Here is mine. David Pollack was drafted # 1 for his HIGH MOTOR. A GUY THAT GOES ALL OUT EVERY PLAY like a Tim Krumrie. Of course Pollack had the bad injury early on. All I've seen of Willis and Smith is HIGH MOTOR on every play be it early in game or late in game. I'm not saying this makes them starters right away, but I sure can't see cutting them from the defense. They also have sometimes just physically dominated. I have to think something is wrong with the owners and coaches if these two spark plugs aren't on the roster. I could see them very good on Special Teams and coming off the bench. They have the talent to someday be starters, maybe sooner than later. These two look like the type defensive players Steelers and Ravens come up with and Bengals wish they had. Munoz and announcers have been very impressed by both so far. I can't see them not being on the roster. The have great ability and have HIGH MOTORS not taking any plays off.

High motor is good. Just don't get over excited and over persue a tackle, block or route.

Edit: Quote just came to mind from the movie "Colors:"

Young bull: I wanna run down there and fug that cow.

Old bull: Let's walk down there and fug em all!

My opinion? They are the future, and long overdue. This team sticks with something that worked once, way too long before they decide that another direction might yield better results.

(08-24-2017, 07:28 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: My opinion? They are the future, and long overdue. This team sticks with something that worked once, way too long before they decide that another direction might yield better results.

That's a good point. Let's hope we turned the right direction for the organization.

I liked Willis in the draft, not my first choice by far. If we didn't go DE at #9 I was hoping to get Demarcus Walker from Fla St. with the second wave of DE's, I was content with Willis also. But for me I feel like we got both, Smiths high motor reminds me of Walker. I don't see this guy not making the team, in fact I would love to see him start over Johnson or be in the starting rotation. I think he's a beast.

(08-24-2017, 07:39 PM)TKUHL Wrote: I liked Willis in the draft, not my first choice by far. If we didn't go DE at #9 I was hoping to get Demarcus Walker from Fla St. with the second wave of DE's, I was content with Willis also. But for me I feel like we got both, Smiths high motor reminds me of Walker. I don't see this guy not making the team, in fact I would love to see him start over Johnson or be in the starting rotation. I think he's a beast.

Not sure that would happen with the commitment to seniority over talent in our organization.

(08-24-2017, 07:44 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Not sure that would happen with the commitment to seniority over talent in our organization.

I know, it drives me crazy. There are always a handful of players on this team that start a couple years too long. I just want to see true competition at every position regardless of seniority. Put the best possible product out there.

(08-24-2017, 07:28 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: My opinion?  They are the future, and long overdue.  This team sticks with something that worked once, way too long before they decide that another direction might yield better results.

Yes it's been terrible they stuck with Dunlap and let him develop in the solid player should have cut him after the second year

When I say Willis I was surprised how big he was; I always classified him as a 3-4/4-3 hybrid. He looks like a full-grown 4-3 base end.

Smith has been an unexpected treat. Hope we find a way to keep him on the 53; although it is going to be hard.

(08-24-2017, 07:52 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: Yes it's been terrible they stuck with Dunlap and let him develop in the solid player should have cut him after the second year

Oh nonsense. 

Will Clarke? 
Michael Johnson?
Wallace Gilberry? 
Marcus Hardison? 
Margus Hunt?

No. Please. Use the one EXCEPTION to the rule to try and prove a point. 

They've been favoring oversized DEs who can't bend and then generally the team struggles to get non-manufactured sacks. 
That's been a problem. 

(08-24-2017, 07:52 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: Yes it's been terrible they stuck with Dunlap and let him develop in the solid player should have cut him after the second year

Look at the bigger picture. Please don't look through the eyes of ML. That's probably his same position.

(08-24-2017, 07:39 PM)TKUHL Wrote: I liked Willis in the draft, not my first choice by far. If we didn't go DE at #9 I was hoping to get Demarcus Walker from Fla St. with the second wave of DE's, I was content with Willis also. But for me I feel like we got both, Smiths high motor reminds me of Walker. I don't see this guy not making the team, in fact I would love to see him start over Johnson or be in the starting rotation. I think he's a beast.

He'd be more of the same. base DE but has to play inside to get pass rush. 
Granted, we do need more depth inside pass rushing but we also have a desperate need for guys who can rush from the edge. 

My Opinion: Do it in real football games, or all the talk/hype is meaningless.

Margus Hunt: 6 sacks in 15 preseason games with Bengals
Margus Hunt: 1.5 sacks in 44 regular season games with Bengals

(08-24-2017, 07:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: When I say Willis I was surprised how big he was; I always classified him as a 3-4/4-3 hybrid. He looks like a full-grown 4-3 base end.

Smith has been an unexpected treat. Hope we find a way to keep him on the 53; although it is going to be hard.

How will it be difficult to keep him?


Lawson is categorized as a LB.
Clarke has been bad. 
Gilberry has been worse.
That's his competition.

Keeping either over Smith would be a very strange decision. 

(08-24-2017, 07:58 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: My Opinion: Do it in real football games, or all the talk/hype is meaningless.

Margus Hunt: 6 sacks in 15 preseason games with Bengals
Margus Hunt: 1.5 sacks in 44 regular season games with Bengals

Agree,

This is why I'd love to see Willis and Smith get the lion's share of the snaps against 1st team O. We already know MJ is a non-factor.

(08-24-2017, 07:59 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: How will it be difficult to keep him?


Lawson is categorized as a LB.
Clarke has been bad. 
Gilberry has been worse.
That's his competition.

Keeping either over Smith would be a very strange decision. 

Agree, don't forget MJ

If Smith gets cut and we keep Clarke and MJ and Gilberry something is bad wrong. But this is the Bengals and MB covets honoring contracts over winning playoff games.

(08-24-2017, 07:59 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: How will it be difficult to keep him?


Lawson is categorized as a LB.
Clarke has been bad. 
Gilberry has been worse.
That's his competition.

Keeping either over Smith would be a very strange decision. 

Clarke was very efficient last year in limited duty; while Smith was terrible. It may take more than 2 Preseason games for Smith the leapfrog Clarke. 

Categorize Lawson as LB all you want, but we both know what he is going to be used for.

I get folks like Smith because he is new. Reminds me of that Steeler's castoff we fell in love with a couple years back.

WTS, I hope he makes the 53, but as I said: he's got an uphill battle. 

(08-24-2017, 07:56 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: Oh nonsense. 

Will Clarke? 
Michael Johnson?
Wallace Gilberry? 
Marcus Hardison? 
Margus Hunt?

No. Please. Use the one EXCEPTION to the rule to try and prove a point. 

They've been favoring oversized DEs who can't bend and then generally the team struggles to get non-manufactured sacks. 
That's been a problem. 

Okay well let's look at this logically you have two starting defensive ends so Dunlap has been a great success so that's part of the reason that we don't have a lot of turnover at one side of the end and Michael Johnson had some good productive years as a bengal yes he's on the downside now same with gilberry had a good productive years as a Bengal so I don't buy that we've been terrible at the end like implied, What I Do buy is we haven't done well the last few years with our draft picks but we've not been a terrible defense so that's a bunch of nonsense by you.

(08-24-2017, 09:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Clarke was very efficient last year in limited duty; while Smith was terrible. It may take more than 2 Preseason games for Smith the leapfrog Clarke. 

Categorize Lawson as LB all you want, but we both know what he is going to be used for.

I get folks like Smith because he is new. Reminds me of that Steeler's castoff we fell in love with a couple years back.

WTS, I hope he makes the 53, but as I said: he's got an uphill battle. 

"Efficient" is a polite way of saying, he shouldn't be on the field much. 
He's already started to. He's gotten first team reps. 
He looks like he belongs. Clarke has proven he's not very good. He offers 0 pass rush. He's not particularly stout vs the run. 

Categorizing Lawson is important for the numbers game. Try to fudge it all you want for your argument, but he's listed as a LB on the website for a reason. 

When it comes to bottom roster guys, yeah try something new. Why is that so bad? 

(08-24-2017, 09:23 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: Okay well let's look at this logically you have two starting defensive ends so Dunlap has been a great success so that's part of the reason that we don't have a lot of turnover at one side of the end and Michael Johnson had some good productive years as a bengal yes he's on the downside now same with gilberry had a good productive years as a Bengal so I don't buy that we've been terrible at the end like implied, What I Do buy is we haven't done well the last few years with our draft picks but we've not been a terrible defense so that's a bunch of nonsense by you.

Michael Johnson had one productive pass rushing year. 
Otherwise he's been mediocre. 

Even Dunlap hasn't been that consistent of a pass rusher. 

Gilberry hasn't been productive since 2013. So I'm not sure what your point on him is. 

Go look at sack leaders in the NFL. The vast majority of EDGE RUSHERS are under 270 lbs. Most fit that 265 lbs mold. 

Ends like Watt and now Bosa, do most of their damage moving inside while the OLB rushes the edge.

Edge rushers tend to do better when they aren't incredibly tall and heavy. 

Dunlap is a very rare anomaly in that regard. 

We've seen very little production from drafted DEs since Dunlap. 
What do they all have in common? Big heavy edge guys not built for rushing from DE. 

(08-24-2017, 09:24 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: "Efficient" is a polite way of saying, he shouldn't be on the field much. 
He's already started to. He's gotten first team reps. 
He looks like he belongs. Clarke has proven he's not very good. He offers 0 pass rush. He's not particularly stout vs the run. 

Categorizing Lawson is important for the numbers game. Try to fudge it all you want for your argument, but he's listed as a LB on the website for a reason. 

When it comes to bottom roster guys, yeah try something new. Why is that so bad? 

Clarke had 4 sacks last year. That's 4-times as many as Smith. So why should Smith be on the field?

Not really "fudging" anything; just saying it's going to be difficult for him to make the 53. They classify Hardison as a DE; not sure I'd be "fudging" it to not consider him as such. 

Don't know how much slower I can type this. I hope he makes the squad, but he has an uphill battle.