So What is the official draft pick number?

[HoosierCat]

There have been subpar drafts and players that just haven't panned out... There have been injuries and people leaving in free agency.

Specifically, there have been experienced vets leaving in FA. Just last year it was James, Simmons, K2, Wilkins, Stewart and Shaun Smith, versus the signing on one, count 'em, one vet FA in Mike Myers.

Now again this year, we are here contemplating the potential departures of Justin Smith, John Thornton, Bryan Robinson, Dexter Jackson, Stacy Andrews, Kyle Larson, Landon Johnson, Caleb Miller and Deltha O'Neill -- and again replacing them almost exclusively with either young'uns on the roster or draft picks.

I would submit that to continue to follow this road map is to continue down the road into the crapper. People have talked a lot this year about how the team lacks heart, has no fire. Even you have remarked on how they played with so much more intensity in 2005 than this past season. I submit that the lack of veteran experience, especially on defense, has a lot to do with that.

We need units that are a healthy mix of young developing talent, stud players in their prime, and lunchpail vets. On offense we have plenty of the second and third group, but few of the first. Hence, it makes sense to point the draft in that direction. On defense, we have a whole bunch of young (and hopefully developing) talent, but no studs, and we keep letting all our lunchpail vets go. Hence it makes sense to point FA dollars there. IMHO this is the fastest way to get this team back to the playoffs.

[WhoDey93285]

It's a patchy Oline, IMO.

(sigh) I'm not picking on you, Pidge. But the o-line allowed a franchise low 17 sacks. At some point we need to get out of the mindset that our passing offensive woes is the result of the o-line.

A lot of that attributes to the fact that Carson has the knack of knowing when to get rid of the ball. When he feels pressure, he gets rid of the ball. In reality, he didn't have very much time this year and he was under pressure a lot which, in my opinion, led to a lot of interceptions.

[membengal]

Army, you are underestimating how glaring the need on offense is.

This will be an unusual off-season on this board for me as it appears Hoosier and I are in the same general area on philosophy with regard to what the approach of the team should be to the draft.

I underscore what I wrote above and echo Hoosier's sentiment above scooter's post.

Army, just drafting front 7 on defense will NOT help this team back to the playoffs in 2008. Figure some development time for the youngsters, and you are once again pouring time and effort into a side of the ball that has been WELL attended to in the last four drafts while praying for dividends that have been slow to show up. And if the offense continues to suffer because of the lack of attention? What then?

Best course of action are strategic free agent signings on the d-line and LB to bolster the years of draft picks and see if that cannot help them continue to improve (as we saw late in the year) and load up on offense in the draft where we can get a far more immediate impact from the picks.

To continue to ignore the offense and its needs is absolute folly. Madness.

ETA: If a stud d-tackle and d-end is available at #9, the Bengals should go that route, IMO. But if they are gone? I sure as hell hope they don't reach for one and pass up prime talent that fits the slot. And, if the Bengals do address the d-line in the first round? Then I will be begging them to unload on offense the rest of the first day of the draft.

[Pidge]

It's a patchy Oline, IMO.

(sigh) I'm not picking on you, Pidge. But the o-line allowed a franchise low 17 sacks. At some point we need to get out of the mindset that our passing offensive woes is the result of the o-line.

A lot of that attributes to the fact that Carson has the knack of knowing when to get rid of the ball. When he feels pressure, he gets rid of the ball. In reality, he didn't have very much time this year and he was under pressure a lot which, in my opinion, led to a lot of interceptions.

*stands behind Scooter, looking at Kirkendall*

Yeah!

[BengalszoneBilly]

A lot of that attributes to the fact that Carson has the knack of knowing when to get rid of the ball. When he feels pressure, he gets rid of the ball. In reality, he didn't have very much time this year and he was under pressure a lot which, in my opinion, led to a lot of interceptions.

Somebody else finally sees what I see with Carson. He's played up to the level the line in 2007 allowed him to, which was far below the level the line of 2005 afforded him. Kudos Scooter.

[WhoDey93285]

A lot of that attributes to the fact that Carson has the knack of knowing when to get rid of the ball. When he feels pressure, he gets rid of the ball. In reality, he didn't have very much time this year and he was under pressure a lot which, in my opinion, led to a lot of interceptions.

Somebody else finally sees what I see with Carson. He's played up to the level the line in 2007 allowed him to, which was far below the level the line of 2005 afforded him. Kudos Scooter.

Great minds think alike.

[HairOnFire]

People have talked a lot this year about how the team lacks heart, has no fire. Even you have remarked on how they played with so much more intensity in 2005 than this past season. I submit that the lack of veteran experience, especially on defense, has a lot to do with that.

I have only one problem with that line of thinking, but it's a pretty big one. Simply put, if I had to point to a side of the ball that played without heart and fire it would be the offense, not the defense. In fact, in the one game where I felt the Bengals were most quilty of quitting, against the 49'ers, I placed almost all of the blame on the offense.

And sorry Memphis, but this isn't a family picnic where everyone is assured of the same number of chicken legs. The defense still lacks talent overall, and has more glaring needs than the offense, and in the end the only thing that matters is going back to the well over and over again until the defense is made whole.

[HairOnFire]

It's a patchy Oline, IMO.

(sigh) I'm not picking on you, Pidge. But the o-line allowed a franchise low 17 sacks. At some point we need to get out of the mindset that our passing offensive woes is the result of the o-line.

A lot of that attributes to the fact that Carson has the knack of knowing when to get rid of the ball. When he feels pressure, he gets rid of the ball. In reality, he didn't have very much time this year and he was under pressure a lot which, in my opinion, led to a lot of interceptions.

*stands behind Scooter, looking at Kirkendall*

Yeah!

**stands with Kirk**

[ArmyBengal]

I would have quoted your post membengal, but my puter is being goofy today, so this is the best I can do...

While agree that some key defensive FA signings would be great, I would submit the teams past dealings with free agents as proof that this probably won't happen. However, I do agree that would allow for a much more focused and balanced draft this year.

Something I dug up is a pretty good look at why this team has struggled to stop the run and it's defensive ranking since, well, forever...

Going back and looking at the drafts since Marvin got here, this is what I have found about the front seven defensive picks specifically:

Since the first Marvin draft in 2003, we have had 42 total draft picks. Of those, 13 have been spent on the front seven.

Of those 13, 5 have been day one picks. Let's start by looking at those day one picks:

Pollack - Might not ever play again

Thurman - Who knows how things will shake out after being out for 2 seasons (Hope he get a shot)

Miller - Gone after this season (At least he needs to be)

Johnson - Free agent who may not come back (Hope he does)

Rucker - Do I really need to say anything ?

Going further, 6 of those 13 no longer play with the team in:

Khalid Abdullah, Langston Moore, Elton Patterson, Matthias Askew, AJ Nicholson, Matt Toeaina

So we are left with count'em TWO front 7 guys in Peko and Geathers that may be here contributing next season. Oh yeah, both were 4th rounders...

I just can't see how this can't be continually addressed... Don't say that I'm not acknowledging the offensive needs, because I understand they exist and would be more than happy hitting the O-line as well. When I say DRAFT FRONT 7, I certainly don't mean with EVERY PICK in the draft, but it should be heavy up front IMHO.

How can being ranked consistently in the bottom 5 for defense year in and year out be acceptable and not looked at as a bigger need than a sputtering offense that finishes in the top 10 ?? Once again address all needs, but the defense still has to be the bigger of the two. I'm sure you can do the same with the offense that I did with the defense, but then again, the offense is still top 10 and the defense isn't...

I really think that 2004 draft is the death of the team at this point from a defensive standpoint...

Ratliff - gone

Madieu - maybe gone

Miller - maybe gone

Johnson - maybe gone

Askew - gone

Geathers - 4th round starter

Brooks - taking roster spot

Kinda bleak huh ?? According to Marvin, "This team is going to have to be able to stop the run next season"... Well, unless they get some free agents or get ALL KINDS of production from youngsters, I don't see this happening...

Bottomline, this team has so many holes, it's not funny. I love our scouting department !!!

WHODEY !!!

[jjakq27]

Add in the following to Army's assessment. Free agents have probably precluded the team from addressing the defense as well. John Thornton, Tory James, Kevin Hardy, Sam Adams, Kim Herring and Nate Webster were probably viewed as short term (one to two seasons) fixes until the team could fill up the pipe with some home grown talent. I think they have done a good job with the secondary but the injuries (Pollack), suspensions (Odell) and the busts (Miller, Ratliff, Askew) have really hurt the front seven.

Geathers, Peko, Madieu and L. Johnson have been the better performers on defense from the Marvin draftws but as Army stated they are all mid-round guys. Throw in M. White and Ndukwe to that group too.

[HoosierCat]

I have only one problem with that line of thinking, but it's a pretty big one. Simply put, if I had to point to a side of the ball that played without heart and fire it would be the offense, not the defense. In fact, in the one game where I felt the Bengals were most quilty of quitting, against the 49'ers, I placed almost all of the blame on the offense.

I have plenty of complaints about the offense, but a lack of heart isn't one of them. If anything, I think the offense was guilty of pouring too much of themselves into the game, to the point where they were pressing themselves into mistakes. The D on the other hand seemed to me to only occasionally flash any fire. Part of the problem is that too many of the vets we do/did have aren't providing the leadership they should. Whether it's Bryan "clean out my locker in week 16" Robinson, Justin "our stunts never work" Smith, Deltha "gimme more money" O'Neal or John Askew "will make a fine replacement for me" Thorton, we've got too many veteran Debbie Downers. Flush 'em out and give me more Dhani Jones types.

And sorry Memphis, but this isn't a family picnic where everyone is assured of the same number of chicken legs. The defense still lacks talent overall, and has more glaring needs than the offense, and in the end the only thing that matters is going back to the well over and over again until the defense is made whole.

The D may still lack talent, but the offense is quickly aging its way down in the rankings. Carson will turn 29 during next season. Chad and TJ are both over 30. Rudi and Levi are both 29 next year; Willie turns 872. And as on defense, attempts in the draft to pick and grow up fresh talent have flopped: Chris Perry, Tab Perry, Reggie McNeil, Benny Brazell, Kenny Irons, even Chris Henry, whose great talent has to be measured against his being one traffic ticket away from a suspension. The Bengals may need to go back to the well, but not just on defense.

[Walrus]

There have been subpar drafts and players that just haven't panned out... There have been injuries and people leaving in free agency.

Specifically, there have been experienced vets leaving in FA. Just last year it was James, Simmons, K2, Wilkins, Stewart and Shaun Smith, versus the signing on one, count 'em, one vet FA in Mike Myers.

Now again this year, we are here contemplating the potential departures of Justin Smith, John Thornton, Bryan Robinson, Dexter Jackson, Stacy Andrews, Kyle Larson, Landon Johnson, Caleb Miller and Deltha O'Neill -- and again replacing them almost exclusively with either young'uns on the roster or draft picks.

I would submit that to continue to follow this road map is to continue down the road into the crapper. People have talked a lot this year about how the team lacks heart, has no fire. Even you have remarked on how they played with so much more intensity in 2005 than this past season. I submit that the lack of veteran experience, especially on defense, has a lot to do with that.

We need units that are a healthy mix of young developing talent, stud players in their prime, and lunchpail vets. On offense we have plenty of the second and third group, but few of the first. Hence, it makes sense to point the draft in that direction. On defense, we have a whole bunch of young (and hopefully developing) talent, but no studs, and we keep letting all our lunchpail vets go. Hence it makes sense to point FA dollars there. IMHO this is the fastest way to get this team back to the playoffs.

Hoosier, I mostly agree with your point here -- but which veterans, specifically, are we missing now who provided this "heart" and "fire"? Tory James? Brian Simmons? I suspect some of our fire and swagger in '05 (even tho we were STILL godawful) came from none other than Thurman, the rookie (and maybe Pollack?). Even though Odell had some flaws on the field (and lots off), he definitely showed up with fire and desire on game day.

[HoosierCat]

Hoosier, I mostly agree with your point here -- but which veterans, specifically, are we missing now who provided this "heart" and "fire"? Tory James? Brian Simmons? I suspect some of our fire and swagger in '05 (even tho we were STILL godawful) came from none other than Thurman, the rookie (and maybe Pollack?). Even though Odell had some flaws on the field (and lots off), he definitely showed up with fire and desire on game day.

I don't think there's any doubt we lost some serious 'tude on the D with Odell, and probably with Pollack as well. But if you look at the guys who left the D last offseason, you have a solid locker room presence in Simmons, a goes 110% every play guy (because it's the only way he'd stay on the team) in K2, a hard-hitting teams demon in Wilkins and, as we were recently reminded, a non-stop on-field trash talker in Shaun Smith. What vets were left are, as I noted a post back, dominated by downers.

Fortunately, it looks like the team is in a position to clean them out. B-robs already gone, Deltha has reportedly asked to be released, Thornton's salary makes him an easy cap cut, and Justin's likely price tag makes it equally easy to move on here. I just think they should lean toward filling most of those spots with veteran leaders via FA. That doesn't mean they shouldn't draft a stud defensive lineman or LB in the draft, but I think we end up with better results by hewing closer to the 2003 offseason, not the 2007 one.

[Walrus]

Hoosier, I mostly agree with your point here -- but which veterans, specifically, are we missing now who provided this "heart" and "fire"? Tory James? Brian Simmons? I suspect some of our fire and swagger in '05 (even tho we were STILL godawful) came from none other than Thurman, the rookie (and maybe Pollack?). Even though Odell had some flaws on the field (and lots off), he definitely showed up with fire and desire on game day.

I don't think there's any doubt we lost some serious 'tude on the D with Odell, and probably with Pollack as well. But if you look at the guys who left the D last offseason, you have a solid locker room presence in Simmons, a goes 110% every play guy (because it's the only way he'd stay on the team) in K2, a hard-hitting teams demon in Wilkins and, as we were recently reminded, a non-stop on-field trash talker in Shaun Smith. What vets were left are, as I noted a post back, dominated by downers.

Fortunately, it looks like the team is in a position to clean them out. B-robs already gone, Deltha has reportedly asked to be released, Thornton's salary makes him an easy cap cut, and Justin's likely price tag makes it equally easy to move on here. I just think they should lean toward filling most of those spots with veteran leaders via FA. That doesn't mean they shouldn't draft a stud defensive lineman or LB in the draft, but I think we end up with better results by hewing closer to the 2003 offseason, not the 2007 one.

I guess the counterpoint I was trying to make was that rookies and other young players CAN provide fire, personality and LEADERSHIP needed on a team -- esp one like ours where none of the veterans provide those qualities. For that reason -- and because we have had such limited success finding difference-making free agents -- I still lean towards addressing our defensive needs in the draft.

As a sidenote, I am really optimistic that there will be at least one stud D-lineman available at pick 9. One thing I haven't seen discussed much yet is the fact that there are usually one or two workout wonders who make their way into the top half of the first round (ie, Troy Williamson, Amobe Okoye, Vernon Davis, Broderick Bunkley). I'd especially look for that to happen in a year like this where there are relatively few "superstars" coming out -- should be ample opportunity for a few underdogs to take the draft by storm.

[HoosierCat]

As a sidenote, I am really optimistic that there will be at least one stud D-lineman available at pick 9.

So am I, and I wouldn't object to using the pick on one. As to post-college-season climbers there, keep an eye on DT Kentwan Balmer.

OTOH, Boise State OT Ryan Clady declared today. 6'6", 317, played both sides of the line, ranked just below Jake Long as the No. 2 OT right now. Given that 3 of our 6 tackles are hurt (Willie, Levi, Keift), a fourth is a FA (Andrews) and a fifth is currently our starting LG (Whit), a guy like that would be hard to pass up at 9.

[cincy9275]

the offensive woo's in my opinion. alot of that could be corrected just by having a OC that knows how to be consistent and that knows how to attack the opposing teams weaknesses, then make the proper adjustment to better his offense. brat CANNOT DO IT and need to go! same for the defense alot could be shored up by just having a coach that knows what he is doing. over all the defense needs the help more that the offense. in reality this team has the money and the draft picks to get both corrected and head in the right direction. the real question is does this team decision makers have the ability to do that? personally i don't think they do.

[HairOnFire]

I have plenty of complaints about the offense, but a lack of heart isn't one of them.

Did you feel that way after the loss to 49'ers?

The D on the other hand seemed to me to only occasionally flash any fire.

i'd say the D was responsible for as many wins as the Bengals much heralded offense, if not more.

The D may still lack talent, but the offense is quickly aging its way down in the rankings. Carson will turn 29 during next season.

In other words, he's in his prime right now....and should be capable of playing at an extremely high level for quite some time.

Chad and TJ are both over 30. Rudi and Levi are both 29 next year; Willie turns 872.

Chad's problems are mental, not physical. TJ just had the best season of his career. Levi should return to past form next season and should be capable of playing out the new contract he just signed. Rudi already has two highly drafted backups waiting for his departure, as well as a still young Kenny Watson. As for Big Willie, his replacement may already be on the roster.

The Bengals may need to go back to the well, but not just on defense.

Agreed. In fact, I doubt few people are seriously suggesting the Bengals spend all of their assets and energy trying to upgrade the defense. That said, I think I can make a very strong argument about how a better defense would do as much to ensure that Carson Palmer's prime wasn't wasted as those who argue for another wideout, another high pick used on yet another RB, or an elite OT added to a unit that rarely allowed a QB sack.

Just saying...

[HoosierCat]

I doubt few people are seriously suggesting the Bengals spend all of their assets and energy trying to upgrade the defense.

Then you might want to go back and re-read this thread. Just sayin...

[HairOnFire]

I doubt few people are seriously suggesting the Bengals spend all of their assets and energy trying to upgrade the defense.

Then you might want to go back and re-read this thread. Just sayin...

Consider it DONE!!!!!

I can now say with supreme confidence that absolutely nobody in this thread has suggested the offense be ignored. In fact, the closest anyone has come was Kingwilly's "draft only defense on day one" response to your suggestion to "slant the draft towards offense...". But he quickly agreed that drafting an offensive player was acceptable if such a player was clearly the best player available.

Again, just saying....

[membengal]

And it was the "draft only defense on day 1" call (which has echoed far and wide on this board and in Bengaldom already) that I specifically responded to, for my part. I stand by my thoughts and will continue to make them up to April. The offense cannot be ignored this time around.

If they get d-line at #9 overall, I will be hoping that the balance of their many rest-of-day-1 picks are on offense.

[Spor_tees]

I doubt few people are seriously suggesting the Bengals spend all of their assets and energy trying to upgrade the defense.

Then you might want to go back and re-read this thread. Just sayin...

Consider it DONE!!!!!

I can now say with supreme confidence that absolutely nobody in this thread has suggested the offense be ignored. In fact, the closest anyone has come was Kingwilly's "draft only defense on day one" response to your suggestion to "slant the draft towards offense...". But he quickly agreed that drafting an offensive player was acceptable if such a player was clearly the best player available.

Again, just saying....

You know you are one crazy son of a bitch to be eating boiled eggs before a game....