Cincy Jungle: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Around SBN: Defense FAIL: Purdue 76, Michigan State 64

Bengals Draft Analysis ('00 - '08)


Since I/we were discussing draft analysis I thought I would post some thoughts I put together a few months back.  Warning: this post is long.  If you have A.D.D. or if you're one of the Jungle regulars who really just doesn't like me, read no further...

Star-divide

 

(March 2009)


In my esteemed investigation into the search for truth I went through every draft since 2000 and assigned a grade for every Bengal player drafted.  To make this exercise simple yet fair, every player drafted was assigned one of four grades:  Failure, Average, Good, or Excellent.  The round a player was drafted in is irrelevant to the ranking.  Thus the player either panned out, was average, or he didn’t pan out.  I think all 4 grades generally speak for themselves but there are some caviats worth mentioning – especially when considering how I assigned grades to certain players.   For example, a player who was assigned a grade of “Failure” could either be a player who played some significant time but played below standard (think Sean Brewer).  A “Failure” could also have been a player who was drafted in the later rounds and perhaps just never got a chance to play (think Greg Brooks, Khalid Abdullah, etc).  Or a player deemed a failure could be a guy who just never panned out due to injury or off field trouble (think most of 2005 and 2006 draft picks).  Just keep in mind that “Failure” doesn’t only translate into: “Akili Smith.”


In any event however, it is also worth noting that a players grade is not given to him based off his draft position.  For example, you can’t say a player is a “Failure” because he was taken near the top of the draft and he never fulfilled the expectation of being such a high draft choice.  Justin Smith comes to mind here.  He was a solid player.  Maybe he wasn’t worth the #4 pick in the draft…but certainly not a failure.  The same logic goes for a 6th or 7th round player picked late in the draft.  You can’t call a guy an “Excellent” draft pick or player because he was picked late in the draft and had minor success (think Tab Perry).   The point is to "try" and the take the subjectivity out of the equation. 

Moving forward, a player I graded as average is/was a player who performed to NFL standards but never stood out.  He might have had some success…but he certainly wasn’t a Pro Bowl or All-Pro player by any means.  The guy was neither a standout nor was he a failure.  He just seemed to fulfill a role. In reality, a team is always trying to find a replacement for a player in this category (Matt Schobel comes to mind in this category). 

I rated players as “Good” if they performed above average during most of their tenure but they just never reached “Pro Bowl” type status. (Think Landon Johnson)

Players rated “Excellent” are players who well, are or were excellent.  In order to be considered excellent I felt a player needed to be a Pro Bowl or All-Pro player.  (Very few players drafted since 2000 made this category.  Think Carson, Chad, TJ, and Rudi.  That literally is it -- though the jury is hopefully still out on a few players picked recently.)\

Lastly, I did have one other variable that affected a players grade and that was his time spent with the team.  As an example, you could claim Neil Rackers is an above average to pretty good kicker in the NFL.  I however don’t think you will find one person in the city of Cincinnati who will tell you he was anything but a failure while he was here.  Thus, that’s how he was rated.  Same goes for a player like Peter Warrick.  I feel Warrick would have earned a grade of “Good” as in '02 and '03 he put up some respectable numbers...but his career here only spanned a brief 4 year stint.  Therefore, a 4 year career riddled by injury and mostly disappointment I think downgrades him to an “average” player.  Had he played here for another year or two I think he would have been considered a “Good” player.  Point being, a players length of time spent with the team factors into the equation.

(I will include the entire draft roster with my grades associated at the end so you can compare or judge how I graded the players)

DRAFT PICKS SINCE 2000:
*Include Supplemental Draft

(Total Excludes ’07 and ’08 since those years are virtually impossible to grade at this point)

Total Picks    = 55


Failures          = 31 (56%)     ** 9 players from ’07-’08 look to fall into this category

Average
Players
           = 11 (20%)     ** 5 players from ’07-’08 look to fall into this category

Good
Players
           =  9 (16%)      ** 4 players from ’07-’08 look to fall into this category

Excellent
Players
           =  4 (7%)        ** 0 players from ’07-’08 look to fall into this category

** If you use the same modeling to try and come up with the total figures using grades for the ’07 and ’08 players the percentages still turn out in the following manner:

Total                 = 73 Picks
Failures             = 55%
Average            = 22%
Good                = 18%
Excellent          =  5%

BEST YEAR:


-- 2001 (Justin Smith, Chad Johnson, Rudi Johnson, TJ Houshmandzadeh)

Honorable Mention:

-- ’03 (Palmer, Steinbach, J. Johnson, Kooistra)
-- ’06 (Joseph, Whitworth, Peko)
-- '09??

2000
Round             Player                                     Position          Overall Grade

 

1st                    Peter Warrick                        WR                  Average

2nd                   Mark Roman                          CB                  Failure

3rd                    Ron Dugans                           WR                  Failure

4th                    Curtis Keaton                        RB                   Failure

5th                    Robert Bean                          CB                  Failure

6th                    Neil Rackers                          K                     Failure

7th                    Brad St. Louis                       LS                   Average

 

 

 

 

2001
Round             Player                                     Position          Overall Grade

 

1st                    Justin Smith                           DE                  Good

2nd                   Chad Johnson                       WR                  Excellent

3rd                    Sean Brewer                         TE                   Failure

4th                    Rudi Johnson             RB                   Excellent

5th                    Victor Leyva                           G                     Failure

6th                    Riall Johnson             LB                   Failure

7th                    TJ Houshmandzadeh            WR                  Excellent

 

2002
Round             Player                                     Position          Overall Grade

 

1st                    Levi Jones                             T                      Good

2nd                   Lamont Thompson                S                     Failure

3rd                    Matt Schoebel                       TE                   Average

4th                    Travis Dorsch                        P/K                  Failure

5th                   

6th                    Marquand Manuel                 S                     Failure

7th                    Joey Evans                            DE                  Failure

 

 

2003
Round             Player                                     Position          Overall Grade

 

1st                    Carson Palmer                      QB                  Excellent

2nd                   Eric Steinbach                       G                     Good

3rd                    Kelly Washington                  WR                  Failure

4th                    Dennis Weathersby              CB                  Failure
4th                    Jeremi Johnson                     FB                   Good 

5th                    Khalid Abdullah                     LB                   Failure

6th                    Langston Moore                    DT                   Failure

7th                    Scoot Kooistra                      T                      Average
7th                    Elton Patterson                      DE                  Failure

 

 

 

2004
Round             Player                                     Position          Overall Grade

 

1st                    Chris Perry                             RB                   Failure

2nd                   Keiwan Ratliff                        CB                  Failure

2nd                   Madieu Williams                   S                     Average

3rd                    Caleb Miller                           LB                   Average
3rd                    Landon Johnson                    LB                   Good 

4th                    Matthias Askew                     DT                   Failure
4th                    Robert Geathers                   DE                  Good

4th                    Stacy Andrews                      T                      Good

5th                    Maurice Mann                        WR                  Failure
6th                    Greg Brooks                          WR                  Failure
7th                    Casey Bramlet                      QB                  Failure

 

 

 

2005
Round             Player                                     Position          Overall Grade

 

1st                    David Pollack                        LB                   Failure

2nd                   O’Dell Thurman                     LB                   Failure

3rd                    Chris Henry                            WR                  Average

4th                    Eric Ghiaciuc                         C                     Average
5th                    Adam Kieft                             T                      Failure

6th                    Tab Perry                               WR                  Failure
7th                    Jonathan Fenene                  DE                  Average

 

 

2006
Round             Player                                     Position          Overall Grade

 

1st                    Jonathan Joseph                   CB                  Good

2nd                   Andrew Whitworth                 G                     Good

3rd                    Frostee Rucker                     DE                  Average

4th                    Domata Peko                        DT                   Average
5th                    AJ Nicholson                         LB                   Failure

6th                    Reggie McNeal                     WR                  Failure
7th                    Ethan Kilmer                          S                     Failure

7th                    Bennie Brazell                       WR                  Failure

 

 

* Grades are Still TBD
2007

Round             Player                                     Position          Overall Grade

 

1st                    Leon Hall                                CB                  Good *

2nd                   Kenny Irons                            RB                   Failure

3rd                    Ahmad Brooks (Supp.)           LB                   Failure

4th                    Marvin White                          S                     Average *
5th                    Jeff Rowe                               QB                  Failure *

6th                    Matt Toeaina                         DT                   Failure
7th                    Dan Santucci                         C                     Average *

7th                    Chinedum Ndukwe               S                     Good *

 

 

 

* Grades are Still TBD

2008
Round             Player                                     Position          Overall Grade

 

1st                    Keith Rivers                           LB                   Good *

2nd                   Jerome Simpson                  WR                  Failure *

3rd                    Pat Sims                                DT                   Good *

3rd                    Andre Caldwell                      WR                  Average *
4th                    Anthony Collins                      T                      Average *

5th                    Jason Shirley             DT                   Failure *
6th                    Corey Lynch                           S                     Average *
6th                    Matt Sherry                            TE                   Failure *
7th                    Angelo Craig                         DE                  Failure *
7th                    Mario Urrutia                          WR                  Failure *

 

 

WORST YEAR:

-- 2000 (Peter Warrick and Brad St. Louis were the Good picks)

Honorable Mention:


-- ’02 (Levi Jones, L. Thompson, Schoebel, T. Dorsch, Marquand Manuel, Joey Evans)

 

-- ’05 (Due to injury and off field problems)

TAKEAWAYS:

If the Bengals ever want to truly compete with the Steelers year in and year out they are going to HAVE to improve their drafting.  76% of all Bengal players drafted between 2000 – 2006 were either failed projects or were average or below players. 

(The Steelers have an average/below average rate of 70%...but more importantly they rarely ever “miss” on a player taken in the 1st round.  Of the 7 players they picked in the 1st round from 2000 to 2006 4 of them have been All Pro/Pro Bowl players and 2 are in the “good” category.  Only one of the 7 has been rated a “failure” and that was Plaxico Burress – who want on to be an “Excellent” player for the Giants.)   

In comparing the Bengals overall drafting to the Steelers over that stretch of time you will see a huge disparity in these percentages.  The Steelers had 54% of their draft picks graded as failures and 13% as average.  The combined number of the two equaling 67% compared to the Bengals 76%  That is by all means unacceptable for the Bengals and truly is a telling statistic to their lack of success over that period of time.  Though the ’09 draft class looks great on paper, the trend also seems to be continuing in this same dreadful manner – as if you include the ’07 and ’08 draft class the number of failed draft picks looks to be in the 77% range.  Only 4 players (Ocho, Rudi, TJ and Carson) are rated excellent out of a total of 73 players drafted since 2000 (or 55 if you exclude ’07 and ’08).  Either way you’re talking about only a 5 – 7% success ratio in this category.  The Steelers scored an 11% “Excellent” ratio.  It doesn’t sound great…but it doubles that of Cincinnati.  Where the Bengals drafted 4 Pro Bowl or All-Pro players, the Steelers drafted 7.

There’s also an alarming trend that I think most casual observers have seen in that multiple players have been drafted from the same school in several years. (Florida St. – 2000, Oregon St. – 2001, Georgia and Central Michigan – 2005 , and Notre Dame – 2007).  This means that four out of Nine years the Bengals have drafted multiple players from one school.  Also, prior to Pollack and Thurman being drafted from Georgia in ’05, the Bengals drafted Geathers out of Georgia in ’04.  To me this singlehandedly proves the Bengals scouting and/or player personnel department is spread too thin (shocking) and is not able to see or evaluate all of the talent pool available – hence the drafting pattern.

0 recs  |  Comment 42 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Excellent Work

I’m impressed. You seem to have a lot of knowledge and really did your homework on this one. The main point that I thought you hit on really nicely was in your last paragraph you said,

To me this singlehandedly proves the Bengals scouting and/or player personnel department is spread too thin (shocking) and is not able to see or evaluate all of the talent pool available – hence the drafting pattern.

I couldn’t agree with you more. Cincy needs a GM in order to improve our drafting from year to year. You can’t do it with a coaching staff that is working on plays half the year or an owner who doesn’t have a lot of football sense. We really need to improve this before we become an year-in year-out contender.

This is our year!

by Carsonorbust on Jul 9, 2009 1:01 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Nice post but I have to disagree with Sims being listed as good while Peko is listed as average

by smoormandiddy on Jul 9, 2009 1:40 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Smoorman

Well Sims’ grade, as indicated, is still yet to be determined. He could be a failure, could be excellent. Who knows? …I’m only guessing on the the players that were drafted in ’07 and ’08. And I indicated such. I do think he wil be good though…eventually.

Peko on the other hand, in my opinion, isn’t more than an average player. He’s not bad. But I don’t think he’s good either. I think most of us would agree on that. No?

by JohnCockToastin on Jul 9, 2009 3:15 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

I guess I’m drinking the Peko cool-aid (low sugar version). I would not rate him under the “excellent” category by any means but looking at some of the other players listed as “good” list such as S. Andrews, Whitworth, J. Joseph, L. Johnson, compaired to those on the “average” list, such as Santucci, Lynch, White, I would have to put Peko on the former. That’s just my opinion, I could be wrong.

by smoormandiddy on Jul 9, 2009 3:40 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

David Pollock wasn't a failure.

he had 4.5 sacks in 05. The guy was a solid, strong player. Getting injured should not count as “failure”.

I also think time spent as a Bengals doesn’t factor in well to a ranking, as you mention about Rackers. The guy had some excellent years in AZ.

The pick was solid, and things happen, but it’s not like Rackers or Pollack were bad players.

by UpStateMike on Jul 9, 2009 4:23 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Failures

We could definitely debate the merits of many of my choices…especially the differences between average and good. There’s just such a fine line between the two. However, there’s no fine line between good and excellent and failure and average. I explain how I come up the rankings in probably too much detail – because of that you probably skimmed thru it and didn’t read it fully.

That said…

Yes, both Rackers and Pollack were “Failures” and there is absolutey no disputing it.

Want to know why?

If I were to ask you if you would sattisfied with the Andre Smith 1st Rd pick this year if Smith held out for all of preseason camp, he didn’t start until late in the ’09 season…but did play well…but then broke his neck and never played another season EVER again (sans 1 game and about one half of one quarter), would you call that a “Good,” or eveb “Average” pick? …NO WAY.

Now, is it Pollack’s or even the Bengals fault that he fot hurt? Absolutely not. But the pick is still a “Failure.”. You drafted a guy that played one year and he never played again. What about that is a success?

With Rackers…his success with Arizona is irrelvant. Completely irrelvant. Do you NOT remember how putrid he was in his time spent here?! Same theory goes, do you call it a success that the Bengals drafted him, he absolutely sucked while he played here, but he went on to Arizona to be good. That’s not a success for Cincinnati. Its a success for Arizona in their free agency signings.

Does that make sense in how I made my ratings?

Again, I know I’m likely not dead on on all of them (though I will gladly argue that I am), but Pollack and Rackers were no doubt failed draft picks.

by JohnCockToastin on Jul 9, 2009 7:21 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions   0 recs

Mobile.CincyJungle

By the way..Im posting these messages on my Blackberry. (Expains a lot of the misspellings – small ass keys).

Anyways…huge props to Kirk and the site. Now I can abandon my responsibilities at all times and at all places and argue about David Pollack and Neil Rackers’ stellar careers in The Nati.

Who Dey to that! Eh?

by JohnCockToastin on Jul 9, 2009 7:29 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions   0 recs

It's nice to see ...

you can actually discuss issues here without insulting others, or disguising profane words of personal attack.

by Timzilla on Jul 10, 2009 7:31 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Agreed

I think we can all share our points of view without getting nasty to each other.

I still think that your aregument is weak though John. Yes, there are players that didn’t produce much for Cincy, but the pick was valid in both cases. It’s not like they were inept. How did Rackers magically become good? Is it the Cincy water that made him kick badly here?

There’s a difference between “failure” and “didn’t produce for the team”. that’s all.

by UpStateMike on Jul 10, 2009 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm glad the mobile works!

Blogger at CincyJungle.com -- SB Nation Cincinnati Bengals blog.

by Kirkendall on Jul 10, 2009 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

It is what it is

If a guy didn’t produce for the team he was a failure. It isn’t personal. Liked Pollock a lot – still do but he wasn’t here long enough to help us win. Was it bad judgment in the draft room – I don’t think so as he seemed like an up and coming player who would have been a great addition, but it didn’t translate into helping us win – so in that regard he was a failure. I 1st round pick needs to contribute to be a success. Love the guy. Hate that he isn’t here.

" My enemy said "Love your enemy". I obeyed and loved myself." Gibran

by JUNGLEJOHN on Jul 10, 2009 11:13 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Agreed and Disagreed

Agreed that I don’t hate you for challenging my opinions. I like a good debate.

Disagreed on what we deem “Failures.”

I think you just misunderstand where I’m coming from. I’m not calling the players themselves necessarily “Failures.” I’m calling the process of the BENGALS drafting said players a “Failure.”

(Rackers and Pollack specifically are in question)

It’s the draft process we’re discussing, not the individual player. The players were drafted to fulfill a role with the BENGALS (not any other franchise), and both clearly either did not fulfill a role at all (Pollack) or were awful at their duties while here (Rackers).

Earlier you disagreed with me that “time spent with the team” shouldn’t be a factor when rating a players success. YOU HAVE to use time as a factor. If you draft a player and pay him a 4 year contract, you expect 4 years from the player. At a minimum. And ideally you would like the guy to play for you for more than 4 years. Never mind that you expect him to be good – especially if he was 1st Rd. pick.

You also said that a player later “having success with another team” should factor into his success if he went on to be good after he left the Bengals. That’s not a "Success" for the Bengals. In Rackers case it’s a success for the Cardinals and for him individually. The Bengals clearly lost on that deal. They drafted the guy, he sucked, he left, he went on to be good. (+1 For Arizona, -1 for Cincinnati)

Do you see where I’m coming from now?

It’s an exercise in evaluating how the Bengals have done with the draft. NOT how the individual players are or have fared.

I HAVE to feel that you HAVE to agree with me now??

by JohnCockToastin on Jul 10, 2009 11:34 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Can I get a GM?

It seems that your definition of failure has more to do with how well that a draftee performed for the Bengals, but I’d argue that what we really want to look at is how well talent was evaluated by our drafting team. Obviously, both Rackers and Pollack didn’t pan out as far as the Bengals go, but I think it would reasonable to say that our draft team didn’t screw up those picks. Rackers just needed a little experience and what happened to Pollack was a freak accident. You can’t blame that on the drafting committee.

Your overall point though is still a good one: that Cincy needs to beef up it’s scouting and recruiting program. It’s pretty obvious that we’re lagging behind the rest of the league. We need a GM!

This is our year!

by Carsonorbust on Jul 10, 2009 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Rackers

I think if you go by scouting, Rackers is not a very good kicker in cold weather! I think thats where they messed up and he seems like he caves under pressure…..

AMAS

by AMAS85 on Jul 10, 2009 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Rackers

Not a cold weather kicker? Didn’t he play college in Illinois? He did pretty well there, and that’s not much warmer than Cincy.

Cincinnati, OH average temperature (Sept ~ Dec) 48.6 F
Champaign, ILL average temperature (Sept~Dec) 47.6 F

by ephram on Jul 10, 2009 9:55 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

really...

i didn’t know that but u can’t tell me that he doesn’t play better in hotter weather….

AMAS

by AMAS85 on Jul 11, 2009 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

There is no doubt that his 1st 2 years in Cincy were dismal.
But if you look at FG accuracy, only twice in his 6 seasons in Arizona has he done better than he did in his final year in Cincy.

His 1st 2 years were pathetic, agreed!!!
But even Shayne Graham’s 1st 2 years were his worst.
A lot of kickers (J Kasay, S Graham, N Rackers, J Scobee, etc…) have thier worst seasons in the 1st 2 years.

I personally think that it’s not warm weather, but rather experience, that ultimately helped Rackers.

by ephram on Jul 11, 2009 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I have to disagree

One of the complaints I have about the Bengals draft is that they draft talented players who don’t fit the system. I think that is the decision the GM has to make on the player to be drafted. I think that is why some guys like Ron Wolf were so successful. I htink that is why Pittsburgh is so successful. They have a team plan and draft guys that can implement it. Some guys the Benga;s drafted were successful elsewhere becuase they are talented and fit that system. Keiwan Ratliff comes to mind, he is a cover 2 corner where the Bengals want a press corner. Until we get a GM some player will be failures in Cincy who will go on to success elsewhere.

by jim0ijk on Jul 11, 2009 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

"Failure" Definition:

(From original post)

“(A) player who was assigned a grade of "Failure" could either be a player who played some significant time but played below standard (think Sean Brewer). A "Failure" could also have been a player who was drafted in the later rounds and perhaps just never got a chance to play (think Greg Brooks, Khalid Abdullah, etc). OR a player deemed a failure could be a guy who just never panned out due to injury or off field trouble (think most of 2005 and 2006 draft picks).

Just keep in mind that "Failure" doesn’t only translate into: "Akili Smith.""

by JohnCockToastin on Jul 10, 2009 11:39 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

my point of view....

I think you need to add a star by henry’s name because from what I here he has been the best receiver on the field this year and I have heard from the past he has always had the best talent. I think this year could be his break out year… if so… i think chad will be gone!

Also… you should only judge the first 3 rounds of any drafts because that is where you get most of your starters that you need that year…any starter you get from the 4th and down would be a steal (except special teams). To call someone that was drafted in the 6th round a failure is correct. To me, if the person that does not make the team because of a low pick means that the team already has good talent. With that said, cincinnati’s failures came more from personal problems and injuries…….

btw…. i enjoyed the post and it brought back some memories when I read some of these names lol… I think this draft class has the potential to be like 2001! We have brought in people with special talent that can come in and play in different packages. This will give them time to develope and not be pressured as much.

AMAS

by AMAS85 on Jul 10, 2009 11:40 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

RE Pollack

I’m with John on this one. Failure or not, for whatever reason, he is a bust. It’s not his fault. It’s no one’s fault. It’s the nature of word.

Look at it this way. He played 16 games in his career. He was a first round pick. If we’re making a discussion about our draft history, you surely can’t consider him to be a success. It’s a tragic thing that happened to him. No doubt.

Blogger at CincyJungle.com -- SB Nation Cincinnati Bengals blog.

by Kirkendall on Jul 10, 2009 12:59 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Correct

To Carsonorbust’s post, yes, a main point is that the team has done a poor job of drafting and could definitely stand to have a better front office, scouting department, GM…whatever. Anything. Something.

The main reason of the exercise though was just to illustrate how players that have been drafted have panned out. A player was either a failure, was average, was good…or he was excellent. No other gray areas.

I’m not, nor was I suggesting that the team shouldn’t have ever picked Pollack or Rackers. You pick players and hope for the best…but they were picks that failed. There really is no arguing that.

Several players appear to be great picks then don’t pan out. Vice versa, some guys look to be irrelevant picks and turn out to be gems.

Amas made a point about only 1st – 3rd draft picks being relevant. He couldn’t be further from the truth. The teams that are great are the ones that get the most use out of their second day picks. (the Tom Brady’s, TJ Houshmandzadeh’s, etc)

by JohnCockToastin on Jul 10, 2009 2:18 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

I think John is missing my point.

I’m not saying I don’t agree with you that Pollack and Rackers didn’t contribute to the Bengals very much (or at all in the case of Rackers). I agree 100% about that. Failures for our team, yes.

But Pollack’s injury is what caused it for the team, it was not his talent, nor was it the fault of the scouts/mike brown/whomoever you want to blame here.

Look, I’m amazed at how well we drafted this year. Amazing.players all around especially past the first round. But you make your best guess for the player who will give you the most value when you draft. You would hope at least. When I draft my Fantasy Football team I go for the best player I can get that’s available. I have to assume each team in the NFL does the same. Get the best player that fits their scheme.

So you draft Pollack for all the right reasons. We needed a linebacker, he was one of the best of his draft class.

Also, I am not saying our team has a great history of scouting. You actually NEED scouts (that’s PLURAL Mike, PLURAL) in order to know as much as you can. Thie only thing I can think of is that the Bengals Staff did their own scouting while coaching the all start team and got to know the players much better than other teams.

by UpStateMike on Jul 10, 2009 2:38 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

I see your point

Like I said, I never suggested that making the decision to draft Pollack was a bad one. ONLY that it turned out to be failed project. It doesn’t matter whether his play caused him to be a “Failure” or whether it was an injury…or even if he just got arrested too many times and was essentially expelled from the league (Thurman). The guy was drafted to be a long time contributor to the team and he wasn’t. End of story.

Was it the Bengals fault? No. Pollack’s? No. But it was failed draft choice. Period.

Every player drafted gets one of 4 grades. There’s only 4 grades…and they are all black and white. There’s no grade that includes the words: “Coulda, Woulda, or Shoulda.”

Because I’m a huge loser and like statistics I have done the same exercise for the Steelers and Ravens. They (like all teams) have the same and similar circumstances happen yet their percentages of drafting “Failure” type players is significantly lower.

That was the point.

by JohnCockToastin on Jul 10, 2009 3:45 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

if you don't mind....

can you post the statistics of the rest of the teams in the division? I am kind of wondering how they faired in your analysis…. it should be pretty accurate since you are using consistant measurements!

AMAS

by AMAS85 on Jul 10, 2009 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I agree with JCT on the “Failures”. It’s not a personal attack on the player or their career. But their time in Cincy (which is what matters to us) didn’t work out for whatever reason. Perhaps Rackers was terrible here b/c at the time PBS was a giant sand box. I think the “Excellent” and “Failure” ratings were right on but as JCT said himself, the line gets thin between the “Average” and “Good” players.

by smoormandiddy on Jul 10, 2009 4:35 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Take an easy, extreme example: Ki-Jana Carter. Was it a bad move to draft him? Absolutely not. Who could argue with picking a guy with his rushing yards, insane average ypc, and the overall talent and skills he showed in every phase of being a RB? The fact that injury wrecked his career before it began, then continued to wreck him over and over every time he tried to come back (usually way too soon) does not change the fact that he was an OUTSTANDING prospect and there can be no faulting of the scouts for suggesting him.

Lots of the ‘failures’ listed have been at least solid starters around the league. Even guys like Lamont Thompson. Is it the scouts fault that the player didn’t produce in Cincinnati? He’s still a starter for the Titans, one of the top notch teams in the NFL, after all these years. Seems to me there’s a huge problem with player development, possibly moreso than there is with player scouting.

By the logic of the poster, John Elway was a ‘failure’ for the Colts scouting department. The fact that he was traded away has nothing to do with the guys scouting college games.

I’m not saying it’s a good thing that the Bengals drafted Odell Thurman, but to say the scouts who recommended him were wrong to do so is simply false. Maybe if he’d have had more solid coaching and team leadership he’d still be a monster MLB like he was in his rookie year.

by indesignkat on Jul 10, 2009 8:49 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Grade Changes

I’m not sure how Rudi Johnson gets an EXCELLENT, when he only started for 4 seasons.
3 of those were solid years with a lot of running yards, decent TD’s but very few receiving yards, and he only 3 times in his career ever hit 1,000 yards.

If Rudi gets an EXCELLENT, then Levi Jones, who was a 7 year quality starter at LT deserves an EXCELLENT also.

Eric Steinbach started about as many years as Rudi did in Cincy and was one of the top guards in football, but only gets a GOOD, while Rudi gets an EXCELLENT?

Caleb Miller, who totaled 111 tackels in 4 years earns an AVERAGE??? Seems pretty generous if you figure that Odell Thurman had 106 career tackles but got a FAILURE.

How does Domata Peko only get an AVERAGE while Pat Sims gets a GOOD? Peko’s 1st year was better than Sims’ 1st year, and Peko has has increasing tackles each year. I don’t get how Sims is rated higher???

Other than these comments….good review….

by ephram on Jul 10, 2009 9:40 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

No Changes

Rudi set the team rushing record twice and went to two pro bowls. That earns an excellent grade. Yes, time spent with a team is a factor…Rudi spent 7 years with the team (not 4). But more importantly, to get a grade of excellent you need Pro Bowl/All Pro status. He had that. Again, I don’t think that can be disputed.

Levi was close to excellent status, in my opinion. But he never got to elite left tackle status (no pro bowl or all-pro bids). Again, that’s black and white.

Same thing with Steinbach, right? Yet, he WAS here for only four years. So that actually solidifies your earlier point about Rudi. If he wa sonly here for four years, how could he be “Excellent?” …not to mention no pro bowl or all-pro nods.

Caleb Miller was average. He played a lot fot this team and contributed quite a bit. He wasn’t a failure…but he wasn’t quite “Good.” He was simply put, “Average.”

Your Peko/Sims arguement was already discussed. The point is valid, but you will see not only in the rankings, but I already pointed out in this very thread that ALL ‘07 and ’08 players grades are still “TBD.” Their grades are only estimates at this point. Most analysts all agree that a player needs AT LEAST 3 seasons of experience before you can judge them. So yes, Peko is average (though you can fairly debate that) and I’m merely predicting Sims could be “good.”

Thurman, yes, was a failure. He played one season. That’s been discussed in all 20 something plus posts – not to mention how I came up with the rating system.

by JohnCockToastin on Jul 11, 2009 9:29 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I agree on all points

LIke ephram said, Caleb MIller was a special teamer and back-up who amassed 25 tackles a year. Seems pretty average to me. Odell Thurman shined for 16 games and was gone. Failure, even though he carryied us to the play-offs. Miller fulfilled his rookie contract and 1 unrestricted year, then it was time to move on to a younger cheaper guy.

I think that Shirley and SImpsom are incompletes, not failures, but the star can be taken off Sherry and Craig.

I might move peko up to good, but will hold off judgement for now.

Hope to see an update to this post in April with the rest of the division included.

by jim0ijk on Jul 11, 2009 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Keep in mind I did this list in March...

hence why Sherry and Craig were stil ? marks

by JohnCockToastin on Jul 11, 2009 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Peko, Caleb, Rudi...

I just have a hard time seeing a LB who gets 25 tackles a year earning an AVERAGE, when D Peko also gets an AVERAGE. I would consider C Miller as BAD or LOW AVERAGE, while I would consider Peko to be ABOVE AVERAGE or GOOD. I would argue Odell did more for us in 1 year than Caleb did in 4.
I think it comes down to only having 4 grades, and some of the guys who are on the line between 2 grades, and they have to go somewhere. And of course, there is always going to be disagreement on where the guy goes.

Regarding Rudi, I think he was very good for a short while, and had 2 great seasons in Cincy. While he may have been on the roster for 7 seasons, he didn’t see the field in 01, barely saw the field in 02, was a split starter w/Dillon in 03, was the full starter in 04, 05, 06, was only our 2nd leading rusher with a dismal 2.9ypc in 07.
So i only really see him as a 4 year starter (3 + 0.5 + 0.5)
I think EXCELLENT would require more longevity than 4 years starting with 2 great years and 1 very good year. I would classify him as VERY GOOD – Yes, i know that’s not one of the options :)

by ephram on Jul 11, 2009 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Odell

I would argue that all the good Odell did in the one year he played wasn’t near as bad as the harm he caused the team in ‘06 and ’07 when the the team’s linebacker corps was the walking wounded. During that time, your boy Caleb Miller was playing middle linebacker at less than 220 lbs. That’s entirely more admirable than the construction work Odell was doing.

Bottom line is that neither Caleb Miller nor Odell Thurman were much of help in the way of getting this team towards it’s goal of making the playoffs and winning a championship. That was the point.

On your other points, you’re just arguing samantics. Rudi played seven years but only started three. C’mon, dude. The guy had the TWO best single season performances in the HISTORY of the organization and is 3rd all-time in rushing yardage only bhind Dillon and James Brooks, yet ahead of Pete Johnson. I don’t want to criticize you, but you’re crazy if you think that Rudi is/was not worthy of “Excellent” in terms of his draft grade.

by JohnCockToastin on Jul 11, 2009 5:44 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think Odell was EXCELLENT for 1 year, and FAILURE for his other years.
Personally i’d take 1 great year out of an Odell helping them to the playoffs for the 1st time in a decade over a few below average years from another linebacker.
(Just like I’d take 1 year of Ickey Woods over 4 years of Eric Ball…and i’d disagree if you rated Eric Ball higher than Ickey Woods)

I understand why Rudi is rated as EXCELLENT, but when I think of excellence, I think of great performance over a long period of time. Guys like James Brooks, Ken Riley, Boomer, Munoz, Willie Anderson, etc… I think that’s why i’m less inclined to call him EXCELLENT. Another year or two of what he did, and i’d totally agree.

by ephram on Jul 11, 2009 10:52 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Debating Just to Debate?

Look, if you want to find exceptions to this rule, they’re there. There’s exceptions to every rule that exists.

Whether a player was “Excellent” for one year and a “Failure” for others is neither here nor there. That’s not what I/we are discussing. Nor is it the point.

As far as Rudi not being as good as Munoz, Boomer, Ken Riley, etc…you are talking about arguably the 4-5 absolute BEST players in the history of the franchise. To this point, can one not be “Excellent” if they aren’t Joe Montana, Walter Payton or Johnny Unitas?

And your analogy/comparison of me potentially rating Eric Ball over Ickey Woods is confusing as well…Neither of those guys would have been rated “Failures” or “Excellent.” They both would have been rated in the average area — with Woods maybe getting a nod at the “Good” side. Maybe.

Ball played 7 years, scored 11 total TD’s in a total of 97 games played. He was also a key clog on special teams — which doesn’t show up anywhere on a stat sheet. Certainly not a poor career. Not exactly a stand out either though.

Woods’ career spanned 4 years, much if it injury plagued, as we all know. He scored 27 TD’s in that span of time though and was a rookie of the year candidate (much like Odell). The difference between him and Odell though is that he came back after one year. (He scored multiple TD’s in 3 more seasons after ‘88). Was he ever the same or did he ever have a huge impact? No. But he had more than 1 season credited to him and had production that existed beyond ’88. Obviously Odell didn’t.

That said, Woods would definitely not be a “Failure.” And certainly couldn’t be “Excellent.” And all could argue whether he was “good” or “Average.”

I’ve been saying all along though that there is a fine line between the Average/Good ranking.

I love debating stuff like this — as you can obviously tell — but the rankings are what they are in my mind. We can argue all the gray areas we want to til we’re blue in the face.

The point is that the Bengals players drafted don’t turn out as successful as their division rivals.

If you knock Rudi back to “Good” (which I obviously disagree on) then you’re only proving my main point even further.

by JohnCockToastin on Jul 12, 2009 10:54 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

You said, “The point is that the Bengals players drafted don’t turn out as successful as their division rivals.”

I doubt you’d find a single Bengals fan who would disagree with that statement. If anything, it’s something of an understatement.

This is the team that boldly entered just about every draft in the 90’s with a full dose of ineptitude, while laughing at the other teams who used things called “scouting reports” and “scouts” – whatever the heck those are :-0

Thankfully, since 2001, they seem to somehow have decided to start to making more reasonable (yet not great) drafts. I think one of the big debatable questions is WHAT CHANGED? Was it Marvin Lewis, was it a change in Mike Brown, was it the addition of John Cooper, was it just dumb luck, was it a league not wanting the team to die off in Cincy secretly changing the Bengals picks on draft day so that Mike Brown couldn’t completely run the team into the ground?

by ephram on Jul 12, 2009 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

the average running back...

the average running back starter averages about 5 years in the league…. so if 3 of those 4 r excellent, in my mind, he does deserve it!

AMAS

by AMAS85 on Jul 11, 2009 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

makes me think about how much potential we have wasted

players like Perry, Weathersby, Pollack, Thurman and Ratliff could of played 15 years for cincy filled with playoffs, division titles and satisfaction. What happened?

"There's no substitute for guts."
-- Paul "Bear" Bryant

by cincyboy on Jul 10, 2009 11:24 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

welll....

perry= injured, weathersby = injured ( got shot and car wreck), thurman = drunk, Ratliff = soft

AMAS

by AMAS85 on Jul 11, 2009 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

why is it always our draft picks who end up being the ones who get hurt...?

especially at RB (KiJana, Kenny Irons, Chris Perry).

Maybe it’s their punishment for making those picks anyway. I think most fans would have taken defense over Irons; Steven Jackson over Chris Perry and Stacy Andrews

by ephram on Jul 11, 2009 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

It's a huge step up

RB is one of the most heavily punished positions. you get nailed from every side, every game, every play. I played a little RB in highschool and even then I landed on bones wrong and pulled muscles. Ive noticed most the RBs in our scrap heap have been those RBs that had tons of speed and never amounted to anything cuz they get blown up by a LB. Which leads me to believe Brat has it right now that hes going to use Benson as the cow bell and Leonard( I think he’ll beat out Kennny for the job) as a change of pace back( According to several Bengals.com articles).

"There's no substitute for guts."
-- Paul "Bear" Bryant

by cincyboy on Jul 14, 2009 9:39 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

verdict in

You can take the star of Urrutia’s grade, too. Whatever he will turn out to be, it will be with the Jets.

by Mr. X on Jul 12, 2009 10:41 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about the Cincinnati Bengals.
Start posting about the Bengals »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Tiger_joe_small
Prospect Watch: Demaryius Thomas
Small
Bengal 2010 Draft
Small
What Might Ruin the NFL Next Year
Palmer_small
Pointless debate of the week
Tiger_joe_small
Prospect Watch: Brandon Graham
Tiger_joe_small
Andre Caldwell vs Rookie WR
Tiger_joe_small
Bengals and Senior Bowl
C1fc33125ca7_small
Bengals Mock Draft
Helmet_small
Ocho Cinco our new kicker? seriously
Helmet_small
Maualuga arrested!!!! Man 2010 starting off bad!!!

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Latest NFL Headlines from SB Nation

Gang Green Nation
Jets Flight Connections 021010
Gang Green Nation
Donte Stallworth: Pursue or No?
Arrowhead Pride
Thomas Dimitroff's Strange Connection To Chiefs GM Scott Pioli

Managers

Atari_small Kirkendall

Twitter_profile_pic_small A Pragmatic Bengals Fan

Authors

Small Vman in Germany

Oso-bengalslogo-animation_small Jay McDonnell

Henry152_small IFChris

Huber090426_440_small jsl413

Infighting_small Mojokong