Drafting

[THE PISTONS]

So I see a lot of people post on here about how we can fill a lot of our needs with extra draft picks.

While we may draft positions of need: C, RT, LB, etc. we typically haven't filled actual needs: which is starters.

Just because we draft a position that we need doesn't mean these guys will pan out. Conversely...we'll be lucky to have 2 guys from the upcoming draft be quality starters here.

Some guys get forced to start due to no other options (Bodine)...but that doesn't mean we filled a need.

I read about the perils of free agents...how you sign them and pay a lot and they may not pan out. Well, there is atleast game tape for them against NFL level talent. Our draft pick miss rate is arguably much higher than the free agent rate.

Food for thought.

[Au165]

The best teams don't draft for immediate needs you draft for future needs. This is where the best p[layer available thing comes form. Even though you may not need them now you take talent and let them be the future. If your drafting for immediate needs your in trouble. I listened to Bill Polian talk about this a couple years back. The issue is we have had some issues with some recent drafts that didn't allow them to cover the future, now present, needs.

[milksheikh]

(01-24-2017, 12:51 PM)Au165 Wrote: The best teams don't draft for immediate needs you draft for future needs. This is where the best p[layer available thing comes form. Even though you may not need them now you take talent and let them be the future. If your drafting for immediate needs your in trouble. I listened to Bill Polian talk about this a couple years back. The issue is we have had some issues with some recent drafts that didn't allow them to cover the future, now present, needs.

The thing is we have immediate needs where we can't afford to take "future" needs, we need to take players that will make an impact now or we could be looking at another losing season.

[BengalChris]

(01-24-2017, 12:05 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: So I see a lot of people post on here about how we can fill a lot of our needs with extra draft picks.

While we may draft positions of need: C, RT, LB, etc. we typically haven't filled actual needs: which is starters.

Just because we draft a position that we need doesn't mean these guys will pan out. Conversely...we'll be lucky to have 2 guys from the upcoming draft be quality starters here.

Some guys get forced to start due to no other options (Bodine)...but that doesn't mean we filled a need.

I read about the perils of free agents...how you sign them and pay a lot and they may not pan out. Well, there is atleast game tape for them against NFL level talent. Our draft pick miss rate is arguably much higher than the free agent rate.

Food for thought.

Mikey Brown disagrees with you.

Of course Mikey Brown disagrees on many common sense matters.

[THE PISTONS]

(01-24-2017, 01:00 PM)milksheikh Wrote: The thing is we have immediate needs where we can't afford to take "future" needs, we need to take players that will  make an impact now or we could be looking at another losing season.

Exactly! Teams that don't draft for immediate needs also likely use free agency.

Drafting to replace guys that were going to be free agents that we couldn't afford hasn't worked out well.

[CageTheBengal]

(01-24-2017, 12:05 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: So I see a lot of people post on here about how we can fill a lot of our needs with extra draft picks.

While we may draft positions of need: C, RT, LB, etc. we typically haven't filled actual needs: which is starters.

Just because we draft a position that we need doesn't mean these guys will pan out. Conversely...we'll be lucky to have 2 guys from the upcoming draft be quality starters here.

Some guys get forced to start due to no other options (Bodine)...but that doesn't mean we filled a need.

I read about the perils of free agents...how you sign them and pay a lot and they may not pan out. Well, there is atleast game tape for them against NFL level talent. Our draft pick miss rate is arguably much higher than the free agent rate.

Food for thought.

We usually draft at least 7 players a year and bring in a handful of vets on low deals if we're lucky. Of course our success rate with FA's will be higher.

Just because we signed a FA doesn't mean they will pan out and it usually has a bigger toll on our cap than a draftee that didn't pan out. These are the notable FAs we brought into Cincy recently.

B.Lafell
K.Dansby
J.Harrison
N.Clements
L.Coles
A.Bryant
A.Odom
S.Adams

What we don't mention though is the development of our players we previously drafted. It's hard to tell who could improve because we don't watch them practice or their study habits but generally younger players improve from year to year and fill in some of the gaps.

[Au165]

(01-24-2017, 01:00 PM)milksheikh Wrote: The thing is we have immediate needs where we can't afford to take "future" needs, we need to take players that will  make an impact now or we could be looking at another losing season.

As I said teams that need to draft for immediate help.....they are in trouble. When your counting on rookies to save your season your probably already out of it. We aren't that far off honestly, just need to fix a couple things.

[THE PISTONS]

(01-24-2017, 01:56 PM)Au165 Wrote: As I said teams that need to draft for immediate help.....they are in trouble. When your counting on rookies to save your season your probably already out of it. We aren't that far off honestly, just need to fix a couple things.

When you don't sign external free agents and need to fill a starting spot...how do you do it?

We need a C, RT, possibly starting G if Zeitler leaves, possible LT if Whitworth leaves, WR2 if Lafell leaves, 2 starting LB's, and a starting DE to replace MJ, a DT,...and possibly a CB if Kirkpatrick leaves.

That's more than a couple things to fix.

[McC]

(01-24-2017, 02:08 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: When you don't sign external free agents and need to fill a starting spot...how do you do it?

We need a C, RT, possibly starting G if Zeitler leaves, possible LT if Whitworth leaves, WR2 if Lafell leaves, 2 starting LB's, and a starting DE to replace MJ, a DT,...and possibly a CB if Kirkpatrick leaves.

That's more than a couple things to fix.

It feels like we're in a major backslide right now and the window is at least half closed.  And really, the idea of the Bengals drafting so well has largely become a myth.  Our best players are around 30 and not getting any younger.  Time is running out and with Marv in charge, we're basically done for.

[Au165]

(01-24-2017, 02:08 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: When you don't sign external free agents and need to fill a starting spot...how do you do it?

We need a C, RT, possibly starting G if Zeitler leaves, possible LT if Whitworth leaves, WR2 if Lafell leaves, 2 starting LB's, and a starting DE to replace MJ, a DT,...and possibly a CB if Kirkpatrick leaves.

That's more than a couple things to fix.

They have drafted guys in mid rounds they expect to step up think Westerman and Billings. Obviously some will be retained others will be brought in and The draft will fill the rest. This time of year everyone always sees a million holes but every team has holes in the off season.

[THE PISTONS]

(01-24-2017, 02:13 PM)McC Wrote: It feels like we're in a major backslide right now and the window is at least half closed.  And really, the idea of the Bengals drafting so well has largely become a myth.  Our best players are around 30 and not getting any younger.  Time is running out and with Marv in charge, we're basically done for.

Agreed. Our best drafts were 5-6 years ago...partially because we drafted best available player. Recently we have been trying to replace guys who were coming up on free agency 2-3 years out. That hasn't worked very well.

[THE PISTONS]

(01-24-2017, 02:42 PM)Au165 Wrote: They have drafted guys in mid rounds they expect to step up think Westerman and Billings. Obviously some will be retained others will be brought in and The draft will fill the rest. This time of year everyone always sees a million holes but every team has holes in the off season.

Well yeah...someone is going to start at Guard or DT...but the question is will a guy like Westerman play equal or better to Zeitler?

This wasn't a 12 win team. We need to upgrade a bunch of roster talent. If we decline at several spots, we might be a 4 win team in a hurry.

[Thundercloud]

It's also getting tiresome to not see anything out of high draft picks for a year or two. They like to brag about drafting people who don't have to play right away. A No.1 choice should be drafted because he can help right away. If he bombs, ok, hold him back awhile, but try to get them in the damn game.

I think the first three or four choices should get serious looks at starting if they show they've got the chops. This always going with a veteran is not the way to improve.

It's like the old high school and college saying after a bad season: "The good news is we've got everybody back. And the BAD news is we've got everybody back."

[McC]

(01-24-2017, 02:43 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Agreed. Our best drafts were 5-6 years ago...partially because we drafted best available player. Recently we have been trying to replace guys who were coming up on free agency 2-3 years out. That hasn't worked very well.

Our C is bad.  We have no RT.  We have a legit LT for maybe another year and no one to replace him.  We have two good players on our DLine.  Our S's are mediocre at best.  Our first round RG will likely leave.  Our LB's are slow and none of them can cover a TE or RB out of the backfield.  Our RB situation is a mess.  We have a great TE who can't stay on the field and neither can one of his backups and the other is still a project, though he seems to be making strides.  We have no K.  We've gotten nothing from a first round pick in what, three years? 

If I'm looking at all that objectively, we sure look screwed.

[THE PISTONS]

(01-24-2017, 02:50 PM)Thundercloud Wrote: It's also getting tiresome to not see anything out of high draft picks for a year or two.  They like to brag about drafting people who don't have to play right away.  A No.1 choice should be drafted because he can help right away.  If he bombs, ok, hold him back awhile, but try to get them in the damn game.

I think the first three or four choices should get serious looks at starting if they show they've got the chops.  This always going with a veteran is not the way to improve.

It's like the old high school and college saying after a bad season: "The good news is we've got everybody back. And the BAD news is we've got everybody back."

Yep. And arguably 2 years ago we had one of the top 5 rosters in the NFL. It's hard to get a rookie to come in and start in that scenario.

This past years roster and next years roster...have ample holes where a rookie would upgrade.

A guy like Rueben Foster would be a major upgrade to Maualuga for instance.

[TKUHL]

(01-24-2017, 12:05 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: So I see a lot of people post on here about how we can fill a lot of our needs with extra draft picks.

While we may draft positions of need: C, RT, LB, etc. we typically haven't filled actual needs: which is starters.

Just because we draft a position that we need doesn't mean these guys will pan out. Conversely...we'll be lucky to have 2 guys from the upcoming draft be quality starters here.

Some guys get forced to start due to no other options (Bodine)...but that doesn't mean we filled a need.

I read about the perils of free agents...how you sign them and pay a lot and they may not pan out. Well, there is atleast game tape for them against NFL level talent. Our draft pick miss rate is arguably much higher than the free agent rate.

Food for thought.

I believe you fill needs threw FA so it will open up the draft to take BPA so you dont reach for players. But this team is scared to do anything other than the norm. They constantly try to fill immediate needs in the draft only to find out 2 or 3 years later that the player they put so much faith in is just not very good. We need to find that balance in FA and the draft. Sign Whit, Zeitler and even though I dont care for Kirk sign him or bring someone in. There are some good FA's this year.

[Thundercloud]

(01-24-2017, 02:53 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Yep. And arguably 2 years ago we had one of the top 5 rosters in the NFL. It's hard to get a rookie to come in and start in that scenario.

This past years roster and next years roster...have ample holes where a rookie would upgrade.

A guy like Rueben Foster would be a major upgrade to Maualuga for instance.

I think Rueben Foster would upgrade the whole defense.

[Derrick]

(01-24-2017, 12:51 PM)Au165 Wrote: The best teams don't draft for immediate needs you draft for future needs. This is where the best p[layer available thing comes form. Even though you may not need them now you take talent and let them be the future. If your drafting for immediate needs your in trouble. I listened to Bill Polian talk about this a couple years back. The issue is we have had some issues with some recent drafts that didn't allow them to cover the future, now present, needs.

Yet I suspect these "best" teams use the FA market to their advantage...unlike the Bengals.

[Passepartout]

Not just beefing up the O.L. but also needing to remember defenses do win the game.

[Au165]

(01-24-2017, 07:41 PM)Derrick Wrote: Yet I suspect these "best" teams use the FA market to their advantage...unlike the Bengals.

Well I'd argue that this patriots haven't used FA all that much. Hogan was a lower profile FA than Lafell. Blount and Lewis were cast offs. Amendola was a constantly injured cast off. Maybe you could point to sheard but Dansby was about on par to that one.

Not saying they don't sign FAs but they are normally cast offs with issues very similar to what we do. The only real difference is their coaching and their hall of fame QB.

Falcons on the other hand did sign Sanu and Mack, so it can be done either way.