(02-27-2019, 04:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If this were true then he would have been shut down in the red zone also.

I don't have an answer to argue in this case.  I just can't figure out how he could be effective in the red zone with the field shrunken and yet be worthless between the 20's where things should be easier for him.

I was more eager to get open in the end zone when I played football because I hated getting hit.  That's the best I can give ya.

(02-27-2019, 04:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If this were true then he would have been shut down in the red zone also.

I don't have an answer to argue in this case.  I just can't figure out how he could be effective in the red zone with the field shrunken and yet be worthless between the 20's where things should be easier for him.

I was right about  being wrong. Ross got past the safety vs Cover 1 vs the Falcons.
Ross had 4 red zone TDS and 3 between the 20s.
its alot harder to defend a,WR in the red zone. 
the plays itself are shorter in duration.
the field is condensed. 
its really to the advantage of the targets in the red zone.
if  a defensive back. .... lb gets even a bit handsey its a PI
Ross needs to do better at setting up defensive backs.
but Lazor really had no idea how to use him.
Rams WRs had more combined rushing attempts then Ross 
had catches

(02-27-2019, 03:29 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is what makes Ross such an enigma for me.  I have never seen a guy his size who was successful in the red zone where the filed is shrunken yet be useless between the 20's where the defense has to cover deep and is more spread out.  It seems that his speed threat would make him more effective between the 20's than in the red zone where there is no "over the top" to worry about. 

If a guy can get open in a confined space like the 4 yard line, it means he can get open.

In college(yeah, I know college different, not like pros), they almost never ran him deep down the sidelines.  Most of the deep balls they threw to him were in the middle of the field.   They threw him shallow and deep crossers, jet screens, bubble screens, quick slants, etc.

And he is as quick as he is fast.  He has the ability to make defenders look silly. But, as a Bengal, 90% of what he did was Go Long down the sidelines.  If you draft a guy based on what he did in college, why on earth would you never do any of those things?  It would be like drafting Carl Lawson cuz he rushes the passer and then never let him rush the passer.

(02-27-2019, 03:12 PM)psychdoctor Wrote: But the problem is, that if Ross does not pan out this year, he wouldn't have any trade value at all.  At least now he is an speedster with untapped potential due to under utilization and poor O-Line quality.  

lets trust our offensive minded coach to up his value

(02-27-2019, 04:22 PM)psychdoctor Wrote: Bengals have had great success with 4th rounders!  I see what you are saying though.  

Honestly no we haven't, just everyone remembers Geno and Boiling from way back.

Since then we have had one good player in round 4 because Carl Lawson fell into our laps and that is still a question mark as to whether he continues to be productive.

So since 2012 we have had 1.maybe 2 good picks in round 4 depending on what Billings and Lawson do and the most recent in Walton is also looking to be meh.

(02-27-2019, 06:40 PM)BobJones4980 Wrote: Honestly no we haven't, just everyone remembers Geno and Boiling from way back.

Since then we have had one good player in round 4 because Carl Lawson fell into our laps and that is still a question mark as to whether he continues to be productive.

So since 2012 we have had 1.maybe 2 good picks in round 4 depending on what Billings and Lawson do and the most recent in Walton is also looking to be meh.

That's probably somewhere around the league average.

(02-27-2019, 06:44 PM)McC Wrote: That's probably somewhere around the league average.

Yea so why give up a top 10 pick going into his 3rd year(which has historically been the year WRs start to put it together) for a 1 in 7 chance(at best) for a decent player?

(02-27-2019, 06:40 PM)BobJones4980 Wrote: Honestly no we haven't, just everyone remembers Geno and Boiling from way back.

Since then we have had one good player in round 4 because Carl Lawson fell into our laps and that is still a question mark as to whether he continues to be productive.

So since 2012 we have had 1.maybe 2 good picks in round 4 depending on what Billings and Lawson do and the most recent in Walton is also looking to be meh.

I still do not understand the Walton pick.  

(02-27-2019, 06:40 PM)BobJones4980 Wrote: Honestly no we haven't, just everyone remembers Geno and Boiling from way back.

Since then we have had one good player in round 4 because Carl Lawson fell into our laps and that is still a question mark as to whether he continues to be productive.

So since 2012 we have had 1.maybe 2 good picks in round 4 depending on what Billings and Lawson do and the most recent in Walton is also looking to be meh.

Ryan Glasgow is a 4th rounder too.

(02-27-2019, 03:29 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is what makes Ross such an enigma for me.  I have never seen a guy his size who was successful in the red zone where the filed is shrunken yet be useless between the 20's where the defense has to cover deep and is more spread out.  It seems that his speed threat would make him more effective between the 20's than in the red zone where there is no "over the top" to worry about. 

Which points to bad coaching imo. Unless his 'lack of effort' occurs strictly after 20 yards.

(02-27-2019, 04:07 PM)BengalChris Wrote: Somebody put it out there that the Bengals were shopping him and that somebody was able to convince Rapport that it was true.

Since neither you nor I are on those communication lines, it had to be someone connected. It could have been:

A. The Bengals themselves to gauge what kind of offers they'd get,
B. Ross' agent to get Ross out of town,
C. Some other team trying to force the issue and see if they could spark interest or create trouble.
D. Rapport had nothing else to write, so just made it up for fun.

C seems unlikely because they could be found out and possibly be accused of tampering with another team's player.

D seems unlikely because it blows back on Rapport and he has to eat his words.

A seems possible because let's face it Ross hasn't played well in Cinci. AJ Green and Boyd didn't have trouble making catches like Ross did. Most people can see that Ross was the cause of Ross' problems on the field. Some people still hold on to the "Marv sabotaged Ross' career" idea, but there's no actual evidence of this or even a reason for Marv to have done that.

B also seems likely because Ross is going to be held accountable for his route running like never before and he may just want to go somewhere else where he can continue to blame the coaches and QB. He won't be able to get away with that in Cinci anymore.

My guess is that it was A or B.

If it were Ross himself through his agent, then he's in for a long year cause the team didn't bite.

Ill go with E.  None of the above.  Rappaport was given the information and he passed it along.  He didnt make anything up for fun, but the sources certainly werent in the know and fell upon some hearsay and that qualifys as journalism these days.

But Ross has missed a lot of throws from Dalton. And really if he is not traded, he realizes that his chances for being on the team are slim to none. And if he stays on, he would be a backup. As it is about being productive.

(02-27-2019, 11:16 PM)mikey6866 Wrote: Ill go with E.  None of the above.  Rappaport was given the information and he passed it along.  He didnt make anything up for fun, but the sources certainly werent in the know and fell upon some hearsay and that qualifys as journalism these days.

But who would have enough credibility to get Rapport to report it? It has to be someone he'd believe.

(02-27-2019, 11:39 PM)Passepartout Wrote: But Ross has missed a lot of throws from Dalton. And really if he is not traded, he realizes that his chances for being on the team are slim to none. And if he stays on, he would be a backup. As it is about being productive.

I'm not prepared to call the HC a liar, not knowing him and all, so when he goes out of his way to express basically the exact opposite of what you've said, I'm gonna believe him until proven otherwise.

(02-28-2019, 12:26 AM)BengalChris Wrote: But who would have enough credibility to get Rapport to report it? It has to be someone he'd believe.

Schefter and rap are some of the best in the business and break a lot of news.  Unfortunately in this day and age both of them have gotten bad info quite a bit.  When your always trying to be the guy breaking the stories first ...there just isnt time to check every single source, breaking news leads to a lot of false reporting.  Its the nature of the beast.  To them its no harm no foul if a couple stories dont have legs.  They arent going to dig deeper than tony pauline breaks a story based on  info he received and rap and schefter will jump in and confirm with pauline and run with it. There is no harm to them in reporting what they hear there is no reason for them to dig super deep into every thing they hear.  Its just rumor mill stuff.

(02-28-2019, 02:14 AM)mikey6866 Wrote: Schefter and rap are some of the best in the business and break a lot of news.  Unfortunately in this day and age both of them have gotten bad info quite a bit.  When your always trying to be the guy breaking the stories first ...there just isnt time to check every single source, breaking news leads to a lot of false reporting.  Its the nature of the beast.  To them its no harm no foul if a couple stories dont have legs.  They arent going to dig deeper than tony pauline breaks a story based on  info he received and rap and schefter will jump in and confirm with pauline and run with it. There is no harm to them in reporting what they hear there is no reason for them to dig super deep into every thing they hear.  Its just rumor mill stuff.

Well, maybe not reporting it as fact without a shred of proof would be a good place to start.  And maybe some well deserved egg on their faces, some highly public embarrassment, I believe they call that accountability, might give them reason to back off the itchy trigger fingers.

Their irresponsible bullshit can do damage.  I guess that's okay, since that's just how it's done these days.  They don't deserve to be let off the hook.

As much as I hated drafting him with an early first round pick it would be silly to trade him now when he has very little value presently.

Better to hope he takes step forward at this juncture than to give him away.

(02-28-2019, 07:30 AM)McC Wrote: Well, maybe not reporting it as fact without a shred of proof would be a good place to start.  And maybe some well deserved egg on their faces, some highly public embarrassment, I believe they call that accountability, might give them reason to back off the itchy trigger fingers.

Their irresponsible bullshit can do damage.  I guess that's okay, since that's just how it's done these days.  They don't deserve to be let off the hook.

While I also wish that journalists would only report with reliable sources/credible information, it's just not going to happen. With the popularity of social media and the access to instant information, everyone wants to be first. In the race to be the first to break a story, a lot of times misinformation gets passed on as facts a lot of the time.

While I don't agree with it, I'd rather get accurate information later than inaccurate information immediately, that doesn't seem to be the common thought process among the masses.

Tony Pauline said last year at this time Carlos Dunlap was on the trading block.
hes not very credible at all

(02-27-2019, 06:40 PM)BobJones4980 Wrote: Honestly no we haven't, just everyone remembers Geno and Boiling from way back.

Since then we have had one good player in round 4 because Carl Lawson fell into our laps and that is still a question mark as to whether he continues to be productive.

So since 2012 we have had 1.maybe 2 good picks in round 4 depending on what Billings and Lawson do and the most recent in Walton is also looking to be meh.

Actually, we've hit on a great deal of 4th rounders, in the past 18 years:

2001- Rudi Johnson
2002- Travis Dorsch (ugh)
2003- Weathersby, Jeremi Johnson
2004- Mattias Askew, Geathers, Stacy Andrews
2005- Ghiaciuc (ugh lol)
2006- Peko
2007- Marvin White
2008- Anthony Collins
2009- Luigs
2010- Geno, Roddrick Muckelroy
2011- Boling
2012- Orson Charles
2013- Sean Porter
2014- Bodine (ugh lol)
2015- Josh Shaw, Hardison
2016- Billings
2017- Lawson, Malone, Glasgow
2018- Mark Walton

25 players, in 18 years.

Positives:

Of those 25, 15 were multi-year starters/large contributors.

Of those 15 starters/contributors, 10 went on to have long, successful careers (even if they sucked lol, still had longer careers than the average).

Of those 10, 2 have been pro-bowlers (both with the team)

Of those 2, 1 is a Hall of Famer.

Negatives:

Of those 25, 7 played/lasted less than 2 years in the league.

Of the 15 starters/contributors, 4 sucked and were among the worst at their positions.

Of those 25, only 1 would be considered a, "bust."

Neutrals:

Of those 25, 9 are unknowns, due to current service time (may become positives)/career-ending injuries.

Of those 9, 4 had career-ending injuries, thus who knows how they would have done.

Overall, we definitely have been better than the league average has, for the 4th round; the two Cs (both noted love-children of PA) bring the overall body of work down a bit, but even with them, we got 2 starters for multiple seasons and plugged a hole, albeit terribly.