be let Eifert walk next off season. This, of course, only improves the team if Howard turns out to be better than Eifert.

We selected Ogbuehi simply so we could let Whitworth walk and he did, but we selected the wrong OT.

High round picks, particularly a 1st round picks, should be the BPA. Otherwise the team is just letting talent go to someone else. There are numerous examples of this by Mikey Brown. We took Gresham when Dez Bryant was on the board, took Akili Smith (one year wonder) in front of numerous higher qualified players, took Bernard over LeVon Bell and Eddy Lacy. We took two OTs in 2015 to let two go, but after two years neither has been an effective starter.

I'm not sure this is the best strategy.

Agree with all of this here Chris. If the pass rusher Barnett is there you take him over a talented TE.

We have a couple talented TE's already in Eifert and Uzomah and we need to get after the QB opposite Dunlap.

Plus like you said, if the aim was to go two TE set it might be a good plan but we have been bad at using this set in the past
even with talented TE's. From history it is hard to have faith in these coaches on Offense implementing this strategy.

Unlike on Defense where we have had good D-line play in the past at End.

[XenoMorph]

(03-18-2017, 01:23 AM)BengalChris Wrote: Hobspin posts a second mock draft http://www.bengals.com/news/article-1/Mock-9-features-sound-prospects/e5532e73-7e64-4dbc-8313-2ad3a5204bdf and in this one Hobspin has the Bengals taking TE O.J. Howard with the #9 pick.

What's most interesting is that in the previous mock Hobspin had the Bengals taking DE Derek Barnett, considered one of the top pass rushers in the draft.

In this new mock draft Barnett is still available at 9 but Hobspin has the Bengals taking TE instead.

So, my question is, what does this say about the Bengals intentions on keeping Eifert?

Draft this year to replace the star they're going to say goodbye to next year. While I have no problem with the Bengals drafting with the idea of replacing players, but lately their replacement picks haven't been nearly as good as the guys they are slated to replace. This is the first mock I've seen where OJ Howard is a top ten pick and, in fact, one can find a number of mocks with Howard going in the bottom third of the 1st round.

This is not drafting the BPA in the early rounds, but is drafting by position more to gain leverage in negotiations than for talent. The odd part is that it really doesn't give the team much leverage because other teams are going to pay the value they perceive the player is worth and the Bengals are simply removing themselves from the talks. They could have signed Zeitler last year to $9M per year and had him for the next 5 years at that price. Instead they low balled him last year and when he said no they drafted Westerman and didn't bother to offer Zeitler a deal this year.

We'll also be drafting a RB this year, so say goodbye to Hill.

Of course, we'll extend Bodine at a below market price. Just wait and see.

The result is an organization that is circling the drain.

Well really are you gonna ***** if they let eifert go  your probly gonna ***** if they resign him due to his injury history too...

Which way do you want it?

Drafting is planning or preparing for the future.  If they draft a TE to cover their ass incase they cant resign eifert. Then its a smart move  its not a sign they are just gonna wave bye to eifert with only 1 figure raised.

You keep building depth in the draft so in the event someone is hurt (eifert is often so more TEs might be needed) or they leave you have a replacement already in the system ready to go.

[TKUHL]

(03-20-2017, 10:08 PM)BengalChris Wrote: After looking at data on Howard I don't think he would be a bad choice, if the highly rated pass rushers are all off the board. But in Hobspin's scenario we pass on a very good pass rusher for a TE.

Given that we don't do what NE does and utilize two TE sets effectively, the only reason to select Howard would be let Eifert walk next off season. This, of course, only improves the team if Howard turns out to be better than Eifert.

We selected Ogbuehi simply so we could let Whitworth walk and he did, but we selected the wrong OT.

High round picks, particularly a 1st round picks, should be the BPA. Otherwise the team is just letting talent go to someone else. There are numerous examples of this by Mikey Brown. We took Gresham when Dez Bryant was on the board, took Akili Smith (one year wonder) in front of numerous higher qualified players, took Bernard over LeVon Bell and Eddy Lacy. We took two OTs in 2015 to let two go, but after two years neither has been an effective starter.

I'm not sure this is the best strategy.

Not to mention the 9 damn picks we passed up on. All the Saints picks in 99, and their 1st in 2000 1st in 2001 and 2nd in 2002. OMG still makes me mad. Its not like Akili was the first QB taken in the draft, he was 3rd. So at least two other teams saw flaws in him. Way to turn down what will be the best draft day trade offer in Bengal history. Nice Job Mikey.

[fredtoast]

(03-21-2017, 09:03 PM)TKUHL Wrote: Not to mention the 9 damn picks we passed up on. All the Saints picks in 99, and their 1st in 2000 1st in 2001 and 2nd in 2002. OMG still makes me mad. Its not like Akili was the first QB taken in the draft, he was 3rd. So at least two other teams saw flaws in him. Way to turn down what will be the best draft day trade offer in Bengal history. Nice Job Mikey.

Just get over it man.  That was almost 20 years ago.

Plus the Redskins took the deal, and they were not able to rebuild their entire roster with all the picks they got (1999...6 picks, no 2nd.  2000...1st and 3rd)  They started 2 rookie picks in '99 and won 10 games, but they did not have a winning record again until 6 years later. The amazing part is that the Redskins got that for the FIFTH pick in the draft.  The Bengals were offered much more (3 firsts '99-'01, a second '02, and the remaining 5 picks of the 99 draft) for the THIRD pick.  But there is no guarantee that they would have used the picks wisely.

While it is true that a franchise QB can make more difference and have a bigger impact than any other player, that '99 team was WAY more than a QB away from contending.  In '98 they were 3-13, and out of 30 teams ranked 27th in scoring and dead last (30th) in points allowed. They had big holes all over the place.  But they were desperate for a QB.

[grampahol]

I'm ok with Howard @ 9 , but I'm not really sold on the notion that ONLY first round players will be THE playmakers or bust. Plenty of 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th rounders make plays and become starters as well as undrafted players so to me I don't care which round who is drafted from as long as they can make an impact to help the team.  

[bambino5130]

This thread really got me thinking. I don't think the Bengals have drafted for a position of need or BPA in the first rounds since Jermaine Gresham. Instead, it has only been picks for insurance of upcoming Free Agents. This might be why I have been questioning every pick with the exceptions of Green & Zietler since. I could also argue those same 2nd round picks. I am thinking more of the same this year. If they draft OJ at TE, they have no intention of resigning Eifert, or with Foster at 9, no interest in resigning Burfict. Maybe they look at at DE or DT, not to replace Peko or MJ, but as insurance for not resigning Atkins or Dunlap. God I hate this cheap a$$ Front Office. I hope I am wrong & the Bengals draft pick makes sense this year, & maybe the Bengals will get a practice bubble instead of embarrassingly using UCs facilities, or maybe someday replace the smallest video scoreboards in the league.......

Past 1st Rd Insurance picks
WJ3 for Kirkpatrick
Cedric for Whit
Dennard for Jones
Eifert for Gresham
Kirkpatrick for Hall
Zietler for Livings
Green for Ocho/Owens

[TKUHL]

(03-21-2017, 09:03 PM)TKUHL Wrote: Not to mention the 9 damn picks we passed up on. All the Saints picks in 99, and their 1st in 2000 1st in 2001 and 2nd in 2002. OMG still makes me mad. Its not like Akili was the first QB taken in the draft, he was 3rd. So at least two other teams saw flaws in him. Way to turn down what will be the best draft day trade offer in Bengal history. Nice Job Mikey.

(03-21-2017, 11:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Just get over it man.  That was almost 20 years ago.

Plus the Redskins took the deal, and they were not able to rebuild their entire roster with all the picks they got (1999...6 picks, no 2nd.  2000...1st and 3rd)  They started 2 rookie picks in '99 and won 10 games, but they did not have a winning record again until 6 years later. The amazing part is that the Redskins got that for the FIFTH pick in the draft.  The Bengals were offered much more (3 firsts '99-'01, a second '02, and the remaining 5 picks of the 99 draft) for the THIRD pick.  But there is no guarantee that they would have used the picks wisely.

While it is true that a franchise QB can make more difference and have a bigger impact than any other player, that '99 team was WAY more than a QB away from contending.  In '98 they were 3-13, and out of 30 teams ranked 27th in scoring and dead last (30th) in points allowed. They had big holes all over the place.  But they were desperate for a QB.

Thats exactly what I said, and yes it still makes me mad. Like you said yourself, that team was far from just needing a QB yet that was MB logic. There is no guarantee they wouldnt use them wisely either. They more than likely would have screwed it up but thats not the point. Its the MB hard headed approach to reject an offer that could have greatly benefited the team if he would have just gave it a chance. Makes ya wonder what else MB has rejected and denied over the years other than just the fans.

[wolfkaosaun]

(03-20-2017, 11:18 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Signs that next year, We'll see more talent leave?  Not sure that I am following that vibe.  If anything, the Bengals are continuing to build.  Building is a constant process, sometimes you let go of pieces, in order to pick up new pieces.

No one has ever said the Bengals aren't building. People question whether they're being smart with their building.

And yes, sometimes you let go of pieces. But when you keep certain pieces that are very bad and offer little to nothing, you are going to get criticized.

[fredtoast]

(03-22-2017, 01:25 AM)wolfkaosaun Wrote: And yes, sometimes you let go of pieces. But when you keep certain pieces that are very bad and offer little to nothing, you are going to get criticized.

But oftentimes the players that people here call "very bad" are not bad at all.

For example how many people here were claiming that the fact that the Bengals never cut Peko was "proof" that the Bengals "did not want to win"?  Then the Broncos, who are praised around here as a team that wants to win, agreed to sign him and pay him MORE than the Bengals were.

Too many people around here hate on Bengal players just because they are Bengals.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(03-22-2017, 01:25 AM)wolfkaosaun Wrote: No one has ever said the Bengals aren't building. People question whether they're being smart with their building.

And yes, sometimes you let go of pieces. But when you keep certain pieces that are very bad and offer little to nothing, you are going to get criticized.

Spot on Wolf.

(03-22-2017, 08:57 AM)fredtoast Wrote: But oftentimes the players that people here call "very bad" are not bad at all.

For example how many people here were claiming that the fact that the Bengals never cut Peko was "proof" that the Bengals "did not want to win"?  Then the Broncos, who are praised around here as a team that wants to win, agreed to sign him and pay him MORE than the Bengals were.

Too many people around here hate on Bengal players just because they are Bengals.

The Broncos messed up as almost all teams do at times. Just like when the Cowboys paid Nasty Nate Livings big money.

Why is Maualuga still here after last season and just signing Minter? Hopefully he is gone soon and i will have more confidence.

Bodine is "very bad" Fred and we have not even seen a hint of trying to upgrade Center. PA even called it a witch hunt.

We just want the team to address the weak spots, that is all and it is not asking much...

[wolfkaosaun]

(03-22-2017, 08:57 AM)fredtoast Wrote: But oftentimes the players that people here call "very bad" are not bad at all.

For example how many people here were claiming that the fact that the Bengals never cut Peko was "proof" that the Bengals "did not want to win"?  Then the Broncos, who are praised around here as a team that wants to win, agreed to sign him and pay him MORE than the Bengals were.

Too many people around here hate on Bengal players just because they are Bengals.

Just because Peko was signed and got money doesn't mean it was a good signing. Last year was the worst year of his career.

People are clamoring for Maualuga to be replaced. And yet he's still here.

[BengalChris]

(03-22-2017, 12:13 AM)bambino5130 Wrote: This thread really got me thinking. I don't think the Bengals have drafted for a position of need or BPA in the first rounds  since Jermaine Gresham. Instead, it has only been picks for insurance of upcoming Free Agents. This might be why I have been questioning every pick with the exceptions of Green & Zietler since. I could also argue those same 2nd round picks. I am thinking more of the same this year. If they draft OJ at TE, they have no intention of resigning Eifert, or with Foster at 9, no interest in resigning Burfict. Maybe they look at at DE or DT, not to replace Peko or MJ, but as insurance for not resigning Atkins or Dunlap. God I hate this cheap a$$ Front Office. I hope I am wrong & the Bengals draft pick makes sense this year, & maybe the Bengals will get a practice bubble instead of embarrassingly using UCs facilities, or maybe someday replace the smallest video scoreboards in the league.......

Past 1st Rd Insurance picks
WJ3 for Kirkpatrick
Cedric for Whit
Dennard for Jones
Eifert for Gresham
Kirkpatrick for Hall
Zietler for Livings
Green for Ocho/Owens

I started the thread because I know the Bengals took Ogbuehi with idea that they were drafting Whit's replacement. We all knew they'd take an OT in the first or second round in 2015, but most of us were surprised by them taking two. When the guy they ended up with was Ogbuehi, who was coming in injured with an ACL tear, they signed Whit to a 1 year extension.

Here we are and that 1 year extension has expired and we are left with Ogbuehi. Only problem is that Ogbuehi sucked badly last year, but the team didn't adjust for that possibility and, in Whit's own words, he either left or had to take what he could get from the Bengals (implying Mikey was offering sub par money).

So, Ogbuehi is an example of what can go so wrong with this type of strategy if the front office isn't willing to adjust to bad draft choices.

I'm pretty sure Dennard was drafted as Hall's eventual replacement, although he has yet to live up to that billing.

We took Hunt to be an eventual starter, but he didn't pan out and his combined 4 years production (blocked kicks last year aside) wasn't even up to a good 6 game stretch by a real DE.

Still, another 2nd round pick like Hunt, couldn't stick with a team that almost never lets a young guy go who's under contract.

I'd half believe an argument that the Bengals only ponied up the money for Kirkpatrick to keep him away from the Steelers.

The Bengals don't only replace departing stars with 1st or 2nd round picks, but they'll throw in a late round guy too. Shaun Williams, who played well in very limited action in 2015, was given a contract extension averaging $5,166,667 per year over league leading Reggie Nelson, who signed for Oakland for $4,410,000 per year. I know Williams is younger and Reggie only has a few years left in the tank, but Reggie is the better player.

Back in the late 90s I remember reading an article by someone or other who really shed some light on Mike Brown and the Bengals front office. Essentially the writer came to the conclusion that Mike Brown had become so afraid of making wrong decisions (as he had made so many) that he would not act. Then it would be too late to act and he'd panic and make irrational decisions.

I don't believe we've sunk to those lows again, but when I see how the team is drafting it reminded me of those days. When we draft we should be making selections from the viewpoint of improving the talent on the team.

I'm all for having 3 good corners on defense. But we draft 1st round corners every other year, then sit them until one of the other 1st round corners leaves in free agency.

A more practical approach would be to draft a player in the 1st round who's going to start that year and upgrade a position at the same time. That way you not only improve the talent on the team but you get that player's services on the field early. Now maybe that isn't always possible, but most teams seem to be able to do that year in and year out.

When we sit guys for 2 or 3 years their talent is wasting away on the bench, unused in a game. The flaws of this draft strategy can be seen when you add up the un-utilized talent sitting on the bench, then add up the sub-par talent starting at other positions which could have been upgraded.

I loved Dennard at Michigan State, but were there players available who would have been starting and upgrading another position all these years?

We all more or less hoped for a WR last year in the draft and the top guys were gone when we picked, but Code Whitehair was sitting there and an upgrade at center would have been better than a future corner on the bench or IR. Even if Jackson weren't injured, he still would not have played much on defense. In fact, the team left him on IR when he was eligible to come off. Cody Whitehair is now one of the top centers in the league. What difference would that have made last year?

It's like Mike Brown is so afraid of having key positions be lacking because he can't sign them in free agency that he'll stock pile them in quantity while letting more pressing areas go begging.

[Derrick]

(03-18-2017, 05:43 PM)Burma Wrote: I agree with all that. 

Looking at that list, where would his agent draw the line for pay? I would imagine he's got to be looking at that spot between Kuechly at 7 and Perry at 8.  That would put him @ $12 mill. Even then I am still doubting the Bengals pay that.

With what we have seen this FA season, some team will pay him...and likely it won't be the Bengals.