(09-10-2015, 11:07 AM)djs7685 Wrote: But why wouldn't you add the TEs against the #1 receivers instead of the #2 receivers? Wouldn't that make more sense for teams like the Patriots and Seahawks at least? Gronk and Graham are much more comparable to #1s than #2s. In fact, they're easily the best receiver on their respective teams, so if anything you should be throwing them up on the #1 list.

That's what I was saying about this becoming awfully confusing if you don't compare them at their given positions.

Greg Olsen over the last 3 years has more yards and receptions than Sanu and Jones combined.  

(09-10-2015, 11:09 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Well I think if you want to talk about who has the best #1-3 receivers you have to do it that way.

I would say
Green > Gronk
Edelman > Jones
Lafell > Sanu/Eifert

or

Green > Brandon Marshal
Eric Decker > Jones
Sanu/Eifert > Cumberland

I know looking at position vs position is easier, but if you actually want to look at receiving core vs receiving core I would think you would have to do it this way.

Plus, a lot of teams do run 2 TE sets and have their 3rd WR on the field less than others, ala what we will be seeing a lot of from the Colts this year. I can see both Fleener and Allen seeing more playing time than Moncrief, so I completely understand where you're coming from with this.

Then you have to factor in how much PT each guy gets and go from there I suppose. Does it matter if our backup running back is better than their backup running back if theirs rarely sees the field? I would say it doesn't matter as much, but then we have to decide how much to weigh that.

I'm sure we could come up with a legitimate system that would work for this, but I feel like that would be a ton of work for something that doesn't matter all that much

(09-10-2015, 11:12 AM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: Greg Olsen over the last 3 years has more yards and receptions than Sanu and Jones combined.  

Well at least you're posting extremely fair comparisons

I guess you should leave this discussion to the guys actually being objective and having a real conversation.

Greg Olsen is very good, not saying otherwise, but trying to use a 3 year comparison to make your point is silly when we all know the situation with our WRs over that time span. It was just yet another chance for you to throw in a stupid comment that is irrelevant to the topic in your constant crusade of tearing down the Bengals players that aren't your special friend.

(09-10-2015, 11:13 AM)djs7685 Wrote: Plus, a lot of teams do run 2 TE sets and have their 3rd WR on the field less than others, ala what we will be seeing a lot of from the Colts this year. I can see both Fleener and Allen seeing more playing time than Moncrief, so I completely understand where you're coming from with this.

Then you have to factor in how much PT each guy gets and go from there I suppose. Does it matter if our backup running back is better than their backup running back if theirs rarely sees the field? I would say it doesn't matter as much, but then we have to decide how much to weigh that.

I'm sure we could come up with a legitimate system that would work for this, but I feel like that would be a ton of work for something that doesn't matter all that much

Well for the running backs I guess you could combine them. There still will be single RBs like Peterson and Bell that will do just as well as most teams two RBs combined. I really only can think of two great duo RBs in the league atm and it's Hill + Gio and Murray + Sproles. That's just off the top of my head. I think that you should separate the running game from the receiving game, and compare it that way. I think it could get too confusing if you combine the run game + the pass game.

(09-10-2015, 11:18 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Well for the running backs I guess you could combine them. There still will be single RBs like Peterson and Bell that will do just as well as most teams two RBs combined. I really only can think of two great duo RBs in the league atm and it's Hill + Gio and Murray + Sproles. That's just off the top of my head. I think that you should separate the running game from the receiving game, and compare it that way. I think it could get too confusing if you combine the run game + the pass game.

That could be a good idea, but what about the teams that rely on a lot of the running backs in the passing game? Or are we considering the RBs in the passing game if they're consistent targets?

Matt Forte was the 17th most targeted player in the league last year (tied with OBJ).

Then what about scheming? If a team has a heavy scheme to throw passes to their TEs and RBs, is it a big deal if their WRs aren't as good as somebody elses? There's a tooooon of variables for a lot of this.

(09-10-2015, 11:26 AM)djs7685 Wrote: That could be a good idea, but what about the teams that rely on a lot of the running backs in the passing game? Or are we considering the RBs in the passing game if they're consistent targets?

Matt Forte was the 17th most targeted player in the league last year (tied with OBJ).

Then what about scheming? If a team has a heavy scheme to throw passes to their TEs and RBs, is it a big deal if their WRs aren't as good as somebody elses? There's a tooooon of variables for a lot of this.

I think that passing yards for RBs should just be counted for the run game. That's a big part of the reason why Jamaal Charles and Forte are such good RBs. Plus most of the time RBs don't have as much production with the pass as the#3 receivers. I think the only RB that passed a teams #3 receiver in receiving yards was Jamaal Charles.

(09-10-2015, 11:32 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: I think that passing yards for RBs should just be counted for the run game. That's a big part of the reason why Jamaal Charles and Bell are such good RBs. Plus most of the time RBs don't have as much production with the pass as the#2 receivers.

But some of them do, which was my question of why wouldn't we put them in with receivers at that point? I mean, you were talking about putting guys like Gronk and Graham in with the #1/2 receivers since they have high production, so shouldn't we put the RBs with high production in with the WRs too?

Having an RB that can take a bunch of short passes and turn them into first downs is huuuge for an offense and it's a big part of some team's passing game. I used the example of Forte because he had an absurdly high amount of targets, but in general there are quite a few guys that have the targets of your typical WR2/3 or even some TE1/2s around the league as well.

We know that teams use different scheming than others, so shouldn't that factor in somewhere as well? Kansas City didn't have a receiver catch a TD pass last year (mind boggling stat), so should it really be held against them if their WRs don't stack up against a team that's loaded out wide?

(09-10-2015, 11:36 AM)djs7685 Wrote: But some of them do, which was my question of why wouldn't we put them in with receivers at that point? I mean, you were talking about putting guys like Gronk and Graham in with the #1/2 receivers since they have high production, so shouldn't we put the RBs with high production in with the WRs too?

Having an RB that can take a bunch of short passes and turn them into first downs is huuuge for an offense and it's a big part of some team's passing game. I used the example of Forte because he had an absurdly high amount of targets, but in general there are quite a few guys that have the targets of your typical WR2/3 or even some TE1/2s around the league as well.

We know that teams use different scheming than others, so shouldn't that factor in somewhere as well? Kansas City didn't have a receiver catch a TD pass last year (mind boggling stat), so should it really be held against them if their WRs don't stack up against a team that's loaded out wide?

Well the way I personally see it is that your really not throwing the ball that far past the LoS when throwing to a RB. Most of the time it's behind the LoS and sometimes it's only a few yards past the LoS.

Honestly the Chiefs WRs last year were horrible... They had a poor WR1 and their TE was imo their #1 receiver last year. Dwayne Bowe was more of their #2 receiver, and they really didn't have a #3 receiver. There was a reason why the Chiefs averaged under 200 passing yards a game.

I really don't think anyone was praising the chiefs for their receiving threat last year either.

(09-10-2015, 11:14 AM)djs7685 Wrote: Well at least you're posting extremely fair comparisons

I guess you should leave this discussion to the guys actually being objective and having a real conversation.

Greg Olsen is very good, not saying otherwise, but trying to use a 3 year comparison to make your point is silly when we all know the situation with our WRs over that time span. It was just yet another chance for you to throw in a stupid comment that is irrelevant to the topic in your constant crusade of tearing down the Bengals players that aren't your special friend.

Only highlighting the fact that the Panthers have gotten more actual production out of the TE spot then we have out of our #2 and #3 receivers over the same timespan.

(09-10-2015, 11:47 AM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: Only highlighting the fact that the Panthers have gotten more actual production out of the TE spot then we have out of our #2 and #3 receivers over the same timespan.

Except that Marvin Jones didn't play one down of football last year and his rookie year was not a #2 receiver. Also, Sanu was injured in his rookie season and only played 9 games. Olsen has played 16 all three years. How is that even eligible for comparison?

(09-10-2015, 12:10 PM)InTheJungleNow9 Wrote: Except that Marvin Jones didn't play one down of football last year and his rookie year was not a #2 receiver.  Also, Sanu was injured in his rookie season and only played 9 games.  Olsen has played 16 all three years.  How is that even eligible for comparison?

Just highlighting the fact that we haven't had much production out of our #2 and #3 receivers over the course of their careers (whether it be to injury or lack of production).  Not saying that won't change in the future.  

(09-10-2015, 12:10 PM)InTheJungleNow9 Wrote: Except that Marvin Jones didn't play one down of football last year and his rookie year was not a #2 receiver.  Also, Sanu was injured in his rookie season and only played 9 games.  Olsen has played 16 all three years.  How is that even eligible for comparison?

90% of his posts are "just saying" filled with misleading bullshit and obvious implications. Get used to it, welcome to the boards!

Derek Carr threw more TD passes than Andy Dalton last year. Why would I say that? I don't know, just sayin'! Just highlightin'! Not trying to imply anything with that statement at all!

(09-10-2015, 11:36 AM)djs7685 Wrote: But some of them do, which was my question of why wouldn't we put them in with receivers at that point? I mean, you were talking about putting guys like Gronk and Graham in with the #1/2 receivers since they have high production, so shouldn't we put the RBs with high production in with the WRs too?

Having an RB that can take a bunch of short passes and turn them into first downs is huuuge for an offense and it's a big part of some team's passing game. I used the example of Forte because he had an absurdly high amount of targets, but in general there are quite a few guys that have the targets of your typical WR2/3 or even some TE1/2s around the league as well.

We know that teams use different scheming than others, so shouldn't that factor in somewhere as well? Kansas City didn't have a receiver catch a TD pass last year (mind boggling stat), so should it really be held against them if their WRs don't stack up against a team that's loaded out wide?

As for the scheming differences IMO it all evens out. If someones scheme's different than another teams then it will show in the stats. For example New England is a TE heavy scheme, and it shows it by how much production Gronk has. The only teams that really just scheme around the RB generally have very poor receivers like the Chiefs.

Yeah we have so many weapons, yet so many people think we're going to score 13 points against the defense that allowed the most points last year.

I'll hate to see what all these weapons manage against tougher defenses.

(09-10-2015, 12:35 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Yeah we have so many weapons, yet so many people think we're going to score 13 points against the defense that allowed the most points last year.

I'll hate to see what all these weapons manage against tougher defenses.

I think that's just because most people on this board are pessimists. Well... I should say bi-polar people, because one week the sky is falling and the next we're going to be SB champions.

We do have good weapons and that is not a jab at Dalton. Everyone does know we can have multiple good players its not always an either or question.

(09-10-2015, 12:37 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: I think that's just because most people on this board are pessimists. Well... I should say bi-polar people, because one week the sky is falling and the next we're going to be SB champions.

Well sometimes as fans, we get swept up in the emotion of the season. Right now though, everyone should be thinking clearly.

(09-10-2015, 01:04 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Well sometimes as fans, we get swept up in the emotion of the season. Right now though, everyone should be thinking clearly.

People are just still bitter about how the Bengals haven't won a playoff game. They don't want to see how we overcame a lot of odds to make the playoffs the first few years. They just want to focus on the negatives. They don't care about how many starters were injured when we made it to the playoffs when our team was good enough to win that first playoff game. Because of that they lost hope in the team.

(09-10-2015, 12:31 PM)djs7685 Wrote: 90% of his posts are "just saying" filled with misleading bullshit and obvious implications. Get used to it, welcome to the boards!

Derek Carr threw more TD passes than Andy Dalton last year. Why would I say that? I don't know, just sayin'! Just highlightin'! Not trying to imply anything with that statement at all!

How is it "misleading"?  If they haven't played, they haven't produced.  I guess I just wanted to temper the hype with a dose of reality.  

I'm stoked Marvin Jones is back.  He has the potential given what he did in 2013 to be a great #2.

Not everything's about Dalton.  I know you think it is though.  

Greg Little will be a beast this year. I just have a feeling.