(01-31-2022, 04:59 PM)BurrowTheGoat Wrote: As usual me and Nate are on same page here.  It is clear Carman is better than Adeniji and nearly every aspect of being an OL.  I hope he takes his work seriously in the off-season and hits the ground running next season. 

Yeah, I still think Carman can be a superb OL in the NFL. Nothing from what I have seen has persuaded me otherwise.

(01-31-2022, 05:07 PM)BurrowTheGoat Wrote: As far as this next game id roll with Carman and not look back.  Adeniji won't handle AD's power at all.  Carman may struggle with AD as well (wouldn't be the first guard to struggle vs that man) but at least he won't be overwhelmed by the power moves and be in Joe's lap.  I think gameplan wise we need to get our outside run game going and try to make AD as little of a factor as we can.  Easier said than done but this is the Super Bowl it's not supposed to be easy.

If we start Adeniji against the Rams we will be in trouble early. Burrow's magic works with bigger, slower pass rushers but 
with Donald's quickness and strength our interior OL won't have a chance, especially Adeniji who plays high and back pedals.

With Carman at least if he gets his hands on Donald he can move him especially in the running game.

You run the ball on the Rams to beat them unlike the Chiefs. Have to switch up our strategy for the Superbowl.

(01-31-2022, 04:28 PM)TecmoBengals Wrote: How? I mean wouldn't these same OL then receive scores of 0.0 or negative scores from the Titans game?

They did not receive scores that low, despite playing significantly-worse.

Tecmo, as I've told the story dozens of times (many here can verify), I trained to work at PFF at the culmination of the 2012 season, as I was a MASSIVE booster of their grades and their wonderful stats that only they would track (even so, pass rush stats and running lane stats are only done by 1 or 2 other sites), from 2009 to 2015. The used to grade by starting at 0.0 and then going up or down, depending on the play; 0.1 or 0.2 for positive plays, up to 1.0 (and every number in-between), with negatives of those numbers for negative plays, thus you would have players grading +1.7 for a green game and -1.2 for a red game: -0.9 to +0.9 was considered a neutral game, just slightly-positive or negative.

This was SUCH a fantastic way to grade players, as the methodology was sound, the scale made sense and at the end of the year, you didn't have an, "average, weighted score," but instead a total score, culminating all of the games of the prior year. This method also allowed for non-finite grade totals (unlike now), as the grade could keep going up (or down), as good or as bad as the player played.

Once Collinsworth bought his stake in late 2014/early 2015, they went with the old system until week... 4? I think? of 2015 and then they went to the current one. The problem with the current grades are that:

- It is not told where they start the game, whether it is at 50, 0, 100, etc.; no context is given.
- Positive and negative plays can now be egregiously-high or low, again, with no context.
- You are seeing these ridiculous-low scores, for players that seem to play really good games.

There (seemingly!) appears to be no consistency or methodology and the grades are just left up to the opinion of the grader, thus with all of these reasons accounted for, I take 0 stock in their grades. I will view them, but I won't give them the time of day in a proper discussion on player's play. PFF is still a super-invaluable tool for pressure numbers and running lane numbers, but the grades are highly-speculative and (seemingly!) wildly-inaccurate, compared to how the used to be.

Why did I not work for them, you may ask? To get hired, you needed to show 95% success through the 3 rounds of grading, that you are able to identify the correct player. Once the correct players are identified, grading is just a matter of watching the play and grading accordingly. I made it through the first round with only 93.something% accuracy, but Khaled Elsayed (one of the current executives, based in the UK) allowed me to go the second round, as the quality of Gamepass at the time, was absolutely-dreadful. The second round had a different game and I was able to get up to 94.1% accuracy, but the difficulty of identifying the correct players, had me watching the game for about 17 hours, just to get the players right (and I still wasn't at 95%). Khaled wanted me to stick on the final round, but I pulled out because I knew I wouldn't be able to get good-enough quality video to do the job and it was taking precious time out of my life (I was in my final year of University as well) , so I dropped out of the running.

I know I sound curmudgeonly, but truly, the old way was the BEST way and it is significantly more-difficult to manipulate the old grade, because you had a finite amount of points you could grade a play on, unlike the wild west that is the current method of grading.

(01-31-2022, 06:34 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: They did not receive scores that low, despite playing significantly-worse.

Tecmo, as I've told the story dozens of times (many here can verify), I trained to work at PFF at the culmination of the 2012 season, as I was a MASSIVE booster of their grades and their wonderful stats that only they would track (even so, pass rush stats and running lane stats are only done by 1 or 2 other sites), from 2009 to 2015. The used to grade by starting at 0.0 and then going up or down, depending on the play; 0.1 or 0.2 for positive plays, up to 1.0 (and every number in-between), with negatives of those numbers for negative plays, thus you would have players grading +1.7 for a green game and -1.2 for a red game: -0.9 to +0.9 was considered a neutral game, just slightly-positive or negative.

This was SUCH a fantastic way to grade players, as the methodology was sound, the scale made sense and at the end of the year, you didn't have an, "average, weighted score," but instead a total score, culminating all of the games of the prior year. This method also allowed for non-finite grade totals (unlike now), as the grade could keep going up (or down), as good or as bad as the player played.

Once Collinsworth bought his stake in late 2014/early 2015, they went with the old system until week... 4? I think? of 2015 and then they went to the current one. The problem with the current grades are that:

- It is not told where they start the game, whether it is at 50, 0, 100, etc.; no context is given.
- Positive and negative plays can now be egregiously-high or low, again, with no context.
- You are seeing these ridiculous-low scores, for players that seem to play really good games.

There (seemingly!) appears to be no consistency or methodology and the grades are just left up to the opinion of the grader, thus with all of these reasons accounted for, I take 0 stock in their grades. I will view them, but I won't give them the time of day in a proper discussion on player's play. PFF is still a super-invaluable tool for pressure numbers and running lane numbers, but the grades are highly-speculative and (seemingly!) wildly-inaccurate, compared to how the used to be.

Why did I not work for them, you may ask? To get hired, you needed to show 95% success through the 3 rounds of grading, that you are able to identify the correct player. Once the correct players are identified, grading is just a matter of watching the play and grading accordingly. I made it through the first round with only 93.something% accuracy, but Khaled Elsayed (one of the current executives, based in the UK) allowed me to go the second round, as the quality of Gamepass at the time, was absolutely-dreadful. The second round had a different game and I was able to get up to 94.1% accuracy, but the difficulty of identifying the correct players, had me watching the game for about 17 hours, just to get the players right (and I still wasn't at 95%). Khaled wanted me to stick on the final round, but I pulled out because I knew I wouldn't be able to get good-enough quality video to do the job and it was taking precious time out of my life (I was in my final year of University as well) , so I dropped out of the running.

I know I sound curmudgeonly, but truly, the old way was the BEST way and it is significantly more-difficult to manipulate the old grade, because you had a finite amount of points you could grade a play on, unlike the wild west that is the current method of grading.

This was a fun and informative post to read, I'm going over it again. Thank you for sharing.

At this point you just have to trust Pollack and the coaches to make the right decisions. They got us this far.

(01-31-2022, 06:34 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: They did not receive scores that low, despite playing significantly-worse.

Tecmo, as I've told the story dozens of times (many here can verify), I trained to work at PFF at the culmination of the 2012 season, as I was a MASSIVE booster of their grades and their wonderful stats that only they would track (even so, pass rush stats and running lane stats are only done by 1 or 2 other sites), from 2009 to 2015. The used to grade by starting at 0.0 and then going up or down, depending on the play; 0.1 or 0.2 for positive plays, up to 1.0 (and every number in-between), with negatives of those numbers for negative plays, thus you would have players grading +1.7 for a green game and -1.2 for a red game: -0.9 to +0.9 was considered a neutral game, just slightly-positive or negative.

This was SUCH a fantastic way to grade players, as the methodology was sound, the scale made sense and at the end of the year, you didn't have an, "average, weighted score," but instead a total score, culminating all of the games of the prior year. This method also allowed for non-finite grade totals (unlike now), as the grade could keep going up (or down), as good or as bad as the player played.

Once Collinsworth bought his stake in late 2014/early 2015, they went with the old system until week... 4? I think? of 2015 and then they went to the current one. The problem with the current grades are that:

- It is not told where they start the game, whether it is at 50, 0, 100, etc.; no context is given.
- Positive and negative plays can now be egregiously-high or low, again, with no context.
- You are seeing these ridiculous-low scores, for players that seem to play really good games.

There (seemingly!) appears to be no consistency or methodology and the grades are just left up to the opinion of the grader, thus with all of these reasons accounted for, I take 0 stock in their grades. I will view them, but I won't give them the time of day in a proper discussion on player's play. PFF is still a super-invaluable tool for pressure numbers and running lane numbers, but the grades are highly-speculative and (seemingly!) wildly-inaccurate, compared to how the used to be.

Why did I not work for them, you may ask? To get hired, you needed to show 95% success through the 3 rounds of grading, that you are able to identify the correct player. Once the correct players are identified, grading is just a matter of watching the play and grading accordingly. I made it through the first round with only 93.something% accuracy, but Khaled Elsayed (one of the current executives, based in the UK) allowed me to go the second round, as the quality of Gamepass at the time, was absolutely-dreadful. The second round had a different game and I was able to get up to 94.1% accuracy, but the difficulty of identifying the correct players, had me watching the game for about 17 hours, just to get the players right (and I still wasn't at 95%). Khaled wanted me to stick on the final round, but I pulled out because I knew I wouldn't be able to get good-enough quality video to do the job and it was taking precious time out of my life (I was in my final year of University as well) , so I dropped out of the running.

I know I sound curmudgeonly, but truly, the old way was the BEST way and it is significantly more-difficult to manipulate the old grade, because you had a finite amount of points you could grade a play on, unlike the wild west that is the current method of grading.

I also have to assume the grades never take into account who said players are up against.. Are they playing across from 10 time probowlers or 4th string scrubs because of a whole bunch of injuries? 

Carman is better at run blocking. Adeniji is better at pass blocking. Combine them, we've got a guard

Jackson Carman had 20 pass block snaps, 6 pressures allowed. Hakeem Adeniji had 24 pass block snaps, 3 pressures allowed.

Carman at least good in run blocking.

Carman- 64.1 run block
Adeniji- 47.1 run block

Give me the upside of Carman if both are going to struggle. #Bengals

— Bryce Spalding (@bryce_spalding) January 31, 2022

As far as my opinion goes in the Adeniji/Carman debate, they both are subpar players. I observed each of them getting "ragdolled" on multiple occasions. With Burrow's ability to stand, walk and occasionally run at stake, I think that you almost have to go with the least shitty of the two in pass pro.

(01-31-2022, 03:54 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Carman handles stunts better than Adeniji too.

Just don't understand why Adeniji gets any snaps the way he has been playing.

Carman will make some mistakes, sure. But he isn't on roller skates out there just getting wheeled into Burrow and the RB's.

It isn't even about strength, Adeniji has no technique, he plays high and the low man wins.

Yep

It seems to me to, perhaps I'm wrong ? that Adeniji has several plays a game that he's just not totally sure who he's supposed to block.

(01-31-2022, 08:15 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: As far as my opinion goes in the Adeniji/Carman debate, they both are subpar players.  I observed each of them getting "ragdolled" on multiple occasions.  With Burrow's ability to stand, walk and occasionally run at stake, I think that you almost have to go with the least shitty of the two in pass pro.

I've lost almost all hope with Adeniji and I'm not far behind with Carman.

(01-31-2022, 08:25 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: I've lost almost all hope with Adeniji and I'm not far behind with Carman.

And the solution to that problem will likely have to come in the form of a free agent acquisition.  You simply cannot count on rookie linemen to come in and play like experienced pros, and at 31/32 that is likely where they will find a good CB or even S.

(01-31-2022, 08:35 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: And the solution to that problem will likely have to come in the form of a free agent acquisition.  You simply cannot count on rookie linemen to come in and play like experienced pros, and at 31/32 that is likely where they will find a good CB or even S.

Yep

In my mind they have to - HAVE TO go out and get two top shelf Olineman in free agency. You never know how long the window will stay open for a team ?

And it would be an absolute tragedy to nickel and dime it with JB and the wrecking crew on O.

Both were horrendous against the Chiefs, but they went against Chris Jones.
It's going to be a huge risk if the Bengals leave RG as a camp battle between these guys next year.
Gotta address RG either in FA or the draft. Carman and/or Adeniji might be a better fit at OT anyway.

(01-31-2022, 08:25 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: I've lost almost all hope with Adeniji and I'm not far behind with Carman.

I’m pretty surprised to see people already talking like this wrt Carman. Kid just turned 22 years old, in his first season at a new position, not to mention the back issues. I’m not saying they should pencil him in at RG going forward, but I haven’t even entertained the idea that he could be a total bust yet. Just way, way too soon for that. He’s only started 6 games in the NFL.

(01-31-2022, 08:46 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Both were horrendous against the Chiefs, but they went against Chris Jones.
It's going to be a huge risk if the Bengals leave RG as a camp battle between these guys next year.
Gotta address RG either in FA or the draft. Carman and/or Adeniji might be a better fit at OT anyway.

Carman is definitely better suited to play OG.

(01-31-2022, 08:46 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Both were horrendous against the Chiefs, but they went against Chris Jones.
It's going to be a huge risk if the Bengals leave RG as a camp battle between these guys next year.
Gotta address RG either in FA or the draft. Carman and/or Adeniji might be a better fit at OT anyway.

Yep

(01-31-2022, 09:22 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: I’m pretty surprised to see people already talking like this wrt Carman. Kid just turned 22 years old, in his first season at a new position, not to mention the back issues. I’m not saying they should pencil him in at RG going forward, but I haven’t even entertained the idea that he could be a total bust yet. Just way, way too soon for that. He’s only started 6 games in the NFL.

I'm not saying Carman is a total bust. It's more like ocho says I just would rather have an experienced really good vet in there. Let Carman develop another year.

(01-31-2022, 08:46 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Both were horrendous against the Chiefs, but they went against Chris Jones.
It's going to be a huge risk if the Bengals leave RG as a camp battle between these guys next year.
Gotta address RG either in FA or the draft. Carman and/or Adeniji might be a better fit at OT anyway.

At least in the Super Bowl they only have to face Aaron Donald...

I haven't lost hope for CJ yet, but I also stuck with Michael Jordan for a couple years. 

(01-31-2022, 04:41 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: It seems like we were running the ball better yesterday, especially late in the game. Were those behind Carman?

Late in the game it looked like we were successfully running behind Spain.

(01-31-2022, 09:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: At least in the Super Bowl they only have to face Aaron Donald...

I haven't lost hope for CJ yet, but I also stuck with Michael Jordan for a couple years. 

I haven't lost hope in Carman's long-term potential, but he's not a solid-or-better starter yet and the Bengals' window has now fully opened.
They are equipped to have their best run over the next 2-3 years.
Can't go into the season with hopes of a player developing into a good starter.
Let Carman ride the bench to continue development and get a proven starter for 2022 (and 2023?)

(01-31-2022, 09:45 PM)jfkbengals Wrote: Late in the game it looked like we were successfully running behind Spain.

The left side is clearly head and shoulders above the right side.
I'm going hard in upgrading RG and RT in FA.
I'd also be fine getting a better pass-blocking LG, but Spain is alright if the team wanted to keep the continuity.

(01-31-2022, 10:07 PM)ochocincos Wrote: I haven't lost hope in Carman's long-term potential, but he's not a solid-or-better starter yet and the Bengals' window has now fully opened.
They are equipped to have their best run over the next 2-3 years.
Can't go into the season with hopes of a player developing into a good starter.
Let Carman ride the bench to continue development and get a proven starter for 2022 (and 2023?)

That’s fair.