Steelers build thru Drafts but Top picks tend to take starting jobs sooner - Our flaw

[muskiesfan]

Mike Brown's entire philosophy is "future". We don't spend in free agency because of deals that need to be made in the future. We draft BPA to stash players for the future. There's no urgency to win now. They never step up and take the chances to win now. Obviously every year isn't the time to go all in. Some years you're closer than others and the Bengals have had some recent seasons where if they had put all their chips on the table, things may have turned out differently. Instead, we ignore certain positions in certain rounds of the draft, we refuse to draft for need, and we refuse to be active with productive outside free agents.

When it comes to 1st round picks, the Bengals have taken a real liking to drafting injured players. Jermaine Gresham, Andre Smith, Cedric Ogbuehi, and John Ross were all injured or recovering from injury and were all first round picks. To be honest, I probably missed another 1 or 2 during that time frame. After the McCarron debacle, does Mike Brown draft injured players in hopes of trying to manipulate the system to keep them longer? By having them ride the pine does he think that will lower their value so that they can be retained/re-signed for less? I understand first rounders fall under different rules than the other rounds, it just seems odd that we like to target injured players especially with our first round picks.

[fredtoast]

(03-01-2018, 08:01 PM)muskiesfan Wrote: it just seems odd that we like to target injured players especially with our first round picks.

Not just the bengals.

4 of the top 9 picks in last years draft were coming off injuries (Garrett, Fournette, McCaffery, Ross)

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(03-01-2018, 05:42 PM)Wyche Wrote: I think wolf said he never heard back.

Bogus, Wolf just said he has been putting his foot in the door at becoming a Scout. Talking with a few of them and even
meeting some. Maybe once he gets his resume up a bit they might get back to him but who am i kidding.

(03-01-2018, 07:43 PM)sandwedge Wrote: Probably Wolf asked for more than minimum wage and Mikey wasn't budging. 

Cheap bastid.

[depthchart]

(03-01-2018, 03:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Then why do you cite so many Steeler draft picks that sat behind starters who were already in place?

I absolutely grasp your concept.  All I am doing is pointing out the flaws in the evidence you claim proves your point.

Both the Bengals and the Steelers play rookies when they have to.  Both the Steelers and Bengals prefer to let rookies sit behind starters when possible.  You have not posted anything that proves differently.  Many of the Steeler draft picks you cite as "immediate starers" actually sat behind other starters and did not play as much as the Bengals you try to label as "back ups".

You are claiming that each team does the above at EXACTLY the SAME rate.

You are claiming that the RATIO of how each team drafts with longer term development behind veteran starters -versus- having less of a safety net player in front of a drafted rookie is EXACTLY THE SAME.

I pointed out in the Original Post that BOTH teams do a certain proportion of both. Thus examples of both from both teams are in the Concept.

Drafting Cedric and Fisher with Whit and Andre in front of them is a CRYSTAL CLEAR example of a RATIO tilting event. The Bengals Front Office even acknowledges their tendency preference to Draft and Develop rookies to learn behind veterans and went on a PR tour explaining it after an injured Cedric and healthy Fisher were drafted to learn behind Whit and Andre.The Cornerback pipeline the Bengals tend to have with veterans already in place versus the Artie Burns fast track to starting are RATIO TILTING events and a CLEAR illustration of how resources are getting directed in a bit of a different way by each team.

Ratio - a ratio is a relationship between two numbers indicating how many times the first number contains the second.

For example, if a bowl of fruit contains eight oranges and six lemons, then the ratio of oranges to lemons is eight to six

                   if a bowl of fruit contains 5 oranges and 9 lemons, then the ratio of oranges to lemons is 5 to 9

The Bengals and Steelers are NOT using a mix of the two approaches at exactly the same rate as you infer with your BS.

It needs to be EXACTLY THE SAME for your BS to be right. The two teams RATIOS here are NOT exactly the same.

Get that through your head, Einstein.

[fredtoast]

(03-02-2018, 05:02 PM)depthchart Wrote: The Bengals and Steelers are NOT using a mix of the two approaches at exactly the same rate as you infer with your BS.

It needs to be EXACTLY THE SAME for your BS to be right. The two teams RATIOS here are NOT exactly the same.

Get that through your head, Einstein.

Instead of just screaming insults give me the exact ratio.

But here is what is happening.  you say we have to ignore Dalton and Green starting right away because the bengals wre FORCED to start them.  Buut I am saying that Artie Burns was a starter his rookie season because the Steelers had the 30th ranked pass defense the pravious year and were forced to start him.

So If you are going to keep screaming about how i can't grasp a concept show me the nexcta ratio s you are claiming for both teams and we will discuss them.

[depthchart]

(03-05-2018, 06:25 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Instead of just screaming insults give me the exact ratio.

But here is what is happening.  you say we have to ignore Dalton and Green starting right away because the bengals wre FORCED to start them.  Buut I am saying that Artie Burns was a starter his rookie season because the Steelers had the 30th ranked pass defense the pravious year and were forced to start him.

So If you are going to keep screaming about how i can't grasp a concept show me the nexcta ratio s you are claiming for both teams and we will discuss them.

What I Bolded above is a flat out distortion of what I said and distorting seems to be what you do..

I never said to "ignore" Dalton or Green.

They were simply outside of the 5 year comparison that I made.

I did say that Carson Palmer leaving the team forced the Bengals to have to draft Dalton high and thus did not give them time to draft and develop a QB behind Palmer. Palmer was himself drafted and developed, sitting for his rookie season behind Jon Kitna. Palmer leaving the team likely got the Bengals to do something they didn't want to do and that was to fast track the rookie QB Dalton. My point.

What I bolded above of what you claimed I said about AJ Green is a distortion. Likely just a distortion or bad memory on your part. Re-read the entire thread. I said nothing of the sort about AJ Green.

I did say that Steeler examples could also be found past 5 years out as the Dalton/Green examples were.

Your acknowledgement that the Steelers had to fast track Artie Burns because they had allowed their corners to be depleted as a way of saying the Bengal corner pipeline is a better approach because the Bengals don't allow them to get depleted actually supports my argument. The Bengals benefit by staying DEEPER at the corner position while the Steelers use those draft picks at other positions. Strengthening those other positions.

Similarly, drafting only 1 bell cow back in Leveon Bell with a high pick (1st or 2nd round) over a 5 year period can be compared with the Bengals drafting 3 running backs high which were all on the same roster for 1 season in Hill, Gio and Mixon. Depth at one position (running back) versus spreading 3 draft picks over other positions besides running back in this case.

There are pluses and minuses that can be discussed between the two approaches. Bengals benefit with a deep cornerback pipeline, while the Steelers allow their corners to get thinner in depth but can use those draft assets to make other positions on the team stronger.

I am all for a civil conversation on the pluses and minuses of each approach and I said in the thread that I simply wanted to see the Bengals do a little more of what the Steelers appear to be doing and a little less of the pipeline behind a veteran approach. What is a good balance of the two is where I was trying to take the conversation, however, the conversation never gets past your over-simplification of a multi-layered topic into start or not start day one opening day which it was never about.

My tweaking as I called it of what the Bengals tend to do would be to use the pipeline behind the veteran approach as much as possible while being open to improving any glaring weak link starting positions on the team as quality players to do so present themselves in drafts. Upgrade the starting team on the field more rapidly when and if weak links remain. Be open to a great Center in a draft for example as the Steelers were to getting Pouncey even if the cornerback pipeline gets depleted for a draft. Go back to the pipeline the next draft based on current needs and weak starting link reviews.

Both approaches have pluses and minuses, are getting used by both the Steelers and Bengals and I believe they are getting used at differing rates or ratios. You believe they are doing it at exactly the same rate which is fine with me for you to believe.

Didn't say all this to knock the Bengals. Did say it as a way of maybe doing something slightly different, at times as a way of improving the overall starting team more rapidly and reduce the amount of starting weak links versus having better depth at certain positions in preparation of veteran players leaving the team.

Being open to a change in this balance. Regulate it a little differently so to speak. Keeping in mind weak starting links at any position as we go for potential upgrade. The best BALANCE between both worlds.

[muskiesfan]

(03-06-2018, 01:40 PM)depthchart Wrote: Didn't say all this to knock the Bengals. Did say it as a way of maybe doing something slightly different, at times as a way of improving the overall starting team more rapidly and reduce the amount of starting weak links versus having better depth at certain positions in preparation of veteran players leaving the team.

Being open to a change in this balance. Regulate it a little differently so to speak. Keeping in mind weak starting links at any position as we go for potential upgrade. The best BALANCE between both worlds.

I think the big issue with the Bengals on this is Mike Brown. Brown favors certain positions and is willing to invest more into certain positions than others. While the overwhelming majority of owners and GMs seem to grasp the team concept of winning, Brown focuses on specific position groups. Other teams like to try and build the best overall team they can, Mike Brown believes in logjams at a couple of positions and the rest of the team is bottom of the barrel players. Until Mike Brown can actually care about anything other than money, none of this will change.

[*Go Cards*]

(02-28-2018, 03:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Maybe the Bengals just did not think Zeitler was worth more than $10 million more than DeCastro.

If the Bengals would have tried to sign him they may have got him cheaper than Decastro or the same. 

We do not know because MB did not try. 

What he got in FA is not necessarily what he would have signed before becoming a FA. 

[depthchart]

(03-07-2018, 03:21 AM)muskiesfan Wrote: I think the big issue with the Bengals on this is Mike Brown. Brown favors certain positions and is willing to invest more into certain positions than others. While the overwhelming majority of owners and GMs seem to grasp the team concept of winning, Brown focuses on specific position groups. Other teams like to try and build the best overall team they can, Mike Brown believes in logjams at a couple of positions and the rest of the team is bottom of the barrel players. Until Mike Brown can actually care about anything other than money, none of this will change.

There are many aspects of what the Bengals do that I like.

They don't get into financial trouble with contracts like say the Redskins did a number of years back with too many high priced Free Agent signings, like Washington did with Albert Haynesworth & some others as I remember.

I can also understand drafting and developing behind veteran players that are expected to be leaving the team say the next season or so.

I am leaning towards thinking that what the Bengals have been doing just needs tweaked a little bit to improve the starting roster itself.

I see the starting team as a chain with links and if say there are 3 obvious weak links in that starting player chain, then it stands to reason that a lot can be gained by turning those weak links into Strong links. Drafts seem to be the main way this has to happen since Free Agency is not used aggressively by the Bengals.

Make glaring weak links Strong with for example a 1st round legit Left Tackle and a 2nd round linebacker then a 3rd round Center assuming players are there that are worthy of being taken at that time in those rounds of the draft. Or any combination LB, LT, C etc.
Or two of three weak links get upgraded with the first three picks. All depends on what players are there. Later round picks can then be used at different positions and maybe they hit on one of them as a pipeline player to develop behind a veteran starter.

The next draft comes along and hopefully the starting chain has just 1 weak link that year since the previous draft made former weak links Strong. Setting up strong links behind veteran starting links that may be leaving the team soon could then be RESUMED at a higher rate with higher round picks now that fewer weak starting links are on the chain.

Try to find a Balance of the best of both worlds with a little more emphasis on making weak starting links Strong at any position when possible and then moving on from there with say the cornerback pipeline resumed with early round picks the next draft etc. Never pass on taking a superior player but if the quality of players at two different positions are similar, then Upgrade the weak starting link.

Even if say the corner pipeline gets thin then it can be a weak link target itself in a draft if it came to that after other weak starting links were addressed the draft prior.

Upgrade glaring weak links at a higher rate then resume what they typically like to do from there and repeat back and forth, draft to draft, as glaring weak starting links present themselves.

Make weak starting links strong and then resume putting strong links behind our veteran players that may be leaving soon.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(03-07-2018, 03:21 AM)muskiesfan Wrote: I think the big issue with the Bengals on this is Mike Brown. Brown favors certain positions and is willing to invest more into certain positions than others. While the overwhelming majority of owners and GMs seem to grasp the team concept of winning, Brown focuses on specific position groups. Other teams like to try and build the best overall team they can, Mike Brown believes in logjams at a couple of positions and the rest of the team is bottom of the barrel players. Until Mike Brown can actually care about anything other than money, none of this will change.

It is beyond stupid to not value certain positions, especially Center or anywhere on the O-line. No point in valuing your
QB either if he has no pocket to step into and is getting hit and sacked all the time. MB's logic i just don't understand.