+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Cincinnati Bengals / NFL (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Cincinnati-Bengals-NFL)
+--- Forum: JUNGLE NOISE (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-JUNGLE-NOISE)
+--- Thread: Scharping re-signed (/Thread-Scharping-re-signed)
RE: Scharping re-signed - 007BengalsFan - 03-20-2023
(03-20-2023, 08:55 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: There's definately some risk to the Scott signing as we'll play teams that pass a lot. We'll see how it goes. It could work out.
I like his speed and run stuffing. But he's not some 24 year old kid. He's like 28 and was largely a special teamer.
The funny part is we have some fans that were claiming Vonn Bell was too old to be re-signed because Bell was 28. But signing Scott is somehow OK? Some people...
As far as Scharping and the O-line, I still dont like the Scharping or Ford signing. We all agreed the depth on the Oline was horrible last year and needed big improvement. What did we do? We bring back the same talent we said needed to be improved and signed someone that is statistically worse than the guys we needed to replace as depth. We didnt improve our depth, we got worse.
RE: Scharping re-signed - SHRacerX - 03-21-2023
(03-20-2023, 12:17 PM)TheFan Wrote: My only issue is how God awful he was against the Chiefs. He was a very significant part of the problem with the Oline.
To be fair, Chris Jones pretty much destroyed everyone, on every team, that he went up against.
RE: Scharping re-signed - Sled21 - 03-21-2023
(03-20-2023, 08:49 PM)jj22 Wrote: Right, so why they demanding a dose of kool-aid from me? That’s the issue. I’m just saying what everyone else saying. I trust Lou with the Scott signing too when it’s all said and done.
Because it's not about this signing specifically, you complain about EVERYTHING this team does. I'm not sure why you even follow them.
RE: Scharping re-signed - TheLeonardLeap - 03-21-2023
(03-20-2023, 11:36 PM)007BengalsFan Wrote: The funny part is we have some fans that were claiming Vonn Bell was too old to be re-signed because Bell was 28. But signing Scott is somehow OK? Some people...
That's what blew my mind. People were talking about Scott like he's young and still developing, and it wasn't until days later I found out that he's like only 156 days younger than Bell. Spent all that time prior thinking he was much younger than he is.
RE: Scharping re-signed - Sled21 - 03-21-2023
(03-21-2023, 08:14 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: That's what blew my mind. People were talking about Scott like he's young and still developing, and it wasn't until days later I found out that he's like only 156 days younger than Bell. Spent all that time prior thinking he was much younger than he is.
The flip side of that coin is people were complaining our season would be sunk if we went into it with young players like Hill and CTB at safety, and stated we needed to have a vet back there (even though neither of our guys are rookies) Now, 26 is too old. People need to pick a side and stick with it...... do we want young players, or seasoned vets???
RE: Scharping re-signed - jj22 - 03-21-2023
(03-21-2023, 08:14 AM)Sled21 Wrote: Because it's not about this signing specifically, you complain about EVERYTHING this team does. I'm not sure why you even follow them.
Same reason you follow me and complain about every post I make. Just can't help it.
RE: Scharping re-signed - jj22 - 03-21-2023
(03-21-2023, 08:18 AM)Sled21 Wrote: Now, 26 is too old.
No, but at 28 you are supposed to be at your peak (ceiling), your "prime" as they say. Not just now ascending. Scott rather yall like to hear it or not, is the player he is at this point. Your not going to get some growth major growth that you'd see from a 24 year old coming into his prime.
RE: Scharping re-signed - Housh - 03-21-2023
(03-20-2023, 12:15 PM)Isaac Curtis: The Real #85 Wrote: Well, status quo at OG3. Had hoped for an upgrade. He played OK until the Chief's game.
Still, at least we have a semi-competent reserve guard on the roster now. We did not have one yesterday.
Shouldn’t have been starting so we’ve gotta cut some slack there
He was on the bench for a reason
Good depth
RE: Scharping re-signed - higgy100 - 03-21-2023
(03-21-2023, 09:18 AM)Housh Wrote: Shouldn’t have been starting so we’ve gotta cut some slack there
He was on the bench for a reason
Good depth
Yep. There's not a team out there that can lose 3 starting OL going into January and consistently function even close to it's peak.Take away the absolute best DT in the NFL and just substitute him with a really good DT and it's Cinci. back in the SB.
RE: Scharping re-signed - jj22 - 03-21-2023
I still think they could have brought someone in to at least act like they had a shot to unseat Volson. Not that I want Volson unseated, but I don't necessarily feel like he should feel the starting position is his. The hope is keeping his feet to the fire would help speed up the development.
I don't think we'll go guard early in the draft so it doesn't look like he'll face any competition which.. I think could have helped his development a ton.
There are experienced Guards out there still who could bring what Scharping did or better. We don't know, but if we are looking for depth then how can we ever know if we can luck up on someone better if we don't expand the net.
RE: Scharping re-signed - ochocincos - 03-21-2023
Signing Scott is better than signing Ford or Scharping.
However, one of those guys is meant to be a starter while the other two are just depth.
With Ford signing for the vet minimum and Scharping likely the same or maybe just a bit above, either is potentially at risk of getting knocked off the roster by a draft pick.
I wish someone better was chosen for depth, but until they figure out what's gonna happen with Jonah, I can understand keeping the costs low for the depth signings.
RE: Scharping re-signed - Goalpost - 03-21-2023
(03-21-2023, 09:31 AM)jj22 Wrote: I still think they could have brought someone in to at least act like they had a shot to unseat Volson. Not that I want Volson unseated, but I don't necessarily feel like he should feel the starting position is his. The hope is keeping his feet to the fire would help speed up the development.
I don't think we'll go guard early in the draft so it doesn't look like he'll face any competition which.. I think could have helped his development a ton.
There are experienced Guards out there still who could bring what Scharping did or better. We don't know, but if we are looking for depth then how can we ever know if we can luck up on someone better if we don't expand the net.
I agree that Volson is upgradeable. I've even thought of just drafting O'Cyrus Torrence to put next to Brown. Volson played a year at RT in college and he could compete there also my guess. Right now we got some real question marks with Jonah..trade demand, Collins..injured, Carman..where he best plays...and Volson..a mid level prospect hoping to improve. Signing Scharping does nothing for me. RT could work out with the other 4...three if we trade Jonah...and the others provide better depth, along with Ford, than Scharping imo. And we'd end up with Torrence next to Brown.
RE: Scharping re-signed - Mike M (the other one) - 03-21-2023
(03-20-2023, 04:02 PM)007BengalsFan Wrote: I don't expect any of these guys to be Sean Connery. However, I would expect better alternatives than Lazeby. How about someone like Roger Moore. Although maybe he is not #1. He is not a bad alternative.
There's a whole lot more Roger Moore's than Sean Connery's.
RM's are still starting material for alot of teams, so that won't work.
Just face it, Bengals are signing back up depth right now based on need and money left t spend. I'm pretty sure if something better comes along they will try to address it more, tiil then, coach up those Lazeby's.
RE: Scharping re-signed - Joelist - 03-21-2023
(03-21-2023, 09:45 AM)ochocincos Wrote: Signing Scott is better than signing Ford or Scharping.
However, one of those guys is meant to be a starter while the other two are just depth.
With Ford signing for the vet minimum and Scharping likely the same or maybe just a bit above, either is potentially at risk of getting knocked off the roster by a draft pick.
I wish someone better was chosen for depth, but until they figure out what's gonna happen with Jonah, I can understand keeping the costs low for the depth signings.
Ford and Scharping are both depth, and I do not expect both to make the team. Ideally Adeniji also does not make the team.
RE: Scharping re-signed - THE PISTONS - 03-21-2023
(03-21-2023, 08:18 AM)Sled21 Wrote: The flip side of that coin is people were complaining our season would be sunk if we went into it with young players like Hill and CTB at safety, and stated we needed to have a vet back there (even though neither of our guys are rookies) Now, 26 is too old. People need to pick a side and stick with it...... do we want young players, or seasoned vets???
He's a vet in that he's been in the NFL for a while. But, he was mostly a special teamer until last year. And he's 28 in May.
So he's kind of a veteran in the sense that Mike Thomas is.
Look, I think he'll add speed to the defense and be good against the run. He struggles against the pass though.
RE: Scharping re-signed - THE PISTONS - 03-21-2023
(03-21-2023, 02:57 PM)Joelist Wrote: Ford and Scharping are both depth, and I do not expect both to make the team. Ideally Adeniji also does not make the team.
Then, they're bad signings. IF they were signed thinking they wouldn't make the team, it's a waste of resources.
RE: Scharping re-signed - THE PISTONS - 03-21-2023
(03-20-2023, 10:56 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: Typically. I look at what Lou did with a guy like Eli Apple though. Made him a pretty decent starter for the first time in his career during his age 26 season.
Wasn't Lou with him with the Giants?
Maybe our Safeties made Apple look better than he is here?
RE: Scharping re-signed - ochocincos - 03-21-2023
(03-21-2023, 03:13 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Then, they're bad signings. IF they were signed thinking they wouldn't make the team, it's a waste of resources.
Personally, I'd take Ford over both Adeniji, Smith, Prince.
I realize Ford did allow 8 sacks and 35 pressures his rookie season, but that's just a bit worse than Volson's rookie year, and people seem to be ok with Volson.
And Ford has only allowed 5 sacks on the 818 pass blocking snaps after his rookie year (2020-2022), which is an improvement.
And we may also find that Ford, like Carman, is better suited outside than inside.
I don't think Ford will solidify the RT spot, but as a depth guy, he may be an improvement over what they got.
RE: Scharping re-signed - Sled21 - 03-21-2023
(03-21-2023, 09:11 AM)jj22 Wrote: Same reason you follow me and complain about every post I make. Just can't help it.
Dude, get over yourself, no one is following you around. We are on the same message board reading the same threads.
RE: Scharping re-signed - Isaac Curtis: The Real #85 - 03-21-2023
(03-20-2023, 10:49 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Yep. I keep hearing pf the upside to Scott. He's 28 in May. Usually upside is said for younger guys.
I think it's as simple as this: They didn't want to spend a lot on a safety and Scott was in their price range.
Hill is more athletic that Bates.
Scott and Anderson are WAY more athletic than Bell.
We got faster, younger, and cheaper at Safety. The ceiling is higher but the floor is lower. We lost a lot of experience. Scott started the Rams SB run in the POs (picking off Brady and clobbering Samuel in the POs) and last year. Hill has never started. That is 1 year of starting exp. There will likely be some mistakes early.
But Bates was only good every other regular season. He was fantastic in the SB run POs but only "meh" in the POs last year. And let's not forget Bell's stupid penalty in the SB that offset a holding penalty on the final drive for LA. It's not like Bates & Bell were flawless. They were good, not great.
The S class is pretty weak. TE, DE, CB, and RB are far deeper. I could see two at TE or RB. DT, OT, IOL, and WR also possible. P as well. I'd put safety, LB, and QB at the bottom of the list. Not impossible, but unlikely.