I'd like to have seen what a playcaller like Hue could do with CJ before making such clear cut determination.

This is strictly my opinion, but I feel comparing Eifert to CJ is similar to comparing CJ to Sample. It's obvious which is better, but wouldas, couldas, and shouldas might make it close.

(10-14-2021, 12:00 PM)jj22 Wrote: He is the standard bearer for Bengals TE's in the modern age going forward.

Define "modern age"

(10-14-2021, 12:49 PM)Emeritus Wrote: There isn't a team in this league that will game plan to stop CJ. Therefore its a position of weakness. 

There are no more than 5 or 6 TEs that teams game plan to stop.  And with the WR corps we have right now I think teams would still game plan to shut down Chase before any TE.

So I don't think it is appropriate to really call it a "position of weakness".

(10-14-2021, 01:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Define "modern age"

Post 2003.

(10-14-2021, 12:41 PM)jj22 Wrote: Are we overrating Eifert based off of 1 good year?

Buddy you must be smokin Bob Marley today.

(10-14-2021, 01:12 PM)jj22 Wrote: Post 2003.

Let's try for a ranking given that era, taking everything into consideration that could be taken (including injury)...

1. Tyler Eifert
2. Jermaine Gresham
3. Reggie Kelly
4. C.J. Uzomah
5. Matt Schobel

I guess. This might look like it's a diss on C.J., but I'm not sure that I can justify placing him ahead of the other three at this point. He's a more productive receiver than Kelly, but Kelly is the best blocker in the group (and didn't benefit from the latest decade's passing explosion quite so much). I think C.J. is capable of reaching a Gresham level maybe with enough usage.

(10-14-2021, 01:26 PM)JaggedJimmyJay Wrote: Let's try for a ranking given that era, taking everything into consideration that could be taken (including injury)...

1. Tyler Eifert
2. Jermaine Gresham
3. Reggie Kelly
4. C.J. Uzomah
5. Matt Schobel

I guess. This might look like it's a diss on C.J., but I'm not sure that I can justify placing him ahead of the other three at this point. He's a more productive receiver than Kelly, but Kelly is the best blocker in the group (and didn't benefit from the latest decade's passing explosion quite so much). I think C.J. is capable of reaching a Gresham level maybe with enough usage.

I actually forgot all about Gresham. I'd probably consider Eifert the "standard" before Gresham, but Gresham may be closer to compete for that title with Eifert then CJ.

(10-14-2021, 01:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There are no more than 5 or 6 TEs that teams game plan to stop.  And with the WR corps we have right now I think teams would still game plan to shut down Chase before any TE.

So I don't think it is appropriate to really call it a "position of weakness".

Of those five teams I don't think that there are many with a wideout group like the one in Cincinnati. So my point is adding a realistic tight end threat could really help this offense afterwards. For me it starts and ends with the offensive & defensive lines. Any championship run starts there. We have two division games coming up and thats the measuring stick not GB. When Cleveland visits its that offensive line against our defensive line. The same can be said with the Ravens because thats where the division will be won or lost. Also the Steelers aren't done and 11/28 may mean something.....

Yes, because he's on the field most of the time.

I find it a little comical comparing any player who is hurt more than not to anyone.

Potential means nothing if you're constantly on IR.

(10-14-2021, 01:58 PM)Emeritus Wrote:
Of those five teams I don't think that there are many with a wideout group like the one in Cincinnati. So my point is adding a realistic tight end threat could really help this offense afterwards. For me it starts and ends with the offensive & defensive lines. Any championship run starts there. We have two division games coming up and thats the measuring stick not GB. When Cleveland visits its that offensive line against our defensive line. The same can be said with the Ravens because thats where the division will be won or lost. Also the Steelers aren't done and 11/28 may mean something.....

49ers don't have the receivers?
Raiders don't have a decent group?
KC doesn't have the WRs? TF?

How one can devolve a discussion of 2 TEs, to it being a position of weakness (which it isn't), to talking about how games are won with the lines, I have no clue.

I think it's reasonable to call tight end a position of weakness for the Bengals. The starter is right around league average. Sample exists. The rest are practice squad level. I wouldn't necessarily call it a position of priority, but it's probably among the three weakest position groups we have on offense (alongside guard and center).

(10-14-2021, 12:59 PM)jj22 Wrote: I'd like to have seen what a playcaller like Hue could do with CJ before making such clear cut determination.

Why does that matter?  Where do you stop with those kinds of hypotheticals?

What if CJ played with Brady instead of gronk?

What if eifert played with Plamer and Chad instead of Dalton and AJ?

What if I had the nerve to ask Stephanie Thomas to the junior prom?

It doesn't matter we can only judge with what we've seen and give our opinions based on that.  And based on what we've seen and know eifert was better hands down and so far I don't think one person has said otherwise leaving you on and island by yourself.

Like I said before, I like CJ.   I not saying he's bad.   Saying he's not as good as eifert and it's not close.

An Island alone isn't a bad thing. Most free thinkers are on an Island alone as most fall for group think and are unable to formulate an opinion on their own.

But ok, playcalling and a playcaller who knew/knows how to use a TE makes no difference in the career of TE when comparing two Bengals players, there usage, and why their production may have been lopsided. On your Island, there's not much room for thought I see. On mines, you ask questions and try to look at all answers before formulating a conclusion.

So I maintain, I wonder if CJ's full potential would have been reached with a playcaller like Hue, and if Hue could have done with him what he was able to do with Eifert, and if that would have changed the perception that he isn't as good as Eifert any.

(10-14-2021, 04:48 PM)jj22 Wrote: An Island alone isn't a bad thing. Most free thinkers are on an Island alone as most fall for group think and are unable to formulate an opinion on their own.

But ok, playcalling and a playcaller who knew/knows how to use a TE makes no difference in the career of TE when comparing two Bengals players, there usage, and why their production may have been lopsided. On your Island, there's not much room for thought I see. On mines, you ask questions and try to look at all possibilities.

I bet Ryan leaf would have been awesome and won 10 super bowls with BB as his coach so I conclude he was the best QB ever.

See I can do that too.

I do respect your steadfastness though and agree the play calling matters.

Starts thread to debate.
States in OP he wishes to debate.
Starts seeing detractors and disagreements with take in OP.
Proceeds to bring up random hypotheticals and still grasping for someone to agree.
Ends by taking a jab at a coherent, lucid (and correct) take, because it still disagrees with OP.

Come on, man.

(10-14-2021, 04:51 PM)motoarch Wrote: I bet Ryan leaf would have been awesome and won 10 super bowls with BB as his coach so I conclude his was better the best QB ever.

See I can do that too.

Well it would have been a good question. I certainly wouldn't slam you for asking. I'd understand why you'd wonder given BB's background. But that's just me. 

(10-14-2021, 04:54 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: Starts thread to debate.
States in OP he wishes to debate.
Starts seeing detractors and disagreements with take in OP.
Proceeds to bring up random hypotheticals and still grasping for someone to agree.
Ends by taking a jab at a coherent, lucid (and correct) take, because it still disagrees with OP.

Come on, man.

I don't even know what you are talking about. I asked questions to help move the debate forward. I unlike "some" don't have a reputation for not being able to handle differing opinions.  

It really isn’t necessary for every thread to turn into a battle of wits.

So what I gather, according to some, playcalling and playcallers have no barring on players production potential.