+- 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: Why exactly do we need John Ross to be good? (/thread-17271.html)
RE: Why exactly do we need John Ross to be good? - TKUHL - 09-27-2018
(09-26-2018, 10:48 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: No one said we need him to be good.
It just would have been nice to get some production out of a top 10 pick by now.
Just think:
He COULD have been Malik Hooker. Or Marlon Humphrey. Or Marshon Lattimore. Or Johnathan Allen. Or Derek Barnett. Or T.J. Watt. Or Tre'davious White. Or O.J. Howard. Or Ryan Ramczyk. Or, hell, even Patrick Mahomes or Deshaun Watson.
Getting nothing out of a top 10 pick is frustrating when you look at the holes on this team.
That's not to say that we'll never get anything out of him or that he's already a bust.
But he needs to start showing something soon.
I would rather have any of those players instead of Ross. Not because of Ross but the position. There was no reason to take a WR when we did with the other needs we have. That includes one of the QB's also.
RE: Why exactly do we need John Ross to be good? - rfaulk34 - 09-27-2018
(09-26-2018, 11:33 PM)thillan Wrote: So you think John's speed that is forcing the attention of the safeties in every game has done NOTHING to help Boyd? Boyd has a ton of space when he catches the ball... did he get faster? I love Boyd too and love his improvement, but he's also benefitting from John.
Tyler Kroft did pretty well as a replacement for Eifert. And Uzomah has done well, but he's not blowing the roof off.
But again, it's fine if people want to take him off the field. We will just come back here complaining about our passing game again.
If there are no injuries, i don't see anyone having any reason to complain any time soon. Speed alone won't cause a coordinator to overcompensate for a guy. If that speed causes people to get burnt, that will cause a coordinator to start shading another way. I honestly don't know how much of an effect Ross has had. I haven't really gone back and looked at who was running what when someone else caught the ball, but it's not unreasonable to say he has had some kind of effect.
He just needs to calm down and start finishing routes. Every game, every.single.time.
RE: Why exactly do we need John Ross to be good? - kevin - 09-27-2018
(09-26-2018, 03:52 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: I mean seriously, why does he need to be good for this offense and team in general to be good?Because you need to hit home runs with your #1 draft picks. We might as well say why do we need Price to be good, why do we need our # 1 picks in 2019, 2020, 2021 to be good. Now I'm not one of the one's bitching about Ross last Sunday and I've posted on here that I consider him still a rookie due to injured his first year. He has to get his rookie mistakes out, just as Lapham made rookie mistakes, just as just about every player makes rookie mistakes. I don't pin that entire loss on Ross. I also think Green and Boyd give us one of the better WR combos in NFL. I end where I began. Ross was a #1 pick and you want #1 picks to be good. Otherwise let's just trade all our draft picks in the future for veterans as Head Coach George Allen use to to with Rams and Redskins in 1960's and 1970's.
This offense has plenty of weapons without him. AJ Green, Tyler Boyd, Tyler Eiffert (who is healthy and is starting to play really well), Joe Mixon, Gio.
Any team would salivate to have those options. Any production from John Ross is icing on the cake as far as im concerned. Can you even name any other teams third option at wide receiver or does any team get production out of their third receiver like we expect Ross to get?
The top 5 offenses in the league are:
Tampa Bay
Pittsburgh
LA Rams
New Orleans
LA Chargers
Name the third option at wide receiver for those teams. Ill wait...
You want to know who Tampa Bay's third option at receiver is? A guy named Adam Humphries. He has 6 catches for 57 yards this year.
You can't tell me that our offensive skill players: AJ Green, Tyler Boyd, Tyler Eiffert, and Joe Mixon are that much worse (or worse at all) than Tampa Bays: Mike Evans, Deshean Jackson, OJ Howard, Peyton Barber.
My point is is that this team isn't going to be a good team based on John Ross' production. They don't need him to be good. They need other parts of their team to be good (linebackers, offensive line, defense in general) to be a good team overall.
We all need to stop bitching about Ross because at the end of the day it doesn't matter. Let's start bitching about some parts of the team that are actually going to make a difference between the Bengals winning and losing.
So at some point, you want #1 draft picks to be good. Every team is going to swing and miss on these, but you can't strike out all the time on #1 picks or you end up with the 1990's Bungles. So at some point, you want #1 picks to become team leader veterans. The problem is I still consider Ross a rookie and I strongly advise others to do the same. You can't count last year because he was too injured to play. Therefore he is just now getting his rookie mistakes out of him on the field. All rookies make mistakes, veterans say the difference between college and NFL is huge. Fans who watch High School and College probably think it is all the same. It is not. 90 % of college players will never play in the NFL and only a few are good enough to adjust and stay in the NFL. Ross to me is still a rookie, but it would help if in years to come he is a team leading veteran.
RE: Why exactly do we need John Ross to be good? - grampahol - 09-27-2018
Well you certainly want a top 10 pick to be better than an undrafted free agent picked off another teams practice squad the day after the last preseason game or at least that's the way it's supposed to work..
I dare say you really aren't suggesting it's ok to just keep wasting 1st round picks year after year after year .
Now granted Billy Price so far has been ok, but if he's going to have one devastating injury after another he too may end up becoming a wasted pick as well. So far he's not had any real devastating injuries, just enough to not be able to play consistently .
Someday someone will write a folk song about the Bengals rotten luck with first round picks to be sung by school children in music class ..
RE: Why exactly do we need John Ross to be good? - SHRacerX - 09-27-2018
(09-26-2018, 03:52 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: I mean seriously, why does he need to be good for this offense and team in general to be good?
This offense has plenty of weapons without him. AJ Green, Tyler Boyd, Tyler Eiffert (who is healthy and is starting to play really well), Joe Mixon, Gio.
Any team would salivate to have those options. Any production from John Ross is icing on the cake as far as im concerned. Can you even name any other teams third option at wide receiver or does any team get production out of their third receiver like we expect Ross to get?
The top 5 offenses in the league are:
Tampa Bay
Pittsburgh
LA Rams
New Orleans
LA Chargers
Name the third option at wide receiver for those teams. Ill wait...
You want to know who Tampa Bay's third option at receiver is? A guy named Adam Humphries. He has 6 catches for 57 yards this year.
You can't tell me that our offensive skill players: AJ Green, Tyler Boyd, Tyler Eiffert, and Joe Mixon are that much worse (or worse at all) than Tampa Bays: Mike Evans, Deshean Jackson, OJ Howard, Peyton Barber.
My point is is that this team isn't going to be a good team based on John Ross' production. They don't need him to be good. They need other parts of their team to be good (linebackers, offensive line, defense in general) to be a good team overall.
We all need to stop bitching about Ross because at the end of the day it doesn't matter. Let's start bitching about some parts of the team that are actually going to make a difference between the Bengals winning and losing.
While this makes sense, you have to have other options for when you run in to a really strong defense (LAR, Jags) that can take away at least your two best options. A defense that doesn't need to send extra players to get pressure on your QB and will have 7 in coverage. Then you will need targets that can spread a defense out and force them to cover a larger field.
Ross will still be a contributor. I predicted that he will win the Bengals two games with big plays. He has had a very poor start and now I worry about his (apparently) fragile mental state. I still have hope, but a part of his failures I put at the feet of Lazor.
I have no idea why they aren't giving him quick hitches, screens, end-arounds, and jet sweeps. He needs to have the ball in his hands to use his skills. He is not just a deep threat. If people think that is all he is, I advise them to look back at his college tape. Most of his deep balls were so poorly underthrown that he would come back, catch it, and then have to make defenders miss after they overran the play trying to catch up.
I know you didn't intend for this to become a "sell me on Ross" thread. And I don't mean to sound like that, but he is still an important part of what makes our offense work. Ditto Eifert. Defenses have to adjust to him. I am thrilled that Dalton has taken what defenses have given him and targeted Boyd so much, and even Uzomah and Kroft and getting involved.
The bottom line: The more a defense has to worry about the more successful we will be.
RE: Why exactly do we need John Ross to be good? - SHRacerX - 09-27-2018
(09-26-2018, 04:27 PM)Wyche Wrote: The problem is.....you have to throw his way every so often to keep the defenses honest and not just ignore him. He had a dime go right through his hands Sunday that would have been a huge gain....if not a TD. Then you have the other plays. I agree with what you say about us not needing him to be a stud every week, but we need some sort of production out of him at some point....and some consistency when his number IS called.
And if Ross develops in to HALF of what Tyreek Hill is for the Chiefs (that is who I envisioned and that is who I saw at U-DUB), on the opposite side of AJ Green, with Boyd in the slot, and Eifert at TE, this would easily be a top 5 offense.
The mere potential there is why they can't give up on him. He is going to make a couple big plays against Atlanta. I feel it. I wanted it for Carolina, but I even said in a previous thread that it would be Atlanta. Hope I'm right.
RE: Why exactly do we need John Ross to be good? - BengalsRocker - 09-27-2018
It really is kind of humorous that our "deep threat" receiver has contributed on a short end zone pass but has done zilch on anything deep.
Once he gets those kind of plays(even just a few)then we'd see the defense being drawn toward coverage.
I'm not buying yet that Boyd, Eifert, Uz, Kroft, or anyone else having success are hung on Ross' potential.
The potential is there but AJ is still the main focus drawing the D and our true deep threat. The real deal.
RE: Why exactly do we need John Ross to be good? - BengalsRocker - 09-27-2018
As to the OP.
1. We need Ross to be good because if AJ gets injured for any period of time there are no other receivers on the team who could step into the #1 role.
Boyd is good but has physical limitations that keep him from doing this.
2. You always want your young first round WR pick to show promise for the future offense. It hasn't shown yet... the key word... yet!
We have some good offensive players but promising potential and a Plan B for AJ is exactly what we need from Ross.
RE: Why exactly do we need John Ross to be good? - Wyche'sWarrior - 09-27-2018
(09-26-2018, 11:24 PM)thillan Wrote: Right? In case I'm missing something, Marvin Jones has been balling out for a while now. I'd LOVE for him to come back here.
To those of you who keep saying we don't need Ross on the field, I'm honestly asking.. did you watch last year? We had pretty much the exact same weapons. The difference was we had Lafell instead of Ross. Do you remember how hard it was to get our receivers open? AJ had a down year because nobody could help to get him open.
I still love the kid personally. Brings some good talent to the field, and he's played 6 games. I'm not giving up hope.
The difference was actually starting out with Ken Zampese's offense, turnstiles at both tackle positions, Blodine blown off the ball into the QB's lap most plays, Jeremy Hill over Joe Mixon, and Piano Man and his blocking scheme for wimps. Plays simply didn't have time to develop, and Zampese was in WAY over his head.
Bill Lazor has had an entire offseason to implement his scheme, which plays to his players' strengths and gets people open, and Pollack has totally changed the way we block.....add that Glenn and even Hart are MILES better than the two turds they drafted. Billy Price is an improvement at Center, and even Hopkins is playing at the position in relief better than Blodine did on most days.
No offense, but I think you're selling the offseason moves and the improved coaching short.
RE: Why exactly do we need John Ross to be good? - WeezyBengal - 09-27-2018
(09-27-2018, 09:21 AM)Wyche Wrote: The difference was actually starting out with Ken Zampese's offense, turnstiles at both tackle positions, Blodine blown off the ball into the QB's lap most plays, Jeremy Hill over Joe Mixon, and Piano Man and his blocking scheme for wimps. Plays simply didn't have time to develop, and Zampese was in WAY over his head.
Bill Lazor has had an entire offseason to implement his scheme, which plays to his players' strengths and gets people open, and Pollack has totally changed the way we block.....add that Glenn and even Hart are MILES better than the two turds they drafted. Billy Price is an improvement at Center, and even Hopkins is playing at the position in relief better than Blodine did on most days.
No offense, but I think you're selling the offseason moves and the improved coaching short.
Lazor is MILES better than Zampese was. We didnt even score a touchdown with Zampese until like our 4th game last year. Now we are putting up 30 a game.
RE: Why exactly do we need John Ross to be good? - Wyche'sWarrior - 09-27-2018
(09-27-2018, 12:02 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: Lazor is MILES better than Zampese was. We didnt even score a touchdown with Zampese until like our 4th game last year. Now we are putting up 30 a game.
Absolutely, and it appears Van Pelt has helped 14 out some as well. We saw the offense gradually improve last season as the year wore on....culminating in Lazor overruling Piano Man's blocking scheme. That was huge in my opinion.....sure, Ross helps with defenses concerned with his speed over the top, but Lazor is the one having the biggest impact on the offense. Also, we can't sell Boyd short on making himself a very reliable and hard working target in the scramble drill. That's helping your QB out.
RE: Why exactly do we need John Ross to be good? - Nate (formerly eliminate08) - 09-27-2018
I am starting to need Ross to be good just so i don't have to hear the continuos bitching about him all the time.
RE: Why exactly do we need John Ross to be good? - Hoofhearted - 09-27-2018
(09-26-2018, 05:10 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Did we take John Ross in the top 10 so he could be a 3rd or later option that we can ignore? I'm not ruling out John Ross and Boyd being the #1 and #2 on this team and AJ Green taking big FA money to go elsewhere. Time will tell.
This. We need Ross because we invested such high draft capital in him. Did we forget what the crap drafts did to use the last two years? You cannot miss on your first round picks and be a contender
RE: Why exactly do we need John Ross to be good? - XenoMorph - 09-27-2018
because they are gonna keep putting him on the Field... So if hes not good you get either no throws to him and is wasting space... or more of last sunday... of not fighting for the ball and quiting on routes.
RE: Why exactly do we need John Ross to be good? - XenoMorph - 09-27-2018
(09-27-2018, 12:02 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: Lazor is MILES better than Zampese was. We didnt even score a touchdown with Zampese until like our 4th game last year. Now we are putting up 30 a game.
Zampese was gone after week 2... and only 9 total points last year... Came out game 3 first for lazer and went straight down the field for a TD
RE: Why exactly do we need John Ross to be good? - Socal Bengals fan - 09-27-2018
Are we still with Ross is basically still a Rookie again. Fml
RE: Why exactly do we need John Ross to be good? - 3wt - 09-27-2018
(09-26-2018, 04:27 PM)Wyche Wrote: The problem is.....you have to throw his way every so often to keep the defenses honest and not just ignore him. He had a dime go right through his hands Sunday that would have been a huge gain....if not a TD. Then you have the other plays. I agree with what you say about us not needing him to be a stud every week, but we need some sort of production out of him at some point....and some consistency when his number IS called.
If Ross can actually utilize his speed, run the right routes, make good decisions and have reliable hands he takes this offense to a completely different level.
Because he either takes the top off the defense or keeps the lid raised enough to open up the rest of our offense. Just his presence I, I think, has helped open up the middle of the defense. If he starts catching the ball consistently on the long throws it changes everything.
But if he continues to drop balls, quit on his routes and not defend his QB it will result in defenses clamping down the middle.
RE: Why exactly do we need John Ross to be good? - Go Cards - 09-27-2018
So many can feel they were right about Ross.
Why exactly do we need John Ross to be good? - ochocincos - 09-28-2018
You’re right in that as long as the offense is producing, the Bengals don’t NEED Ross to be good. However, it’s my belief that a WR taken 9 overall was not meant to be the 4th/5th option in the passing game. Speedy guys can be found late in the draft to accomplish the same as the usage right now. The Bengals could (and should) have used that pick on another position to better impact the team if they didn’t actually intend to get a lot of production out of Ross (at least by a Year 3/4).
I think though that most people (including myself) expect/prefer first round picks (especially top 10) to be solid immediate contributors, but not all are. Some develop 3-4 years in. And yes, I am one who had (still has) high hopes for Ross and thought he’d be an immediate contributor, but not only was he injured most of last year and the offseason prior, he was trying to learn a Zampese offense then a year later had to learn a Lazor offense.
Hopefully Ross comes on by the end of the year, and if not, hopefully we see him break out at the start of Year 3.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
RE: Why exactly do we need John Ross to be good? - thillan - 09-28-2018
I know we are probably all a bit tired of arguing about the guy, because at the end of the day we want him to work out. I have been saying that I personally think he can be our Tyreek Hill, so this article gave me some hope from my 2nd favorite Bengals WR ever:
https://bengalswire.usatoday.com/2018/09/28/chad-johnson-sees-tyreek-hill-john-ross/