I think the Steelers get more big time production from their rookies sooner than the Bengals do on the offensive side of the ball.
Ross and Boyds rookie seasons combined production don't add to Schusters.
I think Leveon Bell was more productive in his rookie year than Mixon.
Bell wasnt part of a 3 headed rotation in Pittsburgh
Let's don't forget the Steelers had more continuity with coordinators before 2018 season
Haley was there for 6 years
The Bengals went through Gruden Jackson Zampese and Lazor.
Terminology changes philosophies etc
I think the continuity in Pittsburgh plays a part in rookies success.
And having a HOF qb doesn't hurt either

You are spot on with this. It's not really rocket science to figure it out. The Bengals think too far into the future when they need to worry about the current year. When's the last time a 1st rounder really made a difference,in thinking green because they did play Tyler eifert but that year I felt it wasn't enough. While the Steelers always plays their 1st round guy. We play our 2nd and third rounders but they still take a back seat to vets until they really work them in.but funny enough some 4th and 5th rounders find themselves starting quicker then anyone .We are ass backwards .

What I see the OP pointing out, is that the Steelers' scouting department does a better job of identifying talent that can step in and get the job done, immediately.

I'd have to go back and do research on Steeler needs the past five years, but it does seem they draft for need in the first 2-3 rounds whereas Bengals lean more toward BPA. With that said, the Bengals do give their rookie/sophomore players some meaningful snaps, but they do typically have veterans in front of them. But some of the Bengals' young guys (especially first-round rookies) have had injuries derail their snap opportunities.

Steelers past first rounders since 2012 in reverse order:
TJ Watt - 751 snaps as a rookie
Artie Burns - 810 snaps as a rookie
Bud Dupree - 563 snaps as a rookie
Ryan Shazier - 258 snaps as a rookie
Jarvis Jones - 630 snaps as a rookie
David DeCastro - 136 snaps as a rookie
-----------------------------------
3148 snaps (average 524.67 snaps per player)

Bengals past first rounders since 2012 in reverse order:
John Ross - 17 snaps as a rookie
William Jackson III - 0 snaps as a rookie
Cedric Ogbuehi - 65 snaps as a rookie
Darqueze Dennard - 62 snaps as a rookie
Tyler Eifert - 673 snaps as a rookie
Kevin Zeitler - 1051 snaps as a rookie
Dre Kirkpatrick - 42 snaps as a rookie
---------------------------------------
1910 snaps (average 272.86 snaps per player)

Clearly, the Bengals' rookie snap counts are covered primarily by just Zeitler and then Eifert. Five out of the seven rookies did not even reach 100 primarily due to injuries.

At the end of the day, all the fans want is better production whether it's the veterans or the young guys. The Bengals are not getting a lot of immediate snaps and/or production from their drafted players in recent years and the veterans are not being as productive as we'd like.

(03-01-2018, 09:46 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: What I see the OP pointing out, is that the Steelers' scouting department does a better job of identifying talent that can step in and get the job done, immediately.

This.  Also worth noting.....we hold on to declining vets too long, and waste cap money on them as well.  It's two fold.  You're throwing bad money at the situation, and having potentially more talented and younger/faster players buried on the depth chart.

(03-01-2018, 12:14 PM)ochocincos Wrote: I'd have to go back and do research on Steeler needs the past five years, but it does seem they draft for need in the first 2-3 rounds whereas Bengals lean more toward BPA. With that said, the Bengals do give their rookie/sophomore players some meaningful snaps, but they do typically have veterans in front of them. But some of the Bengals' young guys (especially first-round rookies) have had injuries derail their snap opportunities.

Steelers past first rounders since 2012 in reverse order:
TJ Watt - 751 snaps as a rookie
Artie Burns - 810 snaps as a rookie
Bud Dupree - 563 snaps as a rookie
Ryan Shazier - 258 snaps as a rookie
Jarvis Jones - 630 snaps as a rookie
David DeCastro - 136 snaps as a rookie
-----------------------------------
3148 snaps (average 524.67 snaps per player)

Bengals past first rounders since 2012 in reverse order:
John Ross - 17 snaps as a rookie
William Jackson III - 0 snaps as a rookie
Cedric Ogbuehi - 65 snaps as a rookie
Darqueze Dennard - 62 snaps as a rookie
Tyler Eifert - 673 snaps as a rookie
Kevin Zeitler - 1051 snaps as a rookie
Dre Kirkpatrick - 42 snaps as a rookie
---------------------------------------
1910 snaps (average 272.86 snaps per player)

Clearly, the Bengals' rookie snap counts are covered primarily by just Zeitler and then Eifert. Five out of the seven rookies did not even reach 100 primarily due to injuries.

At the end of the day, all the fans want is better production whether it's the veterans or the young guys. The Bengals are not getting a lot of immediate snaps and/or production from their drafted players in recent years and the veterans are not being as productive as we'd like.

Nice work, and well stated.  WJIII could have played some his rookie season, and got meaningful reps.  If only we didn't need a ST lifer so badly that season.

(03-01-2018, 12:23 PM)Wyche Wrote: This.  Also worth noting.....we hold on to declining vets too long, and waste cap money on them as well.  It's two fold.  You're throwing bad money at the situation, and having potentially more talented and younger/faster players buried on the depth chart.

Right on !

Mike Brown's honor contracts come hell or high water to the vets in the MB pets club works only in MB's wallet and at the annual loyalty convention.

A. Jones and Mike embracing in a season ending, tear jerking, come hither hug next season will do nothing for winning a championship.

Yey rep points..  Are we able to exchange them for a free fountain drink at  the convenient stores of Speedway or something ? Maybe they should be good for .02 cents off the price of a gallon of gas at Kroger . Personally I have NO IDEA if I have any or none and furthermore don't particularly care . They really shouldn't even come into the conversation of whether you're right about something or not 
It's not as if getting rep points about your claim that a spork is better than  a spoon will actually make a spoon inferior.. 
Oh wait  ..this is supposed to be about the Bengals and steelers draft picks and whether they're day one starters or not.  Never mind.. 
Rep points schrep schproints..  That's the technical term for something or another .

(03-01-2018, 12:36 PM)grampahol Wrote: Yey rep points..  Are we able to exchange them for a free fountain drink at  the convenient stores of Speedway or something ? Maybe they should be good for .02 cents off the price of a gallon of gas at Kroger . Personally I have NO IDEA if I have any or none and furthermore don't particularly care . They really shouldn't even come into the conversation of whether you're right about something or not 
It's not as if getting rep points about your claim that a spork is better than  a spoon will actually make a spoon inferior.. 
Oh wait  ..this is supposed to be about the Bengals and steelers draft picks and whether they're day one starters or not.  Never mind.. 
Rep points schrep schproints..  That's the technical term for something or another .

The purpose of Rep Points is to help establish which posters are viewed more as making good/accurate points in the eyes of their peers.
However, just because someone has a lot of rep points and/or are getting increased rep points doesn't necessarily make them right.

I find it funny people are on the Bengals case over Pacman playing...He has been the best defender in the secondary for years in Cincy and the only other player that you could argue was Reggie in ONLY 2015. You might not like Pacman as a person but he's a damn good football player.

(03-01-2018, 12:46 PM)Synric Wrote: I find it funny people are on the Bengals case over Pacman playing...He has been the best defender in the secondary for years in Cincy and the only other player that you could argue was Reggie in ONLY 2015. You might not like Pacman as a person but he's a damn good football player.

I don't think you will find many that would argue your statement 2 years ago. However as of right now, Jackson is clearly ahead of Jones in talent. Are you willing to pay Jones his current salary to be a back-up?

(03-01-2018, 12:46 PM)Synric Wrote: I find it funny people are on the Bengals case over Pacman playing...He has been the best defender in the secondary for years in Cincy and the only other player that you could argue was Reggie in ONLY 2015. You might not like Pacman as a person but he's a damn good football player.

Personal opinion is it should be Jackson and Dennard on the outside, Jones in the slot. DK should not have been re-signed, at least at the contract he got. That contract was a panic signing when Whitworth and Zeitler both left. But given DK was re-signed and won't be cut anytime soon and Jones has just a team option then UFA, I think it makes sense to decline the option.

(02-28-2018, 10:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I never ignored any of that.  I specifically mentioned that Dre, Dennard, and Jackson were all INJURED their rookie seasons.

And Ogbuehi did not sit for 2 years.  He started 12 games his second season.

Try to THINK.

The issue has never been limited to rookie snap counts or the playing of rookies during their rookie season or Marvin never plays rookies.

You attempt to alter or limit the Concept that you can't grasp in order to argue about what you tried to reduce it to.

The issue has always been about the Bengals tendency to often want the comfort of having an experienced starter already in place for a rookie to learn behind. More of a Safety Net that the Steelers often don't require at the same rate.

Leon Hall, Terrance Newman, Pac Man and Nate Clements were on the roster when Dre was a rookie. That is the heart of the points being made here. Dre missing out on snaps because of injury has no bearing on the Concept here because the Concept has never been what you have tried to spin it towards. Never solely about rookie snaps or Marvin never letting rookies play.

Dennard and Jackson had veterans in front of them their rookie seasons and NICE TRY in your attempt  to alter my Cedric comment from "developed for roughly 2 seasons to replace Andrew Whitworth" into YOUR SPIN of "sitting for 2 years".

You stand corrected.

(02-28-2018, 10:38 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yep.  You are getting rep points from people who believe the myth that Marvin never plays rookies.  Just like the people who claimed Peko was garbage for years got lots of rep points and the people who have been claiming for years that Kirkpatrick is garbage.

Rep points have nothing to do with "grasping any concept"  they are based on people gpoing along with myths that are popular on these boards.

Artie Burns was "fast tracked" because in 2015 the Steelers had the 30th ranked pass defense in the league, and even then he did not start until the second half of his rookie season.  Until this last year the Bengals were never that desperate for a starer to fix a problem that bad.  But in 2011 they started Dalton and Green from day one because they had to.

If you look at the facts surrounding these players you will see that the teams decision on when to play rookies is not defined by some overreaching strategy.  Instead it is defined by the needs that vary from year to year.  In fact that is exactly why you did not go back to the time when the Bengals started rookies like Boling, Green, Zeitler, and Dalton.  Those facts did not fit the myth you were pitching.

Another "red herring" from Fred.

You pretend that I limited my time horizon to 5 years so that I could avoid talking about Boling, Green, Zeitler and Dalton. (Keep in mind that we would find good Steeler examples as well past 5 years.)

Implying that I have been making an all or nothing or all one way and none the other way argument.

I clearly stated in my original post that "this is a general difference. Each team does some of what the other team does more of when drafting".

I also made it clear that this was a "ratio" difference which also implies that EACH TEAM does some proportion of both having rookies learn behind experienced veterans and starting rookies more quickly or with less of a safety net player in front of them.

RATIO - a ratio is a relationship between two numbers indicating how many times the first number contains the second

Your attempts to show yourself as brilliant fall short much more often than you likely would admit to yourself.

(03-01-2018, 01:11 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Personal opinion is it should be Jackson and Dennard on the outside, Jones in the slot. DK should not have been re-signed, at least at the contract he got. That contract was a panic signing when Whitworth and Zeitler both left. But given DK was re-signed and won't be cut anytime soon and Jones has just a team option then UFA, I think it makes sense to decline the option.

They shouldn't pick up his option no its to expensive but letting his backup his last year and do some punt returns while still mentoring the young guys is a good idea. You can never have enough good corners. Like I mentioned in another thread there was a point in the season Jones Jackson and Kirkpatrick missed. 

Also I disagree about Dennard he is a nickle corner. He has slow feet and has stiff hips you don't want him matching up outside, but he is physical against the run and has good instincts inside. Yes I know he did play outside in college but alot of college corners move inside in the NFL. 

Edit: Like to clarify my orginal post it wasn't about 2018 or his team option was about him starting over WJ3 in 2017.

(03-01-2018, 01:17 PM)depthchart Wrote: Try to THINK.

The issue has never been limited to rookie snap counts or the playing of rookies during their rookie season or Marvin never plays rookies.

You attempt to alter or limit the Concept that you can't grasp in order to argue about what you tried to reduce it to.

The issue has always been about the Bengals tendency to often want the comfort of having an experienced starter already in place for a rookie to learn behind. More of a Safety Net that the Steelers often don't require at the same rate.

Then why do you cite so many Steeler draft picks that sat behind starters who were already in place?

I absolutely grasp your concept.  All I am doing is pointing out the flaws in the evidence you claim proves your point.

Both the Bengals and the Steelers play rookies when they have to.  Both the Steelers and Bengals prefer to let rookies sit behind starters when possible.  You have not posted anything that proves differently.  Many of the Steeler draft picks you cite as "immediate starers" actually sat behind other starters and did not play as much as the Bengals you try to label as "back ups".

Interesting, but I don't think it tells the whole story.

The Bengals RARELY draft for need in the first 2 rounds - which is generally where the guys who are capable of stepping in and starting are drafted.

When they have taken a guy who fills an obvious hole, he generally plays early - Zeitler being an example.

(03-01-2018, 09:46 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: What I see the OP pointing out, is that the Steelers' scouting department does a better job of identifying talent that can step in and get the job done, immediately.

(03-01-2018, 12:23 PM)Wyche Wrote: This.  Also worth noting.....we hold on to declining vets too long, and waste cap money on them as well.  It's two fold.  You're throwing bad money at the situation, and having potentially more talented and younger/faster players buried on the depth chart.

You are both correct as usual.

Sucks, i remember Wolf put in his resume last year. Wolf never told me what came of that?

Sure would be nice to have him in the scouting department, he is great at analyzing players.

(03-01-2018, 04:26 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: You are both correct as usual.

Sucks, i remember Wolf put in his resume last year. Wolf never told me what came of that?

Sure would be nice to have him in the scouting department, he is great at analyzing players.

I think wolf said he never heard back.

(03-01-2018, 05:42 PM)Wyche Wrote: I think wolf said he never heard back.

Probably Wolf asked for more than minimum wage and Mikey wasn't budging.