Foster in for a visit

[THE PISTONS]

(04-12-2017, 11:37 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I wanted Foster but lately I've been having my doubts.

We usually use a two-backer, nickel set, so how much would he even see the field with us just having signed Minter and obviously having Burfict?

I can understand why Hill has been cautious after losing the playoff game for us two seasons ago, so I'm hoping that he'll be back to his powerhouse, downhill running style that made him so good, minus the fumbles.

I think OJ Howard could be a game-changer for us.  Some people have us going receiver, but OJ is basically a big receiver, and think how much easier life will be on a receiver opposite of AJ with him taking all of the double-coverage with Eifert and OJ just causing defenses nightmares.

DE is a possibility but pass rushers are a dime a dozen.  There's some quality ones that we can get after the first round or even the first few rounds.

I REALLY like Foster too...but you nailed it with the Nickel set talk.

I'm big on Howard too. Fournette would be impossible to pass up if he's there.

I'm not sold on any of the DE's. I think they're probably 50/50 as to if they become dominant Pro's.

[jfkbengals]

(04-13-2017, 08:47 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: I REALLY like Foster too...but you nailed it with the Nickel set talk.

I'm big on Howard too. Fournette would be impossible to pass up if he's there.

I'm not sold on any of the DE's. I think they're probably 50/50 as to if they become dominant Pro's.

You don't like Barnett?  Double digit sacks and tackles for loss in each of his 3 seasons in the SEC is pretty damn solid.

[Socal Bengals fan]

Barnette is money , Allen might slid but he's more of a lDE or 3 4 end. But a stud like McCafferty or Cook would open up our offense n make a bigger impact then te Howard who would be in about 30% of the time . Very very minimum impact drafting another TE

[bonesaw]

(04-13-2017, 08:33 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: With the way this team uses LBs, I am so against drafting one top 10.

Plus doesn't this guy have several red flags, including health, off-field and something that happened at the combine?

Me too Shake.  We don't ask our LB's to do too much outside the norm.  So, why use a first round pick on one?  We do ask a ton from our DE's and CB's though.  

[Shake n Blake]

(04-13-2017, 09:48 PM)bonesaw Wrote: Me too Shake.  We don't ask our LB's to do too much outside the norm.  So, why use a first round pick on one?  We do ask a ton from our DE's and CB's though.  

Well I just noticed that someone already pointed out how we play a ton of nickel dropping down to 2 LBs, and that's exactly what I was talking about. Maualuga was our MLB for 8 years and only produced 4 sacks and 7 INTs. Admittedly, some of that was Maualuga, but a lot of it is just the system. Our LBs just don't get to make a lot of plays. Like you said, this scheme is all about the d-line and secondary. 

I love what Burfict brings, but even he is only good for a couple sacks and picks a year. At 9 you want that playmaker.

[THE PISTONS]

(04-13-2017, 09:15 PM)jfkbengals Wrote: You don't like Barnett?  Double digit sacks and tackles for loss in each of his 3 seasons in the SEC is pretty damn solid.

It's not that I don't like a particular player...but DE is one of the hardest positions to project to the NFL because these guys may face 1 elite tackle all season. Most of the tackles they go against...won't be Pro Level.

Plus, Barnett is 6 foot 3, 259. We don't really go with DE's that size. Don't get me wrong...I'd like to...but would the Bengals know how to use him?

[Joelist]

With us getting Minter who is good in coverage plus the promotion of Vigil who also can cover and Burflict who can cover too, I wonder if we will still be in nickel so much. We actually have three LBs who can play all three downs now.

[Hammerstripes]

(04-13-2017, 10:50 PM)Joelist Wrote: With us getting Minter who is good in coverage plus the promotion of Vigil who also can cover and Burflict who can cover too, I wonder if we will still be in nickel so much. We actually have three LBs who can play all three downs now.

A lot of teams run 3 WR sets.  You aren't going to cover the slot WR with a safety or a LB, so the LB comes off the field for the nickel corner.

It's not that we don't have good 4-3 linebackers that can cover, its just that a WR on a LB is a complete mismatch.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(04-13-2017, 04:16 PM)Au165 Wrote: The comparison people have for Foster is Bobby Wagner, I can see it and if that is what we get he is a game changer. People keep talking about linebackers that rush, except 4-3 linebackers don't really rush especially middle linebackers. Last year, ironically, Bobby Wagner lead all middle linebackers with 4.5 sacks. Defensive lineman in a 4-3 rush, linebackers cover and stop the run. In our defense specifically we blitz safeties and corners more than linebackers.

I'm not a fan of MLB at 9, but Foster really is a good talent. He is as good as Ragland or Mosley coming out.

I don't see it. Foster isn't even great at creating turnovers.

Really the positives for him is that he is a hard hitter and he can roam the field well for a small Linebacker.

I would rather have an athletic freak like Reddick over this guy that i expect to disappear in the NFL.

(04-13-2017, 04:27 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Or to replace Eifert just in case he goes elsewhere next year via FA.

True, great insurance.

(04-13-2017, 04:35 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: if we draft him and don't do 2 TEs sets most the game  it'll be another head scratcher.

It would be which is why i would like the pick as it would be telling.

We will learn a lot about where this team wants to go with that first pick at 9.

Foster is really the only guy i would not be ecstatic about for the reasons i mentioned.

[Essex Johnson]

(04-14-2017, 02:15 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: I don't see it. Foster isn't even great at creating turnovers.

Really the positives for him is that he is a hard hitter and he can roam the field well for a small Linebacker.

I would rather have an athletic freak like Reddick over this guy that i expect to disappear in the NFL.


True, great insurance.


It would be which is why i would like the pick as it would be telling.

We will learn a lot about where this team wants to go with that first pick at 9.

Foster is really the only guy i would not be ecstatic about for the reasons i mentioned.

Interesting how different we all think, foster would be one i an ecstatic about at 96

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(04-14-2017, 03:52 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: Interesting how different we all think, foster would be one i an ecstatic about at 9

It is interesting. I could be wrong about Foster too and it might be a great pick.

I don't know everything and maybe my concerns are not valid.

[depthchart]

(04-14-2017, 03:52 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: Interesting how different we all think, foster would be one i an ecstatic about at 9

That is what makes it fun to follow and to sometimes disagree about.

Once a player is picked, the team gets the Advantages that player/position may bring but losses out on what the players they passed on could have brought.

Making a Trade off no matter what choice is made.

[SunsetBengal]

(04-14-2017, 03:52 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: Interesting how different we all think, foster would be one i an ecstatic about at 96

Yeah, at first I was high on him, then I cooled a bit, but I find myself circling back to him as the right pick.

Quote:Strengths

Alpha mentality with ferocious hitting style that puts offensive skill positions on alert. Outstanding athlete with springy, reactive feet. Lost 15 pounds in off-season, which gave him more speed and explosiveness. Loose hips and long stride allows him to open and chase immediately. Has elite sideline-to-sideline range. Tough as nails. Brings swagger to a linebacking corps. Never passive and always means it. Willing to take his shots downhill and into gaps. Lands strong warning blows on climbing guards early in the game. Coverage ability is an asset. Logged 10 passes defensed in 2015. Can carry long speed against running backs on wheel routes and nine routes. Has worked to improve tackling technique, which has yielded higher success rate of finishes.
Weaknesses
Instincts are just average. Overly reliant on speed and athleticism over instincts and feel. Can be a tick slow to respond to play-action. Inconsistent defeating blocks. Too eager to take on everyone at the point of attack. Gets shoulder covered up firing into incoming blockers. Needs to improve stack and shed technique to keep himself clean. Will drop his head at times as tackler. Poor tackling technique led to "stinger" issues early in his career.
Sources Tell Us
"He's not a MIKE linebacker. I think he's a pure run-and-hit WILL linebacker with good cover talent. I'm worried about what his medicals will show because he's had some issues with stingers during his career. I have a higher grade on him than I had on Reggie Ragland. Better pro potential to me." -- NFC director of scouting

[sandwedge]

(04-14-2017, 05:15 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Yeah, at first I was high on him, then I cooled a bit, but I find myself circling back to him as the right pick.

I am doing the samething. I think he could be a day 1 impact.

[Derrick]

(04-13-2017, 04:16 PM)Au165 Wrote: The comparison people have for Foster is Bobby Wagner, I can see it and if that is what we get he is a game changer. People keep talking about linebackers that rush, except 4-3 linebackers don't really rush especially middle linebackers. Last year, ironically, Bobby Wagner lead all middle linebackers with 4.5 sacks. Defensive lineman in a 4-3 rush, linebackers cover and stop the run. In our defense specifically we blitz safeties and corners more than linebackers.

I'm not a fan of MLB at 9, but Foster really is a good talent. He is as good as Ragland or Mosley coming out.

Is that because the Bengal LBers are too slow?

[Joelist]

(04-13-2017, 11:13 PM)Hammerstripes Wrote: A lot of teams run 3 WR sets.  You aren't going to cover the slot WR with a safety or a LB, so the LB comes off the field for the nickel corner.

It's not that we don't have good 4-3 linebackers that can cover, its just that a WR on a LB is a complete mismatch.

Actually before acquiring Minter and promoting Vigil we only had one starting LB who could cover - Burflict. I have to think that had something to do with us being in nickel even when they did not have 3 WR out, as we had only one LB able to cover a TE or RB out of the backfield. 

[kevin]

(04-12-2017, 09:35 PM)zygrot24 Wrote: Seriously hope this is a sign. Even with bringing in minter, I think you can't pass on fosters talent.  I know don't read to much into it, they bring in a lot of guys before the draft. But please, let Marvin's love for linebackers take over and get us foster.



https://www.google.com/amp/www.cincyjungle.com/platform/amp/2017/4/11/15245738/alabama-linebacker-reuben-foster-visiting-bengals

The Director of Player Personnel really wants the LSU RB bad, but by most mock drafts he will be long gone at 9 and Bengals refuse to trade up or down here.  Most mock drafts do have Bengals taking Reuben Foster. Some have Foster going as high as pick 2.  He is considered a game changer. A high motor and the hardest hitter in the draft. He is considered a team leader and a guy that can go to a team and for years be the team captain on defense.  Now some mock drafts have Bengals taking a DE.  If they do that, there should be good LB's at pick 41 such as J.J. Watts brother, The Ohio State LB or the other Alabama LB.   

So if the LSU RB is there he becomes a Bengal.  If he isn't there I see a Front 7 person in Foster or a DE, and if they take a DE, I see the best players early in round 2 being LB.  So if the LSU RB goes before us,  don't be surprised if at pick 9 and pick 41 we take a LB and then a DE or a DE and then a LB because Defensive Front 7 Players are loaded at the top in this years draft.  Plus, we could use Front 7 help. 

I'm so glad they are taking a harder look at Foster with the chances of the Bengals Player Personnel Director getting the LSU RB he wants looking very slim with teams ahead of us like Jacksonville keying on the RB. Foster is a great player and maybe best athlete on the board and it should be a great pick for Bengals. Teams will not be able to run on us. If we get Foster, we stop the run. Foster is one of the best run stoppers to come out of college in a long time. That is huge playing Steelers twice a year. It would be great to have an answer for Steelers running backs. Players like Rey are more pass rushers than run stoppers. Foster can flat out stop the run and with Burfict we would have two of the hardest hitters in the NFL. Players running at our defense would get hit HARD by Foster and Burfict. To me the big thing about the 70's Steelers was you could not run on them, nobody could. If you got 20 yards all game, that was a high number. Foster and Burfict could stop the run. It is a real advantage if you can run but the other team can't. It makes it almost impossible to lose

As good as Burfict is, Foster could soon be the best linebacker Marvin Lewis has had since Ray Lewis. Foster IS that good...You have to factor into his run stopping and hard hitting his high motor and team leadership team captain winning attitude that teams are drooling over. I guarantee you I do not want to see Pittsburg, Baltimore or Cleveland get Foster and stop our running backs the next 10 years. Foster is one of those draft picks like Anthony Munoz that you can sense Hall Of Fame Player even as you draft him. Foster should be the heads up team captain of this defense for many years and players like this win Super Bowls.

[Housh]

(04-12-2017, 11:37 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I wanted Foster but lately I've been having my doubts.

We usually use a two-backer, nickel set, so how much would he even see the field with us just having signed Minter and obviously having Burfict?

I can understand why Hill has been cautious after losing the playoff game for us two seasons ago, so I'm hoping that he'll be back to his powerhouse, downhill running style that made him so good, minus the fumbles.

I think OJ Howard could be a game-changer for us.  Some people have us going receiver, but OJ is basically a big receiver, and think how much easier life will be on a receiver opposite of AJ with him taking all of the double-coverage with Eifert and OJ just causing defenses nightmares.

DE is a possibility but pass rushers are a dime a dozen.  There's some quality ones that we can get after the first round or even the first few rounds.

If hes as good as people on this board say he is I imagine his arrival would force us to use more 3 linebacker sets. The way you guys talk about him on this board Id think he was prime James Harrison lol

[jfkbengals]

(04-13-2017, 10:29 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: It's not that I don't like a particular player...but DE is one of the hardest positions to project to the NFL because these guys may face 1 elite tackle all season. Most of the tackles they go against...won't be Pro Level.

Plus, Barnett is 6 foot 3, 259. We don't really go with DE's that size. Don't get me wrong...I'd like to...but would the Bengals know how to use him?

Gil Brandt was speaking to this point yesterday on NFL radio, stating that the majority of Garrett's sacks came from outside the SEC against guys who will not go to the NFL, while 28 of Barnett's sacks came against SEC tackles who are NFL caliber.

[jfkbengals]

(04-15-2017, 01:44 PM)kevin Wrote: The Director of Player Personnel really wants the LSU RB bad, but by most mock drafts he will be long gone at 9 and Bengals refuse to trade up or down here.

Lewis stated in an interview he would take the first overall pick for McCarron.  That doesn't mean that would be the only pick involved though.  Somehow I can foresee a situation where the Browns give us picks 1 and 52 for picks 9, 41, and AJ.  Neither team loses any picks from any rounds, it's just draft position that changes.  The "value" based on the chart would still fall in our favor, but that would be offset in Cleveland's favor by the fact that they do not have to take a QB with either of their 2 high picks.