bfiner Mock (2025)

[SunsetBengal]

(04-01-2025, 07:26 PM)Bengalstripes9 Wrote: Bengals need a guard—probably two. I like the pick.

He shouldn’t need to play tackle so I don’t really care if he can play tackle or not.

He can play either guard spot and it’s a need.

If he’s legit it’s a home run pick and at least 1 guard spot is solved on the cheap for 5 years.

4 years on the cheap, that 5th year is going to cost a bit. However, I would love if the Bengals changed their mindset back to that of Paul Brown, and started building their teams from the inside out.

[Whatever]

(04-01-2025, 06:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I get that Booker is not a sexy pick and that there are tons more High-Floor picks out there, but we know this dude can protect his quarterback and is durable.

Some folks want a more versatile player (Jackson, NDSU kid). We don't know that Booker cannot play Tackle, we just know he hasn't been asked.

Dude definitely has the build to play OT at 6'5" and 34.5" Arms, Jackson has 33.5" arms and the NDSU kid has 32" Arms

I wouldn't say I would want a more versatile player in regards to position.  Jackson I think could survive at T if you needed him to in an emergency, but I wouldn't peg him as Brown's heir apparent, either.  Zabel, probably the same, though the really short arms make it sketchy.  I don't see him being a T and often see C as what he'll be in the pro's, which he hasn't played before, due to arm length.

To me, it's more of an issue of Booker being limited schematically and the fact that philosophically, the OL needs to get more athletic.  We have had the least athletic OL in the league the last several years, and it shows.  We dumped Pollack because his "glass eaters" philosophy was a complete failure, but Booker doesn't really represent a step forward, just further digging in to that philosophy.

[*ochocincos*]

(Yesterday, 12:46 PM)Whatever Wrote: I wouldn't say I would want a more versatile player in regards to position.  Jackson I think could survive at T if you needed him to in an emergency, but I wouldn't peg him as Brown's heir apparent, either.  Zabel, probably the same, though the really short arms make it sketchy.  I don't see him being a T and often see C as what he'll be in the pro's, which he hasn't played before, due to arm length.

To me, it's more of an issue of Booker being limited schematically and the fact that philosophically, the OL needs to get more athletic.  We have had the least athletic OL in the league the last several years, and it shows.  We dumped Pollack because his "glass eaters" philosophy was a complete failure, but Booker doesn't really represent a step forward, just further digging in to that philosophy.

In a perfect world, Bengals get a guy who has:
A) Played at least one full season of Guard in college
B) Played well across multiple seasons in college
C) Been a starter for multiple years in college
D) Has the necessary athleticism and power to succeed in multiple schemes
E) Has proven himself both as a run blocker and pass blocker
F) Has gone against FBS talent

Bonus of being able to swing out to OT or inside to C in a pinch.

To me, that's very few of the OL in this draft class.

[3wt]

(03-31-2025, 11:42 PM)sandwedge Wrote: To be fair, that was a very late hit

It was a late hit, but as good as Steinbach was he could be manhandled by certain players.

[3wt]

(04-01-2025, 06:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I get that Booker is not a sexy pick and that there are tons more High-Floor picks out there, but we know this dude can protect his quarterback and is durable.

Some folks want a more versatile player (Jackson, NDSU kid). We don't know that Booker cannot play Tackle, we just know he hasn't been asked.

Dude definitely has the build to play OT at 6'5" and 34.5" Arms, Jackson has 33.5" arms and the NDSU kid has 32" Arms

I'm all about protecting the core of the pocket and being able to assert some dominance in the running game - especially in "must have" short yardage snaps.   With his wingspan and strength this guy can effect both.   I'm up for it.  And as much as we need a 3 technique and safety - both of which might be available, it's time to do what we've been asking for since the franchise got here:  protect his valuable self.

I'd go guard again in the 2nd if Ratlege is there.   Bookend guards is what I've been wanting for a while.  Give Joe a solid inner pocket and he's going to do a lot of damage in a surgical kind of way.

[Whatever]

(2 hours ago)3wt Wrote: I'm all about protecting the core of the pocket and being able to assert some dominance in the running game - especially in "must have" short yardage snaps.   With his wingspan and strength this guy can effect both.   I'm up for it.  And as much as we need a 3 technique and safety - both of which might be available, it's time to do what we've been asking for since the franchise got here:  protect his valuable self.

I'd go guard again in the 2nd if Ratlege is there.   Bookend guards is what I've been wanting for a while.  Give Joe a solid inner pocket and he's going to do a lot of damage in a surgical kind of way.

It's been a couple of years since last I looked into it, but OL's with multiple rookie starters almost always perform poorly.  Generally, you can work in one rookie starters without too much issue, but with two, it just spirals.  

Beyond that, you'd have almost certainly the least athletic T-G pairing watching Joe's blindside.