Much of the focus for the Cincinnati Bengals in the upcoming NFL Draft is going to be on their defense. But the offensive side of the ball should not be off the table— I have endorsed my case for Jeremiyah Love on more than one occasion.
Another offensive position that could be in play for the Bengals is tight end. While Mike Gesicki is back this season, and that’s a great place to start, depth at the tight end position should be viewed as a need in addition to viewing it as a luxury.
The Bengals aren’t likely to take a tight end in the first round of the NFL Draft, but they could very well draft a tight end in the mid-to-late rounds.
Sports Illustrated’s Justin Melo makes the case for Notre Dame tight end Eli Raridon being a fit for the Bengals. Here’s Melo’s excerpt on Raridon:
Mike Gesicki is back with the Cincinnati Bengals, but he’s obviously a temporary solution at tight end. Notre Dame’s Eli Raridon took a nice step forward in 2025, producing 32 receptions for 482 yards (15.1 yards per catch). Raridon is a primary pass catcher, but plays with enough in-line blocking technique to suggest he’s capable of expanding his horizons in the NFL.
The part that stands out to me here is referring to Gesicki as a temporary solution at tight end. I don’t view him that way, considering he got a three-year contract extension in March of 2025. But Gesicki did miss a month last season with a pectoral injury. Having depth behind him could be an asset to this Bengals’ offense.
Behind Gesicki, it’s Tanner Hudson, Drew Sample, and Erick All Jr.. All is coming back from a torn ACL, so that’s a concern. That’s where depth can offset those concerns.
While Raridon didn’t have a touchdown last season with the Fighting Irish, he had 32 receptions for 482 yards, averaging 15.1 yards per reception.
Raridon is a former four-star recruit and No. 2-ranked player from Iowa. A native of Des Moines, Iowa, Eli’s father, Scott, played offensive line for Notre Dame in the 2000s.
How would you feel about the Bengals potentially drafting Eli Raridon?
See More:
