What the Duck?

[MHS831]

41 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

Everyone has an opinion but Bulger is one of the best out there.  He watches a lot of film and has a methodical grading style.

I know--however, I have seen stuff like this from PFF and other pundits--“In a year (2019) that saw four tackles drafted within the first 13 picks, it was the 19-year old Oregon tackle who led the position in wins above replacement," he wrote. "His 95.8 overall grade last season was the highest we’ve ever given to a tackle. And when I say in the draft guide that he doesn’t have weaknesses, I am not lying.”

[MHS831]

10 minutes ago, Snake said:

Cam sure did for many years but we know the results of that. I choose to have both tbh. It's also probably why the Bengals are going to draft the duck. 

They should.  Unless a team trades up and offers the farm so they can draft a QB---I don't see it happening--but if we are sitting there at #4, stranger things have happened.

[Snake]

1 minute ago, MHS831 said:

They should.  Unless a team trades up and offers the farm so they can draft a QB---I don't see it happening--but if we are sitting there at #4, stranger things have happened.

Just depends on how they want to hurt next year. They are losing both a good DE and CB so it's not impossible. They are known for drafting LTs though so... 

[Snake]

5 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

I know--however, I have seen stuff like this from PFF and other pundits--“In a year (2019) that saw four tackles drafted within the first 13 picks, it was the 19-year old Oregon tackle who led the position in wins above replacement," he wrote. "His 95.8 overall grade last season was the highest we’ve ever given to a tackle. And when I say in the draft guide that he doesn’t have weaknesses, I am not lying.”

That kind of praise scares me. It always seems like the no weakness guys end up hitting bust town. 

[Sgt Schultz]

What is the latest on Burrow's prognosis?  While I don't think the Bengals would pick another QB early, the last I heard is the injury was worse than they thought and the recovery not a certainty.

That should not stop them from grabbing Sewell at #3, but it might cause them to entertain trading down with somebody drooling over a QB and grabbing more picks in the first couple of rounds. 

Assuming Lawrence is off the board, if somehow Sewell is there when we go on the clock, he is hard to walk away from.  I have seen a lot of rankings that have him as the second most ready to step on an NFL field after Lawrence.  Given our roster, we need people ready to step on an NFL field at a few positions.

[MHS831]

36 minutes ago, kass said:

Yeah, so all I wanted to know is if Matt Kalil was seen as a great prospect on his own.

Or if he only was a good prospect.

But was given a higher grade because the success of his brother and his former team mate.

Probably--Ryan's success could have been a factor--but in college, Matt seemed good--I watched film on him and thought he was good---nothing special, but it was a weak T class that year if memory serves me.  I guess one of the points here is this:  If you enter the draft hell bent on drafting a position, you are likely screwing up.  If you need a QB and grab one because there are only 4 elite QBs and the fourth one is on the board--vs possibly the best OT talent in years---you take the OT or live to regret it.  Last year, we needed a T and reached---I can say Lance or Wilson at #4 is probably a reach.  We could get lucky, but how many teams that needed a QB in the draft early went after the best available and lived to regret it?  Remember RGIII?  Christian Ponder?  Darnold?  Rosen?  It derailed their teams for several years, because you develop a first rounder longer.  It is a tougher decision than people think.  The arguement here is not, "Do you take a T or a franchise QB..." That never was the point.  Do you take the best college T (arguably) in years for the gamble that the fourth QB will benefit you more?  Go back and look at the last 10 drafts.  The risk becomes very clear.  I see both sides and I want a QB, but not just any QB.  I want Wilson, fwiw, but if Sewell is there, I bet we take him.  Wilson and Lance have too many question marks---hardly "franchise" QBs.

[MHS831]

6 minutes ago, Snake said:

That kind of praise scares me. It always seems like the no weakness guys end up hitting bust town. 

I saw this before I watched his film---and I watched some Wirfs video and then some Joe Thomas.  I like Thomas--have always thought he was the best (and maybe the most underrated) LT I have ever seen.  Sewell, to me, was closer to Thomas (in terms of overall impressiveness, not style) than Wirfs (whose video was at RT).  Having said that, the most impressive thing about him is his attitude.  He loves the game, lives for the game.  I just get scared watching PAC 10 film. It is like they don't believe in defense out there.  It is lofty praise for a 19-year old player.

[MHS831]

1 hour ago, t96 said:

Outside of 1st overall picks, this is maybe the most obvious pick I've ever seen going into a draft.

For the Bengals, and it would be for us as well--the Bengals still could shop the pick.

[WarHeel]

1 hour ago, Shotgun said:

Yep the best team we've ever fielded.  

Highly debatable. Actually the narrative that year was that Cam didn’t have any weapons with the injury of KB

[t96]

28 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

For the Bengals, and it would be for us as well--the Bengals still could shop the pick.

I just meant for the Bengals. I don't think it's a no brainer for us, we should consider him if we don't love one of the QBs there but if we like a QB there that should be the pick.

[PhillyB]

if sewell was on the 2020 panthers we'd be 5-8

[kass]

7 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

Probably--Ryan's success could have been a factor--but in college, Matt seemed good--I watched film on him and thought he was good---nothing special, but it was a weak T class that year if memory serves me.  I guess one of the points here is this:  If you enter the draft hell bent on drafting a position, you are likely screwing up.  If you need a QB and grab one because there are only 4 elite QBs and the fourth one is on the board--vs possibly the best OT talent in years---you take the OT or live to regret it.  Last year, we needed a T and reached---I can say Lance or Wilson at #4 is probably a reach.  We could get lucky, but how many teams that needed a QB in the draft early went after the best available and lived to regret it?  Remember RGIII?  Christian Ponder?  Darnold?  Rosen?  It derailed their teams for several years, because you develop a first rounder longer.  It is a tougher decision than people think.  The arguement here is not, "Do you take a T or a franchise QB..." That never was the point.  Do you take the best college T (arguably) in years for the gamble that the fourth QB will benefit you more?  Go back and look at the last 10 drafts.  The risk becomes very clear.  I see both sides and I want a QB, but not just any QB.  I want Wilson, fwiw, but if Sewell is there, I bet we take him.  Wilson and Lance have too many question marks---hardly "franchise" QBs.

I have never heard the name Ponder before. 2016 was the first time I looked at the draft "result", and 2017 was the first time I watched game tape and knew the name of the players entering the draft... 

So it's a steep learning curve for me.. 

Week 6 2015 was the first time I even looked at the league table... 

Regarding LT or QB, I mostly agree with you. Heck, I was thinking of starting a thread about all QB needy teams that might try get Bengals pick but you have already posted a bunch about that in this and another thread. 

[Basbear]

9 hours ago, stbugs said:

Cleveland had Joe Thomas and Mitchell Schwartz, the best bookends in the game at the time. Also had Alex Mack for a while at C. Their OL is worse now but have a better QB and others and are much better as a team. Dallas had the best OL in the game for years and won 1 playoff game.

An OL is a piece of the puzzle as is a QB. The QB is the most important piece and even with the best LT, you can’t block the entire DL. Dallas used a ton of 1st round picks on OL and their D was meh. Have to get a QB and a little more drafting luck as well. Need to hit on day 2 picks and maybe a day 3 here and there.

I said it before and say it again, Cleveland is a AWFUL point of reference. Since you want to use them to prove QB>OT, let me see here- Tim Couch, Brady Quinn, Manzil, Brandon Weeden, Baker Mayfield. So they also show spending 1st on QBs is a waste too. Joe Thomas is better than the whole group put together.

Panthers need talent, pure and simple. A QB can not throw if hes on IR'd, mentality broken, or retires after seeing what the 2021 panthers OL looks like. Also I brought up this fact too, the league has better overall quality at QB than LT. This past LT class closed the gap, but its much harder to find a legit LT. Look at this past FA QB market and compare it too the one for LT. Smart Beagual fans where calling for the staff to bench Burrow, not cause of his play, the OL was looking awful. Now hes rehabbing a serve knee injury that may push the start of the 2021 in question. 

Lets do what other dumbass teams do, draft a 1st round QB and put him behind a line of UDFAs and vet minimums types. Might as well practice a surprise look when it fails, then jump on huddle/social and complain non-stop for the check five years. 

[JawnyBlaze]

9 hours ago, MHS831 said:

I understand that--but how many of the QBs taken early in round 1 over the last 10 years were decent?  Taking the 4th best QB with the sixth overall pick is hardly wise in the long run.   We need to make sure that our desperation for a QB does not cause us to pass on the best LT to come out in over a decade or more--all of the early first round bust QBs looked great in college....

Taking the third best with the 4th pick might turn out ok. The first QB taken in a draft isn’t always the best one. The top QB of this class looks pretty set, but #2 and 3 are fuzzy. The third could in reality be the second (or possibly even the best).