+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (https://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Cincinnati Bengals / NFL (https://thebengalsboard.com/forum-3.html)
+--- Forum: JUNGLE NOISE (https://thebengalsboard.com/forum-2.html)
+--- Thread: Bengals OL Projected #27 (/thread-20549.html)
RE: Bengals OL Projected #27 - Au165 - 07-10-2019
(07-10-2019, 01:36 PM)Circleville Guy Wrote: You don’t think there’s a chance that this could be the worst Oline in the league?
I don't, partially because our scheme won't allow it and partially because other's scheme and personnel will. Specifically I believe Houston will have a worse O line due to Watson's desire to hold the ball and an aging half back. I would say the same thing about Buffalo too.
RE: Bengals OL Projected #27 - fredtoast - 07-10-2019
(07-10-2019, 02:18 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Repairing the o line is a more pressing need than burning a 1st round pick on a QB.
There are a lot of positions that are a more pressing need than burning a 1st round pick on a QB.
Sorry that interferes with your "dreams".
RE: Bengals OL Projected #27 - Nately120 - 07-10-2019
(07-10-2019, 03:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There are a lot of positions that are a more pressing need than burning a 1st round pick on a QB.
Sorry that interferes with your "dreams".
My dream isn't to replace Dalton...though there is a 100% chance Dalton will be replaced within the next 5-10 years so maybe that should be my dream so at least one of my dreams can come true before the soothing hand of death is upon me.
But on a more serious note, all I'm saying is that we've drafted high and traded for and invested a lot in the o-line over the past 4 or so years and our o-line is still a major need...so, I can't envision a time when we are actually going to draft a QB simply because Dalton is the only thing wrong with this team.
Much like the 2019 draft, I'm sensing in the 2020 draft we won't be able to take a QB high because o-line and LB are far more pressing needs. I'm not saying we should take a QB high, I'm just saying that eventually we might need to replace Dalton even if he isn't the main reason we aren't winning.
We can keep Dalton here until the guy is 45 for all I care.
RE: Bengals OL Projected #27 - bfine32 - 07-10-2019
(07-10-2019, 04:57 PM)Nately120 Wrote: We can keep Dalton here until the guy is 45 for all I care.
Hope so. I've heard the 21st year is often the breakout year.
RE: Bengals OL Projected #27 - Nately120 - 07-10-2019
(07-10-2019, 05:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hope so. I've heard the 21st year is often the breakout year.
Maybe 2030 will be the year Dalton returns to 2015 form.
RE: Bengals OL Projected #27 - Bengalitis - 07-10-2019
(07-10-2019, 02:18 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Repairing the o line is a more pressing need than burning a 1st round pick on a QB.
The only time we ALMOST won a playoff game during the Andy era was with McCarron.
RE: Bengals OL Projected #27 - BengalsRocker - 07-10-2019
(07-10-2019, 09:21 PM)Bengalitis Wrote: The only time we ALMOST won a playoff game during the Andy era was with McCarron.
That's because of the scheme in that game.
Scheme is the word for the day.
Schemes make the world go round and everything joyous and magical.
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media.giphy.com/media/VHngktboAlxHW/giphy.gif)
RE: Bengals OL Projected #27 - BengalFanInNJ - 07-10-2019
What's going on with Boling anyway? Is he hurt or have the coaches lost confidence in him? I mean, what the hell does Bobby Hart have to do to lose the coaches confidence???
RE: Bengals OL Projected #27 - Circleville Guy - 07-10-2019
(07-10-2019, 02:21 PM)Au165 Wrote: I don't, partially because our scheme won't allow it and partially because other's scheme and personnel will. Specifically I believe Houston will have a worse O line due to Watson's desire to hold the ball and an aging half back. I would say the same thing about Buffalo too.
Well, I personally won’t be surprised if it is the worst. The starting 5 look terrible on paper. 2 of those starters are coming off of injuries last season. I do think that the reserves could be better than last year but the whole group are probably mediocre at best. Scheme doesn’t trump talent.
Ya
RE: Bengals OL Projected #27 - THE PISTONS - 07-10-2019
(07-10-2019, 11:25 PM)Circleville Guy Wrote: Well, I personally won’t be surprised if it is the worst. The starting 5 look terrible on paper. 2 of those starters are coming off of injuries last season. I do think that the reserves could be better than last year but the whole group are probably mediocre at best. Scheme doesn’t trump talent.
Ya
The funny thing is no one knows what Turners scheme will even be...yet they're sure it will be good!
RE: Bengals OL Projected #27 - Sled21 - 07-11-2019
(07-10-2019, 10:17 PM)BengalFanInNJ Wrote: What's going on with Boling anyway? Is he hurt or have the coaches lost confidence in him? I mean, what the hell does Bobby Hart have to do to lose the coaches confidence???
He's hurt. Why would the coaches lose confidence in our best lineman?
RE: Bengals OL Projected #27 - fredtoast - 07-11-2019
(07-10-2019, 09:21 PM)Bengalitis Wrote: The only time we ALMOST won a playoff game during the Andy era was with McCarron.
The andy era has not been 28 years long.
RE: Bengals OL Projected #27 - Nicomo Cosca - 07-11-2019
(07-11-2019, 12:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The andy era has not been 28 years long.
Kind of feels like it though...
RE: Bengals OL Projected #27 - BengalChris - 07-11-2019
(07-10-2019, 01:36 PM)Circleville Guy Wrote: You don’t think there’s a chance that this could be the worst Oline in the league? Who was the best starter on last years line? Is he starting this year? No. Who was the worst starter on last years terrible line? It’s he starting this year? Yes.
Oh, there's a chance yes. But look at how the guy ranked Atlanta, who selected two 1st round picks for their OL and they were good picks. You kind of have to read the guy's review of all the teams to see that he's just repeating the already perceived image each team has.
RE: Bengals OL Projected #27 - yellowxdiscipline - 07-11-2019
Replace Bobby Hart with a sack of potatoes and we immediately move up 6 spots in the rankings.
RE: Bengals OL Projected #27 - Synric - 07-12-2019
(07-10-2019, 08:21 AM)Au165 Wrote: You can't evaluate a position group like O line without including the scheme. I keep harping on it, but even if we ran the exact same unit as last year out there we'd be most likely be better just because of the way it appears the scheme will be structured. The year before McVay got to LA the Rams QB's were sacked 49 times, his first year there they were sacked 28 times and 33 times this past year. In terms of O line, yes they added Whitworth, but he didn't single handily cut 21 sacks out, it was the scheme and Whitworth even commented about that when he got there.
I think Miller was an upgrade and I am assuming Price has improved, from those two things alone they should be better. Add in the fact that an outside zone blocking scheme with a heavy dose of play actions should slow down the pass rush a decent amount. Then note that the addition of preplay window dressing motions that mirror similar running plays should force defenders to slow down and read, and you have all the makings of a unit I think that can be middle of the pack in terms of effectiveness.
James Daniels would have been a great pick for this scheme...
But Price did look fast/athletic last year getting out to the second level it was a surprise he struggled more with his driving blocking. I think he will be able to handle all the reach blocks.
RE: Bengals OL Projected #27 - Joelist - 07-14-2019
Let's try looking at the type of players they have brought in and from that make some guesses on the possible scheme.
Miller is much better at power / drive blocking than zone.
They drafted Jonah who can play either scheme will and Johnson who was a superb power / drive blocker in college
John Jerry likewise is best in a power / drive scheme.
Now add in drafting Sample and one has to think we will be running a power scheme.
RE: Bengals OL Projected #27 - samhain - 07-14-2019
I'm still going to be pretty surprised if another tackle doesn't come in before the season starts. If you start playing meaningful games thinking that Kent Perkins and John Jerry are viable backup swing tackles, then you are a joke organization.
People always like to say that the Bengals care about winning, just in their own special way. if another OT isn't on the roster by September, then winning is absolutely not a priority. If it is, then front office is just dumb as a bag of shit.
The look of this line and lack of urgency in replacing Williams/Boling makes it look like an intentional tank year.
RE: Bengals OL Projected #27 - t3r3e3 - 07-14-2019
(07-14-2019, 02:13 AM)samhain Wrote: I'm still going to be pretty surprised if another tackle doesn't come in before the season starts. If you start playing meaningful games thinking that Kent Perkins and John Jerry are viable backup swing tackles, then you are a joke organization.
People always like to say that the Bengals care about winning, just in their own special way. if another OT isn't on the roster by September, then winning is absolutely not a priority. If it is, then front office is just dumb as a bag of shit.
The look of this line and lack of urgency in replacing Williams/Boling makes it look like an intentional tank year.
The Bengals care about profit margins, family jobs, cutting overhead costs, and winning, in that order. 27+ years of Mike’s “leadership has made this abundantly clear. Mike/Katie/Troy know that league revenue sharing and tv money will continue to provide revenue, and the city/county will continue to pay for the stadium. A losing season means better draft picks next year.
RE: Bengals OL Projected #27 - Yojimbo - 07-15-2019
With Boling retiring, I’d say the starting 5 became a little more solidified. Only camp battle I see is for LG between Jerry and Westerman.
LT - Glenn
LG - Jerry/Westerman
C - Price
RG - Miller
RT- Hart
Jordan as the backup RG and RT.
Hopkins as backup everywhere.
2 spots left for a backup OT and OG. I’m pulling for Sutherland and Dugas, unless a vet is brought in.