(11-30-2018, 05:36 PM)Wyche Wrote: Maybe he hit the ketchup bottle wrong.

I don't think every team in the league uses that as a way to judge players.  Must have been something else.  Like him being sloppy and out of shape.

Here you go.  

(11-30-2018, 05:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Thank you.

See, Pistons, Nate gets it.

Just because a guy starting in the NFL is struggling that does not mean it is impossible for his back up to be worse.

You know i wasn't agreeing with you Fred lol

Might as well give Westerman a try if Redmond is this bad. Westerman has looked pretty damn good everytime
i have watched the guy. I just think that Westerman is thought of as only a LG and that is Boling's spot. Seems
that the coaches will only play Westerman if they move Boling to LT which is now out of the question with Andre
being brought back.

So, moot point i guess.

(11-30-2018, 06:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Just more proof that NFL teams consider PFF a joke.  I am not saying that Mathis did not play well in 20009, but the problem with PFF is that once they pick a player they like (or don't like) then they keep giving out good (or bad) subjective grades.

After the 2010 season Mathis himself posted a video about how out of shape he was and what he did to get back in shape.  And every NFL team agreed.

Like I said, it is one thing to call the Bengals coaches stupid.  It is another to call every coach in the NFL stupid.  There was plenty of film on Mathis, but he still had to settle for a league minimum contract to be a back up with the Eagles.

If it was all bias on Alexanders part then why would Alexander had started him over Livings in 2009?

Livings started week 1 and hurt his knee.

Edit:

Quote:Bengals LG Nate Livings is out for Week 2 with a knee injury.

Replacement Evan Mathis is young and has starting experience, so Livings' loss isn't a major concern for Cedric Benson. The Green Bay front seven is.
Source: bengals.com Fri, Sep 18, 2009 12:54:00 PM

http://www.rotoworld.com/recent/nfl/4460/nate-livings

(11-30-2018, 06:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't think every team in the league uses that as a way to judge players.  Must have been something else.  Like him being sloppy and out of shape.

Here you go.  

Quote:The passed-over — and nearly forgotten — superstar.

It was near the end of that season that Mathis got an idea that would eventually change his career. In December of that year, Mathis was set to open a workout facility in Scottsdale, Arizona. “I was bored out of my mind [in Cincinnati],” Mathis says. “We were getting ready to open Zone in December of that year and I got the idea to make an impactful testimonial for the gym.” The testimonial would come in the form of an eight-week transformational workout program, starting in mid-January. In order to accentuate the change, Mathis spent the final few weeks of the season and the two after it putting on as much bad weight as possible. By March, Mathis claimed he’d lost 22 pounds and dropped his body fat by 10 percentage points. “For the next eight weeks I ate exactly what I was supposed to and worked my ass off with my trainer, Garrett Shinoskie,” Mathis says. “I was a free agent going into the lockout at that time, and not only did I want to show what Zone could do, I wanted to get ready to win a starting job wherever I landed.”

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/all-22-all-star-team-the-late-blooming-evan-mathis/

(11-30-2018, 07:36 PM)Synric Wrote: Livings started week 1 and hurt his knee.

Edit:

http://www.rotoworld.com/recent/nfl/4460/nate-livings

And Mathis held on to the starting job when Livings returned.

Again, if Alexander was just playing favorites instead of starting the best player why did Mathis start even after Livings returned?

And if Mathis was one of the best guards in the league in 2010 why did not one single team offer him more than a league minimum contract?

(11-30-2018, 07:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And Mathis held on to the starting job when Livings returned.

Again, if Alexander was just playing favorites instead of starting the best player why did Mathis start even after Livings returned?

And if Mathis was one of the best guards in the league in 2010 why did not one single team offer him more than a league minimum contract?

Who said he was one of the best in 2010? I said in 114 snaps he didn't give up a sack and only gave up 1 pressure. He barely got a shot in Cincy that's why he was signed to a 2mil contract in Philly. Guess what happened then? In 2011 he became the best guard in the NFL and signed a huge contract. And proceed to hold that title until 2014 when they rated him #2. 

(11-30-2018, 08:04 PM)Synric Wrote:  He barely got a shot in Cincy that's why he was signed to a 2mil contract in Philly. 

Other teams don't care what kind of shot he got here.  They watch film and make their own decision based on that.

You honestly don't think other teams scout and watch film of free agents before signing them?

(11-30-2018, 08:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Other teams don't care what kind of shot he got here.  They watch film and make their own decision based on that.

You honestly don't think other teams scout and watch film of free agents before signing them?

So because he was signed for a small contract the Bengals were smart not to play him over Livings? Who was one of the worst guards in the NFL in 2010.

(11-30-2018, 08:13 PM)Synric Wrote: So because he was signed for a small contract the Bengals were smart not to play him over Livings? Who was one of the worst guards in the NFL in 2010.

Exactly.  If Mathis had played well in 2010 other teams would have seen it and he would have gotten more money in free agency.

(11-30-2018, 08:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Exactly.  If Mathis had played well in 2010 other teams would have seen it and he would have gotten more money in free agency.

Damn you're right how did I not see it before...

The Bengals started Livings over Mathis only giving Mathis 114 snaps in 2010 so they could give the Eagles a deal on an excellent guard. Gosh I feel dumb.

(11-30-2018, 08:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Exactly.  If Mathis had played well in 2010 other teams would have seen it and he would have gotten more money in free agency.

If he wasnt bored out of his mind letting himself go to shit who knows. 

We have a backup guard right now who has looked good in all of his limited opportunities. Who is probably bored out of his mind stuck behind some guy marvin wants to walk down the isle i mean dark alley with. 

Just seems really similar. I have seen nothing. I mean nothing that suggests our young draft pick guard on his rookie contract should not get some playing time. As others have pointed out there are people paid to evaluate plays who agree Redmond is playing like garbage. My beer goggle game day vision agrees he plays like garbage. The refs throw flags because he plays like garbage. Yet marv plays him because he is a big tough dumbass that would get murdered in a dark alley.

(11-30-2018, 08:34 PM)Synric Wrote: Damn you're right how did I not see it before...

The Bengals started Livings over Mathis only giving Mathis 114 snaps in 2010 so they could give the Eagles a deal on an excellent guard. Gosh I feel dumb.

The number of snaps played has nothing to do with how teams scout a player.

They look at how well they play, not how many snaps.

(11-30-2018, 09:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The number of snaps played has nothing to do with how teams scout a player.

They look at how well they play, not how many snaps.

Of course how much tape you put up effects how a team scouts. Lol having snaps against different teams, different schemes, and different players is huge.

You can't have "lots of tape" of a player if they don't get snaps.

(11-30-2018, 02:45 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: When you're the worst at your position, you replacement can be no worse than the worst at the position.

Your talking over a few people's heads, but you have a point. I guess there are degrees of worst, Westerman could set a new standard for being worse than the old worst. But there is such a thing as not having anything to lose for the team when it's putting the worst out there week in and week out.

(11-30-2018, 11:35 PM)Synric Wrote: Of course how much tape you put up effects how a team scouts. Lol having snaps against different teams, different schemes, and different players is huge.

You can't have "lots of tape" of a player if they don't get snaps.

If that wassd the problem then they would have looked at his '09 tape and paid him very well.

The fact is that every team look at the 100+ snaps that he played in 2010 and agreed that he was not worth more than a league minimum contract.  If you are going to say Alexander was stupid then you are going to have to say every team in the league was stupid.

I can understand you trying to claim you are smarter than Alexander, but I am going to call BS when you try to claim you are smarter than every coach in the league.

Mathis did not deserve to start or get a lot of playing time in 2010.  He just was not that good.  Every coach in the league saw his level of play and agreed.  Luckily for the Eagles he got back in shape and played more like he did in '09 before he was injured.

(11-30-2018, 02:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So if I replaced him I could not be any worse?  That is some absurd logic.

And he is 65 out of 67.  That is not "worst".

Hey,let’s just go ahead and get down to business here and put Redmond on the bench and salvage the rest of our season and have a legitimate chance to go to the playoffs.Boling,left tackle,then Westerman,Hopkins,Price,and Andre Smith.

(12-01-2018, 03:22 PM)ezekiel23 Wrote: Hey,let’s just go ahead and get down to business here and put Redmond on the bench and salvage the rest of our season and have a legitimate chance to go to the playoffs.Boling,left tackle,then Westerman,Hopkins,Price,and Andre Smith.

Me like Zeke, me like.

(12-01-2018, 02:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If that wassd the problem then they would have looked at his '09 tape and paid him very well.

The fact is that every team look at the 100+ snaps that he played in 2010 and agreed that he was not worth more than a league minimum contract.  If you are going to say Alexander was stupid then you are going to have to say every team in the league was stupid.

I can understand you trying to claim you are smarter than Alexander, but I am going to call BS when you try to claim you are smarter than every coach in the league.

Mathis did not deserve to start or get a lot of playing time in 2010.  He just was not that good.  Every coach in the league saw his level of play and agreed.  Luckily for the Eagles he got back in shape and played more like he did in '09 before he was injured.

I claim I'm smarter than PA when? 

 I said it was stupid to keep Livings over Mathis and it was...stop trying to put words in my mouth.

Evans Mathis IMMEDIATELY after leaving Cincy became the best guard in football. Paul Alexander failed to recognize talent and played a player that was a lot worse over him. He kept putting in Livings over Mathis. Evan Mathis went on to prove he should have gotten the playing time in Cincy not Livings. 


I've shown you evidence from articles yet your only argument is that no one gave him a huge contract. The PFF article stated Evans could be the steal of free agency and guess what he was....



If you want to prove yourself right show me one article one person that said Evan Mathis didn't play well in Cincy. Only you are saying this you have no evidence no stats nothing.

I'll make a Sig bet you cant.

(12-01-2018, 02:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Mathis did not deserve to start or get a lot of playing time in 2010.  He just was not that good. 

Based on what? Your opinion? Your belief that the turd Piano man was even a decent Oline coach?

Synric already showed you articles that stated he was good in 2010 and for some unknown, strange reason, he was given much less playing time than the other turd Nate Livings. And everyone knows how PA felt about Livings. 

You couldn't possibly be more wrong about Mathis, since he went on to become a top guard in the entire NFL while Livings continued to be a smelly turd. 

Show one single article or a stat that states he didn't play well enough in '10 to deserve more snaps. You've already been shown those that state he should have.

(12-01-2018, 02:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If that wassd the problem then they would have looked at his '09 tape and paid him very well.

The fact is that every team look at the 100+ snaps that he played in 2010 and agreed that he was not worth more than a league minimum contract.  If you are going to say Alexander was stupid then you are going to have to say every team in the league was stupid.

I can understand you trying to claim you are smarter than Alexander, but I am going to call BS when you try to claim you are smarter than every coach in the league.

Mathis did not deserve to start or get a lot of playing time in 2010.  He just was not that good.  Every coach in the league saw his level of play and agreed.  Luckily for the Eagles he got back in shape and played more like he did in '09 before he was injured.

I dont see what the argument is here. This guy was on the bench and when he went somewhere else he was a Pro Bowl player. That is the end of story. He was on our bench and better than the person who was playing. Is it not the job of the coaches to motivate him if he is out of shape. Obviously someone was not doing his job.