Corey Davis

[*ochocincos*]

(04-12-2017, 12:59 PM)Au165 Wrote: Yea, this. WR's can get on the field early, a lot of the issue is QBs trusting WR's and their willingness to throw to them. If they can build trust early they can be productive, see Thomas in NO this year.

Right, that's my point. Quite often we see at least a good amount of first and second round WRs contributing well as rookies. That's what Davis is, a first-round talent. He's not some mid-round guy that is raw and ran a tiny route tree. And people also need to quit treating the MAC like it's FCS. The MAC is far better than FCS, and Davis was able to post elite stats against his competition as a whole every single year.

I can understand that Davis might not be an elite WR out of the gate, but he should be able to contribute enough to have an impact.

Besides, the Bengals have done enough in FA to cover all their bases in terms of needing to fill an immediate hole. Their starters are set whether we agree with them or not.
Any draft picks (even first rounders) are going to start out as depth players with the intent of them taking over as starters down the road. So the question is more what player will be the best 2-3 years from now? Because that's when the Bengals are going to try to use them the most.

[Whatever]

(04-12-2017, 12:53 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Does it really, though? Plenty of WRs make an impact as rookies. WR might be one of the positions most often where rookies have an impact right out of the gate.

Depends on what your definition of impact is.  Here's the top rookies in receiving yards from last year.

Receiving Yards

1. Michael Thomas WR, New Orleans Saints – 981
2. Sterling Shepard WR, New York Giants – 653
3. Will Fuller WR, Houston Texans – 611
4. Tyler Boyd WR, Cincinnati Bengals – 554
5. Tajae Sharpe WR, Tennessee Titans – 549
6. Tyreek Hill WR, Kansas City Chiefs – 526
7. Robby Anderson WR, New York Jets – 471
8. Hunter Henry TE, San Diego Chargers – 424
9. Malcolm Mitchell WR, New England Patriots – 401
10. Corey Coleman WR, Cleveland Browns – 373


On top of that, small school WR's typically do not put up great numbers as rookies.

[*ochocincos*]

(04-12-2017, 01:39 PM)Whatever Wrote: Depends on what your definition of impact is.  Here's the top rookies in receiving yards from last year.

Receiving Yards

1. Michael Thomas WR, New Orleans Saints – 981
2. Sterling Shepard WR, New York Giants – 653
3. Will Fuller WR, Houston Texans – 611
4. Tyler Boyd WR, Cincinnati Bengals – 554
5. Tajae Sharpe WR, Tennessee Titans – 549
6. Tyreek Hill WR, Kansas City Chiefs – 526
7. Robby Anderson WR, New York Jets – 471
8. Hunter Henry TE, San Diego Chargers – 424
9. Malcolm Mitchell WR, New England Patriots – 401
10. Corey Coleman WR, Cleveland Browns – 373


On top of that, small school WR's typically do not put up great numbers as rookies.

Given the Bengals already had their WR2 picked up via FA in Brandon LaFell, I considered Tyler Boyd to have a good impact as a rookie. I consider all of those players above to have a solid impact simply because none of them were brought in to be WR1 right off the bat. Coleman maybe was brought in for that reason, but Pryor went off and took away some of his targets anyway, plus Coleman had the injury that took him out for 6 games.

What is your expectation? Any offensive player is going to be third option at best as long as AJ and Eifert stay healthy. Given the Bengals also re-signed LaFell two more years and Boyd is entering his second year after producing well as a rookie (at least to me), a WR is likely entering as WR4 that will spot start due to injuries and plan to replace LaFell after 1-2 years.

And if you don't go WR, what position do you go with that will make more of an immediate impact?
A DE is only going to be rotated in occasionally, they will not supplant Michael Johnson altogether as the starter opposite Dunlap...at least not for the first 1-2 years.
A DT is also only going to be rotated in occasionally.
A DB is pretty much going to ride the pine most of the year given the starters that are there as long as they stay healthy. The only exception would be if the Bengals essentially demoted Shawn Williams to being a nickel LB.
A LB is going to be buried on the depth chart behind Burfict, Minter, Rey, and Vigil, at least as a rookie.
A RB even likely wouldn't see the field as much as some would like as long as Bernard comes back healthy. We know Hill is still going to get a decent amount of touches. The team hasn't given up on him yet. So that's likely going to be a 3-headed monster as long as all are healthy.
A TE would be behind Eifert in 1-TE sets, but could see the field if/when the Bengals use 2-TE sets. But given Eifert is made of glass and the rest of the depth, there is a decent chance a TE could see the field earlier than most other positions.
Anyone on the OL would be riding the bench initially. This area would be the most opportunity for a rookie to contribute, but only if one of Ogbuehi, Bodine, Smith, or Fisher is really doing poorly. Plus, many would agree the Bengals shouldn't choose OL because there isn't a good enough option at 9.

So essentially what I'm getting at is there really won't be a true "immediate impact" player selected, as the Bengals will use any player as they always have...good depth initially with the intent on starting said player within a few years (based on the aging depth/injuries in front of them).

[Whatever]

(04-12-2017, 01:57 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Given the Bengals already had their WR2 picked up via FA in Brandon LaFell, I considered Tyler Boyd to have a good impact as a rookie. I consider all of those players above to have a solid impact simply because none of them were brought in to be WR1 right off the bat. Coleman maybe was brought in for that reason, but Pryor went off and took away some of his targets anyway, plus Coleman had the injury that took him out for 6 games.

What is your expectation? Any offensive player is going to be third option at best as long as AJ and Eifert stay healthy. Given the Bengals also re-signed LaFell two more years and Boyd is entering his second year after producing well as a rookie (at least to me), a WR is likely entering as WR4 that will spot start due to injuries and plan to replace LaFell after 1-2 years.

And if you don't go WR, what position do you go with that will make more of an immediate impact?
A DE is only going to be rotated in occasionally, they will not supplant Michael Johnson altogether as the starter opposite Dunlap...at least not for the first 1-2 years.
A DT is also only going to be rotated in occasionally.
A DB is pretty much going to ride the pine most of the year given the starters that are there as long as they stay healthy. The only exception would be if the Bengals essentially demoted Shawn Williams to being a nickel LB.
A LB is going to be buried on the depth chart behind Burfict, Minter, Rey, and Vigil, at least as a rookie.
A RB even likely wouldn't see the field as much as some would like as long as Bernard comes back healthy. We know Hill is still going to get a decent amount of touches. The team hasn't given up on him yet. So that's likely going to be a 3-headed monster as long as all are healthy.
A TE would be behind Eifert in 1-TE sets, but could see the field if/when the Bengals use 2-TE sets. But given Eifert is made of glass and the rest of the depth, there is a decent chance a TE could see the field earlier than most other positions.
Anyone on the OL would be riding the bench initially. This area would be the most opportunity for a rookie to contribute, but only if one of Ogbuehi, Bodine, Smith, or Fisher is really doing poorly. Plus, many would agree the Bengals shouldn't choose OL because there isn't a good enough option at 9.

So essentially what I'm getting at is there really won't be a true "immediate impact" player selected, as the Bengals will use any player as they always have...good depth initially with the intent on starting said player within a few years (based on the aging depth/injuries in front of them).

554 yards and 1 TD is not great production for a #3 WR, especially when you factor in the increased opportunities he got due to all the missed games by AJ, Eifert, and Gio.  

I think 600+ yards and 5 TD's would be a reasonable rookie year for a WR taken by us at 9.  I'm just not sold Davis can produce that.

[Au165]

(04-12-2017, 02:48 PM)Whatever Wrote: 554 yards and 1 TD is not great production for a #3 WR, especially when you factor in the increased opportunities he got due to all the missed games by AJ, Eifert, and Gio.  

I think 600+ yards and 5 TD's would be a reasonable rookie year for a WR taken by us at 9.  I'm just not sold Davis can produce that.

So 554 and 1 TD isn't good enough for a late 2nd rounder, but 600 and 5 tds is for 9 overall?

[Whatever]

(04-12-2017, 02:51 PM)Au165 Wrote: So 554 and 1 TD isn't good enough for a late 2nd rounder, but 600 and 5 tds is for 9 overall?

1 TD is pathetic for a #3 WR.  Assuming everyone stays reasonably healthy, 600 yards and 5 TD's are reasonable numbers for a good #3.  If we're ravaged by injuries among the skill guys this year, then I'd expect the rookie to produce more.

[Au165]

(04-12-2017, 03:15 PM)Whatever Wrote: 1 TD is pathetic for a #3 WR.  Assuming everyone stays reasonably healthy, 600 yards and 5 TD's are reasonable numbers for a good #3.  If we're ravaged by injuries among the skill guys this year, then I'd expect the rookie to produce more.

Td's are more of a indictment on situations rather than talent. Example Julio Jones only had 6 TD's last year Anquan Boldin had 8, is Boldin better or a result of the Lions philosophy in the redzone? Other thing you have to remember is personnel in the red zone, we tend to go heavy personnel in the redzone meaning a #3 WR isn't even on the field often. Some Rookie TD numbers, Hopkins 2, Cooks 3, Allen Robinson 2.

Boyd had a good year, people freaking out about TD's are looking for things that aren't there. Brandon Cooks had basically the same rookie year as Boyd (3 TD's to 1) and they had less options in NO to throw to that year. I am not sure why people have all the sudden decided he isn't the #2 of the future, he had a good rookie year.

[McC]

The two guys who would have the most impact for us this year are John Ross and OJ Howard. If Barnett can get to the QB, he might be the third one. Other than those three, can't see anybody who would do much for us this season unless Allen or Thomas magically fell to us.

[Jpoore]

(04-12-2017, 08:13 AM)pulses Wrote: Williams is not a better WR than Williams so I dont get where you think Williams is a day 1 starter and Davis is not.  This small school BS that people talk about all the time is just exactly that BS. Especially considering Davis that when he played top competition he still put up the numbers....so that doesn't apply to everyone.

Assuming u mean davis is better. Williams is better by a hair. Im fine with either. But when u do come from a smaller school, u do need to put up numbers at combine or pro day, not to mentionnthe fact he will miss most of otas as well. Factor all that in and it will be williams over davis then ross.

[Au165]

(04-12-2017, 03:33 PM)McC Wrote: The two guys who would have the most impact for us this year are John Ross and OJ Howard.  If Barnett can get to the QB, he might be the third one.  Other than those three, can't see anybody who would do much for us this season unless Allen or Thomas magically fell to us.

A situational pass rusher who gives you 5-8 sacks is probably more of an impact on a game than a #2 TE or a #3/#4 WR. As for Ross, Bengals have said in past they'd not use a 1st on a WR under 6 ft.

[bengals67]

(04-12-2017, 03:33 PM)Jpoore Wrote: Assuming u mean davis is better. Williams is better by a hair. Im fine with either. But when u do come from a smaller school, u do need to put up numbers at combine or pro day, not to mentionnthe fact he will miss most of otas as well. Factor all that in and it will be williams over davis then ross.

They might take Williams. He reminds me a it of Julio Jones.

If one of the three WRs has elite potential, it really makes sense to take one given AJ's contract status. I think his contract goes to 2020 and he may not be worth the mega contract he will want at that age.

[McC]

(04-12-2017, 03:35 PM)Au165 Wrote: A situational pass rusher who gives you 5-8 sacks is probably more of an impact on a game than a #2 TE or a #3/#4 WR. As for Ross, Bengals have said in past they'd not use a 1st on a WR under 6 ft.

Howard would be TE 1A.  He would impact the running and the passing game.  Ross would give this team something they desperately need.  There are so many ways he can impact a game.  He might be listed as a third or fourth WR but he would be the second best weapon on the team.  I'll take that all day long.  I know what they said in the past.  But the past is gone. 

You can get a 5-8 sack guy in the second.  If I'm taking a DE at 9, he'd better be capable of more than situational pass rusher or I've been cheated.

[*ochocincos*]

(04-12-2017, 03:47 PM)bengals67 Wrote: They might take Williams. He reminds me a it of Julio Jones.

If one of the three WRs has elite potential, it really makes sense to take one given AJ's contract status. I think his contract goes to 2020 and he may not be worth the mega contract he will want at that age.

In what way does Mike Williams remind you of Julio Jones? Just based on size?
Julio is practically the same size but about two-tenths of a second faster. Julio simply has the explosion that Williams does not.

[*ochocincos*]

(04-12-2017, 04:33 PM)McC Wrote: Howard would be TE 1A.  He would impact the running and the passing game.  Ross would give this team something they desperately need.  There are so many ways he can impact a game.  He might be listed as a third or fourth WR but he would be the second best weapon on the team.  I'll take that all day long.  I know what they said in the past.  But the past is gone. 

You can get a 5-8 sack guy in the second.  If I'm taking a DE at 9, he'd better be capable of more than situational pass rusher or I've been cheated.

I'm with you. Unfortunately, all of this is moot because the Bengals are not going to use a first-round pick nearly as much as the fans would prefer, so the stats from any first-round rookie will be disappointing.

If one of Garrett, Thomas, or Adams is there at 9, I'm taking whichever is still available with preference in the order I mentioned them.
I'd go Howard unless this team is planning to pay Eifert in the $9+ million a year range, which is what I think it will take to keep him. Hell, even if you keep Eifert, mold the offense to two-TE sets and roll out there with Green, Eifert, Boyd, and Howard. That'd be a great offense (theoretically).
I'd go John Ross otherwise as a legit speed option that would pair well with AJ Green on the outside and Boyd out of the slot. However, the Bengals don't typically take a player like Ross (at least early), so I'd be fine with Davis as a replacement for LaFell in 1-2 years.

If the Bengals go Fournette, they better adjust the offense around him. You don't take a RB at 9 if you're going to just use him in a RBBC and be the third option on the field behind Green and TE/WR2.

I think I actually like the 2nd-round DEs more than the remaining 1st-rounders after Garrett, Allen, and Thomas. So I wait on a DE too.

[Au165]

(04-12-2017, 04:33 PM)McC Wrote: Howard would be TE 1A.  He would impact the running and the passing game.  Ross would give this team something they desperately need.  There are so many ways he can impact a game.  He might be listed as a third or fourth WR but he would be the second best weapon on the team.  I'll take that all day long.  I know what they said in the past.  But the past is gone. 

You can get a 5-8 sack guy in the second.  If I'm taking a DE at 9, he'd better be capable of more than situational pass rusher or I've been cheated.

He is the 2, if we are in a one TE set Eiffert is out there if healthy, obvious big if though. As for Ross, not doing that again.

Expecting more than 5-8 sacks from a DE in any round or any spot is a losing battle. In the last 5 years only two rookies period have done it Bosa last year, and Aaron Donald. I think 5-8 sacks is a very valuable contribution from a rookie, it would have put them right in line with Geno and Dunlap last year. You expect that to grow but for year one production that is good.

[impactplaya]

Davis or Williams are who I want to see drafted at 9
Look at Corey Davis...he passes the eye test. It's not that complicated.
Reminds me of Chris Henry with a bit more weight on the frame
Davis can step in and not have the pressure of starting right away
I think he's a better WR than Boyd as far overall skill set goes
Davis can take a routine slant and take it to the house
He basically was impossible to cover in his senior season without help over the top
We need a burner waiting in the wings

[Whatever]

(04-12-2017, 03:21 PM)Au165 Wrote: Td's are more of a indictment on situations rather than talent. Example Julio Jones only had 6 TD's last year Anquan Boldin had 8, is Boldin better or a result of the Lions philosophy in the redzone? Other thing you have to remember is personnel in the red zone, we tend to go heavy personnel in the redzone meaning a #3 WR isn't even on the field often. Some Rookie TD numbers, Hopkins 2, Cooks 3, Allen Robinson 2.

Boyd had a good year, people freaking out about TD's are looking for things that aren't there. Brandon Cooks had basically the same rookie year as Boyd (3 TD's to 1) and they had less options in NO to throw to that year. I am not sure why people have all the sudden decided he isn't the #2 of the future, he had a good rookie year.

Once again, we had a lot of injuries to our top skill guys, which is why I expect a higher TD output.  If Eifert, AJ, and Giovanni were healthy all year, then I could overlook his lack of TD's.  WR's can also score TD's from outside the opponent's 20.  Boyd lacks big play ability.

Some more rookie TD numbers, Marques Colston 8, Chris Henry 6, Martavis Bryant 8, Josh Gordon 5, Mohamed Sanu 4, Jordan Shipley 3.  You can play pick and choose all day long either way.  During Cook's rookie year, Colston, Jimmy Graham, and Kenny Stills all had over 880 yards receiving.  The Bengals had 2 guys with 850+ yards last year.  

[bengals67]

(04-12-2017, 04:40 PM)ochocincos Wrote: In what way does Mike Williams remind you of Julio Jones? Just based on size?
Julio is practically the same size but about two-tenths of a second faster. Julio simply has the explosion that Williams does not.

size and nasty streak fighting for the ball.

[bengals67]

(04-12-2017, 08:53 PM)impactplaya Wrote: Davis or Williams are who I want to see drafted at 9
Look at Corey Davis...he passes the eye test. It's not that complicated.
Reminds me of Chris Henry with a bit more weight on the frame
Davis can step in and not have the pressure of starting  right away
I think he's a better WR than Boyd as far overall skill set goes
Davis can take a routine slant and take it to the house
He basically was impossible to cover in his senior season without help over the top
We need a burner waiting in the wings

 what I think. :andy: :andy: :andy:

[Au165]

(04-13-2017, 10:03 AM)bengals67 Wrote: size and nasty streak fighting for the ball.

I like Mike Williams, but I don't see it. I use a smaller Dez Bryant as a comparison normally, someone else said Keenan Allen and I can see that a bit too.