Official Bengalszone Mock Comments

[Clackwoods]

Hey, GMs in real life do crazy things when they get all a-flutter for a gaudy prospect.

Sorry, but that sort of justification could be used to defend any trade.

And how many people thought Houston would bypass Reggie Bush (the consensus #1 pick) or Vince Young (the homestate hero) to get a relatively unknown Mario Williams?

Well, that's just the thing. I wrote early and often about Mario Williams being the best player available in that draft, and I think the wisdom of Houston selecting a DE over a RB has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. And that's true not just because Bush has struggled as a strong case for Mario Williams being selected over someone like an Adrian Peterson could very easily be made.

I don't think GB was in dire need of a RB, but if he falls to 8 you can bet that some team whose GM loves him will make a play - even if they're not in dire need of a RB.

Sorry, but any team that has an inexpensive RB like Ryan Grant fall in their laps should consider themselves lucky and build on their good fortune, not ignore their good luck by immediately drafting a wildly expensive RB whose presence will take the ball out of the hands of Grant, a player who led the NFL in rushes longer than 10 yards, and also rushes longer than 20 yards.

Finally, I'm not sure what your last memory of watching Green Bay might have been, but mine was watching Plaxico Burress fondle, fold, and mutilate the Packer secondary for big play after big play after big play after big play. Thus, if I were a Green Bay fan I wouldn't utter a peep of complaint if the Packers double dipped at CB with both of their top picks.

lol I knew I would ruffle some feathers but damn. Honestly I am with you in that I think it is unlikely but a lot of teams in the NFL are going with two backs (Remember when the Vikes to AP they already had a 1300 yard rusher on their team). Like I said Farve is gone and they need to fill the seats somehow and how do we know that Grant isn't a one year wonder? We have Odom and Geathers but you are telling me you wouldn't scrap one of the two for Chris Long? Also, I really agree with the Corner idea and in actuality I believe they will take a Defensive back with their first round pick. But the purpose of a mock draft is to explore all the possibilities and I believe this is a realistic possibility!

[GregCook]

I think Baltimore got the best of that trade.

I think I just lost interest in this mock draft.

I'm with you Hair. How can we actually be trading later round picks when Thurmanation has stated this was a 1st round ONLY draft!?!

These mock drafts are the blind getting blinder. Its better for the teams, but not by alot. This here mock draft is as legit as Mel Kiper, Mike Mayock and the others.

[DesperateDerelict]

How can we actually be trading later round picks when Thurmanation has stated this was a 1st round ONLY draft!?!

Why does this have to be a 1 draft only mock? That's actually alot less realistic than it should be - there are teams that will make decisions based on who they can get later in the draft.

Anyway, I've got a zillion picks with the Falcons, and am much smarter (but not nearly as wealthy) as Sr. Blanque!

[Thurmanation]

How can we actually be trading later round picks when Thurmanation has stated this was a 1st round ONLY draft!?!

Why does this have to be a 1 draft only mock? That's actually alot less realistic than it should be - there are teams that will make decisions based on who they can get later in the draft.

Anyway, I've got a zillion picks with the Falcons, and am much smarter (but not nearly as wealthy) as Sr. Blanque!

Ive made this only a one rounder because i didn't think people would be so interested in it. Last year it was only a one rounder from what i remember.

[Thurmanation]

BTW ive found the original forum from last year where i got the idea from;

http://forums.bengalszone.com/index.php?sh...=14041&st=0

Kudos to Spor_tees

[HoosierCat]

These mock drafts are the blind getting blinder.

Maybe, but the Bengals end up with Rivers, which IMO is one of the more likely outcomes...

[DesperateDerelict]

After two failed trade options, the Bengals select:

Keith Rivers, OLB, USC.

PS; i was going to take Albert, but just noticed NE had taken him.

I hope the Bengals FO are paying more attention

Oh, well, at least you made Herr Hair happy. I'd be interested in knowing what you offered - I woulda offerred 2 top 2nds and a 4th (34, 37, & 103) for 1178 points. My reasoning: No one before pick 14 (Chicago) will want Matt Ryan.

[Thurmanation]

After two failed trade options, the Bengals select:

Keith Rivers, OLB, USC.

PS; i was going to take Albert, but just noticed NE had taken him.

I hope the Bengals FO are paying more attention

Oh, well, at least you made Herr Hair happy. I'd be interested in knowing what you offered - I woulda offerred 2 top 2nds and a 4th (34, 37, & 103) for 1178 points. My reasoning: No one before pick 14 (Chicago) will want Matt Ryan.

In the first i offered my first and early 3rd for vikings first and the younger of the Williams - which was a stretch, but i was hoping on anything. and the second i was prepared to offer the ninth for Dallas' 2 firsts, but scrapped it thinking they would shoot it down since i seen GB grab MCF.

[HairOnFire]

Oh, well, at least you made Herr Hair happy.

Yeah, and to think the fake Bengals could have drafted Quentin Groves, right?

Then again, this mock is only supposed to last one round so it's only 50/50 your boy gets his name called at all.

[Clackwoods]

HAHAHAHA

[GregCook]

These mock drafts are the blind getting blinder.

Maybe, but the Bengals end up with Rivers, which IMO is one of the more likely outcomes...

Shows what a razor thin draft for the top 10. Last year Patrick Willis was available at #9. I read somewhere that this draft is a 7 man draft for the top 10 teams.

[Clackwoods]

These mock drafts are the blind getting blinder.

Maybe, but the Bengals end up with Rivers, which IMO is one of the more likely outcomes...

Shows what a razor thin draft for the top 10. Last year Patrick Willis was available at #9. I read somewhere that this draft is a 7 man draft for the top 10 teams.

Well here's to hoping Matt Ryan and at least two OL and a corner plus another corner or OL go in the top eight. That leaves Dorsey, McFadden, Ellis, Gholston, Long for us

[Thurmanation]

i really hope we take Albert

[HoosierCat]

i really hope we take Albert

I find myself, very, very reluctantly coming around to backing the pick of DE Derrick Harvey.

I've argued against it. It's too much $$$ to plow into DE with Geathers and Odom already making big bucks. And unless they move Geathers to LB (not an idea I'm keen on, but one Marvin hinted at in remarks about who would wear the new defensive helmet with the radio) we would be talking about using him in rotation. But...that wouldn't be all bad. Might get more production out of our ends if we didn't wear them down insisting they be "three down" guys.

Probably would have to go LB in the second...better LBs than DEs likely to be there, so we go with Harvey first...then do the usual after the draft and sign some aging vet DT like Larry Tripplett.

[Spor_tees]

Do you guys want to draft this straight up or actually try to work things in? I mean being Dallas I know they are trying to trade for Pac Man...so I could offer the Titans the second of my first round picks plus a third for Pac Man and their First rounder which is about 4 slots higher. You might ask why the Titans would give up a player and move down? Well from what I have read, the Cowboys are only looking to give up a 5th rounder for Pac Man straight up...so this way they would get a third instead of a 5th and only move down a couple of slots.

[BengalszoneBilly]

Do you guys want to draft this straight up or actually try to work things in? I mean being Dallas I know they are trying to trade for Pac Man...so I could offer the Titans the second of my first round picks plus a third for Pac Man and their First rounder which is about 4 slots higher. You might ask why the Titans would give up a player and move down? Well from what I have read, the Cowboys are only looking to give up a 5th rounder for Pac Man straight up...so this way they would get a third instead of a 5th and only move down a couple of slots.

IMHO things have all ready gotten out of hand here in this stated ONE ROUND draft. To feed these crazies more rope will only make things more bizarre.

[Thurmanation]

Do you guys want to draft this straight up or actually try to work things in? I mean being Dallas I know they are trying to trade for Pac Man...so I could offer the Titans the second of my first round picks plus a third for Pac Man and their First rounder which is about 4 slots higher. You might ask why the Titans would give up a player and move down? Well from what I have read, the Cowboys are only looking to give up a 5th rounder for Pac Man straight up...so this way they would get a third instead of a 5th and only move down a couple of slots.

IMHO things have all ready gotten out of hand here in this stated ONE ROUND draft. To feed these crazies more rope will only make things more bizarre.

I agree, i wanted to keep it simple, but i wanted to add the fun of trades. THIS IS NOT THE NFL FELLAS, try to have fun. Mmkay?

[BengalszoneBilly]

I agree, i wanted to keep it simple, but i wanted to add the fun of trades. THIS IS NOT THE NFL FELLAS, try to have fun. Mmkay?

In this type of format, it's hard to argue simple is by far best. Even though a 1st round NFL Draft without trades between teams is likely unrealistic, it provides a better straight up approach to this type of topic.

[Kazkal]

I could see raiders taking a DE but not a DT....Sands and kelly are the starters.

Yeah, I would think Gholston over Ellis, but it isn't a slam-dunk. And even if they do pick Vernon, no way Ellis subsequently gets by the Chiefs (who allegedly have him at No. 2 behind Jake Long on their board) and the Jets (who, if Ellis is there, will pull the trigger on the reported pre-arranged trade with Denver, ship Robertson west, and grab his replacement). Frankly, I'm beginning to think there's a better chance of Glenn Dorsey or Chris Long being there at 9, but really I think we'll be lucky if Rivers is still around.

Chiefs have ellis at 2# on their board? seems weird they bring in glenn and not him....

[Thurmanation]

in all honesty, i believe either Dorsey or Ellis will be there at 9, Raiders will take Vernon more then likely he loks like a Raider type Defender, Miami going to take Long, ATL i doubt will take a QB but im almost positive they wont take DT Brooking is getting old and there LB core isn't very strong. Im happy if we get Albert, Dorsey, Ellis or Rivers. One of these 4 have to drop to us. I have a feeling this is going to be a good year for us boys.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

in all honesty, i believe either Dorsey or Ellis will be there at 9, Raiders will take Vernon more then likely he loks like a Raider type Defender, Miami going to take Long, ATL i doubt will take a QB but im almost positive they wont take DT Brooking is getting old and there LB core isn't very strong. Im happy if we get Albert, Dorsey, Ellis or Rivers. One of these 4 have to drop to us. I have a feeling this is going to be a good year for us boys.

I don't think Albert goes top 8, but if he does it would, as you say, drop a player we could really use to #9. I still think the possibility of Ellis/Dorsey being there at #9 is about 30%, but if some team gets stupid I'm not complaining.

[DesperateDerelict]

in all honesty, i believe either Dorsey or Ellis will be there at 9, Raiders will take Vernon more then likely he loks like a Raider type Defender, Miami going to take Long, ATL i doubt will take a QB but im almost positive they wont take DT Brooking is getting old and there LB core isn't very strong. Im happy if we get Albert, Dorsey, Ellis or Rivers. One of these 4 have to drop to us. I have a feeling this is going to be a good year for us boys.

I don't think Albert goes top 8, but if he does it would, as you say, drop a player we could really use to #9. I still think the possibility of Ellis/Dorsey being there at #9 is about 30%, but if some team gets stupid I'm not complaining.

I swear I must be missing something. 3 of the top 4 defensive players (Dorsey, Ellis, and, to a lesser extent, Chris Long - are prototypical 4-3 players...Dorsey and Ellis are under-tackles, and Chris Long is an LDE or RDE.

They may be capable of playing other positions (NG, a 3-4 DE, rush LB), but they are unknown commodities in those roles, and not nearly as good a fit. Do teams really want to take a top 10 pick and move them out of position, or fill a role with somebody who is too light-weight or slow for the role? Jonathon Vilma comes to mind - a very good player who was put in an unfamiliar position he wasn't built for.

Unless something has changed, picks 3 - 5 (Atlanta, Oakland, and Kansas City) are the only teams ahead of us who run a 4 - 3 and can use a UT or 4-3 DE => and they all have needs elsewhere. If Jake Long get past Miami and St. Louis, we are almost assured of getting one of these guys.

My estimate is a 65 - 70% chance of one of the top 2 DTs falling to us. With those odds, trading up isn't being aggressive or sensible, it's being impatient and stupid.

[DesperateDerelict]

I find myself, very, very reluctantly coming around to backing the pick of DE Derrick Harvey.......Probably would have to go LB in the second...better LBs than DEs likely to be there, so we go with Harvey first...then do the usual after the draft and sign some aging vet DT like Larry Tripplett.

Gotta agree with you, Hoosier Buddy - considering his amazingly quick 1st step, his success in the post-season linebacker drills, and the sparseness of depth at DE in the draft, Derrick looks good.

I'd look at WR, OT, RB, or DT in the 2nd & 3rd, depending on which deep position was getting picked over first.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

A lot of people seem to think Dorsey will fit just fine in a 3-4 scheme. I don't necessarily know, but a lot of people think he'd do well in a 2-gap scenario. And I'd have to say that, as a result, he'll get nabbed. As good as he is, I just don't see him being there at 9.

I'd love to be proved wrong, however.

[Thurmanation]

A lot of people seem to think Dorsey will fit just fine in a 3-4 scheme. I don't necessarily know, but a lot of people think he'd do well in a 2-gap scenario. And I'd have to say that, as a result, he'll get nabbed. As good as he is, I just don't see him being there at 9.

I'd love to be proved wrong, however.

Dorsey as a 3-4 NT, will be KILLED as a starter, as good as he is, i don't see him playing well in a 3-4.