Honestly I expected at least a 0.500 season from Zac Taylor in 2020 even after a 2-14 season. After a solid draft and an active free agency period I anticipated improvement but nothing is passing the eye test so far. I see 2019 happening all over again.

There is only one statistic which matters: Wins.

(09-18-2020, 02:02 PM)Whatever Wrote: Problem is, they have no one else that fits the quick speed WR role Ross does.  They have several big bodied WR's that fill the role Tate does that aren't so painfully slow that they limit the offense.  

Ross hasn't limited the offense?

Which is more important?
1. Put a guy in who fills a role
2. Put a guy in who will produce

P.S. Tate isn't so "painfully slow" that he limits the offense. He's have to run a 5 to be "painfully slow" and limit the offense. 

(09-18-2020, 01:35 PM)Big Boss Wrote: Great stuff.  And Burrow and him seemed to have quite a rapport in camp.

Big-body receiver that makes contested catches.  I'd rather try that than a speedster that can't catch.

We can see how much weight Burrow already has (or doesn't) if they lose Tate.

(09-20-2020, 11:54 AM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: Honestly I expected at least a 0.500 season from Zac Taylor in 2020 even after a 2-14 season.  After a solid draft and an active free agency period I anticipated improvement but nothing is passing the eye test so far.  I see 2019 happening all over again.  

There is only one statistic which matters: Wins.

Hole-y defense with a QB running for his life. It's basically just a "can Joe Burrow as a rookie play better than Andy Dalton as a veteran" season check. Seems like exact same team.

(09-20-2020, 12:49 PM)reuben.ahmed Wrote: "can Joe Burrow as a rookie play better than Andy Dalton as a veteran"

I thought it but you had the guts to say it! You summarized it perfectly, Reuben. If this is the only question under evaluation then the Bengals are already an unqualified success. With no team around him then yes, Joe Burrow can do more than Andy Dalton. Now we know.

However, I thought the goal was winning football games.

(09-18-2020, 07:58 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: I think you're way, waaayyy, overestimating the value Ross brings to this team and/or the fear he strikes in opposing D's.

If i were a D coordinator, he'd strike zero fear in me. I'd be happy he was in the game because he's not a game changer, in a positive way.

Ross is a taker, not a giver. For every good play he produces, he produces 2 bad plays. 

Thomas needs to be elevated to Ross' spot, Tate needs to be on the field, even if the last guy on the depth chart and Ross needs to sit. 

(09-18-2020, 08:31 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: This is way overblown ! Some of you guys act like Tate goes 325 and runs a 5.5 forty. You don't need world class speed to run 8 yards downfield and turn around.

And quickness is a totally different thing than speed.

Yeah. The guy runs a slow-ish 40 and it gets amplified with each passing day. 

Now, when Tate runs a hitch on Sunday afternoon, he should be to his mark on Wednesday at 5pm. 

(09-18-2020, 09:01 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: I don’t think anyone is suggesting Tate is some stud that’s going to come in and light it up. But even a little bit of production would be more than we’re getting out of Ross right now.

And right there is the point.

At the very least, he's not going to dog routes, he's not going to drop a number of important passes and he's not going to get injured so much. One hasn't shown the propensity for that, while one has. 

(09-18-2020, 08:15 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: It’s not about reading minds, it’s about predicting the future.


Which, btw, I have an phenomenal track record of.

I'm drawing a blank right now. What are some of those things?

Thoughts on tgis thread:

1) This thing is overblown. Tate is not seeking a trade at this time.

2) Having 7 WRs active is a luxury. With injury issues on the OL & DL, we need more guys active there.

3) Tate is overrated. He caught 40 balls last year. So did Erickson.

4) Tate is the #7 WR. Erickson is also our punt returner and Boyd's backup in the slot. Erickson has to be active. ZT clearly likes Thomas from their Rams days. He has been more productive than Higgins or Tate, and also plays ST while Tate does not. Higgins is a high draft pick. AJ and Boyd are thebest we have. That leaves Ross. He is the only speed guy we have. We have 2-3 guys who play Tate's role (AJ, Higgins, Thomas).

5) Our deep ball stats suck, for everyone, because the line sucks. Everything has to be dink & duck. Burrow has been pressured nearly 40 times in two games. How man times was Mayfield pressured? Once? Twice?

6) WTF does JAG mean? Only time I've seen the term is Judge Adcocate General. But talking about military lawyers makes no sense here.

(09-20-2020, 01:29 PM)Isaac Curtis: The Real #85 Wrote: Thoughts on tgis thread:

1) This thing is overblown. Tate is not seeking a trade at this time.

2) Having 7 WRs active is a luxury. With injury issues on the OL & DL, we need more guys active there.

3) Tate is overrated. He caught 40 balls last year. So did Erickson.

4) Tate is the #7 WR. Erickson is also our punt returner and Boyd's backup in the slot. Erickson has to be active. ZT clearly likes Thomas from their Rams days. He has been more productive than Higgins or Tate, and also plays ST while Tate does not. Higgins is a high draft pick. AJ and Boyd are thebest we have. That leaves Ross. He is the only speed guy we have. We have 2-3 guys who play Tate's role (AJ, Higgins, Thomas).

5) Our deep ball stats suck, for everyone, because the line sucks. Everything has to be dink & duck. Burrow has been pressured nearly 40 times in two games. How man times was Mayfield pressured? Once? Twice?

6) WTF does JAG mean? Only time I've seen the term is Judge Adcocate General. But talking about military lawyers makes no sense here.

Erickson also played in all 16 games. Tate only played in 12.

(09-20-2020, 01:10 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: I'm drawing a blank right now. What are some of those things?

He predicted he was going to "make quite a few stupid posts this week" the other day.

IMHO, he nailed it.

(09-20-2020, 12:48 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Ross hasn't limited the offense?

Which is more important?
1. Put a guy in who fills a role
2. Put a guy in who will produce

P.S. Tate isn't so "painfully slow" that he limits the offense. He's have to run a 5 to be "painfully slow" and limit the offense. 

Ideally, you want a guy who fills the role and produces.  If it comes down to between the two, you have to look long and hard at if the increased production from the individual player is greater than the hit the rest of the offense will take from having them in there.  For example, Reggie Kelly didn't "produce" as an individual on the stat sheet.  Reggie Kelly played a role that enabled the other skill players around him to be more effective.  Also, the guy who fills a role may develop to the point where he can produce.  The guy who produces will never fill the desired role.  

Besides which, based on production, which player should play more?

Player A=40 catches on 80 targets(50% catch%), 575 yards(14.4 YPC, 7.2 YPT), 1 TD

Player B=28 catches on 56 targets(50% catch%), 506 yards(18.1 YPC, 9 YPT), 3 TD's

It isn't a player who fits a role vs a player who is more productive.  It's literally a player who fits the role AND produces more with his targets vs a player who doesn't fit the role and isn't as productive with his targets.  The occasional highlight reel catch isn't "production."

On top of that, do you play the guy who fills the role, is more productive, and says he needs to play better or the guy who doesn't fill the role, is less productive, and has his agent whine in the media about demanding a trade if he doesn't get the ball more?  

If his speed didn't limit the offense, coaches wouldn't have asked him to move to TE throughout his career.  Simmons has openly stated that you can't use him in traditional WR roles on ST's because of his speed.  He ran a limited route tree last year.  There is a lot more pointing to him limiting the offense than not.  "Nuh-uh" isn't really a counterargument.

(09-20-2020, 01:29 PM)Isaac Curtis: The Real #8 Wrote: 6) WTF does JAG mean? Only time I've seen the term is Judge Adcocate General. But talking about military lawyers makes no sense here.

Just A Guy

(09-20-2020, 01:56 PM)Whatever Wrote: Ideally, you want a guy who fills the role and produces.  If it comes down to between the two, you have to look long and hard at if the increased production from the individual player is greater than the hit the rest of the offense will take from having them in there.  For example, Reggie Kelly didn't "produce" as an individual on the stat sheet.  Reggie Kelly played a role that enabled the other skill players around him to be more effective.  Also, the guy who fills a role may develop to the point where he can produce.  The guy who produces will never fill the desired role.  

Besides which, based on production, which player should play more?

Player A=40 catches on 80 targets(50% catch%), 575 yards(14.4 YPC, 7.2 YPT), 1 TD

Player B=28 catches on 56 targets(50% catch%), 506 yards(18.1 YPC, 9 YPT), 3 TD's

It isn't a player who fits a role vs a player who is more productive.  It's literally a player who fits the role AND produces more with his targets vs a player who doesn't fit the role and isn't as productive with his targets.  The occasional highlight reel catch isn't "production."

On top of that, do you play the guy who fills the role, is more productive, and says he needs to play better or the guy who doesn't fill the role, is less productive, and has his agent whine in the media about demanding a trade if he doesn't get the ball more?  

If his speed didn't limit the offense, coaches wouldn't have asked him to move to TE throughout his career.  Simmons has openly stated that you can't use him in traditional WR roles on ST's because of his speed.  He ran a limited route tree last year.  There is a lot more pointing to him limiting the offense than not.  "Nuh-uh" isn't really a counterargument.

There is no "nuh-uh". Ross fits a role and produces more negative plays than positive and he's out injured a lot. Tate is healthy and catches the ball. His lack of speed is overstated. A good coach knows who produces and creates plays and matches that allow those players to produce. 

No one should advocate Tate "taking Ross' place" straight up. He should be on the active roster and Thomas should take Ross' place on the depth chart. 

Don’t think Auden has much leverage here. Shut up and understand your role on the team.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(09-20-2020, 03:16 PM)Bronxbengal Wrote: Don’t think Auden has much leverage here.  Shut up and understand your role on the team.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

He had no role right now. 

That's kind of the whole point.

(09-20-2020, 03:01 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: There is no "nuh-uh". Ross fits a role and produces more negative plays than positive and he's out injured a lot. Tate is healthy and catches the ball. His lack of speed is overstated. A good coach knows who produces and creates plays and matches that allow those players to produce. 

No one should advocate Tate "taking Ross' place" straight up. He should be on the active roster and Thomas should take Ross' place on the depth chart. 

Points like "His lack of speed is overstated" are "nub-uh" type arguments.  You're not supporting that position at all.

Neither player is injured right now, so that really doesn't play into it.  Maybe you look at it when cutting to 53, but not on who dresses.  If you're not dressing a guy because he's injury prone and you're afraid he'll get hurt, he shouldn't be on the roster to begin with.  Tate also has an extensive injury history going back to college, so it's not like he's proven to be durable.  

As far as Tate catching the ball, they caught the exact same % of their targets last year.  I'm not sure what you consider a negative play.  They both fumbled once last year.  Are we talking negative yardage plays?  If we're talking incompletions as negative plays, they had the same catch%, so the same incompletion%.  

Honestly, very few coaches rearrange their systems around players.  The fact that they changed the run blocking scheme last year was very rare.  They tend to lobby for players that fit their scheme, which is why it typically takes them a year or two to rebuild once they take a new job.  Tate doesn't seem to fit that scheme, hence he's the odd man out.  They also have the benefit of practice and knowing the play calls when they evaluate game film.  Tate ran a limited route tree last year, likely because there's a number of routes he struggled with in practice.  It's also very likely due to his current position on the depth that a lot of these incompletions on bad throws the fans blamed on Andy were actually on Tate.  The coaches know the play and know where he's supposed to be and they know if he's slow out of his breaks, not running routes at the correct depth, etc., etc.

I do agree that based on what he's done the first 2 games that Thomas should start seeing more of the snaps in Ross's spot.  The guy has been getting open, making the catches, and Joe seems to trust him.  However, that doesn't mean Tate should be active or playing more.  Even if Thomas completely supplants Ross at that spot, Ross still has to be active as his backup to give him a rest or if he gets injured so they can still run their offense.  Tate doesn't have the skill set to play that position.  Erickson is Boyd's backup in the slot.  Tate was supposed to be AJ's backup, but it seems Higgins has already climbed over him for that job.  That puts Tate the odd man out because he can't run the offense at the other two spots due to his limited skill set.

(09-20-2020, 01:02 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: If i were a D coordinator, he'd strike zero fear in me. I'd be happy he was in the game because he's not a game changer, in a positive way.

Ross is a taker, not a giver. For every good play he produces, he produces 2 bad plays.

Thomas needs to be elevated to Ross' spot, Tate needs to be on the field, even if the last guy on the depth chart and Ross needs to sit. 

Exactly, for whatever reasons the guy just can't get it together. I was hoping beyond hope he would finally do something this season. But so far it's the same old Ross. It's time to admit he's just not gonna make it.

(09-20-2020, 09:42 AM)jeremydc Wrote: Pulling Tate out was the reason I didn't watch the game. Ross shouldnt be anywhere near the starting line up. Tate plays with a passion.

So, you're only a Tate fan?  If he played somewhere else, you'd be a fan of that team?  That's kinda weird.