Using context to judge this draft

[Hammerstripes]

(05-04-2022, 09:05 AM)fredtoast Wrote: So your are saying that Tretter has character issues that would keep Taylor from wanting to sign him?

I don't think that's the case.

From what I've read, he never practices because he has knee issues - only plays on Sundays.

[Whatever]

(05-04-2022, 10:38 AM)fredtoast Wrote: WTF does Tebow have to do with Trotter telling players not to attend OTAs? 

The fact that Trotter values players over the profits of ownership is clearly part of his "character". And you don't want him on the team because of it.

Tebow is an example of someone that appears to have a high moral character who's presence I wouldn't want on my team.  

OTA's have very little impact on the profits of ownership.  It does have an impact on winning, so you could make the argument that he cares more about players than winning.  I also have to point out that Tretter is an elected official.  Elected officials often do not act in accordance with their own personal beliefs.  Hell, elected officials often abuse their power for their own personal gain, sometimes to the detriment of their constituents.  For all anybody knows, Tretter may just not want to do OTA's anymore and uses his union status to push that agenda.  

Furthermore, I could really care less if his reasons are selfish or altruistic and I doubt NFL FO's do, either.  

[KillerGoose]

(05-04-2022, 10:08 AM)Whatever Wrote: If he's a good C, good locker room guy, and having the NFLPA president on your team is so valuable, why is he still unemployed?

My initial argument is that he is not a presence you want around your team.  A player of high influence who actively discourages players from taking part in programs designed to help improve your team is not a presence you want around your team, at least if you are worried about winning games.  

From the Bengals' perspective, more specifically, you just won the AFC with 100% participation in OTA's.  Why would you want to move backwards and try to "make it work" with virtual OTA's because of one guy?  Or, look at the Ravens.  They needed a C and didn't go after Tretter.  Of course, Harbaugh is notorious for running more padded practices than the CBA allows.  That's not happening with the NFLPA President there.

I can't answer that. The league may not have the same opinion as I do of him. He may be waiting until later into the summer. I genuinely don't know. You're also failing to understand what I posted. I am not saying I'd make it work by caving to virtual OTAs. How does that make any sense? I would make it work with having to "deal" with a guy like him. OTAs wouldn't be virtual if the pandemic was in the rear view mirror. 

You're also just massively overplaying his "discouragement" in order to try to defend your position. He suggested boycotting OTAs once, during a pandemic. He came to this conclusion by looking at injury data and using survey data from players around the league. He even stated that it was specifically for this year. Now, he has advocated for an OTA free off-season in the past, but has not actively discouraged anyone from attending outside of the pandemic last season. You seem convinced that OTAs are a crucial part of team success, but the data from 2020, where in-person OTAs did not happen, suggest otherwise. There may be little to no correlation to in-person OTAs and team success. 

• In 2020, without in-person OTAs or pre-season games, 53% (17) teams across the league improved on their win percentage compared to 2019. 
• Offensive scoring increased by 9%.
• Penalties decreased by 20%
• Compared to the previous five seasons, concussion occurrences decreased by 19% 
• Compared to previous five seasons, ACL tears increased by about 25%
• Compared to previous five seasons, MCL tears increased by roughly 7%
  

So, soft tissues injuries went up, concussion occurrences dropped dramatically along with penalties, offenses performed better and over half of the league improved on their win total. Does this definitively mean that OTAs, or even pre-season, are inhibiting a better NFL? No, not necessarily. We'd need more data, but there is at least something here to challenge the notion that OTAs definitively have an impact on winning. Overall, I don't care about Tretter's position on OTAs. I see his angle and I think it is reasonable, especially as the president of the NFLPA. I think he'd be a fine presence in the locker room. You don't. That's okay, too.

[Whatever]

(05-04-2022, 03:08 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: I can't answer that. The league may not have the same opinion as I do of him. He may be waiting until later into the summer. I genuinely don't know. You're also failing to understand what I posted. I am not saying I'd make it work by caving to virtual OTAs. How does that make any sense? I would make it work with having to "deal" with a guy like him. OTAs wouldn't be virtual if the pandemic was in the rear view mirror. 

You're also just massively overplaying his "discouragement" in order to try to defend your position. He suggested boycotting OTAs once, during a pandemic. He came to this conclusion by looking at injury data and using survey data from players around the league. He even stated that it was specifically for this year. Now, he has advocated for an OTA free off-season in the past, but has not actively discouraged anyone from attending outside of the pandemic last season. You seem convinced that OTAs are a crucial part of team success, but the data from 2020, where in-person OTAs did not happen, suggest otherwise. There may be little to no correlation to in-person OTAs and team success. 

• In 2020, without in-person OTAs or pre-season games, 53% (17) teams across the league improved on their win percentage compared to 2019. 
• Offensive scoring increased by 9%.
• Penalties decreased by 20%
• Compared to the previous five seasons, concussion occurrences decreased by 19% 
• Compared to previous five seasons, ACL tears increased by about 25%
• Compared to previous five seasons, MCL tears increased by roughly 7%
  

So, soft tissues injuries went up, concussion occurrences dropped dramatically along with penalties, offenses performed better and over half of the league improved on their win total. Does this definitively mean that OTAs, or even pre-season, are inhibiting a better NFL? No, not necessarily. We'd need more data, but there is at least something here to challenge the notion that OTAs definitively have an impact on winning. Overall, I don't care about Tretter's position on OTAs. I see his angle and I think it is reasonable, especially as the president of the NFLPA. I think he'd be a fine presence in the locker room. You don't. That's okay, too.

You do realize Tretter had most of the Browns vets boycott in person OTA'S last year and made them do Phase 2 virtually, right?  How would you "deal with it" and not do virtual OTA'S when Tretter tells all the players not to show up?

Am I overplaying his discouragement?


Tretter wrote that less than half of NFL players attended the four-week Phase I “and players on more than half the teams in the league have negotiated new rules for the remaining voluntary workout periods.’'
He said team leaders this offseason got the program shortened to nine weeks, decreased the number of practices, and decreased the intensity by converting practices to walk-throughs and eliminating 11-on-11s.

“These are significant improvements for our membership,’' he said.
Although teams were permitted on-field instruction in the one-week Phase II this week, the Browns opted to remain virtual for the veterans and will take to the field next week in Phase III, which consists of 10 practices over the next three weeks, followed by the minicamp. Tretter told Breer that he and most of his teammates will hold firm and skip the voluntary practices because the leadership council believes “most guys feel good about where they’re training at and what they’re doing.”
The Browns rookies, on the other, participated in the voluntary rookie minicamp despite the NFLPA urging them not to and are sticking around for OTAs.

“Players are now viewing the offseason the way our union intended,’' Tretter wrote. “Each individual player has the right to decide: ‘Is my team’s program a valuable enough experience to me that it’s worth volunteering my off time to participate?’ Considering the CBA-defined offseason, the majority of players answered that question with a resounding “no.”
“The onus then shifts to each individual team to create a new offseason program that will cause a player to answer that question with a “yes.” The league office has shown zero leadership on the subject, so there is no uniformity across the NFL, putting GMs and coaches in a tough spot.

I think you're either downplaying or just not well read on the topic.  This is a guy who's actively pushing players to skip OTA'S and has said that he wants to get them abolished entirely in the next CBA.  And he never really mentioned the pandemic in the article that came from except to say it showed players what the off-season could be 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cleveland.com/browns/2021/05/nflpa-president-jc-tretter-says-most-browns-players-still-plan-to-skip-voluntary-otas-next-week-and-control-their-offseason.html%3foutputType=amp

As far as benefits of virtual OTA's, that's not really the discussion, but those stats are a joke.  17 teams increased their win total...so correspondingly 15 teams decreased in wins.  And what does that even mean when everyone had to do virtual OTA'S?  Scoring went up...hmm...well, limited crowds means no crowd noise to hamper the visiting offense.  Less penalties. .with less crowd noise and no home fans pressuring the refs for calls.  Concussions went down?  Well they kind of should have given that the league expanded defenseless player criteria to cut down on helmet to helmet hits.

[KillerGoose]

(05-04-2022, 05:21 PM)Whatever Wrote: You do realize Tretter had most of the Browns vets boycott in person OTA'S last year and made them do Phase 2 virtually, right?  How would you "deal with it" and not do virtual OTA'S when Tretter tells all the players not to show up?

Am I overplaying his discouragement?


Tretter wrote that less than half of NFL players attended the four-week Phase I “and players on more than half the teams in the league have negotiated new rules for the remaining voluntary workout periods.’'
He said team leaders this offseason got the program shortened to nine weeks, decreased the number of practices, and decreased the intensity by converting practices to walk-throughs and eliminating 11-on-11s.

“These are significant improvements for our membership,’' he said.
Although teams were permitted on-field instruction in the one-week Phase II this week, the Browns opted to remain virtual for the veterans and will take to the field next week in Phase III, which consists of 10 practices over the next three weeks, followed by the minicamp. Tretter told Breer that he and most of his teammates will hold firm and skip the voluntary practices because the leadership council believes “most guys feel good about where they’re training at and what they’re doing.”
The Browns rookies, on the other, participated in the voluntary rookie minicamp despite the NFLPA urging them not to and are sticking around for OTAs.

“Players are now viewing the offseason the way our union intended,’' Tretter wrote. “Each individual player has the right to decide: ‘Is my team’s program a valuable enough experience to me that it’s worth volunteering my off time to participate?’ Considering the CBA-defined offseason, the majority of players answered that question with a resounding “no.”
“The onus then shifts to each individual team to create a new offseason program that will cause a player to answer that question with a “yes.” The league office has shown zero leadership on the subject, so there is no uniformity across the NFL, putting GMs and coaches in a tough spot.

I think you're either downplaying or just not well read on the topic.  This is a guy who's actively pushing players to skip OTA'S and has said that he wants to get them abolished entirely in the next CBA.  And he never really mentioned the pandemic in the article that came from except to say it showed players what the off-season could be 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cleveland.com/browns/2021/05/nflpa-president-jc-tretter-says-most-browns-players-still-plan-to-skip-voluntary-otas-next-week-and-control-their-offseason.html%3foutputType=amp

As far as benefits of virtual OTA's, that's not really the discussion, but those stats are a joke.  17 teams increased their win total...so correspondingly 15 teams decreased in wins.  And what does that even mean when everyone had to do virtual OTA'S?  Scoring went up...hmm...well, limited crowds means no crowd noise to hamper the visiting offense.  Less penalties. .with less crowd noise and no home fans pressuring the refs for calls.  Concussions went down?  Well they kind of should have given that the league expanded defenseless player criteria to cut down on helmet to helmet hits.

You know, you bring up some good points. I don't think I am making a very good case here and that is making me question my stance. When evaluating all of this, I hadn't factored in that crowds were also not a thing, which to me would much better answer the penalty and offensive shifts. You're correct, I was not well read on how strongly his influence impacted OTA participations. I think my responses have been largely biased because I personally don't believe that OTAs are big deal, but from an organizational standpoint, they are likely more important than I am making them out to be. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(05-04-2022, 05:33 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: You know, you bring up some good points. I don't think I am making a very good case here and that is making me question my stance. When evaluating all of this, I hadn't factored in that crowds were also not a thing, which to me would much better answer the penalty and offensive shifts. You're correct, I was not well read on how strongly his influence impacted OTA participations. I think my responses have been largely biased because I personally don't believe that OTAs are big deal, but from an organizational standpoint, they are likely more important than I am making them out to be. 

Weren't the Bengals one of the few teams to have 100% participation last year?
I can kinda see where that might be an issue.

[KillerGoose]

(05-04-2022, 05:47 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Weren't the Bengals one of the few teams to have 100% participation last year?
I can kinda see where that might be an issue.

Yes, I think they did have 100% participation. 

[OSUfan]

(05-02-2022, 12:05 PM)CardCounterChris Wrote: I like the players. I think we got some really talented guys. I also realize where we drafted.  However, I did wonder about a few things during the draft.  Did we need to give up our 6th to move up in the 5th for another safety? We could have grabbed another OL, TE, or WR with that. Did we overdraft Safety?  Will Dax Hill see enough of the field in year 1?

I'm not saying things are failing apart or terrible. I don't want to take the shine from the players and their moment either.  However, I think its still fine to discuss things that stood out as maybe not great?

Yes Hill will see the field in year 1 and I think it will be in many forms due to his versatility. However, the point is that the Bengals have reached the coveted position of not having to draft for starters and people are going to have to get use to that. It is a good thing. Did we overdraft at S? No not really considering a real lack of depth there and the fact that Bates and Bell both are near the end of their deals. However, with the use of TEs in the receiving game these days even if they bring Bates or Bell back we are still in good shape to show multiple safety sets.

I continue to see people talking about taking another O lineman like we did nothing to improve our line. Here is how I see the line:


LT - Jonah Williams / D'Ante Smith
LG - Jackson Carman / Cordell Volson
C - Ted Karra / Trey Hill
RG - Alex Cappa / Volson / Ben Brown
RT - Lael Collins / Isaiah Prince 

That is already more O linemen then are typically kept on the roster for a season so not sure where they would fit more of them.

The cupboard is certainly not bare at TE either. I think Hurst was an outstanding acquisition that will fit very well in this offense as a receiving threat. As well there is still Sample, Moss, and Wilcox but the guy that intrigues me is Scotty Washington. Seems many have forgotten the WR turned TE who is not up to a solid almost 250. I would hope they are going to give him a good look at the position. They have also brought in Riggs the UDFA from Kentucky.

I think they added some really complimentary pieces in this draft that are going to add real versatility in the defensive looks that they will be able to run to confuse opposing offenses.