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]

(1 hour 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.