Why folks want Tate over Core:

(08-29-2018, 12:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why folks want Tate over Core:

Nah, I've just never really seen anything from Cody Core that warrants keeping him over a cheaper option with upside potential.  Remember when we kept Orson Charles over Chris Pressley for that magical upside? 

I don't ever really remember Core making any play of significance. Not saying he hasn't, but I don't recall any....

(08-29-2018, 01:02 PM)Wyche Wrote:   Remember when we kept Orson Charles over Chris Pressley for that magical upside? 

Charles was a better player than Pressley.

So what is your point?

(08-29-2018, 05:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Charles was a better player than Pressley.

So what is your point?

Matter of opinion......but he wound up brandishing a firearm on I-75, rendering him pretty much a non factor.


Also, if we're keeping upside.....then Core is a known commodity, Tate could actually improve, hence, upside.

(08-29-2018, 01:02 PM)Wyche Wrote: Nah, I've just never really seen anything from Cody Core that warrants keeping him over a cheaper option with upside potential.

(08-29-2018, 05:36 PM)Sled21 Wrote: I don't ever really remember Core making any play of significance. Not saying he hasn't, but I don't recall any....

In 2016 Core had a 50 yard td catch against the Eagles.  Later that year he had 8 receptions against the Texans to lead the team.

(08-29-2018, 05:52 PM)Wyche Wrote: Matter of opinion......but he wound up brandishing a firearm on I-75, rendering him pretty much a non factor.

They were both non-factors, but Pressley is a perfect example of a player the fans here drooled over for some reason when he really wasn't that good.

(08-29-2018, 05:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: In 2016 Core had a 50 yard td catch against the Eagles.  Later that year he had 8 receptions against the Texans to lead the team.

That was the one I was going to reply to Sled's post with.....but I couldn't remember if that was him or not.


Not a bad day, but he's since pretty much vanished.  Anyway......Tate has upside.  Core is a ST lifer it seems.

(08-29-2018, 05:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: They were both non-factors, but Pressley is a perfect example of a player the fans here drooled over for some reason when he really wasn't that good.

You know, you're right.....I meant John Conner.....the other fullback.  He was a better blocker than Charles, IMO.  Also, read the edit of my post.  I wasn't necessarily knocking Orson.  Just relaying the premise of upside vs known commodity....er something like that.

(08-29-2018, 12:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why folks want Tate over Core:

That was really mean to young Andy lol

When it comes down to it they are both players competing to make the roster at all. It not like one is a huge stand out over the other, or one of them is looking to make a big impact on the team this year. Its pretty much about upside with players like this. Core played well on ST, but from what I'm seeing he wont be missed there. Tate has a knack for making insane catches, but even if he makes the team he may not get any of those chances to catch anything this season regardless.

(08-29-2018, 05:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Charles was a better player than Pressley.

So what is your point?

Lol. Charles was a overhyped TE who was undersized. He failed miserably at TE so the Bengals who invested a 4th round pick on him decided to move him to fullback which he was even worse at. Couldn’t block a standing target let alone a moving target to save his life. Complete trash as a football player but hey he looked like Tarzan in shorts he must be good.

(08-29-2018, 08:47 PM)Socal Bengals fan Wrote: Lol.  Charles was a overhyped TE who was undersized. He failed miserably at TE so the Bengals who invested a 4th round pick on him decided to move him to fullback which he was even worse at. Couldn’t block a standing target let alone a moving target to save his life.  Complete trash as a football player but hey he looked like Tarzan in shorts he must be good.

Easy man.  A fan should not sound like he is so excited over ripping a bengal that he is getting a stiffy.

No one said Charles was a good player, but he hung around the NFL for 6 year.  So he was better than most draft picks.

(08-29-2018, 09:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Easy man.  A fan should not sound like he is so excited over ripping a bengal that he is getting a stiffy.

No one said Charles was a good player, but he hung around the NFL for 6 year.  So he was better than most draft picks.

Well you jumped on him and said Charles was a better player than Presley like it was a fact, coming off like a d bag. That’s just your opinion but In reality Charles stunk the place up. He looked like a fish out of water during hard knocks.

(08-29-2018, 01:02 PM)Wyche Wrote: Nah, I've just never really seen anything from Cody Core that warrants keeping him over a cheaper option with upside potential.  Remember when we kept Orson Charles over Chris Pressley for that magical upside? 

The "cheaper" aspect is ridiculous. The difference is about 150k. What leads you to believe Tate has more upside; cause he's taller? As to the rest; you lost me.

(08-29-2018, 01:02 PM)Wyche Wrote: Nah, I've just never really seen anything from Cody Core that warrants keeping him over a cheaper option with upside potential.  Remember when we kept Orson Charles over Chris Pressley for that magical upside? 

is not upside it is what value can that play give to a team this year in the aspect of winning.  Core has rated one of the Best Bengals on Special Teams last year... Tate seems to offer very little in that important area.. so even if Tate offers more than Core as a WR.. how much really is Tate going to see when it comes to a meaning play in the game compared to multiple kick offs, punts etc a game that could change a game. 

Orson Charles is a zero comparison... Charles was keep for 2/3 TE.. Tate is 6th WR,  Core has a much better ST contribution than any of them.. now i stated im not sure if Core will make the team since he is hurt, but if he had been healthy all preseason, i could easily justify keeping him and putting Tate on PS

(08-29-2018, 11:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The "cheaper" aspect is ridiculous. The difference is about 150k. What leads you to believe Tate has more upside; cause he's taller? As to the rest; you lost me.

Imo, most NFL WR's see their biggest jump in play in year 2 or 3.  Core actually regressed last year after an unimpressive rookie campaign and hasn't looked good in TC by all reports.  On top of it, he hasn't caught a pass this preseason.  At this point in his development, he's a bubble WR who's only real chance to hang on an NFL roster is ST's and there's a relatively slim chance at this point that he will ever be anything more.

It's pretty much a yearly occurrence that there's a young late round/rookie free agent WR that makes a few plays in camp and is suddenly the next TJ.  Tate is the latest in this line.  Core was the last young stud that turned out to be a scrub.  Before that, there was Kumerow, Wright, etc.  Likely, Tate will hang onto the roster for a year or two, then get bumped off the roster, but there's the chance that he will develop into a decent contributor.  Core's had his chances, and has failed to deliver.

In all likelihood, the point is moot, anyways.  Core won't be able to play in Indy, and will likely end up on IR, creating a clear path onto the roster for Tate.

(08-29-2018, 05:58 PM)Wyche Wrote: You know, you're right.....I meant John Conner.....the other fullback.  He was a better blocker than Charles, IMO.  Also, read the edit of my post.  I wasn't necessarily knocking Orson.  Just relaying the premise of upside vs known commodity....er something like that.

Side note, I think it is laughably stupid to call someone named John Conner "The Terminator" because John Conner was not the terminator.  I understand nicknames are sometimes silly, but come on...that's like calling someone who is named Dorothy "The Wicked Witch" or "The Wizard of Oz" or something.

I'm amazed that some people seem to think special teams play is meaningless and anyone can do it. Cody Core established himself as a pretty darn good gunner ,but if the position was so meaningless teams would have guys like Geno doing it. 
Field position is really important especially in tight games.  Neither Core nor Tate are going to be starting receivers and there's a good chance that neither will get any red zone targets at all throughout the season so they had better be able to offer more than just a potential red zone target. Teams simply cannot just ignore the other contributions a player can offer because someone else MIGHT be able to offer the sexiest catches in the red zone. 
I might buy the height argument if Core was 5'6" or something, but Tate is a mere 2" taller and not the starting center in the NBA.. 
By minimizing the importance of ST gunners you might as well just say that it's ok to let opposing teams score TDs on every punt or kick off and think we'll always get it back with our amazing 6'5" potential red zone target every time ..  
I'm not saying Core is or was the greatest gunner of all time ,but he does offer something that Tate doesn't.  

(08-30-2018, 11:41 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Side note, I think it is laughably stupid to call someone named John Conner "The Terminator" because John Conner was not the terminator.  I understand nicknames are sometimes silly, but come on...that's like calling someone who is named Dorothy "The Wicked Witch" or "The Wizard of Oz" or something.

But "Scrawny little boy who was in the movie The Terminator" just doesnt have the same ring to it.