There's been a great deal of curiosity when it comes to the Cincinnati Bengals pre-draft work. Confusing interest in players has led to the inclusion of "due-diligence" into our accepted lexicon -- which often feels more like complete bulls***. Why spend the money and waste time with a limited number of coaches/scouts just to have a scouting report on a player who the team has no intention in drafting?
This was my thought when Ian Rapoport reported that the Cincinnati Bengals worked out UCLA quarterback Brett Hundley. When the report came out, my first reaction to this story was: "Due-diligence or a need?"
During a feature that highlighted Hundley, USA Today writer Jarrett Bell wrote the Bengals were one of eight teams to either workout Hundley, or host him for a visit.
"He was not easy to grade," an AFC scout tells USA TODAY Sports, speaking on the condition of anonymity. The scout, who sees Hundley as the third-ranked quarterback in the draft, did not want to be identified because of the sensitive nature of draft evaluations.
"He's got the things you need," the scout says. "He can make the throws that really impress you and put it in tight spots. He's accurate, smart, athletic. I'm a big fan of his. But one game he looks like a first-round talent, and the next game you wonder if it's the same guy."
We can't help but laugh at his use of, "Sensitive nature of draft evaluations".
If Cincinnati's interest in Hundley is "due-diligence", then where is their due-diligence with Oregon State's Sean Mannion, East Carolina's Shane Carden or Southeastern Louisiana's Bryan Bennett?
The Bengals sent quarterbacks coach Ken Zampese to Colorado State for Garrett Grayson's pro day -- he had an individual pro day due to an injury during Colorado State's Pro Day.
My point: I'm not viewing Cincinnati's pre-draft actions as due-diligence with quarterbacks. There is a legitimate interest, most likely to fill the roster with a rookie... especially if backup AJ McCarron beats out veteran Josh Johnson as the team's backup quarterback.