To Draft, or Not to Draft, a Linebacker
CincyJungle made an upgrade. Read this first to get acquired to the site (like obtaining your old usernames).
After David Pollack's reported "lean" towards retirement, I thought it would be good to reexamine the team's linebackers -- and NOT talk about that jerkoff that runs around with Oil Slick's.
Let's first realize the obvious. It wasn't expected that David Pollack would drive into Georgetown, throw on some pads and start slamming bodies like a rackin' machen. There would be a season or two of discovering a comfort level like Palmer and his knee in 2006. So in most ways, the Bengals linebackers haven't shifted much in terms of managing the depth chart of their 53-man roster -- with the lone exception being Odell's reinstatement.
As of now, there's 11 linebackers signed with Cincinnati through 2008 -- five signed one-year deals this off-season. Rashad Jeanty, Ahmad Brooks and Dhani Jones are projected as the team's starting linebackers in a base 4-3 set (my assumption). Odell Thurman, if he shines during training camp, could unseat Brooks or join him over the middle in a base 3-4 set. In fact, if Odell plays to a tenth of what he did in 2005, I expect him to unseat Brooks anyway. I like big scary linebackers that play the role of bulldozer blowing up the "A-gap" blitzing the quarterback. But it would be safe to say that Brooks is still playing off his potential rather than his production.
Guys like Darryl Blackstock, Brandon Johnson, Roy Manning, Corey Mays and Jim Maxwell will compete for a roster spot and, most likely, be special teams players, barring injury to the starters. Eric Henderson, if all goes to plan which it never does, would likely become the first outside linebacker that either backs up the outside, or simply wins that position out-right. Corey Mays is also a solid backup.
With Odell Thurman returning. There's questions whether the Bengals will draft a linebacker early now that Odell Thurman in the mix. The obvious is, no. The team is basically set with linebackers and bodies for depth. Though I don't think that's a priority anymore. I still believe that if the team can't draft Sedrick Ellis, then drafting Keith Rivers early won't be a problematic choice. Though other choices could be just as beneficial. Our outside linebackers, while solid in their own right, are hardly the kings of talent. If we can upgrade through the draft, then we must. And granted, I know little of Rivers. Never much cared to watch USC games -- it was broadcasted late and these 30-year old bones are snapping awfully loud these days. So my question is this. Making the point that the team still needs to upgrade at linebacker, and if Ellis is gone, would drafting Keith Rivers first help the team's overall talent at linebacker to significantly improve the position? Or would the team be better off drafting elsewhere?
16 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I think You’ve got Jeanty and Henderson at SAM and can line up at end for an NYG front. Brooks and Jones can probabaly line up at any of the three linebacker spots, and Thurman at MLB/WLB. I’m guessing they carry 6? and I think Rivers would be able to beat the rest of the crew for that last spot.
I was against it at first.. but I think I’m on board with the “take McKelvin if Ellis isn’t there” crowd. Deltha’s gone next year and everyone is jumping on board with spreading the field with receivers. Having a real return threat would be nice also.
Maybe we could jsut run nickle all the time… Leon tackles as good as the linebackers. =\
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=2703832
RE: McKelvin
OK, I’m fine with him. No, really. My only point is that you’re drafting a CB for the third year in a row in the first round - likely starting as the team’s 4th CB (until Deltha is waived… if Deltha is waived) - then you hurt the primary spots that you really need, well, “need”. What is it that McKelvin would improve our defense for?
Geoff Hobson made the same point in his opinion saying:
The first time he pops a punt return 50 yards you’ll forget that they picked first-round cornerbacks in each of the last two drafts.
Well, sure. We’ll all be jumping around like maddening idiots—after all, I actually praised Jesus during 10-yard returns during our Super Mario Keiwan Ratliff days. But isn’t the problem the fact that the Bengals defense struggles enough to stop the opposing offense to actually force them to punt?
Again, whatever. If we draft McKelvin, I’m sure he’s a quality talent. But it is really addressing a need? Does it take a first-round pick these days for a quality punt returner? (I guess)
Blogger at CincyJungle.com
by Josh Kirkendall on Apr 23, 2008 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions
We have quantity at LB...
...but quality and reliability? Odell could foul up again, Brooks is still rehabbing from that groin tear, and most of the LBs on the roster are, as you point out, backups and special teamers. And there’s not much after Rivers and Mayo in this draft. If Rivers is there, he has to be a consideration.
We still need lbs
There is a difference between having lots of linebackers and actually having depth. Brooks has potential to be a solid MLB, but is still unproven. Jeanty and Jones are both worthy of roster spots, but I think we can do better. I don’t think we can depend on Thurman—just hope for a pleasant surprise. Same thing with Henderson.
In my opinion that gives us 5 linebackers, none of whom are proven—plus a bunch of special teamers.
If Ellis is not there, the Bengals will have a major decision to make. You want your first pick to be an impact player. Hobson thinks we take McKelvin because of his return ability and it would guarantee a strong backfield for the future. It makes sense-but I still think we draft at least one linebacker in the middle rounds and possibly two-particularly if we plan on mixing in some 3-4.
Hope with Odell
OK, I admit it, I’m perhaps being way too optimistic that Odell is wearing his school boy uniform and saying Mr. and Mrs. to every person he greets. That is wishful thinking on my part.
Blogger at CincyJungle.com
by Josh Kirkendall on Apr 23, 2008 2:10 PM EDT reply actions
Schlegel
Out of all the backups on the roster Schlegel (the one you failed to list) is most likely to make the team. He is a far more valuable back up than Mays who did not record a single tackle as a defensive player. Schlegel had 8 against KC and 6 against Pittsburgh. If Odell can play they will move Brooks to one of the outside spots. If they go 3-4 they will need a back up ILB, which is ideal for Schlegel. Schlegel is signed for 2 more years and I think stands a better chance of making the team than Blackstock, Manning, Mays and Maxwell.
RE: Schlegel
I neglected him on purpose. Sure, he did what was expected of him last season. But with the roster filling back up with healthy linebackers, and I just don’t see him playing on ST, I’m just not sure he’ll make the team. But I hope he does. tOSU guys need to help offset this Michigan roster.
Blogger at CincyJungle.com
by Josh Kirkendall on Apr 23, 2008 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions
Given the questionable ability of Thurman to stay out of trouble and Brooks to stay healthy, I cant see the Bengals cutting a good Defensive backup to keep a slightly better special teams player. Schlegel had 5 or 6 ST tackles last year and was fine on ST.
RE:
No doubt. But I don’t think a lot of these linebackers will survive the cut—including Schegel and your pick of Maxwell, Manning or the brothers from da ‘zona.
Blogger at CincyJungle.com
by Josh Kirkendall on Apr 23, 2008 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions
LBs and McKelvin
Two Points:
-People said we had a lot of linebackers last year as people were counting on Odell to come back and Ahmad Brooks to continue (JUST LIKE WE ARE DOING THIS YEAR). Last year’s LB corps turned out to be dismal. We can’t count on unprovens like Eric Henderson and Darryl Blackstock to improve our LB corps. Also, Jeanty has problems staying healthy.
-McKelvin is a fine player but it doesn’t matter who we have at corner if they have to cover receivers for 7 seconds. Our front 7 has been a disaster for a long time. If we can’t get Ellis, we should take Rivers. I saw a horrible mock draft scenario today where the first 7 off the board were J. Long, C. Long, G. Dorsey, D. McFadden, S. Ellis, V. Gholston and K. Rivers. That would be the worst case scenario. If that heppened, perhaps we consider Leodis McKelvin but I still might go with Derrick Harvey (DE from Florida)
Comments
The comments system on this site are SO… MUCH… BETTER.
Blogger at CincyJungle.com
by Josh Kirkendall on Apr 23, 2008 3:22 PM EDT reply actions
No McKelvin at 9
Put me in the Rivers/Harvey over McKelvin camp, an adjunct of the get Ellis by any means necessary camp. In a sampling of 32 mocks updated through yesterday;
19(59%) had us getting Ellis(without trading up)
6(19%) had us getting Harvey
4(13%) had us getting Rivers
2(6%) had us getting, groan, Clady
1(3%) had us getting Mendenhall
What does it mean? Who the hell knows but I don’t think a 60% shot at Ellis justifies sitting and waiting, hoping he’ll fall to us.
by IgnatiusJReilly on Apr 24, 2008 10:10 AM EDT reply actions
RE
If he doesn’t, would you trade the pick? It’s not in that costly slot where rookies that have never played in the NFL get paid much higher than proven veterans. Might be that we could steal the Saints pick since they are desperately looking at a DT then steal a late draft pick.
Blogger at CincyJungle.com
by Josh Kirkendall on Apr 24, 2008 10:48 AM EDT up reply actions
He meaning Ellis
Blogger at CincyJungle.com
by Josh Kirkendall on Apr 24, 2008 10:49 AM EDT up reply actions
I don’t know. If Ellis is gone, man, I don’t know. Some mocks I’ve seen have New England taking McKelvin and wouldn’t that suck- if they both were gone at 9? I guess I’d go with Rivers unless someone was really wanting to sweeten the pot. Like, maybe one in the low to mid-20s along with a fairly high third? I don’t think there’s a world of difference between Rivers and Mayo, who we might be able to pick up at that later spot- or maybe a Sweed there and an Adibi or Lofton in Rd. 2? The more I think about it, the more, barring a Chad trade, I like it.
I guess I’d still be for moving up to get Ellis, however.
by IgnatiusJReilly on Apr 25, 2008 12:46 AM EDT up reply actions
Ellis gone
In Kiper’s latest mock, he has the Bengals picking up Rivers after the Patriots picked up Ellis. Personally, I didn’t see it with Vince Wilfolk being the team’s NT. His deal runs through 2009 and he’s happy as it is.
Wilfork is not even thinking about his contract, which runs through 2009. "I’ve still got two more years," he said, later adding that, "this is where I want to finish my career."So then, asks this blogger, why would the Patriots draft Ellis?
Blogger at CincyJungle.com
by Josh Kirkendall on Apr 25, 2008 2:10 PM EDT reply actions

by 

















