DesperateDerelict Posted February 8, 2006 Report Share Posted February 8, 2006 If the Bengal’s draftniks take a good, long, objective look at the last 3 drafts, there appears to be a distinct pattern in the selection logic of Lewis, Tobin, & Brown. (sounds like a law firm, doesn’t it? ) First and foremost, I think all will agree that they were very successful drafts. If analyzed further, there are distinct characteristics common to the players chosen in each of the last 3 years. I’ll break down their commonality, and invite all fellow board members to suggest the 2006 draft-eligible players that best fit this selection logic.TOP 40 – Palmer (1), Pollack (17), Perry (26), Steinbach (33) – Obviously, we’re going to select Pope this year because he’s the only top selection who’s last name starts with a ‘P’. Our “Superstar group”. All of these selections were considered to be “Impact” players, who could contribute immediately and change a game w/ their individual performance. - The first round players are all ‘solid’ citizens.- All were known for a great work ethic- They all are way up there in metrics from the combine & work-outs- All are highly intelligent- All were highly productive in college- All were seniors, and mature for their years.- Possibles: Kiwanaku, Hali, Bunkley, Williams, Greenway PICKS 41 thru 100 – Thurman (48), Ratliff (49), Madieu Williams (56), Kelley Washington (65), Caleb Miller (80), Chris Henry (83), Landon Johnson (96), and Dennis Weatherby (98). High risk, high reward players. Most had one, and only one, facet working against them – height, weight, lack of maturity, injury bug, or off-the-field “baggage”. All were considered capable of quickly developing into impact players.- Many underclassmen are included.- All (besides K-dub) had great ‘motors’ & a burning desire to succeed- Many are versatile players, or considered ‘tweeners’.- All are extremely fast, or have a great speed / size ratio. - Some ‘steals’, some ‘reaches’, all fit the system.- All from big schools and top conferences- Possibles: Fasano, Simpson, Blue, Watson, McGloverPICKS 101 thru 150 - Matthias Askew (114), Robert Geathers (117), Jeremi Johnson (118), Eric Ghiaciuc (119), Stacy Andrews (123), Khalid Abdullah (136), Maurice Mann (149) – Call this group the “Great Potentials”. Lots of big bodies. Also, lots of motor problems. Most had more than one problem working against them – height, weight, lack of maturity, injury bug, or off-the-field “baggage”. All were capable of eventually maturing and developing into very good players, if their motors could be turned on.PICKS 151 thru 300 - Adam Kieft (153), Langston Moore (174), Greg Brooks (183), Tab Perry (190), Scott Kooistra (215), Casey Bramlet (218), Jonathan Fanene (233), Elton Patterson (259) - Low risk, moderate reward players. Tab Perry seems to be the odd man out here. Most had more than one problem working against them, and only one true asset – size, speed, intelligence, motor, etc. All were considered capable of eventually maturing and developing into good players. Most importantly, all could safely be stashed on the practice squad without a lot of fear of losing them the 1st year.Comments, anyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted February 8, 2006 Report Share Posted February 8, 2006 I think that if you were to do a similar analysis of other teams you'd get a similar "category" breakdown, i.e. late-rounders tend to have multiple issues, early picks are older, more polished, etc. So while I agree with your analysis, I'm just not sure how much insight it provides.One thing that did jump out at me from your list of picks is that there were no defensive lineman picked on day 1, and just one offensive lineman, Steinbach. OTOH, 9 of 15 day 2 picks were linemen. (And of the defensive linemen, we've taken just two, Askew and Geathers, before getting into the draft's garbage rounds).It's also notable, IMHO, that there's no real pattern, other than the P thing, to our top 40 picks. Meanwhile the other groupings all have definite skews (DB/LB, then linemen, with a few opportunistic WR grabs.)To me, this all suggests that the strategy up front is indeed very BPA-skewed. Now, you or I might not consider a guy like Chris Perry BPA, but obviously they have their short list every year.After that first (and high second, if we have one) pick, they then seem to target positions in roughly this order: LB, DB, D-line, O-line. There are some offensive skill selections mixed in, but they seem pretty ad hoc to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesperateDerelict Posted February 8, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2006 I think that if you were to do a similar analysis of other teams you'd get a similar "category" breakdown, i.e. late-rounders tend to have multiple issues, early picks are older, more polished, etc. . . . . . To me, this all suggests that the strategy up front is indeed very BPA-skewed. Now, you or I might not consider a guy like Chris Perry BPA, but obviously they have their short list every year.After that first (and high second, if we have one) pick, they then seem to target positions in roughly this order: LB, DB, D-line, O-line. There are some offensive skill selections mixed in, but they seem pretty ad hoc to me.Thanks for the response, Joisey. Although there were some generalities spewed earlier, I think it's interesting to note:ALL 1st round picks were 4th & 5th year seniors, highly intelligent, and 'safe' picks (as opposed to jail bait).ALL 2nd and 3rd round picks were fast - even the linebackers 'played' fast - w/ 5 DBs & LBs out of 7 total.ALL 5th - 7th rounds were (relative) no-names that could be stashed on the taxi squad. No sliders!Therefore, I firmly believe we'll get an unexpected BPA in Round 1 (OL? LB?) and grab SS & TE in rounds 2 and 3, then nobody I've ever heard of on Day 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJ29 Posted February 9, 2006 Report Share Posted February 9, 2006 If the Bengal’s draftniks take a good, long, objective look at the last 3 drafts, there appears to be a distinct pattern in the selection logic of Lewis, Tobin, & Brown. (sounds like a law firm, doesn’t it? ) First and foremost, I think all will agree that they were very successful drafts. If analyzed further, there are distinct characteristics common to the players chosen in each of the last 3 years. I’ll break down their commonality, and invite all fellow board members to suggest the 2006 draft-eligible players that best fit this selection logic.TOP 40 – Palmer (1), Pollack (17), Perry (26), Steinbach (33) – Obviously, we’re going to select Pope this year because he’s the only top selection who’s last name starts with a ‘P’. Our “Superstar group”. All of these selections were considered to be “Impact” players, who could contribute immediately and change a game w/ their individual performance. - The first round players are all ‘solid’ citizens.- All were known for a great work ethic- They all are way up there in metrics from the combine & work-outs- All are highly intelligent- All were highly productive in college- All were seniors, and mature for their years.- Possibles: Kiwanaku, Hali, Bunkley, Williams, Greenway PICKS 41 thru 100 – Thurman (48), Ratliff (49), Madieu Williams (56), Kelley Washington (65), Caleb Miller (80), Chris Henry (83), Landon Johnson (96), and Dennis Weatherby (98). High risk, high reward players. Most had one, and only one, facet working against them – height, weight, lack of maturity, injury bug, or off-the-field “baggage”. All were considered capable of quickly developing into impact players.- Many underclassmen are included.- All (besides K-dub) had great ‘motors’ & a burning desire to succeed- Many are versatile players, or considered ‘tweeners’.- All are extremely fast, or have a great speed / size ratio. - Some ‘steals’, some ‘reaches’, all fit the system.- All from big schools and top conferences- Possibles: Fasano, Simpson, Blue, Watson, McGloverPICKS 101 thru 150 - Matthias Askew (114), Robert Geathers (117), Jeremi Johnson (118), Eric Ghiaciuc (119), Stacy Andrews (123), Khalid Abdullah (136), Maurice Mann (149) – Call this group the “Great Potentials”. Lots of big bodies. Also, lots of motor problems. Most had more than one problem working against them – height, weight, lack of maturity, injury bug, or off-the-field “baggage”. All were capable of eventually maturing and developing into very good players, if their motors could be turned on.PICKS 151 thru 300 - Adam Kieft (153), Langston Moore (174), Greg Brooks (183), Tab Perry (190), Scott Kooistra (215), Casey Bramlet (218), Jonathan Fanene (233), Elton Patterson (259) - Low risk, moderate reward players. Tab Perry seems to be the odd man out here. Most had more than one problem working against them, and only one true asset – size, speed, intelligence, motor, etc. All were considered capable of eventually maturing and developing into good players. Most importantly, all could safely be stashed on the practice squad without a lot of fear of losing them the 1st year.Comments, anyone?Yo! Great analysis. Really makes me miss Khalid Abdullah. I can't imagine having a dislocated ankle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kazkal Posted February 9, 2006 Report Share Posted February 9, 2006 I diden't notice how old carson was till the other day it was like *** damn he's the same age as chad or older almost 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.