Andrew Hawkins....

[Brownshoe]

(05-15-2016, 10:23 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I love Boldin and had we signed him instead of LaFell, I wouldn't have complained one bit. That said, I don't see why you're lumping LaFell in with Brandon Tate. LaFell's worst season is better than Tate's best. I really think the people who are sleeping on LaFell are in for a surprise. I fully expect 700+ yards out of him with some big plays mixed in - unless Boyd can somehow take the starting gig.

As for Boyd, I have full confidence that this coaching staff won't rely on him unless he's ready. Our coaches seem to be pretty good about that, so I doubt Boyd embarrasses himself this year. Plus it's not like he's some late round nobody. 

He was one of the top 5-6 WR prospects in this draft and we seem to be planning to use him in similar ways to how he was used at Pitt. I'm pretty confident that he can replace or exceed Sanu's 390 yards and 0 TDs.

I doubt Boldin would sign on to be a 4th option, and if we started Boldin over LaFell, then LaFell would probably be pretty ticked considering he was promised a specific role when he signed. You'd also be pushing Boyd further down the chart and limiting his snaps. He needs to learn on the field.

Meh, I really didn't want Boldin because he's been going downhill recently (which I think is due to his age). Boldin is about a year younger than Steve Smith (who is the oldest WR in the league). Last year he had a hamstring injury throughout the back half of the season (which also made him miss 3 games going into the bye week). I think at this time he might be too much of an injury risk. If it was 4-5 years ago I would be all for bringing in him, but I just don't know how much more his body can take.

[Shake n Blake]

(05-16-2016, 09:07 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Meh, I really didn't want Boldin because he's been going downhill recently (which I think is due to his age). Boldin is about a year younger than Steve Smith (who is the oldest WR in the league). Last year he had a hamstring injury throughout the back half of the season (which also made him miss 3 games going into the bye week). I think at this time he might be too much of an injury risk. If it was 4-5 years ago I would be all for bringing in him, but I just don't know how much more his body can take.

Saying 4-5 years ago is a bit of a stretch. He's had 1k yards as recently as 2014 and pretty much matched MLJ's production last year. He's just one of those guys that ages really well, probably because his game has never been about speed. 

In terms of a 1 year rental, I think he would've been as good as LaFell. Boldin obviously has the age question, but LaFell has his own concerns after last season.

[Brownshoe]

(05-17-2016, 01:48 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Saying 4-5 years ago is a bit of a stretch. He's had 1k yards as recently as 2014 and pretty much matched MLJ's production last year. He's just one of those guys that ages really well, probably because his game has never been about speed. 

In terms of a 1 year rental, I think he would've been as good as LaFell. Boldin obviously has the age question, but LaFell has his own concerns after last season.

He was the #1 receiver while getting the production of Marvin Jones... I don't see how that's good.

[Shake n Blake]

(05-17-2016, 02:27 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: He was the #1 receiver while getting the production of Marvin Jones... I don't see how that's good.

Well for one, he was actually more productive than Marvin Jones, considering he missed 2 games. If you average his numbers out to 16 games, he would've had 79 catches, 902 yards and 5 scores. He was also stuck with a bad situation at QB (Kaep and Gabbert). The 49ers passed for 458 fewer yards and 15 fewer TDs than the Bengals.

I never said Boldin was fantastic last year, but suggesting that it's been 4-5 years since he was productive or relevant is a stretch. He's had 1100 yards as recently as 2014 and last year his production was solid considering who was throwing at him. He's probably not cut out to be a #1 anymore, but I think he'd make for a good short term #2 target.

I just don't want him here for reasons I've mentioned in previous posts.

[fredtoast]

Last year Boldin was still relatively productive (considering that he played for the #29 pass offense), but he did have some injury problems. He is a tough player, and he may be 100% healthy in 2016, but at his age (36) players tend to get worse instead of better.

Lafell has also had some injury problems, but he is much younger. There is a much better chance he returns to his old form.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(05-13-2016, 04:10 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: its nice heck even tate has some good speed down the field.    (ducks out of the room)

You better duck!!!

(05-13-2016, 09:32 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: If it was written by Hobson, there's real good odds that it was a propaganda lie. Can't be going and giving Tate competition for his job. 



Annnnd... the ghost of Al Davis has now possessed Nate.

Oh shit.

[yellowxdiscipline]

Nope, nope, and nope. BabyHawk burned that bridge when he took the money to play for Cleveland. Plus were a hundred times better without him.

[Shake n Blake]

(05-20-2016, 01:09 PM)yellowxdiscipline Wrote: Nope, nope, and nope. BabyHawk burned that bridge when he took the money to play for Cleveland. Plus were a hundred times better without him.

I guess you weren't a fan of bringing back MJ either?

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(05-20-2016, 01:09 PM)yellowxdiscipline Wrote: Nope, nope, and nope. BabyHawk burned that bridge when he took the money to play for Cleveland. Plus were a hundred times better without him.

(05-20-2016, 11:16 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I guess you weren't a fan of bringing back MJ either?

MLJ and Reggie must have burnt that bridge too.

Not that either will ever be a Bengal again but i don't blame any one of them really for taking the bigger contract
or for wanting to have a more prominent role on another team.

[CINwillWIN]

I see so many good point of views, and I agree with a lot of them.
Baby Hawk chose his desitiny when he decided to go to a 4th ranked AFC North team, money talks.
I agree that he didn't show up when needed him the most, and that he is a shorter, slower version of what we have now in Alford.

Sorry about the hi-jack, but...
Lafell?
Did I miss something? Why are so many so high on this guy?
Patroits don't seem too upset losing him, in fact, some Pats fans actually laugh about us picking him up.
So, Tate 2.0?

I think Boldon would be a great option, but God only knows if he could play at that elite calliber for us as a 2,3,4th option...?

[Shake n Blake]

(05-22-2016, 06:12 PM)CINwillWIN Wrote: I see so many good point of views, and I agree with a lot of them.
Baby Hawk chose his desitiny when he decided to go to a 4th ranked AFC North team, money talks.
I agree that he didn't show up when needed him the most, and that he is a shorter, slower version of what we have now in Alford.

Sorry about the hi-jack, but...
Lafell?
Did I miss something? Why are so many so high on this guy?
Patroits don't seem too upset losing him, in fact, some Pats fans actually laugh about us picking him up.
So, Tate 2.0?

I think Boldon would be a great option, but God only knows if he could play at that elite calliber for us as a 2,3,4th option...?

How do you define high? 

Seriously though, I haven't seen any crazy predictions for LaFell. I'm higher on the guy than most and I've said that 700 yards and 4-5 scores seems about right if he's starting. Dalton has gotten that type of production out of guys like Simpson, Hawkins and Sanu before, so why not LaFell, who has produced similar numbers in the past?

I keep seeing LaFell/Tate comparisons. Outside of wearing #19 for the Pats and being named Brandon, what are the similarities? LaFell's worst season is better than Tate's best, when he had 432 yards as a starter with the Pats.

LaFell's best season was 950+ yards, 7 TDs and 2 more key scores in a SB run. Over the last 4 years, he's had as much yardage as MLJ and Sanu combined. I'm not saying LaFell > MLJ, but it has to count for something.

I have the opposite question that you do. Why are so many so low on this guy? The Pats have let go of plenty of players that went on to produce elsewhere. The Pats - like any team - have their reasons for making moves, but just because they cut somebody doesn't mean they're garbage.

[Shake n Blake]

Fwiw, I think people are acting like LaFell is some Denarius Moore type of signing. If you compare their contracts though, it's clear the Bengals are far more committed to LaFell and have plans to make him a big part of the offense this year.

Moore- 1 year deal worth up to $845k with a $25k signing bonus
LaFell- 1 year deal worth $2.5 million with a $1 million signing bonus

If you look at the contract and listen to what the coaches have been saying, it's clear that LaFell wasn't brought in to be the 4th-5th option ala Moore or Tate. He's probably going to be our starter this year, barring a surprising TC from Boyd.

[XenoMorph]

(05-22-2016, 08:20 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Fwiw, I think people are acting like LaFell is some Denarius Moore type of signing. If you compare their contracts though, it's clear the Bengals are far more committed to LaFell and have plans to make him a big part of the offense this year.

Moore- 1 year deal worth up to $845k with a $25k signing bonus
LaFell- 1 year deal worth $2.5 million with a $1 million signing bonus

If you look at the contract and listen to what the coaches have been saying, it's clear that LaFell wasn't brought in to be the 4th-5th option ala Moore or Tate. He's probably going to be our starter this year, barring a surprising TC from Boyd.

I think its pretty clear hes ment to be the 2nd WR on the roster.  But what we get out of him is an unknown hes had good and not so good seasons.

This thread wasn't really about him but after Lafell  there isn't much on the depth chart. as far as proven production goes.

[XenoMorph]

(05-19-2016, 09:01 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: You better duck!!!


Oh shit.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap2000000062518/Brandon-Tate-44-yard-TD-reception

[Luvnit2]

(05-22-2016, 08:20 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Fwiw, I think people are acting like LaFell is some Denarius Moore type of signing. If you compare their contracts though, it's clear the Bengals are far more committed to LaFell and have plans to make him a big part of the offense this year.

Moore- 1 year deal worth up to $845k with a $25k signing bonus
LaFell- 1 year deal worth $2.5 million with a $1 million signing bonus

If you look at the contract and listen to what the coaches have been saying, it's clear that LaFell wasn't brought in to be the 4th-5th option ala Moore or Tate. He's probably going to be our starter this year, barring a surprising TC from Boyd.

I agree, but I disagree with your post where you stated he was brought in and promised a starting gig and role. It is highly unlikely the team hands the guy a big contract and plus makes promises he wins a starting job. He needs to earn it and have motivation to earn it in my humble opinion.

[*ochocincos*]

Take Hartline instead over Hawkins? Hartline was just released.

[Shake n Blake]

(05-23-2016, 03:34 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I agree, but I disagree with your post where you stated he was brought in and promised a starting gig and role. It is highly unlikely the team hands the guy a big contract and plus makes promises he wins a starting job. He needs to earn it and have motivation to earn it in my humble opinion.

I'm just going off of LaFell's own words. Maybe "promised" isn't the exact word he used, but he did say it was explained what his role would be and it sounded like it would be as a starter. 

I think it goes without saying that every player has to earn their starting roles every season, but I'm sure coaches had a plan in mind when they signed LaFell to a $2.5 million deal, and I'm sure that plan was explained to LaFell before he put his pen on the contract.

Obviously plans can change though, if he disappoints.

[Shake n Blake]

(05-23-2016, 04:15 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Take Hartline instead over Hawkins? Hartline was just released.

Wouldn't hurt for depth purposes. He's only 29 and he's always been productive.