Breaking: No extension for Eifert

[BengalsRocker]

(09-10-2017, 12:53 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: 12 games of Eifert > 16 games of Gresham. I'd like to believe all people would agree, but Gresh really had some big fans.


Actually, Nati was right. I think some forget that Gresh was rated as a terrible blocker for years by PFF. He turned it around, but that doesn't automatically make him better than Eifert in that category.


I think Lapham was basically echoing the sentiments of many within the team. The coaches didn't seem too happy with Gresh, and it seemed to me that it was more than just supposedly faking injury (or ability to play through). Remember Marv's comment that Gresh had many many many many many many many moods? I'm not exaggerating. Marvin said "many" about 8-10 times. I also didn't see any players whine or even say Gresh would be missed. 

I'd stop short of saying Gresh was a cancer, but I think it's fair to say he may not have been a locker room favorite. 

As for the proper usage thing, I think that was put to bed in AZ. Unless you think Gresh had many choices and decided to sign (twice) with a team that wouldn't utilize his supposedly great receiving skills...which obviously would hurt his value in the long haul. And why would the Bengals use Eifert correctly and not Gresh? Truth is, Eifert just has skills that Gresh did not.

I know it's not the NFL but if you watch his play in college he was more capable of running different routes and types of plays.

I did also state at his peak.  Not the shell of a TE he has become.

Look I really don't give a crap who it is as long the player is successful.

I never said Gresham was better or even close to Eifert in abilities.

That does not mean he was not used to his full potential here.

C'mon man!!