Way Too Early Pan Me Mock December 16

[puddycat]

As Joe Goodberry points out, we often play a 5 man front, which means that having more DTs isn't out of the question.  IMO you chose 2 DTs who don't really rush the passer and you did so in the 1st two rounds.  I'd be good with either one of your DTs picks.
IMO we need more speed and athleticism on defense at every position except CB, with edge being a priority.
CTB, Hill, and Anthony could all be CBs or safeties. Figure it out already.
Lastly we could use a swing OT and IOL, who should be on the athletic side as well.
Draft Philosophy: I HATE picking talented players who couldn't produce in college which leave coaches scratching their head as to why they still don't produce in the NFL.  You can have all the smarties for your chess team; I want to have the ones who actually know how to play chess.

[Whatever]

(12-18-2024, 10:28 PM)puddycat Wrote: As Joe Goodberry points out, we often play a 5 man front, which means that having more DTs isn't out of the question.  IMO you chose 2 DTs who don't really rush the passer and you did so in the 1st two rounds.  I'd be good with either one of your DTs picks.
IMO we need more speed and athleticism on defense at every position except CB, with edge being a priority.
CTB, Hill, and Anthony could all be CBs or safeties. Figure it out already.
Lastly we could use a swing OT and IOL, who should be on the athletic side as well.
Draft Philosophy: I HATE picking talented players who couldn't produce in college which leave coaches scratching their head as to why they still don't produce in the NFL.  You can have all the smarties for your chess team; I want to have the ones who actually know how to play chess.

Deone Walker led the nation in pressures last year and had 7.5 sacks and doesn't rush the passer?

This is a pretty poor OL class.  Yeah, I would like to get someone, but we're just at a point of having more holes than picks.  That's why I just focused on getting good players instead of trying to hit specific needs.  Plus, it's a good FA G class and T isn't a need, aside from depth.

[Whatever]

(12-18-2024, 03:37 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Spending that much draft capital at DB makes sense because you have 4-5 starter spots at general DB.
DT there are only 2 starter spots.
If you generalized it to DL to include DEs, I would be more into that approach.

I'll somewhat disagree on Jackson.
Had they used their regular 3rd, I would have felt it was a reach, but I had seen him across multiple sites as a 4th, so jumping up a bit by using a 3rd round comp isn't a big deal if they didn't think he'd have fallen to their 4th round pick.

To me, this wasn't Drew Sample-esque where they took a prospect 3 rounds too early (5th rounder taken in Rd 2).

My draft philosophy (right or wrong) is you use your 1st and 2nd rounders for planned starters. They can be backups for first year, maybe 2, but those are guys you have pegged for soon-to-be-starters.
3rd-4th rounders are for rotational players who may be starters but you aren't counting on that to happen.
5th round and later are purely for backup, ST, and gamble picks.

Bengals didn't invest a 1st in CB when they made the Dax Hill selection. He was the planned future starter for FS. He just didn't work out there so they tried him at CB and it seems to maybe be a better fit.
Turner and CTB, IMO, were likely the planned future starters along with Dax Hill at FS and potentially Battle at SS after the veterans departed.

At DT though, there are only 2 spots.
Jenkins should cover 1 of those spots next year, or at least have that as the long term plan.
It would not have been wise to use a 2nd round pick on a long-term rotational player, especially one who needed work as a pass rusher.
If you wanna relegate Jackson to backup NT, that's fine, but investing another 1st and 2nd round pick at DT feels like overdoing it, to me.
One/both of those guys would end up being a backup or Jenkins, which to me means they overreached on one of them.


I realize not everyone agrees or follows the same draft philosophy I have though, and that's fine.

While I understand your sentiment, largely because I felt that way at one point, I think we need to be realistic.  Jenkins has a 51.8 PFF grade and has played 50% of the snaps in the games he's played.  Jackson grades at 44.8.  Neither has really shown that they have their respective positions on lock or will ever be more than rotation players..  And DT's rotate a lot, so you're still getting value out of them even if they aren't starters, as opposed to other position groups.  If this was OL, WR, DB, or another position where you don't rotate much, I'd agree.

[*Synric*]

(12-17-2024, 08:02 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Depending on what you are setting in your mock draft simulator, I guess.

When I look at NFL Draft Buzz, Watts is listed as an average overall prospect ranking of 52.6, which would put him square in the middle of Rd 2.
That average ranking is an average of all the draft sites/sources in their database.

Personally, I'd pull the trigger on Watts in Rd 2, but that's based on what I've personally seen of him. I'd be ecstatic to get him in Rd 3.

Xavier Watts might be the best deep zone safety in the draft class. He don't think  have the speed and length to threaten the sidelines as much from the post as Jessie Bates but he definitely has the same instincts.

[*ochocincos*]

(12-19-2024, 10:45 AM)Whatever Wrote: While I understand your sentiment, largely because I felt that way at one point, I think we need to be realistic.  Jenkins has a 51.8 PFF grade and has played 50% of the snaps in the games he's played.  Jackson grades at 44.8.  Neither has really shown that they have their respective positions on lock or will ever be more than rotation players..  And DT's rotate a lot, so you're still getting value out of them even if they aren't starters, as opposed to other position groups.  If this was OL, WR, DB, or another position where you don't rotate much, I'd agree.

I'm going to be blunt...what do you expect most early draft picks to do, grade-wise?
Amarius Mims, the 1st rounder, has a 57.7 grade.

I think everyone needs to be realistic and understand a high majority of rookies are not going to grade 60+ their first season.

If you have a whole collection of rookies and sophomores at DT, you're more than likely going to get just meh performance the first year or two like we see with Jenkins today.

This is why I was proposing getting a veteran to go along with one early round DT rather than get two early-round DTs.
The veteran can help bridge the gap while Jenkins (and Jackson) continues to develop.
If that were to mean bringing back BJ Hill on a 1-year or 2-year contract to help stopgap, I'm game for that. He's the 2nd best DL the Bengals have this year.

[*ochocincos*]

(12-19-2024, 10:58 AM)Synric Wrote: Xavier Watts might be the best deep zone safety in the draft class. He don't think  have the speed and length to threaten the sidelines as much from the post as Jessie Bates but he definitely has the same instincts.

Exactly why I like him.

Starks in Rd 1, Watts in Rd 2, or Mukuba in Rd 3 if Bengals were going to target a FS.

[Whatever]

(12-19-2024, 11:03 AM)ochocincos Wrote: I'm going to be blunt...what do you expect most early draft picks to do, grade-wise?
Amarius Mims, the 1st rounder, has a 57.7 grade.

I think everyone needs to be realistic and understand a high majority of rookies are not going to grade 60+ their first season.

If you have a whole collection of rookies and sophomores at DT, you're more than likely going to get just meh performance the first year or two like we see with Jenkins today.

This is why I was proposing getting a veteran to go along with one early round DT rather than get two early-round DTs.
The veteran can help bridge the gap while Jenkins (and Jackson) continues to develop.
If that were to mean bringing back BJ Hill on a 1-year or 2-year contract to help stopgap, I'm game for that. He's the 2nd best DL the Bengals have this year.

You may have to suffer through growing pains.  Have you looked at the FA DT class?  It's very weak Hill may be the best hitting the market.  So you're going to overpay on a multi-year deal for a rotation player if you go that router.  

It's a much better S class in FA, but you're saying bypass that and drop a 2nd on one.  

The reality is, unless you get VERY lucky, you're not going to be able to get multiple immediate starters or turn your fortunes around based on the draft.  Even after the Burrow/Higgins/Wilson draft, we were still picking Top 5 the following year.  It's about getting guys to build around for the future, not filling holes.  

[*ochocincos*]

(12-19-2024, 01:43 PM)Whatever Wrote: You may have to suffer through growing pains.  Have you looked at the FA DT class?  It's very weak Hill may be the best hitting the market.  So you're going to overpay on a multi-year deal for a rotation player if you go that router.  

It's a much better S class in FA, but you're saying bypass that and drop a 2nd on one.  

The reality is, unless you get VERY lucky, you're not going to be able to get multiple immediate starters or turn your fortunes around based on the draft.  Even after the Burrow/Higgins/Wilson draft, we were still picking Top 5 the following year.  It's about getting guys to build around for the future, not filling holes.  

I'm also in favor of getting one of the S in FA, although Baker signing an extension takes a good one off the market.
I have just noticed rookie DBs tend to have more success compared to rookie DTs, so that's why I would lean that way.


I would argue if we're having to suffer through growing pains, why is that not the mentality for Jenkins and Jackson?
Are you thinking they are both trash and won't improve to at least solid within a year or two?

[puddycat]

Most picks at all positions who are going to be above average get there by year 2.
Fastest contributors are Linebacker and Safety.
Slowest developers are QB and OL, although large of CB also develop skills year 3.

In other words, you should expect improvement in year 2, but by year 3 underperformers (except CBs) are more likely to be busts than to develop into good players.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2027100-which-position-presents-the-biggest-leap-for-nfl-draft-prospects

[Whatever]

(12-19-2024, 01:54 PM)ochocincos Wrote: I'm also in favor of getting one of the S in FA, although Baker signing an extension takes a good one off the market.
I have just noticed rookie DBs tend to have more success compared to rookie DTs, so that's why I would lean that way.


I would argue if we're having to suffer through growing pains, why is that not the mentality for Jenkins and Jackson?
Are you thinking they are both trash and won't improve to at least solid within a year or two?

So, two FA's, a 2nd rounder, a 3rd rounder, and a couple of Day 3 picks at a position where you don't rotate that much?  And you're arguing overkill on DT's?

BJ Hill's and Larry O's best sack totals of their careers came when they were together here in '21 and platooning to keep one another fresh.  I think you vastly underestimate the importance of a good IDL rotation.

I'm not giving up on Jenkins or Jackson.  They will still have the opportunity to improve and compete for reps.  They will be anticipated to get a significant amount of PT and contribute.  Now, Zach Carter, I'm giving up on, but if you haven't given up on him, I don't know what to tell you.  But he is a warning about passing on good prospects because you've got guys that haven't shown much that MIGHT develop .  Same with Jackson Carman, Drew Sample, Devon Still, and on and on.

[Whatever]

(12-19-2024, 02:59 PM)puddycat Wrote: Most picks at all positions who are going to be above average get there by year 2.
Fastest contributors are Linebacker and Safety.
Slowest developers are QB and OL, although large of CB also develop skills year 3.

In other words, you should expect improvement in year 2, but by year 3 underperformers (except CBs) are more likely to be busts than to develop into good players.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2027100-which-position-presents-the-biggest-leap-for-nfl-draft-prospects

RB's tend to be able to immediately contribute.  WR's in the first two rounds, as well.

[*ochocincos*]

(12-19-2024, 03:28 PM)Whatever Wrote: So, two FA's, a 2nd rounder, a 3rd rounder, and a couple of Day 3 picks at a position where you don't rotate that much?  And you're arguing overkill on DT's?

BJ Hill's and Larry O's best sack totals of their careers came when they were together here in '21 and platooning to keep one another fresh.  I think you vastly underestimate the importance of a good IDL rotation.

I'm not giving up on Jenkins or Jackson.  They will still have the opportunity to improve and compete for reps.  They will be anticipated to get a significant amount of PT and contribute.  Now, Zach Carter, I'm giving up on, but if you haven't given up on him, I don't know what to tell you.  But he is a warning about passing on good prospects because you've got guys that haven't shown much that MIGHT develop .  Same with Jackson Carman, Drew Sample, Devon Still, and on and on.

I didn't mention Zach Carter, did I?
He was already cut by the team anyway.

2 FAs, a 2nd rounder, a 3rd rounder, and some day 3 picks are not overkill because DB is not 1 position. It's a generalized group that covers 5 starters and typically 10 people overall including depth.
DT covers just 2 starters, usually just 4-5 including backups.

I would argue one of the FAs for DB (Bell) wasn't needed and Battle should have been kept as the starter from the get go, as he did fine there last year. But regardless, at his cheap price tag, he would have been fine as a backup.
The other FA, Stone, was brought in as the other starter. I wasn't confident in his fit because he was basically nothing in BAL outside of 7 INTs in 2023, but it is what it is.
A 2nd rounder should be able to start sometime in their 2nd year.
The Day 3 picks are depth, so I was fine with that.

If I want just backups at DT, I'll invest a Day 3 pick. If I want someone who I envision to play heavy snaps within a year or two, I'll invest a 1st or 2nd rounder. If I want someone to play a handful of snaps in a rotational role and maybe start in a few years or so after some development, I'll invest a 3-4 rounder.

[Whatever]

(12-19-2024, 07:32 PM)ochocincos Wrote: I didn't mention Zach Carter, did I?
He was already cut by the team anyway.

2 FAs, a 2nd rounder, a 3rd rounder, and some day 3 picks are not overkill because DB is not 1 position. It's a generalized group that covers 5 starters and typically 10 people overall including depth.
DT covers just 2 starters, usually just 4-5 including backups.

I would argue one of the FAs for DB (Bell) wasn't needed and Battle should have been kept as the starter from the get go, as he did fine there last year. But regardless, at his cheap price tag, he would have been fine as a backup.
The other FA, Stone, was brought in as the other starter. I wasn't confident in his fit because he was basically nothing in BAL outside of 7 INTs in 2023, but it is what it is.
A 2nd rounder should be able to start sometime in their 2nd year.
The Day 3 picks are depth, so I was fine with that.

If I want just backups at DT, I'll invest a Day 3 pick. If I want someone who I envision to play heavy snaps within a year or two, I'll invest a 1st or 2nd rounder. If I want someone to play a handful of snaps in a rotational role and maybe start in a few years or so after some development, I'll invest a 3-4 rounder.

2 FA's, a 2nd rounder, a 3rd rounder, and 2 Day 3 picks is complete overkill when you usually only have 2 S's on the field and they hardly rotate.  You're also typically only going to see a S covering at CB in an emergency.  Not to mention, by the same logic, DT's are just DL, so that's not overkill.

You were saying you wanted another S signed in FA, in addition to the one you want to draft high.  And Watts or whoever will have to beat out your FA, Battle, plus Anderson and Anthony in '26 to meet your goal.

Hill played 47% of the defensive snaps in '21.  That's a lot more than "just a handful of snaps".  That's basically half the game on defense.  

Besides which, again, a good pass rush will make a suspect secondary look good.  A good secondary won't do the same for the DL.  

[*ochocincos*]

(Yesterday, 01:19 AM)Whatever Wrote: 2 FA's, a 2nd rounder, a 3rd rounder, and 2 Day 3 picks is complete overkill when you usually only have 2 S's on the field and they hardly rotate.  You're also typically only going to see a S covering at CB in an emergency.  Not to mention, by the same logic, DT's are just DL, so that's not overkill.

You were saying you wanted another S signed in FA, in addition to the one you want to draft high.  And Watts or whoever will have to beat out your FA, Battle, plus Anderson and Anthony in '26 to meet your goal.

Hill played 47% of the defensive snaps in '21.  That's a lot more than "just a handful of snaps".  That's basically half the game on defense.  

Besides which, again, a good pass rush will make a suspect secondary look good.  A good secondary won't do the same for the DL.  

But you're not talking about 2 FAs, a 2nd rounder, a 3rd rounder, and 2 Day 3 picks strictly at the safety position.
You're talking about a more broad position that has 5 starter spots and 10 overall spots at DB.

To me, CBs and safeties are not interchangeable, neither are DEs and DTs.
There needs to be a good blend of veterans and draft picks at about every position, in my view.

You COULD put a DT at DE, but just like trying to put a safety at CB, it probably won't work in many situations.

At the end of the day, you personally want to invest a 1st and 2nd rounder at DT when they already added a 2nd rounder and 3rd rounder to DT last year.
That's your prerogative.
I'm simply stating that's not something I agree with or prefer.
Given the state of some of the other positions like DE, SAF, OL, or pass catcher, I'd rather see one of those DT picks go toward a different position unless the other players at the other positions were so bad that I'd feel I'd have to go DT again.

[SunsetBengal]

(Yesterday, 01:19 AM)Whatever Wrote: 2 FA's, a 2nd rounder, a 3rd rounder, and 2 Day 3 picks is complete overkill when you usually only have 2 S's on the field and they hardly rotate.  You're also typically only going to see a S covering at CB in an emergency.  Not to mention, by the same logic, DT's are just DL, so that's not overkill.

You were saying you wanted another S signed in FA, in addition to the one you want to draft high.  And Watts or whoever will have to beat out your FA, Battle, plus Anderson and Anthony in '26 to meet your goal.

Hill played 47% of the defensive snaps in '21.  That's a lot more than "just a handful of snaps".  That's basically half the game on defense.  

Besides which, again, a good pass rush will make a suspect secondary look good.  A good secondary won't do the same for the DL.  

Dax Hill was drafted in 2022, Pro Football Reference has him playing 14% of defensive snaps his rookie year and 42% of special teams snaps.

[Whatever]

(Yesterday, 10:13 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Dax Hill was drafted in 2022, Pro Football Reference has him playing 14% of defensive snaps his rookie year and 42% of special teams snaps.

BJ Hill, not Dax.

[SunsetBengal]

(Yesterday, 10:17 AM)Whatever Wrote: BJ Hill, not Dax.

Yeah, BJ Hill has been a major contributor ever since he's set foot in the building. My mistake about the confusion over which Hill..

[Whatever]

(Yesterday, 10:05 AM)ochocincos Wrote: But you're not talking about 2 FAs, a 2nd rounder, a 3rd rounder, and 2 Day 3 picks strictly at the safety position.
You're talking about a more broad position that has 5 starter spots and 10 overall spots at DB.

To me, CBs and safeties are not interchangeable, neither are DEs and DTs.
There needs to be a good blend of veterans and draft picks at about every position, in my view.

You COULD put a DT at DE, but just like trying to put a safety at CB, it probably won't work in many situations.

At the end of the day, you personally want to invest a 1st and 2nd rounder at DT when they already added a 2nd rounder and 3rd rounder to DT last year.
That's your prerogative.
I'm simply stating that's not something I agree with or prefer.
Given the state of some of the other positions like DE, SAF, OL, or pass catcher, I'd rather see one of those DT picks go toward a different position unless the other players at the other positions were so bad that I'd feel I'd have to go DT again.

If you're talking the entire DB room, then we're talking a 1st(Dax), 3 2nd's (CTB, Turner, and Watts), a 3rd(Battle), and 4 Day 3 picks(Anderson, Ivey, Newton, and Anthony), plus FA starters in Stone plus another S in FA with what you're proposing.

I can understand the overkill argument to a point, but not when your alternate proposal is just to commit even worse overkill at another position group.  

Would you ideally like back to back DT's?  Probably not.  But if I'm running a sim to post, I don't just sit there and run sims until the board falls how I would like it to, because that's highly unrealistic. Our biggest need is pass rush, and the BPA in the 2nd was a good interior pass rusher.. Personally, I don't agree with your philosophy of "take a guy with a late 2nd/early 3rd grade over a guy with a late 1st/early 2nd grade because spread the wealth".  That's how you load your roster with inferior talents and your team goes nowhere.  

I think we are probably at a state here where it's best to agree to disagree and move on.

[*ochocincos*]

(Yesterday, 10:38 AM)Whatever Wrote: If you're talking the entire DB room, then we're talking a 1st(Dax), 3 2nd's (CTB, Turner, and Watts), a 3rd(Battle), and 4 Day 3 picks(Anderson, Ivey, Newton, and Anthony), plus FA starters in Stone plus another S in FA with what you're proposing.

I can understand the overkill argument to a point, but not when your alternate proposal is just to commit even worse overkill at another position group.  

Would you ideally like back to back DT's?  Probably not.  But if I'm running a sim to post, I don't just sit there and run sims until the board falls how I would like it to, because that's highly unrealistic. Our biggest need is pass rush, and the BPA in the 2nd was a good interior pass rusher.. Personally, I don't agree with your philosophy of "take a guy with a late 2nd/early 3rd grade over a guy with a late 1st/early 2nd grade because spread the wealth".  That's how you load your roster with inferior talents and your team goes nowhere.  

I think we are probably at a state here where it's best to agree to disagree and move on.

Yep we can agree to disagree on draft approach.

What I will say again is that I like the actual two DTs you chose.
And man, talk about some meat in the middle if they were both selected.
Nearly 700 lbs between the two of those hosses.