+- 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: John Ross WR4 (/Thread-John-Ross-WR4)
John Ross WR4 - OrangeLacroix - 08-28-2017
Has a top 10 WR pick ever broke preseason as the WR4 on a respective team?
It's truly hilarious to see happen.
With all of the needs on the team, they took a DHB / Ted Ginn clone, who does not posses the physical traits to be a every down WR in the league.
RE: John Ross WR4 - Trademark - 08-28-2017
Lol I would not go that far......they were being vanilla in using him, you honestly think they are going to run their actual plays in a meaningless game?
RE: John Ross WR4 - Synric - 08-28-2017
Lol wasn't this the first week he was cleared for contact? That means this was his very first week of walkthrus and running the plays. And your upset he wasn't the first WR on the fields because of where he was drafted....
Please continue.
RE: John Ross WR4 - Gohards - 08-28-2017
wasn't in love with the pick in the first place. Did not think we needed a WR.
However, he is to me, a slot guy at best, that's what it looks like. and we drafted a slot guy last year, in tyler boyd.
The other thing about John Ross is he has had bad injuries to both of his knees, im pretty sure. Add that in with him being 5'11 amd 180 pounds, I'm just not sold he will be solid in the NFL.
But we will see....
RE: John Ross WR4 - OrangeLacroix - 08-28-2017
(08-28-2017, 11:21 AM)Gohards Wrote: wasn't in love with the pick in the first place. Did not think we needed a WR.
However, he is to me, a slot guy at best, that's what it looks like. and we drafted a slot guy last year, in tyler boyd.
The other thing about John Ross is he has had bad injuries to both of his knees, im pretty sure. Add that in with him being 5'11 amd 180 pounds, I'm just not sold he will be solid in the NFL.
But we will see....
He is a nice to have player - Which they also invested in similarly with Boyd - And they have Core
So, like. The team needs D, O line, S, etc.
taking a 'toy' on a team devoid of talent in key areas is hilarious
Same with taking Elliot over Asiata, Roderick JOhsnon and Elumunore
RE: John Ross WR4 - CageTheBengal - 08-28-2017
Come on guys we've been here before.
:troll:
RE: John Ross WR4 - McC - 08-28-2017
(08-28-2017, 11:18 AM)Trademark Wrote: Lol I would not go that far......they were being vanilla in using him, you honestly think they are going to run their actual plays in a meaningless game?
Exactly. I'm sure they will have a whole package of plays for him and they certainly were not about to show anyone anything in the preseason.
Hell, that little jet sweep picked up nine yards in the blink of an eye.
RE: John Ross WR4 - ochocincos - 08-28-2017
(08-28-2017, 11:07 AM)OrangeLacroix Wrote: Has a top 10 WR pick ever broke preseason as the WR4 on a respective team?
It's truly hilarious to see happen.
With all of the needs on the team, they took a DHB / Ted Ginn clone, who does not posses the physical traits to be a every down WR in the league.
DHB was much more potential than production, which is why he never amounted to anything. He never had 1000 yards or double-digit TDs any season in college.
Ted Ginn same thing to an extent (never a WR1). They were both just straight-line fast and weren't justified as Top 10 picks.
Ross, on the other hand, is fast both laterally and vertically, plus he has proven to be a TD machine (18 TDs last year) and dominant all over the field (1252 yards last year - 1150 rec and 102 rush).
Your statement is simply due to ignorance and/or trying to troll.
:troll:
RE: John Ross WR4 - The Real Deal - 08-28-2017
Stop falling for this people. Fool me once shame on him, fool me 183 (his current post count) times, shame on me.
RE: John Ross WR4 - sandwedge - 08-28-2017
(08-28-2017, 11:47 AM)The Real Deal Wrote: Stop falling for this people. Fool me once shame on him, fool me 183 (his current post count) times, shame on me.
Agree!
RE: John Ross WR4 - Hammerstripes - 08-28-2017
I know i shouldn't respond - but I will.
1. Ross was injured. Not sure you rush a guy back for preseason games and risk losing him for the year.
2. Anyone who doesn't think WR was a need is in denial. Our offense stunk without AJ and was OK with him.
3. Is anyone really surprised that he isn't the #2? It's the Bengals.
4. I'll pass judgement until the end of the year to see where he is at.
RE: John Ross WR4 - sandwedge - 08-28-2017
(08-28-2017, 11:36 AM)McC Wrote: Exactly. I'm sure they will have a whole package of plays for him and they certainly were not about to show anyone anything in the preseason.
Hell, that little jet sweep picked up nine yards in the blink of an eye.
You could see the speed he has on the small sampling too!!
RE: John Ross WR4 - Luvnit2 - 08-28-2017
(08-28-2017, 11:07 AM)OrangeLacroix Wrote: Has a top 10 WR pick ever broke preseason as the WR4 on a respective team?
It's truly hilarious to see happen.
With all of the needs on the team, they took a DHB / Ted Ginn clone, who does not posses the physical traits to be a every down WR in the league.
There is this guy in SD named Williams drafted in round 1 that has not seen the field yet. He was pick #7 and went before Ross.
RE: John Ross WR4 - THE PISTONS - 08-28-2017
What I like about the Ross pick is Green is 29. He's got maybe 3 years of being an elite WR left. Ross should be just coming into his prime then and can replace that production.
What I don't like is its building for the future. A guy like Foster helps us win more right now. But, Foster had some red flags...
RE: John Ross WR4 - OrangeLacroix - 08-28-2017
(08-28-2017, 02:50 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: What I like about the Ross pick is Green is 29. He's got maybe 3 years of being an elite WR left. Ross should be just coming into his prime then and can replace that production.
What I don't like is its building for the future. A guy like Foster helps us win more right now. But, Foster had some red flags...
John Ross does not have the physical attributes to be a #1 WR like AJ Green.
RE: John Ross WR4 - sandwedge - 08-28-2017
(08-28-2017, 04:25 PM)OrangeLacroix Wrote: John Ross does not have the physical attributes to be a #1 WR like AJ Green.
What are those physical attributes?
RE: John Ross WR4 - Bengalbug - 08-28-2017
(08-28-2017, 04:32 PM)sandwedge Wrote: What are those physical attributes?
Height and weight.
But Antonio Brown and Steve smith overcame that.
RE: John Ross WR4 - sandwedge - 08-28-2017
(08-28-2017, 04:35 PM)Bengalbug Wrote: Height and weight.
But Antonio Brown and Steve smith overcame that.
Aww man, you blew my angle! Lol
RE: John Ross WR4 - CJD - 08-28-2017
I can't think of a player who would have been a significantly better pick.
At the time, I may have said Johnathan Allen or Derek Barnett, but then we got Willis and Lawson in the 3rd and 4th round, making me kind of happy we didn't get a pass rusher in the first round.
Beyond that, Hooker could have been a selection, but we have two safeties signed long term and two relatively good prospects behind them, he would have sat for at least a year, if not 2.
Didn't need CB, No RB worth taking that high, didn't need QB.
There were no offensive linemen worth that pick. If we were to take Robinson, he'd also not be starting and in addition we'd have reached pretty far down the chart.
I suppose you could make an argument for Haason Reddick or Reuben Foster but I believe we have a good LB core, plus Lewis doesn't really value them that much anyway in the first round.
The only player I could see possibly being a better choice would be O.J. Howard, but that selection would have basically put a fork in Tyler Eifert's Bengal career, which isn't necessarily a good thing and then, on top of that, he STILL would probably be 3rd string TE this year anyway.
And I don't know where this thought that we don't need a WR came from. Yes, LaFell is a decent player, but he's not long term starter material. And Boyd is good, but more of a slot guy that relies on route running. Malone is an unproven rookie. Relying on Erickson or Core is silly and the rest of the WR core is practice squad fodder and below.
Why did we not need a WR? Did people forget Dalton threw a career low TD passes last year? We needed an offensive playmaker!
Ross provides something our offense lacks: a speedy threat that can take it to the house from any point on the field and also takes pressure off of Green. That, in my opinion, is the biggest impact we could've gotten at 9 with the options at hand, regardless of whether or not Ross is considered the #4 WR or the #2 WR.
It's odd that people are still complaining about them, even with the full knowledge of what happened in the draft after his selection.
RE: John Ross WR4 - OrangeLacroix - 08-28-2017
(08-28-2017, 04:42 PM)sandwedge Wrote: Aww man, you blew my angle! Lol
Yeah, making the far exceptions the rule. Steve Smith and Brown are the far, far, far outliers - But let's use them.
It's like when Tyler Mahle gets compared to Greg Maddux. Both have good control!