Walrus Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Seriously, after getting teased/disappointed/burned by Ahmad Brooks, why look to the supplemental draft, and forfeit a draft pick next year. I can only recall 1 player being selected in the Supplemental Draft, that went on to become a pretty good player, and that was Jamal Williams of the Chargers, but they drafted him way back in '98.Jared Gaither (drafted '07) is panning out very well for the Ravens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalByTheBay Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Brooks is very talented, but undisciplined. I think he declared for the SD because he got kicked out of his school. If the Bengals could have coached him up and got him to play to his potential, he could've been great. Sadly, it seems that he didn't really give a crap about playing football to the best of his ability.Which may be another way of saying that the fact that he was in the supplemental draft was indicative of certain issues that existed that could prevent him from being a successful NFL player. I agree with you, that it wasn't the fact that he smoked pot that directly caused his failure, it was the fact that he couldn't motivate himself to do anything that would remotely capitalize on his tremendous physical core. Few ever have that kind of potential and this kid is going to look back in 2 or 3 years and see, too late, what he pissed away out of laziness. I'm just glad its the 9'ers problem now and we're not relying on him. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairOnFire Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Seriously, after getting teased/disappointed/burned by Ahmad Brooks, why look to the supplemental draft, and forfeit a draft pick next year. I wouldn't write off any method of adding talent simply because a player selected using that method had busted. That said, I can't help remind myself how....despite the Bengals long history of DE/DT tweener types....they have repeatedly demonstrated a reluctance to use important assets to fill the role, typically using the mid or late round pick on a Rucker, Fanene, or McDonald. So even if they ARE interested in adding a player like Jarmon they probably won't consider an early bid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derekshank Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Seriously, after getting teased/disappointed/burned by Ahmad Brooks, why look to the supplemental draft, and forfeit a draft pick next year. I wouldn't write off any method of adding talent simply because a player selected using that method had busted. That said, I can't help remind myself how....despite the Bengals long history of DE/DT tweener types....they have repeatedly demonstrated a reluctance to use important assets to fill the role, typically using the mid or late round pick on a Rucker, Fanene, or McDonald. So even if they ARE interested in adding a player like Jarmon they probably won't consider an early bid.David Pollack? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairOnFire Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Seriously, after getting teased/disappointed/burned by Ahmad Brooks, why look to the supplemental draft, and forfeit a draft pick next year. I wouldn't write off any method of adding talent simply because a player selected using that method had busted. That said, I can't help remind myself how....despite the Bengals long history of DE/DT tweener types....they have repeatedly demonstrated a reluctance to use important assets to fill the role, typically using the mid or late round pick on a Rucker, Fanene, or McDonald. So even if they ARE interested in adding a player like Jarmon they probably won't consider an early bid.David Pollack? No, Pollack fits the DE/OLB tweener type the Bengals have repeatedly burned high draft picks on. By comparison, the Bengals have seemingly always stocked their roster with multiple DE/DT tweeners, like Jarmon appears to be. But despite always having a couple of those DE/DT tweener types around....the Bengals typically fill that role on the cheap, usually with a very late round pick. In fact, if I had to guess which DE/DT tweener the Bengals spent the most to add during the Marvin era, and then committed heavily to after signing...I'd have to say John Thornton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derekshank Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 Seriously, after getting teased/disappointed/burned by Ahmad Brooks, why look to the supplemental draft, and forfeit a draft pick next year. I wouldn't write off any method of adding talent simply because a player selected using that method had busted. That said, I can't help remind myself how....despite the Bengals long history of DE/DT tweener types....they have repeatedly demonstrated a reluctance to use important assets to fill the role, typically using the mid or late round pick on a Rucker, Fanene, or McDonald. So even if they ARE interested in adding a player like Jarmon they probably won't consider an early bid.David Pollack? No, Pollack fits the DE/OLB tweener type the Bengals have repeatedly burned high draft picks on. By comparison, the Bengals have seemingly always stocked their roster with multiple DE/DT tweeners, like Jarmon appears to be. But despite always having a couple of those DE/DT tweener types around....the Bengals typically fill that role on the cheap, usually with a very late round pick. In fact, if I had to guess which DE/DT tweener the Bengals spent the most to add during the Marvin era, and then committed heavily to after signing...I'd have to say John Thornton.Ok. Gotcha. Didn't catch that you meant DE/DT tweener.Fair enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmyBengal Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 I look at it like this as well...Most will say they don't really care or would rather not bother with the whole thing at all this year, then the Bengals will end up burning a pick while taking Jarmon or some other player. People will react rather harshly (at least I will) and then within a couple of days everyone will be claiming how we added the final piece of the defense with that pick to make themselves feel all warm and fuzzy inside with the player we just gave up a pick in next years draft for.I won't be pleased this year as I really don't view any of them as being able to help us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ickey44 Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 I don't believe we need get any other players with a checkered past. Without knowing what he tested positive for, I don't think we should worry about him. Aside from that, we have solid talent on the line. They're not all-pros, but they're not scrubs either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmyBengal Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 Here's something else. I have yet to hear anyone say they would prefer ANY player in the supplemental draft over what we currently have on the roster.That's saying something in and of itself. NO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairOnFire Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Time to wrap up another thread. The Redskins selcted Jarmon using a 3rd round bid. (No word yet on the other prospects.) I guess all we need now is the mandatory posting of Boobiemeister picks before the mods can close this thread, ehhh? So how about brunettes this time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wraith Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 David Pollack was just a case of dumb (bad) luck, yes he was a tweener but I think he would have made a pro bowl OLB he had great instincts, great passion for the game, was a serious student and devoted film watcher, everything you look for and a great character guy as well. Nobody could have predicted his injury and I certainly don't blame him for retiring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ickey44 Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 So how about brunettes this time?I'm partial to red heads. I say we get more red heads. Blondes and brunettes are played out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redsbengalsbucks Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 So how about brunettes this time?I'm partial to red heads. I say we get more red heads. Blondes and brunettes are played out.Billy's pics have hair, damn I'm going to have to go back and look again!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairOnFire Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Here's the best advice DadOnFire ever gave me. "Son, be wary of redheads.....they'll actually pick a fight with you while you're f**king them." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ickey44 Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Here's the best advice DadOnFire ever gave me. "Son, be wary of redheads.....they'll actually pick a fight with you while you're f**king them."Ha! That about the only time me and my wife AREN'T fighting....(Yes, she's a red-head) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kazkal Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 So were any of the other players signed as freeagents? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.