Gaither in Supp?

[HoosierCat]

Fair enough, but your desire for a young DT reminds me of my own cries for a 1st round CB, something that had NEVER been seen in Cincy until the Bengals drafted one in back-to-back years. The need can simply become to great to ignore, especially if the available talent happens to fall exactly where you hope it does.

From your mouth to Mikey's ears.

Regarding CB, it's worth noting that while they indeed kept passing it by in the first, the position had a hammerlock on the second round for a while. In three straight years, 1999, 2000 and 2001, the Bengals burned a second on a corner (Artrell, Fisher and Roman). And they tossed another second at the position in 2004 with Ratliff. The failure of all those picks (plus the inconsistency of Deltha) leads you pretty directly to the back-to-back corner picks.

At defensive tackle, there seems to have been a change in thinking sometime around the time of Paul Brown's death and the advent of FA. Up until then, the Bengals used high picks, even first rounders, on DT with almost clockwork regularity: 1970, 1974, 1978, 1982, and 1986 all saw the team use at least one high pick, if not more, on a DT. But after '86, they didn't take a DT early until 1994 with Wilkinson, and the position has been ignored on day one ever since.

Hopefully you're right and they break the streak next April. No one would be happier than me.

[GapControl]

Why not say goodbye to Greg Brooks and Hello to Paul Oliver? If he falls to the 3rd in the supplemental he looks like a cheap pickup to me. Maybe he won`t fall that far... but I like the idea of infusing this defense with young, talented proven playmakers. His physicals are much better than greg brooks, too.

[GapControl]

Fair enough, but your desire for a young DT reminds me of my own cries for a 1st round CB, something that had NEVER been seen in Cincy until the Bengals drafted one in back-to-back years. The need can simply become to great to ignore, especially if the available talent happens to fall exactly where you hope it does.

From your mouth to Mikey's ears.

Regarding CB, it's worth noting that while they indeed kept passing it by in the first, the position had a hammerlock on the second round for a while. In three straight years, 1999, 2000 and 2001, the Bengals burned a second on a corner (Artrell, Fisher and Roman). And they tossed another second at the position in 2004 with Ratliff. The failure of all those picks (plus the inconsistency of Deltha) leads you pretty directly to the back-to-back corner picks.

At defensive tackle, there seems to have been a change in thinking sometime around the time of Paul Brown's death and the advent of FA. Up until then, the Bengals used high picks, even first rounders, on DT with almost clockwork regularity: 1970, 1974, 1978, 1982, and 1986 all saw the team use at least one high pick, if not more, on a DT. But after '86, they didn't take a DT early until 1994 with Wilkinson, and the position has been ignored on day one ever since.

Hopefully you're right and they break the streak next April. No one would be happier than me.

Hoosier, that`s some nice data you got on bengals draft picks. Where did you come up with that? do you have a database or log sheet? Website?

[HoosierCat]

http://www.drafthistory.com/ (Note I missed a few DTs in '77, '80 and '93 but the main point remains...)

Very handy draft site. Another good reference one (non-draft related) is http://www.profootball-reference.com/

[GapControl]

http://www.drafthistory.com/ (Note I missed a few DTs in '77, '80 and '93 but the main point remains...)

Very handy draft site. Another good reference one (non-draft related) is http://www.profootball-reference.com/

thanks!

[schweinhart]

CB was definitely the right call in the 1st round the past 2 drafts and they could do worse than using a Day 1 pick on Oliver if they doubt how healthy JJoe's foot will be, Deltha's commitment to be on the field every game and Brooks ability to play in the NFL. I'd say the safest of those is the 3rd, which makes Oliver look even better than he actually is.

Gaither should still be much more intriguing. CBs like Oliver are a dime a dozen. True freaks like Gaither are not. Even then the Bengals should still pass on him with a 2nd round claim. Once they know what they got in Andrews, it's time to either pay up or let their project go. The Jets already showed enough interest in him as a RFA that his market value should skyrocket with just a halfway decent year, especially if he plays 2 or more positions.

But even if they pony up for Andrews, they still got to look in the 2008 1st round at the strong crop of college LT's who are going to come into the league with varying degrees of ability to play all 4 O-line positions besides center. The top off the list in the late 1st round should be Pedro Sosa from Rutgers. But, if they get Gaither for a 3rd, by all means. There's just too much baggage with him and not enough proof he can overcome it for the Bengals to dive in too early.

DT in the 1st is an ongoing nightmare dream. But if Red Bryant can fulfill his Aggie lineage with a strong season coming off ACL surgery, he should be targeted by the Bengals over an underachiever like Frank Okam in the 1st, even though the track record under Marvin is Day 2 DT picks and free agent stop gaps. If they go the usual route, Jason Shirley from Fresno is a monster who can move and might still be there in the middle rounds. DE is another question and makes the most sense for an early pick next year. But the reality should be that Jumpy is the high-end, undersized speed rusher who can go vs. LT's in place of Justin. They should be able to get a Top 5 strongside DE for less than a 1st.

But as Carson goes so do the Bengals. They've should prioritize his protection and run game success over their defense in '08 with their 1st rounder.

[HairOnFire]

But after '86, they didn't take a DT early until 1994 with Wilkinson, and the position has been ignored on day one ever since.

They've ignored it on draft day in part because history proves that highly drafted DT's not only take time to develope, but carry a very high bust factor. Many teams, including the Bengals, have preferred stocking the interior with veterans whose performance is more proven...even if the expectations are modest. In fact, knowing how often young DT's bust outright, or produce only one or two quality seasons, it's hard to argue with the wisdom of reducing the draft value and importance of the position if feasible. After all, if you can get by with cheaper options at DT then you can spend your most valuable draft assets on higher impact skill positions....and that's exactly what the Bengals have done.

That said, a quick look around the roster points out how few positions remain that have a more pressing need for an infusion of youth than at DT, and one high draft pick would do more to transform that group than possibly anywhere else....with the exception of TE.

[derekshank]

But after '86, they didn't take a DT early until 1994 with Wilkinson, and the position has been ignored on day one ever since.

They've ignored it on draft day in part because history proves that highly drafted DT's not only take time to develope, but carry a very high bust factor. Many teams, including the Bengals, have preferred stocking the interior with veterans whose performance is more proven...even if the expectations are modest. In fact, knowing how often young DT's bust outright, or produce only one or two quality seasons, it's hard to argue with the wisdom of reducing the draft value and importance of the position if feasible. After all, if you can get by with cheaper options at DT then you can spend your most valuable draft assets on higher impact skill positions....and that's exactly what the Bengals have done.

That said, a quick look around the roster points out how few positions remain that have a more pressing need for an infusion of youth than at DT, and one high draft pick would do more to transform that group than possibly anywhere else....with the exception of TE.

I agree with everything you said... especially the high bust factor on 1st round DT's. I think it is the highest rate at any position other than QB. Whereas Safeties and LB's are the least likely to bust. With that in mind, I'd be fine with the current draft strategy... and despite how I usually feel about FA, I wouldn't mind seeing the Bengals spend big money for at least one DT. Peko looks like he could be the real deal, so spending top dollar on another DT wouldn't be a terrible idea - especially if the depth on the rest of the defense is being dealt with via the draft.

By the way... I can't remember exactly where I read it, but John Fox (Panthers coach) believes that DT is the most impactful position on defense, and only the QB carries more value in terms of impact. If he's right, it would certainly be worth spending something to get a impact player next to Peko.

[HoosierCat]

Well, I have a few problems with the "we don't take DTs on day one because they have a high bust factor" theory, the main one being that it implies that Paul Brown was an idiot, since he quite regularly did take DTs high in the draft.

There's also the argument derek raises (and one that I have made myself) that DT is the most impactful position on defense. Not only does that argue in favor of big FA spending, it also argues in favor of taking chances in the draft since the upside of a successful pick is so great (a point, it should be noted, that Hair has made forcefully in defending the selections of Odell and Henry).

I would also note that avoiding the "high bust potential" position of DT has not exactly resulted in a string of unbroken successes early in the draft for the Bengals. Ironically, their last DT selection, Big Daddy, actually had a solid if unspectacular NFL career.

In short, I think that if the Bengals really are afraid of taking a DT high because he might bust...then they are being rather foolish, to put it mildly.

[BengalszoneBilly]

In short, I think that if the Bengals really are afraid of taking a DT high because he might bust...then they are being rather foolish, to put it mildly.

I doubt the position makes that big a difference when it comes to taking a chance on picking a "bust." The 2004 chance they took on RB Chris Perry (a #1 pick bust IMHO) shows you never can tell.

[HoosierCat]

In short, I think that if the Bengals really are afraid of taking a DT high because he might bust...then they are being rather foolish, to put it mildly.

I doubt the position makes that big a difference when it comes to taking a chance on picking a "bust." The 2004 chance they took on RB Chris Perry (a #1 pick bust IMHO) shows you never can tell.

Here's an interesting (to me at least) look at it: the Bengals have had 5 arguably bad first round selections in the past 10 drafts:

David Pollack (2005)

Chris Perry (2004)

Justin Smith (2001)

Peter Warrick (2000)

Akili Smith (1999)

What if we had taken the next DT to come off the board in any of those drafts? The names would be:

Luis Castillo (2005)

Vince Wilfork (2004) (assumes we stayed at 17 instead of trading with Denver)

Richard Seymour (2001)

Corey Simon (2000)

Anthony McFarland (1999)

So, if the Bengals are trying to avoid drafting a bust by not drafting a DT in the first...they ain't exactly doing a great job...

[membengal]

Sigh.

Take Justin Smith off your bust list. Weakens your point needlessly.

[HoosierCat]

Sigh.

Take Justin Smith off your bust list. Weakens your point needlessly.

For the record, I don't consider Justin a bust, but I appear to be in the minority on that point, so I tossed him in for the benefit of the haters. In any event, tho, it's certainly hard to argue he was a better selection than Seymour.

Really, from 1998 to 2005, there were only three first round picks where the Bengals' choice was clearly better than the next available DT: the first of our two in 1998 (Spikes versus Jason Peter), 2002 (Levi versus Wendell Bryant) and 2003 (Palmer versus Dewayne Robertson). Simmons versus Vonnie Holliday in 1998 is debatable; personally I'd give the edge to Holliday. The other drafts, DT was clearly the better choice.

To be clear, I don't actually disagree with Hair's thesis that the Bengals FO avoids DTs early on for fear of them going kerblooey. That may or may not be a legitimate fear. But if so, from a practical point of view, the application of that view has resulted in the Bengals missing out on a lot of top-tier DTs...in exchange for (more often than not) busts at other positions.

[BengalszoneBilly]

Sigh.

Take Justin Smith off your bust list. Weakens your point needlessly.

IMHO Pollack should come off too. When he was learning to play a new position as a rookie, he played respectably.

[HoosierCat]

Sigh.

Take Justin Smith off your bust list. Weakens your point needlessly.

IMHO Pollack should come off too. When he was learning to play a new position as a rookie, he played respectably.

Again, my point's not to get another "is player X a bust or not" argument going, but simply that if it is true that the Bengals' braintrust is ruling out, a priori , using a top pick on a DT based on fear of selecting a bust, then events have proven that strategy doubly unsuccessful: not only have they still drafted numerous busts and underachievers, but they have also missed out on multiple franchise-caliber DTs.

[BengalszoneBilly]

Sigh.

Take Justin Smith off your bust list. Weakens your point needlessly.

IMHO Pollack should come off too. When he was learning to play a new position as a rookie, he played respectably.

Again, my point's not to get another "is player X a bust or not" argument going, but simply that if it is true that the Bengals' braintrust is ruling out, a priori , using a top pick on a DT based on fear of selecting a bust, then events have proven that strategy doubly unsuccessful: not only have they still drafted numerous busts and underachievers, but they have also missed out on multiple franchise-caliber DTs.

...and LB's, RB's, the list is quite long.

[ArmyBengal]

At some point in time, this team is GOING to have to address the DT position with either a 1st or 2nd round DT taken or making a splash into FA to grab a DT that isn't in his 30's and beyond his prime. Putting a playmaker next to Peko would be huge in stopping the run. How many times have we bitched and moaned about the front four of this team ?? ENDLESSLY !!! I will say it's getting better, but with a better front four, things would look much different.

The whole "It's won up front" means nothing ?? I to believe at some point a "chance" needs to be taken...

WHODEY !!!

[Stripes]

If Peko pans out at all, we'll only be one piece away from fielding a solid defensive line. Geathers is a fine pass rusher. We all know what Justin Smith can do (granted, he may not be around much longer, in which case I'd rank DE over DT as a Bengals priority).

Frankly, if Thornton can play this year as effectively as he has since he came to Cincy... We might already be in good shape. Before the naysayers jump all over this, spare me the sarcasm. I never said Thornton is a Pro Bowler, or even good. Stop.

[HairOnFire]

To be clear, I don't actually disagree with Hair's thesis that the Bengals FO avoids DTs early on for fear of them going kerblooey.

That's not exactly what I said.

I mentioned the high bust factor associated with the DT position as well as the strategy of signing veteran DT talent, even the marginal variety, precisely due to a greater need for high impact skill players. And as your "what if" scenario clearly shows the Bengals did indeed pass on other positions, including DT, to draft a new starting QB, a WR to replace the departed Carl Pickens, a fast pass catching RB with home run ability, and on the other side of the ball two players who are the rarest animals in the forest, pass rushers. If the results have been less than hoped for then that's one thing. But it's hard to argue that there were needier positions on the roster in every example given save one. (Perry)

In addition, the decision to pass on the highest rated DT still available has allowed the Bengals to draft CB's in both of the last two drafts. And CB is one of the hardest to find skill positions on defense, right? More importantly, that decision meant the Bengals didn't reach for for low-impact fatties like Gabe Watson and Alan Branch, as many so-called experts predicted.

Frankly, when it comes time to pull the trigger in the next draft the Bengals may wisely pass on the highest rated DT available again and again, and I might happily applaud them each time they do so. But I do think that at long last there are few positions of greater need on the Bengals roster than DT, and it's increasingly possible that if the right type of player is avaiable the position might finally be upgraded with an infusion of youth.

[HoosierCat]

To be clear, I don't actually disagree with Hair's thesis that the Bengals FO avoids DTs early on for fear of them going kerblooey.

That's not exactly what I said.

I mentioned the high bust factor associated with the DT position as well as the strategy of signing veteran DT talent, even the marginal variety, precisely due to a greater need for high impact skill players.

Well, the latter flows from the former. After all, if you decide in advance to avoid drafting DT due to its high bust probability, then you have no choice but to acquire vet DTs. As for the "greater need for high impact skill players," as derek points out, a strong argument can be made for DT as a high impact skill position.

But it's hard to argue that there were needier positions on the roster in every example given save one. (Perry)

Again, the point isn't to argue about who the Bengals should have drafted. It's simply to answer the question: if the team was deliberately avoiding taking a DT in order to minimize their chances of drafting a bust, how has that worked out? And the answer clearly is: badly.

That does not necessarily disprove the theory that teams shouldn't take DTs early. They may indeed have a bigger bust potential than other positions. But even if so, fate has conspired to make that rule of thumb a poor one for the Bengals to follow.

[HairOnFire]

As for the "greater need for high impact skill players," as derek points out, a strong argument can be made for DT as a high impact skill position.

Uhhh, would that be the same Derek who felt compelled to openly agree with everything I said?

For the record, Derek quoted John Fox about the tremendous impact of the DT position. The same John Fox who just attempted to trade his best DT due to salary demands that he felt were unjustified. (Mixed signals?) Oh, and he's the same head coach who last drafted a DT in 2005, a 3rd round pick who became notable as the highest drafted player from that draft to be cut before training camp ended. (High bust factor?)

[HoosierCat]

As for the "greater need for high impact skill players," as derek points out, a strong argument can be made for DT as a high impact skill position.

Uhhh, would that be the same Derek who felt compelled to openly agree with everything I said?

Like I said, I don't disagree with the notion that the Bengals avoid DTs high in the draft because they are afraid of a bust. All I'm saying is that however applicable that rule may be overall, in the specific case of the bengals they would have been well-served to ignore it.

[HairOnFire]

That does not necessarily disprove the theory that teams shouldn't take DTs early. They may indeed have a bigger bust potential than other positions. But even if so, fate has conspired to make that rule of thumb a poor one for the Bengals to follow.

Not really. The Bengals failure to hit on every high draft pick doesn't negate the high probability of DT's busting outright, or requiring several year to become capable pass rushers in the NFL. Most never do, and Jimmy Kennedy, Ryan Pickett, Broderick Bunkley, and a whole host of others are a pretty fair argument for passing on one-dimensional DT's when other positions demand attention. Plus, it isn't suprising that your list shows several capable DT's the Bengals might have had since the Bengals were frequently drafting very high and often could have had the 1st or 2nd rated DT prospect. In fact, I'd be suprised if the same argument couldn't be made for plenty of positions besides DT. But let's face it, in the drafts highlited the Bengals had screaming needs for QB, WR, DE, and LB.

[HoosierCat]

That does not necessarily disprove the theory that teams shouldn't take DTs early. They may indeed have a bigger bust potential than other positions. But even if so, fate has conspired to make that rule of thumb a poor one for the Bengals to follow.

Not really. The Bengals failure to hit on every high draft pick doesn't negate the high probability of DT's busting outright,

I specifically said it didn't. Let me repeat from the above quote:

That does not necessarily disprove the theory that teams shouldn't take DTs early.

However, in the specific case of the Bengals over the last 10 years...yeah, it was not a good strategy. As to the argument that the same could be said about RB or QB or any other position, well, no one has asserted that the bengals were specifically avoiding RB or QB or any other position except DT early on. The bottom line is this: IF you believed that the bengals should avoid DTs in order to avoid busts, THEN it turned out you were wrong. Really.

[HoosierCat]

Anyhow...back on topic, here's gbnreport's rundown on Gaithers...basically echoes a lot of what Schweiny said...

Jared Gaither, LT, Maryland… 6-8, 350, JR… Entered the 2007 summer supplemental draft when he was declared academically ineligible for the upcoming season; technically would only have been a true junior this fall, but is eligible to jump to the pros because he attended a prep school for a year after high school. Imposing physical presence with the potential to be a shut down LT at the next level; indeed, may be about the closest thing to current Baltimore Pro Bowler Jonathan Ogden to come along in a while, but is still just starting to scratch the surface of his talent; relative newcomer to football who was a basketball player in high school and actually originally signed to play hoops with South Carolina before switching to football; played only one year of prep football and that at DT; tall player with a huge wingspan; naturally strong with good athletic skills including a 36-inch vertical leap which would have been three inches more than the highest figure at this year’s combine; may not time all that well in the 40, but is very nimble on his feet; slides around the pocket with ease and can change directions; has excellent balance and can change directions; athletic knee bender, but needs to concentrate on keeping his pads low all the time; not exactly a road grader but is a solid enough run blocker who gets good position and locks on with long arms; did not allow a sack in 2005 when he started every game at LT for the Terps replacing an injured Stephon Heyer; maturity came into question last fall, though, when he reportedly sulked and got into the coaches’ doghouse after being moved to RT when Heyer was granted another year of eligibility; was suspended briefly at camp last fall and was later suspended from last year's bowl game for violating team rules, although it likely related to missing classes; also battled some nagging injuries late last season… Based on pure physical potential, Gaither may be the best supplemental draft prospect since Bernie Kosar was taken with what turned out to be a #1 pick overall back in the late 1980s, but is a real wild card because of concerns about his level of maturity and work ethic. Complicating the decision for many teams will be the fact that the 2008 draft looks like it will be relatively deep at OT. Teams that use a supplemental pick will, of course, lose their selection in that round at the 2008 draft and teams thinking about bidding on Gaither with an early supplemental choice will have to try and project where they will pick next April and which OTs are likely to be available at that time.