What Would Your Draft Have Been?

[*Au165*]

Starks in the 1st and Green in the second as the Ravens did and I'd be fine with the rest of the draft.

[Soonerpeace]

(Yesterday, 10:45 AM)kevin Wrote:  Bengals could have lost Higgins and Chase, but they put out huge money to keep both long term with Burrow.  That right there is a great off season.  Still, the Bengals Defense has not been good.  Bengals brought in a new D Coach in Golden, getting him to leave a top job at Notre Dame.  Much of the draft was on Defense and O Line Blockers with Bengals weak in the trenches.  

I don't think me or any on this site could have did better.  They had to break the bank to have Burrow, Chase and Higgins locked in long term.   They brought in Golden as new D coach and he likes the D players Bengals just drafted.  Golden says they fit the type defense he intends to have.  The DE and LB first 2 rounds, Golden says they can play in multiple packages, so he won't get caught with the wrong players on the field, since the 2 top picks can line up in different formations.  

Golden also mentioned sometimes he may need 4 LB's on the field.  That is a change from Zac Taylor saying 5 or 6 DB's on the field 80 % of the game.  I think Taylor will still insist on Nickle and Dime packages, but Golden sounds like he wants to also use 3 or 4 LB sets during games also.  Not just sitting back in The Prevent all game as Zac likes.  I think Golden was a much needed addition, and if he is happy with the players drafted, that is fine with me.  

So Chase and Higgins were kept to be long term with Burrow.  Most of NFL thought that impossible.  That right there makes a good off season.  Add in Golden and Golden liking the D players drafted, and that makes a Great off season.   None of on here could have did better.  

I think most of you are going to change your tune when Bengals are winning.  You will say, " Oh, I see.  They kept Burrow, Chase and Higgins and this Golden and his new Defense is so much better.  Now we see. ".  

Golden is not going to sit back in The Prevent giving up yards as Zac has done.  Golden wants to mix in 3 and 4 LB packages with those extra DB packages Taylor likes.  Problem was Bengals didn't have enough Front 7 players for Golden to run his Defenses, so they drafted some players so Golden can run his 3 or 4 LB sets when he wants. Taylor likes 5 and 6 DB Nickle and Dime Prevent Defenses.  Golden just said there will be times he will have 3 or 4 LB's on the field.  So look for Golden to run many more D Packages than Bengals have ever ran before.  Golden mentioned a 4th LB sometimes, but they will still have their 5 or 6 DB sets.  

I bet this was made clear at the start.  Golden had a top job at Notre Dame, he didn't need Bengals.  I'm sure he let it be known that he would not leave Notre Dame to play The Prevent Defense all game as Zac Taylor likes.  However if he could mix in more 3 and 4 LB packages and run his Defense, he would leave Notre Dame for Bengals.  Golden did not have to leave Notre Dame, so when Golden says he is going to run his Defense with Bengals, I believe him. 

Nobody on this board could have did better including me.  GO BENGALS.   Higgins and Chase could be gone, but they are here, and Golden brought in to fix the Defense. It's all good.  

 

You meant as Lou has done not as Zac has done. Zac stays out of the DC’s way. Golden came because of the autonomy.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(04-30-2025, 06:43 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Many of us (including myself) have been critical of this Bengals draft class.
Many national media sites are rating the Bengals draft one of the worst in the league.

So the question posed to you...looking at who was available at each pick, who would you have taken?
*Assume no trades because we don't know what was offered, only who was available.

Mine:
1) Derrick Harmon, DT Oregon
2) Tate Ratledge, OG Georgia
3) Xavier Watts, SAF Notre Dame
4) Kyle Kennard, DE South Carolina
5) Mitchell Evans, TE Notre Dame
6) Tahj Brooks, RB Texas Tech

Off-ball LB is one of the cheaper positions to address in FA, so I would have been perfectly ok not adding a LB in the draft. I would have been ok with just 1 LB though.

After I researched Shemar Stewart I would of stuck with him over a DT that I don't think would get much playing time as a rookie, I might 
of rather traded back in the first and picked up Starks. In the second I would of went with Scourton or Green if Starks was my first round 
pick, but Scourton benefitted from Stewart's disruption and we don't know what is going on character wise with Green.

I would of traded back in the 2nd and still selected Knight and added a pick. I guess that is about the only thing I would really do different.

Honestly, we don't know Ratledge will be a better pro than Fairchild either. I do think I would of taken Watts if we could of gotten him with
the Knight trade back. Was really high on Kennard as well so I probably take him there, good one. Also like Evans maybe over Rivers, I don't
know honestly lol

[Isaac Curtis: The Real #85]

I would have went:

1. Zabel, OL (Harmon/Jackson next)
2. Green, OLB/DE (or Alexander DT if character flags, or Watts)
3. Watts, S (Winston if Watts, Rd2)
4. Farmer, DT (or Riley, CB)
5. Evans, TE, ND (or Mondon, LB)
6. Nelson, OT (or Tez Johnson, WR)

I sign one of the FA guards and possibly  Blackmon at S or a cheap vet CB.

I also would have been looking to trade down at every pick instead of running to the podium. 

I'd have been fine taking Jackson or Harmon or Starks or Emmanwori or Campbell in Rd1. 

I'd have been fine with Ratledge, Watts, Alexander, Morrison, another of the CBs, or DEs in Rd2. 

And I certainly would not have taken 2 Gs with starting caliber Gs in FA. Nor 2 LBs. 

[Whatever]

(Yesterday, 02:10 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: After I researched Shemar Stewart I would of stuck with him over a DT that I don't think would get much playing time as a rookie, I might 
of rather traded back in the first and picked up Starks. In the second I would of went with Scourton or Green if Starks was my first round 
pick, but Scourton benefitted from Stewart's disruption and we don't know what is going on character wise with Green.

I would of traded back in the 2nd and still selected Knight and added a pick. I guess that is about the only thing I would really do different.

Honestly, we don't know Ratledge will be a better pro than Fairchild either. I do think I would of taken Watts if we could of gotten him with
the Knight trade back. Was really high on Kennard as well so I probably take him there, good one. Also like Evans maybe over Rivers, I don't
know honestly lol

Ironically, Harmon was ESPN's Matt Miller's least favorite pick of round one.  

[Essex Johnson]

(04-30-2025, 08:16 PM)TKUHL Wrote: Think I would have liked to see Harmon and Zabel over Stewart and Knight. Stewart is the only guy I didn’t want in the first. I knew we would sit still as our guy goes right before us, as usual. 6 picks, not much to work with though in a draft when teams aren’t trading.
But we have these guys now so I will give the rooks 100% support till proven otherwise. I’m just glad we addressed both lines. Would have been fine with an all O & D line draft too.  Let’s Go!

Zabel went in 1st , he was long gone by our 2nd pick

[BoomerFan]

(04-30-2025, 06:43 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Many of us (including myself) have been critical of this Bengals draft class.
Many national media sites are rating the Bengals draft one of the worst in the league.

So the question posed to you...looking at who was available at each pick, who would you have taken?
*Assume no trades because we don't know what was offered, only who was available.

Mine:
1) Derrick Harmon, DT Oregon
2) Tate Ratledge, OG Georgia
3) Xavier Watts, SAF Notre Dame
4) Kyle Kennard, DE South Carolina
5) Mitchell Evans, TE Notre Dame
6) Tahj Brooks, RB Texas Tech

Off-ball LB is one of the cheaper positions to address in FA, so I would have been perfectly ok not adding a LB in the draft. I would have been ok with just 1 LB though.

Those first three picks are very strong. 

[higgy100]

(Yesterday, 02:10 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: After I researched Shemar Stewart I would of stuck with him over a DT that I don't think would get much playing time as a rookie, I might 
of rather traded back in the first and picked up Starks. In the second I would of went with Scourton or Green if Starks was my first round 
pick, but Scourton benefitted from Stewart's disruption and we don't know what is going on character wise with Green.

I would of traded back in the 2nd and still selected Knight and added a pick. I guess that is about the only thing I would really do different.

Honestly, we don't know Ratledge will be a better pro than Fairchild either. I do think I would of taken Watts if we could of gotten him with
the Knight trade back. Was really high on Kennard as well so I probably take him there, good one. Also like Evans maybe over Rivers, I don't
know honestly lol

Agree with you especially trading back in round 2. I was 100% convinced they were going to make at least one trade for an extra pick.

[tBengal]

1. Harmon
2. Ratledge
3. Sawyer


Would’ve been my first 3 rounds.

A few of the guys I thought we could realistically get and wanted the bengals to draft went to the AFC North sadly. Harmon, Sawyer, Green and Sampson I really liked. Also thought Howard would’ve been a solid backup to Burrow as well.

[3wt]

(Yesterday, 02:10 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: After I researched Shemar Stewart I would of stuck with him over a DT that I don't think would get much playing time as a rookie, I might 
of rather traded back in the first and picked up Starks. In the second I would of went with Scourton or Green if Starks was my first round 
pick, but Scourton benefitted from Stewart's disruption and we don't know what is going on character wise with Green.

I would of traded back in the 2nd and still selected Knight and added a pick. I guess that is about the only thing I would really do different.

Honestly, we don't know Ratledge will be a better pro than Fairchild either. I do think I would of taken Watts if we could of gotten him with
the Knight trade back. Was really high on Kennard as well so I probably take him there, good one. Also like Evans maybe over Rivers, I don't
know honestly lol

I think that's a good point.   If I had merged my original plan with the path the Bengals took I would have wanted to take Fairchild along with Ratlege.  The importance of getting two guards in the draft was so important.   Ratledge could have stepped into the right guard and fairchild the left.   I really wanted Ratledge, but love the two OL picks the Bengals made.   I will be intrigued to see what impact of having a very deep linebacker room is going to have on the defense overall...

[Whatever]

(6 hours ago)3wt Wrote: I think that's a good point.   If I had merged my original plan with the path the Bengals took I would have wanted to take Fairchild along with Ratlege.  The importance of getting two guards in the draft was so important.   Ratledge could have stepped into the right guard and fairchild the left.   I really wanted Ratledge, but love the two OL picks the Bengals made.   I will be intrigued to see what impact of having a very deep linebacker room is going to have on the defense overall...

It's been a couple of years since I looked into it, but OL's starting multiple rookies tend to perform pretty badly as a unit.  At least according to PFF's year end OL rankings.  So drafting two starting G's wouldn't be a very sound strategy.

Personally, I saw Ratledge as a 3rd round talent.  His testing was off the charts, but didn't really show up on the film I saw.  He's short armed for a G, and I don't like spending premium picks on OL that don't meet minimum arm length thresholds.  Plus, he's also tall and has a tendency to play too upright, so that with the short arms indicates some guys will get into his chest and knock him off the LoS with proper leverage.  

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(7 hours ago)higgy100 Wrote: Agree with you especially trading back in round 2. I was 100% convinced they were going to make at least one trade for an extra pick.

Same Higgy, we just don't know if they even had a trade partner to add a pick and get Knight. Sounds like Golden and Hodges really wanted 
Knight and were afraid somebody would of picked him if they did trade back, so they just made sure they got their guy.

(6 hours ago)3wt Wrote: I think that's a good point.   If I had merged my original plan with the path the Bengals took I would have wanted to take Fairchild along with Ratlege.  The importance of getting two guards in the draft was so important.   Ratledge could have stepped into the right guard and fairchild the left.   I really wanted Ratledge, but love the two OL picks the Bengals made.   I will be intrigued to see what impact of having a very deep linebacker room is going to have on the defense overall...

I would of been fine with adding both Georgia Guards, I just think Golden got the first 2 picks to add to his Defense and Ratledge has his 
weaknesses just the same as Fairchild if not more, Fairchild has longer arms and plays lower.

(5 hours ago)Whatever Wrote: It's been a couple of years since I looked into it, but OL's starting multiple rookies tend to perform pretty badly as a unit.  At least according to PFF's year end OL rankings.  So drafting two starting G's wouldn't be a very sound strategy.

Personally, I saw Ratledge as a 3rd round talent.  His testing was off the charts, but didn't really show up on the film I saw.  He's short armed for a G, and I don't like spending premium picks on OL that don't meet minimum arm length thresholds.  Plus, he's also tall and has a tendency to play too upright, so that with the short arms indicates some guys will get into his chest and knock him off the LoS with proper leverage.  

All very true. I think that all of Mims, Fairchild and Ratledge playing together would of helped though. Oh well, this is a what if thread anyways.

[kevin]

(Yesterday, 01:45 PM)Soonerpeace Wrote: You meant as Lou has done not as Zac has done. Zac stays out of the DC’s way. Golden came because of the autonomy.

Lou was on the same page with Zac.  Zac wanted Bengals D to have 5 to 6 DB's on the field 80 % of the game, and Lou did.   However Golden who had one of the top coaching jobs in football at Notre Dame is not coming to Cincinnati to play that Zac and Lou defense.  Golden has already said he will have 3 and 4 LB's on the field more.  So instead of this Zac and Lou 5 to 6 DB's on the field 80 % of the game,  Golden is going to have more 3 and 4 LB packages. Sometimes Golden will have the extra DB's on the field, but not 80 % of the game.  Look for Golden to go back to more LB's in more of the game.  Golden said he would.  I think this was agreed on when Golden left the top coaching job at Notre Dame to come to Cincy, that he could run his defense, not the Zac and Lou all DB's all the time defense.  

So for Golden to run his more Linebackers defense, he needed more Front Seven players, because the Zac and Lou didn't have enough of what Golden needs.  The first 2 picks taken, Golden says they fit well with his defense he will run.  They are front 7 players who Golden says can play in a lot of different D packages, and they can shift on the field keeping Golden from caught in the wrong defense as offenses try to do.  Golden says the first 2 players drafted can play in many D packages, and that is what Golden says he needed to have more Front 7 players on the field.  

I like what Golden coming from Notre Dame is saying.  Bengals will not be mostly DB's in a Prevent D as Zac and Lou did most of game.  Golden is going to have more Front 7 D Line and LBs in Bengals games, being more aggressive in the trenches.  Not sitting back in prevent pass coverage all game as Bengals have been doing and losing.  

Zac has said all along that he like 5 to 6 DB's on the field most of game and that is what Lou did.  Golden coming from Notre Dame says that is not what he is going to do. Golden is going to get more Linebackers into Bengals games.  This is why Front 7 players were drafted early.  Get ready for a whole new and different approach to defense on Bengals, and it is needed.  What Bengals were doing on defense wasn't working.  I welcome Golden coming from Notre Dame and shaking things up on Defense.  

On Offense, they have Burrow, Chase and Higgins long term now.  The offense is fine.  The defense was lousy, but Golden from Notre Dame is talking a whole different defense with less extra DB prevent D and more Linebackers. Golden has said sometimes 4 Linebackers on the field.  We were use to Zac and Lou playing only 2 Linebackers.   Get ready for more 3 LB and 4 LB sets out of Golden, but able to go to the Nickle and Dime D also.  This is indeed what Golden has said. Under him the Bengals will use more LB's, as many as 4 LBs sometimes.  Golden brings a whole new era on Bengals D, and it was needed, because Zac and Lou in the Prevent most of the game wasn't working. 

GO BENGALS. ....and people will like these picks more once they see what Golden is doing on defense. More of a Front 7 attack. 

PS : I still do not know why a coach would leave a top job at Notre Dane to come to Bengals, even if he once coached at Bengals.  Still, I think Bengals Fans got lucky that he did.  Golden coming here and the D players drafted is the shake up this way too passive defense needed.  Let's get back to winning games.  Coach Golden saying there will be times he has 4 Linebackers on the field, that is different from anything under Zac and Lou. However Bengals didn't have 4 LB's to put on the field.  So in the draft Front 7 Players were added.  I also like what Coach Golden said after the draft when asked if these picks can tackle.  Golden said most of The Bengals haven't been able to tackle. Coach Golden said that Tackling is something Veterans and Draft Picks are going to get drilled in, because it will be Coach Goldens top priority from Day One. 

You know, if we did have a top defense to go with Burrow, Chase and Higgins, Bengals could be as good a Super Bowl team as Eagles just were.  So I'm all for whatever shake up's Golden has to do. even if it confuses Mike Brown Family, Zac Taylor and Fans at first.  Much like that movie 12 O' Clock High or Patton, when you are losing and things aren't right, somebody has to come in and shake things up to fix the problems.  Coach Golden could just be that person. I do not question Coach Golden or the Draft Picks he likes, I only know major changes were needed to the lousy Bengals defense.  So Go Coach Golden and get this Defense and team winning.  

     

[*ochocincos*]

(2 hours ago)kevin Wrote: Lou was on the same page with Zac.  Zac wanted Bengals D to have 5 to 6 DB's on the field 80 % of the game, and Lou did.   However Golden who had one of the top coaching jobs in football at Notre Dame is not coming to Cincinnati to play that Zac and Lou defense.  Golden has already said he will have 3 and 4 LB's on the field more.  So instead of this Zac and Lou 5 to 6 DB's on the field 80 % of the game,  Golden is going to have more 3 and 4 LB packages. Sometimes Golden will have the extra DB's on the field, but not 80 % of the game.  Look for Golden to go back to more LB's in more of the game.  Golden said he would.  I think this was agreed on when Golden left the top coaching job at Notre Dame to come to Cincy, that he could run his defense, not the Zac and Lou all DB's all the time defense.  

So for Golden to run his more Linebackers defense, he needed more Front Seven players, because the Zac and Lou didn't have enough of what Golden needs.  The first 2 picks taken, Golden says they fit well with his defense he will run.  They are front 7 players who Golden says can play in a lot of different D packages, and they can shift on the field keeping Golden from caught in the wrong defense as offenses try to do.  Golden says the first 2 players drafted can play in many D packages, and that is what Golden says he needed to have more Front 7 players on the field.  

I like what Golden coming from Notre Dame is saying.  Bengals will not be mostly DB's in a Prevent D as Zac and Lou did most of game.  Golden is going to have more Front 7 D Line and LBs in Bengals games, being more aggressive in the trenches.  Not sitting back in prevent pass coverage all game as Bengals have been doing and losing.  

Zac has said all along that he like 5 to 6 DB's on the field most of game and that is what Lou did.  Golden coming from Notre Dame says that is not what he is going to do. Golden is going to get more Linebackers into Bengals games.  This is why Front 7 players were drafted early.  Get ready for a whole new and different approach to defense on Bengals, and it is needed.  What Bengals were doing on defense wasn't working.  I welcome Golden coming from Notre Dame and shaking things up on Defense.  

On Offense, they have Burrow, Chase and Higgins long term now.  The offense is fine.  The defense was lousy, but Golden from Notre Dame is talking a whole different defense with less extra DB prevent D and more Linebackers. Golden has said sometimes 4 Linebackers on the field.  We were use to Zac and Lou playing only 2 Linebackers.   Get ready for more 3 LB and 4 LB sets out of Golden, but able to go to the Nickle and Dime D also.  This is indeed what Golden has said. Under him the Bengals will use more LB's, as many as 4 LBs sometimes.  Golden brings a whole new era on Bengals D, and it was needed, because Zac and Lou in the Prevent most of the game wasn't working. 

GO BENGALS. ....and people will like these picks more once they see what Golden is doing on defense. More of a Front 7 attack. 

PS : I still do not know why a coach would leave a top job at Notre Dane to come to Bengals, even if he once coached at Bengals.  Still, I think Bengals Fans got lucky that he did.  Golden coming here and the D players drafted is the shake up this way too passive defense needed.  Let's get back to winning games. 

     

I hope Golden can at least get the defense back to Paul Guenther level (middle of pack, sometimes better).
Ideally it'd be back to a Top 10 defense like when Zimmer was DC.

Even a middle-of-the-pack defense with an offense like they had most of last year would result in being one of the best AFC teams.
Both offense and defense being Top 10 could have them as the top seed in the AFC.

It's said that Golden will expect to have more flexibility and adjust not only to what the opponents are doing but also better cater to their own players' strengths.
We'll see how well that happens, but more (press) man coverage and more 3-LB looks than Bengals were doing under Anarumo.

I think we probably gave Anarumo more credit than he deserved though, as 4 of his 6 years had the 21st ranked defense or worse.
2021 was just middle of the pack and some timely turnovers in the playoffs.
2022 was the overall best defense, and the only one that was Top 10 in Points Allowed.
2019 and 2020 were disastrous for him, so much so that I and others wanted him gone for 2021. But the back-to-back deep postseason run really helped keep him around longer.

[kevin]

(1 hour ago)ochocincos Wrote: I hope Golden can at least get the defense back to Paul Guenther level (middle of pack, sometimes better).
Ideally it'd be back to a Top 10 defense like when Zimmer was DC.

Even a middle-of-the-pack defense with an offense like they had most of last year would result in being one of the best AFC teams.
Both offense and defense being Top 10 could have them as the top seed in the AFC.

It's said that Golden will expect to have more flexibility and adjust not only to what the opponents are doing but also better cater to their own players' strengths.
We'll see how well that happens, but more (press) man coverage and more 3-LB looks than Bengals were doing under Anarumo.

I think we probably gave Anarumo more credit than he deserved though, as 4 of his 6 years had the 21st ranked defense or worse.
2021 was just middle of the pack and some timely turnovers in the playoffs.
2022 was the overall best defense, and the only one that was Top 10 in Points Allowed.
2019 and 2020 were disastrous for him, so much so that I and others wanted him gone for 2021. But the back-to-back deep postseason run really helped keep him around longer.

Not just 3 LB's.  Golden is talking sometimes 4 LB's.   Of course, Bengals didn't have enough Front 7, so in the Draft they added more Front 7.   Golden says sometimes 4 LB's.  This is going to be a whole new defense, and as bad as Bengals were on defense, I welcome the change.   With Burrow, Chase and Higgins locked in, let's get back to The Super Bowl. 

So we agree Ochocinco that we hope the Defense gets better.   You take Burrow, Chase and Higgins and build a good Defense here, and going back to the Super Bowl is very possible, only this time, the Bengals finally win a Super Bowl. 

[*ochocincos*]

(1 hour ago)kevin Wrote: Not just 3 LB's.  Golden is talking sometimes 4 LB's.   Of course, Bengals didn't have enough Front 7, so in the Draft they added more Front 7.   Golden says sometimes 4 LB's.  This is going to be a whole new defense, and as bad as Bengals were on defense, I welcome the change.   With Burrow, Chase and Higgins locked in, let's get back to The Super Bowl. 

I'll be interested to see how the 4 LBs would be used.
Would it be 4 in coverage, or would the 4th really primarily just be used for attacking the LOS?
I'm also interested to know what the 3 DL would be in the case they had 4 LBs out there.
We know Ossai played LB a lot in college, so I could see him getting kicked back there at times.

I wouldn't be opposed to seeing the team run predominant 3-4 looks either.
I've always liked 3-4 defenses.

[kevin]

(1 hour ago)ochocincos Wrote: I'll be interested to see how the 4 LBs would be used.
Would it be 4 in coverage, or would the 4th really primarily just be used for attacking the LOS?
I'm also interested to know what the 3 DL would be in the case they had 4 LBs out there.
We know Ossai played LB a lot in college, so I could see him getting kicked back there at times.

I wouldn't be opposed to seeing the team run predominant 3-4 looks either.
I've always liked 3-4 defenses.

Whatever it takes to win.  Coach Golden leaving his top job at Notre Dame to return to Bengals is talking 3 LBs and sometimes 4 LB's.  Mostly he is talking Tackling. Coach Golden said Bengals veterans and rookies better get ready for tackling practice, because his top priority is to get this team to tackle far better than they have the last few years.  I'm sure Zac will still get his Nickle and Dime sets he loves, but Golden is gong to add a lot more Front 7 packages to the mix. 

Let's talk Baltimore who Bengals play twice a year.  If Jackson or Henry are in Bengals secondary, then Bengals have already been burned.  You have to stuff some of those Jackson or Henry runs to win. Force Baltimore to pass.  In a passing shoot out, I will take Burrow, Chase and Higgins to win.  However in a running game, Baltimore wins.  If Golden can build a D to stuff Jackson and Henry sometimes and not run wild on Bengals, that is the key.  If it takes 3 or 4 LB's to do it, so be it. 

[*rfaulk34*]

I'm just kinda wondering how many LBs we will see on the field this year. 

[*Synric*]

(1 hour ago)ochocincos Wrote: I'll be interested to see how the 4 LBs would be used.
Would it be 4 in coverage, or would the 4th really primarily just be used for attacking the LOS?
I'm also interested to know what the 3 DL would be in the case they had 4 LBs out there.
We know Ossai played LB a lot in college, so I could see him getting kicked back there at times.

I wouldn't be opposed to seeing the team run predominant 3-4 looks either.
I've always liked 3-4 defenses.

I doubt the Bengals use 4 stack linebackers in 34 fronts. I think people are misunderstanding sounds like they want to use Barrett Carter as a special teams guy and rotate him into the defense. Oren Burks may only rotate in with Knight in coverage situations and they Wilson, Knight, Carter in Base 43 fronts.

[*PhilHos*]

You shouldn't take my opinion about this because I know virtually nothing of college players. But, based on pre-daft discussions on podcasts, this board and whatnot, I probably would've drafted Campbell in the 1st, Ratledge in the 2nd (I wanted his mullet on the team, goddamit) and either Winston or Watts in the 3rd.