(07-20-2015, 11:33 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I remember a lot of folks praising Gresham's rookie season, when he had 471 yards. Yet people blow off Eifert's 445 yards as if it was nothing. 

Sure, and in Greshams 2nd season I can remember a lot folks praising is rookie QB. It's more proof you can't fully separate the overall performance of a TE from his QB.
People are pumping Eifert up like he's done something shocking and new. I think he'll be known as a good TE, but not as a game changer as so many here lead on.

I see a lot of potential there, hopefully they all catch on.

To get respect in rankings you gotta have experience. Those rookies and Eifert for that matter have proved nothing. For all we know those rookies could be damn near unplayable because they cant block in the run game at real NFL game speed or something.

Cant wait for preseason.

(07-21-2015, 04:06 AM)MrRager Wrote: Wha....What? I just explained how untrue this is in another thread. Being worried about only having rookie backups (or even worse, one starter) is very reasonable for the TE position. Zero players in the last five years have gained 600 yards. Only four have gained 500. Two of those were the great Pats duo, helped schemed by one of the best QBs ever, best coaches ever, and a very good offensive mind in Bill O'Brian. 

How exactly is that one of the easiest transitions? WR has proven to be much easier. Hell, look at AJ and like the 10 great rookie seasons last year. 

Expecting anything more than ~400 yards from either of these guys is putting way to much hope in these rookies. Maybe they can be the rare ones to break the mold, but I highly doubt they will be. Kroft didn't even have 300 yards his last year in college and didn't even reach 600 in his best year. You expect him to produce more in his first NFL season? Why? 

Also, don't just say SEAMS SEAMS, like you're somehow the only person in the world who has thought of wonderful scheme. Look at the Lions last year. They drafted a very talented TE in the first to pair with their solid, but not incredible stable of TEs. They even had a guy better than AJ to draw double coverage, and Tate to take even more, yet somehow Ebron didn't produce. 

Why don't Celek and Ertz dominate the game? The Eagles had a very good #1 in Maclin/Jackson, a great line, good QB play in '13, average in '14, and a good rushing attack. Why oh why hasn't Kelly just figured out how to "run them up the SEAMZ!"

Fleener and Allen are one of the best duos I can think of off the top of my head, and they still only produced around 1,200 yards. Allen didn't even have 400.

If only those coaches, and literally every single other coach in NFL history (besides the 2011 Pats) could think of this amazing plan, then maybe we would actually see the two TE system work and TEs produce in year one. But, damn, only Bradfitz has figured out this secret. 

Or maybe, football is extremely complex and simple ideas don't really work in football. Defensive coordinators are also masterminds that figure out how to slow these simple concepts down. I love football, but can easily see how much of the game is miles over my head.

I think we will be fine this year, but having practically nothing behind Eifert scares me, especially given the fact that Eifert hasn't shown very much, yet. We just need to get "enough" out of the rookies to get along this year, but think all three can be developed and we will be fine moving foward.

You wanna know why you're a joke and any reply to any post of mine can't be taken seriously?  Wide receiver is the easiest position to transition to the NFL (as I stated in the post your replied to, and even you mentioned), and I'm obviously thinking of them as receivers.

Other teams don't have backs like Hill that make it a lot easier to do what I'm suggesting, much-less two receiving tight ends and a receiver like AJ.

As far as the Colts go, they also had TY Hilton and Reggie Wayne on the outsides, so they didn't need to use TEs up the seams, and not to mention that Luck is better than Dalton, which I know you'll say "but I thought the two tight end set was unstoppable," but, again, Bradshaw and Richardson aren't anywhere near as good as Hill (who was the leading rusher in the NFL in the second half of the season.  Hell, he was the 8th best rusher in the league and didn't even get over 10 carries until week 9 and, even after, had games with only 12, 8, and 13 carries).  Not having a running back to make the defense commit backers and a safety makes a big difference.

Explain to me this:  the strong safety of a defense typically plays in the box, especially when a team has a back as good as Hill, and the other safety has to double a receiver as good as AJ, so then who is left to cover two tight ends who are pretty much receivers?  You think a backer is going to cover one of them one-on-one because a safety can't cover both.

Kroft, as I said in NUMEROUS threads, which you conveniently ignore, was used more as a run blocker in his final year at Rutgers, and 573 yards isn't exactly too shabby for a tight end in college, especially when he led the team in yards, receptions, and receiving touchdowns.

It basically comes down to this: you think a backer can single cover Eifert, Kroft, or even Uzomah, while not being able to commit to any of them right away because they need to make sure that Hill doesn't have the ball because they need to fill the hole immediately to make sure that he doesn't explode through?


It's really not that complicated.

(07-20-2015, 01:48 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: In the poll ranking our TE's, 60% have voted that our TE's rank 21-32 in the league. I get that there's not much experience there, but I don't see how anyone could say that we have one of the worst groups in the NFL.

- Tyler Eifert has 482 yards in 16 games. Last year, only 18 TE's had more than 482 yards. Julius Thomas had 489 yards. Consider that Eifert posted that total as a part-time player. His snaps and production should go up. Plus he has more experience under his belt. Imo, people should be excited about Eifert.

- Tyler Kroft is a 3rd round pick with plenty of college experience both blocking and pass catching. Imo, this makes it more likely that he'll contribute early. This isn't Chase Coffman.

- CJ Uzomah's 4.63 forty time from his pro day was faster than all but 1 tight end at the combine. His broad jump of 9'10" would've placed 4th. Obviously he's raw, but he has 1st round athleticism and looks like a natural pass catcher.

Again, I get that they lack experience, but how many teams have a 1st and a 3rd invested at the position? Just based on potential and what we've seen from Eifert so far, I don't see how some could say that there's 20-31 groups out there that are better than our's. I understand if you're not ecstatic about this group, but I don't think people should be down on them either. There's a lot of talent and potential there, and I have a feeling a lot of people are going to feel better once these guys are on the field.

A great TE can block and be a threat in the passing game. As of now, we don't have 1 proven blocker since Gresham left so I think 21 to 24th would be a fair preseason ranking for this group. Hopefully, they will outperform the ranking, but I have serious concerns with their being good to great blockers this year.

(07-21-2015, 12:49 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Explain to me this:  the strong safety of a defense typically plays in the box, especially when a team has a back as good as Hill, and the other safety has to double a receiver as good as AJ, so then who is left to cover two tight ends who are pretty much receivers?  You think a backer is going to cover one of them one-on-one because a safety can't cover both.

Teams generally don't play a safety in the box against a one-back set.  And even when a safety plays in the box he would still have coverage priority over a LB.  So he would pick up coverage on a TE before a LB would.

If you have 2 TE and 2 WR they are going to be covered by 2 safeties and 2 CBs.

You claim that a second DB would double on Green, but that is not man-to-man double coverage.  It is deep zone help coverage that only becomes a double team if there are not 3 other receivers running downfield routes.  
 

(07-21-2015, 01:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Teams generally don't play a safety in the box against a one-back set.  And even when a safety plays in the box he would still have coverage priority over a LB.  So he would pick up coverage on a TE before a LB would.

If you have 2 TE and 2 WR they are going to be covered by 2 safeties and 2 CBs.

You claim that a second DB would double on Green, but that is not man-to-man double coverage.  It is deep zone help coverage that only becomes a double team if there are not 3 other receivers running downfield routes.  
 

Except teams have to play a safety in the box against Hill because he's a hell of a back that can easily rattle off 5 yards a pop as a lone back, and, if he gets into the open field, good luck with a safety trying to tackle him.

And, no, a safety can't cover either tight end in the open field (if they even had two to do so, which they don't because of Hill), because then we just do something like this which it's even easier for a tight end to beat a safety in the open field than it is for a receiver to beat anyone on the outside because the tight end has the entire field to work with.  

It won't always be man-to-man like that video, but just because a team runs a zone, doesn't mean that they suddenly have enough players to guard every area.

Even if they're not running man-to-man double coverage on Green, they still have more than one person to account for him. and you say about the other receivers running downfield, which is where the tight ends up the seams come into play.

(07-21-2015, 12:49 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: It's really not that complicated.

Everything in professional football is so complicated, that none of us on a message board would be able to step in and be a coordinator.

(07-21-2015, 09:23 AM)djs7685 Wrote: Potential and everything is nice, but you're not going to see me rank Jameis Winston, Blake Bortles, or even Teddy Bridgewater over guys like Dalton, Stafford, and Kaepernick, so how could I possibly rank Eifert and 2 rookies over groups that have proven that they're at least solid NFL players? Ranking a group of 3 players where 1 of them spent a season as a TE2 and the next season injured with 2 rookies somewhere in the 20's isn't really an insult at this point of their careers.

I understand this is a Bengals board so there will be some homerism here and there, but our TEs in the 20's is definitely fair.

You call it homerism, I say it's being realistic. I'd bet a paycheck that the production of our TE's this year won't be ranked 21-30. People whine about experience, but what experience do they want behind Eifert/Kroft/Uzomah? As I pointed out (and no one has refuted), there simply aren't many quality backup TE's with starting experience in the NFL. 

Tbh, I'd rather have a promising rookie like Kroft on the field than some washed up Alex Smith-type player, and that's what most teams have sitting on their bench. I think a lot of folks are just mad we let Gresh go. But I think Eifert will prove to be a (slightly) better player, and Gresh probably wouldn't want to sit the bench.

(07-21-2015, 10:01 AM)Hammerthis Wrote: People are pumping Eifert up like he's done something shocking and new.

Who is saying anything like that? I haven't pumped Eifert, I just don't see why a lot of folks are so down on him. Sure he's still got a ways to go, but he looked very promising during his rookie season. I don't see 20+ TE's out there that are better than him, and I don't see 20+ sets of backups that I'd rather have either.

(07-21-2015, 02:04 PM)Harmening Wrote: Everything in professional football is so complicated, that none of us on a message board would be able to step in and be a coordinator.

It's simple logic.  

Explain how a defense would stop the scenario I presented.

(07-21-2015, 02:58 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: It's simple logic.  

Explain how a defense would stop the scenario I presented.

I can't because football is complicated.
They hire professionals to do that type of thing.
You haven't come up with some elaborate play that can't be stopped. Coaches in the NFL would watch it on film and scheme against it. Nothing is as simple as you like to think it is

(07-21-2015, 01:27 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Except teams have to play a safety in the box against Hill because he's a hell of a back that can easily rattle off 5 yards a pop as a lone back, and, if he gets into the open field, good luck with a safety trying to tackle him.

Why is it impossible for a safety playing in the box to drop into coverage, but a LB can do it?

If it was as simple as you suggest then every team in the league would run this play constantly and score 100 points a game.

Safeties can cover TEs. They do it all the time.

(07-21-2015, 07:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Why is it impossible for a safety playing in the box to drop into coverage, but a LB can do it?

If it was as simple as you suggest then every team in the league would run this play constantly and score 100 points a game.

Safeties can cover TEs.  They do it all the time.

It's not impossible, but they'd have the same struggles that a backer would, playing on the hip of the tight end and pretty much screwed because the tight end can break either way or just shield off the defender.  Yes, some defenders can make plays to bat passes if they're just shielding, but it's difficult.  Not to mention that the safety would likely be running off the tight end's back hip and that's very difficult to cover receivers that can run good routes.  A safety would have to cover four directions without knowing which way a tight end will go.

Every team doesn't do it because, as I said, most teams don't have one receiving tight end of the caliber that we do, much-less two, nor do they have a receiver as good as AJ, or a running back keeping the defenses honest.  Most teams have troubles finding one safety that is good at covering receiving tight ends, which is why they're so valuable, and to find a team with two safeties that can cover a receiving tight end is very rare.

I don't think you realize how fast things happen in the NFL.  A defender has a split-second to decide if he's going to cover his man or commit to the run, and then he has to get to his man and try and run with him when he doesn't know where he's going.  Our tight ends don't fire off the ball when the ball is snapped. then stop, look at the safety and linebackers and say "do you need another few seconds to decide on whether or not to cover me?"

(07-21-2015, 07:24 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: It's not impossible, but they'd have the same struggles that a backer would, playing on the hip of the tight end and pretty much screwed because the tight end can break either way or just shield off the defender.  Yes, some defenders can make plays to bat passes if they're just shielding, but it's difficult.  Not to mention that the safety would likely be running off the tight end's back hip and that's very difficult to cover receivers that can run good routes.  A safety would have to cover four directions without knowing which way a tight end will go.

Every team doesn't do it because, as I said, most teams don't have one receiving tight end of the caliber that we do, much-less two, nor do they have a receiver as good as AJ, or a running back keeping the defenses honest.  Most teams have troubles finding one safety that is good at covering receiving tight ends, which is why they're so valuable, and to find a team with two safeties that can cover a receiving tight end is very rare.

I don't think you realize how fast things happen in the NFL.  A defender has a split-second to decide if he's going to cover his man or commit to the run, and then he has to get to his man and try and run with him when he doesn't know where he's going.  Our tight ends don't fire off the ball when the ball is snapped. then stop, look at the safety and linebackers and say "do you need another few seconds to decide on whether or not to cover me?"

So, do you think that you would be a good offensive coordinator in the NFL?
Or more specifically, on the Bengals?

(07-21-2015, 07:54 PM)Harmening Wrote: So, do you think that you would be a good offensive coordinator in the NFL?

So you give up on trying to contradict the points I makee and just try to re-direct to this question.

Good for you.

To answer your question, though, since I see how pathetic it is when someone refuses to answer because they can't, and I don't want to come off that way, no, I don't, but I bet I could draw up some concepts of plays that would be very hard to stop.

However, I'd also need all of the talent that we have, which you once again ignored or you seem to think that every team has all the pieces we have when I don't think ANY other team has them all.

(07-21-2015, 08:00 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: but I bet I could draw up some concepts of plays that would be very hard to stop.

No, you couldn't.  This is a great example of your teenage mind.

(07-21-2015, 08:04 PM)Harmening Wrote: No, you couldn't.  This is a great example of your teenage mind.

HA!

You have no idea what the hell you're talking about or even any clue of what my mind is capable of or the ideas I have, so how could you even pretend to make that claim?!

Just another diversion attempt to shift attention away from the fact that you have no answer for how you would stop it!!

You and Fred are both so childish!!

(07-21-2015, 08:07 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: HA!

You have no idea what the hell you're talking about or even any clue of what my mind is capable of or the ideas I have, so how could you even pretend to make that claim?!

Just another diversion attempt to shift attention away from the fact that you have no answer for how you would stop it!!

You and Fred are both so childish!!

So I will dumb this one down too.
I told you that I wouldn't try to stop it. I would leave it up to the pros.

(07-21-2015, 08:32 PM)Harmening Wrote: So I will dumb this one down too.
I told you that I wouldn't try to stop it. I would leave it up to the pros.

I've already described it and you keep throwing out these childish remarks because you're too big of a coward to try and refute anything I said.  

You don't understand playing football, specifically defensive back, and you're too stupid to understand simple football concepts.

(07-21-2015, 08:40 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I've already described it and you keep throwing out these childish remarks because you're too big of a coward to try and refute anything I said.  

You don't understand playing football, specifically defensive back, and you're too stupid to understand simple football concepts.

Nice try...