PFF believes the Bengals' roster has gotten worse.

[wolfkaosaun]

(06-11-2015, 01:43 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I don't see how we got worse, and I'm one of the few people who thinks this team is going to miss Gresham.

Didn't get worse. Teams just got better while we remained pact. Although I agree, losing Gresham is bigger than people would like to admit. Eifert has been extremely injury plagued. Who is our other receiving tight end threat? Kroft? He's a rookie so it's pretty uncertain how he will do.

[*jason*]

(06-11-2015, 02:43 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: With PFF it is about statistics and ratings of individual players.

The Bottom line is that the biggest weakness from last year (the D-line) was most likely
fixed with the additions of MJ, Sims, more experience for Clarke, Hardison, Geno getting
back to being Geno and hopefully the letting of Peko go.

This team will be much better than last year if we can stay healthy.

Dalton just needs to have the coaches get out of his head and let him play.

I have to agree with Nately about missing Gresham though, as much as the Bengals
wanted to move on from him it is stupid to think that a rookie could just replace him.

Oh come on...  That rookie will be great at pre snap penalties, and putting the ball on the ground.

[*bengalfan74*]

I agree with them about Peko and Maualuga ! Don't think it would take a whole lot to upgrade those two. I'm holding out hope that Bodine will improve. Sanu I'm not totally sure what to make of. Will we get first 6 games Sanu ? Or last 10 ? Perhaps he was drinking same thing Dalton did ?

But like most say I think it's more of a we're treading water, they've got better.

[fredtoast]

This is based on comparing 2013 numbers with 2014 numbers.

'13 Burfict was way better than '14 Burfict.

'13 Marvin jones was better than '14 Marvin Jones.

'13 AJ Green was better than '14 AJ Green.

'13 Dalton was better than ''14 Dalton.

'13 Andre Smith was better than '14 Andre.

'13 Eifert was better than '14 Eifert.

[3wt]

(06-11-2015, 03:14 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I don't think that it's we got worse, I just see it as a couple of teams got better and pushed us back.

Burfict's uncertain status sure doesn't help either.

I actually think it got better - before the draft.   But it will depend on how well MJ and Sims play, how Hawk fills in for Burfict and how quickly Moore adjusts to the new team.

Players that got drafted that have the opportunity to make a big difference are Kroft, Dawson, Hardison and Alford.  If they step up well it could mean a big improvement.

I don't know that Baltimore or Pittsburgh necessarily improved any more than we did.

[Brownshoe]

I don't agree with PFFs list at all. They have the Colts in the middle of the pack, and they have Baltimore a #3 there are actually quite a few discrepancies I have with their list.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(06-12-2015, 03:27 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: I don't agree with PFFs list at all. They have the Colts in the middle of the pack, and they have Baltimore a #3 there are actually quite a few discrepancies I have with their list.

Yeah, that jumped out to me as well.

[Joelist]

The notion that the rats and steelers improved so much is pretty suspect.

The rats added a suspect TE and a WR whose hands got compared UNFAVORABLY to Darius Heyward Bey. Plus they lost Ngata who was (despite their claims otherwise) the lynchpin of their defensive front.

What supposedly did the Steelers do? They started a purge on defense (including LeBeau) and really added no one to address the huge issues on that side of the ball. And while their offense looked outright killer in stretches it also disappeared in stretches and again received no upgrades. I'm not seeing this "improvement".

Brownies? They did add some nice draft picks but I keep remembering these are the Browns. They are developing a nice defense but their offense is not there.

And...us.

We added help at DE and DT on the D line - which was the biggest problem. We also reinforced LB in both Free Agency and the draft and likewise helped the secondary in the draft. On offense we rebuilt our depth on the OL (which bit us last season near the end) and also added players at TE and WR - the two areas wrecked by injuries last season. Add in returning injured players in Eifert and Marvin Jones and I fail to see where we are not sufficiently "improved"...

[masonbengals fan]

No way they got worse

[*rfaulk34*]

I like the downplaying. This team still doesn't seem to know how to deal with praise and expectations.

I think with key guys coming back, the roster will be better than last year simply because those dudes were out.

I don't care that team A picked up player B so they must be better. We'll see how "better" they are once the pigskin gets flying.

[*rfaulk34*]

As far as PFF goes, i love how they crunch numbers but i couldn't care less about their opinions or grades.

[3wt]

(06-12-2015, 03:27 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: I don't agree with PFFs list at all. They have the Colts in the middle of the pack, and they have Baltimore a #3 there are actually quite a few discrepancies I have with their list.

The Colts are going to be in the mix for a Super Bowl berth.

[Hammerstripes]

I can't agree with this article at all. Now, maybe the individual ratings are worse in their eyes, but that's the true flaw of PFF. Football is the ultimate team game. It's not the sum of the parts that drives the result, it's overall team.

So, is this team better than last year? At this point, absolutely and here's why:

1. Healthier Geno Atkins
2. Michael Johnson
3. Pat Sims

Those 3 guys may not account for "grades', but they will have a tremendous impact on the D-line rotation. The line will be fresher and will be much better than last year.

4. Marvin Jones
5. Tyler Eifert

Those 2 were sorely missed last year. They were a big reason why we saw a regression in Dalton.

6. Andre Smith

Being 100% again will provide an instant upgrade to the line.

7. Russell Bodine

NO longer a rookie.

8. The rookie class. This group should provide some good depth in case of injuries.

The negatives:

Lost Gresham
Burfict out with injury

I don't see the Gresham loss as having a huge impact. He will be missed if none of the rookies can step up.
Burfict hurts, but he was out for most of last year.

All in all, there is no way that this team is worse than 12 months ago.

[ShowMeUrTDs]

(06-11-2015, 01:48 PM)BobJones4980 Wrote: I agree, he had some major issues with drops, stupid penalties and fumbles but the guy was the only TE we have had that can stay healthy. 

We just have to hope Eifert can stay healthy and the rookies step up, who I actually really like, Murphy and Kroft were two guys I actually thought would be good when they came out. 

The good news is I think our group has quite a bit of potential to be really good, just so dependent on Eifert.

That's because the Bengals prehistoric tight end coaching model dictates block, block, block, then maybe catch a few later!! Problem is they keep drafting high round pass catching tight ends, expecting them to block first, and refusing to recognize the difference in skill sets for pass catching and blocking tight ends. This leads to injury and game time performance issues at the position.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(06-13-2015, 02:00 AM)Hammerstripes Wrote: I can't agree with this article at all.  Now, maybe the individual ratings are worse in their eyes, but that's the true flaw of PFF.  Football is the ultimate team game.  It's not the sum of the parts that drives the result, it's overall team.  

So, is this team better than last year?  At this point, absolutely and here's why:

1.  Healthier Geno Atkins
2.  Michael Johnson
3.  Pat Sims

Those 3 guys may not account for "grades', but they will have a tremendous impact on the D-line rotation.  The line will be fresher and will be much better than last year.

4.  Marvin Jones
5.  Tyler Eifert

Those 2 were sorely missed last year.  They were a big reason why we saw a regression in Dalton.

6.  Andre Smith

Being 100% again will provide an instant upgrade to the line.

7.  Russell Bodine

NO longer a rookie.

8.  The rookie class.  This group should provide some good depth in case of injuries.

The negatives:

Lost Gresham
Burfict out with injury

I don't see the Gresham loss as having a huge impact.  He will be missed if none of the rookies can step up.
Burfict hurts, but he was out for most of last year.

All in all, there is no way that this team is worse than 12 months ago.

Couldn't of said it better myself, great post Hammerstripes.

[Hammerstripes]

(06-11-2015, 06:55 PM)wolfkaosaun Wrote: Didn't get worse. Teams just got better while we remained pact. Although I agree, losing Gresham is bigger than people would like to admit. Eifert has been extremely injury plagued. Who is our other receiving tight end threat? Kroft? He's a rookie so it's pretty uncertain how he will do.

I'm trying to figure out who got better?

New England - No
Indianapolis - I'm not sold on the additions that they made.  Andre Johnson and Frank Gore are getting up there in years.  They lost Reggie Wayne.  I don't see them as being vastly improved.
Pittsburgh - No
Baltimore - No
Denver - No

So, who are these teams that got considerably better on paper.

The Bengals return 21 starters and brought back MJ.  I don't see how this team got any worse.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(06-17-2015, 12:50 AM)Hammerstripes Wrote: I'm trying to figure out who got better?

New England - No
Indianapolis - I'm not sold on the additions that they made.  Andre Johnson and Frank Gore are getting up there in years.  They lost Reggie Wayne.  I don't see them as being vastly improved.
Pittsburgh - No
Baltimore - No
Denver - No

So, who are these teams that got considerably better on paper.

The Bengals return 21 starters and brought back MJ.  I don't see how this team got any worse.

I would like for someone to answer this as well.

[*Nately120*]

(06-17-2015, 12:50 AM)Hammerstripes Wrote: I'm trying to figure out who got better?


Pittsburgh - No

In all fairness, we've been ragging on Pittsburgh for having an out-of-touch fossil at DC in LeBeau and trotting over-the-hill vets out there SO we can't also predict their downfall when they get rid of what we called negatives, can we?

[Brownshoe]

(06-18-2015, 11:23 AM)Nately120 Wrote: In all fairness, we've been ragging on Pittsburgh for having an out-of-touch fossil at DC in LeBeau and trotting over-the-hill vets out there SO we can't also predict their downfall when they get rid of what we called negatives, can we?

Who ever thought LeBeau was a negative? The guy is one of the best if not the best DC in the game.

[djs7685]

(06-18-2015, 11:30 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Who ever thought LeBeau was a negative? The guy is one of the best if not the best DC in the game.

Did you ever read the mothership threads that discussed the Steelers?

LeBeau was considered far past his sell-by date according to much of Jungle Noise. He got hammered for using out of date schemes with old, wrinkled players that should have retired 5 years ago.

Now, Pittsburgh sucks because they started finding young, upcoming replacements for these same guys that got thrashed for being too old and abused.

JN logic 101. I'm not saying that you did this yourself, but there are/were plenty of Bengals' fans that just refuse to give our division rivals credit no matter what they do.