BEST DRAFT OF LINEBACKERS IN YEARS

[*bfine32*]

(04-17-2021, 05:21 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Are you fine with spending a 2nd or 3rd on a QB then, if it's BPA?

BPA is fine and dandy as an ideal, but the Bengals have more pressing needs and you need to use common sense as well when discussing BPA. Ignoring those for a position that they've sunk a 3rd rounder into each of the last 3 years and 5 of the last 6 years is silly. 

Doubly so when the Bengals are pretty much never going to use 3 LBs at once. If you take every LB on the Bengals last year and add their snap count % all together, you get 208.4%. If you played 3 LBs all the time, you'd have 300%. So it's a position they've spent a 3rd rounder on in 3 straight drafts (and 5 out of 6) that they only need 2 players (and maybe a backup for that 8.4% of the time) for.

PikesPeakUC Wrote:We haven't gotten to year two with Wilson and Davis-Gaither yet, so I'd like to see them continue to work and get reps before we give up on them immediately. We've got Markus Bailey back full strength as well to see what they've got in him. If anything, I would prefer to sign a Kwon Alexander or another vet to give them someone older in the room they can lean on. Right now we've got a lot of youth there.

I don't understand the logic behind; we only play 2 LBs so we don't need a good one. Logan Wilson is a 3rd rd pick from a small school who had 33 tackles last year. Davis-Gathers is an undersized 4th RD pick from a small school who had 31 tackles last year. All of out LBs combined for 1.5 sacks last year. 

Gimme Davis if he falls to 38

Gimme Collins if he falls to 38

Gimme the Notre Dame kid

Gimme the LSU kid

[BenZoo2]

(04-17-2021, 05:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: [quote'PikesPeakUC]We haven't gotten to year two with Wilson and Davis-Gaither yet, so I'd like to see them continue to work and get reps before we give up on them immediately. We've got Markus Bailey back full strength as well to see what they've got in him. If anything, I would prefer to sign a Kwon Alexander or another vet to give them someone older in the room they can lean on. Right now we've got a lot of youth there.

I don't understand the logic behind; we only play 2 LBs so we don't need a good one. Logan Wilson is a 3rd rd pick from a small school who had 33 tackles last year. Davis-Gathers is an undersized 4th RD pick from a small school who had 31 tackles last year. All of out LBs combined for 1.5 sacks last year. 

Gimme Davis if he falls to 38

Gimme Collins if he falls to 38

Gimme the Notre Dame kid

Gimme the LSU kid
[/quote]


So you like cox in 2?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[*bfine32*]

(04-17-2021, 05:58 PM)BenZoo2 Wrote: So you like cox in 2?

I do. Of course it depends on who's left. Now if we don't go OL at #5OA and a value like Leatherwood/Cosmi/W.Davis is there then I'd take a long look at the linemen. I'm just not going to write off LB just because we have a room full or 3rd RD and later LBs in the locker room 

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-17-2021, 05:58 PM)BenZoo2 Wrote: So you like cox in 2?

(04-17-2021, 06:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I do.

[*ochocincos*]

I can be on board with a LB if they can also rush the passer.
While I do think the LBs are not good that the Bengals have, I think they'd do better if they had a competent DL stuffing the LOS and getting pressure on the QB.
I've really liked Chazz Surratt personally. Luckily, draft buzz has cooled on him to bring him back down to Rd 3-4 territory, but I love how well-rounded he is. He can rush the passer, has solid speed, good agility, and has shown he can tackle with 206 tackles in just 24 games as a LB.

[*rfaulk34*]

(04-14-2021, 05:45 PM)kevin Wrote: Bengals NEED to take a LB in 2 or 3 because all NFL scouts agree this is a rare crop of LBs that you just don't see most years....and don't tell me Bengals couldn't use a top notch LB draft pick in 2 or 3.  There are LBs in this draft that can come in here and be our best LB right away.

No.

They have enough LBs. It would be better to look for a guy after cuts instead of drafting ANOTHER one.

[samhain]

I totally get the sentiment that we need a OL in 2 if Chase is the pick. I just think we should start getting our minds a bit more limber as to what might actually happen at 38. I guess the best way to put it is this: I will be disappointed if they don't add an OL In 1 or 2, but that won't diminish my excitement over a player I really like that isn't an OL being taken.

I suppose it wouldn't be awful to get Chase, Davis, then maybe someone like Banks or Meinerz in 3.

The team still needs a few more impact players badly. I don't see any outside of Bates on defense. If you think Davis or another LB is that kind of player, then maybe you take him over a guy that might be an average OT with the 38th pick.

[BenZoo2]

Lots of talk about possibly trading back in in rd 1. Hasn't been as much about trading back 2. I'd be all for moving back in 2 for more picks. I'd like to stock as many top 100-110 picks as I could. If a highly rated lb was there at 38 I wouldn't be opposed. But there's a comparable value at ol, wr or edge that's where I'm looking

[PikesPeakUC]

(04-17-2021, 05:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I don't understand the logic behind; we only play 2 LBs so we don't need a good one. Logan Wilson is a 3rd rd pick from a small school who had 33 tackles last year. Davis-Gathers is an undersized 4th RD pick from a small school who had 31 tackles last year. All of out LBs combined for 1.5 sacks last year. 

Gimme Davis if he falls to 38

Gimme Collins if he falls to 38

Gimme the Notre Dame kid

Gimme the LSU kid

I mean, we never really get a lot of sacks out of our linebackers. If you go back through the past five seasons or so, the most sacks we've gotten out of a linebacker is 2 and that was Burfict in 2015 as far as I can tell. 2013 we had Burfict with 3 and Vinnie Rey with 4, but that was an outlier. If you're expecting us to draft one and blitz them, I think you're going to be highly disappointed. The pass rush has always been generated by the front four and occasionally blitzing a corner or safety.

I still think Wilson and ADG have room to grow and I'm willing to see what they've got for another season. If they can't handle it, then either address it in free agency or next year's draft. Plus, Pratt is improving in coverage. His big issue is stopping the run, but that pretty much summed up a lot of the defense last year. I'm hoping that the return of Reader and the addition of Ogunjobi will open things up for the LBs as opposed to last year when blockers ate up the defensive line like swiss cheese.

[impactplaya]

Right now this era of football.is dictating that your LBers
Be better good at covering TEs RBs and WRs
Yeah 20 years ago it was important they stop the run and get
After the QB but the game is so different.
Now offenses are spreading defenses sideline to sideline.
Defenses are now expecting their front 4 to
Get heat on the QB and the back 7 to cover.

Their is no reason to.draft a LB in.RD 2 when oline
And WR is a bigger need.

[leonardfan40]

I agree this is a good LB draft. May say less about this class and more about the last few being bad but either way I do like the class. I think the real strength of this LB class (and really this draft overall) is in the 3rd/early 4th rounds. Wish we had an extra pick or 2 in that area.

We have several young LB’s I liked when we drafted them so I’ll be fine if we avoid LB completely but if the right opportunity comes along after we’ve addressed WR and OL then I’d love to grab a value guy in that range. Especially if we happen to trade back in the first (hopefully not-give me Sewell or Chase) or 2nd to add picks in 3-4.

[*SHRacerX*]

(04-17-2021, 05:21 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Are you fine with spending a 2nd or 3rd on a QB then, if it's BPA?

BPA is fine and dandy as an ideal, but the Bengals have more pressing needs and you need to use common sense as well when discussing BPA. Ignoring those for a position that they've sunk a 3rd rounder into each of the last 3 years and 5 of the last 6 years is silly. 

Doubly so when the Bengals are pretty much never going to use 3 LBs at once. If you take every LB on the Bengals last year and add their snap count % all together, you get 208.4%. If you played 3 LBs all the time, you'd have 300%. So it's a position they've spent a 3rd rounder on in 3 straight drafts (and 5 out of 6) that they only need 2 players (and maybe a backup for that 8.4% of the time) for.

TLL nailed it.  Yes, everyone saw the impact of Devon White in the Super Bowl, but if he didn't have a great line in front of him and a good secondary behind him, it would not have worked out that way for him.  I don't mean to say LB is not important, but between Wilson, ADG, and Pratt, the Bengals should be set in the LB department.  

That being said, I FULLY expect a veteran LB to be released from some team in a cap maneuver and the Bengals jump all over it.  

[Hammerstripes]

(04-17-2021, 05:21 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Are you fine with spending a 2nd or 3rd on a QB then, if it's BPA?

BPA is fine and dandy as an ideal, but the Bengals have more pressing needs and you need to use common sense as well when discussing BPA. Ignoring those for a position that they've sunk a 3rd rounder into each of the last 3 years and 5 of the last 6 years is silly. 

Doubly so when the Bengals are pretty much never going to use 3 LBs at once. If you take every LB on the Bengals last year and add their snap count % all together, you get 208.4%. If you played 3 LBs all the time, you'd have 300%. So it's a position they've spent a 3rd rounder on in 3 straight drafts (and 5 out of 6) that they only need 2 players (and maybe a backup for that 8.4% of the time) for.

In all fairness, that rule needs to have parenthesis with it.  The only time you don't draft BPA is if you have a young QB.  Only 1 QB plays at a time, so theres really no need.

But every other position has multiple guys that play.  I always advocate for BPA, and using FA to make sure you have a decent starter at every position.