(08-30-2018, 12:15 PM)Sweetness Wrote: But "Scrawny little boy who was in the movie The Terminator" just doesnt have the same ring to it. 

Fortunately for everyone involved championships aren't won with cutesy nicknames.. If they were we would call Andy the Red Cannon of Death and Ross The Flash that blinds even blind moles.. 
Heck, we haven't even come up with a cutesy nick for Pollack yet.. The Anti-piano dude? The Belicous Bomb of Blocking! 
Yeah. Pretty lame, but I've never laid claim to being a cutesy nickname maven.. 

(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.

Fred, you know that you always bring valid points and I almost always agree with you, but seriously, give me a break.

After Jeremi, he was the best blocking FB we've ever had (don't get me started on, how overrated Lorenzo, "only blocks for HOFs and can't block worth a crap for regular RBs," Neal was) and he was superb at that job.

Can't even argue it either, as the numbers were much better across the board, SIGNIFICANTLY better, with him in than without a FB. Wish I still could access the mothership for my old threads that had the stats...

I'll give you that was completely one-dimensional though; ok at pass-catching, but he wasn't Hewitt.

(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.

Charles is on the active roster for Cleveland, actually and had 2 catches for 35 yards in KC, last year.

He's hanging around lol

(08-29-2018, 10:06 PM)Socal Bengals fan Wrote: 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.

I posted facts to support my opinion.  If Charles was as bad as you claim he would not have hung around the NFL this long.


Disagreeing with another poster does not make me a dirt bag.  If so then everyone here is a dirt bag.

(08-30-2018, 01:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I posted facts to support my opinion.  If Charles was as bad as you claim he would not have hung around the NFL this long.


Disagreeing with another poster does not make me a dirt bag.  If so then everyone here is a dirt bag.

.....................................................am not.....................................................

I'd say Tate will be on our PS. He lacks speed and he didn't have a particularly good preseason. Game winning TD stands out but other than that....

(08-29-2018, 11:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What leads you to believe Tate has more upside; cause he's taller? 

Apparently, you haven't watched any training camp videos or preseason games.

(08-29-2018, 11:09 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: Core has rated one of the Best Bengals on Special Teams last year... 

Cody "special teams monster" Core. The guy with 4 freaking special teams tackles last year. Yay.
Cethan Freaking Carter had 9 tackles on special teams. 
Field turf has more tackles than Core does on the season.

(08-30-2018, 12:32 PM)grampahol Wrote: Fortunately for everyone involved championships aren't won with cutesy nicknames.. If they were we would call Andy the Red Cannon of Death and Ross The Flash that blinds even blind moles.. 
Heck, we haven't even come up with a cutesy nick for Pollack yet.. The Anti-piano dude? The Belicous Bomb of Blocking! 
Yeah. Pretty lame, but I've never laid claim to being a cutesy nickname maven.. 

Actually, I kind of like just "Andy the Red".....
As for Pollock, we could call him "Blinky", but that's kind of mean so we'll have to keep it under wraps until he gets on the boards s list........

(09-01-2018, 02:42 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Field turf has more tackles than Core does on the season.

Rather odd how teams list special teams players. If you look at the published roster there's only 3, long snapper, holder and kickers.. The rest are usually defensive and offensive players who are often first and second year players who may or may not be used in any other aspect of the game. It's kind of too bad teams don't just have every day special teams teams.. But then who wants to get drafted by a team only for punt blocking or kickoff blocking or tackling?  Other than the one Estonian I can't think of many guys drafted for just one aspect of special teams other than kickers. Yeah, that was a fail.. oh well. 

(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.

We always discuss money and cap on here....so cheaper is relevant to the discussion, imo.  I watched both in college, Tate made some good plays against good competition on an otherwise lousy team, my team.  Core was good at Miss too against SEC competition.  Core has not developed very much in his 3 years here, Tate has not had the chance yet, hence, upside.  Tate has also made some nice plays in preseason action, Core has not.  Tate has some intangibles you can't coach, Core does have the speed.  That's what makes me look at upside.  The rest was about taking upside over an established vet.....which is this scenario....why I introduced it to the conversation.

(08-29-2018, 11:09 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: 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

I see your point, but is Tate really THAT good on STs?  It's all moot now, they're both on the team, but it just seems to me that it's time to give someone else a shot at that WR position.  As long as we don't lose Fej on teams, I think we'll be alright.

See my reply to bfine in regards to Charles, and he was kept to be an Hback.

(08-29-2018, 11:41 PM)Whatever Wrote: 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.

Agree with all of that.....Tate may or may not be a TJ type player.....but Core's had his shot, let's see what the kid can bring with a little coaching.

(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.

LMAO.....I agree.  Although, Conner did blow some mf'ers up.

(08-30-2018, 12:15 PM)Sweetness Wrote: But "Scrawny little boy who was in the movie The Terminator" just doesnt have the same ring to it. 

:andy:

(08-30-2018, 12:35 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: Fred, you know that you always bring valid points and I almost always agree with you, but seriously, give me a break.

After Jeremi, he was the best blocking FB we've ever had (don't get me started on, how overrated Lorenzo, "only blocks for HOFs and can't block worth a crap for regular RBs," Neal was) and he was superb at that job.

Can't even argue it either, as the numbers were much better across the board, SIGNIFICANTLY better, with him in than without a FB. Wish I still could access the mothership for my old threads that had the stats...

I'll give you that was completely one-dimensional though; ok at pass-catching, but he wasn't Hewitt.


Charles is on the active roster for Cleveland, actually and had 2 catches for 35 yards in KC, last year.

He's hanging around lol

Yep, even though I was actually referring to Conner, Pressley was a damn fine blocker.

As for Orson, couldn't believe I saw his name when I was scouring rosters for fantasy ball.

(09-01-2018, 02:31 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Apparently, you haven't watched any training camp videos or preseason games.

Sure seems like it.

(09-01-2018, 02:42 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Cody "special teams monster" Core. The guy with 4 freaking special teams tackles last year. Yay.
Cethan Freaking Carter had 9 tackles on special teams. 
Field turf has more tackles than Core does on the season.

This.  If we were talking about Tate over Fej, I'd say no way.....you keep Fej.  I'm just not seeing anything more than a run of the mill STer?  Also, if a TE like Carter can get 9 tackles, why can't a guy like Tate?  Why can't Auden get 4 tackles?

(09-06-2018, 01:51 PM)Wyche Wrote: We always discuss money and cap on here....so cheaper is relevant to the discussion, imo.  I watched both in college, Tate made some good plays against good competition on an otherwise lousy team, my team.  Core was good at Miss too against SEC competition.  Core has not developed very much in his 3 years here, Tate has not had the chance yet, hence, upside.  Tate has also made some nice plays in preseason action, Core has not.  Tate has some intangibles you can't coach, Core does have the speed.  That's what makes me look at upside.  The rest was about taking upside over an established vet.....which is this scenario....why I introduced it to the conversation.


I see your point, but is Tate really THAT good on STs?  It's all moot now, they're both on the team, but it just seems to me that it's time to give someone else a shot at that WR position.  As long as we don't lose Fej on teams, I think we'll be alright.

See my reply to bfine in regards to Charles, and he was kept to be an Hback.


Agree with all of that.....Tate may or may not be a TJ type player.....but Core's had his shot, let's see what the kid can bring with a little coaching.


LMAO.....I agree.  Although, Conner did blow some mf'ers up.


:andy:


Yep, even though I was actually referring to Conner, Pressley was a damn fine blocker.

As for Orson, couldn't believe I saw his name when I was scouring rosters for fantasy ball.


Sure seems like it.


This.  If we were talking about Tate over Fej, I'd say no way.....you keep Fej.  I'm just not seeing anything more than a run of the mill STer?  Also, if a TE like Carter can get 9 tackles, why can't a guy like Tate?  Why can't Auden get 4 tackles?

4 tackles on Special Teams for Core last year. 0 receptions for the year. http://www.nfl.com/player/codycore/2555331/careerstats

Kinda speaks for itself, doesn't it? Tate deserves the opportunity he's now getting.

(09-06-2018, 02:05 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: 4 tackles on Special Teams for Core last year. 0 receptions for the year. http://www.nfl.com/player/codycore/2555331/careerstats

Kinda speaks for itself, doesn't it? Tate deserves the opportunity he's now getting.

It does speak for itself, and it seems to me that Core's play is WHY Auden Tate is getting that opportunity.

(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.

I think part of the reason for optimism with state compared to Core is Core has been in league two full seasons and had 0 receptions last year. So people assume he’s not good because he didn’t progress on offense from Year 1 to 2. As for Tate, he’s an unknown, so people are just assuming he’ll follow same path in NFL as he did in college.

And when comparing both Core’s and Tate’s two years as a starter in college, Core had about 250 more yards but six less TDs than Tate. Given the Bengals were so bad scoring TDs last year, people naturally feel Tate’s skill set should benefit the Bengals more than Core’s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(09-07-2018, 09:32 AM)Wyche Wrote: It does speak for itself, and it seems to me that Core's play is WHY Auden Tate is getting that opportunity.

It seems to me, if we are keeping a player only for his 4 tackles on ST, why not bring up or back K. Russell and let him play ST? Then you would have an emergency DB on the sidelines. 

Playing coverage on ST is harder than a lot of people here realize. Just because you don't make the tackle does not mean you haven't done your job.

Jumping up to catch a football is easier than a lot of people here realize.

I am not saying Core is amazing and I am not saying Tate is bad. I just think a lot of people here don't have the proper perspective on these skill sets/

(09-07-2018, 11:37 AM)sandwedge Wrote: It seems to me, if we are keeping a player only for his 4 tackles on ST, why not bring up or back K. Russell and let him play ST? Then you would have an emergency DB on the sidelines. 

Would make more sense to me.

(09-07-2018, 11:50 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Playing coverage on ST is harder than a lot of people here realize. Just because you don't make the tackle does not mean you haven't done your job.

Jumping up to catch a football is easier than a lot of people here realize.

I am not saying Core is amazing and I am not saying Tate is bad.  I just think a lot of people here don't have the proper perspective on these skill sets/

ST is simply about playing in your own lane and a lot of heart and desire. It is probably the easiest job on the team to learn but it takes a certain type to excel at it.

Jumping up is easy, what is difficult ans jumping up and snatching the ball - the innate timing of being at the top height when the ball arrives - i am not sure this is a learned skill, it is innate in some and not in others.

(09-08-2018, 09:52 AM)I_C_DeadPeople Wrote: Jumping up is easy, what is difficult ans jumping up and snatching the ball - the innate timing of being at the top height when the ball arrives - i am not sure this is a learned skill, it is innate in some and not in others.

I see high school football players making catches fully extended all the time.  It is not an "innate skill" it is a very basic skill learned at an early level.  Basketball players do it.  Baseball players do it.

Seriously, how many times do you see an athlete leap as high as he can and then fall back down as the ball flies out of his reach. It is pretty rare.

So...when the dust settles on the 2018 season will this thread have more pages than Tate has catches or vice versa?