Fixing the Bengals in one draft

[Stripes]

19 minutes ago, AMPHAR said:

lol.  You can't even get the conversation correct.   No one has claimed the IOL is fine.  

You admit they can win the Superbowl with the roster as constructed? True or False?

So how did they dig themselves in a hole before the draft or paint themselves into a corner concerning the guard position?

Try to keep up.

 

This is nonsense.

IOL is not fine? You agree? We agree? If it's not fine, then it's a hole. Hello? McFly?

Half the league "can" win the Super Bowl. "Can" is meaningless crap. Joe Burrow is good enough to carry an average roster into deep playoff runs. He is not the holy messiah, however.

They lost to the Rams when the IOL faceplanted against Aaron Donald.

The lost to the Chiefs when the IOL faceplanted against Chris Jones.

[Stripes]

To be very clear:

It is perfectly okay to have more faith in the guard position as it stands than I have.

It is completely unjustifiable horseshit to accuse other Bengals fans of lacking objectivity because they have significant questions about the guard position.

Learn how to write a post and express your perspective without engaging in completely unnecessary, underbaked, terrible insults of people who don't agree with you.

[AMPHAR]

57 minutes ago, Stripes said:

This is nonsense.

IOL is not fine? You agree? We agree? If it's not fine, then it's a hole. Hello? McFly?

Half the league "can" win the Super Bowl. "Can" is meaningless crap. Joe Burrow is good enough to carry an average roster into deep playoff runs. He is not the holy messiah, however.

They lost to the Rams when the IOL faceplanted against Aaron Donald.

The lost to the Chiefs when the IOL faceplanted against Chris Jones.

I don't think IOL is a deep enough hole that it forces the  Bengals to reach for a guard in the draft.    As you have admitted pre-draft this roster as constructed can win a Superbowl.

Pending how the draft falls there are several players I'd rather have than a guard. 

But describing it as they've painted themselves in a corner or dug a hole is the typical chicken little fan/media syndrome. Get over that and things won't be as hard for you in the future.

 

 

[AMPHAR]

2 hours ago, Stripes said:

To be very clear:

It is perfectly okay to have more faith in the guard position as it stands than I have.

It is completely unjustifiable horseshit to accuse other Bengals fans of lacking objectivity because they have significant questions about the guard position.

Learn how to write a post and express your perspective without engaging in completely unnecessary, underbaked, terrible insults of people who don't agree with you.

You chose to argue a point that wasn't made.   Learn to read.   Accept your bias and change it.   If a Bengal fan thinks they can win a Superbowl but they describe the up and coming draft as "digging a hole" or "painted themselves in a corner" then that's bullshit and they do lack objectivity.

Guard play has been less than average, IMO.  Yet, they've won playoff games.  Recorded top 10 scoring offenses and yard producing offenses.  Some of the guys they've cut found other teams.

So what's unjustifiable?  Pointing out facts to refute emotional garbage?

 

 

 

[ArmyBengal]

I think everyone can agree that the interior of the o-line is a need.

AMPHAR, I don't think anyone is suggesting the Bengals "reach" for a guard, but some specificity may be helpful.
I don't think any round would be considered a reach if they choose a guard.
However, it may not be wise to select a guard over another position of need, such as defensive end, if there is a higher rated defensive end to take when they go on the clock.  In that instance, NO, don't reach.  However, I don't think anyone is saying that.

Can this team win a Super Bowl right now?  Could this team have a highly ranked offense?  Can they score points and rack up yards?  The answer to all of those questions is, of course they "could".  My thought is that if that happens, it would be in spite of the interior o-line play because they are one of the worst in the entire league.  The fact is, this team has done all of those things to this point IN SPITE of the IOL, not because of them.  Yes, Burrow, Chase, Tee and the others are that good.

Again, sacks are a concern and you yourself has stated that cannot continue. 
The IOL is the main culprit to that issue.
Why on earth would they not address that concern?  It's not media sensationalism and the sky is not falling.  It's simply acknowledging we are working with one of the worst units in the league and they should try to improve that.

If they are successful in doing that, what MORE could this offense be capable of?
Put me in the camp that wants to find out.

[Stripes]

1 hour ago, AMPHAR said:

You chose to argue a point that wasn't made.   Learn to read.   Accept your bias and change it.   If a Bengal fan thinks they can win a Superbowl but they describe the up and coming draft as "digging a hole" or "painted themselves in a corner" then that's bullshit and they do lack objectivity.

The facts are the guard play has been less than average, IMO.  Yet, they've won playoff games.  Recorded top 10 scoring offenses and yard producing offenses.  Some of the guys they've cut found other teams.

So what's unjustifiable?  Pointing out facts to refute emotional garbage?

 

 

 

I will make one more post in this ridiculous exchange and then leave it alone. I am sure nobody else wants to read this conversation.

First and foremost, I have to mention:

The facts are the guard play has been less than average, IMO. - AMPHAR

I really hope I don't need to explain why this sentence does not work. Read it again. Consider in particular the second word and the last "word".

Anyway, more importantly:

Yes, the Bengals "can" win the Super Bowl. They "can". It's a possibility that exists. That's what "can" means. There is some unknown probability that is non-zero of the outcome "Bengals win the Super Bowl". I suspect that probability is quite low, but also better than a decent proportion of NFL team's probabilities to do the same. Any number I put to that probability would be completely meaningless, but I'll do it anyway to illustrate what I am saying (if somehow this wasn't already clear assuming the most generous possible interpretation of good faith).

Suppose the Bengals have a 3% probability of winning the Super Bowl. They "can". It's possible. If you take the Vegas Super Bowl odds for the Bengals (+1800), that roughly translates to a projected 5% (not a factual value). They "can".

I believe that number would meaningfully increase if the guard position is meaningfully addressed. Maybe it jumps up to 9% or 10%. Again, the numbers are meaningless, but this is the concept. I believe shoring up that glaring weakness would help the Bengals to avoid one of the more obvious means of losing a playoff game down the line (leaning on their elite offense which underperforms because the opposing IDL eats Volson, Ford, and/or Patrick for lunch).

I don't think the same applies to most position groups on the roster. They're either already great or they're good enough that an upgrade would not represent the same significant improvement in odds. I would assess the edge rushers much like I assess the guards (and I would place slightly more importance on them than the guards).

Thus, in my view of the matter, the Bengals' Super Bowl chances hinge meaningfully more on upgrading certain position groups than on others. Guard and edge rusher are the big two for me. If they don't draft a solid player at either of those positions, I believe their Super Bowl prospects will be meaningfully diminished. They "can" still win it, because they have high-end talent that theoretically could make up for the deficit. But it would foolish to lean on that prospect, because "can" is the world's least useful word. That's what I am describing as "digging a hole" -- as of right now, we're in the diminished state. I am not sure that we had to be here, but we are here. There's still time to change that, either by spending a reasonably high draft pick on IOL or signing a capable IOL after the draft (they've given no indication of interest in doing the latter, but I would accept it all the same).

On to "facts":

It is a "fact" that the Bengals fielded a top ten offense in 2024 (as measured by yardage and points).

It is a "fact" that the Bengals won five playoff games with questionable guard play.

It is a "fact" that the Bengals lost two playoff games with questionable guard play, including a Super Bowl.

It is not a "fact" that having won playoff games before with questionable guard play means their guards are good enough to win playoff games now (they're not even the same guards). This is a projection.

It is not a "fact" that the Bengals guard problems will lose them a playoff game. This is a projection. I project that it could lose them a playoff game, and the probability is higher than I would like.

It is not a "fact" that the Bengals' top ten offense in 2024 translates to a top ten offense in 2025. This is a projection. I tend to agree with this projection.

It is not a "fact" that the Bengals' successfully fielding a top ten offense would mean the guard position cannot represent a "hole that has been dug". This is an invalid argument by non sequitur. The conclusion must follow from the premises. It doesn't. The offense can be awesome, have bad guards, win one or two playoff games despite their bad guards, and then lose their last playoff game because of their bad guards. All of those outcomes can exist together.

I cannot imagine making a more emotionless argument than this. This is a robotic printout of an academic treatise. Onlookers were snoring halfway through it.

[Stripes]

4 minutes ago, ArmyBengal said:

I think everyone can agree that the interior of the o-line is a need.

AMPHAR, I don't think anyone is suggesting the Bengals "reach" for a guard, but some specificity may be helpful.
I don't think any round would be considered a reach if they choose a guard.
However, it may not be wise to select a guard over another position of need, such as defensive end, if there is a higher rated defensive end to take when they go on the clock.  In that instance, NO, don't reach.  However, I don't think anyone is saying that.

Agreed. I don't want them to reach for any position group and end up with another Billy Price. That's what I mean by "digging a hole". If the draft falls the wrong way, they're going to be up shit creek at edge rusher/DE or guard, and I think it will be their fault.

Thankfully, this draft seems reasonably strong at both positions, so there may be decent overlap between best player(s) available and positions of need. Hopefully it works out.

[TJJackson]

Guys, you have to understand this is coming from Amphar, the village idiot when it comes to Bengalszone

[AMPHAR]

32 minutes ago, ArmyBengal said:

I think everyone can agree that the interior of the o-line is a need.

AMPHAR, I don't think anyone is suggesting the Bengals "reach" for a guard, but some specificity may be helpful.
I

 

I don't know, what would you call the below? 

Quote

"In reference - 2nd round pick" - Cincinnati needs to come away with somebody from that group or the hole they dug by failing to properly attack the spot in free agency will only loom larger. It would certainly require picking up the phone for Brandon Scherff’s agent.

Quote

Bengals have really backed themselves into a corner. I am not sure how they can justify not taking both a guard and an edge rusher somewhere in the first three rounds.

It lacks objectivity because it is FACT the bengals with Volson and a combination of other lower performing guards have been apart of playoff wins, top 10 point/yardage offenses.   

Also the biased performance assessment from Dehner and some Bengals fans MIGHT be off considering Cappa did get signed rather quickly and other guards remained unsigned.

Pointing that out does not indicate IOL is "fine" or they can stand pat.   Its simply suggesting they have not dug a hole to a point that guard must be addressed in the first 3 rounds.  

 

 

[AMPHAR]

49 minutes ago, Stripes said:

I will make one more post in this ridiculous exchange and then leave it alone. I am sure nobody else wants to read this conversation.

First and foremost, I have to mention:

The facts are the guard play has been less than average, IMO. - AMPHAR

I really hope I don't need to explain why this sentence does not work. Read it again. Consider in particular the second word and the last "word".

Anyway, more importantly:

Yes, the Bengals "can" win the Super Bowl. They "can". It's a possibility that exists. That's what "can" means. There is some unknown probability that is non-zero of the outcome "Bengals win the Super Bowl". I suspect that probability is quite low, but also better than a decent proportion of NFL team's probabilities to do the same. Any number I put to that probability would be completely meaningless, but I'll do it anyway to illustrate what I am saying (if somehow this wasn't already clear assuming the most generous possible interpretation of good faith).

Suppose the Bengals have a 3% probability of winning the Super Bowl. They "can". It's possible. If you take the Vegas Super Bowl odds for the Bengals (+1800), that roughly translates to a projected 5% (not a factual value). They "can".

I believe that number would meaningfully increase if the guard position is meaningfully addressed. Maybe it jumps up to 9% or 10%. Again, the numbers are meaningless, but this is the concept. I believe shoring up that glaring weakness would help the Bengals to avoid one of the more obvious means of losing a playoff game down the line (leaning on their elite offense which underperforms because the opposing IDL eats Volson, Ford, and/or Patrick for lunch).

I don't think the same applies to most position groups on the roster. They're either already great or they're good enough that an upgrade would not represent the same significant improvement in odds. I would assess the edge rushers much like I assess the guards (and I would place slightly more importance on them than the guards).

Thus, in my view of the matter, the Bengals' Super Bowl chances hinge meaningfully more on upgrading certain position groups than on others. Guard and edge rusher are the big two for me. If they don't draft a solid player at either of those positions, I believe their Super Bowl prospects will be meaningfully diminished. They "can" still win it, because they have high-end talent that theoretically could make up for the deficit. But it would foolish to lean on that prospect, because "can" is the world's least useful word. That's what I am describing as "digging a hole" -- as of right now, we're in the diminished state. I am not sure that we had to be here, but we are here. There's still time to change that, either by spending a reasonably high draft pick on IOL or signing a capable IOL after the draft (they've given no indication of interest in doing the latter, but I would accept it all the same).

On to "facts":

It is a "fact" that the Bengals fielded a top ten offense in 2024 (as measured by yardage and points).

It is a "fact" that the Bengals won five playoff games with questionable guard play.

It is a "fact" that the Bengals lost two playoff games with questionable guard play, including a Super Bowl.

It is not a "fact" that having won playoff games before with questionable guard play means their guards are good enough to win playoff games now (they're not even the same guards). This is a projection.

It is not a "fact" that the Bengals guard problems will lose them a playoff game. This is a projection. I project that it could lose them a playoff game, and the probability is higher than I would like.

It is not a "fact" that the Bengals' top ten offense in 2024 translates to a top ten offense in 2025. This is a projection. I tend to agree with this projection.

It is not a "fact" that the Bengals' successfully fielding a top ten offense would mean the guard position cannot represent a "hole that has been dug". This is an invalid argument by non sequitur. The conclusion must follow from the premises. It doesn't. The offense can be awesome, have bad guards, win one or two playoff games despite their bad guards, and then lose their last playoff game because of their bad guards. All of those outcomes can exist together.

I cannot imagine making a more emotionless argument than this. This is a robotic printout of an academic treatise. Onlookers were snoring halfway through it.

My projection/opinion is the Bengals don't need to "reach" for a guard.  Why?  Because of the FACTS they have produced a top 10 offense, won playoff games with guard play I would say is below average.

Your opinion was (I think)

Quote

Bengals have really backed themselves into a corner. I am not sure how they can justify not taking both a guard and an edge rusher somewhere in the first three rounds.

Well, the reason why I think they can justify not taking a guard in the first 3 rounds.  Are the previously stated facts of actual games dealing with their offense, overall team performance.  With the fact they have 3 guards with a bunch of NFL starts among them.

What is missing and this has been the case in several of your replies: Where are the FACTS to support your projection above?

I'm guessing you have little to none.  It lacks objectivity.  Its emotional.   Same with Dehener.   That's why we are treated to talks of 90 win bullpens, and food poisoning.  Its entertaining but it is fools logic.   Nobody ever made those points.

 

 

[ArmyBengal]

Ok, I got your point AMPHAR.

Regardless of the Guards sucking more ass than any combination of guards in the league, the offense still succeeds.
"It is FACT the Bengals with Volson and a combination of other lower performing guards have been apart of playoff wins, top 10 point/yardage offenses." 
Thereby no reason to draft one in the first three rounds.

As strongly as I can, I disagree with that line of thought and your conclusions.
Which is fine.  We don't have to agree, but they win in spite of poor play, not because of it.  PROBLEM.

If, as you say, they are "lower performing" you make the effort to use an early pick to improve that low performance.
If you do and are successful in that attempt, you not only improve the offense, but the odds of actually winning the Super Bowl.
You know, as opposed to what has happened despite some success.  See not getting to or losing the Super Bowl.

I'm out of this conversation.
 

[AMPHAR]

1 hour ago, ArmyBengal said:

Ok, I got your point AMPHAR.

Regardless of the Guards sucking more ass than any combination of guards in the league, the offense still succeeds.
"It is FACT the Bengals with Volson and a combination of other lower performing guards have been apart of playoff wins, top 10 point/yardage offenses." 
Thereby no reason to draft one in the first three rounds.

As strongly as I can, I disagree with that line of thought and your conclusions.
Which is fine.  We don't have to agree, but they win in spite of poor play, not because of it.  PROBLEM.

If, as you say, they are "lower performing" you make the effort to use an early pick to improve that low performance.
If you do and are successful in that attempt, you not only improve the offense, but the odds of actually winning the Super Bowl.
You know, as opposed to what has happened despite some success.  See not getting to or losing the Super Bowl.

I'm out of this conversation.
 

I think there's limits on how much a guard can actually improve the output of the offense.     Case in point Zion Johnson was a guard once debated on here pre draft.  Good player.  Chargers have a franchise QB.  Bottom half offense.   Quentin Nelson is the best guard of his generation and the Colts struggle on offense for most of his career.

Even the great Schreff.  All-Pro, I believe going into Jacksonville.  Horrible offense and they elected not to resign him or cut him.

Thuney just traded away by Chiefs.

Browns signed Steinbach, Zeitler, Mack, LeCharles Bentley some of the best IOL talent a draft could produce.  Their offenses sucked AND they had a HOF Left Tackle.

So I'm not sure how much impact you get from a first, second, third round guard.   This type of thinking leads to Billy Price over Lamar Jackson.

If they can find a player at guard in the draft, great.   But them landing 3 defensive studs is about the only thing that would improve their Vegas odds.  Betting public has already baked in them having a good offense because they deal with facts not emotion.  Them drafting the best guard won't move them up from 4th choice.   3 draft day steals on defense could. 

At some point local media AND fans need to reconcile their world view with FACTs.  The Bengals have been 4th choice for the AFC the entire off season.  They have built a roster for 2025 that people debating about fucking GUARDS. 

Any negative opinion probably lacks objectivity.   Quite frankly that's a hell of job.   You could be sitting thinking how you get a QB, LT, or any other dozen more important positions.

 

 

[ArmyBengal]

There are limits to how much a guard can improve things, but I would bet being better than the fucking worst in the league would bear some fruit.  Right ??

The Chargers?  The Colts?  The Jaguars?  The Browns?  Those are the teams you want to compare to the Bengals?
Tell me what you think is different and then the conversation will make sense.
You aren't talking about guards playing on a team with a high end offense.
The Chargers finally made the playoffs again, the Jags suck, the Colts suck, the Browns suck.  Their QB's suck.
Them having great guards is irrelevant because their rosters suck.

Yes the Bengals have built a roster that is good enough to be competitive (Well, not last year) and people are still talking about the guards.  Want to take a guess why that is?  It's because they are the worst unit in the NFL.  Sorry but not everyone buys off on the "The offense is good, so don't worry" take on things.  No one is worrying about QB, WR, TE, and probably the RB.  No thinks we need to find a starter over Brown Jr. or Mims.  But guess who needs to be improved on the offense?  The fucking guards.  Why?  Because they suck.

Should we spend the majority of our picks on defense?  Absolutely.  Everyone here would probably sign off on that.  However, they can and should do both.  6 picks.  I'm only asking for one of those to be a fucking guard.  No one is asking for 4-5 guards being taken.  Give me a DE, OG, LB, S, CB and maybe DT to throw into the rotation and we are good.   There's your six picks.

They are looking at and have brought in RB's.  I think we could be competitive and possibly win a Super Bowl with our current running backs.  You know why they are still looking?  Because there's a possibility they can improve the roster should the draft fall a certain way.  If you could take more pressure off of Burrow and company by adding a top tier running back to team up with Brown and Perrine, wouldn't that make a lot of sense?  It's the same thing for any position.  Always try to improve the roster.  To claim the guards shouldn't be a part of that is senseless at best.  Beyond fucking stupid at worst.

[Stripes]

2 hours ago, AMPHAR said:

What is missing and this has been the case in several of your replies: Where are the FACTS to support your projection above?

I already shared two of them. Aaron Donald significantly outplayed Quinton Spain in the Super Bowl (2 sacks). Chris Jones significantly outplayed Cordell Volson and Max Scharping in the AFC Championship Game (2 sacks). These incidents ended deep playoff runs short of a Lombardi Trophy. The Bengals' best hopes in both games were effectively dashed on individual plays made by those two players (though they played well the entire game). The offense underperformed in both games (20 points and 305 yards; 20 points 309 total yards) despite fielding comparable skill talent and the same quarterback to the current team. You could also include the narrow playoff victory over the Titans when Jeffrey Simmons annihilated the IOL (3 sacks) in a losing effort if you can see beyond just W and L. Any assessment of play must inherently be subjective, but the offense's statistical outcomes are factual. Sack totals are factual.

Cordell Volson, Cody Ford, and Lucas Patrick represent, on paper, comparable guard play to what those teams sent into the postseason, and those teams did so hampered by injury. That is, the current Bengals' guards resemble prior guard units after suffering injuries and resorting to depth. Lucas Patrick brings starting experience (so did Max Scharping). Cordell Volson is Cordell Volson. Cody Ford is worse than good Alex Cappa. He might be comparable to the injured Alex Cappa from 2024.

Thus, I project a reasonably high probability (not certainty, but high enough probability to view this as a serious problem) of history repeating itself against strong IDL competition in a playoff game. This is not necessarily applicable to ALL opponents, but it's applicable to enough opponents. Chris Jones still exists. Travis Jones and Nnamdi Madubuike are in Baltimore. Cameron Heyward is in Pittsburgh. Suppose they get to Super Bowl 60. Jalen Carter is in Philadelphia. DJ Reader and Alim McNeill are in Detroit. Vita Vea is in Tampa Bay. This list is not exhaustive.

Alright, now I really need to be done here. I shouldn't have even responded to this. You can choose to accept that a Bengals fan can have this concern without being "emotional", or you can continue to pretend only one fair opinion can exist. I leave that to you.

[AMPHAR]

36 minutes ago, Stripes said:

I already shared two of them. Aaron Donald significantly outplayed Quinton Spain in the Super Bowl (2 sacks). Chris Jones significantly outplayed Cordell Volson and Max Scharping in the AFC Championship Game (2 sacks). These incidents ended deep playoff runs short of a Lombardi Trophy. The Bengals' best hopes in both games were effectively dashed on individual plays made by those two players (though they played well the entire game). The offense underperformed in both games (20 points and 305 yards; 20 points 309 total yards) despite fielding comparable skill talent and the same quarterback to the current team. You could also include the narrow playoff victory over the Titans when Jeffrey Simmons annihilated the IOL (3 sacks) in a losing effort if you can see beyond just W and L. Any assessment of play must inherently be subjective, but the offense's statistical outcomes are factual. Sack totals are factual.

Cordell Volson, Cody Ford, and Lucas Patrick represent, on paper, comparable guard play to what those teams sent into the postseason, and those teams did so hampered by injury. That is, the current Bengals' guards resemble prior guard units after suffering injuries and resorting to depth. Lucas Patrick brings starting experience (so did Max Scharping). Cordell Volson is Cordell Volson. Cody Ford is worse than good Alex Cappa. He might be comparable to the injured Alex Cappa from 2024.

Thus, I project a reasonably high probability (not certainty, but high enough probability to view this as a serious problem) of history repeating itself against strong IDL competition in a playoff game. This is not necessarily applicable to ALL opponents, but it's applicable to enough opponents. Chris Jones still exists. Travis Jones and Nnamdi Madubuike are in Baltimore. Cameron Heyward is in Pittsburgh. Suppose they get to Super Bowl 60. Jalen Carter is in Philadelphia. DJ Reader and Alim McNeill are in Detroit. Vita Vea is in Tampa Bay. This list is not exhaustive.

Alright, now I really need to be done here. I shouldn't have even responded to this. You can choose to accept that a Bengals fan can have this concern without being "emotional", or you can continue to pretend only one fair opinion can exist. I leave that to you.

Feel free to use the entire history of football (college, pro) and pull any names of guards that would reduce your probability of failure when considering:  

Donald, Jones, and Heyward have a combined 3 DPOY awards, 15 or more All-Pros, 280 career sacks.

Heck go ahead and pull from some Science Fiction movies to play guard against that.

Absurd draft opinion the Bengals should construct a draft to stop HOFers and if they don't in the biggest games, its reasonable for a Bengal fan to have concern.  WTF?

 

 

 

[COB]

9 hours ago, AMPHAR said:

 

So how did they dig themselves in a hole before the draft 

 

They cut a starter in the line and have not replaced him.  That is the hole.  There is a hole in our line.

[ArmyBengal]

4 hours ago, AMPHAR said:

Feel free to use the entire history of football (college, pro) and pull any names of guards that would reduce your probability of failure when considering:  

Donald, Jones, and Heyward have a combined 3 DPOY awards, 15 or more All-Pros, 280 career sacks.

Heck go ahead and pull from some Science Fiction movies to play guard against that.

Absurd draft opinion the Bengals should construct a draft to stop HOFers and if they don't in the biggest games, its reasonable for a Bengal fan to have concern.  WTF?

You really have a hard time letting shit go don’t you? That’s why people have to walk away from threads. You have never been able to just agree to disagree and let it be. It’s like an insatiable desire to be right and “win” discussions. Like not even open to considering another opinion.

I was done with this conversation two posts ago, but now I’m really done.

[HoosierCat]

Risner still talking with Minny, Denver and Cincy.

https://www.cincyjungle.com/2025/4/17/24410254/bengals-news-dalton-risner-watch-minnesota-vikings-denver-broncos

I’d guess that all three teams have guys targeted in the draft, but are keeping in touch in case things don’t fall the way they think.

[AMPHAR]

15 hours ago, COB said:

They cut a starter in the line and have not replaced him.  That is the hole.  There is a hole in our line.

What team in the NFL has their opening day line up or final roster set before the draft?  

They signed a guy with 64 starts.    Describing the current roster as a hole dug or painted themselves in a corner is wrong in regards to guard.   

[ArmyBengal]

1 hour ago, HoosierCat said:

Risner still talking with Minny, Denver and Cincy.

https://www.cincyjungle.com/2025/4/17/24410254/bengals-news-dalton-risner-watch-minnesota-vikings-denver-broncos

I’d guess that all three teams have guys targeted in the draft, but are keeping in touch in case things don’t fall the way they think.

I saw that as well.  I'm at a point, where I want to see where the draft falls and then go from there.
Risner and Lucas aren't far off from each other in my mind.  Risner is younger I think, but it's whatever.

[AMPHAR]

13 hours ago, ArmyBengal said:

You really have a hard time letting shit go don’t you? That’s why people have to walk away from threads. You have never been able to just agree to disagree and let it be. It’s like an insatiable desire to be right and “win” discussions. Like not even open to considering another opinion.

I was done with this conversation two posts ago, but now I’m really done.

All due respect.  There's a bunch of Bengal fans and media stuck in the past.  Sorry.  I'm not agreeing to disagree with that.     Go read through this convo.    I didn't create a point to argue against that wasn't being made.

I said they had below average guard play, it can be improved but they don't need to reach for a guard.  Why?

1. They signed a guy with 64 starts.  They've produced a top 10 offense with sub-par guard play. 

Its just stupid to say they dug themselves in a hole when they'll return the major components to one of the league's best offenses for a few years just because a fraction of bengals fandom can't name the starting RG before the draft.

Stupid.  They aren't dropping hundreds of millions of dollars into QB/WRs to just quit over a guard.   

Who has the bigger desire to be right?  It seems to me some in here can't stand the fact the Bengals are more successful today than vs. the 90s.  

There's a scoreboard and win/loss records, stats for a reason. This team is currently 4th choice to win the AFC.   People with objective opinions see what it is on paper.     People in here don't.

 

 

[ArmyBengal]

I have seen and done a few mocks recently that had Shemar Stewart falling.  I never really considered him as he was always going in the top 10.  I looked into it and am completely baffled.  Here's a guy that's 6'5, 267lbs and has a perfect 10 RAS score.  On the other hand, he's never had more than 1.5 sacks in a year and a total of 4.5 in his three college seasons.  Only 65 combined tackles in all three seasons as well?  It's about as underwhelming as one can get from a production standpoint.

He also led his team in tackles for loss had 42 QB pressures and had the best "seconds to pressure" in all of college football last season at 2.43 seconds.  Is the potential enough to consider him?  I've long heard that coaches really want to see the production at the college level.

Really strange prospect...

[HoosierCat]

1 hour ago, ArmyBengal said:

I have seen and done a few mocks recently that had Shemar Stewart falling.  I never really considered him as he was always going in the top 10.  I looked into it and am completely baffled.  Here's a guy that's 6'5, 267lbs and has a perfect 10 RAS score.  On the other hand, he's never had more than 1.5 sacks in a year and a total of 4.5 in his three college seasons.  Only 65 combined tackles in all three seasons as well?  It's about as underwhelming as one can get from a production standpoint.

He also led his team in tackles for loss had 42 QB pressures and had the best "seconds to pressure" in all of college football last season at 2.43 seconds.  Is the potential enough to consider him?  I've long heard that coaches really want to see the production at the college level.

Really strange prospect...

Stewart has been losing steam for a while. It's all laid out in the last five minutes of Joe's video from a couple weeks back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_mm-rcEsYQ

His college production puts him in the same class as...Myles Murphy. Not only wouldn't Goodberry take him at 17, he wouldn't take him in the second either.

Like I said a few days ago, I've gotten increasingly jittery about this edge class, to the point where I would really, really, like to see any other position at 17. Stewart is the leading example of why.

[ArmyBengal]

I missed that video of his or maybe didn't finish it and see him discuss Stewart.
While I watch a lot of college football, Texas A&M wasn't a team I saw but maybe once.
Like I said, never really gave him much thought and sounds like I can go back to that approach.

If you compare Myles Murphy's college stats to Shemar Stewart, you would think Murphy was All-World.
Hopefully cutting out Fruity Pebbles will be the secret to Murphy turning it on this year !!

[HoosierCat]

Speaking of edge, more chatter today from Tony Pauline, passed along by Sheeran.

https://atozsports.com/nfl/cincinnati-bengals-news/nfl-draft-insider-teams-trading-up-in-front-of-bengals-first-round-pick/

Pauline had a report last week that the expectation around the league was that Cincy would go edge at 17, and if so that would light off a run on edge rushers, with like seven more going before the end of the round. Today's update is expectations have risen that someone below the Bengals will swap with either the Cards or Falcons to jump us and grab an edge.

Also some chatter that the Bengals might go DT instead. Give me Nolen at 17 and I'm content.