![]() |
|
|
#16 |
|
C-A-T-S CATS! CATS! CATS!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Almost Heaven
Posts: 8,421
|
Re: Standings for draft purposes
Just to show I am serious with my all O-Line approach.
![]() First round=Michael Oher(OT-Ole Miss) Second Round=Alex Mack(C-California) Third Round=Trevor Canfield(G-Cincinnati) Starting O-Line: LT-Michael Oher LG-Andrew Whitworth C-Alex Mack RG-Trevor Canfield RT-Stacy Andrews A lot will be contingent on re-signing Stacy Andrews. Levi could be the odd man out, and he has struggled lately. |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 6,853
|
Re: Standings for draft purposes
I agree with your thoughts WV, but I have no interest in re-signing Andrews. I really see nothing in him that makes him worthy of a long term contract.
Franchise TJ, let Andrews go, draft a tackle and a center. Let Levi and AC battle for LT, insert rookie at RT, sign a vet Center, and we're in business.
__________________
When people say that I don’t know what I’m talking about when it comes to sports or writing, I think: Man, you should see me in the rest of my life. ---Joe Posnanski |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 5,465
|
Re: Standings for draft purposes
I think whoever drafts Matt Stafford is going to be disappointed.
He's a good QB, but I don't think he'll be a franchise QB to match the hype & high pick prognostications that are floating around. |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
C-A-T-S CATS! CATS! CATS!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Almost Heaven
Posts: 8,421
|
Re: Standings for draft purposes
A lot is going to depend on pre-draft and the bowl games. Stafford shows to be the best pro-QB and could have the quickest adjustment, as opposed to Bradford(shotgun only) and Tebow(spread).
|
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
On the brink of disaster
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 627
|
Re: Standings for draft purposes
I'm starting a campaign for the bengals to use their first round pick on P Kevin Huber out of the University of Cincinnati. We need a punter, and shoot, we're going to screw up the first round pick anyway, so what the heck. Let's just punt our turn and hope to gain good position in the next round. If we don't pick one of the upper tier players, it stands to reason that someone will be able to be had for a bargain in the second. We will use that opportunity to take a long-shot downfield by drafting a issue-prone WR. Of course we will completely miss completing that, but then the opponets have to respect our deep game so we can continue to run ourselves into the ground.
Sorry, I've been drinking the Kool-Aid again...
__________________
"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual." -- House "You guys are still thinking like doctors when you should be thinking like plumbers. Come on, I wanna see some butt crack." -- House |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 2,579
|
Re: Standings for draft purposes
As a Buckeye fan I was hoping that maybe the threat of the two Ohio "pro" teams lurking in the top 5-10 of the draft might somehow help keep Beanie at OSU 1 more year to avoid being drafted by either but alas, they will be in the top 5-10 again next year so he might as well go.
![]() Good luck Beanie. |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: South Vienna, OH
Posts: 4,122
|
Re: Standings for draft purposes
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Hisssssssss
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Land of the Lost
Posts: 6,985
|
Re: Standings for draft purposes
The NFL is already on life support for me. I've watched maybe 1 game the whole way through all season. Until the NFL 1) does something to clamp down on players who sign contracts with huge up-front signing bonuses and then try to hold their teams hostage for a trade or new contract; and 2) treats all teams equally when it comes to things like disciplinary matters and violating league rules, I'm going to be a tough sell. I might jump on the bandwagon if the Bengals are doing well, but I just don't think I can get into it as much as I used to anymore.
__________________
"I don't classify 'em, I just pacify 'em." - George Foster. |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 | |
|
HOF CLASS OF '12
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Springfield, Ohio
Posts: 8,989
|
Re: Standings for draft purposes
Quote:
Umm Crabtree IDK, while I can see the rational WR's are not real good top 10 targets. Their success rate is pretty low. I'd prefer to re-sign T.J. and keep Chad despite their off field issues. However if they decide to deal Chad or not Re-sign TJ (the latter would be dumb depending on the money) I still like Simpson and Caldwell and the good Henry at least showed up this past week and he's stayed out of trouble for the most part so I think we're fine there assuming things stay that way. I wonder if it would be wise to explore a deal based on Chad to KC for Larry Johnson. I know all the potential ramifications but does a said deal have any potential for a positive outcome. I imagine we would have to include a little something extra as RB is up the pole a notch in offensive positions heirarchy. Just a thought but one that could have a significant impact on our potential as a playoff team. And one in which might have to be explored due to a window that in my view has started to close in a sense but isn't yet closed.
__________________
2008 Reds Draft Prospect RZ Scouting Reports 2009 Reds Draft Prospect RZ Scouting Reports 2010 Reds Draft Prospect RZ Scouting Reports "You can't let praise or criticism get to you. It's a weakness to get caught up in either one." --Woody Hayes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
HOF CLASS OF '12
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Springfield, Ohio
Posts: 8,989
|
Re: Standings for draft purposes
He's only being bandied about up there because he has the best potential of the QB's due to the arm strength advantage he has over the rest. He has the raw talent to be elite whereas the others are more questionable at this point. That said I'd take Bradford if I had to take a QB.
__________________
2008 Reds Draft Prospect RZ Scouting Reports 2009 Reds Draft Prospect RZ Scouting Reports 2010 Reds Draft Prospect RZ Scouting Reports "You can't let praise or criticism get to you. It's a weakness to get caught up in either one." --Woody Hayes |
|
|
|
|
|
#26 | |
|
C-A-T-S CATS! CATS! CATS!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Almost Heaven
Posts: 8,421
|
Re: Standings for draft purposes
Quote:
The only way I would trade out would be if say Philly offers both of their first rounders for the pick to take somebody like Crabtree. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#27 | ||
|
HOF CLASS OF '12
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Springfield, Ohio
Posts: 8,989
|
Re: Standings for draft purposes
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
2008 Reds Draft Prospect RZ Scouting Reports 2009 Reds Draft Prospect RZ Scouting Reports 2010 Reds Draft Prospect RZ Scouting Reports "You can't let praise or criticism get to you. It's a weakness to get caught up in either one." --Woody Hayes |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Vampire Weekend @Bernie's
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 11,311
|
Re: Standings for draft purposes
The Bengals' linebacking unit could have been great if David Pollack were healthy, Ahmad Brooks understood how to play football, and Odell Thurman didn't make such stupid mistakes. Instead, the Bengals are stuck with Rivers and a bunch of stopgaps. Ideally, linebackers aren't drafted in the first round, but if the Bengals have a chance to get Maualuga, I think they should jump on it. As bad as the offensive line appears to be, they'll look a lot better when Carson Palmer is healthy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#29 | |
|
HOF CLASS OF '12
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Springfield, Ohio
Posts: 8,989
|
Re: Standings for draft purposes
Quote:
__________________
2008 Reds Draft Prospect RZ Scouting Reports 2009 Reds Draft Prospect RZ Scouting Reports 2010 Reds Draft Prospect RZ Scouting Reports "You can't let praise or criticism get to you. It's a weakness to get caught up in either one." --Woody Hayes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Winning the Human Race
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Titletown, FL
Posts: 3,798
|
Re: Standings for draft purposes
There is no way the Bengals take Jeremy Maclin. He's not a top-10 talent.
Michael Johnson is falling on most draft boards. Doesn't mean he doesn't fill a need because he would - I just think we'd be reaching if we took him with a top 5 pick. We all know well of the Bengals draft day blunders. There could be a novel about them. Still, it's just too obvious this year that the O-line is our most pressing need and there are two legit top 5 picks at that position in this draft class. Smith is my first target but, if we happen to win one of our very winnable remaining two games (Browns & Chiefs), we can forget Smith and possibly even Oher. I would be happy, although not thrilled with Mailauga. Some other Bengals fans have been kicking about the idea of taking Laurinitis if we fall out of the top 5. I would be appalled with that selection. JL is a good college LB who is maxed out physically and is not a top 5 selection in any draft class whatsoever. Michael Crabtree is going to be a fine NFL WR but, if we take him, we're almost Matt Millen dumb. We blew 2nd and 3rd round picks on WR's last year knowing full well that we'd take Henry back as soon as we could and also after refusing to trade Chad Johnson. Without an O-Line that can actually block people. all the skill players in the world won't make your offense good. Look how bad Palmer was this year. Look how often he got banged around. You all think Chad just suddenly forgot how to play football? Other than the Lions' line, ours was the worst in football. That has to be rectified before ANYTHING else (other than Mike Brown).
__________________
The land was farther away from the core and had much less gravity so bigness could develop and dominate -Jose Canseco |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |