Grade the Bengals Draft

[princeton]

I'd forgotten about Caleb Miller's 3.99 short shuttle.

here's to your good health, Caleb

[HairOnFire]

2006 DRAFT PICKS

Cincinnati

Rd Sel# Player Pos. Ht. Wt. School Jay's ranking Jay's draft value

1 24 Joseph, Johnathan CB 5-11 192 South Carolina # 4 CB Round 1

2 55 Whitworth, Andrew OT 6-7 327 Louisiana State # 5 OT Round 2

3 91 Rucker, Frostee DE 6-3 267 Southern California Late Round Value > Round 4

4 123 Peko, Domata DT 6-3 306 Michigan State Late Round Value > Round 4

5 157 Nicholson, A. J. ILB 6-1 253 Florida State # 10 OLB, #7 ILB Round 3

6 193 McNeal, Reggie QB 6-2 197 Texas A&M # 7 QB, # 1 slash Round 3

7 209 Kilmer, Ethan WR 6-1 204 Penn State > Round 4

7 231 Brazell, Bennie WR 6-3 176 Louisiana State Late Round Value > Round 4

FA Meyer, Eric QB 6-1 210 Eastern Washington Late Round Value > Round 4

FA Tahi, Naufahu FB 6-0 254 BYU Late Round Value > Round 4

FA Henderson, Eric DE 6-2 270 Georgia Tech # 19 DE Round 4

FA Whitehead, Terrence RB 5-10 201 Oregon Late Round Value > Round 4

C- 2006 COLLEGE DRAFT REPORT CARD

by Jay Goldberg

Wow, that's funny stuff. The writer somehow manages to give the Bengals a draft day grade of C- despite the fact that if his own value rankings are used the Bengals draft breaks down like this.

Players drafted with 1st round value - 1

Players drafted with 2nd round value - 1

Players drafted with 3rd round value - 2

Players drafted with 4th round value - 4

Signed UDFA's with 4th round value - 4

So, how can the writer downgrade the Bengals draft so severely when by his own accounts they got outstanding value from all of their picks, and all of their undrafted free agents? Well, it's simple. The Bengals didn't do what the asshat thought they should have. He preferred TE Marcedes Lewis in the 1st, CB Richard Marshall in the 2nd, and DE Mark Anderson in the 3rd. And because the Bengals didn't follow his plan he gives them a sad little C- and a stern rebuke.

((Shrug))

[Stripes]

Good stuff, TNBT and Hair.

This article is B/S.

[turningpoint]

I just realized our 2002 draft f**king sucked...all we have left is levi.

[HairOnFire]

More from Jay Goldberg...

"Rucker was a reach. I had a 6th round grade on Rucker. He isn't particularly big, and isn't particularly fast. He has the potential to be a solid rotation player at end, but on day one of the draft you look for potential starters, not reserves. My pick at end would have been Mark Anderson of Alabama."

Let's define what a reach is. Anderson wasn't drafted until the 5th round by the Bears. He was selected 68 slots later than Rucker at spot 159. As for Rucker, somebody explain again why I'm supposed to be upset with a solid rotational player at a very important and hard to fill position the Bengals lack depth at?

"Henderson is a good insurance policy for Rucker. He was injured leading up to the draft wand was only able to lift, where he showed good strength. If not for durability issues Henderson could have been talked about as a late day one pick. He is an overachiever who rushes the passer well and is strong against the run. I had a higher grade on Henderson than I did on Rucker, and it wouldn't surprise me if he has the better NFL career."

If not for durability issues Ki-Jana Carter wouldn't have been a bust. If not for durability issues Chris Perry might be worth the price the Bengals paid to get him. And forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but calling a college player an overachiever is just another way of saying that he's a marginal pro prospect.

"Rucker had his best year his senior campaign, getting 6.5 sacks. He also showed good penetration against the run. However, Rucker is not a good enough pass rusher to be a nickel rusher, and will have to add weight to be an anchor against the run in the NFL. He could be a good backup in the NFL, but may never be a quality starter."

Rucker actually has the frame needed to add the desired weight, I doubt anyone with a functioning brainpan has bothered considering him as a nickle rusher, and last time I checked there was no rule preventing a team sorely lacking DE's from adding a "good backup" before adding a starter later.

"Henderson is a high-motor guy with pass rushing skills and the ability to play the run. However, he had major durability issues in college. He should be a high priority pick late in the draft because there is little risk if he fails, but he could offer round three talent if he stays healthy."

Major durability issues? Might have been a 3rd round pick if he wasn't who he actually was? A Likely late round draft pick? And most importantly, the later he can be taken the more attractive he becomes due to the reduced risk of him failing. (Duh.)

[TecmoFever]

I don't care if people agree with this or not. That is a GREAT website that I've never been to before. Thanks for giving me a peek into it.

And for the record, Hair, this symbol > means greater than, so when there's one of those, the author means that this player is lumped into the "not good enough to really rank because he's not even a 4th-round talent".

Therefore, the breakdown is as follows:

1st round value: 1

2nd round value: 1

3rd round value: 2 (coming from a displaced QB and a troubled linebacker)

4th round value: 1 (coming from an UDFA)

So when you see it as the author had written it, you can more clearly see why he may have graded a C-. And when you say that he graded it low because he didn't do what he thought they should do, isn't that what a grade basically boils down to? Somebody's evaluation of what a team did compared to what that person's opinion of what should have been done?

(Shrug)

[Kazkal]

The write up is pretty thorough and has decent enough insight, but it sounds like the C- grade hinges too much on overdrafting Rucker and Peko and not using the 7th round picks for more positional impact.

The Joseph and Whitworth picks make this draft. The rest of the picks are just filling in blanks where the Bengals needed to fill them, except for McNeal who is interesting for a 6th rounder and Benny Breezeway.

The Rucker-Henderson fight for PT is anticipated well in the article.

I dont think there will be much competition between Rucker and Henderson. Rucker was a thrid round pick and Henderson was an UFA. I know that most people are mesmorized by the pre-draft rankings that Kiper and various websites put out, but there is a reason Rucker was drafted high and Henderson was passed on by each team at least 7 times. Dont expect much of Henderson and start expecting a lot more from Rucker.

ya because he was injured

mybe it's a typo and he ment A-

[Stripes]

mybe it's a typo and he ment A-

The article is such a contradiction that you might think so. The first sentence of his analysis about our reaching for Rucker and Peko, and our 7th round guys seem to make it clear that he thinks our draft was mediocre, despite being great from a value standpoint according to his own rankings.

[ShulaSteakhouse]

WHAT??? Someone didn't give Marvin and the Bengals' an A++?????

CURSE HIM TO HELL I SAY!!!

I cant' believe it!

[Stripes]

WHAT??? Someone didn't give Marvin and the Bengals' an A++?????

CURSE HIM TO HELL I SAY!!!

I cant' believe it!

Well most Bengals fans on this board are grading the draft between a C and B. We're not all that homerish. This article just does a crappy job of being consistent between value grades and the overall draft grade.

[HairOnFire]

We're not all that homerish. This article just does a crappy job of being consistent between value grades and the overall draft grade.

Ignoring for a moment that Goldberg gave Frostee Rucker a 6th round grade in his predraft ranking and a 4th round grade in his post draft analysis ....I was amused when I checked out his post draft grades for other teams.

Example: He gives the Bears a C+, which happens to be a slightly higher grade than the Bengals, despite the fact that Chicago didn't address many of the needs Goldberg claimed they had. More importantly, in his opinion they also reached badly on all three of their highest draft picks. Yup, after trading out of the 1st round Goldberg claims the Bears reached in rounds 2, 3, and 4. But they get a better draft grade than the Bengals because Goldberg thought the Bears cleaned up AFTER the draft was over. No kidding, he forgives all of that teams 1st day draft sins because of number and quality of their undrafted free agents.

That's some serious stupidity.

[HoosierCat]

Li'l mergin' to get all the grading conversations in one place.

C- is a little harsh. Frankly, I think the vox populi had it about right: about three-quarters rated it a B or C, emphasis on B. So call it a B-. Obviously, it'll be a few years before we really know...but that strikes me as a fair assessment right now.

[HairOnFire]

So when you see it as the author had written it, you can more clearly see why he may have graded a C-. And when you say that he graded it low because he didn't do what he thought they should do, isn't that what a grade basically boils down to? Somebody's evaluation of what a team did compared to what that person's opinion of what should have been done?

First, thanks for the clarification about the grades given. It helps to understand why the writer gave the grade he did, even though his opinion is still based upon his own value rankings, which didn't reflect reality. More on that in a bit.

As for basing it upon an opinion of what should be done instead of what was actually done, I've consistently disagreed with that approach. And the reason I say that is due to two factors. First, any writer or fan opinion has a certain amount of merit, but not more than that of the team doing the picking. The team obviously has more information available about draft prospects and players currently on the roster, a better appreciation of team needs and desired direction, and the opportunity to interview players to see if they fit team plans. On that score I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with the direction taken with any of the picks made. I argued for a 1st round cornerback and I got one. I argued that the Bengals would be well served to draft an offensive lineman, even if it meant using an early pick, and they did just that. I argued that DE was a real need, and went so far as to opine that the Bengals could do with more than one. And I argued even before Sam Adams was signed that DT could be addressed with a mid round pick.

Which brings us to the second factor, the individual players picked at the respective positions. Can I bitch and whine if I wanted? Sure. But unless our previously expressed opinions about player value neatly match up with what actually happened on draft day then they have to be considered dubious at best, right? And in this example I'm not talking just about an individual players rankings. I'm talking about whether a writers entire value board can be judged credible after the draft is over. If it can't, and I don't think Jay Goldberg's stands up very well to post draft scrutiny, then I tend to fall back upon my belief that the draft itself is the best indicator of player value. And reality states plainy that Jay Goldbergs pre-draft opinions about Mark Anderson, Eric Henderson, or Frostee Rucker can't be defended. They're fugtarded.

Simply put, at best he was guessing. At worst, he was sniffin' glue.

[HoosierCat]

then I tend to fall back upon my belief that the draft itself is the best indicator of player value.

Unfortunately, any examination of draft history shows that, too, is a dubious basis for grading. I doubt you would find anyone willing to say that, for example, Akili Smith, was drafted accurately. Every year, we get treated to multiple hindsight articles looking back a couple years and showing who teams "should have" taken. It's a rare team whose "did take" and "should have taken" players are the same.

The bottom line is that for all of teams' alleged greater knowledge, insight, and scouting capabilities, the draft remains a crapshoot. Few grades given now -- not Jay Goldberg's, and not even the actual draft -- are going to hold up in 3 or 4 years. If Goldie wants to assign the Bengals a C-, well, WTF. His opinion is as valid as your or mine right now. We'll find out who's right in a few years.

[HairOnFire]

then I tend to fall back upon my belief that the draft itself is the best indicator of player value.

Unfortunately, any examination of draft history shows that, too, is a dubious basis for grading. I doubt you would find anyone willing to say that, for example, Akili Smith, was drafted accurately.

There's only one draft reality, and nobody is claiming that it's a perfect vision. But it is a better standard than the yammerings of an internet draftnik trying to justify why his value board looks like it was written by a monkey. (Picture the monkey screaming, howling, and throwing his feces at the teams who didn't agree with his well thought out value board.)

For all of the pre-draft talk about where Ko, Pope, or Watson would be taken the hard truth is that they fell to their proper position based upon the expert opinions of all 32 NFL teams. Plus, Frostee Rucker went where an active and highly respected defensive minded NFL head coach determined where he should be selected. So why should Jay Goldberg's opinion mean more to me than the one of Marvin Lewis?

[BengalChamps]

http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/review/te...atibengals.html

Wow. They really hammer the Bengals for Frucker and Nicholson. I hope ML knows more about the NFL than this writer does.

If Nicholson really is going to be another Cheech, I hope we cut him after camp. Why put up with a bad apple if they're just going to be a backup.

Am I wrong or does it seem like we dont care about our high character, high skill, high performing OTs. Then we draft questionable characters.

[Stripes]

About in line with most of the grades we've been getting. I'll merge this with the other grade thread we have built up.

[HoosierCat]

So why should Jay Goldberg's opinion mean more to me than the one of Marvin Lewis?

I didn't say it should, only that neither's opinions are much of an indicator of success at this point. Being highly-thought-of by draft expert X is nice, but lots of highly-thought-of players have flopped. Similarly, being drafted high is nice (and lucrative), but lots of highly-drafted players have flopped, too.

Personally, like I said before, I think C- is a little harsh, but for all I know now we could look back on this draft in 3 years and be thinking it was very generous. OTOH, Frostee the Sackman might be coming off his 3rd consecutive double-digit sack season, making pundits far and wide look like nitwits. We'll just have to see.

[BengalPappaw]

So why should Jay Goldberg's opinion mean more to me than the one of Marvin Lewis?

I didn't say it should, only that neither's opinions are much of an indicator of success at this point. Being highly-thought-of by draft expert X is nice, but lots of highly-thought-of players have flopped. Similarly, being drafted high is nice (and lucrative), but lots of highly-drafted players have flopped, too.

Personally, like I said before, I think C- is a little harsh, but for all I know now we could look back on this draft in 3 years and be thinking it was very generous. OTOH, Frostee the Sackman might be coming off his 3rd consecutive double-digit sack season, making pundits far and wide look like nitwits. We'll just have to see.

I hope you are right that Frostee becoming the SACKMAN. Like you said-- we'll see.

[HairOnFire]

So why should Jay Goldberg's opinion mean more to me than the one of Marvin Lewis?

I didn't say it should, only that neither's opinions are much of an indicator of success at this point. Being highly-thought-of by draft expert X is nice, but lots of highly-thought-of players have flopped.

Again, you'll not find a perfect indicator of success anywhere...so why not give more weight to the opinions of 32 NFL teams over those of a writer who bases his grade on how closely a team drafted in the manner he thought they should?

Shouldn't the writer question why a prospect fell two or more rounds later than he predicted? And conversely, if a team drafts a prospect much higher than predicted shouldn't the writer question what actually motivated the pick instead of pretending that he knows more than those doing the selecting? After all, his draft grades are based largely on his own discredited value lists and position rankings.

There seems to be very little doubt that Jay Goldberg would have given the Bengals a higher draft grade had they drafted Mark Anderson or Eric Henderson instead of Frostee Rucker. The writer says as much. But none of those players were drafted anywhere near where Goldberg predicted, making Goldberg's pre-draft rankings highly suspicious. In fact, Anderson wasn't selected until pick 159, and Henderson didn't find a new team until long after the lights were turned out and the doors were locked.

So why should the writer, or the reader, ignore the fact that the writers post-draft grades are based upon his pre-draft misconceptions? Shouldn't there be an explanation by the writer about how 32 teams not only passed on overhyped players like Henderson in favor of prospects like Frostee Rucker, but also special team warriors like Ethan Kilmer and Bennie Brazell. And Green Bay passed on Eric Henderson in the 7th round to select Dave Tollefson. In case you're wondering....he's a defensive end. Why was he worth a draft pick when Henderson wasn't?

In closing, why wouldn't you give far more weight to the actual rankings determined by the NFL draft as you would pre-draft or post-draft rankings compiled by writers who aren't employed by NFL teams? Just because the actual draft doesn't guarantee a high rate of success doesn't mean that outside sources fare any better. All you're guaranteed is that the writers mistakes will be more easily forgotten or forgiven....precisely because almost everyone knows they don't count for spit.

[bengalsfansince68]

I wish we could have still got ko but thats my only complaint i give draft a B+ we got postions of need for the future

DT,Oline,CB,DE the only thing we diden't adress was safety which we can put off sense dexter is signed for 4years

Don't you think we could have used a TE?!?!?!?!?

I too gave this draft a B. I was pleased to get a corner and if Joseph becomes a shutdown corner and Whitworth becomes a stud tackle I will move it up to A. They also addressed depth and competition at DT, DE, LB and special teams.

I love Marvin Lewis

[HoosierCat]

In closing, why wouldn't you give far more weight to the actual rankings determined by the NFL draft as you would pre-draft or post-draft rankings compiled by writers who aren't employed by NFL teams?

You answer the question in your next sentence:

Just because the actual draft doesn't guarantee a high rate of success doesn't mean that outside sources fare any better.

Why give the actual draft "far more weight" when the actual draft "doesn't guarantee a high rate of success"?

I'm happy to an NFL club the benefit of the doubt versus this or that outside expert, but they've shown themselves just as capable of blowing calls as Goldberg or Kiper or any other draftnik out there. Marvin thinks Frostee is worth a 3rd? Well, fine, let's see if he's right. Marvin thought Madieu was worth a higher second than everyone else did and he turned out to be on the money. OTOH, he thought that Chris Perry was worth a 1st, a proposition that looks more and more dubious with each passing injury.

As far as the whole Henderson/Rucker thing goes, all I can say is this: Goldberg thinks Henderson was worth a 3rd, at least, and Frostee was worthy of nothing greater than a garbage pick. Marvin thought Frostee was worth a 3rd and henderson not worth pursuing until after the draft. Hopefully, Goldberg is right about Henderson and Marvin is right about Frostee. Hell, I'll settle for just one of them hitting the mark, and I don't care who, as long as the bengals get a friggin' pass rush.

[walshfan]

There is no ranking right now...

Rank them at the halfway point in the season and then at the end...

We may have some bigtime players in there ...just dont know who right now...

[HairOnFire]

In closing, why wouldn't you give far more weight to the actual rankings determined by the NFL draft as you would pre-draft or post-draft rankings compiled by writers who aren't employed by NFL teams?

You answer the question in your next sentence:

Just because the actual draft doesn't guarantee a high rate of success doesn't mean that outside sources fare any better.

Why give the actual draft "far more weight" when the actual draft "doesn't guarantee a high rate of success"?

Two reasons.

First, since no evaluation guarantees a high rate of success you're best served by going with the expert opinion over the pure speculation of rank amateurs. Or do you disagree? Are you going to argue yet again, as you did last year, that fans and sportswriters can do just as well as the braintrusts of NFL teams?

Because that's freaking crazy talk.

Second, you're best served giving greater weight to the actual rankings made on draft day because you know ahead of time that the NFL Draft isn't a simple exercise where NFL teams do nothing more than sit back on their hands making safe pick after safe pick. Teams overwhelmingly look for athletic upside that can be developed, and that often trumps outrageous production from marginal athletes. In fact, the higher the draft position the greater risk teams are often willing to assume just on chance that they can select a player who'll be truly special instead of safe but marginal. We know this. We also know that no NFL team can prosper with a roster filled with Wali Rainer types. You must take chances constantly, and that means the level of success is almost guaranteed to be questionable. In fact, the 1st round of every draft is typically littered with trash that teams took a calculated gamble on due to the outside chance that they could develope an athletic prospect into a great player.

That's never going to change.

Like I've said previously, the NFL draft is a beauty contest, not a reward for past production at a lower level. Teams are looking at mostly unproven prospects who can succeed in the pros, not marginal athletes who proved themselves as one of the best at a lower level of competition.

Bottom Line: Draft day determines the real player rankings, not the consensus opinion of a group of fugtards.

[HoosierCat]

First, since no evaluation guarantees a high rate of success you're best served by going with the expert opinion over the pure speculation of rank amateurs. Or do you disagree?

Of course. When no evaluation guarantees a high rate of success, your best move is to ignore it all and wait to see how things play out. Any sort of grading right now falls under the heading of "for entertainment purposes only." We'll know within a few years who was right and who was wrong. The players will sort themselves out on the field, and there willl then be plenty of crow to eat on the part of both teams and experts.