What do you guys think of Gary Barnidge as a TE playing for us?

I don't, unless there's an injury


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(05-02-2017, 08:41 PM)firstand10 Wrote: What do you guys think of Gary Barnidge as a TE playing for us?

Look, I appreciate the gorilla marketing that you, Gary Barnidge's agent, are doing on his behalf. But I feel like you should maybe call the Bengals directly so that they can tell you HELL FREAKING NO, THAT'S INSANE themselves.

What's wrong with Barnidge? I would bring him in for a look.

He was a monster in 15. Played hurt last year i believe.

(05-02-2017, 09:27 PM)TKUHL Wrote: What's wrong with Barnidge? I would bring him in for a look.

We are 4 deep at TE. waste of time and money to bring him in.. we are trying to get younger not older.

also here is a good comparison.. people say we are weak at TE.. but how do we know how the young talent is going to do.. Barnidge would not even be around for discussion with that thinking.. look at his first six years.. 44 receptions.. that is it.. 

So lets see how our draft picks develop instead of just saying they are not productive... maybe they will develop even better than Barnidge did and im sure probably faster. 

Meh. Who needs a guy with 134 catches over the last 2 years (with 0 missed games) to back up a key piece of our offense that's always hurt?

I'd rather keep Kroft and his 21 career catches and hope he turns out to be as good as Barnidge someday.

Btw...free agents have cooties.

(05-02-2017, 11:11 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Meh. Who needs a guy with 134 catches over the last 2 years (with 0 missed games) to back up a key piece of our offense that's always hurt?

I'd rather keep Kroft and his 21 career catches and hope he turns out to be as good as Barnidge someday.

Btw...free agents have cooties.

Bengals fans - Why don't we ever bring in FAs?

*Same Bengals fans 5 min later* - Why the hell would we bring in X player even though he's been more productive than any player that we have in that position the last few years?

(05-02-2017, 11:15 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Bengals fans - Why don't we ever bring in FAs?

*Same Bengals fans 5 min later* - Why the hell would we bring in X player even though he's been more productive than any player that we have in that position the last few years?

Here is my question.. why do we just give up on a draft pick one or two years into their career.. Barnidge would not even be around in the discussion if they did that to him.. 

So the answer is.. we have young players that are developing already in our system.. they actually could be better than Barnidge next year.. two.. Barnidge does cost money.. three he is like 32 and not real fast.. we want young and speed.. not old and slow.. correct ?

(05-02-2017, 11:20 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: Here is my question.. why do we just give up on a draft pick one or two years into their career.. Barnidge would not even be around in the discussion if they did that to him.. 

So the answer is.. we have young players that are developing already in our system.. they actually could be better than Barnidge next year.. two.. Barnidge does cost money.. three he is like 32 and not real fast.. we want young and speed.. not old and slow.. correct ?

Tyler Kroft ran a 4.75 forty. Barnidge ran a 4.61. 

I'm sure you're thinking "but that was a long time ago", and you'd be right.

But my point is that 4.75 is pretty slow. We're not losing speed by replacing Kroft.

(05-02-2017, 11:27 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Tyler Kroft ran a 4.75 forty. Barnidge ran a 4.61. 

I'm sure you're thinking "but that was a long time ago", and you'd be right.

But my point is that 4.75 is pretty slow. We're not losing speed by replacing Kroft.

but again why replace Kroft.. you assume Barnidge is even speed.. possible.. can't i assume Kroft can be better than Barnidge next year or for sure the year after... why give up on our young players.. besides still costin money and he is on the wrong end of 30 now.. 

there is no need for him on our team..

Essex isn't totally off base. It did take Barnidge a few years to get going. Still, i have more faith in Uzo than Kroft at this time.

(05-02-2017, 10:51 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: We are 4 deep at TE. waste of time and money to bring him in.. we are trying to get younger not older.

also here is a good comparison.. people say we are weak at TE.. but how do we know how the young talent is going to do.. Barnidge would not even be around for discussion with that thinking.. look at his first six years.. 44 receptions.. that is it.. 

So lets see how our draft picks develop instead of just saying they are not productive... maybe they will develop even better than Barnidge did and im sure probably faster. 

4 deep at TE and 4 deep with GOOD TE are two very different things.

Kroft 2016: 14 games(11 starts), 10 catches/92 yards/0 TD
Hewitt 2016: 16 games(11 starts), 2 catches/13 yards/0 TD
CJ Uzomah 2016: 10 games(8 starts), 25 catches/234 yards/0 TD
Tyler Eifert 2016: 8 games(2 starts), 29 catches/394 yards/5 TD

Schreck: A 2017 PS player.

The only person who is better on that list than Barnidge is Eifert, and Eifert is only better if he's healthy, which thus far is extremely unlikely to be for an entire season.

Last I checked, the Bengals were trying to get BETTER, not younger.

Heck yes we should.

Not just because he is a X- Card either.

I'm just curious to see if our OC is looking to change the scheme of the offense.

Maybe one that utilizes the TE more for blocking and the occasional catch.

That way if Eifert is not fully functional it doesn't hinder the offense.

This would also play into the chance of not resigning him.

Not saying this is what I would do.

Just sayin'... Bengals.

I know he's a touchdown machine when healthy but that's his biggest flaw... health.

I'd welcome Barnidge, and won't rule out that Cincy could be interested but I'm wondering what they're even doing at TE anymore. This may have been the deepest TE draft in memory and they decided to go deeper at WR instead. You like to have a full toolbox but you have to wonder if not only may they go with mostly receiver heavy packages but if a guy like Barnidge sees this.

(05-02-2017, 11:34 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: but again why replace Kroft.. you assume Barnidge is even speed.. possible.. can't i assume Kroft can be better than Barnidge next year or for sure the year after... why give up on our young players.. besides still costin money and he is on the wrong end of 30 now.. 

there is no need for him on our team..

It wouldn't be giving up on a player. Just putting him on the practice squad until Eifert has his season ending injury. I really doubt any team would pick up Kroft or Uzomah.

(05-03-2017, 01:06 AM)BengalsRocker Wrote: I'm just curious to see if our OC is looking to change the scheme of the offense.

Maybe one that utilizes the TE more for blocking and the occasional catch.

That way if Eifert is not fully functional it doesn't hinder the offense.

This would also play into the chance of not resigning him.

Not saying this is what I would do.

Just sayin'...  Bengals.

I know he's a touchdown machine when healthy but that's his biggest flaw... health.

I think that would keep him healthy for longer periods.

(05-03-2017, 01:44 AM)phil413 Wrote: I'd welcome Barnidge, and won't rule out that Cincy could be interested but I'm wondering what they're even doing at TE anymore.  This may have been the deepest TE draft in memory and they decided to go deeper at WR instead. You like to have a full toolbox but you have to wonder if not only may they go with mostly receiver heavy packages but if a guy like Barnidge sees this.

I still cant believe we passed on Howard. I know we have 4 TE's already but damn. And the other deep position in the draft that we always seem to draft CB. I dont count Wilson, they have him listed as a RB. With the WR's we have now, Im not sure but I dont see Zamp using many 2 TE sets. I am surprised Hue let him go even after they got Njoku. 

If Eifert is healthy Barnidge would most likely be a waste of money.