Some Post Draft Thoughts

Given the Bengals needs and the players available when they picked, I think most would say they came away with good players.  But this year, there was a little wrinkle, the Bengals turned down a trade offer from Atlanta.

I don't know exactly the deal the Bengals would have gotten, however, it sounds like for trading from the 4th pick to the 27th pick in the first round the Bengals would have gotten something like:

1. A 1st round pick next year
2. A 2nd round pick this year
3. A 4th round pick this year
4. A 4th round pick next year

Not a bad haul but not necessarily a "Godfather" offer that you can't refuse.  The argument most make for refusing the trade is simply that picking 4th overall gives you a shot at high caliber players you just can't find at 27th overall, and the Bengals need to take that shot.  I am fine with someone making that argument, it sounds plausible enough, but I haven't seen any real data backing it up.

In fact, a little over a year ago, we started compiling our own data at WDR (with the help of a reader) on the Bengals draft history.  Here's the updated spreadsheet for those interested:   Download Bengals Draft Pick Database

We've drafted in the first round 23 times since 1991 (including 2011), 13 picks in the top 10 and 10 picks below the top 10.  Based on my subjective ranking of these players from 1-5 (1 being the highest ranking), the Bengals actually drafted better the in the lower half of round 1 (average of 2.5) versus drafting in the top 10 (average of 2.92).  If you change it to the top 5 instead, the results are almost the same (the Bengals still draft better when they are lower in the first round).

Perhaps it is more valuable to be in the top 5 as people say, but I don't see that with the Bengals.

What about the non-first round picks?  Based on my analysis, the Bengals pretty much draft equally as well in the first and second rounds.  So that extra 2nd rounder would have been just as valuable as a first rounder to them.  After the first and second rounds, the Bengals skill in drafting seems to drop a notch - well, more likely the talent level really does fall off after two rounds.  Whether they are drafting in the third or fourth rounds doesn't seem to make much difference.  And they have traditionally found some decent guys in those rounds, so the two fourth round picks aren't without value.

To sum it all up, while I don't have a strong opinion on the trade, I think the Bengals should have taken it because it gave them 2 extra picks in rounds where they draft pretty much as well as they do when they pick in the top 5 or top 10.

One explanation, of course, for the relatively meaningless difference you see when the Bengals draft in the top 10 under Mike Brown, is that most of those top 10 picks came from the "pre-Marvin" era.  Quite simply, prior to 2003, the Bengals drafts were an abomination.  Perhaps with the small marginal difference in professionalism Marvin brings to the Bengals (and dare I say it, perhaps Mike Brown & Co actually learning a thing or two), drafting in the top 10 is more valuable now (evidence so far inconclusive:  Andre Smith, Keith Rivers, and Carson Palmer...two misses and one big hit).

One thing this draft did do that is of some concern is continue the theme of drafting from the same program (two guys from Georgia - that's 6 Georgia guys in total during Marvin tenure).  Again, this does not necessarily matter, but it does reinforce the idea that our scouting department is limited in the number of schools it evaluates for talent.  

The limits of our small scouting department become doubly frightening when you see them also revisit another scary trend from past years:  picking from small time football schools.  If they can't cover all the big time programs, then they have no business trying to find overlooked talent in lesser programs.  This year, they used high picks on TCU and Nevada as well as picked players from Southern Illinois, Baylor and Stanford.  Now, that is nowhere near as bad as their draft in 1992 (see my previous breakdown for more info) and a school like TCU clearly has jumped into the big time now (and Nevada was really nasty last year too) but when the Bengals venture outside the giant football factories things get dicey.

We won't be able to evaluate how well the Bengals did to fill needs until we find out what happens with Chad and Carson.  Until we do, I probably won't have much of an opinion on the draft.  I will say, looking back at 2010, the Bengals did really well.  Hopefully they hit gold again.  But if we are starting over at QB, don't get your hopes up for any winning soon.

Comments

[Mockenrue]

James Dearth, to answer your mystery of "How did you play 146 games and never start?" was a long snapper.

[Rich]

I'm only half kidding when I say that they really don't want the pressure or expense of having to sign all of those players. They seem to prefer the bargain bin of humanity. Why draft Johnathan Joseph's replacement when you can sign Pacman Jones?

I'll bet they look at draft picks as liabilities.

Or maybe they think they will yet get something for Carson.

[Bob F.]

Every year every team thinks they had a great draft. Lets be honest. We won't know for five years if this was a good draft or not. Now would be the time to reflect on the 2006 or 2007 drafts to see how those turned out.

[Dixonator]

You said: "but when the Bengals venture outside the giant football factories things get dicey." I guess that's true in a literal sense. But the fact is when the bengals simply draft anyone... things get dicey... giant football factory, offbeat lower-rung school, it doesn't matter.
Your most humble and loyal servant,
Dixonator
P.S. I long for the relief death will bring!

[Sleeping With Bieniemy]

Truth Dixonator - they are just bad at drafting in general. But on a relative basis, when they go to the small schools, they might as well just hold open tryouts among all cincinnatians.

[Rk]

I would try out just so if I got close enough to Mike I could spit on him. And I consiter myself a rational person but he brings the worst out in me.

[Major Payne]

Rich, if that were true, I'd think Mike would want to trade down and pick lower because those guys are cheaper. But I believe he likes picking high. That gives him a better shot at the offensive players he gets all excited over.

I was surprised that you didn't mention the squabble among the front office over whether to draft "Little Red" that the coaches wanted or "Big and Stupid" (aka Ryan Mallett) that Mike Brown wanted. Leave it to MFB to get all twitterpated with a big-talent, damaged-goods player like Mallett. The fact that the coaches won that argument is one of the few threads keeping me from completely disavowing this team, which I would have done had they taken Mallett in the 2nd.

[PaulBrownsBastardSon]

Every year every team thinks it had a great draft.
For the Bengals that includes great picks like the immortal Lamar Rogers, Marco Battaglia, Lamont Thompson, Keiwan Ratliff, and Kenny Irons. In other words, truck loads of nobodies and never weres.

[Wyatt]

I've already espoused my line of thinking when it comes to the trade, but I'll reiterate it here, at the risk of becoming wch-like: Essentially, giving the Bengals a slew of extra draft picks is akin to playing Russian roulette with five bullets in the revolver instead of 1.

[Mike F'n Brown (AKA SATAN)]

we drafted richie cunningham as our qb?
great times ahead!

[Sweetness D]

"We've drafted in the first round 23 times since 1991 (including 2011), 13 picks in the top 10 and 10 picks below the top 10..."

These are the stats that need to be rebutted (not sure if thats a word) to Mike Brown when he spews his "50% of our draftees are still on our roster" crap...or whatever that worthless stat was he used to justify their previous drafts.

Yes, you may still have a large number of draftees on your roster and look where that has landed you. Consistently in the top half of the first fucking round!

[bungalfamily]

Wyatt, your Russian roullette analogy is a terrible one. The Bengals need only one chance to screw up a pick, so more picks does not increase their chances. If anything it's more like gambling roullette, the more picks they have hte more chances they have to make a good pick. The more chances they have to not screw it up. Their track record, and I think we can all agree here, shows their default is to make a bad pick.

I think the Patriots have been using the strategy of increasing the number of picks to increase the probability getting a good player quite successfully. In one way it's akin to SEC teams signing more players than they have scholarships for and cutting the ones that don't pan out. In another way it's like trading down instead of taking Jermaine Gresham, and taking Gronkowski AND Hernandez.

Draft picks are a crap shoot, and the more chances you have the more likely you are to score.

Furthermore, I think this article illustrates quite well how the Mike Brown Bengals have shot themselves in the foot more often with top 10/top 5 picks than with lower half of the first round picks. If anything, the proverbial Russian roulette bullets ARE the top 10 picks, and keeping those despite having a chance to trade down and take more picks.

Also, you are not close to becoming wch-like, sorry my ramblings went on like a wch post.

[bungalfamily]

My second sentence above does quite say what I wanted to say--it's more confusing than helpful, and I regret wording it in that way. Probably should be ignored.

Sorry to jump in again, but on this topic I really like this SI article about the Moskowitz book, Scorecasting. Take a look at this excerpt:

"Even looking position by position, the top draft picks are overvalued. How much better is the first quarterback or receiver taken than the second or third quarterback or receiver? Not much. The researchers concluded the following:

• The probability that the first player drafted at a given position is better than the second player drafted at the same position is only 53%, that is, slightly better than a tie.

• The probability that the first player drafted at a position is better than the third player drafted at the same position is only 55%.

• The probability that the first player drafted at a position is better than the fourth player drafted at the same position is only 56%."

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/the_bonus/01/13/sportscasting.excerpt/index.html#ixzz1LPaOMDl1

Now, think AJ Green>Julio Jones>Jon Baldwin. (I admit, out of the group I want Green the most, and also think Jones will be most sucessful early on given his situation, but...) You are taking AJ Green over Baldwin (and at least 4 picks, including a first and second rounder) with only a 55% chance that Green will be better than Baldwin. The amazing thing to me, is that Mike Brown passes on the opportunity to add a WR for way cheaper and still build the team up. To me, it seems like he really likes these high picks because of the increase in fan opinion, merchandise sales boost, false sense of hope, etc.

The article talks about other examples, like Eli Manning vs. Phillip River + Shawne Merriman. To me, when you bring up Russian roulette (which I emarassingly mispelled above), it makes me think statistics. And the statistics, in the case of the Bengals and the history of the NFL draft, show that trading down gives you a better probability of having a better draft haul.

[Hofbraunow]

Holy crap I'm off for the next two days,
there's a cold 12-pack of Bürger in the fridge,
it's the Bengals' off-season (the other off-season),
and the draft is overwith (without too much casualty)

What could go wrong (besides running out of beer)?

No news is good news, and it's time to celebrate the good news...

WHO-DEY, and

¡VIVA WDR!

[Opie_T,_Director]

Richie Cunningham says:

VIVA WDR, BUCKO!

[fashion jewelry]

Thanks for sharing this nice post.I will keep your article in my idea.

[PaulBrownsBastardSon]

great now we've got spammers. I will keep your spam in my idea.

[Hofbraunow]

I guess that's just how some languages translate
into English, lol

They probably make even less sense
in their own language.

But don't let me change your idea, lol

[JM]

MFB's Dalton draft day analysis.

He's got red hair? The people here like Red's don't they? Those Red's were good last year, went to the playoffs. Pumpkin, Marvin unit, I'm keen on some red, I think we'll do all right there.

Draft us a red.

[Carson Palmer's craw]

As long as Mike Brown is making the picks (or standing over Marvin's shoulder)and signing the players, it doesn't make much difference if they trade to stockpile picks or not. It's not like they have shown that they are good at using picks they stockpile.

[PaulBrownsBastardSon]

@Carson Palmer's craw is correct.
You could let the Bengals draft the first 28 picks every year and they'd still suck.

[JoanCrawful]

[taken from various, throughly reliable sources, because you know, everything on the web is reliable and true...like the Bengals' offensive line]

Etymology [word history and origin]

O.E. *cræg "throat," a Germanic word (cf. M.Du. craghe "neck, throat," O.H.G. chrago, Ger. Kragen "collar, neck"), of obscure origin
(or is that 'of craw-like origin'? ).

"stick in [one's] craw"

1. (old-fashioned) if a situation or someone's behaviour sticks in your craw, it annoys you, usually because you think it is wrong.

ex: I do lots of jobs in the house but my brother says I'm lazy, and that really sticks in my craw.

-or-

ex: I take lots of snaps on the field [while wearing orange-and-black] but my offensive line says 'come on over',
and that really sticks in my craw.

2. (Australian) if someone 'sticks in your craw', they annoy you.

ex. She sticks in my craw every time I have to deal with her. [Pumpkin, or Mike Brown's cleaning lady?]

See also: craw, stick

---------------------------------------------------

'stick in your craw': to be unacceptable and therefore annoying to you.

She went to prison even though she was innocent - that case has stuck in my craw ever since.

Etymology: like something you cannot swallow, based on the literal meaning of craw (the throat of a bird)

[does this mean Carson is heading for: the Cardinals, Seahawks, Falcons, or Eagles?]

[JoanCrawful]

or, almost forgot,

ex: ex: I take lots of snaps on the field [while wearing orange-and-black] but my offensive line says 'come on over',
and then the privliged heir-apparent owner of the NFL team that I play for, wonders what's in my craw,
the same way he wonders what's in his Woolrich boxers.

[JM]

I think the happiest guy in the draft is Julio Jones. The Bengals "draft guy with a cell phone" liked AJ better.

Anybody want to bet that Julio will be a pro bowler in less than 3 years and that in the same time Bengals.com will be explaining the slow transition to the NFL for receivers?

Remember, Simpson had great hands too. The Falcons hire a new coach then take a QB #1 overall and they're super bowl contenders in 3-4 years. Like we should have been.

[air jordan 6]

Both colleagues were very shaken up and the police were called. Later we found out the knife was dumped just up the road, but not before the crusty had gone into one of the afore-mentioned pubs and attempted to rob the place with it. And to show how much our company cares, neither were sent home after the incident.

Sorry for the length of post but like I said, I was just reminded of these.

[bungalfamily]

@JM

Julio Jones dodged the bullet for sure.

[JM]

Got to be the happiest guy in the draft.

It's concerning though that a well run franchise like the Falcons thought more of Jones than Green. They weren't worried about the Bengals taking Green. They wanted Jones. They probably could have sweetened the deal to jump ahead of Cincy if they thought they would take Jones rather than Green. I don't know why the Bengals thought more of one than the other. Does anybody know?

[Wyatt]

Did anybody see in the latest Monday Morning Quarterback where Peter King is talking about how Eric Winston, the Texans' starting right tackle and player rep, is policing his weight and staying in shape in spite of the lockout (with the general thought being that offensive and defensive linemen wouldn't be able to do so). That got me to thinking - how big is Andre Smith going to be when he finally reports? I say we get a pool going - my money is on 410 pounds.

[cheap jerseys]

The amazing thing to me, is that Mike Brown passes on the opportunity to add a WR for way cheaper and still build the team up.

[Cheap Coach Purses]

Did anybody see in the latest Monday Morning Quarterback where Peter King is talking about how Eric Winston, the Texans' starting right tackle and player rep, is policing his weight and staying in shape in spite of the lockout (with the general thought being that offensive and defensive linemen wouldn't be able to do so). That got me to thinking - how big is Andre Smith going to be when he finally reports? I say we get a pool going - my money is on 410 pounds.

[Cheap Monster Energy Hats]

Many thanks for the article. I will have a link back to this information from our fresh blog. Thanks again.
http://www.cheaphatcaps.com
http://www.cheaphatcaps.com
http://www.cheaphatcaps.com

[air max shoes]

They weren't worried about the Bengals taking Green. They wanted Jones. They probably could have sweetened the deal to jump ahead of Cincy if they thought they would take Jones rather than Green. I don't know why the Bengals thought more of one than the other. Does anybody know?

[mbt sale]

Outdoor dining is such an obvious plus for downtown.

[Ugg Outlet]

If you click on the MP3 link below, you'll hear a backing track of "The Thrill is Gone" in Bm with some simple Pentatonic solo riffs. I've also experimented a bit with some of the delay capabilities, though honestly I don't think I did the effects justice. Still you can get a sense of the quality of the backing tracks and the built-in tones.