Have our drafts really been that good?

[mulligan]

Originally Posted by THE PISTONS

I was looking strictly at past drafts impact on THIS season.

The "we must retain our own drafted player" model is sure broken when we only have 4 guys on our roster that were drafted 5 or more years ago.

Some/most aren't going to like this post.

Most feel that ML is having more and more input as to the players that are drafted by the Bengals. Some would say that after the "Andre Smith" 1st riybd debacle in 2009, MB has given ML more control over the drafting situation.

It also seems to me that there has been a shift in long-term player personnel control to ML. Chad Johnson was traded. Jerome Simpson & Andre Caldwell were not retained by the Bengals. Neither were Fanene or Rucker. Livings & McGlynn.

In 2012, the Bengals "lost" 6 starters & 3 significant rotational players.

6 starters (Simpson, Caldwell, Livings, McGlynn, Benson, Crocker (momentarily)). 8 starters if you count Cook & Howard's injuries. (I won't count Wharton in this tally, because it was uncertain if Boling or Wharton were going to be starters.)

3 significant rotational players (Fanene, Brandon Johnson, Frostee Rucker). 4 if you count Sims injury challenges.

All said, 2012 seems to have become more of a re-building year than a re-tooling year.

Yes, this stinks. Because it seems that the Bengals have "lost" another season.

But, as a relentless optimist, I do feel that by year's end, the Bengals will have a good handle on their identity, strengths, and weaknesses. (IMO, there were a lot of questions yet in 2012.)

And in 2013, I believe that the Bengals SHOULD (hopefully) be well situated to resurrect from the mire of 2012.

Dare I say, I feel that the Bengals could find some free agents that truly will complement our team;s needs while continuing to fortify the foundation of this team thru the draft.

[Hammerstripes]

There's no way you can consider 2012 a rebuilding year.

We got rid of the worst starters on the team. We replaced them with better players. That's no rebuilding. This team should be better.

[mulligan]

Originally Posted by Hammerstripes

I didn't say "starters" I said "solid starters"

All you have to do is look at the past drafts and see that the Bengals only add 1-2 starters per draft.

Shoot, the Patriots added as many as 5 starters in some of those drafts.

By your reasoning (that bad teams will have more starters since they have worse players), the Bengals should be adding a heck of a lot more than 1-2 per year.

I know that many Bengals fans really hammer on how horrible the Bengals are year-in and year-out. WTS, the Bengals have made the playoffs in 2005, 2009, & 2011.

Many will argue that the Bengals have backed into the playoffs. And that several other NFL teams imploded to "fabricate" a scenario to enable the Bengals to go to the playoffs. Etc.

In my view, a HORRIBLE football team doesn't make it to the playoffs 2 of 3 years or 3 of 7 years. The Bengals are inconsistant. They aren't horrible.

But, that is just my opinion. I guess others will say that the Bengals are HORRIBLE.

[mulligan]

Originally Posted by Hammerstripes

There's no way you can consider 2012 a rebuilding year.

We got rid of the worst starters on the team. We replaced them with better players. That's no rebuilding. This team should be better.

Again, just look at the list of players that aren't Bengals from last year. 6 starters & 2 additional significant contributors.
Benson, Simpson, Caldwell, Livings, McGlynn, Rucker, Fanene, Brandon Johnson.

Define re-building.
Define re-tooling.

Replacing 6 starters from 2011 to 2012 is crazy ambitious and seems to have bitten the Bengals in the butt.

Perhaps, the Bengals had a sense of bravado, because they seemed to be successful in 2011 after they replaced at least 3 starters with rookies or 2nd year players (Dalton, Green, Atkins).

WTS, I still feel that the Bengal have under-performed this year.

[THE PISTONS]

Originally Posted by mulligan

No, I disagree. I think that it reflects more the importance of retaining core players and the incredible neutralizer of all things (excellent QB play).

Focusing on starters is a bit dicey. A team with horrible talent will start practically all of their rookies. Verses a team with excellent talent will practically not start any of their rookies. WTS, it doesn't necessarily mean that the first team had a better draft than the 2nd team.

In 2011, AJ Green (1st year starter), Dalton (1st year starter), Boling (2nd year starter).

In 2010, Gresham (1st year starter), Dunlap (heavy rotational player), Shipley (1st year starter), Atkins (2nd year starter).

Is Gresham a greater player than Atkins because Gresham started his 1st year? I think most people would say that Atkins is a greater player.

We have retained exactly 4 players on our roster that were drafted by us 5 years or longer ago...

[THE PISTONS]

Originally Posted by mulligan

Some/most aren't going to like this post.

Most feel that ML is having more and more input as to the players that are drafted by the Bengals. Some would say that after the "Andre Smith" 1st riybd debacle in 2009, MB has given ML more control over the drafting situation.

It also seems to me that there has been a shift in long-term player personnel control to ML. Chad Johnson was traded. Jerome Simpson & Andre Caldwell were not retained by the Bengals. Neither were Fanene or Rucker. Livings & McGlynn.

In 2012, the Bengals "lost" 6 starters & 3 significant rotational players.

6 starters (Simpson, Caldwell, Livings, McGlynn, Benson, Crocker (momentarily)). 8 starters if you count Cook & Howard's injuries. (I won't count Wharton in this tally, because it was uncertain if Boling or Wharton were going to be starters.)

3 significant rotational players (Fanene, Brandon Johnson, Frostee Rucker). 4 if you count Sims injury challenges.

All said, 2012 seems to have become more of a re-building year than a re-tooling year.

Yes, this stinks. Because it seems that the Bengals have "lost" another season.

But, as a relentless optimist, I do feel that by year's end, the Bengals will have a good handle on their identity, strengths, and weaknesses. (IMO, there were a lot of questions yet in 2012.)

And in 2013, I believe that the Bengals SHOULD (hopefully) be well situated to resurrect from the mire of 2012.

Dare I say, I feel that the Bengals could find some free agents that truly will complement our team;s needs while continuing to fortify the foundation of this team thru the draft.

Can you really say we are rebuilding? We mainly play veterans...like Newman, Clements, Jones, Hall, Crocker, our 3 starting LB's in the season opener are all free agents, etc...etc...

[gardner30]

Originally Posted by mulligan

What did you learn from this exercise?

The "best" NFL teams average less than 2 hits per draft.
It seems to me that the bigger issue is that they retain their key/core players.

Patriots average 1.4 hits per draft.
Steelers average 1.3 hits per draft.

I'm not sure what you learned from this but what I learned is that the good teams, like the Patriots, Steelers and others, draft better QUALITY players than the Bengals.

Whether that is because of scouting, coaching or just better guesses is not provable.

My GUESS is that it is all 3.

[Lolli]

Originally Posted by mulligan

What did you learn from this exercise?

The "best" NFL teams average less than 2 hits per draft.
It seems to me that the bigger issue is that they retain their key/core players.

Patriots average 1.4 hits per draft.
Steelers average 1.3 hits per draft.

I do not know what you mean by hits per draft. If you mean starters the number is between 3 and 4.

It has to be. The average player that makes a 53 person roster averages 6 years in the league. From a starter point alone that means that you are turning over 3.66 starters on average per year. The only place a player can come from is either the draft or UDFA. All other FAs came from somebody else's draft or UDFAs.

[mulligan]

Originally Posted by THE PISTONS

Can you really say we are rebuilding? We mainly play veterans...like Newman, Clements, Jones, Hall, Crocker, our 3 starting LB's in the season opener are all free agents, etc...etc...

I guess we can't agree.

You say that we "mainly play veterans". But I would say that is more accurate on defense than on offense.

http://www.bengals.com/team/depth-chart.html

It feels that we are playing a lot of young players to me. Zeitler, Still, Boling, Dalton, Green, Burfict, Lamur, Robinson, Hawkins, Charles.

In my view, it seems that the Bengals are younger and have more short-term veteran solutions.

[Hammerstripes]

So we have 22 starters.

I would say a rebuilding team has most of their guys in their 1st or 2nd year. Who fits that?

Dalton
Green
Zeitler
Boling
Burfict


That's it. The rest of our players are in their 3rd year or greater. I don't think this team is rebuilding by any stretch. Throw in the fact that Boling and Burfict are starting due to injury.

[mulligan]

Originally Posted by Lolli

I do not know what you mean by hits per draft. If you mean starters the number is between 3 and 4.

It has to be. The average player that makes a 53 person roster averages 6 years in the league. From a starter point alone that means that you are turning over 3.66 starters on average per year. The only place a player can come from is either the draft or UDFA. All other FAs came from somebody else's draft or UDFAs.

It doesn't "have to be".

http://www.steelers.com/team/roster.html

Look at the Steelers roster.

Years of experience Hampton (12), Clark (11), Foote (11), Keisel (11), Polamalu (10), Taylor (10), Allen (9), Cotchery (9), Harrison (9), Roethlisberger (9), Miller (9), Starks (8).

This is 12 starters of 22 with over 8 years of experience.

The Bengals have 6 players with over 8 years of experience; Nugent (8), Geathers (9), Crocker (10), Faine (10), Newman (10), & Clements (12). Arguably, all 6 may not be Bengals in 2013.

IF (it is a big if), the Bengals are able to retain their solid core of players as the Steelers have in the last 12 years, then it will be a very, very exciting time for the Bengals.

Zeitler, Burfict, Dre Kirk, Still, Boling, Dalton, Green, Atkins, Gresham, MJ, Andre Smith.

[mulligan]

Originally Posted by Hammerstripes

So we have 22 starters.

I would say a rebuilding team has most of their guys in their 1st or 2nd year. Who fits that?

Dalton
Green
Zeitler
Boling
Burfict


That's it. The rest of our players are in their 3rd year or greater. I don't think this team is rebuilding by any stretch. Throw in the fact that Boling and Burfict are starting due to injury.

Half (11) of our starters are on their rookie contracts; Zeitler (RG), Burfict (WILL), Dre Kirk (CB starter by the year's end), Boling (LG), Dalton (Q, Green (WR1), Atkins (DT), Gresham (TE), MJ (DE), Andre Smith (RT), Dunlap (DE).

Of these 12 players, 6 are in either their rookie or 2nd year. This isn't counting Hawkins or Binns or Still.

Again conservatively speaking, 6 of our starters are either rookies or 2nd year players. There is an argument to say that 9 of our starters are either rookies or in their 2nd year (Binns & Hawkins).

If Howard didn't go to the IR, then Burfict would have taken Lawson's starting job.

The "talk" was that Boling was competing with Wharton for the starting job. Based on the quality of Boling's play, it seems that there was creedence to this "talk".

[THE PISTONS]

Originally Posted by gardner30

I'm not sure what you learned from this but what I learned is that the good teams, like the Patriots, Steelers and others, draft better QUALITY players than the Bengals.

Whether that is because of scouting, coaching or just better guesses is not provable.

My GUESS is that it is all 3.

And they generally draft way lower than the Bengals. It's not like they have Top 5 picks.

[THE PISTONS]

Originally Posted by Hammerstripes

So we have 22 starters.

I would say a rebuilding team has most of their guys in their 1st or 2nd year. Who fits that?

Dalton
Green
Zeitler
Boling
Burfict


That's it. The rest of our players are in their 3rd year or greater. I don't think this team is rebuilding by any stretch. Throw in the fact that Boling and Burfict are starting due to injury.

Agreed.

We have MANY positions with no long term solution.

And I doubt Boling would be playing if Wharton was healthy.

[THE PISTONS]

Originally Posted by mulligan

Half (11) of our starters are on their rookie contracts; Zeitler (RG), Burfict (WILL), Dre Kirk (CB starter by the year's end), Boling (LG), Dalton (Q, Green (WR1), Atkins (DT), Gresham (TE), MJ (DE), Andre Smith (RT), Dunlap (DE).

Of these 12 players, 6 are in either their rookie or 2nd year. This isn't counting Hawkins or Binns or Still.

Again conservatively speaking, 6 of our starters are either rookies or 2nd year players. There is an argument to say that 9 of our starters are either rookies or in their 2nd year (Binns & Hawkins).

If Howard didn't go to the IR, then Burfict would have taken Lawson's starting job.

The "talk" was that Boling was competing with Wharton for the starting job. Based on the quality of Boling's play, it seems that there was creedence to this "talk".

Question: Why are half of our starters on their rookie contract?

Answer: Because only 4 players that we have drafted 5 years or longer ago are still on the roster...and we don't sign free agents that are major upgrades.

And now that rookie contracts are slotted and therefore cheaper...we'll likely always have a roster with a lot of guys on rookie contracts!

[mulligan]

Originally Posted by THE PISTONS

Question: Why are half of our starters on their rookie contract?

Answer: Because only 4 players that we have drafted 5 years or longer ago are still on the roster...and we don't sign free agents that are major upgrades.

And now that rookie contracts are slotted and therefore cheaper...we'll likely always have a roster with a lot of guys on rookie contracts!

Why are half of the starters in their rookie contracts? Because the Bengals decided to move on from players like Caldwell, Simpson, Livings, Benson.

I guess some will say this is because MB is too cheap to retain these players.

Others are going to say that the Bengals are attempting to improve the overall quality of the team.

I guess you felt that our team would be better had they kept these players. I think that long-term we are better without them.

[mulligan]

Originally Posted by THE PISTONS

Agreed.

We have MANY positions with no long term solution.

And I doubt Boling would be playing if Wharton was healthy.

I disagree about this accessment.

Offense needs to upgrade WR2, & RB. Cook could be adequate in 2013, but isn't the long term solution.

QB: Dalton
WR1: Green
Slot: Hawkins/Sanu
Oline: Whit, Boling, Zeitler, Smith
TE: Gresham

On Defense, the Bengals need to upgrade SS, DE, LB (whatever Burfict doesn't take).

[moochee22]

Hey guys, I just wanted to say that you guys have put together a really interesting assessment of our drafts over the years.. I have always wanted a honest critique of our draft picks versus other, more successful teams.

[THE PISTONS]

Originally Posted by mulligan

Why are half of the starters in their rookie contracts? Because the Bengals decided to move on from players like Caldwell, Simpson, Livings, Benson.

I guess some will say this is because MB is too cheap to retain these players.

Others are going to say that the Bengals are attempting to improve the overall quality of the team.

I guess you felt that our team would be better had they kept these players. I think that long-term we are better without them.

Sadly, despite those players not being great...Simpson is better than any #2 WR on our roster, and Benson would be our best RB.

[Ryan Mc]

Originally Posted by mulligan

Again, just look at the list of players that aren't Bengals from last year. 6 starters & 2 additional significant contributors.
Benson, Simpson, Caldwell, Livings, McGlynn, Rucker, Fanene, Brandon Johnson.

Define re-building.
Define re-tooling.

Replacing 6 starters from 2011 to 2012 is crazy ambitious and seems to have bitten the Bengals in the butt.

Perhaps, the Bengals had a sense of bravado, because they seemed to be successful in 2011 after they replaced at least 3 starters with rookies or 2nd year players (Dalton, Green, Atkins).

WTS, I still feel that the Bengal have under-performed this year.

I'm just not a big fan of the "re-building" excuse. New England won the Superbowl back in 2001 after going 5-11 in 2000 by changing 17 players (!) on their roster. Not including the switch to Brady at QB which came because of injury, they also had new starters at RB, FB, WR, G, both OLB, DE and DT.
It shouldn't be rebuilding when you actually improve the roster (none of those players the Bengals lost were stars ... none of 'em are doing much with their new teams)

Originally Posted by mulligan

It doesn't "have to be".

http://www.steelers.com/team/roster.html

Look at the Steelers roster.

Years of experience Hampton (12), Clark (11), Foote (11), Keisel (11), Polamalu (10), Taylor (10), Allen (9), Cotchery (9), Harrison (9), Roethlisberger (9), Miller (9), Starks (8).

This is 12 starters of 22 with over 8 years of experience.

The Bengals have 6 players with over 8 years of experience; Nugent (8), Geathers (9), Crocker (10), Faine (10), Newman (10), & Clements (12). Arguably, all 6 may not be Bengals in 2013.

IF (it is a big if), the Bengals are able to retain their solid core of players as the Steelers have in the last 12 years, then it will be a very, very exciting time for the Bengals.

Zeitler, Burfict, Dre Kirk, Still, Boling, Dalton, Green, Atkins, Gresham, MJ, Andre Smith.

Those Steelers player listed weren't always veterans. Some of them helped Pitt win a Superbowl back in 2005 when their experience levels were: R-berger (2nd year), Miller (1st), Starks (2nd), Polamalu (3rd), Taylor (3rd), Hampton (5th). We're NOT winning with our young core now like Pitt did back in 2005 ... makes it harder to get excited about what's going to happen in the future if we keep them all together.

[THE PISTONS]

Originally Posted by Ryan Mc

I'm just not a big fan of the "re-building" excuse. New England won the Superbowl back in 2001 after going 5-11 in 2000 by changing 17 players (!) on their roster. Not including the switch to Brady at QB which came because of injury, they also had new starters at RB, FB, WR, G, both OLB, DE and DT.
It shouldn't be rebuilding when you actually improve the roster (none of those players the Bengals lost were stars ... none of 'em are doing much with their new teams)



Those Steelers player listed weren't always veterans. Some of them helped Pitt win a Superbowl back in 2005 when their experience levels were: R-berger (2nd year), Miller (1st), Starks (2nd), Polamalu (3rd), Taylor (3rd), Hampton (5th). We're NOT winning with our young core now like Pitt did back in 2005 ... makes it harder to get excited about what's going to happen in the future if we keep them all together.

Agreed. Plus, it's not like any of these guys (Benson, Simpson, Caldwell, Livings, McGlynn, Rucker, Fanene, Brandon Johnson) are Pro Bowl talents...which shows just how inept we are at replacing players.

Which begs the question...with so much cap space going into the offseason and a draft that the analysts rated Top 5...why didn't this team improve?

And fans always tell me..."The Steelers are old" and "The Steelers will miss (Ward, Farrior, etc.)" yet the Steelers keep winning. The Steelers beat us this year with Pouncey, Woodley, Mendenhall, and Redmon all out.

The Browns who were winless at the time beat us with the 2 starting DT's out...and we still couldn't run the ball against them.

That's where re-building and re-tooling excuses fail.

[Ryan Mc]

Originally Posted by THE PISTONS

Agreed. Plus, it's not like any of these guys (Benson, Simpson, Caldwell, Livings, McGlynn, Rucker, Fanene, Brandon Johnson) are Pro Bowl talents...which shows just how inept we are at replacing players.

Which begs the question...with so much cap space going into the offseason and a draft that the analysts rated Top 5...why didn't this team improve?

And fans always tell me..."The Steelers are old" and "The Steelers will miss (Ward, Farrior, etc.)" yet the Steelers keep winning. The Steelers beat us this year with Pouncey, Woodley, Mendenhall, and Redmon all out.

The Browns who were winless at the time beat us with the 2 starting DT's out...and we still couldn't run the ball against them.

That's where re-building and re-tooling excuses fail.

Weren't the Steelers also missing Polamalu when they beat us too? And, Ravens have also had key players injured or missing (eg. Suggs) for much of the year and are coping fine. In fact, the Ravens drafts haven't even been that good the last few years (no 1st round pick this year, no 1st round pick back in 2010 and their first pick in the 2nd round was Sergio Kindle (huge bust so far), last year's 1st round pick Jimmy Smith has not yet nailed down a starting spot) ... but they continue to contend.

It's about coaching, and it's about making up for bad draft picks (everybody has them!) with other smart moves. And, as you said before, it's about making sure you hit BIG when you do get it right in the draft. The Ravens have whiffed just like everybody else, but when they did hit they hit on Lewis, Suggs, Reed, Ngata and Ray Rice ... all amongst the best players at their positions in the entire league (in some cases, amongst the best ever).