Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise

Good bits. Honestly Joe is the person I'd be least worried about. Dude's got too much dog in him and too much ability. Also a lot of talent around him. If things go south this year it's not going to be on Joe. 

Burrow needs to join Reed Timmer on YouTube in the off-season and chase storms have a couple country boys running route in the corn fields till Burrow learns to throw in the rain. Burrow can jump out in the rain and get reps.

(09-13-2023, 08:37 PM)Housh Wrote: [ -> ]Andy never did what Burrow did last Sunday

Sure he did. Well, he did worse, to be precise.

(09-13-2023, 06:35 PM)TheFan Wrote: [ -> ]He's being talked about pretty negatively, as he should, after Mondays performance. I've seen multiple negative posts/articles about his turnover problems. 

Who would have ever thought that Burrow and Allen would be the reason my kid lost in fantasy week 1.  lol

(09-13-2023, 04:35 PM)George Cantstandya Wrote: [ -> ]Well it's true.  Heck, Josh Allen shit the bed too and he is constantly talked about as a top QB as well.  Also, and I feel like I keep bringing this up but Burrow still has not had a full preseason in his career.  I think that makes a big difference.  I don't know, but how many actual full practice days did he get before the Browns game?

right and Giants fans i think are unhappy they left their QB in all game when loosing 40-0

(09-13-2023, 10:50 PM)hollodero Wrote: [ -> ]Sure he did. Well, he did worse, to be precise.

But when making 55 mil a year we expect more

(09-14-2023, 09:08 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: [ -> ]But when making 55 mil a year we expect more

Well, of course. Way more, no doubt. Just wanted to set the record straight.

(09-13-2023, 03:42 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: [ -> ]I blame it on the hairdo. All good now.

New week, new game — and also a new haircut ? Joe Burrow was spotted at @Bengals practice Wednesday sporting a new hairdo ?‍♂️ pic.twitter.com/x5yWDR6sqA

— WCPO 9 (@WCPO) September 13, 2023

Hey Joe, with that new hairdo, you look wealthier than ever!

Apropos of nothing, that 2021 first round was freaking amazing. A few busts to be sure (Leatherwood, Toney, Lance/Zach... plus whatever you'd call Caleb Farley), but generally good picks who comprise the next generation of stars. Lawrence, Uno, Surtain, Pitts, Etienne/Najee, Waddle/Devonta, Rousseau/Paye/Oweh, Penei/Darrisaw/Slater (I remember the fierce debates about those three but I'd be happy with any one of them right now!), and of course Parsons. Truly outstanding class. I look forward to watching their careers evolve.

(09-14-2023, 11:11 AM)tms Wrote: [ -> ]Apropos of nothing, that 2021 first round was freaking amazing. A few busts to be sure (Leatherwood, Toney, Lance/Zach... plus whatever you'd call Caleb Farley), but generally good picks who comprise the next generation of stars. Lawrence, Uno, Surtain, Pitts, Etienne/Najee, Waddle/Devonta, Rousseau/Paye/Oweh, Penei/Darrisaw/Slater (I remember the fierce debates about those three but I'd be happy with any one of them right now!), and of course Parsons. Truly outstanding class. I look forward to watching their careers evolve.

Yeah, that 1st round was so stacked. Makes the 9ers trading up for Lance look even worse. Imagine adding one of those guys to an already legit Super Bowl contender.

(09-14-2023, 11:11 AM)tms Wrote: [ -> ]Apropos of nothing, that 2021 first round was freaking amazing. A few busts to be sure (Leatherwood, Toney, Lance/Zach... plus whatever you'd call Caleb Farley), but generally good picks who comprise the next generation of stars. Lawrence, Uno, Surtain, Pitts, Etienne/Najee, Waddle/Devonta, Rousseau/Paye/Oweh, Penei/Darrisaw/Slater (I remember the fierce debates about those three but I'd be happy with any one of them right now!), and of course Parsons. Truly outstanding class. I look forward to watching their careers evolve.

Most of the guys you listed as who have turned out well so far were safe picks.
They had proven production in college matched with a high ceiling.
Guys like Toney and Lance were more potential, less production. Higher risk.

Takeaway?
Take a guy in the 1st round who is proven, not a developmental risk.

(09-13-2023, 10:50 PM)hollodero Wrote: [ -> ]Sure he did. Well, he did worse, to be precise.

Yeah you think Joe was bad this week (he was)....

Virtually the same passing yards, but 15% higher on the completion rate and 3 fewer turnovers. Burrow was shockingly bad this week, but just shows you how bad that Andy game was! 

(09-14-2023, 09:08 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: [ -> ]But when making 55 mil a year we expect more

If you are counting on any man to be near perfect all the time, you are setting yourself up for disappointment.

(09-14-2023, 02:16 PM)Sled21 Wrote: [ -> ]If you are counting on any man to be near perfect all the time, you are setting yourself up for disappointment.

I dont think Perfection is needed..  But much better than what we saw week 1 is definately needed.

And when your Top paid at your Position you better perform

(09-14-2023, 02:18 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: [ -> ]I dont think Perfection is needed..  But much better than what we saw week 1 is definately needed.

And when your Top paid at your Position you better perform

Point being, everyone is going to have a bad game now and then. That's life.

(09-14-2023, 02:16 PM)Sled21 Wrote: [ -> ]If you are counting on any man to be near perfect all the time, you are setting yourself up for disappointment.

Sure, and honestly I think in a way we are doing just that. We pay Burrow as if he were near perfect, that's a fair point to make. If I take the top of the QB class, I do not expect those QBs to dominate every game, they can have their lows. But even their lows still need to be way higher than what we've seen Sunday.

This was not a case of not being perfect or mistake-free, but a case of totally stinking it up and no sugercoating will take that away. Were this the playoffs, there'd be no next week to repair it. That being said, it's the start of the season, he was hurt, the Browns D is nasty, always had the Bengals' number recently, and the conditions were awful, so I agree it's not time to press the panic button. I can't argue for being totally unconcerned, however.

Sunday was just a combination of every aspect of the offense failing in different ways:

Plenty of plays where Burrow gets good enough protection and he misreads the coverage or throws an inaccurate pass as well. Should throw the stick here but instead tries dumping it down to a guy who has no shot of making a play. pic.twitter.com/9z7HXbo3ge

— mike (@bengals_sans) September 11, 2023

The Browns average time to pressure was under 2 seconds and Burrow had the 9th fastest time to throw of his career yesterday. Only one 5 step drop on the entire day and there were a ton of plays that had promise but pressure derailed them like this one. pic.twitter.com/WTgOyRN8ol

— mike (@bengals_sans) September 11, 2023

Compilation of go ball attempts from Burrow vs single high from yesterday. These opportunities were there but the Bengals couldn't capitalize. Need better thrown passes and the receivers to win when they are truly one on one. pic.twitter.com/JrghlF58rV

— mike (@bengals_sans) September 11, 2023

I think the biggest schematic issue I had with Cincy week 1 was that they didn't call any draws. You're an offense that throws the ball 30+ times a game. Run some draws. Especially when the defense is getting wide and pinning their ears back on early downs.

— mike (@bengals_sans) September 12, 2023

 

(09-13-2023, 10:50 PM)hollodero Wrote: [ -> ]Sure he did. Well, he did worse, to be precise.

Was that the Thursday night game where Brian Hoyer lit us up? 

(09-14-2023, 11:27 AM)ochocincos Wrote: [ -> ]Most of the guys you listed as who have turned out well so far were safe picks.
They had proven production in college matched with a high ceiling.
Guys like Toney and Lance were more potential, less production. Higher risk.

Takeaway?
Take a guy in the 1st round who is proven, not a developmental risk.

Meh, I don't know if I'd agree with that. With the exception of a unicorn like Chase and a guy who just got lost in the shuffle like Micah, they were all "developmental risks" to some extent. Just depends on how you look at it. Leatherwood was no slouch as an Alabama OT. Toney was a 2nd Team AA in the SEC. Most of these guys don't play early in their careers so I wouldn't hold the fact he was a late bloomer against him. Farley was more of a risk in terms of injury red flags, but he was hella productive when he played. 

On the other side, Sewell was criticized for not seeing top competition. Darrisaw was considered soft, if not lazy. Pitts was less production than RAS and potential. Oweh barely played in college. Etc. I wouldn't use the exception to prove the rule; each guy is kind of a gamble in his own right. But I do agree with the rule as it relates to quarterbacks. I think teams put too much emphasis on grabbing a quarterback even if the right guy's not available, especially at the top of the draft. But I've felt that way for a long time. 

(09-14-2023, 08:27 AM)Mickeypoo Wrote: [ -> ]Who would have ever thought that Burrow and Allen would be the reason my kid lost in fantasy week 1.  lol

Tell him not to feel too bad, I had Rodgers.